Inductive generalization concerning dealings with ARI: Lay down with dogs…

[9thdoctor]

“Senor d’Anconia, what do you think is going to happen to the world?”

“Just exactly what it deserves.”

“Oh, how cruel!”

“Don’t you believe in the operation of the moral law, madame?” Francisco asked gravely. “I do.”

Atlas Shrugged

, Part Two, Chapter II, p.382

When I came across the news of the current purge among the ARIans on Friday, my first reaction was to heap scorn on the victim, but soon I began to feel some solidarity. Now I’m back to scorn, for reasons well expressed by the adage: If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. There’s long been ample documentary evidence, freely and readily available, demonstrating the institutional culture of ARI. Those who have dedicated their resources and productive efforts to such a cause, either knowing that the arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable hand of Peikoff is hanging over them like the sword of Damocles, or have evaded/rationalized away the evidence (a process that surely requires what Peter Medawar once called “an active willingness to be deceived”), at best deserve for consolation this free recital on the world’s smallest violin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVFBK9GhS5Q

To back up this admittedly harsh claim calls for a thorough review of past schisms, which perhaps will follow if this develops into an active thread. I like to keep opening posts relatively short and let conversation develop, and Objectischismology is well trodden ground. The main point I want to suggest first is that the Reisman split had the effect of emboldening the worst elements of ARI culture; since they got away with such unacceptable behaviour then, what was to stop them repeating the pattern? Where was the blowback? I believe both of the latest victims rose in the hierarchy afterwards, did they not have fair warning?

Remember that the Reismans were running The Jefferson School and organizing annual conferences, so, like McCaskey and Biddle, they were very influential pre-split, and their expulsion put them out of business. But it took years for the relevant documentary evidence to surface online, by which time it was old news and alternative conference organizers had stepped in (e.g. Lyceum, run by Yaron Brook).

The Reismans didn’t publicly defend themselves in a timely manner, and the internet in the early to mid nineties wasn’t what it is today. So, that’s the difference. Now “outer party” members are expected to comment publicly in real time, and their evolving opinions can be easily referenced later, the memory hole just doesn’t work like it used to. Meanwhile the “inner party” members generally don’t comment at all, and look what happens when one does.

I evoke in the thread subtitle the event that triggered an early schism among Soviet Communists, dividing both the rank and file and the leadership. It later became a term for when Communists became anti-Communists: which atrocity did it for you, what was your Kronstadt?

Perhaps another reference to Atlas Shrugged has a better likelihood of resonating, however. If by now you’ve recognized that by supporting ARI you’ve been working for your destroyers:

“Who is the guiltiest man in this room?” He heard his own answer of the past: “I suppose-James Taggart?” and Francisco’s voice saying without reproach: “No, Mr. Rearden, it’s not James Taggart,”-but here, in this room and this moment, his mind answered: “I am.”

Atlas Shrugged

, Part Three, Chapter VI p.907

[BaalChatzaf]

And that is why I do not participate in what I call "institutional Objectivism". I like some of the discussions dealing with broad or major issues, and that is as much as I will get involved.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[sjw]

Yep.

But it's not fundamentally an ARI problem, it's a microcosm of the culture at large. Humanity could learn the lesson from Nazi Germany: choose your leaders wisely. But, generally speaking (and I don't mean to accuse each and every individual here; I'm observing the trend), we don't learn the lesson. We'd rather act like little children looking for mommy and daddy to tell us what to think and what to do. Thinking and taking responsibility for yourself is just a bit too much trouble it seems. As much as Objectivists like to dress themselves up in "independence is a virtue", "reason is the only absolute," etc. etc., they're statistically very similar to the rest of the culture. The key difference is that they mouth these slogans while betraying them at the same time.

Shayne

[9thdoctor]

And that is why I do not participate in what I call "institutional Objectivism". I like some of the discussions dealing with broad or major issues, and that is as much as I will get involved.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I’m suggesting that it’s a Peikoff-specific problem, so I disagree with you. Of course there are others in the ARI orbit that are just as bad, but Peikoff’s the one wearing the purple and condemning the innocents to the lions. I don’t believe TAS has had any authoritarian incidents, certainly nothing remotely comparable. Perigo complains about being disinvited to speak at a conference, but this after making outrageous public statements that were not just critical of his host, but promising to give them more of the same from their own podium. Compare to McCaskey making private comments of a scholarly nature, it’s just this side of thought crime. So, never mind “institutional Objectivism”, whatever that means, do you think there shouldn’t be Objectivist conferences? Publications? Websites? What else is there? Where does your objection start?

