Are you saying that Branden is responsible in any way for ATLAS SHRUGGED? If so, your claims go far beyond even the most ludicrous self-promoting assertions of the Brandens' and, of course, the evidence. Objectivism was the creation of Ayn Rand -- 100% -- as her notes demonstrate. The "movement" Branden "created" did (and fortunately, in my view) come crashing down like so much china. The philosophy, however, continues to make remarkable and unprecedented strides forward.

You write that "simply repeating what evil unrepentant and unredeemable liars the Branden’s were doesn’t explain [the collapse of Branden's 'movement']. Rather, these facts undermine Valliant’s claim, lending weight to the argument that he’s simply wrong!"

What claim of mine does this undermine and how does it do so?

What precisely are you claiming to be the significance of the demise of NBI -- and what exactly are you saying this "demonstrates" about Rand herself? Rand never trusted that organization, and, like her, I am glad that she brought it to an end.

And the myth of O'Connor's "alcoholism" -- just to catch you up -- has gone the way of dodo -- with Ms. Branden now backing away from the claim herself. Or, hadn't you heard?

If you believe that Rand improperly pressured Branden in some way to give up his stake in The Objectivist magazine, then you really are in for a few surprises in PARC. Did you know, for example, that Mr. Branden had already offered to sign over The Objectivist to Rand ~ before ~ she had learned of his many deceptions? Why do you think the Brandens failed to mention this?

All of that important "life experience" of yours that you repeatedly mention seems only to be the same collection of false assumptions, out-dated prejudices, and obviously inapplicable stereotypes upon which the Brandens have been able to so easily rely. For example, did you know that at one point during their relationship the "insanely jealous" Rand suggested Branden have an affair with someone else (presumably "younger and more physically attractive," as you put it)? Why do suppose the Brandens omitted any mention of this? Does this seem to fit your "socio-biology" (?!) or view of human nature or what you've been led to believe?

Perhaps, just perhaps, it is your view of the full "range of human psychology -- and how it plays out in real life" -- that may need to get a bit "wider and deeper."

[Note to Jeff: see why PARC matters?]

"no one even attempts to answer the question posed by the 800 pound gorilla in the dining room: Look how the China crashed! Tens and tens of “close friends” fell away from Rand..."

Peikoff answered the question in "Fact and Value".

It was a subject of discussion on HBL just recently.

But, hey, why should you interrupt your almost unbroken record for pompous pontificating based on near total ignorance? (Including your claim that Atlas didn't appear until she met Branden. She had actually started Atlas several years before that.)

As for falling away, I've observed it among close friends of my own over many years, in some cases for shockingly stupid reasons, in other cases because someone hurt their "tender feelings", but in most cases because - like you - they are simply incapable of thinking clearly. But in other cases I've noticed the opposite, people who didn't seem to get Objectivism, were even seemingly openly hostile to it, but who doggedly kept at it and whose understanding of it grew step by step. Ultimately you see the difference clearly. It's between first-handers and second-handers - and I find that the second-handedness of those who fall away becomes more and more apparent the further away they move.

Many people don't realize the extent to which Objectivism requires standing against the prevailing wisdom on a whole host of fundamental issues. The more they realize it, the more they encounter the hostility of friends, family, co-workers, etc., the more uncomfortable they become until finally they can't stand the pressure anymore and its goodbye Objectivism. (Then come the rationalizations which we've all heard ad nauseum).

It's good that you are reading the book, but I'd advise not posting on this subject till you've really gone through it thoroughly. It might even help to have copies of the Brandens' biographies handy while reading this.

Adam Buker

Music Composition
http://www.adambuker.com

"My appreciation of the range of human psychology - and how it plays out in real life - may just be wider and deeper than Jeff" Orson

Some display of that would be, with no sarcasm in my voice whatever, truly interesting to see.

What Branden's (or Rand's) psychological acumen (or lack thereof) has to do with an (apparently dead) movement, I should very much like to know.

Perhaps you are confusing me with some Kool-Aid fans you've known over the years.

Jeff

Since I wrote mid-thread (above), no one even attempts to answer the question posed by the 800 pound gorilla in the dining room: Look how the China crashed! Tens and tens of “close friends” fell away from Rand and the Brandens - both before and after The Break. The former literally lost most of her friends while the latter moved across the country and rebuilt their networks. If Rand was not in some way a controlling force or vortex, resulting in widespread alienation, how does one explain that differential outcome? Ex nihilo?

Jeff asks “Who with the willingness to look at the thousands of other facts available would believe that as a sweeping generalization?” Well, the one person I’ve personally known from the Collective convinced me - by personal example. The social crumbling of AR’s friends and the demise of the movement are the others.

Simply repeating what evil unrepentant and unredeemable liars the Branden’s were doesn’t explain it. Rather, these facts undermine Valliant’s claim, lending weight to the argument that he’s simply wrong!

James Valliant revives the claim of “The urban legend of O’Connor’s alcoholism.” I know that this is what Peikoff claims. But having known a few alcoholics as friends and several artists as family members, no one has ever used wine bottles to mix paints, as LP imagines exculpates Frank O’Conner. Some things simply don’t pass the laugh test.

Chris Cathcart comments, “In those portrayals, you have Rand, paying all kinds of lip service to rationality, unable to rationally deal with a romantic rejection where a younger, more physically-attractive woman was also involved. You have her flying off the handle with half-crazed pronouncements about how she’ll destroy Nathan, and extorting his consent to sign over his interest in The Objectivist, and so on.“ Somehow, a Rand of unlimited competence is impossible for certain people to imagine.

PLEASE - do make this implausible to me! In a post "Age of Aquarious" era, after decades of feminists proclaiming that biology doesn't matter to women (while it did to Rand), where the best known reverse-May-December relationship is only 16 years (Demi Moore-Ashton Kutcher) - far from their 25 years, Chris sagely sweeps reality away? Or are only True Objectivists immune to sociobiology?

J. Heaps-Nelson says: “Nowhere but inside Objectivism have I seen so much made over small disagreements.” Indeed. It remains one the Objectivist movement's least attractive characteristics, as the many repeated charges of "cultism" from the NBI era make obvious.

Fred, meanwhile, turns moral judgment against Jim, in an effort to force sanction about issues no one on this thread is in any personal position to actually know. That’s “being Objective”? If I missed that “lesson” on Objectivism, I’m forever glad to be without its "Enlightenment."

CC avers “The "woman scorned" version of things simply evades the fact that what Rand demanded of Branden was basic honesty about his feelings and interest towards all involved.” Well, I’m sure CC has never done anything foolish or self-deceiving for love. But I have. More than once. Am I the only one who admits to this common character flaw? And condemning NB along with me, how is AR exempt from vulnerability to the same folly? If one can, then the tragedy Ted Keer writes about may become the morality tale Valliant's followers want it to be. I remain doubtful because life experience tells me to be where love is concerned.

