Why is it necessary to make sense of Craig Biddle?
- Because Craig Biddle is teaching young people about morality and how to live while misrepresenting Objectivism. He encourages a callous immorality that passes for superior conviction.
- Because I promoted Craig publicly for many years, and I owe an explanation of where I was wrong.
- Because I was Craig’s exclusive financial supporter for nearly twenty years. I poured millions into his work, including The Objective Standard, paid off his credit cards and other debts, and covered his basic living necessities. I funded the creation and six year’s continuation of Objective Standard Institute (OSI) and its programs. It would not exist without me and without my continuing support and loyalty. But why did I stay loyal and supportive all those years?
- Because Craig’s seizure of approximately $9 million and his continuing wild spending of it are staggering, and this is putting potentially innocent young people in harm’s way. The court will hold him and Sarah accountable, but those benefiting from this spending spree may be morally culpable too.
“Craig Biddle? Surely Not.”
When I tell people Craig is stealing the $9 million he agreed to “hold in trust,” their first response is often disbelief. Privately, people have responded to my blogs with profound dismay.
“Craig Biddle? No, not Craig. He wouldn’t do that.”
I understand. I have had much the same response myself. I still find it hard to believe. More than once during the years I supported him, something would happen that did not fit the man I thought I knew. Challenged, Craig argued well and had an “explanation” for everything. I would listen, remember his abilities and our shared purposes, and give him the benefit of the doubt.
Craig is intelligent, articulate, and capable of considerable charm. Those qualities are real… or are they a mask? Now, when the mask is off, I see malice and hate, artfully hidden.
How could anyone speak so persuasively about virtue while violating so many Objectivist principles and treating people and their property so unethically? And how did I misjudge him for so long?
To begin to answer these questions, I’ll start at the beginning.
The Man I Thought I Knew
I first met Craig at an Objectivist conference. He was a capable teacher: clear, confident, and engaging. He appeared clean-cut and benevolent.
Then I became acquainted with The Objective Standard. Prominent Objectivist intellectuals were writing for it, and it enjoyed support within the Objectivist community. I believed it was precisely the kind of substantial journal Objectivism needed.
When Craig asked me for support, I offered $100,000 to market the journal and establish it firmly in the world. I wanted it to reach a serious audience and grow. Craig was delighted, and the efforts began to show promise.
Then he self-destructed, causing years of distress for himself and his wife.
The First Warning
In October 2010, during the controversy involving John McCaskey and Leonard Peikoff, Craig published “Justice for John P. McCaskey,” condemning Peikoff’s treatment of McCaskey as unjust.
Leonard Peikoff is Objectivism’s revered master teacher and its most knowledgeable philosopher. He was the man who taught Craig Biddle philosophy. Yet Craig was now publicly condemning him in a nasty attack. It was a betrayal.
I was then serving on ARI’s board of directors and knew circumstances that Craig did not. I told him emphatically that he did not know the facts of the matter. I urged him not to publish. As I recall, Bradley Thompson, Richard Salsman, Andrew Bernstein, and others also advised him against it.
No one stands above criticism. But Craig was preparing to pronounce a moral judgment without the facts needed to justify it. What’s more, he admitted to me that he didn’t have the facts. He complained that LP had not replied to his email asking for the facts.
Regardless, he went ahead.
His statement was polished but philosophically unsound, presumptuous, and self-destructive. Its language gave an unwarranted judgment the appearance of moral certainty. Craig could have written a respectful, even benevolent post, showing proper respect for Dr. Peikoff. Instead, his post was essentially malevolent.
ARI shunned him, canceled his speaking engagements, and refused further involvement with him. Much of the Objectivist community also shunned him. Writers withdrew from the journal, leaving him in a bind.
Some people, including Richard Salsman and Andrew Bernstein, remained loyal.
Years later, I defended Craig and worked to repair his relationship with ARI. That belongs in this account too. I cannot explain my misjudgment honestly by passing over the years in which I helped sustain it.
Looking back, I recognize a question I should have pursued: was Craig reasoning his way toward a judgment, or using his writing and speaking ability to rationalize and defend judgments he had already decided to reach?
Why This Matters Now
My concern goes beyond Craig’s betrayal and the theft of $9 million. I’m concerned about the advice and coaching he gives younger people who trust his understanding of Objectivism. (Please get your information regarding Objectivism from Miss Rand and Dr. Peikoff, not Craig’s interpretations and spins.)
I do not ask readers to accept my conclusions; I will present more facts, documents, and Craig’s own words so that readers can judge for themselves.
Facing these facts may be especially difficult for those who are being supported, directly or indirectly, with stolen funds. But financial dependence does not excuse evasion. They, too, must be willing to examine the evidence.
I appreciate the many private responses from friends in the Prometheus Network and Objectivist community who are appalled by Craig’s behavior.
In the post ahead, I will trace the years of support and the warnings I overlooked that brought us here. I will present the facts and the documents. Examine the evidence and judge for yourselves. That’s what Objectivists do.
Carl Barney
Sep. 13, 2026
