Robert Tracinski is no longer associated with ARI


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Robert Tracinski is no longer associated with ARI

The following announcement now appears on Tracinski's articles published on the ARI website:

Robert W. Tracinski is no longer associated with the Ayn Rand Institute--neither as a writer nor as a speaker.

This is receiving comment on other Objectivist forums and blogs. Robert Bidinotto discusses it in The latest Objectivist purge (which is where I learned of this). Robert linked to a Tracinski article from 2000 as an example and I give the same link here: Why It Can Happen Again.

I wish Robert Tracinski all the best in his career.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a comment I posted on Robert Bidinotto's blog:

"I have been reading Robert Tracinski's columns for some time, and I've been impressed with his intelligence and -- in contradistinction to much of ARI's work -- his focus on reality. The handwriting was on the wall even before he challenged Peikoff's popedom: this was not a man who could for long be placed in an intellectual straitjacket. It was clear that he could not indefinitely remain with ARI, and I'm glad he's now free.

"Robert, I, unlike you, can't take any responsibility for Tracinski's excommunication. Until now, I haven't praised him publicly -- for fear that excommunicarion wouldn't do, and that he'd be burned at the nearest stake."

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope Mr. Tracinski will open himself up to dealing with other Objectivist groups including TOC and Objectivist Living. I know that Reisman and Packer have been unwilling to do this. I don't mean full joining but a more benovelant attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris, while it would be nice if this happened, I don't expect it to.

Apart from any disagreements he may have with us, Tracinski would immediately be smeared by ARI for any association with us, which, from his standpoint, would only divert attention from the real issues underlying his purge. As it stands now, in order to justify its unconscionable actions against him, ARI has to defend Peikoff's idiotic views of the recent election, and his rationalistic interpretation of how ideas move history -- both of which Tracinski has challenged, and which led to this split. TAS has not been any factor in that dispute, and I'd wager that Tracinski, being a smart man, would prefer to keep it that way.

TAS maintains an "open-door policy" toward fellow Objectivists, but whether a given individual cares to walk through it is entirely up to him. Regardless of his view of us, I respect Tracinski for his courage and integrity in sticking by his guns despite the great criticism and pressure from long-time associates and friends. As a writer and editor, I also admire his professionalism and skill as a journalist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought people might be interested that I called the Ayn Rand Bookstore to order some items. One was a tape by Tracinski. I was told I will get it and that the bookstore is still carrying him. His writing seem to still be on the Ayn Rand Institute web site. Let's see how this developes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not even a wee bit shocked to hear of Robert Tracinski being purged. There is no way that minor-league ARIans would have dared to denounce him in public as they have been doing for the past 6 weeks plus, unless they were sure that he had lost the protection and sponsorship of senior figures at their organization, and would soon be shown the door.

I suspect that Tracinki's pieces will stay on the ARI Website and his items will continue to be sold by the ARI bookstore until he criticizes ARI in public for the first time.

This item kills two birds with one stone:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/12/hon...ationships.html

It not only insists on the complete justice of Tracinski's expulsion (full indictment to follow later) but also confirms that the alliance between ARI and SOLOPassion is at an end.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The perfectly predictable piling-on begins.

Before another week is out, the ARIans will have all smugly convinced themselves that Tracinski was purged for being an Islamist sympathizer.

Or perhaps even WORSE: a TAS sympathizer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just looked at Diana's honesty in relationships post. Do people really live this way? Sometimes ends to relationships require a formality like a marriage or a business relationship, but then why not simply acknowledge the good things that happened during the relationship and move on amicably. After all, you're not going to be hanging out much after that so it shouldn't cost much.

Sometimes relationships get stale or things happen even when you like someone. People don't have to cling for dear life and then get angry when it ends. Simply recognize the value of a relationship to you and enjoy it accordingly.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody explain to me again why a philosphy of reason attracts so many unreasonable people. I might also add smuggness. I hope I don't have to say I'm not talking anyone of the previous posters on this tread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This item kills two birds with one stone:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/12/hon...ationships.html

It not only insists on the complete justice of Tracinski's expulsion (full indictment to follow later) but also confirms that the alliance between ARI and SOLOPassion is at an end.