Jeff rings the bell for the psychological value of Rands works: "How naive to social psychology and her own powerful, conformist impact on others was Ayn?" Orson
Bunk. [Just to note one thing, Ayn Rand knew more about real psychology than anyone living, then or since. See her novels where she reveals tremendous insight into human nature.]

Yet somehow the Movement didn't get going before Branden entered the picture. Doesn't anyone else see the irony of Jeff's sweeping claim? For example, that Atlas appeared after Branden entered ARs life? Only because of Atlas did my folks become politically active in the 1960s and '70s, for another. Obviously, Branden was and remains pure poison for the Movement!

CC sez: “PARC takes the facts, shines them upon the Branden accounts, and lays all this crap to rest.” And what about that 800 pound gorilla?

I’m taking Linz’s advice and simply reading the book. But I’m not expecting to be hit by lightning. My appreciation of the range of human psychology - and how it plays out in real life - may just be wider and deeper than Jeff and Chris's. This may account for our differences. (And, unlike Fred, I'm never going to convert these into personal moral judgments.)

Jim, if you consider the "internecine squabbles" within Objectivism to be unimportant that explains why you consider it perfectly acceptable to associate with the TASsels. However your indifference to the moral issues involved is in direct contradiction to Objectivism. You are thus trying to have your Objectivism, while eating it, too (as of course are they).

The actual issues of course have been thoroughly explained, making it perfectly clear that it is a matter about which one cannot be indifferent. In fact, the claim of supposed indifference is in itself a profoundly serious claim in this dispute.

In any case, in the unlikely event that you are unfamiliar with the arguments - and for the benefit of anyone else who is interested - these three articles cover the basics.

Peikoff on "Fact and Value"

Rob Tracinski "Notes on 'A Question of Sanction'"

Diana Hsieh's "David Kelley's Mind-Body Dichotomy in Moral Judgment"

Watching the Phil Donahue interview of Ayn Rand available on YouTube recently, it struck me how irrevocably tarnished and forever stained by the Brandens' Ayn Rand's reputation in my mind isn't. I love the woman, and couldn't stop smiling watching the clips.

In the meantime...

Fred,

Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot and I'm always willing to allow that I have more to learn. I've spent most of my 35 years studying science and engineering and working in factories building computer chips. Nowhere but inside Objectivism have I seen so much made over small disagreements.

Now I'm willing to listen, but I'm also willing to bet that whether Intel has a successful product launch will have more impact on the world than the outcome of all the internecine squabbles within Objectivism. I just don't consider them to be that important.

Beyond being an advocate for capitalism generally and working on a few areas of interest in epistemology and neurology of my own, I'm willing to leave the world of organized Objectivism alone if you consider my involvement in the movement so damaging that I have become a Dr. Robert Stadler or a "good German" if you can indeed demonstrate it. I think it amounts to hyperbole.

Besides, why the intense interest in me? I am not a major figure in the Objectivist movement. I am not a lecturer. I know next to nothing about the inner workings of TAS. Recently, I've gone to their Summer Seminars the last two years and a weekend in 2004. I'm hardly worth the fuss from your perspective.

Jim

Jim, somewhere along the way you have failed to grasp that the name of this philosophy is Objectivism, not Subjectivism. Related to that you clearly don't get what a moral principle is or, obviously, how to apply it. It constitutes a serious failure of *judgment* on your part and you need to *think* about it. But you are at least right about one thing. Only you can do it.

Maybe I'm wrong, but it's been my understanding that you have studied Objectivism for many years, even with some very bright and knowledgeable Objectivist scholars, such as Darryl Wright. Given that, how can you possibly casually dismiss the difference between ARI and TAS as merely a "mixed bag" of indistinguishable personality characteristics which you evaluate apparently on the basis of whether you are "enamored" of someone or not - and then rationalize it all by alluding to "compelling subject matter" (a blatantly phoney and - (morally)an entirely irrelevant - issue).

Clearly you don't - or don't want to - understand the concept of sanction and what's involved in applying it. Do you understand for example what Robert Stadler represented, someone you easily could have regarded as a "mixed bag", but certainly with "compelling subject matter" to impart?

Tell me what you really think, Fred . Judgment is an exercise for the individual, just like thinking is. When I've been to TOC conferences, the people are a mixed bag like any other group I've been in. ARI aligned Objectivists are a mixed bag too. Participating at conferences affords you choices about who to associate with. I'm not enamored of Leonard Peikoff, Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger either but I could see myself attending an ARI conference if I found the subject matter compelling enough.

Also, I find that one of the best ways to find out whether you believe someone or not is to ask them yourself. If that constitutes "sanction", then I think the concept needs to be further developed. It sounds almost Hindu. If you touch an untouchable, you're untouchable...

Jim

"I still believe they could redeem themselves if they publicly repudiated all of the their false statements, but sadly even then we would be unable to believe them without complete corroboration. That's the price you pay in reality for continuing, systemic breaches of integrity."

Exactly. Which is why it is impossible for them to redeem themselves. Which may be one reason why they don't even attempt it. There is no redemption for evil of that magnitude. All you can do is commit suicide. Associating with OLLies and TASsels is roughly equivalent of course - living death? - but it doesn't quite make the moral statement which justice requires.

How for example would a Saddam Hussein undertake redemption? "Gee, I'm so, so sorry for all of those people I tortured and murdered. Will you ever forgive me?" Yeah, right.

Jeff,

The value of PARC for me was to have the argument all in one place and to provide context for the Brandens continuing actions today. As someone who has a view of justice that differs from the standard Objectivist conception, I believe in personal redemption in most cases.

However, redemption requires the utmost, scrupulous effort to recommit to integrity and to the truth. The Brandens' conduct in writing their biographies and their continuing public statements don't meet that standard.

I still believe they could redeem themselves if they publicly repudiated all of the their false statements, but sadly even then we would be unable to believe them without complete corroboration. That's the price you pay in reality for continuing, systemic breaches of integrity.

I have had some testy interactions with Jim Valliant, but I have a lot of respect for him. I never believed the Branden biographies, but I was willing to extend them the benefit of the doubt not knowing all of the facts. The ball, as it always has been, is in their court.

Jim

James,

I'm confident that you can make the history and routes by which it became ubiquitous interesting. I'm not interested in Christianity, per se, but I'm extremely interested in how individuals come to adopt the ideas and values they do, and how cultures evolve. Anything that helps me better understand the world I live in is a value to me.

I said I can't (i.e. don't) understand, I didn't say I didn't want to.

In short, get that damn book done soon, will you?

Jeff

I'm afraid that I'm doomed to be of marginal interest to you, Jeff.

Christianity is my next subject.

I learned much of value from reading PARC. I don't consider any thinking I did on the subject over the years to be anything particularly praiseworthy.

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who can't understand why anyone would believe the hooey in Christianity, either.

Hats off to you, Jeff, for being able to do the analysis of the Branden books provided in Part I of PARC all on your own. Many others were taken in.

