BREAKING NEWS

It has been reported that an ARI-affiliated intellectual by the name of David Kelley has produced a theory of "Objectivist to non-Objectivist engagement" which, despite the words or actions of some of the members of the non-Objectivist groups being engaged, summarizes their overall character (and most specifically their psycho-epistemology) as being essentially, implicitly Objectivist - and thus making these individuals promising candidates for a conversion into explicit Objectivists.

It has also been reported than ARI founder Leonard Peikoff, in reaction to Kelley's theory, has indicated that he did not and could not support Kelley's theory or resultant behavior. His stated reason was that Kelley's theory overlooked documented, undenied statements by particular members of this targeted non-Objectivist group which directly conflicted with fundamental tenants of Objectivism.

A power struggle is currently ensuing, with Kelley taking the position that while it is true that the historical record shows this group's explicit philosophy to be in direct conflict with Objectivism, the way these people conduct themselves suggest that they do not actually follow said philosophy and it is not what guides their actions or shapes their conclusions about less fundamental philosophical or completely non-philosophical topics. Peikoff, on the other hand, is insisting that these statements and ideas which directly contradict fundamental elements of Objectivism cannot be ignored - and that to do so would be non-Objective; thus putting the Objectivist philosophy not only in danger of being conflated with this group's explicit philosophy, but also possibly causing many current Objectivists to lose their psycho-epistemological grasp upon Objectivity (namely, never ignoring all of the facts).

Furthermore, as developments in this conflict between Kelley and Peikoff have continued to surface, it has only been revealed that Kelley belives that his theory for "Objectivist to non-Objectivist engagement" is a part of Objectivism per se, and should properly be considered such by the ARI. In response, Peikoff has claimed that nothing which is produced by anyone other than Ayn Rand herself can properly be considered part of Objectivism. The result of this subsequent, yet related point of contention is expected to result in an official position being adopted by ARI which reflects Peikoff's position - thus making it impossible for anyone in the future to claim that disagreement with the work of an Objectivist intellectual who is not Ayn Rand herself constitutes disagreement with, or a lack of understanding of, Objectivism.