How to Kill a Philosophy-A Review of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

I thought Rick had some sort of forsight for a second.

Ethan

Post 41

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 8:13am

Roger,

The rape thing goes much deeper with Mr. Valliant. He is an attorney and from my assessment of what he wrote, not a very good one, at least with respect to slander and libel laws.

I will check up on these laws, but seeing that Nathaniel Branden is a public figure, and has been a successful and honorable psychiatrist and author for years, with proper certification, any assertion that he has the "psychology of a rapist" is a direct attack on the reputation his livelihood is built on. This charge was put forth in a book bearing the work of a famous best-seller (Ayn Rand) and published and put on the market. It was reviewed and given exposure on public forums (Internet for the time being).

All this falls well within the concept I have of slander and libel. As I said, I am looking into the laws (there are those better qualified than I to do this, but hell, the law is there for anybody at all who wants to read it). From my own non-professional initial evaluation, I think even an incompetent paralegal would be able to make a solid case for this.

If I were Mr. Branden, I would hire a good libel and slander attorney, not one from the Objectivist movement, but one with a solid track record of winning cases, then have Mr. Valliant's hide and that of Durban House also. I don't know if a case against ARI for being a passive part of this would hold water, but I am pretty sure that they would be EXTREMELY cautious about making another blunder of that kind again with Ayn Rand's unpublished work. And ARI would tread very lightly in its war against the Brandens from then on.

I am still looking for something similar for Barbara. Obviously, the total impact of the series of smaller charges (starting with dishonesty) is a good case, but it could get overly-long and possibly too costly to prosecute. Think of the hours needed in court to go over each little charge. Still, something will come up. (I am not even half-way through the book yet - his pedantic lopsided style is sooooo BORING!) Valliant was so puffed up with his own importance that he was extremely thorough, so I have no doubt that he will mouth off in the right manner to fall under an obvious slander charge.

Valliant did not stop with the Brandens either. He even accused Rothbard of "intellectual larceny." Dayaamm!

Frankly, I am surprised that more people are not speaking out about this and asking for real justice in a real court of law, instead of this imaginary courtroom drama stuff.

Michael

Post 42

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 9:45am

Michael,

Under American law, a "public figure" enjoys considerably less protection from slander and libel than a private person. The presumption is that a "public figure" would get adequate attention - to whatever rebuttal he cared to make - without involving the courts.

Myself, I can ascribe no fault, and much virtue, to whoever first questioned "Hellen's" honesty: "Hellen" was a fraud end-to-end in every possible way, and the whole episode - which I still prefer to ascribe to mental illness rather than to a malevolent "practical joke" - stinks of moral turpitude. In the civilized world, the presumption of benevolence is a virtue. There is a wide gulf between subjecting evil to ridicule for its faults, and attempting, as NB did in the case of Diana Hsieh, to ridicule a person of integrity for her virtues. Yes, I understand that the latter kind of "practical joking" is tolerated and admired in some parts of the world. Did it ever occur to you that Brazilian admiration for such "practical jokes" is part of the same culture of emotional abuse that you yourself described only a little earlier in a separate article on SOLO?

Post 43

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 10:41am

Adam,

That still smells an awful lot like slander to me. If Scientology, with all its dogma and other crap, can win as many cases as it does, this looks like a piece of cake. And I personally advise Nathaniel Branden to not enter this make-believe "court" and enter a real one. After all, Valliant is an attorney. He should be able to take care of himself.

You asked: "Did it ever occur to you that Brazilian admiration for such "practical jokes" is part of the same culture of emotional abuse that you yourself described only a little earlier in a separate article on SOLO?"

One has absolutely nothing to do with the other, even on an examination of the underlying causes. Brazil has a strong oppressive Catholic influence. Despite this, Brazilians have a wonderful fun-loving sense of life. They typically mature and become much more "serious" after 25 years old, when Americans are already fighting the good fight.

