Over the next two weeks, I’ll be publishing a small flurry of posts on the various pretend-friends-but-actual-enemies of Objectivism, including Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, David Kelley, The Objectivist Center, SOLO, and so on. Not to worry, I’m not in the grip of some terrible obsession. Quite the contrary, in fact: I’d like to finally lay these matters to rest. Before I can do that, however, I have a few more observations to post. (In fact, most are already done, just waiting patiently in the queue.)

Now does seem to be a good time to wrap up my discussions of these once-consuming issues. Quite a bit of time has passed since my disassociation from David Kelley’s Objectivist Center (almost a year and a half) and since my condemnation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden (almost a year). In both cases, my actual decision proceeded the public announcement by weeks, if not months. Way back then, I’d hoped to write up a long commentary on Kelley’s substantial philosophic departures from Objectivism in both theory and practice. That turned out to be impossible, in part due to the pressing demands of graduate school, in part due to the substantial evolution of my own views in those early months.

Nonetheless, I do think that the multitude of shorter posts to NoodleFood has brought more than enough evidence to light concerning TOC’s rejection the core principles of Objectivism, in both word and deed. Those who choose to sanction, support, and promote TOC despite all that must now enjoy exactly the sort of pretend-Objectivist organization they truly want. Personally, I’ve grown weary of swatting down the slow and ponderous flies published by The Objectivist Center. Its pattern of philosophical betrayal has clearly been established: my pointing out one or two or ten or twenty more examples would serve no worthy purpose.

I do still plan on writing up analyses of the critical arguments in David Kelley’s Truth and Toleration. Yet my purpose in doing so will be to ensure that I fully understand the depth of his errors, not to illuminate them to others. So I’ll get around to writing those when and as my schedule permits. As for Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, I’ll be posting a fair bit of commentary on them in the upcoming flurry. After that, I don’t expect to say much more.

Those disturbed by TOC’s trajectory but not yet convinced of its philosophic corruption should not passively wait for me to reveal all, plain and clear. That’s not going to happen; that could not happen. If you are such a person, you need to take the initiative, as I did two years ago: Reacquaint yourself with the principles of Objectivism by seriously studying Ayn Rand’s writings. Cultivate your skills of straight reading and philosophical detection. Perhaps listen to some of Leonard Peikoff’s major lecture courses. Then carefully reconsider the philosophic foundation of The Objectivist Center laid down by David Kelley in “A Question of Sanction” and Truth and Toleration.

Of course, I’m not completely closing down my anti-anti-Objectivism shop. I’ll surely post on these matters on occasion, as I see fit. I’m also happy to answer e-mail inquiries. (In fact, I would very much prefer that people ask me directly, rather than speculating and wondering and supposing.)

In short, my past association with false advocates of Objectivism and pretend friends of Ayn Rand is no longer a live issue for me. It’s history. I want to clearly set my sights on the future. I want NoodleFood to reflect all that — and so it shall, once this temporary blizzard of posts dies down. Until then, brace yourself!