Objectivist Round-up, Mid-April 2026

1. I wonder if there is a new schism brewing.  On the same day and on the same website, James Valliant and Leonard Peikoff published two essays criticizing, in effect, the Ayn Rand Institute’s support for open immigration (which tends to veer toward Harry Binswanger’s open borders position).  While Valliant seems to be Peikoff’s main conduit to the outer world of Objectivism, the pieces are quite different in writing style.  

Here is Valliant:

Still, there are many self-styled “Objectivists” who advocate precisely such a dereliction of government’s responsibility to protect Americans from foreign threats–those who advocate completely “open borders” and who oppose the deportation of even criminal aliens. They advocate abolishing all immigration law entirely–and they do so in the name of “Objectivism.”

It is vital to recognize in this context that many nations of the world define such basic crimes as murder and rape very differently than under American law. Some places are in a state of near anarchy and do not keep or collect data on criminals as the United States does.

This means that criminal border screening must include an active process of investigation that examines the individual’s previous conduct, not merely the willingness of a foreign country to be rid of them or to have them subjected to criminal charges.

Were there to be no screening for immigrants at the border, nothing would prevent another country from systematically expelling its own criminal populations into the United States.*

Students of Objectivism who oppose any border enforcement, or who advocate that there should be no deportations, whatever, are simply ignoring Objectivist political philosophy.

Here is Peikoff attacking a certain unnamed Objectivist for the “racism” charge”:

One anti-ICEr suggests that conservatives who defend ICE and deportation are really racists — presumably, in this case, because we are supposed to be hostile to brown bodies. In other words, this student of Objectivism (I don’t call him an Objectivist because he is clearly still learning what the philosophy is) is not only perpetrating an ad hominem, but also invoking as self-evident the WOKE explanation of all evil: RACISM.

Speaking for myself: as a teenager, I spent most Augusts in Canada lying on Grand Beach getting a great tan, all the kids did, and we all boasted how brown we looked.  Then, some years later, while dating in New York City, I applied bronzer liberally to my face and neck, wanting to look like someone who did not spend all of his time reading books (though it ruined my shirt collars).  And now I have married a person of multi-racial ethnicity, and to me Grace is the most beautiful woman I have ever known.

Interesting that Peikoff implies he is a “conservative.”**  Hard to say with certainty who Peikoff is criticizing, but it sounds like he’s talking about Yaron Brook.

Objectivist Round-up, April 2026

1. The Ayn Rand Institute all but calls for a nuclear attack on Iran:

Eliminating the threat from Iran’s Islamic totalitarian regime necessitates discrediting its ideology, making it a lost cause. Some may doubt this is possible, in the shadow of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles, and indeed, it has been decades since America has followed the right approach. History, however, provides a compelling model.

Consider the lesson from the 1945 defeat of martyrdom-extolling imperial Japan, which offered an “unconditional surrender” only after two atom bombs. The historian John David Lewis has eloquently described American efforts to discredit and uproot the regime’s ideology from schools and government, and to block from political office former regime leaders.

2. Yaron Brook appears to think that the Trump administration is listening to him on the Iranian war and even taking his advice.  (Hat tip to Scott Schiff.)

3. Nikos Sotirakopoulos left the ARI after five years and is going out on his own.  He’s asking you to join his Patreon page.  If you are in a generous mood, you can be a founding member for a mere $3,082 a month.  

—Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, mid-March 2026

1. Alan Greenspan turned 100.  While Greenspan is best known for being the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, he was a member of Ayn Rand’s Collective.  In fact, he was one of the four signers to Rand’s To Whom It May Concern, which excommunicated Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in 1968.  In his autobiography, Greenspan said that while he started to doubt certain aspects of Objectivism (such as that government could exist without coercive taxation), he remained friends with Rand until she died.  Harry Binswanger said he could tell by the mid 1970’s that Greenspan wasn’t a consistent Objectivist.  (I recall that he was harsher, but I can’t find the quote.)  I’ve wondered why Rand couldn’t see that Greenspan was at least borderline betraying Objectivism.*  Rand’s biographers have said she admired Greenspan because, unlike most of her followers, he was older and had an independent career.

Objectivist Round-up, March 2026

1. Craig Biddle and his Objectivist Standard Institute (“OSI”) filed a lawsuit against multi-millionaire Objectivist donor Carl Barney and his related Objectivist organizations.  According to the lawsuit, Barney provided Biddle and the OSI several million dollars (essentially as a gift) to spread Objectivism.  However, Biddle and Barney’s personal relationship broke down, and Barney then impermissibly tried to place restrictions on the funds.  Barney has counterclaimed, alleging that Biddle has lied to and defrauded him for at least a decade.  Not only that, but Biddle allegedly admitted to Barney’s face that he was never sincere.  It’s hard to draw conclusions from initial legal pleadings, but it looks like Barney has a huge case of buyer’s remorse.

