Greenspan's memoir reports almost nothing negative about Rand. Had this "close friend" felt the desire to "vouch" for any of Ms. B.'s most negative claims, had he felt the desire to defend her in the PARC debate (which I believe he knew about in plenty of time), had he wanted to defend her from ARI or Peikoff, had he personally thought it warranted to report such things about Rand himself, he missed his Golden Opportunity, didn't he?

His memoir contains a Bibliography, a Note on Sources and Acknowledgments. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Brandens appear in none of these, as I recall.

Chris,

I don't like Greenspan any more than you, but he still thinks highly of Rand, if his recent memoirs are honest.

He was "close friends" with Rand for 30 years and described a book that Valliant claims is "valueless" as "fascinating."

If you want to say that this is something less than "vouches for" that's fine with me. I certainly wouldn't give any praise to a book about a "close friend" that was less than accurate.

From "praises for its fascinating insight" Neil gets "vouches for." Note who, BTW, this is coming from -- Alan Greenspan, a wayward figure who went to manipulate the country's economy somehow under the belief he was doing good and/or that it was consistent with his earlier views. I don't know what praise much less "vouching" from Alan Greenspan is supposed to count for. The situation is pretty clear: he more or less drifted away from any firm and systematic adherence to Objectivism to some eclectic amalgam of monetarism, Keynesianism, pragmatism, "free markets," government bailouts, deregulation, tax hikes ("fiscal responsibility"), vague "libertarianism," some kind of lingering admiration and respect for Rand, some revocations of the irrevocable, some drifting away, some coming back, some abstrusely-worded things on whatever array of subjects happens to come before him. What sense is anyone really supposed to make of the guy, other than that he's some sort of abstract-rationalistic intellectual nerd who just likes to think a lot and gloms onto whatever ideas strike him as "fascinating"?

As clear as you ever are -- I'll give you that much -- and, yes, so are your motives.

To whom did she "bad mouth" them exactly?

Just another set of blank outs?

Old habits die hard, they say...

NO ONE except those who are trying to construct a straw man argument against PARC is saying Rand was perfect. That's just a dodge to avoid looking at the self-serving lies the Brandens told.

I think what I said and the reasons for it are clear.

I would add that my statement concerning the tree/IV pole also involved Rand's later conduct toward Joan Blumenthal (berating her months later for attempting to "undermine her rationality") and then continuing to badmouth them. Yes, unjust indeed. And being unjust is a moral flaw. I have plenty of them too. From the crooked timber of humanity . . . .

Since you're back, are you conceding, then, your misrepresentation of PARC that I observed in #1?

Let's start there.

Do you have any response to my response about O'Connor's psychology?

And where in PARC is it claimed that O'Connor never experienced pain from his wife's affair?

Such nonsense itself is a kind of misrepresentation of PARC, you know, and your unending capacity for that is remarkable.

And doesn't Ms. Holzer say the opposite? Was that just a typo?

And, as you must know -- while there are always biases to be found among former friends and associates -- there are very special reasons for concern in the cases of both Brandens. Peikoff's expected bias seems apparent to you, but, whatever the red-flag biographical details, you are overtly blind, "no reason to doubt," to certain others' issues. Thus, you will question a report from an alleged witness given by Peikoff, but not BB.

Greenspan says he had no clue as to any affair until much later. BB herself says that her interaction with O'Connor was known only to her. He was critically reliant on the same source we are evaluating, and the vast swing in his own opinion of the Brandens indicates reason to question the somewhat laughable power you would give that endorsement. Until the release of PARC, for example, many of the Brandens' public lies in 1968 and later could not be demonstrated.

Those who actually read PARC have understood the point it made about the broad range of victims of the Brandens' lies.

If PARC does not deny something, why do you insist on reading that in? For example, does PARC say that Rand was never unpleasant?

You know, it's like the historical documentary on New Testament archaeology I watched last night. Researchers have found some great stuff: a two thousand year old boat on the Sea of Galilee, the town of Bethsaida, and numerous Jerusalem sites mentioned in the Gospels.

