Ayn Rand Smeared Again

Casey Fahey writes in #28

We must for example take Mr. Reidy's word for it about his comparisons of the published version of Rand's letters with Wright.

Good news: you don't have to. The Getty archives are wide open, as I wish ARI's were. With the dates below, you can go there yourself and read the letters or, unless the policy has changed, they'll print and mail copies for cost (15 cents a page when I did my researches).

For the record, here are the discrepancies I found:

>1. Eugene Masselink, Wright's secretary, to AR ("Dear Mr. Rand"), 31 December 37, p. 110

>As printed:
>I am sorry for this late reply to your letter of the 12th which arrived
>while Mr. Wright was in the East. He has now left for a several month
>sojourn in the Arizona desert so there will be no opportunity for you to
>see him.
>
>Original:
>Please forgive this late reply to your letter of the 12th which arrived
>here while Mr. Wright was in the east [no capitalization]. He has now
>left for several months sojourn in Arizona and there will be no
>opportunity for you to see him.
>
>2. Wright to Rand 18 November 38, p.111:
>
>...Both items obtrude themselves disagreeably on the imagination, and he
>is not very convincing anyway. Will try to sometime see you in New York
>and say *why* if you want me to do so.
>
>Original:
>...Both obstruct themselves disagreeably [no comma] and he is not very
>convincing. Will try to fine [sic] time to see you in New York and say
>why [no emphasis] if you want me to do so.
>
>3. Telegram, p. 111:
>The original says "ROARKE"; the last sentence says "YOU WOULD", not
>"YOU'D", and she gives her address.
>The reply is dated the 21st, not the 22nd as in the book, and says
>"SORRY [no comma] MR. WRIGHT HAS ALREADY LEFT FOR ARIZONA DESERT."
>
>4. Wright to Rand, 23 April 44:
>This and the letter of 14 January 46, quoted on p. 116, are for one
>reason or another not in Wright's archive.
>
>5. Rand to Wright, 14 May 44:
>
>Printed pp 113 - 114:
>So far, it looks as if I will win the battle, and the book will be
>preserved on the screen. I am willing to take the chance, because my
>producer's enthusiastic.
>
>Original:
>So far, it looks as if I will win the battle [no comma] and the book
>will be preserved on the screen. I am willing to take the chance,
>because my producer's appreciation of the book is genuine, intelligent
>and enthusiastic. ["go east" in the next paragraph is not capitalized
>in the letter as it is in the book.]
>

Ordinarily these would be minor proofreading slipups (possibly excepting #5), but Peikoff and the people around him, with their talk of authenticty and authorization and their harsh judgement of the Brandens' errors, have set a much higher standard for themselves. The only way I can see them meeting it is to open the archives.

Peter

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 9/09, 8:40pm)

Post 41

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:11pm

Hi Casey!

Glad we're talking.

LOL means "laughing out loud." It's an acronym. As such, I have used a stylistic "poetic license" and treated it as a word in its own right and extended it to mean a long laugh - thus a long sequence - LOLOLOLOLOLOL - means a long laugh.

It is not a typo - it is a stylistic mannerism.

Speaking of typos, I am not immune. But I do try to revise. May I suggest the practice? I highly recommend it.

I seem to be suffering from a misconception. I thought Valliant's book was an attempt at a "defense" of much more than sexual jealousy. Let's see if I got it right. His words (PARC, p. 2):

... it is Rand who such critics routinely tar as uncivil and "peculiarly authoritarian."

Then later on the same page:

The principal cause of this form of Rand-bashing, the root of this trend, can be traced to two persons: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

Is that correct? I know that was only a start, but it seems pretty clear.

So if that is the case, then that list of people I mentioned sort of flies in the face of Valliant's premise, especially as they (the ones I have read, anyway) stated similar things waaaaaaaaaaaaay before Barbara's bio came out.

Contradictory evidence. Some of it is even admitted by Valliant later in the book (most of which I have read, incidentally - as I intend to prepare my own review of it one day).

About the sexual jealousy part, frankly I don't know. I will not make an opinion on what these people said when I didn't read anything on that from them. Also, I agree that they could not possibly hold an opinion on an aspect (jealousy) of a fact (the affair) that they did not know existed when they were in contact with Ms. Rand.

Sorry for that particular misunderstanding. I'm kinda new at this game of jumping from one premise (traditional "Rand-bashing") to another ("insane jealousy") at whim.

btw - Casey, my man, I don't smoke anymore. Haven't for years. But thank you for your concern. Do you smoke?

