In reference to James' 09/15 response to me, I will refer anyone interested in seeing how the issue of who is "really" an Objectivist is used in place of argument to the current thread on Biddle & killing muslims as such posted by Jeff Coates. If anyone cares to question my statements below (which I stand by) on this thread I will clarify them. But I feel that it will be more rewarding for me to concentrate on posting about external topics (such as writing book reviews) rather than engage in internal dialog.

Ted

I'm BAAACK (had to change ISP's because the one I was on screwed up badly and left me net-dead for 2 weeks)
Sorry I missed all the "fun" (grin)

1. Mr. Valiant:
No, to be sure, there's nothing "wrong" with a historian devoting time to researching an obscure point. However, it's a big stretch from that to the assertion that I'm seeing here in this thread that PARC was some sort of "justice" or "integrity" issue.
Nor, it seems, is it explicitly about objectivity, either.

You -- and others -- have stated explicitly that the mission of PARC was "defending" Rand against misrepresentations and slanders. Newsflash: the woman's DEAD. You already admitted that she -- being human -- could (and did) make bad choices. Then you go and accuse me -- and others who happen to kinda sorta almost maybe have said something vaguely similar to what I did -- of wanting to scrape the Brandens' evils under the rug. No. I can only speak for myself here and -- to be quite blunt -- it's an issue of integrity for me not to:

If you recall (which many of you conveniently didn't) I said PARC wasn't going to change minds IN AND OF ITSELF. If those of you who were "swung" by it hadn't been at least partially open to the idea of a book "defending" Ayn Rand -- and not coincidentally bolstering the "wuperwoman" image -- you wouldn't have even read the thing. Or are you going to say that -- purely in the interest of Objectivity and loyalty to the facts -- you would read Ken Kesey's "electric cool-aid acid test" book, and/or try lsd? I mean, hey ---

The whole problem -- not with PARC neccesarily, but with the principle behind it -- is that, like it or not, there are many Objectivists with a very definite emotional -- could even say visceral -- reaction to the topic of the Brandens. It's NOT just a subject of historical curiosity. It's explicitly premised on "debunking" B.B.'s and N.B.'s books (which is fine in and of itself AS a historical matter) but what exactly does it add to the "future of Objectivism"?

Nothing. What was Frank O'Connor's favorite beer? Did Ayn Rand's hairdresser habitually use too little hairspray on Rand (as was mentioned in "Ayn Rand Answers") or not? There's a LOT of historical curiousities like that in Objectivist history, but none of them qualify as essential.

The really suspicious thing that nobody wants to talk about is why N.B.'s essays were left in the canonical texts of Objectivism. If he was so villainously, hypocritically evil from the beginning (as the Pro-PARC faction seems to want to portray), then why leave the works of such a pathetic hypicritical shill/saboteur in the books? Why not ALTER the books? I mean, hey, it's not like Rand's books were't altered in other instances. ("ARt and cognition" was added to later editions of the Romantic Manifesto, for one.) It would have been REALLY easy for Rand to explicity require Branden's stuff to be struck from all future product; After all, "in a contest between food and poison, only death can win".

If he's as much of a scumbag as the "defenders" of Rand want to portray, then why leave his early works intact to "infest" later generations? I mean, hey, if his works were tainted, then they should by all rights have been struck from future printings at the time of the break. But they WEREN'T.

WHY?

Now, another problem is that the idea of "defending" Ayn Rand is as ludicrous as attacking her. We know that she was human, and did stupid things. We (above all else) should know not to attempt to ascribe omniscience of omnipotence of any other such quality to anybody else. But what do we get? We get an entire faction of the "movement" who feel it neccesary to relive the NBI fiasco over and over and over, like some sort of shellshock flashback.

I say it's time for the Objectivist movement to grow up and -- unlike scientology, for instance -- stop viewing it's "founder" as a surrogate parent-figure. The whole thing reminds me of a bunch of teenagers debating over whether their parents still have sex or not.

Oh, and Mr. Valliant -- the "emmy-winning movie"? I hope you're not refering to PAR? That thing was awful (despite Bidinotto's slobbering praise). Bad softcore porn with the soundtrack to match.

James,

I appreciate all the positive assertions in your response to me, and have no objection to the form of those arguments which I cannot endorse without further discussion. Frankly, I was surprised and happy to be able to do so. I am too tired at the end of a long work week to respond at length at this moment, but wished to thank you for your respectful consideration and good faith. I shall consider how to respond to your final question, given that "naming names" is something I find distasteful, and inconsistent with my stated positions below.

Ted

I agree with the basic principles of Objectivism in regard to the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics.

--Brant

The on-going pursuit of objectivity is what Objectivism is all about. It is not threatened by new discoveries -- even in philosophy. Disagreement with some position of Rand's does not yet imply disagreement with her philosophy. Appreciating cigarettes is not part of Objectivism. So, unless you think that objectivity requires abandoning some fundamental aspect of her philosophy, I don't understand the distinction. The movement of a baseball thrown on earth does not obey rules made by Newton, only discovered by him -- but it is still governed by "Newtonian physics," despite the many new insights in physics over the last three centuries...

There is no Objectivist movement because there is no generally extant Objectivist philosophy. There is so far only the personal philosophy of Ayn Rand--a museum piece--called "Objectivism," which merely plays lip service to the concept of objectivity. This is proved by the fact that its orthodox advocates (ARI) state that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand and all that came after not endorsed by her are no more than derivative or explanations, but not additions or modifications as such. As I stated elsewhere, Objectivism is reality + reason = objectification. Rational egoism, for example, as the foundation for ethics seems okay as far as it goes, but human beings, social creatures all to varying extents, are much too complicated to be subsumed by a principle. Objectivism is undeveloped and controversial but it is not, objectively, any one person's philosophy, Ayn Rand's or God's.

For there to be an Objectivist philosophy--not a religion or cult--it has to be generally understood that Objectivism IS NOT the philosophy of Ayn Rand (dead, she no longer has a philosophy anyhow), but the philosophy of all who embrace the ideal of objectivity and what it rests on.