Anyway, the point of the thread is the case for why McCaskey and Biddle had it coming. It’s a pretty malevolent theme, so maybe I should have put it in the Rants forum.

[Selene]

The Ayn Rants thread ...I like it!

[rodney203]

ND posted:

"Now I’m back to scorn, for reasons well expressed by the adage: If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas. There’s long been ample documentary evidence, freely and readily available, demonstrating the institutional culture of ARI.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ND, I think those are important ideas and I'm glad you said them. The only mitigating thing that comes to my mind right now is something that could happen to us in our work: we could have a significant amount of time invested in a career at a certain place of employment, yet we find out, somewhere down the road, that the place we work at has problems. It might be understandable that someone might try to hang in there and be a positive force.

I don't know what the exact situation was at ARI. I just felt like mentioning that additional viewpoint.

[kiaer.ts]

This is all chickens coming home to roost. There has been no rational basis for rational observers to respect the inner circle since the expulsion of the Brandens. The model has been exactly the same in every schism since, personal jealousies speciously magnified into supposed philosophical disputes with no real or specific evidence ever given. Tracinski in his statement on the McCaskey split gives the bogus argument that while, with Kelley, Peikoff was justified, in this case Peikoff is out of line. Bullshit. 'Fact and Value' (note the scare quotes) is an embarrassing, twisted, after-the-fact set of non sequitur rationalizations expressed in floating abstractions which, when reduced to the actual concretes results to personal jealousies the likes of which belong in a Lindsay Lohan movie. In the Reisman case and its fallout which is linked to above, the Sanfords pretend that in the Branden case, Rand gave validly convincing reasons for her actions:

"When Miss Rand broke with Branden, she wrote a compelling, 8-page explanation to her readers; she didn't just say: Well you can't know the facts, so decide on the basis of who is the better person."

This is just bullshit. Rand provided a list of vague charges, not any real or relevant concrete facts.

Adults who have learned to deal with other people on a mature level do not behave in this manner, even when they have fallings out, which do happen. The behavior of the Objectivist inner circle has been a study in incestuous social mal-adjustment for over half a century. It won't end so long as the estate remains the private reserve of a corrupt and studied sycophant and solicitor of sycophants.

[9thdoctor]

The only mitigating thing that comes to my mind right now is something that could happen to us in our work: we could have a significant amount of time invested in a career at a certain place of employment, yet we find out, somewhere down the road, that the place we work at has problems. It might be understandable that someone might try to hang in there and be a positive force.

I’m denying people that excuse when it comes to ARI now, and since the Reisman split. I even would challenge people on the Kelley split, but in that case there were genuine philosophical disputes aired, if only as a smokescreen.

"When Miss Rand broke with Branden, she wrote a compelling, 8-page explanation to her readers; she didn't just say: Well you can't know the facts, so decide on the basis of who is the better person."

This is just bullshit. Rand provided a list of vague charges, not any real or relevant concrete facts.

I disagree. Particularly the charges of financial impropriety were specific enough, and if you didn’t get a copy of the Branden’s replies and weren’t close enough to the situation to know better, you could have been innocently taken in. I would have much more respect for someone taking the wrong side in ’68 than in ’88, ’94, or now.

[kiaer.ts]

The only mitigating thing that comes to my mind right now is something that could happen to us in our work: we could have a significant amount of time invested in a career at a certain place of employment, yet we find out, somewhere down the road, that the place we work at has problems. It might be understandable that someone might try to hang in there and be a positive force.

I'm denying people that excuse when it comes to ARI now, and since the Reisman split. I even would challenge people on the Kelley split, but in that case there were genuine philosophical disputes aired, if only as a smokescreen.

"When Miss Rand broke with Branden, she wrote a compelling, 8-page explanation to her readers; she didn't just say: Well you can't know the facts, so decide on the basis of who is the better person."

This is just bullshit. Rand provided a list of vague charges, not any real or relevant concrete facts.

I disagree. Particularly the charges of financial impropriety were specific enough, and if you didn't get a copy of the Branden's replies and weren't close enough to the situation to know better, you could have been innocently taken in. I would have much more respect for someone taking the wrong side in '68 than in '88, '94, or now.

