One of Perigo’s topics will be “Objectivism’s Worst Enemy: Objectivists”—a topic about which he should be an expert, since he is a peculiarly sickening example.  (Probably the best example.)

If I did not already consider The Atlas Society unprincipled and detrimental to the future of Objectivism, this would be sufficient evidence for refusing any further support.  It is hard to believe that David Kelley would stoop to this level.  I am utterly astonished.  This is not only a direct slap in the faces of Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden, who have given TAS major credibility through their past appearances.  It is an affront to minimally acceptable standards of human decency, which Perigo typically flaunts, claiming Randesque prerogative.

James Valiant (erstwhile Branden character assassin and Perigo bosom buddy) must be sifting through his mail, wondering what could have happened to his invitation.

I am reminded of what Ayn Rand said about Lyndon Johnson (I am obviously paraphrasing here): An organization that tries to be all things to all people, ends up being nothing to anyone.

Even if I accepted your characterization of Perigo, which I don't, wouldn't that be subjectivism?

Although intrinsicism and subjectivism are obviously distinct, both tend to co-exist in the typical mystic’s mentality.  I regard Perigo’s approach to Objectivism as ultimately mystical—i.e., based more on emotion than thinking.

“…Philosophically, the mystic is usually an exponent of the intrinsic (revealed) school of epistemology….But, psychologically, the mystic is a subjectivist who uses intrinsicism as a means to claim the primacy of his consciousness over that of others…”

 (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 79)

From an ethical perspective, Perigo is an advocate of the Intrinsic Theory of the Good— the good is inherent in certain things as such, regardless of context and consequences (i.e., his deplorable behavior).