--Brant

Lindsay Blair wrote: "Objectivism, like some other philosophies, contains within it a blueprint for its own advocacy. It's all there, from the fundamentality of philosophy as a discipline that influences all other areas of thinking and action in a given culture...

So the primary focus, as Ayn Rand argued, to influencing a culture at large would be on the accurate promotion of a philosophy at whatever are the forums of higher learning. So, in the West today, that's the universities, obviously, and here we mean Objectivism. Objectivism also points to the focus within the universities as being primarily the philosophy departments, with the other humanities coming second, and other disciplines are then expected to follow."

It is certainly true that philosophy is the most fundamental discipline, the one that when done properly provides the foundation for all the rest. But it is very naive to deduce from that that the best form of advocacy should follow the logical fundamentality of the scholastic disciplines and that therefore the universities are necessarily the best place to fight that battle. It's been years since I read through the Objectivist corpus so I could be wrong, but I doubt that Ayn Rand said what you claim she said. Rather I suspect you read something she said about fundamentality and then took the liberty to deduce the implications for her, that you're (ironically given the other things you're saying) putting words in her mouth.

I think you confuse the concept of a "blueprint" with the idea of a "principle". A principle is not a blueprint. One can have an idea for a building, a design principle that will help explain the blueprint, but the blueprint is quite a different sort of thing, and it can't be deduced simply by staring at the principle, it takes a lot of inductive and integrative work in its own right to create in spite of the fact that the principle is fundamental. I don't think Ayn Rand left us a blueprint, but I'd be happy to have you prove me wrong with Ayn Rand citations to the contrary.

This is turning into a really good, civil discussion.  It's weird, I find myself agreeing with most of what's in the last several posts!  I really like this from Lindsay Blair:

"More broadly, if you're one of a group of not-quite-Objectivists in a weird love/hate relationship with the memory of Rand and with her philosophy, you will not be an effective advocate of Objectivism."

I think this ought to be on PARC's book jacket.  It really sums up PARC's contribution, in that it has helped many people resolve their love/hate relationships with Rand.  (I can't say it applies to me - PARC's influence on me was not so extreme since I was always willing to give Rand the benefit of the doubt before anyway.)

From Phil's post, I can see that Lindsay's comment does not apply to him.  But so many people have read PAR and been disillusioned and disheartened by it, and I think PARC is a good antidote for that.

I really wish that TOC and ARI could merge.  I am not sure if Lindsay Blair is talking about TOC in his post.  I agree that Objectivism should not be altered or softened to give it broader appeal to the masses.  But I am not convinced that TOC is guilty of this.  I think they are "spoonfeeding" it to the masses.  I think The New Individualist is a good outreach tool, and I don't see it as a softening of Objectivism.  I certainly don't see them as promoting "the ideas of anarchism, foreign policy appeasement, animal rights", and if they were, I would oppose them.

> Phil Coates, who hasn't even read PARC, would rather defend liars, smearers, backstabbers & Namblaphile championers than see Ayn Rand defended against all their smears. Defending her against the smears is "tabloid"; perpetrating & perpetuating them is not.

Linz, try to pay attention or you'll have to stay after school for detention:

1. I don't have a position on all the various disputes between PAR and PARC since I haven't read either one.
2. Therefore...and I know this is tricky...I'm neither a defender nor a critic of Barbara B, Nathaniel B, or Jim V with regard to their views of Rand.
3. My own personal overall view of Rand, having met her and spoken with her, is highly positive.
4. My hypothesis (I didn't really know her personally, but one can judge a lot from direct contact) is that she had some personal rough edges and was quick to anger and had a few other quirks but they were hardly moral or character flaws.
5. It is neither defending Rand nor criticizing her which is tabloid. It is the -level- of topics and micro-debates on which most posters are focused. And it is the excessive focus on the person of Rand (which would be ok for a biographer, since that's the assignment) to the exclusion of more intellectual or philosophical or higher level matters which distinguishes The New York Post from the Wall Street Journal.

Got it straight now? There'll be a quiz.

Objectivism is not a religion. It explicitly requires independent critical thought of each of us. It runs no "church" from which one can be expelled, and Rand denounced "organized" intellectual movements as such.

If Objectivism ran a church, then "schism" would be a dangerous thing. But within a movement demanding reason, it is almost inevitable -- just as in a free society, differences of opinion are inevitable. These things do not prevent writers from writing or thinkers from thinking. Quite the reverse.

In any event, Rand determined what "Objectivism" is and the facts determine whether "Objectivist" is an accurate description of someone. Affiliation with ARI is not part of the meaning.

However, if ARI's job is to advance Rand's ideas, then it must oppose -- not endorse or promote -- the ideas of anarchism, foreign policy appeasement, animal rights, etc., and those who advocate them -- "marginalization" of them, if you prefer. ("Hatred," however, is not the "proper desert" for mere disagreement, according to Objectivism.)

Such opposition -- even strongly stated -- is not "thought control" but the consistent advocacy of Objectivism.

You write: "... would it not be better to walk away ourselves, rather than to seek a clique, or to isolate those whose names we will not mention, whose words we will not quote, and whose arguments we will not address?"

I know of no Index of Prohibited Books -- I am an "Objectivist" who wrote a whole book on the Brandens, for example. If someone thinks a person or argument is unworthy of his attention, that's one thing, but I know of no Objectivist for whom there are any "forbidden" names, words, or arguments.

Did you have any examples in mind for any of this?

Lindsay,

My thanks for the thought-out lengthy argument on Emrich's actual post. I do not agree with all that you say, I believe that what I've said so far speaks for itself, for those unafraid to read it in full. I will briefly remark on your statement: "Objectivism, like some other philosophies, contains within it a blueprint for its own advocacy." This is an excellent and construcutive statement, and an area which needs to be addressed. What is the explicit philosophical justification of proselytization for rational egoists? Why should we not follow Epicurus' Lathe Biosas! retreat, go on strike?