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/09, 9:15pm)

Post 42

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 9:37pm

Michael, "this particular form of Rand-bashing" refers to ad hominem attacks of a personal nature. The key phrase from Professor Aune, whose article in JARS is being quoted, is this: "...and that the particulars of her private life call into question the validity of her moral philosophy."

It is this form of Rand-bashing that can be traced to the Brandens. None of the people on your list ever knew anything about the Affair when it was happening, with the possible exception of the Blumenthals. None of them aired information about her private life, her bedroom, or had any criticisms about it whatsoever.

It is true, and Valliant points this out, that the Brandens cashed in on some of the accusations floating around about authoritarianism, something they themselves were largely responsible for at NBI .

But the new sexual-psycho form of Rand-bashing, the one on display in the excerpts of the article that started this thread, is all from the Brandens, all the way. Nothing that anyone on your list said about Rand could be credited as a source for those comments in Commentary.

Greenspan never had a falling out with Rand, by the way.

Post 43

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 10:26pm

Casey,

There's a Catch 22 in your reasoning. I have no way of relating the following comment to the Brandens. It is taken from the quote you mentioned:

In fact, in almost everyone�s eyes but hers, O�Connor, a failure as a movie actor, was a raging mediocrity.

OK, the alcoholism thing. But this? It has nothing even remotely to do with the opinions stated by the Brandens in their respective memoir & memoir/bio.

This person hates Ayn Rand for her ideas and will grasp at anything to denigrate her. I simply don't believe that if the Branden books had not been written, this person would miraculously love Ayn Rand's works and have a higher opinion of her.

I see absolutely no influence here whatsoever.

What both Barbara and Nathaniel did was to disclose a fact (the affair) that had been consistently denied by Rand's heir. (This is from what I have seen so far - sorry for not being more intimate with the full story yet, I was in Brazil for many years while all this was going on.) Then the Brandens supported the fact by stating that they had been part of it. This gave a persistent rumor the weight of truth. (For me, I had never heard the rumor, so it was full shock.) Then finally came the admission from Rand's heir that the affair had taken place and this was documented. Full truth finally disclosed.

The affair had taken place.

That fact alone is what is used by those who hate Ayn Rand. This would have been the same if Peikoff had disclosed it with all the window dressing he could ever muster. Not any opinion written by Barbara or Nathaniel. Those who hate Rand for her ideas certainly don't need any help to express themselves. They were abundant when Ms. Rand was alive and they are abundant now.

Now here's the Catch 22. There is no way to separate disclosure of the affair in the Branden books from the rest of the content, so there is no real way to judge what the true impact on others has been outside of the normal impact of learning about the affair.

People who hate a woman, see her rejected by a lover, then publicly condemn the man who scorned her, will NEVER attribute her condemnation to a perfect soul. They will ALWAYS state that it is jealousy, insane or otherwise.

Valliant sees malice, bipolar swings, rape, exploitation and God knows what else in the Branden books. All of that seems so very beside the point (you already know my opinion, so I do not want to veer this discussion off that direction by repeating it), which is that people who hate Ayn Rand don't need an excuse to denigrate her. Any old thing will do.

You are correct that the people on my list could not be used as a source for what you term "the new sexual-psycho form of Rand-bashing." But they could not be the source of disclosure of the affair either.

And the simple fact of the affair with a far younger man, later rejection by him and public condemnation of him - without all the rest - certainly could be used as a source for this form of Rand-bashing. Easy as pie.

Tell me honestly. If Peikoff had disclosed the affair in his own manner instead of the Brandens, do you think the person who wrote that pearl or erudition you quoted would have written anything different in essence?

I don't.

Michael

Edit - btw - I was already aware that Greenspan had never fought with Ayn Rand - he is one of my real-life heroes, as is she (of course).

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 9/09, 10:28pm)

Post 44

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 2:59am

As a recent target of a Branden (Barbara) smear, I want to say for the record, on this�my turf, where she smeared me�hello, anyone grasp that?!�that none of her defenders speaks for SOLO, much less the spirit of SOLO. If her claim that Frank was an alcoholic is as accurate as her claim that I am, then no one need give it any credence. Nor, by extension, anything else she�or any of her defenders�says.

Linz
(Edited by Lindsay Perigo
on 9/10, 3:18am)

Post 45

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:37am

Ayn Rand died 20 years ago. Her final books presented little that was new in her thinking, even before that, being anthologies from her nearly-private magazines. It has been nearly 40 years since Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel sang, "... I've been Ayn Randed, and nearly branded a communist 'cause I'm left-handed..." Ayn Rand is no longer a pop icon . Yet, Commentary saw fit to publish this denunciation of her ideas and her personality as well as those of her acolytes.