Part II (Rand's notes) surely had something to offer even you -- Rand's most extensive discussion of rationalism, e.g. -- if not the new evidence about Rand's herself.

"her alleged non-objective judgmentalism, her approval of unjust "purges," her rationalization, etc."

Yeah, sure, I get that. My question is: who that didn't already disapprove of Rand would believe that stuff anyway and why? Who with the willingness to look at the thousands of other facts available would believe that as a sweeping generalization?

"Those portrayals also have holes poked in them by PARC."

My point is, valuable as it is (and one can be grateful he made the effort), one didn't need to await the arrival of PARC to do that.

Jeff

Rand's Branden-portrayed behavior about the Affair was painted within the context of a broader and more general portrayal of Rand over the course of their 18 years with her -- her alleged non-objective judgmentalism, her approval of unjust "purges," her rationalization, etc. The Break was just a larger, more prominent example of the trend that the Brandens wanted to paint about how Rand operated towards her associates, adherents, etc. Those portrayals also have holes poked in them by PARC. It's a tissue of lies or distortions or omissions, or a web of them, if you will, that feeds into the way they portray the Break.

Do they ever really do a good job of portraying Rand as someone who broke with (or otherwise rejected in some way) people over something other than basic dishonesty, plain and simple? Because that is, after all, why she broke with them -- not their views on Beethoven or Thomas Wolfe or some debatable philosophical subject or whatever else that doesn't come down to basic demonstrable dishonesty.

The Branden accounts have it that it was Nathan's revealing his affair with Patrecia to Rand that caused Rand to go ballistic out of jealousy or whatnot. However, it was his revealing that affair that finally laid bare the full context of his years of "counseling" sessions with Rand. For those years, it was supposedly a matter of Branden's confusions, psychological evasions, drift, etc. After finally telling Rand that he couldn't have a romantic affair with her any more, she did conclude some very negative things about his psychology and character, but didn't completely break with him. The revealed affair with Patrecia revealed everything prior to be a sham, a stalling for time. He made up all his "confusions" and "drift" as a cover, denying on the basis of and in the midst of all his "confusions" that he didn't have a romantic interest in Patrecia (bad-mouthing his "chorus girl" lover to Rand in the process), and caused Rand years of needless pain in "counseling sessions" in the process. It's that for which her anger at Nathan was directed.

The "woman scorned" version of things simply evades the fact that what Rand demanded of Branden was basic honesty about his feelings and interest towards all involved. As leading public exponent of Objectivism in those years, he had a basic responsibility: to provide a rational accounting for his feelings rather than evade and/or lie about them.

James,

If PARC helps eliminate that crap, then bless you.

(Long sentence warning...)

I still maintain that anyone who can't or doesn't bother to look at Rand's work, her many videos (Donahue, Wallace, Snyder), and all the other readily available means of judging -- but instead relies primarily on two biographies by individuals with whom she had a falling out for whatever reasons -- is probably hopeless in the objectivity department.

Anyone who could read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, or even We The Living and not see greatness so extreme as to make other considerations negligible is probably unconvincible. Frankly, when evaluating anyone who can think and write like that, I wouldn't care if she were an alcoholic or misanthropic or had 50 lovers and an abortion after every one. I would still want to kiss her hand.

That said, hats off to anyone who makes the effort to refurbish a reputation unjustly tarnished.

Best,
Jeff

Well, from Prof. James Arnt Aune in the pages of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies to last year's Commentary magazine article on Rand, many people use the Brandens' attacks as the basis for ridiculing Rand's ideas. Sure, it's an ad hominem, but that sets the agenda and generates a hostile mythology, anyway. The urban legend of O'Connor's alcoholism, the whole Branden picture of Rand as the "woman scorned," etc., have caused many innocent onlookers to dismiss Rand and her ideas (on ethics?!) without much consideration. Many have written me to say how PARC caused 'em to take a second look at her work. Even many who admire Rand's work had come to believe in the Rand of the Branden bios. In most cases, this was NOT due a lack of independent judgment. The Brandens are well-practiced deceivers.

James,

Yes, but apparently I need to do so again along with the two BB bios. Someday, though I doubt it, I may make time to do that. My sense is that whatever Branden denied, everyone knew they had in fact had an affair, that Branden had lied to Rand about Patrecia, that he acknowledged that, that counseling was taking place over a period of time. All that, if memory serves, was known even prior to the two bios. And I certainly was never a member of any inner circle with special knowledge, so it must have been 'in the air'.

I won't force you to support your statements since you wrote a book to do just that. The onus is on me is to look more carefully, if and to the extent I become interested enough again in the issue to do so. Believe me, I'm not looking to let either of the Branden's off the hook for anything, nor to find feet of clay in Rand.

Maybe my viewpoint is different because I never thought badly of Rand, even after reading both BB bios. I never thought her the ogre painted, though (as everyone acknowledges) she had some characteristics she would have been better off without. Those were observed first hand by hundreds, including myself, on many occasions. I don't count them heavily when weighed against her many huge, and obvious, virtues.

"these books are just as loaded down with lies as the very statement they defend -- only this time, about Rand's psychology and character."

Part of my puzzlement is over this very thing. Why would anyone take either Brandens' word or viewpoint on this at face value, even if they were paragons of virtue? Rand's character and psychology were plain for everyone to see and judge for themselves. People are capable of arriving at an independent judgement based on publicly available information. If they fail to do so, and let B & B do their thinking for them there is nothing to be done about it anyway, so far as I can see.

Jeff

Yes, the Brandens admitted much of their multi-year efforts at deceiving Rand.

That was what they knew could not deny in the face of the evidence possessed by the Rand estate.

However, they did not concede that their 1968 statement to the world about the break was a bunch of lies -- e.g., Branden actively denied that Rand was counseling him very much, etc. Recall that Branden -- without admitting to an affair himself -- had suggested that Rand was still wanting one with him! (The evidence makes plain that he would have continued deceiving Rand -- if he could have -- and that it was she who ended it!)

Now, as to the biographies themselves -- where they claim that their 1968 statement was the truth, and that Rand's 1968 assertions were the libel (!) -- these books are just as loaded down with lies as the very statement they defend -- only this time, about Rand's psychology and character.

You did read PARC, right?

A minor question...

"we now know that these accounts deceived readers i.e., that the Break was occasioned by years of deception, by Branden against Rand."

This is one element of the whole business by which I remain puzzled. Why is this regarded as somehow something new? PARC did not bring to light Branden's deceptions; that was known decades earlier.

That Rand and Branden had an affair was known years ago. That Branden lied to her about Patrecia was known. That he lied to his students was known. That Rand was giving Branden 'therapy' was known.

I don't understand many of those who only now see Rand in a different light. Apart from some interesting material in Rand's journal, I didn't find any of this new.

Did I somehow divine all this or was it common knowledge in Objectivist circles as early as 1972?

(Note to James: Not trying to trivialize your accomplishment here.)

