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.  

2025 Year in Review

1.  The big story in 2025 was the continuing controversy over the situation between Leonard Peikoff and his daughter Kira.  In 2024, Kira filed a conservatorship action against Leonard arguing that he was so mentally impaired that he was not competent to make decisions.  She dropped the action toward the end of 2024 stating that her relationship with her father was so strained that continuing the case would be pointless.  This generated a fair amount of discussion on the internet and even an article in The Atlantic about the matter.  It doesn’t appear that the two have reconciled.

Objectivist Round-up, December 2025

1. Objectivist historian C. Bradley Thompson wrote and interesting article in which he argued that Marxism is a kind of Christian heresy.  The similarities between these two ideologies have been noted occasionally, even by Christians.  But the same thing could be said about Objectivism.  A while ago I wrote an essay comparing ARI-style Objectivism and religion.   One thing that has occurred to me over the years is that just as there is the phenomenon of six degrees of separation between people, there is a similar concept at work with ideologies.  It’s easy to find parallels, but that doesn’t mean there is a direct line of influence.  Anthropologists have for example found similarities between Native American religions and the religions of Australian Aborigines although direct influence is virtually impossible.

Yaron Brook Challenges Peikoff by Neil Parille

Recently, Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) Chairman of the Board Yaron Brook decided to “unload” on fellow Objectivists Andrew Bernstein, David Harriman, and (to a lesser extent) Leonard Peikoff.  This was surprising for a couple of reasons.  First, Brook has said over the years that he doesn’t want to comment on specific Objectivists.  Second, Leonard Peikoff is 92 and the status of his estate (and Rand’s papers most importantly) might still be up in the air.

What prompted this tirade was a question about Andrew Bernstein’s recent essay on President Trump, where he argued that Trump was a hero.  Brook said that, on the contrary, Trump is a horrible president and may be the worst president in American history.  Not only that, but he’s also a flat out “villain,” hates the United States, and says Bernstein’s piece is “B.S.” (he didn’t use the abbreviation).  However, he went on to say that Trump is supportive of business and businessmen.  In addition, he says that Trump – for whatever his flaws – speaks his mind and doesn’t care what people think about him.  However, the few topics he mentioned was Trump’s support for tariffs and attacking drug dealers.  At the end of the day, it looks like what is driving Brook is that Trump is an anti-intellectual populist.