Say what you mean, and mean what you say
Who's Online
There are currently 4 users and 19 guests online.
Online usersWho's NewPollA year after Obamalini's election, who is shaping up as a credible next President?
Sarah Palin
22%
Mitt Romney
9%
Ron Paul
13%
Bobby Jindal
13%
Mike Huckabee
3%
Glenn Beck
9%
Leonard Peikoff
16%
Tim Pawlenty
6%
Other (please specify)
9%
Total votes: 32
 Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell
 Economics In One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt
|
Barbara Branden's Meeting With Ayn Rand In 1981 Submitted by Neil Parille on Fri, 2008-03-07 02:05
In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden says that she met Rand in 1981 and wrote Rand a letter thereafter. (PAR, pp. 397-400.) In The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, James Valliant says that Rand never saw Barbara Branden again after their split. (PARC, p. 94.) I contacted the Archives of the ARI and they confirm that there is evidence that this meeting took place. Specifically, although the letter mentioned by Barbara Branden was not found, Cynthia Peikoff (who was Rand’s secretary in 1981), mentions the letter and the meeting in the forthcoming 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, by Scott McConnell. Reference assistance, courtesy the Ayn Rand Archives, A Special Collection of the Ayn Rand Institute. I thank the Archives for their response.
( categories: )
|
User loginNavigation
 The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
 Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand
Syndicate |
Bonehead
MSK: "Besides, it's always good to give the boneheads something to bitch about."
This guy Kelly seems a prick.
http://www.objectivistliving.c...
There is a definite bias in his writing.
Yes,
Meanwhile, Barbara Branden and Nathaniel Branden both are still posting their 1968 statements on their websites to this day. There's a contrast for you.
Linz
As PARC notes, Ms. B. will stick to the truth when she can. "A lie, to be believed, must be surrounded by a bodyguard of truths."
It is worth noting that PARC does not argue this point.
In any event, it does not alter the implications of her known, public lies or their impact on her credibility one bit -- or the need for the kind of corroboration Neil has found -- and the demonstration of those lies has yet to find any response whatever.
It was fair enough ...
... to doubt that story, given the absence of corroboration and the fact that it was self-serving, in the context of the demonstrable lies BB has told. I myself never doubted it—had discussed that occasion with Barbara in a radio interview, in fact—until James pointed out the absence of verification. Now we have it. Goes to show I suppose that even liars and smearers tell the truth when it suits.
How Long...
...have we been waiting to demonstrate this, Casey?
God, what a relief!
It also proves
That when you can actually point out a mistake (this is the only one so far that has any merit) James is honest enough to admit it.
I haven't seen the same from Neil as to the gross lies obviously told by the Brandens as documented in that chapter. We just get one big BLANK-OUT.
See?
I knew you would learn something!
And this was the extremely healthy exercise I had hoped it would be, Neil.
1. It showed that the ARI Archive will respond to you -- a known critic -- with whatever information they have, and it provides still more evidence that many have unfairly criticized that institution.
2. It showed that even if the documentary evidence that you were looking for doesn't exist (something I had already noticed), they will work to give you their best information.
3. It showed that ARI is not in the tank for me -- or, vice versa -- and that they are honest archivists -- again, despite the smears many of your friends at OL have offered up about both ARI and PARC.
And, last -- and infinitely the least:
4. It showed -- FINALLY -- something which should be corrected in future editions of PARC. It should read, "They would meet only once more, years later." Or, something equally just-about-the-same-as-the-original.
They did meet again.
You may send up whatever fireworks you want Neil, but you have found something I need to correct.
At last.
Thank you.
Now, as to how the meeting may have gone down... (the most suspicious part of all)?
And, of course, this information has no impact on anything else in that chapter. Not one little thing. So, perhaps, you might want to take my earlier suggestion, ignore this item, and tell me what's wrong with the conclusions -- or, indeed, anything else -- in that chapter.
If you can.