Harriman/ARI and/or Peikoff rift?


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

I was wondering why Harriman would be so foolish as to attend the ceremony for Barbara.

Here's a clue:

link

This much is simple: Harriman worked under Leonard Peikoff for decades, making his living under Peikoff's guidance (not even feeling the need to finish his PhD), knowing what Peikoff thought of Kelley and the Brandens and explicitly agreeing with his position. Once his relationship with Peikoff hit a dead end (we know they stopped speaking a year or so ago), it looks very much like he saw his opportunities dry up, and he moved on to the next bidder, completely betraying everything he's operated by for the past 2.5 decades. Whatever you think of Kelley and being "open" and tolerant and trying to water down Ayn Rand's philosophy to make it cool and hip, what Harriman did was to feign agreement with one set of beliefs and then completely reverse it when it suited him. This is truly pathetic, and it's indicative of someone who has zero integrity. I'm not outraged and heartbroken about this like many are, I'm just disgusted.

I wonder why Peikoff and Harriman stopped speaking. Peikoff has ended up stopping speaking with quite a few former associates.

Ellen

Who besides Harriman knows Harriman this well? Regardless, this is true believer cultist blather--just read the rest of the link!

--Brant

I read it.

Harriman is getting what Nathaniel got after the Rand/Brandens break. Parallel circumstances. Harriman wore Peikoff's mantle of protection - I've heard Peikoff speak of Harriman on tape as if Harriman walked on water - and Harriman is reputed to have abused his special "in" with Peikoff and, like Nathaniel, to have lorded it over others, thus building up submerged resentment.

I was expecting there to be a backlash against Harriman after Peikoff's death, but I hadn't heard that some kind of break had happened between the two of them. Assuming that they really did have a falling out, I'm curious as to what about. I'd like to know if anything substantive was involved.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 253
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I read it.

Harriman is getting what Nathaniel got after the Rand/Brandens break. Parallel circumstances. Harriman wore Peikoff's mantle of protection - I've heard Peikoff speak of Harriman on tape as if Harriman walked on water - and Harriman is reputed to have abused his special "in" with Peikoff and, like Nathaniel, to have lorded it over others, thus building up submerged resentment.

I was expecting there to be a backlash against Harriman after Peikoff's death, but I hadn't heard that some kind of break had happened between the two of them. Assuming that they really did have a falling out, I'm curious as to what about. I'd like to know if anything substantive was involved.

Ellen

My speculation is that he was using his position in the movement to try to usurp Peikoff's throne. Peikoff found out, got pissed, and had Harriman excommunicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My speculation is that he was using his position in the movement to try to usurp Peikoff's throne. Peikoff found out, got pissed, and had Harriman excommunicated.

That might be. However, Peikoff has a history of breaking off being on speaking terms with persons who disagree with him on whatever. He isn't on speaking terms with about half of the board of directors. So the issue might not be one of behavior.

Another possibility is Harriman's being friends with David Kelley. First I've ever heard that.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One link leads to another.

Michael linked to the Alex Epstein Facebook page where there's much discussion engendered by Harriman's having been photographed at the memorial service for Barbara.

Among the comments is one by Jordan Zimmerman - link - which includes a link to an article by Richard Gleaves called "The Good Objectivist -- Part Three."

I read that part. I'm horrified by a personal story told at the end. In brief, Richard saw a Facebook announcement posted by a friend of Chris Sciabarra's. The friend was seeking donations to help Chris out with medical expenses. Richard posted the link as an FYI. And got into trouble.....

See the last segment of the piece.

I've now read all three installments. I recommend them. They're widely separated in date of being published.

The Good Objectivist -- Part One

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Good Objectivist -- Part Two

Sunday, February 19, 2012

Objectivists Together

The Good Objectivist -- Part Three

Friday, March 21, 2014

The Schism-Minded Objectivist

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be. However, Peikoff has a history of breaking off being on speaking terms with persons who disagree with him on whatever. He isn't on speaking terms with about half of the board of directors. So the issue might not be one of behavior.

Another possibility is Harriman's being friends with David Kelley. First I've ever heard that.