This tells me that Ayn Rand's ideas are active and widespread.

One of the other forums I have participated on is The Well, the old Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link. Originally from the Portola Institute that published the Whole Earth and Co-Evolution quarterlies, The Well is now owned by SALON, an internet site in tune with the Holloywood glitterati. If someone there quotes Wittgenstein, the replies do not include slams against the man's character. When I cite Ayn Rand, the case is different, entirely.

One of my favorite Wellbeings is an MIT physicist who argued against "A is A" on the grounds that you cannot identify "A" so it makes no sense (to him) to claim that A is A or B or C. Anyone reading this on SOLO most likely finds that sadly humorous, a bit of bitter irony.

Yet, there are people for whom Objectivism is new. I mentioned in another SOLO forum that I am enrolled in a college class, Criminal Justice Ethics. Outlining ethical theories, egoism got short shrift, of course. When I said that an egoist would not be someone to victimize other people for selfish gains because that would make you dependent on other people and therefore not an egoist, the instructor stared back. She never heard that before. She is a lawyer, a former patrol officer and a former detective. It was news to her. She did identify that theory as "enlightened egoism" and she did differentiate between egoism and egoTism. Even so, this class is going to be a two-way learning experience.

Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism delivers new ideas to people who are open to them. To those whose minds are closed, Rand continues to be a unique problem. Let them talk.

Post 46

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 3:48am

Forgot to mention�the same Barbara Branden who will so readily label someone an alcoholic in the absence of evidence that that is what he is defends a promoter of pedophilia in the presence of overwhelming evidence that that is precisely what he is.

Apart from the ethics of it, it's a sense-of-life thing.

Linz

And yes, Ayn Rand's magnificent philosophy will endure in spite of such perfidies.

Post 47

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 4:40am

Casey implies that there is no way I could argue that Rand was insanely jealous if I had truly read PARC.

How many women would suggest an affair with an exciting "Emma Peel"-like woman to solve her lover's made-up "sex problem?"

Yawn. Romper Room is back in session. (Somebody please shoot me before I post on this topic again.) Okay, children, let�s look at some relevant quotes�all Rand journal entries-- from PARC:

1-25-68: ��he knows that �Miss X� would be unacceptable to me�[p. 251]

��I can accept a relationship with him only on condition that there won�t be any �Miss X��[p. 252]

2-14-68:��He has to be brought to the realization that the choice is: me or Miss X�� [p. 289] ��I was terribly wrong in suggesting an affair with any present �Miss X��[p. 290]

7-4-68: ��I had told him that he was right. I would never accept any �Miss X�� [p.330] ��In one of our early conversations about �Miss X,� [probably late 1967] I said that if this proved to be the only solution to his sex problem, I might conceivably accept a �Miss X,� provided�.I did not have to meet her or associate with her�� [p. 199 and p. 335]

Her contradictory remarks show that Rand was, to say the least, extremely conflicted over the prospect of Branden becoming involved with another woman and had not suggested anything other than that she might �conceivably� accept such an affair if it was the only way to save her own sexual relationship with Branden. And we are asked to believe that such desperation is incompatible with jealousy.

If anyone is seriously interested in reading additional substantive analysis of PARC�which Casey denies anyone has done--you can find it here and here and here as well as several other posts on that thread. (Or you can get a life.)

Casey also claims that I don't want people to read PARC. Not true. But I would prefer that you go to Amazon and buy a used copy. Then, after you read it, you won't feel guilty for having subsidized this bullshit.

Post 48

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:20am

As a person who is strongly engaged in this discussion, let me state that Linz is 100% correct. I personally speak for Michael Stuart Kelly and my words should be understood as representing my own independent thoughts and judgments, not anything force fed from Solo or anywhere else.

I spoke for Michael Stuart Kelly in defending Linz and Solo when it came strongly under attack more than once (as I will continue to do). I spoke for Michael Stuart Kelly against Jim Peron on the pedophilia issue on the basis of the evidence I saw. I spoke for Michael Stuart Kelly by publicly staying out of the "you lied-no-you lied/you calling me a liar?" fight that transpired against Barbara and Linz and tried to make peace through private e-mails.

I now speak for Michael Stuart Kelly in every single post I have presently written and every post I have written in the past on Solo, including my articles.