The charge was not real. That Branden didn't defend himself against the slander was his fault. I think he feared the effect of the truth of his relationship with Rand coming out as a threat to his career. But no rational person could hear her other vague smears in the context of those financial charges without asking why, if he had actually committed theft or fraud, why she did not press charges in court. It's like saying your neighbour poisoned your dog, and by the way he's also a bad dresser, so you have decided not to talk to him any more. Bullshit. No one with his testicles and without both Asperger's and Presbyopia could fail to see Rand and her cosigners expected her readers to condemn Branden on her say so, without knowing the actual concrete reasons for the break. No one who did ask was ever given evidence or the reasons.

Edited November 1, 2010 by Ted Keer

[rodney203]

I hear you.

[9thdoctor]

But no rational person could hear her other vague smears in the context of those financial charges without asking why, if he had actually committed theft or fraud, why she did not press charges in court. It's like saying your neighbour poisoned your dog, and by the way he's also a bad dresser, so you have decided not to talk to him any more. Bullshit.

I think you’re overstating your case, but I don’t want to get into an extended debate on the ’68 schism, at least not on this thread. If you want to specify that Peikoff knew, or should have known better, I’m with you. But he wasn’t in charge then, so while it reflects badly on him, it doesn’t say much about his leadership.

I’m saying no one today, or for the last XX years, has any standing to complain if they’ve invested time or resources where Peikoff is in charge, and got screwed. The evidence is out there, the pattern has repeated itself enough times, the induction light is stuck in the green position. It’s time to say that supporting ARI is immoral, and as we observe people’s careers being ruined, it’s time to say serves them right. How can it be that someone tries to build a career as a subordinate of Peikoff without researching his character? Or worse, if they did the research, and evaded what I’m saying is the inescapable conclusion.

I’m actually going back and forth on this, a bit of “there but for the grace of god, go I”; seeing how I could have fallen into the same trap. So I can’t help it, I do feel sympathy for these guys. When the axe falls on Comrade Sonia, however…

[kiaer.ts]

But no rational person could hear her other vague smears in the context of those financial charges without asking why, if he had actually committed theft or fraud, why she did not press charges in court. It's like saying your neighbour poisoned your dog, and by the way he's also a bad dresser, so you have decided not to talk to him any more. Bullshit.

I think you're overstating your case, but I don't want to get into an extended debate on the '68 schism, at least not on this thread. If you want to specify that Peikoff knew, or should have known better, I'm with you. But he wasn't in charge then, so while it reflects badly on him, it doesn't say much about his leadership.

I'm saying no one today, or for the last XX years, has any standing to complain if they've invested time or resources where Peikoff is in charge, and got screwed. The evidence is out there, the pattern has repeated itself enough times, the induction light is stuck in the green position. It's time to say that supporting ARI is immoral, and as we observe people's careers being ruined, it's time to say serves them right. How can it be that someone tries to build a career as a subordinate of Peikoff without researching his character? Or worse, if they did the research, and evaded what I'm saying is the inescapable conclusion.

I'm actually going back and forth on this, a bit of "there but for the grace of god, go I"; seeing how I could have fallen into the same trap. So I can't help it, I do feel sympathy for these guys. When the axe falls on Comrade Sonia, however…

There's a very easy rule of thumb. When criminal activity is implied, but criminal charges are not pressed, and other vague charges are made, but not specified in any manner, (i.e., when the lady doth protest too much), then the accusations are smears, and expecting anyone to pass judgement and "irrevocable condemn" someone based on the accusations alone is a deadly insult to their intelligence, or integrity, or both. Rand would simply have had no need to ask people to pass judgment had there been the implied criminal activity. She would simply have gone to court, and had no need to say anything. All other evidence from her own words (not to mention Branden's published response) implies that it was a personal matter cast in political guise. It was disgusting of her to publish what she did and to expect anyone to act on it as if it were grounds to do so.

[rodney203]

I will say this: All these discussions regarding the personalities in the movement, and the various claims, remind me of how it is crucial to always separate the message from the messenger, and judge only the ideas themselves on their own terms. When I'm reading stuff, I have a pretty good BS radar.