What I was subject to was a bone-headed attempt to marry off a daughter to an "American prince" with self-imposed blindness by those people as to my nature. I can't tie in practical joking or fun-loving with this at all by any stretch of the imagination.

btw - Speaking of "emotional abuse," I just saw a CNN report on the large number of sex offenders with minors in our society. Not only is this sporadic "witch-hunt" mentality not producing any results - the problem seems to be getting worse and it gets innocent people like yourself involved in needless conflicts. Maybe this is due to people not being so fun-loving here in the USA? Not liking practical jokes I mean? Does that rationale sound a bit out there? That is the same logic as what you asked. (I say there is minute or no connection at all to both).

Despite your condemnation of "moral turpitude" of Nathaniel and whatnot, all I can do is read what was posted. I still don't get the abomination. It looks an awful lot like a goof to me. One thing is clear. That woman currently hates both of the Brandens. So, is there something in Objectivism that demands that hatred of oneself by another be enshrined and obeyed to the nth degree in order to avoid being branded as "immoral"? Sorry, I just don't buy it.

I don't know Nathaniel and there might be some bad things he practices. I can only judge what is online for now. And what is online is not evil - it might be in bad taste, maybe, but even that is a long shot to me. Anyway I definitely see no evil. What is missing that should be said to prove the despicableness of this to an outsider? Did he have an affair with that woman too? Dayaamm! What really is going on around here?

On another issue, since we are discussing honesty and such. I generally state my bias for Barbara and it occurs to me that this might be judged by some as merely an irrational feeling. I see that, as you are someone I highly respect and admire (especially your level of research and adherence to historical facts), you wish me to believe that there is pure evil in a practical joke. This indicates a tendency in this uptight culture to me. I am sure there are many lesser minds than yours who are particularly willing to read things into what I write that are not there.

So let me state for the record that I hold Barbara Branden to be a heroine in life and in literature. She kept an oath to a deceased woman for many years to protect a false reputation when she was the one whose husband had been coveted. That takes a lot of character.

And I would say that it takes even more character to break that oath - to set her sights on righting a wrong that had been wreaking havoc on people for years and blatantly turning Objectivism, something she helped to build, into a cult instead of an effective philosophy that should be spreading a lot more than it is. She chose the greatest good and put herself out in the public eye for ridicule. Who on earth wants to declare to the whole world that her best friend and mentor slept with her husband for years? Well, ridicule people sure did too - starting with the initial denials from ARI - that supposed stronghold of "truth."

What Barbara did takes a degree of honesty and goodwill that I personally strive to live up to. I admire her tremendously - not just for the benefit her book had on me during a bad time, but for her competence, perceptions, honor and character.

Michael

Post 44

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 12:11pm

I know for a fact that NB went through a fairly bad spat of screwing up email things as he went through the process of familiarizing himself with the Internet. In my experience he was a little worse at it than some people, and a bit better than others. I think there are (were?) times when he used to jam an awful lot into his day.

I expect flak for this, but I think the Diana Hsieh blog thing was, in the end, pretty funny. Not the best judgment, but it was kind of funny, and he sort of proved his point with whatever you'd call those hijinks.

As far as what he's said and done at lectures, I could see him not giving an expected response. I'll tell you what he has consistently done for me, though...

There were times when he was clearly very busy, and yet he seemed to know when to take time and get back to my wife and I on things when we really could use to hear from him- he's always been great with that, and I'm thinking I'm not the only one. He gets a lot of email and calls and such.

He's definitely a different sort of guy. I think that's part of how it works.

Post 45

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 5:26pm

I may be way off base on one or both of my following comments, but...

1. Adam Reed wrote: "Myself, I can ascribe no fault, and much virtue, to whoever first questioned "Hellen's" honesty: "Hellen" was a fraud end-to-end in every possible way, and the whole episode - which I still prefer to ascribe to mental illness rather than to a malevolent "practical joke" - stinks of moral turpitude. In the civilized world, the presumption of benevolence is a virtue. There is a wide gulf between subjecting evil to ridicule for its faults, and attempting, as NB did in the case of Diana Hsieh, to ridicule a person of integrity for her virtues."

That's not at all how I interpret the "Hellen" episode, nor NB's purpose behind it. I don't think it's obvious, or even true, that the only plausible alternatives are that NB was mentally ill or engaging in a "malevolent practical joke." It was not that long ago that both Diana Hsieh and her one-time colleague Carolyn Ray each (at different times) were moderators of NB's discussion lists, as well as guests in his home (on more than one occasion). Things seemed quite cordial (but who knows, right?) for at least several years. Then, within the past two years, Diana did an abrupt 180 and began to scourge both the Brandens -- coincidentally (or not) during the same period that she divorced herself from The Objectivist Center and began drawing much closer to the Ayn Rand Institute. (And we all know how ARI feels about the Brandens!) Whether this was an "admission requirement" for entering the inner world of ARI scholarship and assistance, or instead merely Diana's own coincidental timing for arriving at a firm judgment about the Branden's -- well, I leave that to the reader. I really don't know, though I have my suspicions.

All of that is background, as I understand it. And my understanding of what then occurred on Diana's blog was that NB wanted a chance to confront Diana about her
harsh break from him and Barbara. After she told him that he was not welcome on her blog, NB apparently re-entered the blog under the guise of (or with the help of someone named) "Hellen" and tried to re-open the issue. To me, this is neither a sign of "mental illness" nor a "practical joke" (malevolent, or otherwise). Using a pseudonym (if that is really what NB did) is really pretty tame stuff. (It's not all that different from Devers finagling her way into Rand's apartment in the late 1980s in order to try to get her to reconcile with NB). It appears to have been motivated in this case by the desire to clear the air, to get Diana to re-engage with the issue, and to try to reach an understanding about what went so wrong that Diana had to do such a precipitous, harsh U-turn in regard to the Brandens. Diana has a habit/policy of very abruptly cutting off discussion of issues she doesn't want to continue, even if there is no element of rancor involved, and freezing out the Brandens is only one of the more frustrating examples of this. (Another is her intolerance over any discussion of the free will/determinism issue.) In any case, I think that Adam is indulging himself in a false alternative that fits his biases and is thus not remaining open to a more plausible explanation for the "Hellen" episode.

2. Michael Stuart Kelly wrote: "The rape thing goes much deeper with Mr. Valliant. ...any assertion that he has the "psychology of a rapist" is a direct attack on the reputation his livelihood is built on. This charge was put forth in a book bearing the work of a famous best-seller (Ayn Rand) and published and put on the market. It was reviewed and given exposure on public forums (Internet for the time being)."

I understand that Michael is suggesting that Valliant's motive in making this assertion about NB is to attack and damage NB's reputation and livelihood. That may be so, but I also believe that Valliant is not just pretending to think that NB "has the psychology of a rapist." I think he really believes this. There really are people out there who think that NB is a callous sociopath, who uses and abuses people for the sake of power, and that he hasn't changed a bit since the 1960s. I think Valliant is one of them -- and apparently, so is Diana Hsieh. There also really are people out there who think that NB engaged in some egregiously immoral behavior in the 1960s, but that he has gone to extensive lengths to try to set things right since then and deserves moral credit for having done so (especially in comparison to others who have not made such efforts in regard to their own behaviors during the heyday of the 1960s movement). I am one of those people.

As for whether NB should try to fight Valliant in court, I'd say "no." Valliant's non-valiant efforts will (I predict) not have the intended effect. And even if they did, NB (nor anyone else) is not guaranteed a market for his services, nor the good opinion of others. He and Valliant both have free speech. And NB has a long track record of helping others to point to, as well as expression his concerns about the direction of the Objectivist movement, the fate of Rand's philosophy, and the psyches of those who were adversely affected by them. While Valliant just has the obvious fact that he is a prosecution lawyer, who agrees with the Ayn Rand Institute that NB is an evil man. I think what few people end up reading the book will decide what they are going to decide, and that it will probably not change any minds to speak of, and that NB's psychology practice and reputation will remain unscathed. While I am grateful to Valliant for getting an additional portion of Rand's journals released to the public, I can't help but think that it could have been so much more valuable without the advocacy approach, not to mention the over-the-top allegation of sociopathy.

Best to all,
REB

P.S. -- Michael, Valliant's calling Rothbard's writing "intellectual larceny" (insinuating that he stole ideas from Rand) should be considered as another echo of the oft-heard claim that the Libertarian Party platform is a "plagiarism" of Rand's political philosophy. Same old same old. :-/

Post 46

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 6:13pm

Mike E�

You have an interesting take on what occurred, and it�s clear that this was not an isolated incident. However, I disagree with your interpretation. Branden has no basis for assuming that everyone who lavishes praise on him is thereby declaring a wish for dependency. And a brief acknowledgment would have accomplished nothing more than to give me the sense that he heard me, which is all I wanted.

His walking away did not give me a sense of heightened self-responsibility. It gave me the sense that he was a jerk (which obviously dissipated with time, since I do sincerely believe he is a great man).

Last December, I met a famous right-wing radio talk show host at the Denver airport. I walked up and introduced myself, and he was as gracious and benevolent as he could be. I frankly told him that I disagreed with him on some critical issues (e.g., religion) but that I often enjoyed listening to his show. The meeting was perfectly delightful, and left me with a profoundly positive feeling about life and the world we are living in. It also convinced me that, whatever his errors, this was a happy person. He obviously enjoyed the exchange as well, since he mentioned it on his radio show the next day. Afterwards, I can assure you I did not feel any less �on my own.�

And every time I think about it, I wonder what it was about Nathaniel Branden that he did not care to share that kind of positive encounter with another human being.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 7/07, 6:16pm)

Post 47

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 7:09pm

Dennis: "Would it kill him to have smiled and said 'Thank you!'"

No, Dennis, it would not have. And he should have. Of course you were devastated. I think of how I would have felt had Ayn Rand treated me that way, and I shudder.

Barbara

Post 48

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 7:43pm

Roger,

On the Hellen issue, I would like to thank you for some history. From my viewpoint, it looked like a practical joke, and if you try to read the blog without prior knowledge, you will see that I am not the only one who can get this impression.

On legal issues, I�m glad you prompted me to make an initial inquiry to see if I was off base on thinking that a defamation charge in a real court of law is proper. I took a look at one of the sites that offer free legal advice http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/ and learned a really basic pre-primer about defamation law.

All quotes in italics here below are from that site. I will make a few comments in light of the "psychology of a rapist" allegation of fact in the Valliant book. I must stress, though, that this is merely an initial study to see if litigation is proper and befitting, and that the next steps are getting to the texts of the actual laws � and then to an actual attorney.

"Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation."

So far, that looks about right. Leaving the little Objectivist world of historical bickering and going out on the free market, where Mr. Branden makes his living, I can see a new client or book customer avoiding Nathaniel Branden�s books and treatment from imagining that there is some truth to the "psychology of a rapist" charge.

Here are two quotes from Valliant�s book, The Passion of Ayn Rand�s Critics:

Valliant quote 1 � POARC, p. 382:
     As a professional prosecutor with over fifteen years of experience with this category of criminals, this author is able to identify at least one aspect of Branden�s character clearly: Branden�s psychology shows a striking similarity to the psychology of a rapist.
[Italics in the original.]

Valliant quote 2 � POARC, p. 383:
     Branden was not only able to exploit Rand�intellectually, psychologically, emotionally, professionally and financially�he could do so with an erection.
     While his behavior was not, technically, rape, Branden�s was nothing less than the soul of a rapist.
[Italics in the original.]

That to me constitutes a statement of fact and not opinion. In a court of law, it would be incumbent on Mr. Valliant to prove those statements, not merely make an assault with armchair psychologizing. I am pretty sure that for every psychologist that he could produce, Nathaniel could produce 10 corresponding ones stating that he is nothing like that. Nathaniel also has an honorable career to point to. I don�t know if he ever suffered a sexual harassment suit or rape charge, but if not, that would make Mr. Valliant�s claim of fact pretty wild to prove.

To quote again the text from the free legal advice site, these are "written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation." Simply put, Valliant�s words qualify. They go way beyond the exercise of his First Amendment rights.

"Slander is a spoken defamation."
"Libel is a written defamation."

Obviously a defamation of character case would be for libel, not slander. I still do not know the extent of liability to a publisher in this case � I am pretty much of a beginner here � but I am sure enough that some liability exists to investigate it myself. After all, I have the impression that the publisher agreed to publish the book from a pre-approved plan or outline � way before it was completed. So I suspect the publisher knew precisely what was being executed in advance.

Can I sue someone who says or writes something defamatory about me?

In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you.
[My underline.]

From the excerpts from Vallaint�s book that I quoted, I believe a case could be made that his statements of fact about Nathaniel Branden were so reprehensible and false as to qualify. He may not suffer in the Objectivist community very much, but in the community at large I see a clear case of defamation. Also, these remarks clearly cast aspersions on Branden.

Public figures have a "harder road to toll" than the average person since they must prove that the party defaming them knew the statements were false, made them with actual malice, or was negligent in saying or writing them.

You allege that Valliant believed his statements were true and possibly did not make them with malice. That could be debated. However, without actual proof from psychological evaluations, they were negligent in the extreme. If I were a lawyer and were to prosecute, I would go after all three, but the negligent part seems to be a slam-dunk from my humble viewpoint.

Don't I have a right to express my opinion?

Yes, so long as your statement of opinion is just an opinion, not containing specific facts that can be proved untrue.

Valliant tried to word the first allegation cleverly by saying "Branden�s psychology shows a striking similarity to�" instead of "is." However, if you cull all the mentions to rape throughout the book, starting with the title to the second half, "Part Two: Documenting the Rape of Innocence," it is clear that his intention is to make a factual statement.

Also, I see Nathaniel proving these claims to fact as untrue with one hand tied behind an incompetent paralegal�s back, much less in the hands of an experienced attorney. Piece of cake, as I have said already.

If you have been defamed you may seek both actual damages, to recover the harm that you have suffered, and punitive damages to punish the person who made the remark (and serve as an example to deter others).

If the defamation improperly accused you of a crime or reflected on your profession, the Court or jury can assess the damages.

I don�t know what kind of actual damages to recover harm suffered he could sue for, but punitive damages is certainly a reasonable claim.

Also, does accusing Nathaniel Branden, founder of self-esteem psychology, author of several wide-selling books on psychology and a practicing therapist for decades, of having the psychology and soul of a rapist reflect on his profession?

Come on. Do I really need to answer that?

On an initial and elementary level analysis, I think Nathaniel Branden has a very strong case. Next step, read the actual laws.

I hope someone out there also is reading this.

Michael

Post 49

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 9:18pm

I have to agree with Michael this time. Its sure been a long time coming.

That would be great publicity for the book.

And watching Branden tell a judge that he...
Exploited Ayn Rand sexually and professionally for money.
Cheated on his wife.
Ran cult like Kangaroo courts.
Never really understood Objectivism but took money from people anyway.
Was sleeping with a woman who would be his next wife while giving her and her husband marriage counseling.
Sent his third wife to harass Ayn Rand and admitted to illegally taping a phone conversation.
Made up stories about Frank being a drunk, Ayn was addicted to drugs, and that HE created the Objectivist movement.
Slandered Ayn Rand with his 1968 statement, in a 1989 book and again in 1999.
Told people he was a psychologist until the State of California sue him.

The judge would go...Dayaamm!

"It was Mr. Branden who was compelled to an admittedly vague, but humiliatingly public, mea culpa in the summer of 1968, not Rand. It was Branden who felt compelled to admit publicly to (at least some of) his dishonesty."

"Branden's psychology shows a striking similarity to the psychology of a rapist."
"It is now common knowledge that rape is not motivated by sexual lust but by the psycho-pathological need to control, to dominate, i.e., a kind of power-lust."