Two questions. (1) Who determines who is an official "Objectivist?" (2) If "Objectivism" is a movement, then whither? Continued schismaticism means that any movement will be towards disintegration, rather than towards a common goal. Is the suggestion that a movement as such is premature is true? We must each make our own judgements, the effort to digest our own thoughts, and should each stand on our own arguments, even if these toughts lead us to stances which may make others marginalize us. I judge that Rand's is the most significant and coherent body of work in philosophy. Her methodolgy alone is worth her acknowledgemnt as the greatest of all philosophers. But I would argue that it is incompletely worked out, her published words are flawed in some minor premises, and that one can acknowledge her mistaken pronunciations without hate or marginalization as one's proper desert. If we want to be separate from those with whom we disagree, would it not be better to walk away ourselves, rather than to seek a clique, or to isolate those whose names we will not mention, whose words we will not quote, and whose arguments we will not address?

Whacky

I have several comments about some of what's been said in this thread and in the opening posts.

For example, Ted Keer writes:"In any case, the fact of the prevalence of "schismaticism" among self-described "Objectivists" remains. The simple act of calling names (dogmatist, appeaser) gets us nowhere in the context of promoting rational egoism."

There obviously isn't a complete either-or choice between a given individual spending enough time on advocating Objectivism to the non-Objectivist world, and spending time discussing more "internal" issues to do with the movement. A person can do an adequate amount of both, if they have the time.

Secondly, before you can promote rational egoism, you first have to fully and accurately understand it for yourself, just as Ayn Rand said, and which one can easily verify and accept firsthand. That means, for example, that if the mind/body dichotomy is something you can't seem to let go of, then your concept of rational egoism will be deeply flawed. More broadly, if you're one of a group of not-quite-Objectivists in a weird love/hate relationship with the memory of Rand and with her philosophy, you will not be an effective advocate of Objectivism.

If one side of a "schism" among rational egoists believes this is the issue with the other side--that they are neither fully rational nor fully understand egoism--then there certainly is no either-or dichotomy between opposing the side that's in error and advancing the philosophy. Because the one requires the other. For such promotion to take place in a manner that will actually be effective long-term at inculcating genuine rational egoism in the culture, those who get it wrong have to be marginalized, and the side that actually understands the philosophy needs to be supported.

Also, in disagreement with the opening post, I think it's optimal that a "movement" should act in an organized fashion and with a clear long-term plan for advancing the philosophy in question if it wants to be really effective and make a difference and as early as is actually possible. Random posting on the Internet, scattered letters-to-the-editor, arguing with irrationalists, voting a certain way, and so on, while some of it is of value, won't cut it.

Objectivism, like some other philosophies, contains within it a blueprint for its own advocacy. It's all there, from the fundamentality of philosophy as a discipline that influences all other areas of thinking and action in a given culture, including politics (and not the other way around), to how the philosophy should be objectively communicated as regards issues of "softening" vs. giving it to people straight-up, to the importance of strict accuracy of understanding and formulation in its advocacy.

So the primary focus, as Ayn Rand argued, to influencing a culture at large would be on the accurate promotion of a philosophy at whatever are the forums of higher learning. So, in the West today, that's the universities, obviously, and here we mean Objectivism. Objectivism also points to the focus within the universities as being primarily the philosophy departments, with the other humanities coming second, and other disciplines are then expected to follow. Rand also spoke of the greater importance of replacing today's intellectuals over time with more rational ones, over trying to influence or convert irrationalists in place currently, which is a dubious exercise, to say the least.

I don't think you can be considered in agreement with Objectivism if you don't accept that this is the hierarchy of fundamentals to derivatives on these issues, of causes and effects as regards cultural change. Inherent in and wrapped up in Objectivism itself is guidance as to how it should, and should not be, advanced. If you're not on board with that, then you have pretty fundamental disagreements with Objectivism. I don't see this point made as often as I would think in discussions like this.

So if this "schism", more accurately in this case called "splinter" groups, of those claiming to be adherents and advocates of the philosophy involves such things as routinely villifying and lying about a voluntary organization of Objectivists who are in agreement to promote the philosophy in the way its creator advocated (when this should be of no concern to any who don't want to participate); setting up "counter" organizations that try to appeal for support from newbies to the philosophy by way of smears against the existing, mainstream organization, its intellectuals and founder; encouraging or outright feeding them confusions about the philosophy at a time when those confusions will still seem plausible to them; not being interested in denouncing smear biographies about Ayn Rand (and the biographers) when they're revealed to be as dishonest as we've seen; not wishing to strongly oppose distortions of Objectivism that may crop up in academia, or even facilitating them--then all of that and more that we've seen from these "splinter" Objectivists is the very opposite of promoting the philosophy. All that is engaging in continual sabotage of the philosophy.

So to suggest that when those who unreservedly support the philosophy fight back against such sabotage, they are somehow involved in a distraction from promoting the philosophy makes no sense at all.

Furthermore, we see in this thread again an implicit rejection of the very existence of objectivity. For some, it seems that there is no possibility that more than one person can come to see the truth of an idea--or an entire philosophy--firsthand and independently can come to agreement as to what it is and how to advocate it. They somehow think it's impossible that so many people could come to independently agree that a philosophy as defined by the person who discovered it is true, and further that an organization proving that it can promote it effectively is worthy of support and that the philosopy, its creator, and that organization should be defended against unjustified attacks, no matter where they come from.

If people look to certain long-time associates of Ayn Rand as experts on the finer points of the philosophy, and use them as experts (teachers) to help them come to understand firsthand the ideas, and come to agree with the philosophy with the help of said expert (teacher), then that does not make that teacher a "guru" or the one who learns from him a "follower" whatsoever.

To think that it does demonstrates that one does not even understand the philosophy we're discussing here. It shows that one not only rejects the concept of objectivity altogether, but that as a consequence one doesn't know the difference between true independence and false conceptions of it that make disagreement with all other people on the planet the defining characteristic of being independent. (More accurately, many seem to define independence as disagreement with certain people or organizations associated with Objectivism, but let's let that go.)

So then we're right back to the question of why anyone who does understand the philosophy should accept such people hanging on to the movement, and should want to do anything but name them for what they are, seek to laugh them out of the picture, and in general counter their sabotage. Clearly spending time and resources opposing such people is an important part of advancing the philosophy, that is, until they finally disappear from the scene altogether, which I think we're seeing the beginnings of, with PARC playing an important role in bringing that about.