[kiaer.ts]

I will say this: All these discussions regarding the personalities in the movement, and the various claims, remind me of how it is crucial to always separate the message from the messenger, and judge only the ideas themselves on their own terms. When I'm reading stuff, I have a pretty good BS radar.

But it's not just about personalities. If it were, Rand and Peikoff could simply have had the decency to say they had personal issues and have left it at that. They chose to make the issues political, matters of public condemnation, and at the same time to keep the real motives for their actions under wraps - AND TO GET PEOPLE TO GO ALONG WITH THEM - in condemning the accused parties. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damages were done because evil people expected stupid people to accept their condemnations regardless of facts and evidence. That kind of evil and the damage it has done not only to the people involved but in every actual supporter of rights, reason, and individual happiness is not a mere matter of personality.

[rodney203]

I meant to say how important it is for US to resist mixing the message with the messenger and to keep a clear head with all the personality issues swirling about.

In other words, today Peikoff might do something crazy, but he has made many correct pionts over the years, and tomorrow he might say something else right.

Edited November 1, 2010 by rodney203

[kiaer.ts]

I meant to say how important it is for US to resist mixing the message with the messenger and to keep a clear head with all the personality issues swirling about.

In other words, today Peikoff might do something crazy, but he has made many correct pionts over the years, and tomorrow he might say something else right.

Well, of course. I found Ominous Parallels at first a disappointment and an embarrassment, then simply funny. (I read it over the summer between 11th and 12th grade.) I found OPAR pedestrian and underwhelming. I have listened to many of his podcasts. And I look forward to the publication of DIM with bated breath. The problem is that Kelley's and Reisman's works, the two greatest post-Randian Objectivist books are not mentioned by the ARI or its associates. That is evil, and those who participate in that embargo are evil.

[rodney203]

I agree that embargo of worthy material would be a very bad thing. You're pretty hard on Peikoff's work. So what's the best post Randian work that I havn't read yet? You're saying you have a better account of Oism that OPAR? As I alluded to before, when Peikoff was right, he was right; and when he's wrong, he's wrong. Apparently, he's trying to hold onto a bunch of fairly irrational followers is the way I have it figured. I know even less of the other organized Oist group. They seem to be fairly quiet.

Edited November 1, 2010 by rodney203

[kiaer.ts]

I agree that embargo of worthy material would be a very bad thing. You're pretty hard on Peikoff's work. So what's the best post Randian work that I havn't read yet? You're saying you have a better account of Oism that OPAR? As I alluded to before, when Peikoff was right, he was right; and when he's wrong, he's wrong. Apparently, he's trying to hold onto a bunch of fairly irrational followers is the way I have it figured. I know even less of the other organized Oist group. They seem to be fairly quiet.

There is nothing particularly wrong in OPAR. It simply doesn't go beyond Rand or have anything of its own to recommend. I had read all of Rand's books up to Philosophy, Who Needs It, and the bound copies of the Objectivist and the Objectivist and Ayn Rand Newsletters by the time I graduated high school. I majored in biology and philosophy at Rutgers. OPAR was simply adequate in its presentation of Rand, but not inspired, and certainly not what it could have been. For example, Rand's philosophy can be situated in or be explained in relation to many traditions, the Aristotelian, Stoic, Epicurean, Scholastic schools, and the philosophies of Spinoza and Nietzsche, to name a few. Her politics could be put into the context of Locke and the classical liberals of the 19th century. This would have made her work much more accessible to academics and much less susceptible to academic resistance. But Peikoff, who had the time, education, and resources to do that, had not the wisdom or perhaps the intellectual capacity to do it. I have bought and given away copies (rather than discarding or selling them) to friends, which indicates that I find the work harmless, but hardly personally helpful.

Ominous Parallels is simply awful. When it is not boring and repetitive or hyperbolic and hysterical it is both. I came of age under Reagan. That book was meant as a warning against Reagan. Rand's opinion of Reagan and Peikoff's of the "threat" of the right has been spectacularly wrong. (Not that I don't despise Buckley, Buchanan, Santorum, and their ilk.) Finally, the work is simply a rip off of William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which everyone should read, especially in today's political and economic climate.

If anybody takes anything from this post, it is that they should read Shirer's book.

As for DIM and his podcasts, Peikoff is a moderately intelligent man with mixed premises which make his worth listening to in the same way that one might listen to what Dennis Prager or Ann Coulter says. Whether he is wrong or right, he gives you something to think about.