Jeff

Ted writes:

If their books contained outright malicious lies or ridiculous and damaging falsehoods, then her heirs or estate might have some reason also for a counter-response, or might still have been wiser to remain silent. Having read the Branden's books back when they were published, and having understood that the matter was regarding a complicated tangle of love affairs gone bad, I figured "so that's what all the fuss has been about" and put the matter to rest. Again, the happiness of those people is their affair and I have no way or real interest in getting into "Did she really do that to her? Oh my God! Giggle-giggle gossip."

Would that it were only this simple (even if true). You may have taken from it that it was some tangle of love affairs gone bad and moved on, not letting the private affairs of others affect your position in regard to ideas. You were misled and deceived about the nature of the Break, though it wasn't your attitude that Jim Valliant's book was aiming to correct. As it so happens, the Branden memoirs have been used as significant major sources for a lot of damaging attacks and negative portrayals of Rand, more or less as an autocratic cult leader. PARC seeks nothing more than to set the record straight on this, and restore the balance of justice (which means to restore Rand's image from these smears). Rand's own actions become much more understandable in light of the full story (BTW, I find it fucking amazing how some folks so interested in the world of Objectivism don't mind hearing the Brandens' side of the story, and yet don't mind ignoring PARC which gives Rand's side of things), and she comes out looking so much more reasonable and moral than the half-crazed cult-leader-type portrayed by the Brandens.

In those portrayals, you have Rand, paying all kinds of lip service to rationality, unable to rationally deal with a romantic rejection where a younger, more physically-attractive woman was also involved. You have her flying off the handle with half-crazed pronouncements about how she'll destroy Nathan, and extorting his consent to sign over his interest in The Objectivist, and so on. So this is how Rand deals with those who cross her, huh? This is how the Objectivist movement operates, huh? How does it differ from Scientology, now? Shouldn't the good Objectivists get away from all that cultishness where worship of a central figure is demanded, and associate with the more reasonable elements like the Brandens who got away from all that and have the courage to speak the truth about their former mentor?

PARC takes the facts, shines them upon the Branden accounts, and lays all this crap to rest.

(There's another sort of kicker to all this, too. Remember in the Branden accounts how Rand demanded blind loyalty over the matter of the Break, refusing to state the real nature of why she broke with him while demanding that others likewise break with him if they are to associate with her? I don't remember if even PARC caught the flaw in this one, as thorough as it was. According to the Brandens' own story, Nathan provided reason enough himself, publically, in his announcement to NBI staff that he had acted contrary to his professed beliefs.)

James,

I stipulated the fact, I did not confess it. I believe you understand the difference.

"Randroid, Brandroid," and so on is not my way of speech or thought. I'm much more interested in the fact that Putin has openly declared war on Britain, and that NATO remains silent.

My Latin means "I have said enough, and shall now remain silent."

Orson writes: "For myself, I'm testing questions like: was The Break the result of a woman scorned?"

The question has been "tested" and found wanting, hardly requiring any further dissection or consideration. If the Branden accounts were to be believed, the question was considered and answered in the affirmative. But whether by omission or flat-out lie, we now know that these accounts deceived readers, i.e., that the Break was occasioned by years of deception, by Branden against Rand. Period.

...back when the Branden memoirs came out, it was the "Randroids" who supposedly preferred to sweep the allegedly sordid tale of The Affair under the rug so as to adhere to a sanitized image of Rand. Now, the "Randroids" are accused of bringing up The Affair unfairly and cheaply to preserve Rand's sanitized image at the price of discrediting the Brandens.

Either way, it seems that "Randroidism" means defending Rand's image, regardless of whether it's done by evading facts, or bringing the facts into full light.

James wrote:

We don't need their confessions to know that Orson and Ted have not read PARC. (Or, it seems, any of the many threads at this site and the old SOLOHQ discussing it.)

Orson & Ted - please, read the book. It's an eye-opener. Sometimes I wish I'd stayed away from it. Having to change one's mind is a damned nuisance.

Linz

Chris knows me to be his admirer, and I will normally participate in discussions here when questions about PARC are asked... but the original subject of this thread did not seem terribly interesting, so I've stayed away until now.

Let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with Ted when he writes, "one cannot blame either of the Brandens for wishing to put forth their side of the story." I'd remind him that they DID respond to Rand -- back in 1968 -- and with a tissue of demonstrable public lies.

Unfortunately, the Brandens did not limit themselves, in their more recent efforts against Rand, to either the truth or even their own personal "take" on the truth, either.

We don't need their confessions to know that Orson and Ted have not read PARC. (Or, it seems, any of the many threads at this site and the old SOLOHQ discussing it.)

I will just indicate to them that my own views were not too different from theirs before my work on the book.

"...one cannot blame either of the Brandens for wishing to put forth their side of the story." - Ted the Genius

You mean, one cannot blame them for lying in order to salvage their reputations?

By analogy, how could you blame Eichmann for arguing that he was just following orders? How could you expect him to admit that he was a monster?

I think you have an agenda, Orson. Rather than gathering all the relevant evidence you spout out many warrantless assumptions (i.e. trivializing PARC's contents without having read the book completely). The split was not caused because of a love gone sour. It was caused because of N. Branden using his alleged psychological problems (for which he had sought help from Rand) to hide the fact of his affair with Patricia. (Just a side note but this therapy is what the contents of Rand's private journals are focused on. After the break she did not write about him in her private journals) He continued hiding his affair even after Rand concluded that they would not renew their romantic relationship and continue on a strictly professional relationship. It wasn't so much about his affair as it was about his systematic dishonesty that he conducted (along with his former wife as an accessory) over a period of four years. Is such a man who makes such a disaster of his life, fit to teach it to others? Is he fit to represent it? If any of this is news to you, then it's because you've not looked at all the relevant evidence to form a conclusion. Read PARC and think on it before posting.

It has been a while since I've read PARC and my copy is not available so if I've mistated something let me know.

But as far as I'm concerned this dead horse has been beaten more than France, and that's saying something.

Adam Buker

Music Composition
http://www.adambuker.com

http://www.linochette.de/bilder/silence.jpg

"How naive to social psychology and her own powerful, conformist impact on others was Ayn?" Orson

Bunk. [Just to note one thing, Ayn Rand knew more about real psychology than anyone living, then or since. See her novels where she reveals tremendous insight into human nature.]

"Was the movement really undone by a mutual admiration society gone wrong?" Orson

Sheer nonsense. [Just to note a single point, 'the movement' has not been undone. It's healthier than ever.]

You are asking the wrong questions.

Ted. I always enjoy your accumen and thoughts. Even when we differ slighty, if loudly.

What you write is not inappropropriate. But with PARC composed as a prosecutor's brief, we are put in the position of "relitigating" these private matters; we are invited to judge these people in matters mostly beyond' independent judging. Somehow, we supposed to let these events from decade ago help us in grasping these peoples character since and recently.