Ellen

I know about Peikoff's history, but that's not inconsistent with my speculation. Rather, I think that Peikoff sees any disagreement as a challenge to his authority, and subsequently, as a threat to his status in the movement. Especially when the challenge comes from one of his favored "followers", because their defection presents a more or less legitimate alternative to other important objectivists. Peikoff is quick to excommunicate them because he always has someone else ready to take their place. That Harriman was friends with Kelley would only make him appear to be an even greater threat.

In short, I think Harriman was probably working with Kelley to unseat Peikoff. But Peikoff manipulates all of his close friends by looming the constant threat of excommunication over their heads. Harriman's friendship with Kelley would mean that Peikoff felt that he was losing control over him, and he then became the latest victim of Peikoff's wrath. His excommunication sends the message to the rest of Peikoff's followers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read those links, Ellen. I admire the man's independence of mind, but he's innocently trapped in a matrix he's partly complaining of. He doesn't know of the two Objectivisms so he conflates them. The philosophy of Ayn Rand is what that is because she conflated them too. One is cultural and the other intellectual. Like I've been saying on OL for some time now. Another way to say this might be she had a lot of ideas but just because she had them didn't/doesn't make them Objectivism, even if qua ideas they were/are true. Esthetics is a discipline, so too acting, psychology, sundry sciences, economics, etc., but to say her esthetic opinions are Objectivism because she expressed them in writing, if not other ways, runs the (intellectual) philosophy right off the rails.

I especially liked how the gentleman explained how young people just discovering Ayn Rand so badly needed what they found only to hit the cultist raodblocks infecting the Objectivist community. I tend now to think and write from my own mature perspective and have too easily forgotten about them.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be. However, Peikoff has a history of breaking off being on speaking terms with persons who disagree with him on whatever. He isn't on speaking terms with about half of the board of directors. So the issue might not be one of behavior.

Another possibility is Harriman's being friends with David Kelley. First I've ever heard that.

Ellen

I know about Peikoff's history, but that's not inconsistent with my speculation. Rather, I think that Peikoff sees any disagreement as a challenge to his authority, and subsequently, as a threat to his status in the movement. Especially when the challenge comes from one of his favored "followers", because their defection presents a more or less legitimate alternative to other important objectivists. Peikoff is quick to excommunicate them because he always has someone else ready to take their place. That Harriman was friends with Kelley would only make him appear to be an even greater threat.

In short, I think Harriman was probably working with Kelley to unseat Peikoff. But Peikoff manipulates all of his close friends by looming the constant threat of excommunication over their heads. Harriman's friendship with Kelley would mean that Peikoff felt that he was losing control over him, and he then became the latest victim of Peikoff's wrath. His excommunication sends the message to the rest of Peikoff's followers.

Watch out; you're not much of a witness to which you are speculating about.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read those links, Ellen. I admire the man's independence of mind, but he's innocently trapped in a matrix he's partly complaining of. He doesn't know of the two Objectivisms so he conflates them.

I especially liked how the gentleman explained how young people just discovering Ayn Rand so badly needed what they found only to hit the cultist raodblocks infecting the Objectivist community. I tend now to think and write from my own mature perspective and have too easily forgotten about them.

--Brant

Yeah - to your remark "my own mature perspective": I sometimes muse three-quarters joking, that Objectivism ain't a young man's game.

Come at it with years and years of living and it slots right in. (In my experience). But I AM joking...mostly. To grasp it correctly when young, before all the experience arrives, that's the trick. It will serve one well.

What I liked especially about the fellow, Richard, is exactly that innocence you mention. "A plague on both your factions". Heh. I've thought the same. He "doesn't know of the two Objectivisms" (though, of course he does), he just consciously chooses to ignore them -as a schism. While finding and acknowledging value in both 'sides', uncontradictorily. It seems.

That is the approach to take, to my mind. All it is, is internal politics.

An individual and his philosophy. Then all the personalities involved will drop away in priority, while their worthy input is not forgotten, by him/her.

Innocence is important. I notice it in many Objectivists, young - and older, in some slightly strange ways! Not dumb naivete, I strongly emphasise, but a sense of something precious in themselves and in existence to be in wonder of, and to be protected and nurtured. In fact, accompanied often by their pre-existing spirit of independence already in place venturing into the philosophy, this 'innocence factor' could almost be defining of new O'ists. There are deep connections here to all the remainder of the Objectivist corpus, I feel. (And so too, advisedly, at core - the aesthetics). But it's just my notion, hardly an hypothesis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read those things by Richard Gleaves before.

