The Argument from Intimidation

Rand’s notes from January 25, [PARC page 249 through 264] speaks best to the idea of a “spiritual rape.” At the same time, it provides some significant insight into the power of Rand’s feelings toward Branden.

…If so then I must tell him that he has hurt me dreadfully, more than anyone else ever has—dreadfully and permanently---and that there is no way out of this fact, and not “benevolent” ending a la Barbara…

…that there is no way out now except in the form of a monstrous betrayal of all his values on his part, and that he has to acknowledge this. Anything else is faking reality ---and I will not help him to fake it.

The extent of Rand’s pain is explicit, as is the nature of the invasion.

As she wrote those notes, Rand was still under the belief that Branden was sexually frozen, that Branden did not understand the reason for this, and of course Rand was still unaware of Branden’s ongoing affair. More importantly, to me, Rand was still unaware that these therapy sessions we not only a fraud, but were a carefully premeditated fraud. A fraud that was so pervasive and extensive that it is difficult to believe that it was performed by a person who was simultaneously writing and lecturing on Objectivism.

I think that Valliant does some excellent analysis here, but I am trying to stick to Rand’s own words and not pirate Valliant’s thoughts.

It was a “monstrous betrayal of all of his values,” using Rand’s own words, and it hurt her deeply.

But, in addition to the depths of the betrayal, it is also clear that Rand had previously found great virtue in Nathaniel Branden. Otherwise, she would not have allowed him such a prominent place in her philosophy or her life. At the same time, Branden could not have hurt her more than anyone, or cause the hurt to be “permanent” unless Rand had found great virtue in Branden.

It is a great mystery to me. As I have said in numerous previous posts, I can only conclude that Branden did not hold objectivist values----this monstrous fraud can not be attributed to error or some minor, temporary drifting. On the other hand, how could Rand find such great value in the very same Branden? It is absolutely clear that she did find such value and also found him to be able to correctly and accurately write and lecture on Objectivism.

It goes beyond my ability to understand.

Post 101

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:12pm

Steve,

It goes beyond my ability to understand.

A good starting place is always the facts and only the facts. Not anybody's interpretation.

Then trying to understand human motivation and accept that it was dealt with correctly but incompletely in Rand's literature. This will lead you to the conclusion that a standard that includes the possibility of more complex behavior and motivations is needed than what has been presented - if correct understanding is really the goal. (And I do believe that you seek this.)

I am glad you posted only Rand's words, still, it pains me to see Rand's pain like that.

Michael

Post 102

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 8:37pm

MSK,

Despite his modesty, Mr. Carver seems perfectly able to navigate through the facts -- all on his own.

Post 103

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 9:34pm

Mrs. Valliant,

I am biting my tongue so as to not respond in kind, but let me assure you that I am perfectly aware that Mr. Carver has such capacity.

As this is a discussion forum, we are... er... discussing.

He said that he did not understand. I gave him my take on it. You are at your pleasure to give him yours - or not.

Michael

Post 104

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:00pm

James, you wrote, "I know of many who differ with Binswanger about many things at ARI, so your assumption is not a valid one at all."

Very well, I stand corrected. And that's certainly good to hear. But I doubt that I'd feel comfortable at an ARI conference, because of the way I've been treated by their supporters in the past. It's like you're persona non grata if you disagree with them on even the smallest detail - the rationale being that since the philosophy is an integrated whole, if you disagree with any part of it, you've rejected it in toto and are no longer a supporter.

You continued, "That a difference is not stated in public is hardly conclusive as to it's existence."

True. It's just that people had an opportunity to take issue with Binswanger on that issue in the Q&A, and none of the conference participants did so. So I took their silence as acquiescence. Also, the fanatical opposition that I've received at the hands of ARI supporters for even mentioning any of Rand's shortcomings has convinced me that Binswanger's loyalism is probably the norm rather than the exception.

You continued, "My 'surprise' would be at the opposite. From what I hear, strong differences of opinion about my book exist at ARI, for example."

That's interesting. I wonder what they are, if you don't mind my asking.

You wrote, "How does the Britting book prove suppression? What "unflattering" material do you believe was suppressed?

I don't know that it proves suppression, but it does constitute a one-sided portrayal, as you acknowledged over a month ago, when you wrote, "Rand was a human being, and she did have flaws. Peikoff himself has commented that Rand's anger was sometimes unjust. And there can be no doubt that an objective biography will need to address such things. Britting's book, despite its many virtues, cannot be said to be the in-depth biography that the subject deserves. It was hardly the place where any such considerations would be 'essential,' in my view. That's not the same thing as evading -- or denying -- those issues, either."