To me, this is more gossip than not, and the more removed in time we get, the less I expect Valliant's book to affect my estimates. In this, I stand with Ted. But against Ted and the way Rand-worshipping has become empowered by this disclosure, I think we can gain limited insight into these Founding Objectivists minds and lives.

For myself, I'm testing questions like: was The Break the result of a woman scorned? How much further does criticism of the Branden's go? How naive to social psychology and her own powerful, conformist impact on others was Ayn? Was the movement really undone by a mutual admiration society gone wrong?

I think these are reasonable questions that PARC enlightens. The unreasonable hyperventilating of the Worshippers already discredits the pack. In short, Ted, what I expect is nuanced, not apocalyptic as many have claimed. We weren't there, so how far we can claim to "know" is quite limited.

Along with Ted, I'm very doubtful "how anyone can be a winner in the 1968 affair...." The pack-driven horde does not see themselves clearly: repeating a tribal past is no compliment to Miss Rand's legacy. Contrary to Valliant's wishes, what can be learned from PARC is too little to overturn the outcome of the past.

I would differentiate myself slightly here from Orson in that I don't see how anyone can be a winner in the 1968 affair, either personally or by tally after the fact. To repeat, given Rand's publication of the matter in the Objectivist without giving specifics, one cannot blame either of the Brandens for wishing to put forth their side of the story. I would assume that this was done in the 1980's because there was a resurgence of interest in Randiana at that time, and there were markets for their books which made the effort worthwhile.

If their books contained outright malicious lies or ridiculous and damaging falsehoods, then her heirs or estate might have some reason also for a counter-response, or might still have been wiser to remain silent. Having read the Branden's books back when they were published, and having understood that the matter was regarding a complicated tangle of love affairs gone bad, I figured "so that's what all the fuss has been about" and put the matter to rest. Again, the happiness of those people is their affair and I have no way or real interest in getting into "Did she really do that to her? Oh my God! Giggle-giggle gossip."

Justice requires that I make judgments about things that actually involve me and my values, not about everything I can possibly stick my nose into. This is not tolerationism, it is common sense. Wasting time decrying every private act of people I have never met who do not hold office and who do not exist in any contractual relatiomnship with me would be an injustice to those things in my own private life which do deserve my attention. There are an infinite number of ugly things to deplore in a Jerry Springer - Howard Stern - Sacha Baron Cohen universe, as a certain blogless faceless joyless poster keeps bringing to our attention. What do I think of them? As little as possible.

Ted Keer, 03 December, 2006, NYC

Orson, wtf are you talking about?

FW writes:

"Suppose he had asked an actually objective question..."

So, counting isn't objective? Ted answers (in part): "Name calling is not a form of induction. Viciousness is not a virtue." Which is why counting numbers of instances in "The Objectivist Newsletter" and "The Objectivist" IS objective fact.

Appealing to "justice" as Fred does, as though it weren't normative, is precisely besides the point. (Why some people persist in inainiites here, I'll never know.)

Naturally, simple numbers without context may prove little. But persisting in denial is still a commitment to denial - not the virtue of honesty. Nor courage to face brute facts. Branden wins this point.

If one is involved in an intimate business or personal relationship with someone, or if that person represents a threat - an actual physical or criminal threat - to one's values, then denouncing them is fine. But spending one's time attacking at length those who do not stand in such a close relation to one's own person is second-handed puritanical holier-than-thou-ism masquerading as virtue. Uncharacteristically for FW, it is right as Laure points out that his second paragraph below is correct. All credit where credit is due.

Yet if one analyzes FW's general modus operandi on this forum, it's always a raving, insulting, attack after attack; misquotes; and never one positive suggestion. How many times has he called me a moron, repeating this over and over as if, well, what? I don't feel any stupider. Does he feel any happier? My response to him has usually been to ask him to produce, rather than invective, some evidence of his positive contribution to this site. That is yet forthcoming. I still invite it.

According to the "moralizer" faction, I should be responding to Fred with all the same attacks, hatred, envy, or whatever it is that his empty noises towards me are. But I generally don't care. I am not concerned with the self-apparently vicious, only with the actual threats. Spending time denouncing people gives one's targets control over one's own agenda. This is second-handed silliness at its worst.

The strength of one's love is not measured in relation to the depths of one's hatreds. Name calling is not a form of induction. Viciousness is not a virtue. Some people seem only to be happy when they are unhappy. If you think that's Objectivism, then check your premises.

Ted Keer

Talk about nailing it. Look at your second paragraph!

As to how psychology should handle moral problems in a therapy setting, that's an interesting - and perhaps separate - question. Have you read PARC yet? Note how AR handles the issue with NB. The only major issue of difference I see is that she bends over backwards to give him the benefit of the doubt, along with more than ample opportunity to demonstrate a willingness to address his problems. Of course he never does and she thus condemns him accordingly - and properly. That's not terribly different from my own personal but admittedly fairly limited exposure to the process in the hands of a competent professional.

Oh my God, I'm agreeing with Fred Weiss.  Your second paragraph nails it.  However, to be fair, I think one could make the point that psychology as a profession might be better practiced without moralizing; you treat a problem as a disease, not as a moral failing, and you're more likely to facilitate change in the patient. 

But, that's beside the point.  In the wider world, we should be concerned with being good, not with being "nonjudgmental."  I am reminded of a quote I once saw:  "If we concern ourselves with tolerance vs. intolerance rather than good vs. evil, we get tolerance of evil."

Laure, I was going to ask a similar question to also emphasize the "loaded" nature of the way that Orson asked it.

Suppose he had asked an actually objective question, put not as "whose published work - NB's or Rand's - is more judgmental and moralizing?" but "whose published work - NB's or Rand's - is more concerned with justice?"

Technically, "moralizing" is not a virtue. It's a kind of excessive or inappropriate or hectoring making of moral judgments. But its opposite is not tolerance - as we have noted here many times about the so-called "tolerance" people who are constantly..err...moralizing (Phil being a prime example). Its opposite is making rational moral judgments, i.e. being just.

Orson asks "Branden appeals to this independent, objective measure: whose published work - NB's or Rand's - is more judgmental and moralizing?"

Rand's.  But why is this important?  Do you think that being morally tolerant is a primary virtue?  When one person wrongs another, the guilty party deserves to be the target of moralizing, and it's wrong to condemn the victim as a "moralizer."  This is so obvious I feel funny writing it.

Oh, and whose life would I rather live out after the Break?  Rand's, without a doubt.

At first glance Orson usually offers a field day for "philosophical detection" except that he is so transparent and it so much like shooting fish in a barrel, it's almost hardly worth the effort.

I mean, consider this gem, "Branden appeals to this independent, objective measure: whose published work - NB's or Rand's - is more judgmental and moralizing?"

Notice the thoroughly *non-objective* way he phrases the question, while at the same time he is putting himself up as some kind of paragon of objectivity. It's of course a blatantly loaded question.

Or, "I think we can all see hyperbole when we see it. And moralizing on top of moralizing is like editorializing a lab report: bad form and bad science - a compounded error. Which is how I've received all the glee and insistent moralizing since PARC came out."