Read Shirer's book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now I'm back to scorn, for reasons well expressed by the adage: If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Dennis,

This reminded me of one of my favorite sayings from Brazil (I got it from a pai de santo--a holy man in an Afro-Brazilian deity religion, believe it or not). I find it relevant too.

If you have to run with pigs, make sure you don't eat with them.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Now I'm back to scorn, for reasons well expressed by the adage: If you lie down with dogs, you will get up with fleas.

Dennis,

This reminded me of one of my favorite sayings from Brazil (I got it from a pai de santo--a holy man in an Afro-Brazilian deity religion, believe it or not). I find it relevant too.

If you have to run with pigs, make sure you don't eat with them.

Michael

One of my favorites (which I just made up) is: If you cast pearls before swine, don't be surprised if you chip a tooth while eating a porkchop.

REB

[9thdoctor]

Finally, the work is simply a rip off of William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which everyone should read, especially in today's political and economic climate.

A great recommendation, of course. Huge book though. I thought that a major thesis of Rise and Fall was that without Hitler, there wouldn’t have been a 3rd Reich. Peikoff claims it’s all about Kant, and he’s virtually a determinist in his rendition of the history.

Here’s something maybe you haven’t already read, Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises. Rand recommended this book specifically in one of her Q&A’s, it’s also about Nazi Germany. You can’t beat the price!

[Starbuckle]

Ted Keer wrote: "Ominous Parallels is simply awful. When it is not boring and repetitive or hyperbolic and hysterical it is both. I came of age under Reagan. That book was meant as a warning against Reagan. Rand's opinion of Reagan and Peikoff's of the 'threat' of the right has been spectacularly wrong. (Not that I don't despise Buckley, Buchanan, Santorum, and their ilk.) Finally, the work is simply a rip off of William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which everyone should read, especially in today's political and economic climate."

Disagree thoroughly with this. First, the book was not meant particularly as a "warning against Reagan," as it's far more sweeping in its cultural and philosophical assessments and had been many years in the making (readers of Rand's periodicals first started hearing about in the late 1960s). I might agree that certain of the books claims are "hyperbolic," but what the warrant for dubbing it "hysterical" is, I can't imagine. "Hysterical" is the most overused slam-word of our age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As vehement tract, Ominous Parallels makes for extremely compelling reading. I don't know why anyone interested in the history or its ideas should find it dull. The notion that Ominous Parallels is just a ripoff of Shirer is unintelligible; perhaps it is based on the fact that Peikoff begins the book by quoting a long passage from Shirer about the gassing of Jews and also cites Shirer at other points in the book. Peikoff covers an awful lot of historical and cultural territory that Shirer never touches. It's obvious that Peikoff would take issue with Shirer on various key questions.

Among the problems with Ominous Parallels, aside from any shortcomings of its theses (such as the inadequate weight it gives to positive factors in American culture or the excessive weight it gives to the influence of Kant) and unfair abbreviated treatments of various intellectuals (see George H. Smith on Herbert Spencer [search mises.org] versus Leonard Peikoff on Herbert Spencer), is how extremely condensed OP is in arguing for its view of history and the sources of Nazism. It should be a fatter book, maybe at least twice as thick, to fill out its argument more persuasively and take on objections that might be raised. Despite all of the problems, the book has many suggestive leads and sharp insights. I can't countenance such dismissiveness of it as Keer's or David Gordon's.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Starbuckle

[BaalChatzaf]

Ted Keer wrote: "Ominous Parallels is simply awful. When it is not boring and repetitive or hyperbolic and hysterical it is both. I came of age under Reagan. That book was meant as a warning against Reagan. Rand's opinion of Reagan and Peikoff's of the 'threat' of the right has been spectacularly wrong. (Not that I don't despise Buckley, Buchanan, Santorum, and their ilk.) Finally, the work is simply a rip off of William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which everyone should read, especially in today's political and economic climate."