What was odd was how much credit the archaeologist gave the Gospels as a result. But, of course, the Gospels were also written almost two thousand years ago, so the fact the places and daily practices are realistically presented in the Gospels is hardly surprising. They wouldn't have known to put any other details in, would they? The authors knew those places and practices, and even a fiction writer of the time would have included this kind of detail to make his portrait convincing.

The comparison should be obvious. As PARC says, a good liar will stick to the known truth as closely as possible and weave his lies into as much reality as he can.

As PARC observes, Peikoff says Rand's anger could be unjust, for gosh sakes -- and the Blumenthals themselves and to this day will not belong to a group that includes Nathaniel Branden. Do you consider that significant in any way?

In any event, BB gives us precious few facts to support the Blumenthals' evaluation, and the scene in the hospital room, a context in which I will cut the ill person enormous slack, didn't terribly impress me.

And, even assuming the truth of their evaluation, it does not add credibility to the Brandens with respect the issues that PARC addresses, as you seem to assume.

Just read the book for once, Neil.

Casey,

Ok, if you want my response:

1. All I know about the housekeeper is that Peikoff claims that she claims she was misquoted. That's hearsay. Until I see a statement from her, I can't evaluate it.

2. Both Erika Holzer's interview and TARC indicate that the break was initiated by Rand (that's why 'excommunication' is used in both places). I wish these sources were more specific, but if you have additional information, please share it with us.

3. Greenspan knew Rand well for 30 years. If BB's reports of what Frank said are so out of character for Frank, then he was in a position to know. Ditto with Rand's character. (And he was in a position to know in 1986.) Neither you nor Jim has given me any explanation why someone who knows that PAR is a malicious lie would give it any praise. And the fact that he supported Rand against the Brandens in 68 and didn't split with Rand adds to his credibility in my book.

4. Speaking of Greenspan, let me quote from my second essay: "On the other hand, some of those whom Barbara Branden interviewed never “broke” with Rand, either because they were never part of her inner circle or because they remained friends with Rand until her death (such as Alan Greenspan, Mimi Sutton and Rand’s housekeeper). So it would seem that those who have contributed to a less-than-flattering view of Rand represent a fair cross-section of those who knew her in terms of both their involvement in her life and their attitude toward either of the Brandens."

5. As far as Frank goes, people are complex and marriages are complex. The affair lasted in some shape or manner for 14 years. That for certain periods it hurt Frank deeply, causing him to consider leaving Rand is highly believable.

6. I don't deny that Rand had a "good" side. I'm sure that the book Jim mentions (which apparently is being edited by Scott McConnell of the ARI) will contain lots of evidence of this. But again, I can't comment on something that hasn't been published (I'm starting to notice a pattern here which began in PARC).

But Casey, let me ask you a question or two: plenty of people who knew Rand have said she had a "bad" side (ie, personality flaws that went beyond blowing her top once in a while). The people include the Holzers, the Blumenthals, and the Kalbermans. Are these people lying? Again, why don't you start with the Blumenthals and tell us what you know about their split with Rand. For example, do you dispute their claim about Rand's ungrateful conduct surrounding the tree/IV pole incident?

If your contention is that these people are biased, please tell us why their biases are any greater than Peikoff's.

If that's true. Otherwise:

Where are you?

(You can always come back to the light -- that's what's so great about free will. Just do it!)

Casey

Neil? What say you?

That should be: Babs, what say you? Cut out the middle man!

What say you?

"Wormy sliming" worthy of his Mistress, indeed.

1. PARC does not "speculate" that the break with Holzer had to do with Constitutional interpretation, but, rather, states that such differences were NOT decisive at all -- and that it was NOT Rand who broke with Holzer, despite BB's own contradictions.

2. As PARC observes, it is Ms. Branden who remains entirely unclear about how many "bottles" were involved -- if not, Neil should be able to tell us just how many "weeks" we are talking about (more than the last two?) And, since the housekeeper is the only witness for this, perhaps Neil can tell us what she really said about the quantity -- since, surely Neil knows that the housekeeper was furious over Ms. Branden's "report" of her report (any reason to doubt BB yet?);

3. If Frank fit Neil's labored cliches, he would simply have left Rand, as most other husbands who knew of their wife's affair would have. We are therefore compelled to look for another explanation. To conform to the "Frank and I were helpless victims" model that BB desperately needs for her own personal reasons -- she needs such unconvincing nonsense as "Frank only stayed for the money."