Robert wrote: "As I recall from a conversation with Dr. Peikoff in 1990, Miss Rand gave Dr. Peikoff the 'OK' to inquire about whether legal action would be appropriate, and Dr. Peikoff approached Counselor Holzer about the issue. Holzer told Dr. Peikoff that he wouldn't be able to sue Polydor. When Dr. Peikoff inquired, 'why not?' Holzer replied, 'because they're a client of mine, too.' As it wasn't an important issue to Miss Rand, she simply dropped the matter."

From this, can we say that Rand ever "wanted" to sue anyone? Or, thought something to be "plagiarism"? Or, even cared much about it? Even though she probably had no clue what was on the album, they still seem to have needed to talk her into even checking it out.

Whacky.

Joe,

My point in raising Rush & Rand was that I found it very strange thet she would wish to consider pursuing legal action over a dedication. I thought her hostility towards those who were inspired by her was bizarre. I made it quite clear that I was 16 in 1984 and Rand was dead. So I cannot speak first hand. Again, my vague recollection, or it may be an influence from her stated dislike of Rock music, was that she didn't like her name being associated with a rock band. This is all vague recollection from 22 years ago. I never read the original sources, it was repeated to me by a friend from high school with who I have not spoken since the nineties. I left a message tuesday asking him to call me back. It was he who was a great Rush fan, and had he not been so, I might never have encountered her. Although I have told perhaps 40 people about her in detail since my teens, I have never had anyone say to me, "you ought to check this author out." I consider the day that he threw TVOS on my desk as one of the most important of my life, only matched by the deaths of my boyfriend and sister and the birth of my nephew, and, sadly, 9/11.

The point was, what in her philosophy, other than her stated requirement that one hate one's enemies, (something advocated by some Rabbis but explicitly contradicted by Jesus, BTW) and her dislike of Rock would justify her considering a lawsuit. (I undertsand Tolkien, who is my greatest influence beside Rand - I am an avid linguist because of him - also stated his disdain for young folowers whom he saw as hippie tree huggers who didn't get his point, a strange parallel.) There was no and is attempt here to defame Rand on my part. I find defaming anyone (save perhaps a murderer or Tyrant) to be beneath one's dignity. So given Adam Reed's and others' statements, it does seem that she was, for some reason, annoyed at young artists who were greatly inspired by her.

All of my interpretations here might be wrong. But they are certainly plausible, and are parallel with the constant attacks by Objectivsts on those who are closest to them.

I think the "one flaw makes the whole structure crumble" crowd are disingenuous. Whenever denunciations and ostracisms occur, it is alsways over personal matters, so far as I am aware. I don't have access to Rand's full writings or have much personal contact with ARIans or TOCers, so the best way to look at what I'm saying is as an oustide observer who thinks that apparent spats and power trips couched in overblown rhetoric are making those who accept Rand's four "standing on one leg" principles and who get ITOE and who don't disavow her look to outsiders like fools. I hear people ask all the time, wasn't she a cult leader? And the cultish behavior still seems to be continuing.

I also have to give credit here to both SOLO & RoR, where I post. Each site has stated that there was some sort of falling out between its principals. Each site acknowledges the other's existence. Neither site requires me to make a pledge of loyalty to post. I know many of the posters from the 90's when I posted to OWL and ran my own site, Radicals for Happiness (tm) and I am happy to see that Cathcart, Reed, Dwyer, Bidinotto, Hsieh, Perigo, and so on are still around. But I find that the fact that I have to go to two sites to see them as a very sad thing. I accept, and to a point understand it, but am sad about it nonetheless. Each site lets non-objectivits post. It is the self-avowed objectivists who are segregating themselves, while at least being honest and open about the split. Maybe I'm an ecumenical. Maybe I am too soft hearted. But I walk past the pit each day and I knew who Bin Laden was back in the earrly 90's. I know who the immediate threat is, and I see spending energy on such distractions as namecalling among men whom no one here will claim that violence is being comitted as a diversion.

I work in a slaes related job where I must engage in troubleshooting problems for customers who are often quite irate. I find that the biggest barrier to helping them is the apathy of others and the customers own hostility. nI tell people every day that I am paid only to assist them, and that I don't get to go home earlier by not assisting them. I kill them with kindness, even when they are obnoxious, and I get the problem solved and those who've been short with me almost universally apologize and thank me by the end of our dealings. Now, whther I learned it from Rand ore my parents or myself to do this, I won't pretend to claim. But it sure beats the hell out of being a petty and miserable SOB, and I sleep very well at night.

This post is very long, and although I work the late shift, I am up quite late, and am going to post this unedited, so I ask that anyone reading it ignore any typos and take it in the benevolent spirit in which it is intended.

Ted Keer, NYC

Lance,

It's nothing I'm really too interested in discussing, but out of respect for your direct question, I would say that there was no case to be made. This was a piece of music, not a book. The story line did not in anyway fit the technical definition of plagiarism, excessive re-use or use without attribution. And the work stands on its own musically. Not my favorite album of theirs.

I will stop here rather than be further a hypocrite for hijacking a thread that I feel is totally divoreced from its author's thesis

Ted

Lance,

First, thanks for addressing me directly. My response to your question immediately below would be, Why else would she ask Peikoff the question? Did she randomly inquire about suing people on a mere whim? But again, why is this even a matter of discussion? Emrich's post did not raise my faux pas, and anyone who has read my comments below sees that (1) I will withdrw the claim, but assert again that my good faith has been conclusively demonstrated, and (2) If people wish to continue discussing what I see as this petty matter, why are they hijacking this thread? Respect Emrich's intentions, not a rhetorical irrelevancy. I am quite willing to remain silent on the 2112 issue from here on. You may notice that I did not choose to edit my post to remove my words, I admitted what I said, and corrected myself. It's not so hard a thing to do.

Ted

BTW, the continued petty "gossiping," (no offense meant) seems only to further prove mine & Emrich's point. Image what a non-Objectivist would think reading this. My father always told me that the Jesuits taught that gossip is one of the greatest sins, a sin against oneself, one's victim, and reason. Sounds like firm reasoning to me.

