PDS

And to think that GBS did not even have a blog, as far as we know.

As far as I can see, Leonard Peikoff is solely responsible for the bloody-minded ruckus among the Ayn Rand Institute crowd.

The proposed "Cordoba Center" near Ground Zero has been talked about for a while. Many have made clear that they really don't want a 15-story mosque sitting so close to where the Twin Towers fell. The issue was not new when Peikoff decided that the time was ripe to bloviate.

My two cents on the Cordoba Center:

(1) If they are not jihadis or Islamic triumphalists, Imam Rauf and his supporters should have had the sense not to try putting their mosque right across the street from the site of a 9/11 massacre. (If, on the other hand, they are jihadis and Islamic imperialists, they deserve to be publicly exposed as such.) And people of New York City, including the relatives of the Muslims who died in the Towers, should employ public demonstrations and boycotts against the mosque should the project go forward. It's substantially worse that the convent that the Catholic Church wanted to build at Auschwitz.

(2) Legal action against the project is appropriate only if Imam Rauf or his financial backers are working with terrorist organizations such as Hamas. I don't know whether they are. If you've got proof, bring it forward.

(3) Zoning laws, as my brother the civil engineer has been heard to say, "delay the inevitable on behalf of the connected." As a rule, libertarians favor their complete abolition. Suppressing the mosque through zoning and land use controls isn't the way to go.

(4) Leonard Peikoff's podcast is not merely a farrago of seriously bad arguments in service of a bigoted end. It is nigh-conclusive evidence that he should suspend podcasting, at least until his health improves. The guy has always had a streak of batshit craziness. It has become more pronounced since 1986. But now something that looks like incipient dementia is interfering with his ability to inhibit the craziness.

(5) The whole ARIan setup, institutionally and culturally, depends on obedience to Pope Leonard the One and Only. (Judging from his recent remarks on intellectual heirdom, it will stop with him; he is conspicuously uninterested in apostolic succession.) Hence the lemming-like behavior from Ed Cline et al. Having endorsed an alleged set of principles that would require them to commend Franklin D. Roosevelt for ordering the confinement of the Japanese-Americans to concentration camps, nay even require them to commence the aerial bombardment of universities across the land, they have forfeited their claim to be defenders of individual rights.

(6) It must be dawning on some of the ARIans that, when Peikoff passes from the scene, the Estate of Ayn Rand will no longer be under of the control of an "intellectual heir," or even of a person who cares to anoint or sponsor any such heir. Yet gaining or keeping their places in the Estate/ARI universe has always depended on currying Peikovian favor and steering clear of Peikovian displeasure. When he is gone, will they be rewarded for serving him? Will there be anyone to whom they can transfer their servility, and from whom they will receive credit for their years of faithful compliance?

(7) Diana Hsieh is looking a couple of moves ahead, but only a couple. Her objective seems to be to install herself as a mini-Peikoff, issuing mini-fataawa to the faithful until she spots the opening for elevation into the major leagues. But what will be her institutional base, unless Peikoff is planning to confer Ayn Rand's unexpired copyrights on her? Why will anyone defer to her once Leonard Peikoff has departed? Will her carefully guided subservience to him bring her respect in the post-Peikovian era? Or will she widely loathed by her one-time colleagues?

(8) In his unended quest to prove his undiminished authority, Peikoff whipped up this conflict. Dependence on his personal authority has been an essential feature of the Ayn Rand Institute from its inception. It is a terrible flaw in their organizational culture, and the ARIans deserve to experience every unpleasant consequence of it.

(9) The internecine unpleasantness is distracting ARIans from such "worthy" projects as chortling over the wished-for demise of The Atlas Society. La Hsieh was running down the TAS website not so long ago. TAS has now inaugurated the new site—with not a word of comment from her. I expect she's been too busy dodging incoming from Amy Peikoff to notice what TAS is doing, or even to wonder for exactly how many more years Amy Peikoff's opinion will carry weight in Rand-land.

Robert Campbell

I cannot claim to know the motives of the people you mention, but as a long time reader of Noodlefood who was recently bounced for making a comment about Peikoff that DH didn't like, I think your assessment of DH misses the mark. She is more obsessed with working out and her eating habits and her cute cats than you give her credit for...

Peikoff is truly an embarrassment. I distinctly remember telling an Objectivist friend in 1985 that Peikoff would bounce Kelley some day. He told me this was impossible. He is now an ARI-approved scholar at the various OCON events.

The most alarming part of Peikoff's recent podcasts (Mosque and political flip flops, especially) is his lack of self awareness about his pronouncements that "who are Objectivists" or who "understands Objectivism". Does he not realize that he is implicitly conceding the premise of the famed Fact and Value? If he can flip-flop in under two years on the Republicans creating a totalitarian Christian theocracy (and recall that he said that those who disagreed with him in 2006 didn't understand Objectivism either), then it seems to me David Kelley can declare victory in that war, assuming it ever had to be a war, which, by the way, it didn't.

Aglialoro is a badass. He should play a part in the movie. Hugh Akston would be good, assuming he isn't cut from the script.

In pursuit of justice and irony, I say keep the title as it is.

I say thumbs up to term "flip flops". Especially in a political context, which Peikoff's statements apply to, the term "flip flop" has a meaning, almost as a pun, that makes it something more than mere snark.

Also, the podcast on whether gays can be "true Objectivists" is rather interesting, if for no other reason than how LP defines who an Objectivist truly is. Anybody else catch the irony in his stated definition?

Oops. [still getting used to how things work around here].

Ghs: having read A:TCAG way back in 1984 or so, I can't imagine why your fundamentalist Christian family members shunned you.

Hello everyone,

This is a somewhat personal question but I think it can be relevant to many other situations:

I recently ended a relationship and I find myself in a negative family environment, where my family members are all struggling with their own problems. I'm looking for advice on how to remain positive and remember that life is full of possibilities for achievement and joy, when all I see and feel is so negative.

Thanks in advance, and I look forward to exploring this site more in the future.

Kira

It wasn't that long ago that I found myself in a similar situation, except mine involved my in-laws instead of my own family. My large extended family here in Bloomington -- fundamentalist Christians, one and all -- treated me like a leper on every social occasion. The situation got so bad that I finally distanced myself from them as much as possible, while remaining civil on those occasions where it was impossible to stay away from them completely.

I realize that my situation differed from yours, but the essentials may be similar. I don't know the details of your situation, but if your family members are not receptive to resolving the problem, such as by not burdening you with their problems, then I don't see any alternative except for you to stay away from them as much as possible, at least until the situation improves.

Ghs

Nice essay to accompany the music.