Have a hug. Read Atlas Shrugged.

Leonard Peikoff disgusted by Mikko Ellila’s racist obnoxious ideas

Ayn Rand’s intellectual and legal heir, and founder of the Ayn Rand Institute,Dr Leonard Peikoff has nowremoved the two letters by Mikko Ellila (click here for my archived screen shot) which he had posted on his website several weeks ago and replaced them with a note expressing his disgust.

Writes, Dr Peikoff (emphasis added by me) …

Posted August 8, 2007

“Since posting the two letters I received from a Finnish correspondent, I have been directed to an article this individual wrote, which includes explicitly many obnoxious ideas, including racism and determinism. I have, accordingly, removed the letters from the website, and regret that I was taken in by them.

Although a government has no right to censor such ideas, I have the right to refuse to sanction their author.”

— Leonard Peikoff

Yes, it was me who drew Dr Peikoff’s attentionto Mikko Ellila’s article Society Consists of People– the very same article which Mikko omitted to mention to Dr Peikoff when writing to complain to him about his persecution by the other Mikko of Finnish Thought Police fame.

Does it matter that Mikko omitted pointing to that article? Well, yes, since it was precisely that article which the Other Mikko was concerned about.

The very same article for which I disabled Mikko’s THINKER TO THINKER blog.

I note that many other bloggers were – to use Leonard Peikoff’s words – “taken in” by Mikko and, assuming the best of him, stood up for his right to free speech when he contacted us regarding the Finnish authorities’ attack on his right to free speech.

However, how many of those same bloggers suddenlywent all quiet once the truth about Mikko Ellila came out? Once they discovered what he wasreally on about?

In contrast, on this blog I have not and will not merely go quiet. Instead I have continued to relentlessly pursue this issue (check discussions here and here) – with a lot of greatly appreciated help from individuals such as Finnish human rights activist, Jussi K. Niemelä.

Mikko Ellila had proudly provided a copy of his letter to Leonard Peikoff on his now disabled blog at MikkoEllila.ThinkerToThinker.com– shortly before it was disabled by me.

Now all that remains on the THINKER TO THINKERserver is the preserved corpse of a racialist. And on Leonard Peikoff’s site?

Not even the cinders of a cremation.

Report This Post


  1. Strider

    Hi Prodos

    Your good work is commendable, although I can’t help but think that Mikko is relishing all this attention. After all, until the Finnish authorities started threatening to repress him, he was just an embittered and probably somewhat disturbed person without any audience, and now he is an internet celebrity.

    Whilst not a fan of Leonard Peikoff, it is good to see that he has done the sensible thing – albeit with some help.

    Report This Comment


    Thanks for your comment Strider.

    I can

    Report This Comment

  3. The Naked Lunch

    “The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” -Ayn Rand

    This is so pathetic. It was one article among many on his blog. You don’t seem to care whether his ideas are factual or not. You are instead interested in whether they are “right” or “wrong”. There’s a huge difference.

    Facts are not always nice. Basically you attack his ideas for being “wrong” instead of being “false”.

    In doing so you advocate the marxist idea of a blank slate. I’m sure Ayn Rand would approve – not.

    And you are too proud to ever admit that you don’t know what you are talking about re: evolution. It’s enough that his ideas are wrong, even if they are factual, it doesn’t seem to matter to you.

    Many of the thinkers you give as your inspirations were racialists, and lived in an era when majority of the people were racialists and worse.

    You share the socialist thirst for right ideas, instead of factual ideas.

    I would like to see you even attempt to argue why this wouldn’t be so.

    Report This Comment

  4. Jussi K. Niemel

    It happens to be that Ellil

    Report This Comment

  5. The Naked Lunch

    Now that’s something I agree with. Ellila’s article was (not completely, but to sum it up) rubbish. I think the problem is that he is not very good at reasoning (ok he’s better than most people, but relatively), does not have eye for complexity, and makes too many short cuts. I don’t either (again, to sum it up) agree with his conclusions, and I don’t think those are very logical follow-ups. He tries to masquerade his ideological views as some sort of de facto rational conclusions. Personally I do believe that culture is more important, especially for morality. Although it should be noted that intelligence and morality are not separate. It’s true that intelligence does not make anyone a moral person, and can help someone to be a seriously destructive ciminal, but this does not falsify the fact that higher intelligence results (in general) in improved ability in self-perception and weighting the consequences of one’s actions.

    Whether aggression, capacity to feel empathy and so forth could also be hereditary traits, and recognizable in larger populations it’s very difficult to say, and nearly impossible to study in any meaningful way. But it is possible, and not illogical in light of evolution and other species.

    Nevertheless, an article being rubbish is no reason for censorship. Mikko’s article was rubbish, and Prodos’ reply (the 50 page one) to Mikko’s article was (to sum it up) rubbish. Both start with a pre-conception, and refuse to share any middle ground. Polarised viewpoints are common place, but seldomly very fruitful or reasoned.

    If we forget for a second that Prodos has power, and Mikko does not.. the argument for censoring the other, and underlining the other was not how rubbish their respective arguments were, or which of the ideologues in their pre-concieved reasoning stayed closer to factuality (which in itself is largely unknown and speculative), but the core issue that Mikko’s views were wrong (morally) and Prodos’ views were right (morally).

    It is a restriction on free debate that I strongly oppose. Facts don’t ask our moral approval, the facts either are or they are not or they are and are not (which is one basic detail many people refuse to grasp). If people start concieving “final solutions” on the basis of such presumed facts, then you may have a case for censorship, but not earlier. Mikko did not present any such far reaching conclusions. Basically to sum it up quickly (and to leave a few bits out, I know) he said that the negroids are dumber than us, and it is because of the genes, which I personally think is a strongly supported part truth, culture, nutrition and lack of education (on many levels) completing the picture. Viewpoints on such questions – between presumably intelligent people – should not be considered moral debates.

    This is why I think that here a classical liberal should feel more concerned about Prodos’ actions, than those of Mikko.

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

© 2020 the PRODOS blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog