Naomi was totally wrong, but what's new about that?

Manfred quoted Rand as follows:

“The Objectivist,” Volume 7, Number 6, June 1968 – A Statement of Policy, by Ayn Rand, Part I: “I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, article, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist, as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who is Ayn Rand? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)”

This is one of the few places where I disagree with Ayn Rand.  Objectivism is a philosophy and if someone makes a statement about some aspect of Objectivism, a statement intended to be consistent with Objectivism, and it is a statement that is logically implied from Ayn Rand's philosophy, that statement can be considered a "source of information on Objectivism."  (The criteria is simple.  Is it a philosophical statement and is it logically consistent with the basic principles of Objectivism).  Rand used the word "authentic" to modify "sources of information" but that only makes sense in terms of author, not philosophy. The original writings and lectures will be the source of information that lets us compare new statements for their logical consistency.  But even these origonal writings and lectures are not exempt from the requirement that their statements be logically consistent and Rand would never have claimed otherwise.

What she should have written is that Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as of that date, were no longer legally associated with, or authorized to speak on behalf of Ayn Rand.  Ayn Rand, not Objectivism.  The Brandens still had their own minds, their own thoughts, their own ability to write and speak about philosophy.

Objectivism will always be a philosophy and not just a fixed set of writings and lectures that came to a close in 1968 (or did it come to an end when Ayn Rand died in 1982? Or does it come to an end with Peikoff's last publication?)

People will attempt to expand or explain some of the principles Rand put forth, and only logic will be the judge of whether or not their attempts succeed.

@ Steve Wolfer (Post 21): You wrote:

“Objectivism is a philosophy and if someone makes a statement about some aspect of Objectivism, a statement intended to be consistent with Objectivism, and it is a statement that is logically implied from Ayn Rand's philosophy, that statement can be considered a "source of information on Objectivism."  (The criteria is simple.  Is it a philosophical statement and is it logically consistent with the basic principles of Objectivism),“ which is fully correct and to which I can only agree.

I merely added Rand’s statement to the discussion as proof to back both William Dwyer’s and Peter Reidy’s statements, for Naomi Ludenberg’s “assertion” was evidently wrong or false, as I pointed out. It’s very common for enemies of Objectivism not to have knowledge of what Objectivism is, promotes and defends, and to use evidently false proclamations so as to harm it in any possible way. In this relation there are many myths which Objectivism’s enemies hold as established truths, while they are totally wrong, and they don’t care to check for truthfulness before voicing their statements.

The Atlas Society even issued a book dealing with it, and it makes a pleasurable read for the amazing lies that are being spread about Objectivism: “Myths about Ayn Rand,” by David Kelley, etc.

(Edited by Manfred F. Schieder on 5/11, 12:15am)