2. The Ayn Rand Institute continues its anti-Trump and anti-ICE bent.  In fact, it seems to be the main interest of the ARI and its writers.  For example, the six most recent New Ideal articles are the Supreme Court’s tariff decision (a blow against Trump’s “authoritarianism”), Ayn Rand’s life as an immigrant (two articles), “ICE tyranny,” Trump and political violence, and “ICE and the Rule of Men.”  ARI associated writers are even harsher with comparisons of Trump to Hitler and ICE to the Nazis.  Rand of course didn’t opine on Trump and never published anything on immigration (although her one public comment seems supportive of large-scale immigration).  As I’ve said before, to some extent the ARI’s commenting on Trump and issues such as immigration is inevitable.  An Ayn Rand Institute that comments only on her philosophy and political and cultural topics Rand opined upon wouldn’t be particularly interesting.  On the other hand, why doesn’t the ARI ever comment on transgenderism?  One could make a reasonable conclusion of what Rand would have thought about transgenderism given her attitude toward homosexuality and male/female roles (which unlike immigration made it into print).  And even on immigration one could surmise that Rand would support a restrictive (even group based) immigration policy given her views on certain cultures (which borders on the racist).*

* Likewise, in Ayn Rand Answers (if you can trust Robert Mayhew’s editing), Rand said Arabs were practically “savages” and “nomads” and Palestinians had lost all their rights.

-Neil Parille

Objectivist Round-up, February 2026

1. An interesting discussion by an archivist of the Ayn Rand Institute on an abandoned book project by Rand that inspired Atlas Shrugged.

2. The Ayn Rand Fan Club celebrated its 100^th episode with a discussion of the views of prominent ARI spokesmen on ICE and immigration.  It’s funny to watch Yaron Brook constantly change his positions, proclaiming each iteration with exact certitude and almost contempt for what he previously held.  

3. David Kelley is the most prominent Objectivist philosopher outside of ARI Objectivism.  The Atlas Society is now publishing many of his shorter works.  I’ve always wanted to read his A Theory of Abstraction.  Rand’s followers consider her theory of concept formation to be her most seminal achievement.  One criticism is that she presents no proof for her theory (for example, her description of how a child learns to differentiate tables and chairs).  I’ve heard that Kelley does provide some evidence in this book.

Objectivist Round-up, mid-January 2026

1. The Ayn Rand Fan Club interviewed David Harriman.  As long-time readers may recall, Harriman “edited” The Journals of Ayn Rand to such an extent that her journals (as printed)  reflect Randian-Objectivism circa 1960 more than what Rand wrote at the time of her entries.  Unfortunately, that topic didn’t come up during the interview.  (Harriman said a while ago that it was Peikoff who directed the editing.)  Speaking of editing, Harriman confirms that Rand’s editing of Peikoff’s The Ominous Parallels was rather substantial. Rand would return entire chapters to Peikoff, telling him in effect that he had to start over again.

Harriman discusses contemporary physics and cosmology.  Granted, I’m no expert on these things, but his approach seems a bit one-sided.  He attacks the Big Bang Theory as a “creation myth,” duly noting that it was developed by a Catholic priest who was also a physicist.  It’s been a while since I looked into the topic, but my recollection was that the BBT is supported by multiple lines of evidence.  One might think that the “objective” approach to the question would be, in effect, “if it has theistic implications, then so be it.”  Even Harriman concedes that most cosmologists support the BBT and I doubt most would describe themselves as religious, much less creationists.

Harriman also discusses his book The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics which he collaborated on with Peikoff (although Harriman is listed as sole author).  Strangely, he says that the Ayn Rand Institute attacked the book (which he says was otherwise well received).  In fact, two physicists associated with the ARI (John McCaskey and Travis Norsen) criticized the book.  Upon learning of this, the ARI (at Peikoff’s urging) booted McCaskey out (I think Norsen might still be associated with it).

Objectivist Round-up, January 2026

1. A new edition of The Letters of Ayn Rand was just published.  According to the description:

This edition presents the complete transcripts, including more than fifty newly added letters, restored passages previously cut for space, and extensive new commentary by Berliner. Altogether, the added material expands the book by roughly thirty percent.

In her 2009 biography, Goddess of the Market, historian Jennifer Burns revealed that much of the posthumously published by the Archives was so heavily edited as to be essentially worthless.  She did say, however, that the Letters was more or less accurate.

2. The Ayn Rand Institute just published their year end report.  

3. The ARI invited neuroscientist Steven Pinker to the 2026 Objectivist Conference, although it’s been reported that a video of his appearance won’t be made available.  I’m curious why they would invite someone whose best-known book is The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature and holds views of the relationship between intelligence, personality and genetics which most ARI authors would consider “deterministic” if not evil.