No, it's not the same as evading or denying them, but, as you acknowledge, the book did omit them. That was my only point, for it suggests that Britting's book is a sanitized biography. I'll start believing that ARI has a balanced and objective view of Rand and her work when I start seeing some evidence of it. So far, all I've seen is the kind of attitude that elevates Rand to the status of philosophical goddess. Quite frankly, I don't trust the folks at that organization ever to present the kind of "in-depth biography that the subject deserves."

- Bill

Post 105

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:30pm

Bill,

Since it's hearsay, I should leave it for those individuals to report their individual opinions on the book.

Funny, with Peikoff acknowledging what you just quoted, it doesn't sound like a "goddess" image is being foisted too hard on us.

Post 106

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:34pm

Michael,

I would not want to misunderstand you again, and I am sure that you do not wish to be misunderstood. You wrote:

Thank goodness we do not live in a society where removing these things is sanctioned and performed by the government. (I'm not implying that Peikoff would make use of that, but another more zealous and ambitious person of the "do not promote the Brandens" persuasion might do so.)

Did you actually mean the apparent implication that any 'person of the "do not promote the Brandens" persuasion' would "use the government to remove," and not merely advocate the boycott of, writings that "promote the Brandens?" As far as I know, the foundation of the "do not promote the Brandens" persuasion is a passion for justice to Ayn Rand - and no advocate of Ayn Rand, however zealous, can fail to understand Ayn Rand's position on censorship.

Michael, you opened yourself to misinterpretation before, but this is in greater need of redaction than anything so far.

Post 107

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 10:45pm

James,

I can assure you that, despite Peikoff's comment, the "Goddess thing" is alive and well, thank you very much! :-)

Bill

Post 108

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 11:09pm

Adam,

Good question and it should be made clear. Thank you very much for asking before making any judgments. (I do admit that I am not as clear as I could be at times - and I am working on this.)

I have seen so many people do so many bullheaded and stupid things that I am very wary of... uhm... let's say... "do-gooders" for lack of a better word.

Once a person gets on a crusade, he can rationalize anything so as to fall within "reason." We all have met some pretty strange people proclaiming that they are Objectivists, but have a stronger affinity with fanatical religious zealots.

All you need is one who thinks it is his own self-interest to see the reputation of Ayn Rand preserved forever, and that this would mean permanently erasing/damaging/destroying some evidence to the contrary, and he will use any means to do so. Even if it means using a government agency, burglar, spy, you name it.

If I had not seen such stupidity as I have seen over the decades, this speculation would be a mere fantasy. But some people are just plain dumb and pigheaded, regardless of how much philosophy they digest.

So my statement should be interpreted to mean thank goodness a government agency and culture of censorship is not available here in the USA for such overly zealous individuals. I have seen such a culture up close (Brazil in the 70's).

Your own speculation on the motivations of the "do not promote the Brandens" persuasion as being a passion for justice to Ayn Rand is probably true for the majority of them. Exactly what they mean by that word, justice, however is the rub.

Disclaimer once again. I am not referring to anyone in specific here. (But using the logic that if even Ms. Rand could be deceived for years by Nathaniel, and Peikoff would not claim to be smarter than her, that makes him vulnerable to a disguised fanatic.)

As evidence of such fragility, Peikoff has reported some old screenplay notes of Rand as mysteriously missing from the warehouse (I think this was in the introduction to the journals).

Michael

Post 109

Saturday, October 29, 2005 - 11:05pm

Apart from maybe Hestia/Vesta, I cannot think of a pagan goddess who did not have a bit of an anger "issue."

Post 110

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 12:04am

Mrs. Valliant,

I am not sure if you were addressing me or another poster, but I was daydreaming in the wake of my last post to Adam. Thinking about that dude who thought it would be "moral" to murder Nathaniel at the time of the break...

Of course, that would not be part of any "anger issue."

Just some nut...

Michael

Post 111

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 12:49am

I previously wrote:

In Post 74, Neil Parille asked Bob Campbell: "Was Dr. Hospers' voice removed? He permitted that excerpts of letters he wrote to Rand be included in Letters of Ayn Rand (with a brief comment by him) so I would be surprised if he would not give permission viz-a-viz his voice on the tapes."