I speak for Michael Stuart Kelly by looking at the issues and not simply at the people. I do not understand that a hissy fight means or proves anything except a hissy fight.

I will continue to speak for Michael Stuart Kelly in all my future work.

I still love Linz and Solo - I still love Barbara - and I speak for Michael Stuart Kelly.

Michael

Post 49

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:24am

Lindsay,

Barbara Branden's recycling of the "alcoholic" smear is evident - just compare Valiant's Chapter 5 description to Kilbourne's procedure.

But on the Jim Peron incident, I think that Barbara Branden accurately identified a nagonka in action - and that you, like most Anglos, have no idea what a nagonka is and how it works. So my list of articles to write gets longer again...

Post 50

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 7:52am

Adam,
You said:

... and that you, like most Anglos, have no idea what a nagonka is and how it works.

First of all, Adam, you're an Anglo. An Anglo is "a Caucasian inhabitant of the U.S. of non-Latin extraction", according to my dictionary.
Second, if you Google "nagonka", you get 68,400 hits, most of which are in Polish! I wasted 5 minutes of my life finding that nagonka means some kind of witch hunt. Why didn't you just say that?
Geez.

Post 51

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:07am

Uh, Dennis, this is still remarkable. One does not have to be "jealous" to exclude open-ended relationships with any and all Miss X's out there. By JANUARY, where the mentions start, she regrets having (much earlier) suggested the idea, as suggested in the next entry. No, Rand assumes that he isn't trolling for various Miss. X's of any kind. It would have to be something exceptional--as she had written, "all of love is exception-making."

I don't know many woman who would suggest such an affair--even under certain circumstances. Rand was NOT like most other women I know (or me) in this regard. Perhaps Dennis knows lots of chickies who would even conditionally accept such a thing! (Nice use of "...", too.) Yeah, not promiscuous, but she had (amazingly) suggested another affair. (The key concept being "context" here, e.g., her lack of jealousy with Barbara Branden, or the beauty of other women, or other people's success, or the tone of other journal entries you did not quote, etc.) Oh, and this was not mentioned by Mr. Branden in his memoir, although the suggestion was made to him by Rand--i.e., he knew it.

And, Brant, the line after Valliant says "I know the face of rape" is "And, obviously, Nathaniel Branden did not commit the crime of rape. He never used violence or threats of violence against Rand in anyway..." And how many rapists and rape-victims have you known?
(Edited by The Magenta Hornet
on 9/10, 10:02am)

(Edited by The Magenta Hornet
on 9/10, 10:21am)

(Edited by The Magenta Hornet
on 9/10, 11:24am)

Post 52

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 6:18am

And, Dennis, to be fair, your posts on this thread are by far your best analysis to date, but still show your irrational blindness.

Post 53

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 9:58am

Michael, the WHOLE portrait of Frank as a raging mediocrity comes from the Brandens shared thesis about O'Connor --- you know, the guy the Nathaniel Branden character (played by Eric Stoltz) finds drunk in a phone booth in the movie based on Barbara's book, the scene that never happened in reality but that the producers felt was necessary to cinematically show the effects of Rand's monstrous behavior on her husband since there was not one scene anywhere of his, you know, actual drunkenness. (As good intrinsicists we all know that even provisionally open marriages are always, always, always wrong, even though Rand's suggestion that Branden take a mistress is now being used as proof of HER jealousy, apparently -- gee, I wonder why both of the Brandens saw fit to leave that part out of their own narratives, when in fact that little suggestion of hers actually BOLSTERS their case against Rand as an insanely jealous woman scorned.) What was going on in the Brandens' heads when they angled for an alcoholic picture of Frank? Through all of Barbara's oozing descriptions of how much she cared about Frank (sound familiar?) she painted the man as a cuckolded husband who was too weak to leave his meal ticket, Ayn Rand (that's the only reason he stayed with her, of course, according to BB's speculations!). For heaven's sake, just READ the book and all of this is made clear with exhaustive footnotes. No one was postulating Frank was an alcoholic and so nobody was out there explaining WHY he was an alcoholic other than the Brandens! Barbara Branden is the one who came up with this garbage about Rand putting O'Connor on too high a pedestal... Jeeze, again, I say, just read the bloody book, used copy or no. On this note, let me just say that if the author wished to get rich by writing this book he would have written a book smearing Ayn Rand. Hell, by now the thing would have been REVIEWED in Commentary. Alas, he is not as shrewd when it comes to cashing in on the zeitgeist as the two authors who cleaned up after her death.