Jim - as I wrote, I based what I wrote about Holzer on several "Holzer letters" from 1965 and 1966, which were shown to me by people he sent those letters to, as well as Holzer's writings on "animal rights" and other hippie nonsense. In any case I don't think that the man is worthy of attention.

Lance, you and I feel that way, but remember, she worked in Hollywood for so long, where everyone is sincere and honest!

Ever see ALL THAT JAZZ?

"Joe Gideon: A great entertainer...
O'Connor Flood: A great entertainer!
Joe Gideon: A great Humanitarian...
O'Connor Flood: A great Humanitarian
Joe Gideon: And my friend of 25 years...
O'Connor Flood: And my friend of 17 years!
Joe Gideon: Oh boy, do I hate show business!
Kate Jagger: Joe, you love show business.
Joe Gideon: Oh that's right. I love show business. I'll go either way.
Joe Gideon: Sometimes I don't know where the bullshit ends and the truth begins. "

Yeah, I can see that point but I can't imagine sueing over what was an honest tribute to her.

I don't think there was a case to sue over plagiarism, I think the issue was the dedication "to the genius of Ayn Rand" in the liner notes; the concern would be that they were cashing in on her name, or suggesting that there was a sort of sanction implied. Her work in Hollywood would certainly have educated her enough to know that the album alone was not in violation, and she would have to have a certain tinge of pride in knowing that her ideas had penetrated the popular culture. Her name being used would be an issue, however.

Ted, you say "Rand wanted to sue Rush" would be a better wording. What is your evidence for this? That she had Leonard Piekoff look into it?

With all due respect, the best wording would have been silence.

There is an interesting question here and that is: was Rush wrong to put 2112 out? Did they plagiarize Anthem? The framework/theme of the work is the same but the specifics are not. 2112 is not a straight copy of Anthem. I consider it an original work that was highly influenced by Anthem.

Ted, I am still not comfortable with the way you presented your claim about Rand suing Rush, the context of it, as if she was vindictive and sue happy. As much as I love Rush and the album 2112, I think that Rand had a right to be concerned about the use of her name. But the support given here for your claim does not paint Rand as irrationally pursuing a lawsuit, at any rate. But the real point is that even if the claim wasn't to be negative about Rand, it's still a pattern at large of saying things about Rand based on hearsay that has to be challenged if Rand is to be given a fair share. The evidence presented is much different than the rumour.

Okay, so now that we seem to have reasonable testimony that my original post would have been better worded if it had said "wanted to sue" rather than "sued," does anyone who disagrees with mine or Emrich's arguments wish to contest them? I am trying to refrain from being more provocative here. Any actual paragraph of reasoned argument, rather than incredulity or oblique dismissal would be productive. If either his or my arguments were entirely without merit, someone might have said that by now, rather than addressing what amounts to a very minor rhetorical flaw. I have not benn afraid to give those who've decried the falsity of my "accusation" the benefit of the doubt. The evidence for that is not proprietary, it lies below for all to see.

Ted Keer, Sep 13, 2006 NYC

They have legal correspondence, and I've seen it -- but it's also plain that her attorneys wrote more than she possessed copies of. (btw: all the stuff I saw sure looked ethical to me.)

Jim - of course. Does the Ayn Rand Archive have copies that you can consult?

I think you are right to consider the role Rand's attorney played in such matters, but I also think it's important to have the necessary evidence before making accusations. I do not doubt your testimony -- I just need to see the language and consider the context for myself.

Jim - you write, "it's unethical for lawyers to write arbitrary "threat" letters." Yes it is, but Holzer was not, for the most part, an ethical person. He didn't even have a coherent ethic, and his personal beliefs in "animal rights" and other New-Age causes came across - at least to me - as the nonsense of an anti-philosophical hippie. He exploited Rand for professional income by crafting letters that didn't actually threaten anything, but sounded like they did and, thanks to being on a lawyer's stationery, looked like it too. I've seen several; I frankly don't understand how Ayn Rand tolerated the man if she ever was as "moralistic" as the Brandens make her out to be.

Wait a sec- Phil hasn't even read PARC?

"Private Phile! What in the hell are you trying to do to my beloved corps?"

Why would anyone think that Rand needs defending?

I spent my lunch hour yesterday & today hunting down old high school friends to find the source of my 2112/Rand-litigation assertion below. The best I got was two friends who both said they remembered the quote vaguely, one of whom said that he thought he heard it from me. I was never that big an active Rush fan to bother to research them, since I only discovered them after they went soft. I knew it was not I who originated the quote. I thank Mr. Nasir and will accept his statement as putting the matter to rest. I ask that those who challenged me acknowledge to themselves my good faith.

In any case, the fact of the prevalence of "schismaticism" among self-described "Objectivists" remains. The simple act of calling names (dogmatist, appeaser) gets us nowhere in the context of promoting rational egoism. There are god-damned appeasers, I see them on TV all the time. But I simply don't understand why private falling-outs among Rand's fans have to be treated as matters for public denunciation and treating others as unpersons. It would be much more honest to link to and refer to one's "opponents" with a disclaimer than to stick one's fingers in one's ears or engage in endless Trotsky versus Lenin nonsense. I have gleaned from this website that many see TAS, with which I have no contact, as wrong. Great, let's have it out in the open. At least this website and its rival aren't denying each other's existence. I just got here, and I don't have a dog in the fight.

There is another fight in which I have no dog. I will admit that I have not yet read PARC. Frankly, I don't understand the need for it, no offense. The Brandens' books were in no way refutations or criticisms of Rand's philosophy. (And I found the movie with Helen Mirren simply embarrassing and bizarre for its makers, not Rand.) I never bought the Brandens' books. I did buy everything of Rand's, but got JD from the library. I read them only to figure out why NB suddenly disappeared from the Objectivist, which I had traveled 100 miles alone by train into NYC and spent a month's wages on to buy hardbound when I was 16 and making $3.15 an hour after school. Had Rand simply said that she & Branden had had a personal falling out I would have accepted it at that. But by making vague references to "immorality" I was left wondering, was NB into bestiality or some such? Had I known that he and Rand had had an affair, I would have thought, "Good for them! A shame it ended." I might read PARC some day, given that I understand it has some interesting unreleased writing by Rand. Otherwise I'd rather spend my money on Epictetus or Spinoza or Jesus for that matter - anything original by anyone who makes an argument that isn't predicated on the immorality of someone whom I will never meet.