Disagree thoroughly with this. First, the book was not meant particularly as a "warning against Reagan," as it's far more sweeping in its cultural and philosophical assessments and had been many years in the making. I might agree that certain claims are "hyperbolic," but what the warrant for dubbing it "hysterical" is, I can't imagine. "Hysterical" is the most overused slam-word of our age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As vehement tract, Ominous Parallels makes for extremely compelling reading. I don't know why anyone interested in the history or its ideas should find it dull. The notion that Ominous Parallels is just a ripoff of Shirer is unintelligible; perhaps it is based on the fact that Peikoff begins the book by quoting a long passage from Shirer about the gassing of Jews and also cites Shirer at other points in the book. Peikoff covers an awful lot of philosophical and cultural territory that Shirer never touches, and it's obvious that Peikoff would take issue with Shirer on various key questions.

Among the problems with Ominous Parallels, aside from any shortcomings of its theses (such as the inadequate weight it gives to positive factors in American culture or the excessive weight it gives to the influence of Kant) and unfair abbreviated treatments of various intellectuals (see George H. Smith on Herbert Spencer [search mises.org] versus Leonard Peikoff on Herbert Spencer), is how extremely condensed OP is in arguing for its view of history and the sources of Nazism. It should be a fatter book, maybe at least twice as thick, to fill out its argument more persuasively and take on objections that might be raised. Despite all of the problems, the book has many suggestive leads and sharp insights. I can't countenance such dismissiveness of it as Keer's or David Gordon's.

I found the book rather thin gruel.

But such is the nature of History, insofar as History is a selective recreation of the set of past events and an indication of the historian's bias.

If History books are deficient (for the obvious reasons) then philosophy based on History is even more so.

I will not believe the Historians until a working go backward Time Machine is available to the public. I probably will never believe the philosophers.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Ted Keer wrote: "Ominous Parallels is simply awful. When it is not boring and repetitive or hyperbolic and hysterical it is both. I came of age under Reagan. That book was meant as a warning against Reagan. Rand's opinion of Reagan and Peikoff's of the 'threat' of the right has been spectacularly wrong. (Not that I don't despise Buckley, Buchanan, Santorum, and their ilk.) Finally, the work is simply a rip off of William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which everyone should read, especially in today's political and economic climate."

Disagree thoroughly with this. First, the book was not meant particularly as a "warning against Reagan," as it's far more sweeping in its cultural and philosophical assessments and had been many years in the making (readers of Rand's periodicals first started hearing about in the late 1960s). I might agree that certain of the books claims are "hyperbolic," but what the warrant for dubbing it "hysterical" is, I can't imagine. "Hysterical" is the most overused slam-word of our age!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As vehement tract, Ominous Parallels makes for extremely compelling reading. I don't know why anyone interested in the history or its ideas should find it dull. The notion that Ominous Parallels is just a ripoff of Shirer is unintelligible; perhaps it is based on the fact that Peikoff begins the book by quoting a long passage from Shirer about the gassing of Jews and also cites Shirer at other points in the book. Peikoff covers an awful lot of historical and cultural territory that Shirer never touches. It's obvious that Peikoff would take issue with Shirer on various key questions.

Among the problems with Ominous Parallels, aside from any shortcomings of its theses (such as the inadequate weight it gives to positive factors in American culture or the excessive weight it gives to the influence of Kant) and unfair abbreviated treatments of various intellectuals (see George H. Smith on Herbert Spencer [search mises.org] versus Leonard Peikoff on Herbert Spencer), is how extremely condensed OP is in arguing for its view of history and the sources of Nazism. It should be a fatter book, maybe at least twice as thick, to fill out its argument more persuasively and take on objections that might be raised. Despite all of the problems, the book has many suggestive leads and sharp insights. I can't countenance such dismissiveness of it as Keer's or David Gordon's.

You obviously haven't read Shirer. (I hadn't read it until recently.)

Peikoff's parody of that book is ludicrous on every level.

Any value it has comes from Rand's editing during three decades - and her theory of philosophical determinism is simply wrong. To wit, see Tracinski's "What went right?"

And yes, Reagan was Peikoff's and Rand's intended, if uncooperative bogey man.

One third of that book, begun in the 1960's, deals with the immanent threat of the religious right. Hysterical is the perfect word. Rand's wandering uterus is all over that screed.

But like any good mystical text, when the predictions don't pan out in the present, there's always hope for future despair.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Ted Keer

[Starbuckle]

Keer: "You obviously haven't read Shirer. (I hadn't read it until recently.)"

I've read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich twice. That's the book you mean, I hope? If you have any argument that Peikoff is just a "ripoff" of Shirer, go ahead and present it.