If Neil would only read PARC once, he'd find it all there.

In any event, notice the speculation that Neil needs -- e.g., Frank was oblivious to what was common knowledge about divorces -- which is far less credible than believing BB, a known liar who is plainly arguing her personal case -- i.e., whether she was a "victim" or "perp" in this matter.

But Neil can see no reason to doubt her.

As to Rand's description of male psychology in Rearden -- it was PARC's point, you will recall, that Rand had not yet met Branden, so it cannot be Nathan's head that inspired her. More critically, this is a HIGHLY unusual account of male psychology. For it to have been believable -- even to Rand -- let me suggest that she needed a source in reality, and that the only plausible candidate is Frank, given his later, unusual behavior.

Moreover, BB's various accounts of Frank's attitudes are already riddled with contradictions.

This is just a small slice of the many aspects of this issue which Neil knows are in PARC but conveniently ignores.

4. Alan Greenspan's kind words for an old friend -- btw, one he denounced in 1968 for some reason -- cannot obviously endorse material beyond his own knowledge, including, for example, most of what we have just been discussing.

I doubt that Neil would be impressed by a much longer list of witnesses, some of whom knew Rand better than Greenspan did. I doubt that he will put much stock in the testimonies of dozens of witnesses, including that housekeeper, which will be published in the near future, either.

This is because Neil is not an honest scholar.

He will raise an issue, and when confronted with its obvious refutation, simply move on to another topic altogether, as if nothing was ever said.

Is it any wonder that he has "moved on" and, yet, still can't let go?

Not getting away with it, Neil.

The only reason Barbara Branden would mention people Rand "drifted away" from at all (it's not noteworthy and there's no reason to mention it) is to associate those with other breaks and lump them all together as though they are part of a general theme in her apotheosis -- Branden's self-serving thesis. Just because you can't seem to add 2 plus 2 does not mean she expected her readers to be that obtuse.

The whole reason to start mentioning the "breaks" with other people earlier was to pay it off with that culminating paragraph you attempted to gloss over. I didn't let you get away with that, by quoting her cashing-in moment for everyone to see in all its tragically drawn melodrama.

You may not be familiar with the art of writing, but that is how it's done. You must foreshadow the climax, where you cash in on all the foreshadowing. Those mentions of drifting away, etc. were not just randomly or innocently included earlier -- they were put there for that paragraph -- and there are others like it -- to bolster her main thesis and the sickening dodge of personal responsibility for her break with Rand.

The fact that she uses them in that paragraph there before launching into another episode she wants to use to drive the point home (Kalbermans, Blumenthals) only proves the point. You lose. You don't get any points for beating a dead horse.

Please,

That Rand ended some relationships in anger, doesn't mean she didn't end others on friendly terms. And Branden's book has examples of both. You've also proved my point that the multiple breaks with people on page 385 were not described as excommuncations and most are mentioned in other places in the book, chronologically. So score two more points for me.

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you know about the breaks with the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans. I mean if Branden made stuff up, why don't you tell us what really happened?

Barbara Branden on Ayn Rand's "breaks" with friends:

Page 153-154 PAR "Ayn was often warm and generous with her friends... but when, in her view, a line had been crossed, when she saw an action as unjust to her, or as intellectually dishonest, or as morally wrong, she became an avenging angel and the relationship ended in a burst of rage."

Page 385 PAR "The world, once so shining with hope and love and achievement, had turned bleak and cold… She had lost too many close friends – Isabel Patterson, Albert Mannheimer, Nora, myself; she had drifted away from Frances and Henry Hazlitt and all her old friends among political conservatives; she had broken with Bennett Cerf; years earlier, she had broken with Edith Efron, a later member of the Collective; in her seventies, she broke with Erika and Henry Mark Holzer, and a few years later with Kay and Phillip Smith.”

Are you sure YOU read PAR? Do you REALLY want me to go on?