I'd rather love my neighbor than hate him. Love can include the willingness to punish and even execute. I definitely assert that Rand was wrong to advocate hate as necessary for justice. Love based on reality demands justice - not weakness or exception making. Who loves his child more, the one who spoils him or the one who corrects him? Why shrivel our selves with hatred? I don't want to give the immoral the power to make me suffer. I'll kill them gladly. Let's love life's enemies to death.

Ted Keer, Sep 12, 2006, NYC

"In short, attacks on Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand are ok but any attempts to defend them are not. We're the ones causing the schisms! If we would just learn to...err...turn the other cheek and absorb all the attacks as if they were valid so as not to diminish our efforts against our "real" enemies, everything would be fine."

This is an excellent summation of the anti-PARC (and thus pro-KASSless) crowd. But while reading it I was amazed at how similar this is to the modern Left. The Left (and their libertarian soulmates) spew such hatred against the Conservatives - and all in the name of fighting against Conservative "hatred" or "warmongering" or "facsim" etc - that they demonstrate the exact hatred that they profess to fight.

In that way, the Brandens, Kelley, Bidinotto (especially Bidinotto - he is Mr. "Guttersnipe" after all), their mouthpieces here at Solo, etc are a variation of today's Leftists. But only instead of waging a war agianst Conservatives they wage their holy war against those evil "Randroids" or "ARIans" or fill-in-the-blank. The similarity is blatant.

The fact is that PARC isn't going to change a single mind about the Brandens in and of itself."

Changed mine, too. Just thought I'd let y'all know.

(And as to why it wasn't an important issue, I didn't think to ask.  The impression I had, though it was probably just my assumption, was that while she no doubt held her own work as of the highest importance, she didn't regard the goings-on of the rock music world as having much/any significance.  I can appreciate that - although I love rock music, and Rush is, perhaps, in my top five favorites, in my case I can't quite see hip-hop music as having anything to do with ... well ... anything.  Perhaps rap fans feel the same way about progressive rock - or classical opera.  Well, no, everyone loves opera.)

Nope, Rush was never sued by Ayn Rand.

More specifically, my best information is that Henry Mark Holzer never brought suit against the Polydor label for releasing Rush's album 2112, despite the obvious and direct parallels between the album's story and the plot and incidents of the novel Anthem.

As I recall from a conversation with Dr. Peikoff in 1990, Miss Rand gave Dr. Peikoff the 'OK' to inquire about a whether legal action would be appropriate, and Dr. Peikoff approached Counselor Holzer about the issue. 

Holzer told Dr. Peikoff that he wouldn't be able to sue Polydor.  When Dr. Peikoff inquired, "why not?" Holzer replied, "because they're a client of mine, too." 

As it wasn't an important issue to Miss Rand, she simply dropped the matter.

(Why are folks so quick to believe that Ayn Rand was such an unpleasant person?  OK, I know the answers, deeply, psychologically, philosophically - but on some level, I still can't make it penetrate.  What is wrong with these people???)

My point was since some have claimed that Rand threatened to sue people who used her name, this could have been a factor spreading the allegation that she sued Rush.

Disarmament is what the KASSless quislings are all about. I made the same point in my Borders speech—disarmament is the point of the anti-anger crusade. Phil Coates, who hasn't even read PARC, would rather defend liars, smearers, backstabbers & Namblaphile championers than see Ayn Rand defended against all their smears. Defending her against the smears is "tabloid"; perpetrating & perpetuating them is not. Sickening.

Linz

And it's obvious, James, why they want to distract from (or diminish or marginalize) PARC, whereas it was noticeable how absent were such efforts in regard to PAR. This is what I meant by the attempt to achieve "unilateral disarmament".

In short, attacks on Objectivism and/or Ayn Rand are ok but any attempts to defend them are not. We're the ones causing the schisms! If we would just learn to...err...turn the other cheek and absorb all the attacks as if they were valid so as not to diminish our efforts against our "real" enemies, everything would be fine. Except for the little matter that when we embrace all of these attacks, what is left of Objectivism? That diminished and watered-down version of Objectivism is going to defeat our enemies???

See TAS's OP-Eds and you have the answer to that one.

We all remember the tragedy of the Shuttle which exploded because of a faulty "O-ring". A philosophy is no different. Even seemingly small matters can make an enormous difference in its coherence and effectiveness, e.g. you know, little things like the mind/body dichotomy.

Since I can find no one who believes that the merit of Rand's philosophy hinges on our evaluation of her life story, and since there are lots of serious scholars explicating and developing her ideas, I wonder what the harm would be of a few scholars devoting themselves completely to the study of Rand's life. Would these be the ones to find a unified field theory in physics or something... really? Then are all biographers wasting their time?

The tabloidesque books of the Brandens can do the future of Objectivism no harm -- the only thing that can do that, it seems, is any critical discussion of those books...

This bizarre "either/or" is inexplicable except as a distraction from PARC.

You write: "I was just trying to give some additional information that might show how this urban legend came about."

In light of my earlier question, and your answer, then you must mean rumor and speculation.

We also regularly get articles in popular and scholarly periodicals, and even an Emmy-winning movie, all "bringing up" the same attacks.

I didn't really just say that, did I?

Yeah, and who generally starts those threads?

The gist of "The Speech" whether it's the one we just heard or yours or any of the dozen similar variations on the theme is to expect of us unilateral disarmament. We're the ones who are supposed to sit here and say nothing when people, including yourself, insult Objectivism or Ayn Rand. But obviously it's ok for them.

Instead of focusing so much on why we defend Ayn Rand on the grounds that it is supposedly just "small points" - and causes schisms in Objectivism - why don't you focus instead on the people who constantly bring them up?