As the result of my own research into two of Rand's earlier 60s lectures on aesthetics, I have found that what should have been a 60-minute tape with both John Hospers and Barbara Branden participating in the question-answer discussion was hacked up into a 40-minute tape with Barbara Branden missing and John Hospers an unidentified moderator. As I described it in my piece for Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 regarding Rand's lecture on "The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age:"

The Ayn Rand Bookstore...markets a companion tape (AR62C) labeled and referred to in their catalog as “The Esthetic Vacuum of Our Age, Q&A,” but referred to on the tape as “Our Esthetic Vacuum.” All the evidence suggests that it is a tape of the radio broadcast from 3 May 1962, referred to in the “Objectivist Calendar“ (Rand 1962–65a) as “Discussion by Prof. [John] Hospers, Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden.” It is worth noting that, although the radio programs were scheduled to run an hour in length (Tape AR25C, being 60 minutes in length, conforms to that plan), the Q&A tape is curiously shorter by a significant amount, being only 40 minutes long. Although Hospers’ name is not listed on the tape’s container or label, or mentioned on the tape itself, his voice is unmistakable, and he asks a number of questions to which Rand responds. Barbara Branden’s voice, however, is nowhere in evidence on the tape. The most plausible motive for the deletion of fully one-third of the Q&A broadcast would seem to be the consignment of Hospers and Branden, as punishment for their offenses against Rand, respectively, to anonymity (unnamed moderator status) and oblivion—or, in Objectivist terms, to non-Identity and non-Existence. [emphasis added]
As others have already pointed out, a similar practice is employed in the edited tapes of Rand’s “Lectures on Fiction-Writing”: any time that Barbara Branden or Nathaniel Branden asks a question or reads an excerpt from a book, their voices are replaced by a voice-over speaker. Peikoff has steadfastly refused to go on record with an explanation of what possible legal or moral reason there can be for this air-brushing of reality. Considering the level of animosity involved, it is not unreasonable to assume the worst.

James Valliant commented:

I honestly do not mean this in an insulting way (and considering the length of some of the posts on this thread, it would be understandable), but you do not seem to have actually read the posts here when you exclude any other "possible reason" than your "worst" assumptions without addressing any of the relevant posts discussing them.

I'll tell you what's relevant. And that is the fact that John Hospers' voice was not deleted, but instead allowed to remain on the esthetics Q&A tape as that of an anonymous moderator, while Barbara Branden's 20 minutes were deleted. If the issue of legal permission were the reason why Barbara Branden's voice was deleted, why wasn't John Hospers' voice also deleted, instead of simply being allowed to remain on but unidentified? They were each treated by the tape editor in a very measured manner, commensurate with the level of their "sins" against Ayn Rand. John Hospers broke off with Ayn Rand, so he rated non-Identity, while Barbara Branden betrayed Ayn Rand, so she rated non-Existence. This is a very deliberate, nuanced way of punishing and disrespecting both of these people who contributed to the content and success of Rand's Q&A radio broadcast. For the reasons given, legal clearance could not have been the reason for the very specific and different treatment they were given.

I only assumed the worst after ruling out the alleged legalities you mistakenly suggest was the reason for Barbara Branden's voice being deleted. Your lawyerisms were tripped up on the truth, and you would do well to admit it.

Roger Bissell, Post-Randian musician-writer

Post 112

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 1:30am

Mr. Bissell,

As has been observed already, there are important differences between Hospers and each of the Brandens, in both the legal and moral senses. Consider, for example, Ms. Branden's position on those taped interviews, or the various threats of legal action over the years, as earlier noted by Casey. Certain moral issues have also been identified in the Brandens' cases on this thread, as well as in my book. The idea that any promotion of Ms. Branden, even what you see as her previous contributions, should be offensive to someone is an alien thought to you, so far, but there is a fascinating case that has been made here, if you are willing to consider it.

Personally, I don't have any stake in its outcome, but your reaction suggests to me that you might. I also do not have any personal knowledge of the real motives, as I have also clearly stated on this thread. But this stiff is, to be frank, obvious even to a non-lawyer -- and the kind of reasons any Objectivist should be able to see.

It is certainly clear to me that no grave injustice has been committed in excising Ms. Branden's voice, or even her questions, from those tapes.

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/30, 1:34am)

Post 113

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:26am

James Valliant wrote:

As has been observed already, there are important differences between Hospers and each of the Brandens, in both the legal and moral senses. Consider, for example, Ms. Branden's position on those taped interviews, or the various threats of legal action over the years, as earlier noted by Casey. Certain moral issues have also been identified in the Brandens' cases on this thread, as well as in my book. The idea that any promotion of Ms. Branden, even what you see as her previous contributions, should be offensive to someone is an alien thought to you, so far, but there is a fascinating case that has been made here, if you are willing to consider it.

Personally, I don't have any stake in its outcome, but your reaction suggests to me that you might. I also do not have any personal knowledge of the real motives, as I have also clearly stated on this thread. But this stiff is, to be frank, obvious even to a non-lawyer -- and the kind of reasons any Objectivist should be able to see.

It is certainly clear to me that no grave injustice has been committed in excising Ms. Branden's voice, or even her questions, from those tapes.

