I admit to jumping to an unproven conclusion, but if Anne's derogatory tone from that old article is anything to go by...I will bet you ten to one against that this is indeed no more than another smear.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

This was written by Ms. Heller before even proposing her biography -- 2003 -- it keeps "popping up" to her surprise.

All I will say is: make no assumptions, my friends.

[I've been quite ill, but intend to get back to SOLO soon in full force...]

Mr. HWH has now proclaimed Anne Heller's book biography of Ayn Rand to be a smear.

How he could know this is unclear to me, as the book is not due to be published till February 2009, and he doesn't claim to have seen the manuscript.

Besides, I thought that Mr. Valliant was going to be sent the galley proofs of Ms. Heller's book.

Robert Campbell

Over at ARCHN the "squalid leprous pygmies" are salivating over Hellers upcoming smear of RAND. 

This from Daniel Barnes over at Archn -

Anne Heller's much awaited new biography is scheduled for February 09.
For a flavour of Heller's style, which appears to be a refreshing
change from the fervid toadying of likes of James Valliant, try this
New York Observer piece.

The New Yorker's Diary

The formula still works: 'Metaphysics, morality,

economics,

politics and sex.'

Not so long ago, Ayn Rand was a visible New York presence. When I
first moved to the city in the 1970's, the Russian-born author of
best-selling anticommunist novels-including The Fountainhead and Atlas
Shrugged -still lived, wrote and held court here. Her short, dark,
chain-smoking figure, often trailed by an adoring entourage, was a
frequent, and divisive, sight on college campuses and local TV talk
shows. She died in 1982, and after that her influence seemed to
wane-even in the midst of the Reagan "revolution," which borrowed
heavily from her notions.

But her influence never waned for Fred Cookinham. He met the queen
of capitalist fiction in 1978 and became a proponent of Objectivism,
her system of ethics, which can be summed up by the title of one of her
nonfiction books, The Virtue of Selfishness . He began collecting
details of her life and work, and now knows more about her than almost
anyone who wasn't a follower or friend. So, four or five times a year,
he leads walking tours of the settings that were important to Rand and
her "heroic individualist" characters. On Monday, Feb. 2-the 99th
anniversary of her birth-he led a special birthday tour.

Having recently reread The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged , I
decided to take Fred's tour, and I joined him and a few other walkers
in front of the Waldorf Astoria hotel. As I arrived, Fred was
explaining that the 1931 Art Deco landmark apparently served as the
real-life model for the Wayne-Falkland Hotel in Atlas Shrugged ; that's
one of the places where the novel's heroine, an indomitable railroad
heiress named Dagny Taggart, conducts a high-minded but unmistakably
sadomasochistic affair with a rugged industrialist named Hank Reardon.
I was reminded that Rand is famous for her power-driven sex scenes; in
The Fountainhead , whose dominating (phallic) symbol is a New York City
skyscraper (presumably partially modeled on the 1931 McGraw-Hill
Building on West 42nd Street, Fred told us), the architect hero, Howard
Roark, courts the heiress heroine, Dominique Francon, by slipping into
her weekend house and raping her. (It was "the kind of rapture she had
wanted," the author assures us.) Rand once described her novels as
capitalist propaganda and her fictional formula as "metaphysics,
morality, economics, politics and sex." It's a combination that still
works with readers. Everyone on the tour, ranging in age from 15 to 61,
agreed that reading her books was a "mind-altering experience," as an
N.Y.U. student, clutching a copy of The Fountainhead , articulated it
for the group.

We formed a ragged line behind Fred and followed him east and south
on Lexington until we reached the Chrysler Building, where Henry Luce-a
model for the tragic character of newspaper mogul Gail Wynand in The
Fountainhead -briefly had an office. As we stood and stared, our
15-year-old called out, "Hey, there's Atlas!" We peered into the dimly
lit lobby at a mural of Atlas painted on the ceiling. Fred explained
that Atlas was a favorite Art Deco symbol of man's power to invent,
very apropos of Rand.

Fred is a kind of poet and street professor of Randianism, which you
might think would still be in decline, given communism's fall, but is
actually on the rise. Altogether, almost 11.5 million copies of her
novels have been sold, and in the last few years sales have been
heading up again, to an amazing 260,000 copies in 2002. When the Modern
Library asked readers to list the 20th century's 100 greatest novels in
1998, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead showed up as Nos. 1 and 2,
trumping everything from 1984 to The Great Gatsby .