1. Yes these breaks/drifting away are placed in the approximate chronological order in the book. The break with Paterson is discussed on p. 283. Rand's drifting away from conservates on p. 267. Cerf on p. 322. Mannheimer on pp. 237 and 267. Hospers on 324. Nora on 377. Blumenthals on 386-88. The Kalbermans on 388.

2. Incidentally, Branden is very clear that Mannheimer stopped contacting her. She describes how Rand wrote Cerf a nice letter when they broke ("I shall always give you credit . . .). The very reason you know that Rand didn't 'excommunicate' all these people is because BRANDEN TELLS THE READER! Did you read PAR?

3. Branden sums up on p. 385 the people with whom Rand broke/drifted away as a prelude apparently to discussing Rand's difficult final years. She then discusses Rand's conduct vis-a-vis the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans. Rand's unkindness drove the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans away. Again, no claim that Rand excommunicated them.

4. Let's cut to the chase, Casey. Why don't you tell us what you know about, say, Rand's break with the Blumenthals and why you think Branden misrepresents it?

Sometimes you surpass yourself. This is one of those occasions.

It's not your forte, but context is king and you would do well to take note of it.

Where, exactly, did Barbara deem it necessary to list people that Rand had ceased to associate with, even for completely benign or even accidental reasons? WHY WOULD BARBARA BRANDEN DO THIS, NEIL? HELLO!

What would you think I was trying to say about you and your psychology if I gathered together from across the years people you had cordial relationships with at first and then later ended friendly association with later? Hmm? Let's try a thought experiment to spell it out for you:

"Neil had a cordial relationship at first with James Valliant, but quickly turned hostile and made it a life mission to destroy his book. Alas, he also had a relationship with Girl X and that ended badly. In addition, there were, of course, the breaks with Karen, Bob, and John who were colleagues at work over a variety of different employers. And the pattern was established as early as Elementary school, though some of those resulted from graduation to different schools or parents relocating. He hasn't even spoken to his uncle in years, and perhaps that one involved a drifting away. At a certain point during a meal, he was suddenly moved to anger by a waitress's failure to see his waving hand."

Now, why would I scrape all of those events into one pile? What am I trying to say? What do I hope people notice, even though I don't come out and say it? Why would I organize these facts this way, even though they occurred at different times during a lifetime? What is my goal?

My goal is to say that the only reason you say so many bad things about James Valliant's book and James Valliant is that you have a pattern of doing this to people. Never mind that everyone falls out with numerous people for numerous reasons during the course of life, I'm highlighting the fact when it comes to YOU, Neil.

Now if I resorted to that kind of cheap trick to invalidate your points you would see it for what it is. Anyone's relationships with other people could easily yield a pile of people-you-broke-with if they are associated together and highlighted as a special class unto its own. "For most people, these events occur chronologically throughout their lives, but in the case of NEIL we're going to dispense with treating them as an infrequent part of his life that crops up now and then as it does with everyone, and instead we're going to jam them all together in one great big list."

Ask yourself: where are these accounts located in her book? Are they located in approximately chronological order along with other events taking place in the natural order they occurred in Rand's life?

Or did you find out about the "breaks" Rand had with the Holzers, the Blumenthals, Kalbermans, Efron, Hospers, Smith, etc. in one place, all jammed together in a list, in her book?

WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK BARBARA BRANDEN WAS TRYING TO DO?

AND WHAT DOES BARBARA BRANDEN HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN DOING?

Tree meet forest.

I just did a seach on Amazon. The words "excommunication" and "excommunicate" don't appear in PAR.

You mean Babs just did a search of your ear, Neil. Hahahaha!

Ever going to tell us in what respect Rand consciously breached her convictions?

Casey,

I just did a seach on Amazon. The words "excommunication" and "excommunicate" don't appear in PAR. Branden merely says that Rand "broke" with the Holzers. (p. 385.) She does not describe it as an excommunication. She describes Rand as having "broken," "drifted away," "lost" with a number of people on the same page. Can't you read?

Incidentally, BB says clearly that the Blumenthals and the Kalbermans left Rand. Again, no excommunication.

But if you think that BB has misrepresented Rand's breaks with with Allan Blumenthal, Joan Blumenthal, Harry Kalberman, Elayne Kalberman, Edith Efron and John Hospers, why don't you tell us what really happened.