"While Branden's behavior does not compare, his motive--like that of the "power-seeker" social metaphysician--in his romantic conduct toward Rand was control and physical gain, not a sincere passion at all."
"Branden himself had written on the relationship between force and fraud as a means of manipulation"

"And notice the power-relations in Branden's other romantic choices. Barbara and Patrecia were awed and cowed by Branden, as he himself explains in his memoirs. The "Goddess" premise applied to them, too, with Branden as their "Kantian God.""

This is a very good idea Michael in the short term. It would be promotion and pre-promotion for The Documentary that's three years out.

Post 50

Thursday, July 7, 2005 - 10:48pm

Glenn,

Frankly, I didn't see you state anything that would be of any use for the defense in actual defamation of character litigation, except maybe an attempt to state that Valliant defines a "psychological rapist" as one who seeks power, position and money. I would be interested to see him try to sustain that definition in a court of law.

The rest you mentioned has no bearing on the charges according to the possibility I mentioned. (This does not mean that I think you are correct, merely that from what I see, your other observations are irrelevant in court to that kind of lawsuit.) But, hell, but don't take my word for it.

Why don't you discreetly show my previous post to any lawyer friend you may have and ask what he thinks?

Anyway, a guilty sentence against Valliant and Durban House would have a decisive impact on that little documentary and the future of this book...

I'm glad we agree.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 7/07, 10:55pm)

Post 51

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 12:41am

Barbara,

Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Dennis

Post 52

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 6:44am

Dennis,

I read your comment:

"There would be no Objectivist movement without Nathaniel Branden!"

I've suspected as much myself having read everything of NB's and having met him and seen him interact with people and "think on his feet" in the context of psychological therapy in a group setting. I love Ayn Rand. I read everything of AR's several times before reading much of Nathaniels. I probably wouldn't have read "The psychology of self esteem" if I hadn't been introduced to Nathaniel through reading Ayn Rand. I would not have loved Ayn Rand any less if there had NOT been any "Objectivist Movement" at all. I never made any attempt to be part of the movement nor did I see any personal necessity for doing so. I'm not sure Ayn Rand ever felt comfortable being in the middle of that "movement". It is possible that for some people the existence of the movement deters interest in Ayn Rand rather than promotes it.

Later you said:

"Branden has no basis for assuming that everyone who lavishes praise on him is thereby declaring a wish for dependency."

Or course not. His former patients are not "everyone" however. I also think there is something personal involved with NB. I think NB identified early on that the reason that people didn't accept Ayn Rand's message was psychological and he embarked on a very serious lifelong quest to figure out how to understand and solve these problems. He chosen profession is basically a researcher into the human psyche. But underneath he is first and foremost a philosopher. That is who he is to himself. He would like to be admired for his contributions to objectivist philosophy and not just as the "self esteem guru". He greatly admires Ayn Rand and her creation and I think it pains him greatly to be thought of the way some supposed admirers of Ayn Rand think of him. I think the non self-centered hero worship that some people bestow on Ayn Rand is far from what was Ayn Rand's or is Nathaniel Branden's idea of what objectivism is all about.

Post 53

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 9:49am

One more simple thing I would propose to consider in the part of the discussion talking about how NB interacts one-on-one with people at seminars, etc.:

If I were doing what he does, I think it would be very easy to find myself abstracted at times, especially after lectures and such. You don't always hear everything when you're like that.

And, I think that abruptness is a component of his nature. There is no more downside to that nature than others. In fact, my take is that it has a lot to do with how he's able to do so many of those things he can do.

I'm saying all this with the understanding that I could just as easily talk about topics related to myself the same way. Makes me wonder how it makes him feel if he's been catching any of this. Now, THAT could make for a good post.