Both Objectivism and Libertarianism, another Rand offshoot, are
thriving, especially on college campuses. As a case in point, Craig
Milem, a 25-year-old stock analyst who walked beside me, said he first
encountered Rand at Hunter College. Now he leads an Objectivist study
group and recently ran for City Council against Gifford Miller on the
Libertarian Party line. His campaign partly focused on repealing the
city's smoking ban, which "unjustifiably interferes with the rights of
property owners," he told me.

As the group moved on to Park Avenue and 42nd Street, we paused to
admire the statue of Cornelius Vanderbilt atop Grand Central Terminal;
this is considered the inspiration for the bust of heroine Dagny
Taggart's "robber baron" grandfather in Atlas Shrugged . Likewise,
explained Fred, Grand Central Oyster Bar may have doubled as the
cafeteria where Eddie Willers, Dagny's loyal assistant, and inventor
John Galt, Dagny's future lover disguised as a lowly railroad worker,
met to exchange information about her struggle against the socialist
"looters and moochers" who were trying to steal her railroad.

Soon we arrived in Murray Hill, the tour's holy of holies. Here's
where Rand lived, on and off, for 40 years. Fred showed us three or
four apartment houses she inhabited, including the red-brick structure
now housing the Kitano New York hotel. Then he led us to 2 Park Avenue,
at 32nd Street, where for a few months in the late 1930's the young
novelist worked for that building's famous architect,ElyJacques Kahn,
and pumped him for information about his colleagues; the gossip she
gathered appeared, slightly veiled, in The Fountainhead . (Fred has
tracked nearly every architect portrayed in that book and can point out
most of their buildings, too.) In fact-thrills all around-we were
actually standing on the very spot where Rand is said to have made her
biggest Objectivist breakthrough.

Fred elaborated. "One day, on her way home from the old Bellmore
Cafeteria on 28th Street," he said, pointing south, "Ayn Rand realized
that there is a natural scientific basis for the idea of right and
wrong-for a morality that's not dependent on God or religion," which
she loathed. "And that basis is simply life and death!" We all nodded.
Having read Atlas Shrugged , we understood that this is the foundation
for her famous moral defense of capitalism: Because capitalism, and its
cousin selfishness, enhance the individual citizen's life, they are
good; because communism and "altruism" require people to sacrifice
their individual interests to those of others, they are evil.

The tour ended in front of Rand's last residence, the Murray Park on
34th Street and Lex-a noisy, nondescript corner of the city she loved.
The final years of her life were a bit nondescript, too. A one-sided
love affair with a younger, married follower ended badly. Her husband
of 50 years, a mild-mannered actor named Frank O'Connor, developed
Alzheimer's disease and died. The Objectivist movement she'd founded
splintered and seemed to dwindle. In her last few years, according to
one follower, she spent a lot of time watching TV, especially Charlie's
Angels . Fred said he thinks that Farrah Fawcett and her sidekicks must
have reminded Rand of feisty Dagny Taggart.

The other legs of the tour-from "The Skyscrapers of The Fountainhead
" to "Ayn Rand's Broadway" (she was a playwright, too)-completed the
picture of what inspired Rand. But it was Fred himself who proved how
thoroughly Rand inspires others. He first read Atlas Shrugged at age 13
in 1967. "If I had read any other book at that age, I would probably be
a liberal Democrat," he said. "But I didn't, and I'm not."

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Business card scanner 

Well, a single example of my failure to "properly cite" (on a website post, my friends!) might be nice.

It's hard to understand you -- but are you actually claiming that Brant Gaede hadn't said that Rand's adultery was "steeped in dishonesty" and that Branden's dishonesty was self-destructive?

You saw the latter but it is still not clear that you see the former.

Ellen Stuttle's claims about Rand's alleged belief that "anyone who doesn't see it the way [she did] must be irrationally motivated" is a "grandiose" and baseless opinion, sir.