One could easily describe this as "moralizing about moralizing" ...oh, and with some considerable hyperbole thrown in for good measure.

This of course is "the self-exclusion fallacy". It consists of making pronouncements about what is wrong about something while one is doing that very thing in the pronouncement. It's "Oh, this applies to X, but of course not me, even though I am doing precisely that very thing right now."

Such people seem to inhabit an alternate universe - one where they see themselves as the great commentator and critic of human behavior but where absolutely none of it ever applies to them. They are above it all in contrast to we mere mortals.

While no one here disputes Rand's superior genius and inspired productivity, let me ask - after The Break - whose life would you rather live out? Rand's or NB or BB's?

Jeff challenges me:
You make an error repeatedly exposed in PARC -- which was obvious before it was published -- taking Branden's word for every thing that happened....Is there any corroboration [for this and the Dexedrine charge] from a non-biased source?

Surely, many things that happen between two people are not subject to independent corroboration. Often only indirect evidence indicates what went on. One of the points of my earliest post above is that the lens of love, with a vulnerable self exposed to another's approval and judgment, separate people will remember "the facts" differently later. They will quite normally have different recollections, such as BB and NB do. Under such circumstances, any diary - even a contemporaneous one - is subject to distorted perceptions, wavering valences (like hurt or naivete), and selective emphasis produced one's own unique (or not so unique) personality.

Branden appeals to this independent, objective measure: whose published work - NB's or Rand's - is more judgmental and moralizing?

Of course, someone ought to come up with the hard number. A context sensitive cumulative assessment of this claim is also merited. But having myself read these primary sources sources in chronological order, I have little doubt about whose claim is better supported.

Although I will soon read PARC and re-read NB & BB, the arc of "the wrath of a woman scorned" after defection and betrayal is exposed, is a compelling and sensible one. (Even PARC conveniently omits anything post-Break - and that is bad for supporting any "complete context" claims. Feeling and perceptions about others and oneself DO evolve through time.) I have been its target a few times myself - once by an admirable Objectivist. Thus, NB and BB have the edge on a factual and and coherence basis.

But back to my question: whose life, post-Break, would you rather have lived out? I have more pity and concern about Rand. Living well as one ages is a real challenge. Somehow, I don't think she and Frank were up to living it at their best. Yet, having known Great Depression survivors who have also been challenged to live better and more satisfying lives in more prosperous times like since the 70s, I can't be harsh in viewing her "as less" than NB. But what alternate explainations are there? There are generational differences in adaptability. There is also psychological sophistication that people from earlier generations more often lack. But, again, this lends support to her rival's account.

Now, Branden claims that Rand was psychologically naive. I'm curious if my experience in life with a variety of women will find me able to contextualize such skills in Rand - or the lack thereof - against my life's experience? And, in parallel frame, I wonder if the astonishment and outraged sense of betrayal towards the Branden's we see more among Rand's younger admirers because of PARC, also reveals generational experience - or lack thereof?

It's all about the greater contexts of life and loving - human sensitivity and accuracy. Such matters are much harder to know than somple logic. To extend my argument, whose life post-Break is more enviable? More admirable? And if one claims "quiet dignity" for Rand, why is this better?

Many, notably Diana Hsieh, have recomended Peter Cresswell's review of PARC. It's introduction reads (in part):

The scale of [the Branden's] duplicity is vast: it stretches almost from the time they first met Rand to the time of her death, and extends even after that with biographies and memoirs published after her passing that, as Valliant shows conclusively, are mired in contradiction and embroidered with tissues of self-serving lies.

Now, if you Believe the Truth is "out there," and Rosswell, New Mexico, contains a part of it, then the first part of his claim is plausible. Otherwise, I think you'll agree: the Truth about these interpersonal matters is both more complex and simpler than that summary leads us to "think."

Cresswell quotes Valliant:

Objectivism was never a description of reality for Branden [N.], it was a ‘theory’ disconnected from acting—except the act that he was putting on for Rand. Objectivism was entirely disconnected from everything else in Branden’s life… The Branden’s blame Objectivism and Rand for ‘making’ them [repress and] lie so much… [but] Branden is here confusing what ‘Objectivism demands’ in the abstract with what he had been claiming about himself to Rand in particular. Whether Branden was ever a ‘traitor to his values’ depends, of course, on the nature of his actual values.

Creswell comments:
Branden N.’s whole life with Rand was an act. In attempting to fake reality as he did, the ‘repression’ and ‘moralizing’ he claims to the inexorable hazards of Objectivism can in fact be seen—not as hazards of Objectivism—but as the hazards of trying to live a lie....

What was not allowing the Brandens to eat their cake and have it too was neither Objectivism’s rigidity nor Rand’s “intellectual authoritarianism," as they have both claimed since, but reality. They repressed their “true selves” not in order to “live up to the alleged ideals of Objectivism” but so they could misrepresent themselves to Rand as something they weren’t in order to claim a value they hadn’t earned. Claiming otherwise as they have done since is to hear the whining of small children at the denial and exposure of their unrealistic whims.

SUPPOSE this very moralistic depiction of moralists is true. Then - if it wasn't a mutual admiration society gone wrong - why, without Branden, was the Objectivist movement impossible to reform? Lack of leadership? That's a rationale beyond stretching.

I think we can all see hyperbole when we see it. And moralizing on top of moralizing is like editorializing a lab report: bad form and bad science - a compounded error. Which is how I've received all the glee and insistent moralizing since PARC came out.

"I think the facts as to who ha[s] produced what values [is] clear."

With that I most wholeheartedly agree.

Jeff

Jeff, Chris, et al.,

I am not familiar with the interview you quote, and see neither the relevance of attacking or defending the person of Rand or any of her personal worshipers or detractors, since none of their emotions or personal issues have anything in the least to do with the truth of her system. I, for one, would not want to be known as someone who "broke with x, y, & z" or "made allegations against t & o," but as someone who produced lasting works of value. I think the facts as to who have produced what values are clear.

Ted

Tou·rette's syndrome (tʊ-rĕts') pronunciation or Tou·rette syndrome (-rĕt')
n.

A severe neurological disorder characterized by multiple facial and other body tics, usually beginning in childhood or adolescence and often accompanied by grunts and compulsive utterances, as of interjections and obscenities. Also called Gilles de la Tourette syndrome.

"Ted, BTW, keep it in mind: Rand wrote in her bio in Atlas that her life is a postscript to her novels: "And I mean it." Personal breaks are an exercise in moral judgment in action. And Rand is good and admirable for how she broke with Branden. It is most certainly relevant, in judging someone like Branden, how he treated a person of such greatness and achievement. It's odd that some would want to treat this as a matter of actions and people divorced from ideas. Don't people want an emotional fuel of sorts in knowing that there are examples of people out there who do live by their ideals and prosper? Isn't there something to wanting to acknowledge and admire people of genius, as well as detesting those who smear and would bring the geniuses down?" - Chris C.