In her SOLO post --

http://www.solopassion.com/comment/reply/2047/25450

Diana describes Linz's behavior as "frankly unbelievable." Why "unbelievable," since it's a pattern he's exhibited toward a series of persons? Did Diana think that she would be the exception, since she's on the side which she regards as the side of the angels? Or was she smart enough to anticipate all along that over one issue or another a parting of the ways between her and Linz would inevitably arrive?

What's Valliant going to do? Is he going to stop posting on SOLO also?

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody explain to me again why a philosphy of reason attracts so many unreasonable people.

Chris, aspects of the philosophy directly require unreasonableness. The only way you can be an Objectivist and not do all the splitting stuff is by ignoring or downplaying or reinterpreting the judge-and-expect-to-be-judged set of instructions.

Ellen

___

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody explain to me again why a philosphy of reason attracts so many unreasonable people.

Chris, aspects of the philosophy directly require unreasonableness. The only way you can be an Objectivist and not do all the splitting stuff is by ignoring or downplaying or reinterpreting the judge-and-expect-to-be-judged set of instructions.

Ellen

___

I hate to point out that most of the reasonable Objectivists don't find the Internet reasonable enough to post on Objectivist lists. And they'd rather be doing something else.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant; Can you blame them?

Chris,

Having cut my teeth on a.p.o. and Usenet I think the forums have come quite a ways since then. Back then the only good quality forum was MDOP and there was less real time interaction. Bottom line is that the internet has always been a poor substitute for real human interaction, but it allows you meet interesting people you would otherwise never meet and develop relationships with them in real life.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

Diana describes Linz's behavior as "frankly unbelievable." Why "unbelievable," since it's a pattern he's exhibited toward a series of persons? Did Diana think that she would be the exception, since she's on the side which she regards as the side of the angels? Or was she smart enough to anticipate all along that over one issue or another a parting of the ways between her and Linz would inevitably arrive?

You're right--if Ms. Hsieh had paid any attention to Mr. Perigo's past relationships with Barbara Branden, Joe Rowlands, Chris Sciabarra, Michael Stuart Kelly, or any of a host of others, she'd have found his behavior perfectly believable. She'd have had to expect her alliance with him to be of brief duration. Mr. Perigo's recent running off of Adam Reed was ample warning, in case any was needed.

Ms. Hsieh is obviously capable of elaborate political scheming. Her move to the Leonard Peikoff Institute demonstrated it. Her instant leap into the vanguard of Peikoff loyalists when his political pronouncements elicited disbelief from so many other ARIans was triggered by an opportunity detector of exquisite sensitivity.

But all the scheming coexists with a notion that anyone she regards as a friend will stick with her no matter what she does, no matter whom she betrays. As far as she is concerned, every break in what has become a long, noisy series has been the other person's fault.

What's Valliant going to do? Is he going to stop posting on SOLO also?

First Messrs. Valliant and Fahy went ominously quiet, while Mr. Perigo accused them of failing to back him. Now Mr. Valliant is acting mightily offended:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/2047#comment-25452

Well, this "yes man" has also registered the insults and will not discuss this subject here, either.

Since he chimed in right after Ms. Hsieh's signoff, I doubt he will be back on SOLOP.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like despots, dogmatists who run groups maintain member loyalty and cohesion only by uniting followers against some outside "enemy." Theirs is a negative unity, a unity based on hatred expressed against heretics, traitors, etc. As long as they can whip up a frenzy of denunciations and rage against some external "evil," they can hold together something of a following.

But observe what happens whenever those hated "enemies" leave their immediate vicinity. Then the dogmatists are left without a unifying focus. Now, you'd think that Objectivism itself would serve as that unifying force, but it really isn't -- because their individual interpretations of "Objectivism" vary so widely. Witness the current interpretive battles in ARI ranks over the theories of Tracinski vs. Peikoff, and how people are picking sides. Just add this current rite of purification to a long list of previous purges (examples provided upon request).

So, in the absence of the unifying enemy, they are suddenly left with this naked reality: They are a bunch of people who really don't have much in common except a passion for issuing denunciations and repudiations -- because indulging that passion reassures them that they are "moral." Without that hated enemy, where can they now exercise that passion...except against each other?

Friends, I have witnessed this phenomenon in Objectivist circles for decades. Some of you may recall that many moons ago, I (safely) predicted that if decent people simply stopped showing up to argue with the publishers of those ugly websites and blogs, they would no longer present "enemies" against which the Hsiehs, Valliants, Perigos, et al., could long remain united, either. And that our absences would then force those carnivores to turn on each other.