Daniel Barnes' assertion that "the whole weirdo premise underlying PARC is that a super-ultra-uber-genius like Rand could only be fooled - even temporarily - by two super-ultra-uber-evil-geniuses!..;-)” is bizarrely grandiose and unfounded.

Jonathan's psychologizing of Mr. Heaps-Nelson is a rather stunningly grandiose and baseless bit of theorizing.

Unless you care to supply the substance that they did not...?

And, please, I won't impute Campbell's fantasies to you, if you can somehow restrain yourself from irrelevantly attacking the language of other people in your answers to me.

Remember, you are the one who keeps refusing to set aside the name-calling.

[Following the argument of James Valliant, with special reference to context and progression of certain signal statements that have raised ire and attention. We are on a search for substance, and incidentally for a reason the OL thread in question has had 472 follow-up posts and has been read 11,935 times. If we can offer some paltry flesh to the bones of "grandiose judgements," "vague and baseless references" of those unnamed but awful ugly trolls in the sewer at OL, perhaps a higher level of discussion may be advanced, notwithstanding the occasional passionate heights of "Brendan the Cunt" and "Butt-licking Barbara" from the also-rans.]

JSV, in a first incursion into the massive, dense and horrifyingly stupid and wrong and baseless and bad and awful and so on OL, quoting but not offering a link to Brant Gaede:
“…[Ayn Rand was] simply using Objectivism as a weapon. This is an example of Rand putting more on her philosophy than is really there... It wasn't Objectivism that damaged her, her husband and the Brandens, it was the private adultery, an adultery steeped in dishonesty and moral relativism.” -- Brant Gaede

The dishonesty and relativism of whom, you might ask.

WSS, in response: Surely you might ask, and reading the ellipses and the following and preceding paragraphs, you can find out: Nathaniel Branden, that's who . . .

JSV, relaunching the same vessel or similar vessel, answers:
BTW, Brant wasn't clearly excluding Rand from his "dishonesty" stuff, and his vagueness won't vanish with your say-so.

-- Now, as the first sour cherry picked from OL, the Gaede quote was designed to illustrate the main contention of this Feel the Love thread, ergo OL is a place where: smearing Ayn Rand is a full-time job, and where Big Opinions don't require a shred of evidence to support them

Okay, the exemplarily odious 'Big Opinion' of Brant was twofold, a vile heresy that Rand at one time used Objectivism as a weapon, and that the affair damaged Rand, Frank and the Brandens, rather than that Objectivism damaged Rand.

In the second instance, we expect James to agree. "Dishonesty and moral equivocation, check. Damaged Rand, check. Damaged Nathaniel, check. Damaged Barbara Branden, do research. Damaged Frank O'Connor, don't know, probably not, I previously averred that he found the affair thrilling and bore no bruise or blemish from it or its aftermath."

But yet have we found Brant carrying out his fulltime job of smearing Ayn Rand? Well, in James' reading, perhaps, for he pointedly remarks on Brant's vagueness as smear, that Brant left unclear whether he meant Branden was dishonest, and that Branden was guily of moral equivocation.

Again we must repair to the textual source.

Robert Campbell: Ellen and Brant,

The SOLOPpers are pretending that Ayn Rand's insistence on total acceptance of her ideas was simply a matter of "protecting the brand." What they are overlooking is her obvious belief that anyone who is not a true Objectivist is, or will soon be, foundering in a swamp of irrationality.

Campbell was noting two preceding comments by Stuttle and by Gaede.

Brant Gaede replies:
Could be, but in this case she is simply using Objectivism as a weapon. This is an example of Rand putting more on her philosophy than is really there. Official Objectivism will do to you just what she said it would, but true philosophy is passive: reality, reason, self interest and individual rights, not everything Rand ever said and published. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Rand when she sacrificed her life to the god of Atlas Shrugged, it was the sacrifice. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged her, her husband and the Brandens, it was the private adultery, an adultery steeped in dishonesty and moral relativism. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Nathaniel Branden (and Rand) in the 1960s, it was his dishonesty.

But, wait! What about the smearing? What about the grandiose judgements and vague and baseless references?

JSV: BTW, Brant wasn't clearly excluding Rand from his "dishonesty" stuff, and his vagueness won't vanish with your say-so.

Ah, vagueness! Yes, JSV has truly cornered the rat, no?

