Foreword—Preliminary Comments

Is Objectivism really being “hijacked?” If so, by whom, and for what purpose?

I picked the word, “hijacking,” for my title because it is more interesting than, New Mistakes in Objectivism, or, A Wrong Direction for Objectivism, or anything equally insipid, and because it is an apt metaphor, but only a metaphor.

“Hijacking,” is usually reserved for a crime, in the literal sense. I do not mean it that way. The insipid titles would probably be more accurate. The hijacking I refer to is a mistake and a wrong direction, not an intentional deception or corruption of Objectivism.

As for who is doing it, I suppose there are more involved than I could possibly know. However, I do name at least three who either identify themselves as parties to the, “crime,” or are identified with it by the philosophical position they take. In fairness, I must say something about those three: Damian Moskovitz, Lindsay Perigo, and Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Ph.D.

I only know Damian Moskovitz is a graduate of Harvard University and has been a writer for the Objectivist Center since 2001. A review of what he has written confirms he is a staunch defender of Objectivist principles.

I know Lindsay Perigo, not personally, but in a more intimate way, having followed and enjoyed (through Internet postings) his Politically Incorrect Show, broadcast on Radio Pacific from New Zealand. These interesting programs ended in August 2001, but are archived, and still a wonderful read for any Objectivist or libertarian. Lindsay is editor of The Free Radical, a bimonthly magazine dedicated to individual liberty based on Objectivist principles; founder of SOLO (Sense Of Life Objectivists); and an associate of Libertarianz, the New Zealand, very Objectivist oriented, libertarian party.

Until recently, I knew Dr. Sciabarra only through his books and publications, of which Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical may be his most famous, which certainly established him as a first-class researcher and advocate of Objectivism.

While I have been very critical of these Objectivists in this book, the criticism is very specific and pertains only to one issue, the one they have raised. They argue strongly for their views in this matter, as anyone ought to when they believe their position is right. I have argued strongly as well. Some of my comments may be considered unkind or overly-critical. I am not aiming at kindness but at unambiguous clarity.

I emphasize these specific criticisms must not be construed as criticisms of the character or sincerity of any of these men or a repudiation of their positive contributions to the advancement of Objectivism as a philosophy. I am not indicting individuals, only some of their ideas; I am not impugning persons, only some of the views they advance.

Who Is This For?

It is primarily for Objectivists. Particularly, it is for those Objectivists who are wondering when Objectivism became allied with homosexuality and the promotion of that behavior as both normal and moral. That Objectivism could actually embrace the confusion which is homosexuality and all that those practices mean, socially and in the lives of individuals, is bewildering to many Objectivists.

For those Objectivists, the purpose of this book is to assure them, Objectivism had nothing to do with this, it is Objectivism hijacked, not Objectivism as Ayn Rand wrote it.

It is also written to encourage those who have been intimidated by the smearing accusations and innuendo, that implies to question the normality or morality of homosexuality or point out its self-destructive nature is “homophobic” or “abusive”. It is not abusive to tell the truth, it is not a phobia to oppose what one sees as irrational, abnormal, or immoral. It is not, “ignorance,” to see through all the psychobable and passion-trumps-reason rationalization of this movement’s propaganda.

No one can change anyone else, nor is there an objective reason to do so. Everyone is responsible for their own life and choices, and everyone must be free to make those choices without threat of coercion or abuse of any kind. But no one is required to listen to what they know is not true without speaking up if they choose. No one is required to pretend what is evil is good, what is false is true, or what is harmful is beneficial. A very large part of this movement is meant to intimidate and “shut-up” those who disagree with it.

It is also for anyone interested in how Objectivist principles really do apply to such personal choices as one’s sexual behavior. Objectivism, as a philosophy, does not address such personal choices directly, but it does establish the objective moral principles by which all of one’s personal choices must be guided.

It is specifically for those who are familiar with Objectivism, but anyone with clear objective moral values and an interest in cultural and moral issues, especially what is known today as the, “homosexual agenda,” will find this book valuable.

—Reginald Firehammer