Promotion of Barbara Branden? Come on, get real. I don't want to exalt her. I just want to hear, as a historical and philosophical fact, how she and John Hospers and Ayn Rand interacted in their discussion of Rand's seminal discussion of aesthetics. Also, it has been claimed by ARI partisans that Barbara Branden was not a first-rate intellectual, and this -- far from exalting her -- would have been a golden opportunity to let all witness that (supposed) fact. That alone makes me wonder just how good she might have been in that discussion! (I am a very suspicious character, and shady dealings like ARI's air-brushing of reality only makes me more so.)

No grave injustice? Well, no, not a grave one. But how about just a rip-off of customers buying what they thought was going to be the ENTIRE question-answer discussion of the "esthetic vacuum" program -- the ENTIRE 60 minutes? It was sold for the same price as the preceding 60-minute program. It was described in The Objectivist Newsletter as involving John Hospers and Barbara Branden -- and surely Barbara Branden's deleted input (20 minutes of it!) was as significant and meaningful to the entirety of the discussion as John Hospers' non-identified input.

But this kind of rip-off of customers via the air-brushing of reality does not surprise me any more. After hearing that Peikoff and other Objectivists now "justify" dishonesty, even when no defense against violation of rights is involved, I'm not surprised that the truth is being withheld from the products ARI is selling.

My stake in this? Well, truth matters very much. But also I'm pissed off royally when I pay for what I think is a 60-minute tape and I get only 40! The fact that the 1/3 missing material involves this petty 40-year vendetta against John Hospers and Barbara Branden, and that that vendetta is allowed to get in the way of truth and fair dealing with customers, only adds insult to injury.

Roger Bissell, Post-Randian musician-writer

Post 114

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 7:57am

In response to Lindsay Perigo's post #19:

TOC is in a bind. At their founding David Kelley said the issues raised by Barbara's book should have been debated by the orthodoxy, but weren't. He was right. Well, now, someone whom TOC want us to believe is part of the orthodoxy has debated them.

I also think it would be a good idea for The New Individualist to run a book review--or perhaps multiple, shorter reviews--of Mr. Valliant's book.

Not because, as a member of TOC, I expect any author in The New Individualist to speak for me. I don't; neither do most other members of TOC. In fact, the other TOC members I know are not all of the same opinion concerning Mr. Valliant's book.

Rather, it's because there is material in the book that deserves a response.

And because silence and shunning are the tools of the Ayn Rand Institute, not of an organization that promotes open discussion and free inquiry into Rand's ideas.

Robert Campbell

Post 115

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 9:00am

Robert Campbell,

You misconstrue the intended readership and purposes of The New Individualist. Let me state once again:

TNI is not a "movement" publication, and does not aim only at Objectivist readers -- the only people on this planet who appear to remain obsessed with the details of Ayn Rand's sex life. Rather, it is a magazine that focuses on the philosophical ideas and principles originated or discovered by Ayn Rand, and it attempts to apply them to a wide range of issues that interest a much broader readership of intelligent people.

For similar reasons -- and despite continual pressure to do otherwise -- The Objectivist Center's book service, The Objectivism Store, has never carried biographies or memoirs that focus upon Ayn Rand's personal life. The only biographically-related material it has made available is that focusing on Rand's intellectual development and history. Though I don't run the book service, I emphatically agree with that policy and hope it continues.

In my personal opinion, we won't advance the objective of focusing public attention on Ayn Rand's enormous intellectual achievements and influence by continuing to divert it down these salacious sidetracks. Fortunately, some of us believe that there is much more to Ayn Rand's legacy than this, and much better ways to honor it.

Post 116

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:19am

Mr. Bissell,

Precisely to the extent that you think it important to preserve Ms. Branden's voice, and ultimately for the same reason, others would be motivated to remove it. I do not think that we can say that this is dishonesty or malice, but what they sincerely believe justice requires.

Post 117

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 10:34am

James,

In reference to removing Barbara Branden's voice from the recording of a Q&A session, you just wrote:

... but what they sincerely believe justice requires.

I like that word, justice, in this context and I'm glad you used it. This is so much better than "historical accuracy."

I like it when motivations are explicitly stated. (No sarcasm intended - I mean that strictly).

If anybody purchases a product from that organization where there was historical involvement of the Brandens in the recorded or published product being sold, one knows precisely what to expect and why.

This "justice" you mention is tantamount to omitting history from official records - so what is sold is a partial historical record at best.

Of course, we both know that over time, the full recording of this (and other such attempts) will surface in one form or another. Historical accuracy is valued in the world we live in. This kind of sanitized product has a very limited time span for sales and very little use for non-Objectivist scholars.

Michael

Post 118

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 11:28am

Mr. Valliant,

But I think the point is that we do not know what the reason for any of the changes are. Why doesn't Dr. Peikoff (or whoever) tell us if they were done for legal reasons, dislike of the Brandens, or whatever?

I'm sure he would be allowed to post here.

Post 119

Sunday, October 30, 2005 - 12:47pm