But wait! What was the Gaede creature uttered, by way of smearing Ayn Rand, again? -- It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Nathaniel Branden (and Rand) in the 1960s, it was his dishonesty.

Vague! Vague! Smears! Equivocation!

As for the first instance, that Rand used Objectivism as a weapon, well -- what was the instance raised by the vile Gaede?

Consistency is one of the cardinal requirements of Objectivism, both philosophically and psychologically. It is a dangerous philosophy to play with or to accept half-way; it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger.

I regret that the demonstration of this fact had to come in so tragic and ugly a form.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now we get on to picking the scab of James' non-engagement with Ellen Stuttle. In the first instance, below, we noted only his inability or indifference to cite properly, and his reluctance to offer any but a truncated, ellipsed and other wise redacted sampling of the ugly trolls and worse.

So, as this is already a lengthy post, I will return anon with an examination of the alleged perfidy of the sewer-dweller, Ellen Stuttle. We will re-examine the bizarreries claimed by James, determine the blot on reason, and excise it.

WSS

I knew there had to be a reason I let you back on.

*That* was very funny.

Opps...*blushes*....

Yesterday I wrote the following..." On Objectivistliving.com there is one chap..some slimey grub from Arizona (wherever that is)... called Beau Geste who seems to be engaging in a personal attack on James Valliant (and others).."

The "and others" was me.

One of my staff members has (apologetically) just informed me that I am in error, and the specific post which greatly offended me was not written by this chap, Beau Geste (or whatever his name is), but in fact by that failed pop star from Canada, William Tosspot.

I therefore apologise to Mr Geste...eekkkk...my hotheaded nature rather got carried away...gosh....I read a post which annoyed me, went ranting and raving and smashing china around the house and wrote that previous post..and...yes, gosh, was condemning quite the wrong chap.

ugh...now I feel like a complete fool..gosh...*blushes*

Elitism, forever!

The astonishing thing, Chris, is that Mr. Scherk actually thinks that he's provided context in rebuttal. He gives us a bunch more goodies, then thinks he's "refuted" something.

But, really, Mr. Scherk, all you've done is provide me with more of the same -- and, yes, another example of how you simply ignore the stuff you want to ignore, but more importantly, of how your mind works.

Rand is just so evil in these posters' imaginations that they are satisfied with the most vague and baseless reference in order to fly off with grandiose judgments.

You're good, too: you hint darkly at Rand's behavior in "therapy sessions" when Ms. Branden, for example, only showed Rand "clapping" and "chuckling" during one meeting being conducted by Branden which he called an ethics trial, not a therapy session...

And, see, we still don't have any "contradictions," or even "harsh judgments," only claims about such things.

You haven't added that "tidbit" -- you've added more assertions which require at least a tidbit of evidence in support.

So, let's get this straight, MSK can threaten and urge baseless law suits against me -- which, of course, he did for quite some time -- but he's not a "thug"? Only me, when I turn the tables on him?

Just as Ms. Branden can speak of Rand's "special antennae" -- and Mr. Branden can "marvel" at Rand's psychological insight -- but, for some reason, I'm forbidden from doing anything like this.

No, you can't imagine that your "context" proves them to be more balanced, more positive about Rand than I had claimed. Nor can you believe that chit chat about "dad the dentist" was vital, either. (From the volume of the screams, I think it's my drill that's been hammering away steadily -- and, sorry, if I've hit a few nerves.)

You must really imagine that this is some kind of substantiation for the claims made, rather than just more unsubstantiated claims.

But we still don't have a "tidbit" more than the Brandens' provided, sir -- just more unconsidered allegations. See, we need those "exact words" Ms. Stuttle doesn't have handy -- we'll need to see if Rand ever morally judged the physically handicapped at all outside of other people's mentions of it -- and we will need to see a whole lot more fancy footwork for me to see a "contradiction," much less to morally judge Rand from her comments on architecture as an art form.

BTW, Brant wasn't clearly excluding Rand from his "dishonesty" stuff, and his vagueness won't vanish with your say-so.

Ms. Stuttle's quotations hardly prove her bizarre claims about PARC or me, personally, of course, and quoting them back won't make them do so, either. They do not imply "perfection" in any way, for example, even in some "operative" sense.