> who Rand sued/didn't sue/yelled at/didn't yell at is totally meaningless at this point -- except as bad barroom trivia. Same with Frank O'Connor's alleged "drinking problem"

Very true, but those are the kinds of subjects of most interest to people on this site if you look at which threads are the longest.

Just like at the grocery store, it's the tabloids that sell the most.

"The fact is that PARC isn't going to change a single mind about the Brandens in and of itself."

It changed mine. So much for your "fact."

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

* * * *

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Richard,

I'm sure you were aware of these letters; I was just trying to give some additional information that might show how this urban legend came about.

Joe,

These are friends from 20 years ago whith whom I do not regularly speak. Since I do admit that quoting my memeory of them is obviously not sufficient evidence for any rational person to find it conclusive, I withdraw it for now. I may be entirely wrong, but since I know that I don't go around making up things to accuse people of when I disapprove of them (because the truth itself would then be a sufficient attack,) I still FEEL there must be some basis for my claim that Rand at least began to pursue action against Rush for using her name. I FULLY grant that I may be mistaken, and am glad to talk to people with the balls to put me on the spot. So I am still going to try to get in contact with these people and look elswhere, for the simple reason that I've always been a bigger "fan" of Rand than Rush. Like I said, ask me in a week (assuming I haven't addressed the claim by then) and I'll walk barefoot across the alps in penance.

Ted

Understand you or not, you've been here for 29 weeks, so why now instead of seven months ago?

Yes, a person like Linz is more likely to believe that BB spread false stories about someone being a drunk, for instance, once he has seen her do it for himself.

Rand, the fallible human being, certainly made mistakes -- and the Brandens were first among those mistakes -- but all the Rand fans (who I know, at least) are perfectly able to separate the lady from her philosophy.

But, of course, there is also much to learn from the life of Rand -- i.e., the facts about Rand. And facts do matter -- as does justice. Even those who feel no sense of gratitude to Rand for her work should be able to appreciate this.

You write: "The fact is that PARC isn't going to change a single mind about the Brandens in and of itself. "

Sorry, way too late.

"doesn't anybody get what I'm trying to say, here?"

No, why don't you repeat it 10 more times.

Maybe it would be easier if we combined your little speech with the several dozen other speeches all saying essentially the same thing. Then we could create "The Speech" which you could all cut 'n paste and it would save you all a lot of trouble.

Dude, you're committing a lot of words to something you think is a waste of time? Why waste time lamenting "poor Joe?" Who's pathetic? What are you afraid of?

Sadly, JoeM is exactly the sort of person I'm lamenting here:

PARC was "neccesary?" Only in the sense that it's occasionally "neccesary" to dig up a corpse for DNA testing. The fact is that PARC isn't going to change a single mind about the Brandens in and of itself. Those who think that "debating" stuff about Rand's personal quirks and peccadillos equals "debunking Objectivism" aren't going to be the slightest bit inclined to even READ the thing, much less change their views. Additionally (and this is probably treading perilously close to the edge of "bad faith" from Linz's point of view), I don't really think that Linz would have given PARC as positive a response as he did, had he not recently been involved in a situation with B.B. himself. Linz -- dare I say this? --- was quite likely to find a book on the "case against the Brandens" to be more emotionally congenial at the time. "B.B. and her crowd spat in my face. Hey, there's a book coming out detailing other bad stuff that B.B. did. Cool!"

No, I don't mean that in "bad faith", Linz -- I mean that PARC is just more "preaching to the converted". Parc hasn't seemed to sway very many Pro-Branden opinions, at least according the the Amazon reviews for their books. The sad truth is that "accusations" about Rand are NOT "unfounded". They have a foundation: the desire to discredit the philosophical achievement of the woman by dredging up "dirt" about her. ("Yeah, Aristotle was an influential philosopher, but y'know, those Greeks really liked to get it on with young boys!"

Pathetic, really, but that's what's going on. The "case against the Brandens" -- both sides -- was already basically set in stone back at the end of the NBI era. The most that PARC is going to do is -- just maybe -- get a few people who are already waffling to change "sides".

Additionally, Linz's statement in the Borders speech that you "dare not say" that Rand's philosophical pronouncements and personal life are seperable is, quite simply, sloppy. Rand was every bit as capable of indulging in any -- and all -- psychological vices as anybody else. Yeah, she may have viewed her life as a post-script to her work, saying "and I mean it" -- but that didn't -- and COULDN'T --- mean that she was somehow invulnerable to doing stupid things.

Nobody is ever going to convince me that Rand didn't make stupid choices occasionally: the Brandens' affiliation with her strikes me as one. The "statement of policy" in '68 detailing just exactly which texts were to be considered as part of the "Objectivist corpus" was another. The attempt to designate Peikoff as "heir" was a third. Rand was human, and humans are not infallable or omniscient. Or are we going to get to the point now where somebody starts defending her "no woman president" thing as canonical, too?

JoeM -- Ayn Rand is dead. She died in 1982. Any sort of pseudo-chivalrous attempt to "defend her honor" is --- well, let's just say, a bit late.

"Say that about any other philosopher, but not about Rand", indeed. The tired, sad, empty tragic spectacle of "Rand, the Messiah" is alive and well.

That's where I think the Brandens at least have some advantage -- they portray her as fallible and human, not some sort of super-woman who was inexplicably capable of being duped for fifteen years by two "Juddases". Come on, people -- doesn't anybody get what I'm trying to say, here?

Oh hell, what's next -- DSL issuing a "public statement of retraction"??? Doesn't the O'ist scene have better things to do than compulsively document minutae nobody in their right mind would give a damn about, for posterity?
I mean, let's all have some perspective: there are large, very well organized and disciplined numbers of folks out there who are actively attempting to eradicate any vestige of civilized values. Among them are: eco-terrorists/Islamic terrorists/"Christian reconstructionists" and "dominion theology", sundry racists, etc.
But somehow, those who claim to be fighting to preserve and defend "Man's life qua man" end up spending a hell of a lot of time debating nigglingly abstruse points of historical trivia that nobody outside of the O'ist "Scene" could possibly give a crap about.
What's next -- debate over whether Rand liked to be slapped around by N.B. when they "got it on?" This sad fetishization of the NBI days, and every stupid little detail of the woman's life is --- well, the term "Fiddling while Rome burns" comes to mind.

