Interesting Links on Obleftivism

Grant Jones's picture
Submitted by Grant Jones on Fri, 2017-06-23 18:33

My recent essay on why Ayn Rand would have nothing to do with ARI.

http://militaryreviews.blogspo...

Right after finishing that essay, reality provided me with some more footnotes - as it usually does.

ARI has joined with the "hippies of the right": "Featuring Onkar Ghate, Senior Fellow, Ayn Rand Institute; Sarah Skwire, Senior Fellow, Liberty Fund and Literary Editor, FEE.org; and Cathy Young, Author, Growing Up in Moscow and Columnist, Newsday and Reason; moderated by Caleb O. Brown, Director of Multimedia, Cato Institute."

https://www.cato.org/events/ay...

Funny. I remember a prominent Objectivist scholar getting excommunicated for much less.

https://ari.aynrand.org/issues...


Neil

Brant Gaede's picture

He wasn't a "fan boy" but a married man. Half her age is correct.

The artificial matrix of the affair was maintained by the principals' silence. Without that silence it's doubtful it would have happened. So they--especially Rand--made a choice and effectively imposed it. It was the choice of an incredibly powerful woman. She needed all that power to write AS and I think--I do not know--the affair powered her up even more.

The rest is history.

--Brant

Greg

Neil Parille's picture

What wrath? An angry old lady trying to defend an affair with a fan boy half her age? Rand would have nothing to gain by engaging in a dispute with the Brandens.

Brant

gregster's picture

I don't think it's whether Rand would have replied to the biographies but more the writers did not want to risk her wrath if she had had the chance. Your knowledge of the times is appreciated as always.

Brant

gregster's picture

Haha, good one good soldier.

1980

Brant Gaede's picture

1980 rings truer than '81. I could be wrong.

In late 1981 Rand took that rr trip to New Orleans from which she never recovered. She did manage to write her last Ford Hall Forum address which was delivered by Leonard in the spring of 1982 after her burial, which I attended--the burial, not his FHF.

I went to my first FHF in the fall of 1968 (after the break). I drove through Stony Creek, CT on my way to Boston. It was early in the morning and I drove way out to the end of the community near the water of Long Island Sound. There, on a mailbox, was the name, "Rand." I have never figured that one out. (Stony Creek was where Rand got the idea for the climax of "The Fountainhead" while Frank was doing summer stock theater in the late 1930s.)

I went for about six consecutive years. I knew someone who worked in her office in the early 1970s. They all got on a bus--Rand included--and got to Boston at least that one year that way. There was a threatened bus strike. The group wondered out loud how they'd get back to NYC if that happened. Ayn suggested they could hitchhike and she'd show some leg to get the driver to stop. (That would have been a la "It Happened One Night." Ayn Rand had beautiful legs.)

--Brant

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

So Barbara met Rand in 81 and Rand died in 82.

The idea that Barbara waited until Rand was dead is silly.

Why not wait until 83 ?

died

Brant Gaede's picture

Rand died in 1982. Barbara was still researching the biography which came out in 1986. "Judgment Day" was published in 1989.

--Brant

Time to Publish

Neil Parille's picture

Does anyone know that Barbara finished the book well before Rand died?

In any event, as Brant said it isn't like Rand was going to respond or that Barbara was worried about her response.

Also, Randroids say Rand would have sued. But Rand was old and libel suits take forever. Also, there is nothing defamatory in PAR as anyone who has read the Heller and Burns biographies knows.

time to publish

Brant Gaede's picture

Greg. I don't think either Branden waited for Rand to die before publishing. I do think Nathaniel waited for Barbara, but that's a speculation. There was only so much time to do these books. Regardless, Rand wouldn't have replied, of this I'm fairly certain. Devers Branden even thought Rand wasn't going to let herself live long enough to be exposed to PAR and the reveal of the affair she had had with NB. That contradicts medical science and the effect of willfulness on a body with a questionable heart. It was possibly true, but all that smoking and congestive heart failure and you're unlikely to make it to 80. (I was once a Special Forces Aidman so I know more than most about medicine and health.)

--Brant

?

Brant Gaede's picture

I'm inclined somewhat to believe Cynthia, but not Ayn about her estimation of Barbara. It's merely a matter of Ayn and her privacy issues. For instance, her affair with Nathaniel wasn't yet in the public weal.

"The Passion of Ayn Rand" was a combination of literature and biography with the break of '68 the climax of Ayn's life and story. I think it was a proper biographical structure. Similarly, "Atlas Shrugged" was a combination of literature and philosophy. I wouldn't think it fair or possible to do them differently.

PAR of course, was also a memoir. It had to be for Barbara's witnessing of Ayn for 18 years. As Ayn's first biography, it did the necessary job of humanizing her enough for general understanding of her and her times.