One thing you did get right -- and I got wrong -- the relevant "Jim" in that quote. It's just so hard for me to see Mr. Heaps-Nelson as a "zealot" (yes, that's the bizarre claim that now must be maintained) that I assumed they must have meant their favorite "zealot," me.

Most of that text from PARC can be found here at SOLO, of course, and more is on the way.

You act as if it's all res ipse loquitur, as if the other material you present speaks for itself in rebuttal.

In its quality of thoughtful analysis and marshaled evidence, yes, it does.

In establishing its wild-eyed assertions, it does not.

And I am just so flattered at all the fuss and attention -- those numbers were impressive.

The only thing that left a significant impression was the excerpt from Dr. Hospers' memoirs about his discussions with Rand. Somewhere in the late-teens page numbers of the thread IIRC, to narrow down searches.

... he oiled his way through the door," to paraphrase a Henry Higgins line in a way that reminds me of none so much as Kelly, who just itches to Christianise Objectivism and made his way in from the gutter by licking Babs-butt and being glued to it by her as a reward for his sycophancy. What is supposed to be the point of telling that story? That Objectivists wouldn't give the boy a chance? That there should be a law forcing them to (wasn't that what he argued on RoR with respect to feeding starving babies or something?)? To show that he, Kelly, is a "caring" human being who wells up at touchy-feely stories? (Ugh!)

Wasn't Wayne Dyer one of the early psychobabslers?

I find it interesting that Peikoff, the foremost advocate of this "uncaring" philosophy, says in that same podcast that he thinks a tennis partner who doesn't call an ambulance when his opponent has a heart attack should be sued, possibly for criminal negligence!

I also found it interesting that Ellen Stuttle, as quoted here by Scherk, got the point about perfection consisting of living conscientiously by one's convictions and not knowingly breaching them, a point that that whole crowd evade (although the ghastly Jonathan acknowledges it at least implicitly when he accuses Rand of [unspecified] dishonesty).

Brant Gaede, fruitcake, another Branden butt-licker, should retain the "I am not an Objectivist" signature. Strictly speaking, that whole site should be called AOL (Anti-Objectivist Living), though I believe that one is taken.

James Valliant has been cherry picking on OL, it seems. The bitter cherries, of course, cherries from a 12 page thread about him and his book, "Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore." Even if James himself has not read its 459 posts, and so can only number once or twice among its 11,489 reads, it is worth considering that he will at least fork up some remnants about what the awful ugly trolls and worse, Ellen Stuttle, are actually on about.

JSV, quoting but not offering a link to Brant Gaede:
“…[Ayn Rand was] simply using Objectivism as a weapon. This is an example of Rand putting more on her philosophy than is really there... It wasn't Objectivism that damaged her, her husband and the Brandens, it was the private adultery, an adultery steeped in dishonesty and moral relativism.” -- Brant Gaede

The dishonesty and relativism of whom, you might ask.

Surely you might ask, and reading the ellipses and the following and preceding paragraphs, you can find out: Nathaniel Branden, that's who . . .

JSV, quoting but not giving context to Robert Campbell:
“I have no reason to think that Dr. Peikoff has consciously tried to hurt Ayn Rand's reputation… But he's achieved the same results as he would have if he'd set out to discredit her.” -- Robert Campbell

Discredit her? What negative tidbit has been added to the Brandens' portrait of an "Inquisitor using fire and the rack" that wasn't already there?

Well, the quoted section belongs where? You cite it in the pages of PARC:

Base[d] on this one example, Mrs Branden would have us believe that
psychology was a weapon which Rand used "as an Inquisitor might use
fire and the rack (16)."[pg 58]

[context provided:]

"Who would not have paid dearly to take part in a small group therapy
session which included Rand -- providing, of course, that the
psychologist conducting it was trustworthy." [pg 57]

Mind you, you did not provide the crucial parts of the Branden line: "it was her new theorizing in psychology" that led to ugly and untoward group-therapy sessions.