Post 54

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:11am

Linz,
Based on an email from Barbara, I have to now say that Frank O'Connor was probably an alcoholic. In any case, there is no linkage between what she wrote about Frank in The Passion of Ayn Rand and what transpired in "Drooling Beast." BTW, why are you bringing up this pedophilia stuff again? We already know you are a hanging judge, but Barbara was trying to defend one man not the purported actions. That defense, as I understand it, was that she hadn't yet seen the evidence. That hardly makes her a "Namblaphile." While we are at it, please tell us what the age of sexual consent should be and why. 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10? Since sexual maturity hits us humans at about the age of 13, pedophilia would be less than that age. Doesn't mean that the age of consent shouldn't be higher; that's just the age when whatever it is it no longer is pedophilia. The slimy NAMBLA jerks, of course, want to have sex with whomever they want to have sex with so they are rightly referred to as pedophiles.

--Brant

(Edited by Brant Gaede on 9/10, 11:17am)

Post 55

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:50am

Against my policy of not responding to those who believe that insults are a substitute for argument, I must comment on one thing in Mr. Gaede's last assertion. "Based on an email from Barbara, I have to now say that Frank O'Connor was probably an alcoholic." Was Ms. Branden's book not enough to convince you, then? O.k., and now there is � as my book had foreseen � a new crop of evidence to consider? Will she permit the rest of us a chance to test the evidence before more witnesses age and pass on? When do you suppose she might spring it on us? Those closest to the O'Connors in the last decade of their lives are the best witnesses against the allegation � including that housekeeper who supposedly found those bottles Ms. Branden uses as her key evidence. Ms. Branden's evidence has always been hearsay from others � none willing even to be named. Ms. Branden has long been a master of such "inside-dope" rumor-mongering, so, please, spare us its newest manifestation.

Post 56

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:58am

"Based on an email from Barbara..." Dear lord. And now the repressed memories flow forth, all the real smoking gun evidence that she couldn't seem to muster while making her case so arduously in her book and which she was... wait for it... too classy to include at the time, but sadly she is forced to divulge it all now, but still only privately, in whispers. Amazing how Barbara's memory improves with age.

Brant, I think you are trying to say that there is a psychological difference between people who are attracted to prepubescence and those who are attracted to physically mature, sexually mature bodies, but there is no connection between an age of consent, which has to do with intellectual maturity, and physical maturity. FYI, some girls are sexually mature (in the physical sense) at the age of 8! Obviously, that should not be the standard on which the issue is decided. Apart from this I don't know anything about this situation -- I just wanted to clear that up (I hope), since your post was making me very uncomfortable.

(Edited by Casey Fahy on 9/10, 12:13pm)

Post 57

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:13pm

Casey, I truly don't know what the age of consent should be; I have given it little thought.

I don't think Barbara's email to me contains any info not found in Passion, my problem is that my copy is in storage so I made my post about doubting Frank's alcoholism without going first to that source, which is what I should have done.

I have asked her to let me publish her letter here, but haven't yet heard back from her.

--Brant

Post 58

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:14pm

Glenn,

The search hits are mostly in Polish, because understanding a propaganda technique used by the Soviets to undermine social solidarity was a crucial part of the intellectual arsenal needed to overthrow Communist totalitarianism. The term "nagonka" does not mean "witch hunt." It is a hunting term though; it refers (in the original Russian) to the use of various stimuli - bright lights, smoke, noise and the like - to get the hunted animal into an emotional panic. An animal might normally hide or evade pursuit for hours - but shine a headlight and it is stupefied, and comes out into the open and becomes easy prey.

In propaganda the nagonka works the same way. Make an accusation that invokes a very strong emotional reaction in your subjects - intimating some connection, however remote, to child molesting works perfectly - and their minds are disabled. It is the easiest way for the state to obtain its subjects' sanction to anything, from mass murder (e.g. Waco) to censorship or exiling a dissident.

The elegance of the political nagonka is that it is precisely the subjects' decency, their normal motive for dissent, which is being used to turn enemies of tyranny into its supporters and collaborators, and to turn dissidents into objects of disgust. Withhold your sanction from the Waco massacre - and you can be smeared as defending a pedophile cult. Point out the problems with the supposed "evidence" for the State's "pedophile cult" hypothesis, or even merely insist that it be tested in open court before it is used as a justification for murder, and you will be smeared as a "supporter of pedophiles." And so on. Understanding and recognizing the technique is your only defense.

Post 59

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 12:15pm