Post 54

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 1:45pm

Mike E.,

�It is possible that for some people the existence of the movement deters interest in Ayn Rand rather than promotes it.�

It�s not something inherent to a movement, per se, but the stultifying, dogmatic, quasi-religious atmosphere fostered by the pod people at ARI that may well deter interest in Ayn Rand. (To be fair, I should acknowledge that some of these attitudes can be traced back to the NBI days, so it isn't all Peikoff's fault.) Imagine the disillusionment of a young person, enthralled with the exciting and glorious universe presented in the novels of Ayn Rand, discovering that certain thoughts or attitudes are forbidden (e.g., that Objectivism might not be a �closed� system), and that he had better keep his independent, exploring, creative impulses in check or suffer ostracism and censure. I can imagine that initial shock. They must feel a lot like Kevin McCarthy in Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Here�s hoping that most of them find some way to avoid falling asleep.

"I think the non self-centered hero worship that some people bestow on Ayn Rand is far from what was Ayn Rand's or is Nathaniel Branden's idea of what objectivism is all about."

But their Rand-worship is selfless only if it�s blind (i.e., mindless) in the way that the pod people exhibit. Hero-worship as such is not antithetical to Objectivism. Quite the opposite. Recall that Ayn Rand decided to be a writer, �not in order to save the world nor to serve [her] fellow men, but for the simple, personal, selfish, egotistical happiness of creating the kind of men and events [she] could like, respect and admire��

Whether you call it adulation, admiration or reverence (�hero-worship�), it isn�t selfless. Ultimately, it�s what created Objectivism.

Post 55

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 2:52pm

I kind of agree with where Dennis is coming from in terms of keeping the zest. Sure, Atlas was a novel, a piece of fiction, and that had to be kept in mind. But, even in the context of the huge effects I have experienced from reading, I never have experienced anything like what that book did. It was validating, and above all, I felt this sense of relief. Things became more "right".

There was a long time there (pre-Internet, at least for me) where I wasn't meeting that many people who were into it- we had a little circle of folks. If I was somewhere else and I saw someone I didn't know holding an AR book I'd have to stop myself from jumping on them- I was happy enough to even see someone trying to read that. I still get quite a feeling when I'm in a bookstore and I see someone browsing a copy of Atlas or The Fountainhead. In between that, most of the discussions I got into were with people who sniffed at me whenever I mentioned Ayn Rand. Overwhelmingly, I was given the message that she was "pseudo" in some sense.

I got excited when I had regular Internet access (about 1990) and was able to find people, but a lot of times I ran into some stuff that really put me off my food.
I'm sure many of you remember some of the things that went on over at OWL and the old Atlantis lists. I'd have to say that only in recent times have I found what I was looking for, obviously here, and a couple of other spots. I'm a lot more positive about the movement again, I tend to just ignore the b.s.

Post 56

Friday, July 8, 2005 - 4:52pm

Dennis--He stood on the deck of the Staten Island Ferry and watched Manhattan fly toward him through the early morning mist--Hardin said "atmosphere fostered by the pod people at ARI"

In the Invasion of the Body Snatchers the aliens produced and replaced people with pod people, they didn't replace themselves.

Homer go Doah!

Post 57

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:37am

Dennis,

I got to thinking a bit about why someone of Nathaniel Branden's stature would walk away from you like that and the word that kept popping into my mind was "Roark."

Nathaniel Branden read The Fountainhead when he was 14, read it gazillions of times right afterwards, could quote most of it at the drop of a hat when he was still young and obviously used Howard Roark as a role model.

When Roark could not relate to something, he was indifferent. That is one of his main characteristics. (The "But I don't think about you" mode.)

Maybe Nathaniel Branden had a Roark moment with you for whatever reason?

(Just playing armchair psychologist... //;-)

Michael

Post 58

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 8:58am

Michael says: Maybe Nathaniel Branden had a Roark moment with you for whatever reason?

Maybe, who knows? It's always nice after a lecture if you can do what actors usually get to do- walk off the podium, go in the back, change your shirt or jacket or whatever, decompress for a while... Then you can go out and do the meet/greet thing. Unfortunately, it often doesn't work that way.

Post 59

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 10:03am