-- as for negative tidbits, the context is pointed. Campbell and his interlocutor are discussing some particular statements, against the shared assumption that the publication of Rand's 'psychoepistemological inquiries' in PARC detracted from Rand. Campbell is maintaining his opinion that the release of the Break-era journals did not add lustre to the crown of Rand. Of course you disagree, but distilling and mis-citing does not add lustre to your crown. Here is Campbells' full approbation for the particular statements of Gaede's:

You know, Brant, my father was a dentist, as was his father before him. Perhaps I have taken up the family trade, in my own way

Like light from a distant star, points 2 and 3 will eventually reach the zealots.
[pg 2 of the large cherry orchard from which James has collected his basket of mal mots.]

-- and what had Brant Gaede proclaimed about Peikoff and PARC?

A basic complaint against PARC is it is a prosecutor's brief--Valliant threw in everything including the kitchen sink. Now he's threatening Michael with lawyers, sounding something like a thug. I guess yesterday's Internet pressure got to him and he snapped. It seems that he read Michael's article for the first time yesterday. Both Michael and Neil are like dentists who won't stop drilling with Robert dropping in now and then with special instruments.

It is not the Brandens who have been avenging themselves on Ayn Rand all these years, it is Leonard Peikoff, who never got to have a life of his own--a life not under the thumb of a real, then as an imagined, Ayn Rand. The proper life of an individual as a human being is not the Eddie Willers of Objectivism.
[post 44]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JSV, misreading while citing but giving no reference to the relevent quote:
”Why is [Valliant] Jim assuming that others' disagreements or criticisms of [Ayn Rand] are efforts to prove that his hero has feet of clay? It sounds to me as if he's very emotionally invested in smearing anyone who dares to question some of the actions of his hero, or to point out the shoddiness of some of her defenders.

Who told this fair-minded chap, Jonathan, that he could call me "Jim"? (That's for my friends, or at least someone who knows me, "Jon-Jon.")

No. You misread Johnathan **, who was addressing James Heaps Nelson. How odd of you to overlook the actual context . . . an important question was how you misread the obvious intendant:
QUOTE(JHN)[ from SOLO node 4130]
I don't have a lot of time for this topic so I'll ask a question that's been nagging at me for some time: Why is it so important for some people to find fault with Ayn Rand?

. . . Jim's really starting to sound like a zealot.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JSV, quoting but not referencing Ellen Stuttle:
“Notice especially Valliant's iteration of Leonard Peikoff's description of Rand as ‘indeed, the person she had to be in order to have written Atlas Shrugged.’ Now that, in a sentence, states the primary myth about Ayn Rand, the myth she promulgated (and I think genuinely believed about herself): that she herself was a representative of the heroic characters of her novel.” -- Ellen Stuttle

So, Ellen agrees with the "letter of the statement" in PARC -- but somehow knows what Rand "needed" and what PARC was "really" trying to say.

Well, no. You misread the argument. Here is the necessary context:

OK, regarding talk on SOLO that Valliant's book PARC doesn't qualify as hagiographic, and pertinent to questions Daniel asked regarding any details given in PARC of Rand's making mistakes, here is an extensive passage from the "Introduction" to PARC.

I don't consider the heroic characters of her novel human exemplars, but a lot of Objectivists do thus consider them. I don't think that any humans in fact could be exactly the sort of persons she projects as heroic ideals. But a lot of Objectivists take those fictional figures as realizable ideal figures, and I think it's important to a lot of Objectivists to believe that Ayn Rand was such a figure. Some Objectivists have even said outright that it would cast doubt on the philosophy in their eyes if Ayn Rand wasn't such a figure.
[-- Ellen's point is further extended below***, providing, oh, a background and context for her argument.]

JSV: My adumbration of all this will be seen, no doubt, as my being bothered by the slightest flaw alleged in Rand -- and the very discussion of her mistakes -- but is it unreasonable to ask for the tiniest factual basis for just one of these assertions?

The foul and leprous beings of Objectivist Living have been alerted to your patrol!

WSS

Footnote 16: Passion of Ayn Rand, p 269

** And here's a simple example of Rand being irrational and self-contradictory:

As for "harshly judgmental," I'll refer readers to her many comments on the moral and psychological status of a variety of thinkers and artists and their works. Her comments on Dali, Vermeer, Degas, Beethoven and Parrish come to mind off the top of my head. I'd have to get back to you with her exact words. Other than that, there are a wide variety of comments that she made on many different issues ranging from the handicapped, as we've been discussing here on OL recently, to homosexuals ("immoral and disgusting,") etc., that I would think would easily qualify as being "harshly judgmental."

___________________________

***Ellen continues. Valliant, today, keeps disclaiming any belief that Ayn Rand was "perfect." Linz says that all he, Linz, means in evaluating her as "perfect" is that she attempted to live by her own standards and never consciously breached them. A great deal of semantic debate can occur -- and has occurred on earlier threads on SOLOHQ, and RoR, and SOLO, and I think on this list also -- over the operative meaning of "perfect."

In the course of what follows, we will also find something else: the profound truth about Ayn Rand and the meaning of her life, the very truth in danger of being lost to the character of a legend invented by the Brandens.

"Yes, there are things to criticize in Nathaniel's behavior; but what Valliant makes of those things is badly out of proportion. It's clear that he wants Nathaniel barred from Objectivist meetings; he wants Nathaniel basically 'ridden out of town on a rail' from any respectability in the O'ist world. He hasn't presented anything like a case which would justify the verdict he seeks.” - Ellen Stuttle

What Ms. Stuttle believes might be worthy of "criticism" in Branden, she leaves us to guess -- leaving the appropriate reaction also nebulous.

How on earth she just knows that I want Branden "ridden out town on a rail" is itself somewhat puzzling -- and how she gleaned it from PARC remains a mystery, too.

In any event, my friends, this was Rand's position on the appropriate sanction, for what it's worth:

“This is to inform my readers and all those interested in Objectivism that Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden are no longer associated with me or with my philosophy.

“I have permanently broken all personal, professional and business association with them, and have withdrawn from them the permission to use my name in connection with their commercial, professional, intellectual and other activities.

“I hereby withdraw my endorsement of them and their future works and activities. I repudiate both of them, totally and permanently, as spokesmen for me or for Objectivism.” – Ayn Rand

 In fairness to the poster at OL whose signature I quoted, here's his response, unedited, in his defense:

Joe Maurone is on my case again about my signature line. For the record I did not delete it because of him. I deleted it before his original post about it. I did put up my new signature line partially in response to that post. His beef is he thinks you're not an Objectivist if you're not in the Orthodox tribe. Maurone does me the honor of not mentioning me by name. I suppose he's trying to make me a generic representative of posters on OL, turn OL into another tribe. Sorry, it's tribe vrs not a tribe. BTW, Maurone, I don't use the word "selfishness" in regards the Objectivist ethics because Rand totally and completely misused it for polemical purposes by changing its definition, although she said hers was the "dictionary definition" never yet found by anyone but her.

--Brant 

To make the point? It seems they're begging to prove Peikoff right... 

MSK: "Now here is the idea I want to chew on. The following story is sentimental to the point of sappiness, but it gets to me. I read it and still choke up with tears that want to come out. It is practically the opposite of everything I love in Objectivism, yet deep within me, something of value is touched on a fundamental level and I know this is the good. This certainty goes beyond feeling.

Why is that? I refuse to deny it because it does not align with the philosophy I love. The certainty is real. So I need to understand this."

( That's great, MSK. Do what you must. I won't analyze you, the contradiction is yours, not mine. )

 While Ellen Stuttle contrasts the story MSK tells (which she doubts is real, incidentally) to Peikoff's podcast comments.

 The problem? The assertion that kindness is at odds with Objectivism to begin with. The insinuations in MSK's sentences, well, what more can I say that hasn't been said a thousand times already?

 That said, thank you again, James, for PARC.

 (P.S.: Appararently there are a couple of people on that site who are at odds with MSK's appraisal of the story, so here's the story by Wayne Dyer as quoted by MSK. Posted here as an excercise, to demonstrate that this is not simply a clash of personalities, but an issue of philosophical importance. I've no interest to argue WITH MSK, et. al. Again, we all know where we stand.)

 ......................................................................................................

Another point from Peikoff's same podcast says of the people who wanted Rand to soften her blows, they say: "Don't say 'selfish,' say that you stand for self-fulfillment. Then nobody's going to get mad at that! Of course, self-fulfillment can include doing some sacrificing, because that's what you find fulfilling. Or don't say that, say prudence, because nobody will be against you, plus, it's prudent to help others sometimes because otherwise they'll be antagonistic...But to say selfish, it would hit the person on the head, and there would be no way out, and that's what they hate..." 