I saw all these principal players pre and post 1968 break in action, mostly in NYC, giving me enough data to know that I know what I am talking about. Some things about some people I don't talk about, at least not now. (Not to say it's significant, only that it's personal.)

--Brant

Greg

Neil Parille's picture

I think the people in 100 voices said what they are quoted as (roughly). But I think that there should be some skepticism as to whether the former Mrs. Peikoff has been quoted accutratly. You know what the Archives have done, don;t you?

Neil

gregster's picture

It is likely Cynthia is telling the truth because as we know Filthess Branden waited until Rand's death to publish.

That you cite yourself as a person who calls into question the 100 Voices book is not evidence. There will have been some editing, but editing is not "rewriting."

Greg

Neil Parille's picture

"If you look at her book and listen to what I just told you, they’re two separate and opposite accounts. When she met with her, Barbara did not mention to Ayn that she was writing a biography."

How do you know Cnthia is telling the truth as opposed o Barbara?

This is an edited collection of interviews whose content has been called into questiom. I'm not accsing Cynthia of lying but many contibutors to 100 Voices have said their interviews are not accurte.

Neil

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You're not drinking enough!

Gweg

Neil Parille's picture

Sorry but there us nothng in the Brns or Heller books that undermine Barbara's biography of Rand. Sorry you can't deal with it. Just because I am a "huamanity diminsiher" doesn't mean anything looser.

I'll save you some effort Grant..

gregster's picture

Neil repeatedly, inexplicably, and inordinately supports The Filth known as The Brandens. His motivation is the old chestnut "hatred of the good for being the good," his self-admitted humanity diminution. That he also repeats that Heller and Burns' biographies support Branden's book is also obvious in the case of Heller, and not so much for the much better work of Burns. Branden's biography has been repudiated rather than validated, and in saying this Neil is lying to himself. I am posting this for newbies who may be puzzled when comments such as Neil's appear unquestioned.

Did she ever discuss the Brandens with you?

Around 1981 Barbara Branden, out of the blue, sent Ayn a friendly letter stating that after all those years she’d like to see her. Ayn said to me, “Well, I wonder what this is about now. I think I’ll meet her and see what’s on her mind. See what she’s like.” So she had her up to her apartment. I believe they were alone for lunch or discussion and then Barbara left. I went over to her apartment the next day and was anxious to know how it went. Ayn said, “Not much. There’s nothing special here. And there was not anything special that she wanted.” I don’t remember the words exactly, but the feeling was that Barbara was a disappointment. She didn’t turn out to be much of anything.

A day or two later, I brought up the mail from Ayn’s box downstairs, and there was a letter from Barbara neatly written and formulated with one intention. It stated that she was writing a biography of Ayn and that the past was past. Would she consider contributing to it? And that Barbara was going to go ahead with it anyway. She put in the sentence that it was very good to have met with her on that day and put the exact date. Ayn read the letter and she looked up at me and she said, “That’s what this is about.” When you’re writing a book about someone, there’s an old trick in which you meet the person, and then you write them the letter, “I’m glad we met on such a date,” so that in your book, you can state that you actually met the person, and it looks as though the person gave you their sanction to meet with them. It gives legitimacy to the meeting and the book, and so that’s what this meeting was about.

Did Miss Rand say anything else about that?

She was disgusted with it. She didn’t care about this forthcoming biography at all. She just shrugged. Believe it or not, it didn’t pass through her consciousness for very long. When Barbara Branden’s book came out, I looked at the index to find the reference to that meeting, and Branden had made up a story that hadn’t happened. If you look at her book and listen to what I just told you, they’re two separate and opposite accounts. When she met with her, Barbara did not mention to Ayn that she was writing a biography.

Cynthia Peikoff, 13 January 2000. 100 Voices, Scott McConnell, p. 554-555

Grant

Neil Parille's picture

Observe that Peikoff booted out Kelley because he supported Barbara Branden's biography of Rand (which has been validated by the Burns and Heller biographies) and for speaking at Laissez Fayre Books.

Note the "Ayn Rand" Institute is in bed with people who support an immigration policy that would turn the USA into a third world country and Europe Islamic.

What's the response from Schwartz and Peikoff? Blank out.

O'ism continues its move left

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

FEE gives off a strong left-libertarian vibe. They have a knee-jerk response against anything that hints at pro-white racial awareness; ie IQ, anti-immigration, wariness of diversity, etc. So I'm not surprised that ARI would make this alliance (as opposed to aligning with the Mises U or Lew Rockwell group). It seems that as the Left gets stronger and the culture becomes deluged with Cultural Marxism, the Objectivist movement is aligning itself with that leftist movement. To me it seems that they are doing this to specifically oppose the growing nationalist, cultural right movement that is developing on the new right (ie alt-right). This will mean total destruction for the Objectivist movement. Rand will be swallowed up the Leftists she fought against.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.