DSL, as far as Dr. Kelley exhibiting cowardice of late, how's about the fact that "Logical Structure of Objectivism" was (is?) posted up on their website in PDF form for years on end, for "public comment and suggestions"? Just publish the damn thing, already, and let the chips fall where they may.

Hey -- here's an idea: Let's all talk about how "Kass" we are, while debating whether Rand petted "Turtle Cat" every day, or only on alternating days. Yeah, that'll win some battles against Al-quaida or "Earth First". Damn.

How I see it -- "Prosecutor Valliant" has done the Brandens just about the biggest favor anybody could have --- by generating yet MORE interest in the NBI fiasco. (That's what was so good about ARI, even during their cultic era -- at least they didn't get bogged down in obsessive schlock about the NBI days.)

But hey, can't blame Valliant either -- evry philosophy/ideology/religious movement needs an equivalent of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin". It sells.

(I could probably get me a whole wad of cash if I reprinted "Who is Ayn Rand". (What's the copyright status on that, does anybody know? I mean, hey -- the Oist scene needs it's own "Apocryphal texts", too!

I WILL give Linz the thumbs up on the fact that after that whole "Drooling beast" episode, he changed his tune about Barbara. (That's called integrity, folks) -- but this whole thread, which started out with my article where I apologized to Linz, and highlighted areas of Objectivist "waste motion", has seemingly just turned into more of the same. It's actually quite sad, really.

Somebody PLEASE give me a giggle by posting a "statement of resolves" or a "manifesto" or something pretentious like that. "We, the undersigned hereby affirm that Ayn Rand did NOT like to be spanked with a belt." Sheesh!

(Yes, I AM messing with your minds.)

Ted, I won't speculate on your intent and purposes, since I don't know you and would like to give you the benefit of the doubt. But I think you can understand the frustration among Objectivists when they see a claim like yours, that you admit was not substantiated, with all the other similar unsubstantiated claims out there that make a book like PARC necessary. I think what bothers me about your apology in context to all the other claims out there is the backhandedness of it: you admit the claim is dubious, withdraw it, but then proceed to search out the friend who made the quote. I believe you when you say that someone told you this, I doubt your friend's information. Whatever your motive, the situation seems typical of those who would make claims about Rand without solid evidence and stand by those claims when admitted false, and that, unfortunately, puts you in bad company...

And on that note, when admittedly unfounded accusations against Rand continue to circulate, the passion of "Rand's critic's critics" is hardly misplaced.

After spending a fruitless 20 minutes on Google trying to find a reference to Rand, Rush, and litigation (tens of thousands of results) I will admit failure, but not claim to have demonstrated a negative. Since last night, I remember the comment having been made in the context of Rand's purported litigiousness. I may be wrong, but believe that the issue was Rand's not wanting her name to be used, to be hitchhiked upon. I FREELY ADMIT I HAVE GIVEN NO VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE but don't believe I'm losing my mind either. Consider the claim withdrawn, I will try to get in contact with a friend who would be able to recall the incident, if not imagined. There is no reason why I would wish to fabulate this accusation, so I don't doubt my own good faith in offering it.

As for the comments on Rush' songs, I am a fan of their older albums.

Ted

(Please feel free to call me on this matter in the future, I prefer to be corrected when I'm wrong.)

Neil,

Yes, I am aware of the negative letters you mention. The claim I was responding to was about a supposed lawsuit (not just a letter) against the rock band Rush. Since those cases involved neither an acutal lawsuit nor a rock band, I stuck to the more relevant examples. If I ever write a detailed Randian legal history, I will try to be more comprehensive.

--
Richard Lawrence
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center

>honest dissagreement doesn't neccesarily make one "Sadaam's cocksucker".

Or as my 3/32nds forefathers (i.e., fo' Pas; *faux pas*? [waves hand in "Folks, pass" deference toward stopped cars opposing]) from France might have said in Gallic-phallologic mock-gentility, "*Le coq suqeur* de Monsieur Who-is-sane."

Just sodomite add my 2 cents.

Neil:
Hmm. Glad to see you're still here (You're another one that I always genuinely enjoyed reading!) Somewhat of a "devil's advocate" for the Brandens, but hey, so was I in that post.
Anyway, far as I can tell, y'all, who Rand sued/didn't sue/yelled at/didn't yell at is totally meaningless at this point -- except as bad barroom trivia. Same with Frank O'Connor's alleged "drinking problem" (Read: he drank more than somebody else approved of). It's all (as our friend Linz would probably put it) "bollocks" (grin!) Mostly, I tend to see both Brandens' books as the same sort of preachy "tell-alls" that were popular at that time (mid 1980s). Think "Mommie Dearest" and you get the idea: "We were associated with this woman; she's dead, so we'll blab all kinds of secret sicko shit when she can't respond to us anymore." No harm in it, really, from their point of view.
It helped N.B. become visible again, and not just fade into the whole "self esteem psychology" background noise. Not to mention that B.B. wouldn't even have any sort of career if it weren't for her book -- I mean, hey, Showtime networks even made a softcore porn version of Passion of Ayn Rand. How much more of a boost could she have hoped for?

Linz: I'll keep in mind the difference between KASS and "apeshit", if you keep in mind that honest dissagreement doesn't neccesarily make one "Sadaam's cocksucker". (smirk)

Just funnin', y'all!

I was ready to bar admission to Lance to the New World Order, but DSL made me laugh out loud, so it's all good.

I only ask because no such lawsuits were ever filed, and it's unethical for lawyers to write arbitrary "threat" letters. Without the language of the letters as evidence, I would be very cautious about accepting someone's characterization of them.

Jim,

No, I have not. That's why I phrased my comment the way I did.

Have you seen any of those letters, Neil?

Richard,

According to Barbara Branden (PAR, p. 391), Rand sent "threatening letters" to Mimi Gladstein and Doug Den Uyl discouraging them from publishing their books (Ayn Rand Companio