1. I'll defer to Valliant himself. He's under the weather today. But you yourself have Barbara saying one thing (the most unlikely) in her book and Walker basing his differing account on what he found out from her, as well. The sum total of what Barbara has said about this subject is more important than what she said in one place if she said other things elsewhere -- and she did, as recently as after the publication of PARC.

2. Barbara added the Holzers' falling out with Rand as an example of the unjust excomunication Rand was wont to do -- to explain her treatment of the Brandens as something other than justice -- namely, that she went around doing this to everyone as a part of her personality. Since Holzer, in the very interview you cite, states that her falling out with Rand was far from an "excommunication," we can lay Barbara's use of that as an example to rest.

3. You say: "Who else did Frank talk to about the affair? And again, whom did Jim interview and where are they cited (on any subject, not just this)?" Are you daft? Seriously!

4. Greenspan was a friend of Barbara, as well, Neil. I never disagreed that he was close to Rand until her death, I disagreed that he was "close" to Barbara. And until PARC was published, the only thing he could know about the affair came from the Brandens.

Casey,

1. The nearest footnote is to PAR. I don't believe TARC is referenced in the notes to that chapter.

2. Why do you think the Holzers split with Rand? If you are saying that Branden has misrepresented the split, you must know what really happened.

3. Who else did Frank talk to about the affair? And again, whom did Jim interview and where are they cited (on any subject, not just this)?

4. Greenspan says in his autobiography that he remained close friends with Rand until her death. Is he lying?

1. Nope. I’m not conceding it was intended as a quote from one source, at all.

2. James was speculating about the cause, and says so. There might even be other reasons that the Holzers themselves have not revealed for their estrangement from Rand. The point in PARC that James was making is that their parting ways with Rand was NOT an example of Rand’s dictatorial excommunication of friends, as Barbara Branden would have it in PAR. Remember what PARC was about, Neil?

3. You're dodging the point: Branden interviewed 30 people and only she had a moment with Frank that revealed his marital pain? Jim didn’t have to interview a single soul to notice that.

And how bad could Barbara’s marital pain have been if she was having her own affairs at the time? Oh yeah, she didn’t mention that in her book. Her book about how Rand inflicted such pain on her because of the affair.

If we can’t even trust Barbara to tell the truth about her own pain about the affair, why should we trust her about witnessing Frank’s marital pain, ESPECIALLY when she is the only one who witnessed it out of all the people she interviewed?

To review: 1) Barbara claimed to have been silently devastated by the honest and open and mutually agreed-upon affair between Rand and Branden, even though she leaves out the fact that she had affairs of her own during the same time and kept them secret from Rand while requesting marriage counseling from Rand for a marriage she herself had given up on 2) Barbara claims Frank suggested his own devastation by Rand, even though none of the 30 people she interviewed witnessed this and we have nothing but Barbara's word to go on for this.

4. I know this much: a “close friend” (that’s an assumption) who knew nothing about an affair going on between other friends years ago would probably recuse himself from taking sides in the issue and offer an arm's length neutral quote for one friend's book about it instead of giving a ringing endorsement that discernably took any side.

spell Casey's name right! It's on the top of all of his posts, or are you blind to that glaringly obvious fact also?

Casy,

1. So I take it you agree that PARC misquotes PAR on the issue of what Branden says the housekeeper told her.

2. It looks like you also concede that the split with the Holzers was unrelated to constitutional interpretation.

3. BB interviewed dozens of people who knew Rand during all parts of her life. Please list the people whom Jim interviewed. And where are they cited in his book?

4. I guess we have different ideas of how a "close friend" would react to a book that he knew to be dishonest.

to be expected I suppose, by those who hate Rand - and hate her they do. James is her avenging angel, so I guess he's the one who they are now going to try to bring down. Vampires.

You know, Claudia, I have heard people accuse James of lawyerly tricks so many times while they are using as evidence exactly this kind of trick:

Neil: Now, as to Frank's drinking, do you admit that so-and-so never said he drank rows of bottles discovered after his death but instead said he drank rows of bottles weekly?

