Apr 012010

A few weeks ago, I got the following anonymous question on FormSpring:

When you decided to jump ship, for the sake of your career, from a reality-oriented to a Leonard Peikoff-oriented flavor of Objectivism, did you use the wet finger in the air method, or the toss a candy wrapper method?

I had loads of fun writing my reply:

Actually, Paul and I used the time-honored method of paper-sissor-rock. However, we rigged the game. Seriously, who wouldn’t take that offer for a 10-million-dollar-a-year position at Oxford if only I’d switch sides? Leonard offered it to me in a secret meeting in the Alps. He’s very tight with that department, as you must know. It was very hush-hush!

Of course, everything that I wrote about the issues and people was complete bullshit. In fact: David Kelley is a paragon of objectivity, deeply wronged. Ed Hudgins is pure genuis. Nathaniel Branden is nothing but honest. Barbara Branden is fairness and sweetness personified. Chris Sciabarra is honorable to the core. In addition, Objectivism has no fixed nature; it’s whatever the community says. Advocates of anarchism, welfare programs, environmental regulations, drug laws, and even pedophilia are stellar allies in the struggle for liberty. And Marxist professors… bless their hearts. They mean well, and that’s good enough for me.

So sure, I made up everything. But I had to cover my tracks! It’s really too bad that you’ve exposed me. I’d better unpack my bags for England. I’ll have to sell the Lexus too, as I’m sure the Leonard will want his “signing bonus” money back. Damn.

You’re totally right to ignore everything that I wrote on these topics. I didn’t mean any of it. Seriously, why bother even considering arguments, when you know my true reasons?!? Facts, schmacts! You’ve seen into my greedy little soul!

Need I say it? Oh sure… NOT.

Whoever you are, you’re so pathetic that you’re actually funny. Thanks for the laugh

(Thanks to Jimmy Wales for suggesting that I post it on April Fool’s Day.)

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha