I know that you have admitted what Nathaniel Branden did was wrong and have been virtuous enough to condemn it.  Your commitment to the truth and your own integrity require that. 

What I disagree with you about is the scope and breadth of Branden’s immorality and the level of scienter involved.  I think PARC reveals previously unknown insights into the relationship of Rand and Branden, from Rand’s point of view.  PARC also shows that the Brandens’ attempt to reveal the truth contained yet another cover-up. 

What I truly love about PARC is Rand’s notes and how consistently and with such great integrity that Rand applied her own ethics in a painful situation. From her notes we know that Rand believed NB had hurt her deeply, and more than anyone else ever had.  [PARC page 264]

I don’t find Branden’s affair, per se, to be immoral.  Branden had every right to seek his own long term happiness.  If Branden had only told Rand before beginning the affair, or at least soon after it began, then the issue would be between them.  If Rand could not accept it, that would be Rand’s own fault.  I think Rand’s notes in PARC make it clear that Rand could and would accept the end of the relationship, if it was ended honestly.

The duty of my love for another is my duty I “owe” to my own values and my own selfish interest.  I claim my highest values because I chose them.  They have no claim on me, other than that I chose them. 

I believe that a mere innocent mistake or error of fact has no significant moral implications.  More than that, even an Objectivist can have a moral lapse, by choosing not to think, or choosing not to think carefully.  An Objectivist can give in to a temporary whim or desire that is not in his long term self-interest.  I recognize the immorality of such temporary moral lapses, but quickly move on. As long as the person recognizes the immorality and takes steps to seek their long term best interest in the long run, I would still consider such a person an Objectivist.

I consider myself to be a committed Objectivist, but will not bore you with all the luggage from my past that I carry with me and my struggle to stay in focus and seek my long term selfish interest.  I remind myself that even Roark tore down part of one of his buildings to fix a mistake.

However, I feel quite differently when a person makes a long term well-considered choice to commit an immoral act.  The length and breadth of the act itself coupled with the importance of the mistake in that person’s own self-interest, is relevant to my opinion.

Nathaniel Branden made a conscious choice as to his conduct.  He chose dishonesty and deceit repeated that choice over a prolonged period of time.  He gave careful and full deliberation to choice to deceive Rand.  The deceit was not only prolonged, but the deceit was directed at Rand, who Branden had declared as his highest value, or at least among his highest value.  In addition Brandon had all the intellectual capacity, epistemology and philosophy to see his immorality and take steps to correct it; concepts he had learned from the very person he sought to deceive. 

And how is it possible that he has not thought about and clarified to himself his attitude toward me in all these years?  Ayn Rand as quoted in PARC page 263

Rather than correcting his immorality, Branden took intentional steps to prolong it.   As Rand’s notes make clear, he even sought “her help” in his deceit, asking for her assistance with his problem, while all the time lying about the nature of his problem and the nature of their relationship.. 

This is not a case in which Branden could have been unaware of the scope of his immorality.  Rand explicitly and expressly confronted him and over and over and over again as he sought to evade.  Rand's notes in PARC prove that point. 

When someone betrays his morality to such a degree he is immoral, and not an Objectivist.

A person who gives into a momentary impulse to steal, has committed a theft, which is immoral, but I would not necessarily call that person a thief.   However when a person makes deliberate plans to steal, numerous times, over many years, that person is a Thief.

If Rand were in the wrong, I would admit it.  It would be my love of myself and Rand’s own philosophy that would cause me to want to admit it.  Without truth, I can not reason, and without reason, I have no hope.  If I am wrong, I am grateful to anyone who points out my errors.

The Brandens are still alive.  PARC proves that there former statements (books and articles) contain falsehoods.  I keep waiting for them to correct the record.  I know that BB gave a general refutation, but she did not respond to any specific points.  

I wish Rand had written her own autobiography,  but Rand had no duty to me, nor do the Brandens owe me any duty.  I simply suggest their silence has not gone unnoticed.

Dr. Campbell,

Actually, there is one thing “preventing me…” whether the ‘adorable’ and Valliant Jim is here or not:  my own word, that I would be back to post, upon only one condition.  That condition hasn’t happened; in fact, I got branded (with a _d_) as a lunatic for stating it, so technically, according to at least one of your members, I am not only in violation of my own terms, but here I am again looking for attention.  Since I am here, however –

Perhaps thousands of other folks could, even would, have made that specific point with that specific quote; but in this thread, of which I’ve now had a chance to read a bit more, I cannot find where anyone has, with or w/o the 1980 quote from TOF.  I find that remarkable, actually much more than remarkable, in light of my having been laughed at (and recommended for ejection) for using it.

Why?  Well, there is actually much more going on in that quote that just WHAT Objectivism is and who should or should not use the term.  There is the analogy to Marx, and the specific language AR chooses, “flight of fancy,” to name but two more points.  Also, there is the overall tone AR uses, which was characteristic of her in certain situations.  And several more points, all there to be seen and which I had hoped would be seen but apparently were not – by anyone in this group.

So what?  you might ask.  Because, each and every one of those points, and more, were ticked off to me one at a time by Anne Heller, in a conversation I had with her, perhaps one year ago (give or take a month).  Furthermore, Anne Heller had never seen any of that forward before I sent it to her.  What did that tell me about her as a biographer?  What should it be telling each and every reader of this post?  [I mention Anne Heller, because she couldn't get past the palace guard, yet she grasps features of Rand's writing immediately.  If she and I compare notes on Valliant's book, I feel certain she and I will have interpreted Rand's quoted entries in very much the same way, yet quite differently from how Mr. Valliant sees them.]

Please don’t say, “But we know all of that, already!  When, if ever, is Allen going to say anything that ALL OF US don’t already know?” 

That is precisely the point:  you don’t know.  Neither did I, not with full certainty, until I read and re-read that forward to the first issue of TOF, back in 1980.  But, there is plenty of evidence within the portion I quoted from TOF that puts paid to numerous interpretations made by Valliant of Rand's Journal entries.  Any long-standing member of this group should be able to make the connections without my help.

One more little point of interest:  I’ve encountered “Lysandra,” aka “Ellen Stuttle,” before.  “She” is a big fan of Nathaniel Branden – maybe even his “biggest fan.”  Lonnie Leonard may well have been in “her” ‘70/’71 pre-professional training course given by Allan Blumenthal.  But, I know for a fact that LL was already in NYC, with a private practice in place, during the same time frame that Albert Ellis “debated” Branden before a packed house.  The guy I shared an apartment with attended that “debate.”  He was also, before and long after the Ellis debacle, a patient of Lonnie Leonard’s, and my understanding was that Branden had talked Lonnie into coming to New York.

So, for now, I'll go back to waiting.

There is nothing wrong in using ideas, anybody's ideas. Provided that you give appropriate credit, you can make any mixture of ideas that you want; the contradiction will be yours. But why do you need the name of someone with whom you do not agree in order to spread your misunderstandings -- or worse, your nonsense and falsehoods.

Brant has already told you that he attended lectures that would later become Ominous Parallels and that Peikoff announced his intentions for such a book at the end of that five-lecture series.  I helped research the material for that book, and I happen to know why it took so long to hit book store shelves, rather than LP's original time table of two years or less:  he let AR edit the book, an error which cost him his entire approach to what could have been a book with far broader appeal.

There is much that I agree with, factually, in Valliant's book, and a great deal of interpretation with which I don't.  But is is obvious to me that even AR never understood Mr Branden, or never wanted to, which to me is the more likely explanation.  In my opinion, AR always heard what she wanted to hear and saw what she wanted to see.