Defense lawyer: Objection your honor, facts not in evidence, hearsay...

Neil: Oh, your honor, I wasn't saying Frank was an alcoholic, just that the witness misquoted the victim about the circumstances surrounding the rows of empty liquor bottles found by the housekeeper...

Judge: Objection sustained, the jury is instructed to disregard the entire exchange and not use any of the information contained within it to color their opinion of the facts in evidence...

Defense lawyer: Judge, I ask for a mistrial!

Wormy, indeed.

1. I did not express an opinion in the post concerning whether Frank drank too much, so your point is irrelevant. I simply noted that Jim misquoted Branden's book.

Wormy sliming a la Barbara.

Get honest about your agenda Parille! You DO have an opinion on these matters - your constant harping about them is a massive testament to the fact.

Claudia: "She has always had a vested interest in Frank feeling *exactly* the same way she did in order to paint Ayn as cruel and alleviate herself from the responsiblity of expressing her feelings honestly at the time that it mattered."

This a very good point, and made even stronger by the fact that Barbara helped Nathaniel carry on the ruse that he was still interested in an affair with Rand long after that was true -- for her and Nathaniel's own fraudulent benefit. (She had had affairs herself, hidden from Rand, while still married to Nathaniel -- something she omits from her own memoir but which Nathaniel self-servingly includes).

Remember, Nathaniel reports that when he said he would have to reveal the truth to Rand, Barbara objected. Nathaniel admits that, at the time, as he looked at his wife, the thought crossed his mind: "So, we are all operators now." (Of course, he omitted this from his revised edition of his memoirs.)

These are the characters Neil gives the benefit of the doubt while second-guessing Rand at every turn. And of course it never occurs to him that they would have an agenda in writing their memoirs and publishing them -- safely after Rand's death.

3. The idea that the affair hurt Frank is highly believable, as even Jim concedes. That "everyone else" (if true) didn't notice their problems isn't unusual. You've never known a couple that seemed happy, only to be surprised to learn that they had marriage problems?

From what I've read about these accounts - and from what I understand about marriages, the point is that even if Frank was fond of his booze it is wrong to lay that blame at Ayn's feet, which is what you and your ilk are always trying to do Parille - ad nauseum.

Ayn laid all her cards out on the table. If the other two people involved, Frank and Barbara, could not match her honesty by making it clear how much her affair hurt them, it is their own damn fault. In PAR, Barbara was an insufferable wimp when it came to being upfront about how the affair made her feel. She has always had a vested interest in Frank feeling *exactly* the same way she did in order to paint Ayn as cruel and alleviate herself from the responsiblity of expressing her feelings honestly at the time that it mattered.

And, Alan Greenspan's "fascinating insight" comment is just as Casey has called it. He didn't say "accurate insight" or "brilliant insight." "Fascinating insight" has all the connotations of "I hadn't thought of it like that before."

1. Frank’s Drinking? That’s your heading for this point? Why not just call it “When Frank Stopped Beating His Wife”? You should have narrowed the focus down to the microscopic point you were making: Whether or not Barbara said in an interview with Walker that the housekeeper discovered bottles after her death since in her own book she claimed the housekeeper saw them weekly. Walker could have no other source than Barbara, who has already, after PARC came out, made significant changes to the claim in her own book. Did Barbara ever complain about Walker misquoting her? Why don’t you ask her? The book’s been in print for a while now. The fact that you claim this is “one of the most notorious misrepresentations by James Valliant in PARC” is such a testimony to the accuracy of the exhaustive research that went into the book, in any event, that it renders your disproportionate hyperventillating laughable.

2. Well, if HOLZER put it in quotes then she was quoting someone else – and it was not “Holzer’s description” as you claim. Generally when people put something in quotes it means they are not speaking for themselves but referring to something others have said. The rest of her quote makes it quite clear Holzer did not herself think of it as an excommunication, in any event.

3. That’s a bigger sample than Barbara ever found through her extensive interviews. Funny how she turns out to be the only one to witness that even after all of those interviews – and she is the very person who had exactly that ax to grind. Hmm. And I’ve had enough experience with people to realize that anecdotal evidence about people is hardly reliable in judging other people – especially when it comes to marriages. And especially when it comes to the extremely unconventional Rand and O’Connor.

4. You are assuming that Greenspan gave “approval” to the book. The statement is as carefully neutral as just about everything else Greenspan has ever said. He is notorious for such statements. In fact, for quite some time he was neutral about whether he could assert that he himself even existed.

Casy,

1. I did not express an opinion in the post concerning whether Frank drank too much, so your point is irrelevant. I simply noted that Jim misquoted Branden's book. It is evident that he did, unless you think that "each week" is the same as "after O'Connor's death."

2. I didn't say that "excomunication" was Rand's term, but Holzer's description. You'll have to ask Holzer exactly what happened, but obviously the break with the Holzers didn't have anything to do with constitutional intepretation, as Jim speculated. And Holzer suggests the break with Rand was initiated by Rand.

3. The idea that the affair hurt Frank is highly believable, as even Jim concedes. That "everyone else" (if true) didn't notice their problems isn't unusual. You've never known a couple that seemed happy, only to be surprised to learn that they had marriage problems? By the way, how many people who knew Rand and Frank did Jim interview and what did they tell him about the marriage? Best I can recall, the only people mentioned in that section of the book are NB, BB and Peikoff. Hardly a huge sample.

4. Greenspan was "close friends" with Rand for 30 years. If what Jim is saying is true (that her biography is a pack of lies) then it would have been obvious to Greenspan. Pretty strange to give *any* kind of approval to a book about a "close friend" that you know first-hand is dishonest, don't you think?

How many times do each of these phony claims of Neil's (and Campbell's) have to be refuted? (So that people like Scherk can criticize how many posts it takes to deal with them?)

1. Think about Barbara's tricky wording in that statement by the housekeeper. There is no way even an alcoholic could leave rows (plural) of empty bottles EACH WEEK. Get real. She makes no claim that there were new bottles, new rows, old bottles, old rows, no way of determining if this was evidence of weekly drinking, and if they were would be insanely exaggerated evidence of weekly drinking of liquor in any event. An accomplished acoholic can down a bottle of liquor a day. A week's abuse would never leave "rows of empty liquor bottles." So Barbara is obviously being tricky here in her wording. The evidence for THAT is that the housekeeper was furious at her for the inference she was making about Frank being an alcoholic, and said so.

The (two) witnesses Barbara quotes only saw Frank ONCE in the last few weeks of his life before he died of arterial schlerosis. Neither was identified in her book, one of them is now dead, and NO ONE who knew Frank longer than meeting him at the door of his apartment once ever claimed to have seen him drunk, much less being an alcoholic -- INCLUDING THE BRANDENS!!!! Even the unnamed drunk Barbara reports having seen Frank at a bar never claimed he was drunk or a drunk.

2. The quotations around the word "excommunications" do not imply that this was Rand's word at all. They probably refer to the word famously used to characterize (and smear) Rand's dissociation with people over the course of her life, especially since the word makes no sense in the context of the actual quotation of Rand. An "excommunication" that includes leaving the door always open is not an "excommunication" at all.

3. If, after seeing example after example of the Brandens' lies, Neil, you still would rather believe her convenient testimony on what Frank said to her in private that contradicts everything everyone else ever saw, go right ahead. As Rand said, an argument might be fool-proof but no argument is damn fool-proof. And Nathaniel Branden contradicts Barbara's whole take on Frank's reaction to the break, as does Rand. That puts Barbara's secret little moment with Frank in the highly dubious column, especially since it conveniently supports the ax she is grinding when set beside all of the other lies that she told, along with her husband, to Rand for years.

4. Greenspan's saying that PAR is a fascinating insight only confirms that they are not his take on Rand. It is an admission that none of these observations were objectively obvious to him but were instead the product of Barbara's fascinating insights. How do you get from this that Greenspan had ever come to the same conclusions that Barbara does? No, it shows that after all the years he spent with Rand, Barbara's conclusions had never occurred to him and "fascinated" him.

Really, Neil, give up this pathetic avocation of yours.

P.S. Barbara's insight fascinates me, too, for numerous reasons. Guess that's ready to blurb on the back of a book, too.