The said signature on OL has changed, in reaction, from "I am NOT an Objectivist," to "My Kind of Objectivism: Reality, Reason, Rational Self-Interest, Laissez Faire Capitalism."

 The pretzel logic: "All it was was an attempt to distance myself from practically everybody else calling themselves Objectivist whose views frequently clash with mine re what Objectivism is or should be. It's not, for instance, Orthodox Objectivism which essentially is if Ayn Rand said it it is part of Objectivism. It is not Objectivist esthetics which is a bunch of opinions not really integrateable into the philosophy the way the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are. There is no basic principle of Objectivist esthetics."

 So he's not an Objectivist. No, wait, he's an Objectivist, but not THAT kind of Objectivist. Obviously, A is A is not applicable here... 

 Peikoff continues on his podcast: "If these people were given the phrase "Ayn Rand advocates the Virtue of Selfishness..."they would say 'well, she would advocate the virtue of selfishness tempered by niceness..."...Well, tell me where you get with that, you get a bunch of disgusting followers."

 (Of course, they're NOT followers of Ayn Rand at OL, oh, no...sure, they CALL it Objectivist Living, and SURE, they have a picture of AYN RAND on the masthead, but they're not followers. And of course, they're not hero worshippers, either...Dedicated to Ayn Rand? I'm sure she's thrilled.)

Sounds like Peikoff is nailing it on the head, provided with a nice object lesson.  

is WHY they call it "Objectivist Living" when a prominent member there has, proudly, as his signature, "I am NOT an Objectivist," while others echo it. And to have Ayn's picture on the masthead, that's the lowest. What Rand said about libertarians makes a lot of sense here: "I don't want their help and didn't ask for it." Can't wait to see the pretzel twisting to explain that. 

Leonard Peikoff had a relevant question that he answered on his podcast today. The question was: did Ayn Rand ever regret using the kind of provacative tone that may have made it harder for some people to warm up to her philosophy? To which he replied, emphatically,
"NO!TO THE CONTRARY! SHE WANTED TO BRUSH THOSE PEOPLE AWAY OUT OF HER DOMAIN! SHE WANTED TO SAY WHAT SHE KNEW EXACTLY AS IT WAS! AND IF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IT, TOUGH ON THEM! THEY WERE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING IT TO BE SAID ACCURATELY!"

Boy, do we need that! "The world is perishing from an orgy of weasel words."

O-Lying should be left to their lies, smears and sickening psychbabsle. But they should remove the word "Objectivist" from their masthead. The fact that they use it shows they are bereft of the skimpiest modicum of decency. Not that we didn't already know that.

On Objectivistliving.com there is one chap..some slimey grub from Arizona (wherever that is)... called Beau Geste who seems to be engaging in a personal attack on James Valliant (and others) and, gosh, why do these chaps just not sling their hooks and stick to their own website?!?!

Elitism, forever!

Leonard Peikoff had a relevant question that he answered on his podcast today. The question was: did Ayn Rand ever regret using the kind of provacative tone that may have made it harder for some people to warm up to her philosophy? To which he replied, emphatically,

 "NO!TO THE CONTRARY! SHE WANTED TO BRUSH THOSE PEOPLE AWAY OUT OF HER DOMAIN! SHE WANTED TO SAY WHAT SHE KNEW EXACTLY AS IT WAS! AND IF PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE IT, TOUGH ON THEM! THEY WERE EVIL FOR NOT WANTING IT TO BE SAID ACCURATELY!"

"They wanted was the same idea but put deluded, soft, without controversy, blurry, without clear definition, without offense." (rest at peikoff.com, podcast June 9th.)

 This explains a lot, doesn't it? "Objectivist living, indeed. 

I just visited the site for the first time...(cannot say I had even heard of it before today)...and, gosh, what a lot of malcontented chaps there

All they seem to do is criticise solopassion.com ...how odd. 

Elitism, forever!

A fevered feeding-frenzy of Rand-diminution by "squalid leprous pygmies trying to tear down a giant." And not a fact in sight. As I've said, in exasperation, my names for these creatures don't begin to do justice to their vileness.