Chris, your only error in this brilliant and inspired comment is in addressing it to something like Ted - an ant unable to climb over the curb if ever there was one. It is words wasted on him.

"On whose part, Rand's or Branden's?" - Jeff P.

Exactly. But this, too, is over the head of an ant - in this case Orson Ant.

I'll use this as an excuse to offer my favorite quote from Victor Hugo. It is from Ninety-Three. Unfortunately he was referring to the French Assembly and I cannot share his admiration for it. It eventually deteriorated into the Reign of Terror. But that aside it is beautiful:

"Everything that is great has a sacred horror. It is easy to admire mediocrities and hills, but anything that is too high - a genius as well as a mountain, an assembly (of great men) as well as a masterpiece - is frightening when seen from too close. Every peak seems to be an exaggeration. Climbing it is tiring. One slips and loses one's breath on the slopes, one is injured by sharp projections … foaming torrents reveal precipices, summits are hidden by clouds; the ascent is as terrifying as a fall. One has a strange feeling: aversion to the great. One sees the abysses without seeing the sublimities....It is examined by nearsighted men when it is made to be contemplated by eagles."

"'Ayn Rand herself set the precedent for this pattern. When, for instance, she broke with someone — say, Murray Rothbard or Edith Efron — she never could acknowledge anything good about them, not even that they were intelligent, no matter how much she might have praised their intelligence in the past. Suddenly nothing about them was any good and never had been.' (Branden, 1996, "Full Context" interview.) And this doesn't bother you? Or strike you as misguided? Or eccentric? Or possibly even irrational?" Orson Olsen

On whose part, Rand's or Branden's? You make an error repeatedly exposed in PARC -- which was obvious before it was published -- taking Branden's word for every thing that happened, and his interpretation, including the Dexedrine 'charge'. Is there any corroboration from a non-biased source?

Chris Cathcart writes in "Ted, Orson, et al" :

In the Brandens' tales, Rand got all crazy and unjustly tarred their reputations in 'To Whom it May Concern.'

Rand wrote in her bio in 'Atlas' that her life is a postscript to her novels: 'And I mean it.' Personal breaks are an exercise in moral judgment in action. And Rand is good and admirable for how she broke with Branden.

"Yeah!" "Boo! Hiss!" Am I the only one here who recognizes in these moral characterizations the insulted voice of a rejected lover? And a long-lived trust betrayed? Am I the only one who has been similarly tempted or had their own reputation attacked thusly? I am still friends with most of my lovers, except for two. (Or possibly two more.) For whatever reasons, all these women have found in me too much to reconcile with as friends (unlike many others).

The Branden's account is a variation on "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" (which obviously leaves out their own immoral complicity). But does no one else see the similarity here between my life and "The Break"?

The chief difference is that Rand and the Branden's loves built a public movement with a strong, moralistic base, and explicit written teachings. The first object lesson is that that when lovers are betrayed, it's very difficult to reconcile perceptions though mutual antagonisms of distrust.

Even if Rand's diary stand as the most veridical, what about the successive falling away of mutual friends? Don't others perceptions and ultimate judgments on these matters weigh into a well-considered assessment of the Truth? The fact they they don't has always counted against the Shadenfreude Chris exhibits, to me. Only a more flawed 'Rand in reality' makes sense of these facts.

The retreat to moral absolutism in situations quite normally fraught with projection, introjection, idealization, de-idealization and denial - ie, the passionate distortions of the self at its most vulnerable - IS insufficient because it fails the reality principle that we're talking about human beings and our flawed insecurities, constraining our human psychology.

For example, in a January 1990 interview published in "Liberty," Barbara Branden had the opposite view many have gained from Nathaniel: she insisted that Rand was a pussycat when it came to handing out moral judgments, compared to him. NB himself responds: "Thousands of people who were at our lectures know the allegation that Ayn was a 'pussy cat' compared to me, in the realm of moral judgments, is untrue. No one could explode with wrath like Ayn Rand." ("Full Context" 1996) Such differently reported perceptions are entirely consistent with my claims. People's minds "in love" are complicated, volatile, and bruise easily. Time and our own hidden wishes further distorts what really happened - or may reveal levels of reality we could have never grasped earlier. Living life is simply different than 'thinking it through.'

Ted accepts the flawed judgments these powerful individuals made: ...Rand had offered Branden the out of admitting that he could not continue the affair at some point, but that he did not. A horrible mistake on his part and a matter which she should have intuited on hers. Precisely. But under such social pressures to maintain appearances, and given the predictably huge and consequential impact accepting and announcing such an alternative would have had on everyone, the story has "tragic" written all over it. Thus, a tragedy only hinted at by the very botched film "The Passion of Ayn Rand" (1999).

One friend who has read PARC, as well as the Branden's previous accounts, found nothing conclusive in it, or otherwise warranting Chris's one-sided, naive, hero-worship, combined with abhorrence of the Branden's. I guess the news that our emotions are not fully rational only travels so far - even in this company.

As Ted puts it: [H]aving Rand as a hero and one's greatest inspiration and influence in life seems very fragile if it depends upon defending her honor in such a prudishly puritanical way as to see victimizing her as the only way of defending her. Which is precisely to deny the complexity of human psychology and diminish Ayn Rand.

Chris defends Rand's rejection of the Branden's as more than good judgment, but righteous judgment too. "Ayn Rand herself set the precedent for this pattern. When, for instance, she broke with someone — say, Murray Rothbard or Edith Efron — she never could acknowledge anything good about them, not even that they were intelligent, no matter how much she might have praised their intelligence in the past. Suddenly nothing about them was any good and never had been." (Branden, 1996, "Full Context" interview.) And this doesn't bother you? Or strike you as misguided? Or eccentric? Or possibly even irrational?

Yet Rand may well have been a victim of her time. Reputedly, she took two Dexedrine a day from age 28, on. "If you habitually take Dexedrine in doses higher than recommended, or if you take it over a long period of time, you may eventually become dependent on the drug and suffer from withdrawal symptoms if you abruptly stop it." It remains a drug considered having "a potential for abuse," which can affect many aspects of personality.

I don't know if this explains some (any or all) odd aspects of Rand or not. I only know that a certain naiveté about drug consumption makes poor Ayn - since the drug was given for weight control - another woman typical of her time. Despite her many extraordinary achievements. And despite many increases in our knowledge of amphetamine's effects, how they may have affected a great personality back then may forever elude our understanding.

But I will soon read PARC and have my own judgments of the matter to live with. Does anyone bother to read Branden's own play, composed only a few years after "The Break"? Presumably, a place to purge himself of some of these demons?

Ted sagely writes:

"My respect for no one exempts them from my critical thought or denies anyone credit where credit is due. Rand's influence on my life was like finding a hidden manual to the truth that I once had dreamt of as a seven-year-old when I realized that something was wrong with the world. Rand, and no one else, identified to me explicitly the errors that troubled me and Rand gave me the tools and the moral encouragement to use them. This, to me, is a better tribute than worship. It is the truth."