And so they have. My god, I should have taken wagers, and made a lot of money.

We're now witnessing the inevitable process of self-cannibalization among these Running Dog(matist)s of Capitalism, as each member of the pack snarls and snaps at the other, and eventually is driven off to an isolated doghouse to lick his/her wounds.

Perigo, for example, has just announced that he's had to "postpone" his next conference after only 6, count 'em, 6 people registered. With characteristically insufferable bravado, he now tries to twist the fact that he's universally and justifiably despised into evidence of his virtue: Ah, they all hate me because I won't compromise my principles! he tells himself, and the shrinking ranks of maschosists still hanging around on his site. Of course! That has to be it -- right?

Meanwhile, ARI, now facing the disquieting spectacle of its most productive, visible, and publicly respected writer openly questioning idiotic Peikovian dogmas, has purged the blasphemer from its midst, giving their own snarling pack animals yet a new "enemy" du jour around whom to unite in a feeding frenzy. But clearly, given the sympathy expressed for Tracinski on unofficial ARI-camp blogs, he won't be the last to be shown the door in coming months; just wait and see.

Folks, it's all so...OLD. And thus predictable. Rand said that the nature of an entity determines what it will do. Even a cursory familiarity with the nature of self-righteous dogmatists will make entirely intelligible -- and predictable -- what they will do. But Rand also said that the irrational, left to their own devices, were doomed: they must feed off rational hosts in order to exist.

Moral:

The single worst thing you can do with such predators is to enter their fever swamps and directly engage them, thus granting them the gift of an external enemy against whom to remain united.

On the other hand, the single smartest thing you can do to thwart such irrationalists is to simply leave them alone to cannibalize each other. That's the predictable nature of these beasts; and the current bloodletting we see going on in their cages eloquently demonstrates my case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert B,

Here is some empirical support for your analysis:

Between the publication of Mr. Valliant's book (February 2005) and the excommunication of Robert Tracinski, less than 2 years have elapsed. And the widespread (though less than total) refusal to argue with Mr. Valliant and his adepts on SOLOP goes back just a little over 6 months. Blaming everything that has ever gone wrong in Rand-land on "the Brandens" has already lost its effectiveness as a rallying device; new enemies have had to be found.

If the dogmatists keep needing fresh enemies to turn against, we may safely predict that the pace of the excommunications will accelerate.

I recall that at the 2006 Summer Seminar you gave Rand's statements about compromise a thorough examination and critique. So wouldn't you agree with Ellen that there are portions of the Randian corpus that lend support to dogmatism?

Robert C

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?cmd=dis...amp;entryid=485

Perhaps James Valliant will write another legal brief showing the irrationalities and immoralities of Robert Trascinski! Perhaps God Ayn Rand will come back from the dead as a vampire and scold him!

Perhaps Leonard Pieholekoff's head will explode!

Ah, the embarrassment of ever thinking that I was an objectivist. In the late 1960's, I associated with the INVICTUS crowd on the west coast, Louis Rollins, George H. Smith and others, who put out a periodical by that name promoting anarchocapitalism. It was creative and interesting in a way that few of the other objectivist periodicals were. At the time there were a number of student objectivist groups on and off campuses, and I would attend meetings and lectures in the L.A./Orange Co. area. They were quite enjoyable and I found many friendships which would last for many years, a few which have lasted through my life. I watched the NBI purges in surprise and shock, with "Statements" to be signed stating that you should never, never associate with the Brandens and that Ayn Rand was infallable.

My initial thought was, "How silly this is, or was someone raped or violated?" I left objectivism following the split. I believed then, and believe now, that unless there was predation, a relatively minor difference of opinion was not sufficient for the kind of behavior that I was seeing.

As a professional mediator for many years, I remain more convinced than before that I made the right decision. I have worked with people who are rich, honest, productive, as well as criminals of all stripes--murderers, child molestors, con men and thieves. I have never seen anyone incapable of rehabilitation, save for, perhaps, child molestors (and that for reasons that I can't go over right now, as I believe their problems lie on a level deeper than conceptual). We all change over the years and our beliefs change with the growth of knowledge and the change of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now