Rand understood Nature and human nature better than anyone. Her guide to social utopia and personal happiness seems of almost equal greatness. But that doesn't mean her philosophy or herself -- her intellectual theories or her personal life -- were perfect. No human has ever been thus. To explicity or implicitly claim otherwise -- as do the robotics -- is grotesque.

Chris,

Thanks for your long and considered and considerate post. Given the fact that "To Whom it May Concern" was included in the Objectivist, which I traveled by train from the backwoods of the NJ Pine Barrens to NYC which I had never visited except as a child, by car, with my parents, to purchase; & given that the Brandens works were not expurgated, but that the nature of their "offenses" were left to be accepted on >authority, I had very good motivation for wanting to read their works when they came out. Once the matter was explained (I do not believe that it is contested?) that Rand had been having an affair with Nathaniel, and that the Brandens had allowed themselves to be put in a conflict of interest to cover up a series of escalating lies about his understandable lack of further sexual interest in her given their age differences, I never felt any less respect for Rand, her arguments, or her chutzpah. The fact that she was attracted to what she believed she saw in him was no blow against her in my eyes. His lack of sexual interest did not surprise me either. My only thought was, what a shame that lies and self-delusion built up to such an unnecessary event. And I remember reading even that Rand had offered Branden the out of admitting that he could not continue the affair at some point, but that he did not. A horrible mistake on his part and a matter which she should have intuited on hers.

But I have to disagree with the relevance of the "and I mean it" phrase in defending her, because there was nothing again to defend. What could possibly be more romantic than her struggle to find a love on her level. The whole story would make a great Shakespearian tragedy, although I am at least orthodox enough to know that Rand disliked Shakespearian determinism. The subject matter and language would have suited the story.

As for their continued public appearances, in so far as they are telling lies (of which I have no good reason to accuse them) about the facts or about what Objectivism is (as Rand defined it, in contradistinction to their own views) then they should be refuted. But I also see no reason why they should not express their own views, so long as they do not misrepresent their views as Rand's. I view the existence of TAS and so on as healthy, as the truth should out. Objectivism, if it is not revelation, is not an apostolic church which is handed on by appointment or from which one can oust others and put their books on forbidden indices rather than answer. Does anyone deny that both while Branden was around, and after he himself was ousted, and even now, "trials" and even "excommunications" so-named have occurred within Randian circles?

And having Rand as a hero and one's greatest inspiration and influence in life seems very fragile if it depends upon defending her honor in such a prudishly puritanical way as to see victimizing her as the only way of defending her.

I believe both our views are clearly stated. If any of the suppositions I have made about what is and is not conceded to have happened, all are invited to post or email. I would just as well let the matter drop. And I do have a long promised post on Theophrastus to write, as well as a few other works in the pot that I find more timely.

Let me say that all my faults are my own, that all my virtues, while achieved through effort, were inculcated by my parents, and without them, I would never have been the person I am today, to respect Rand so much as I do. My respect for no one exempts them from my critical thought or denies anyone credit where credit is due. Rand's influence on my life was like finding a hidden manual to the truth that I once had dreamt of as a seven-year-old when I realized that something was wrong with the world. Rand, and no one else, identified to me explicitly the errors that troubled me and Rand gave me the tools and the moral encouragement to use them. This, to me, is a better tribute than worship. It is the truth.

Ted Keer, 28 November, 2006, NYC

The nature and extent of the Brandens' treatment of Rand is revealed in full in PARC, and gives you Rand's own perspective on why she ousted them so resoundingly as she did. Folks who heard the Branden's take should also want to hear Rand's side of the story. In the Brandens' tales, Rand got all crazy and unjustly tarred their reputations in "To Whom it May Concern." PARC re-establishes a full context and shows why, given the way that (especially) Nathan treated her, and was capable of treating her, she wouldn't ever trust him or want to have anything to do with him again. The whole ugly scenario came to a head as described in chapter 4 of PARC titled "The Exploiters and the Exploited." Rand's response to Branden's handling of their affair was thoroughly appropriate: she sent him packing.

The Brandens' bios/memoirs was their way of trying to tell the story and still keep their reputations intact. In doing so, they continued their injustice towards Rand (by painting her as crazy and a liar in the course of the '68 Break) -- and it's a lot more egregious in the case of Nathan than Barbara. The way that he treated this heroic genius, everything he professed to admire, was unconscionable and his ouster from Objectivism for good was warranted.

The basic idea is simply this: the Brandens should go their own ways, and leave Rand and Objectivism alone. And purportedly Objectivist organizations like TOC/TAS shouldn't continue to grant them some kind of credence as speakers on Objectivism by inviting them to their conferences once all the facts about their behaviors have come out. The Brandens didn't leave well enough alone, and they (and TOC/TAS, for its inaction) got their come-uppance with PARC.

Ted, BTW, keep it in mind: Rand wrote in her bio in Atlas that her life is a postscript to her novels: "And I mean it." Personal breaks are an exercise in moral judgment in action. And Rand is good and admirable for how she broke with Branden. It is most certainly relevant, in judging someone like Branden, how he treated a person of such greatness and achievement. It's odd that some would want to treat this as a matter of actions and people divorced from ideas. Don't people want an emotional fuel of sorts in knowing that there are examples of people out there who do live by their ideals and prosper? Isn't there something to wanting to acknowledge and admire people of genius, as well as detesting those who smear and would bring the geniuses down?

You write:

"Diana's right in saying its not an ordinary type of cybersquatting. "Ordinary" meaning the traditional practice of buying domain names of trade marks before a company has a chance too."

John, I realize she was operating off the layperson's understanding of cybersquatting, but you are missing my point here--ie. cybersquatting is a broader category of action that is legally defined, not just some "ordinary" notion. It not only includes what you regard as "ordinary", but also such things as typosquatting, affiliate squatting, "sucks" websites, etc. And according to the definition, what the porn site did here IS cybersquatting. The question is really if the porn site has a defense, not really whether the porn site cybersquatted; afterall, I don't think a lot of people looking for porn are going to do a web search with the name "Nathaniel Branden". In fact, my trademarks professor who actually, you know, litigates these things says porn sites do this all the time. The point is, John, I don't think you want "ordinary" understandings replacing carefully drafted legal elements/definitions--wouldn't ya say?

As to your second question in re to trademarks, the statute covers personal names. Whether NB's name is protectable or not will be a question for the fact-finder. From what I understand that's a pretty fact intensive issue, but I would guess NB has a good shot because its not that common of a name, he engaged in commerce on the site (including books where he is the author), he is famous within Objectivism and psychology (or at least the self-esteem movement), etc.

Regardless, it was a stupid thing on his part (or whoever takes care of such issues for him) to let it expire. But from what I understand, a lot of these squatters (including porn) don't usually respond to legal challenges and the owner can then get the domain name transferred back.

Michael