He's the guy who did that wonderful multipart YouTube mashup of Galt's speech. And he's done some decent stories--better than what usually comes out in our subcommunity. I hope he continues because he has talent.

But getting to his musings on being a good Objectivist, I know exactly where he's at.

He was seduced by Rand's vision of a world without pain or fear or guilt, one achievable by using reason. Finally. Someone knows how to get there and now he does, too. And he found people who said the same, so he jumped right into the middle of them.

But he's got a good mind, so he can't help but see the manipulation by fear and guilt all around him through peer pressure to conform. He sees people afraid of excommunication and blaming themselves for not being good enough--hiding their true thoughts and feelings behind rationalizations that sound good to the others--Objectivism's form of politically correct, so to speak. He fears he might be doing some of that himself, but that door slams shut as soon as it opens.

It's that image of Dagny waking up to John Galt's face that won't go away, the emotional place where she asks, "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?" That is where he wants to be, around people who feel like that and use their reason to be there. But instead of hearing the answer, "No we did not," when he looks around, he sees the very people who should be giants taunting and piling on like crowds used to do at public executions.

It's embarrassing and it hurts.

Where did the vision of a world without pain or fear or guilt go? He sees the Objectivist community running on them--using them as fuel to keep the movement together as people mouth the word reason. And he wonders, "Why? What went wrong? How can we fix this?"

So he writes.

I apologize for climbing into his head. I couldn't resist it, though.

Let me be clear that these are my thoughts, not his.

I'm projecting some of what I have been through onto him based on glimpses I see in between the cracks of his writing.

He's a good person with a long road ahead. But he's going to be OK. I'm not sure he would ever like me. That doesn't matter. Not one bit. I like him.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing, many have remarked on Objectivism-as-movement's parallels with religiosity. This is old ground, but is important in light of that above article's insights.

I wonder if youngsters - many who have only recently rejected early religious influences - didn't cast around seeking its substitute and equivalent? Actually, I'm sure many did or do. One doesn't become a complete atheist over night. That conscious decision and cognitive rationale take a lo-ong time to sink into the subconscious. Personally (and I had an easy ride within religion, and leaving it - while individuals I know, had a far, far harder time) I was still aware back then, of the vacuum left behind when god goes. And the pressing need to fill it with - something. Even so it certainly wasn't immediate for me.

It all shows in the actions of some Objectivists, and explains a lot : i.e. 'Judgement', made publicly, with somewhat Biblical fervor- etc.etc.

When "The Word" (of God - or Truth) comes down to us, the deeply indoctrinated response is that whoever delivers it has to be a Prophet of God. Weird and dumb as that looks, I am speaking specifically of our subconscious minds.

Yes, Rand took back from religion, terms and concepts like 'evil' and 'judgement', and rightly so, I think ( and with an eye to their shock value, I'm sure)..

But she left unadvised one's transfer of the mystical terms into their secular conceptual counterparts, a transfer which is absolutely essential in each person. As much as the emotional attachment people have with them. Self evident to her, perhaps?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very interested by the posts which have accumulated, but I haven't time for commenting now. This evening.

Meanwhile, Dan Edge posted something which cracked me up on the Epstein Facebook thread:

link

Harriman is catching all this hell for attending a funeral social, when in real life he is a fraud scientist-ivist. Folks have strange priorities.

Right on, Dan!

See, the reason I was curious about Teresa's announcement on RoR that "the other shoe," Harriman, was about to drop is that I was hoping the issue was intellectual, since I consider Harriman's work really harmful. No way did I imagine that Harriman, of all people, would get into trouble by attending the memorial service for Barbara - or that Harriman is a friend of David Kelley's.

What a dismaying set of circumstances, since the reasons for censuring Harriman are so bad, yet there's good reason to censure him, but mostly the ARI people don't know that.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just blipping in to ask Naomi a couple questions.

Naomi,

You seem to have some up-close awareness of the ARI scene. Have you attended any of the ARI events? And did you have any previous inklings of Harriman and Kelley being friends?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just blipping in to ask Naomi a couple questions.

Naomi,

You seem to have some up-close awareness of the ARI scene. Have you attended any of the ARI events? And did you have any previous inklings of Harriman and Kelley being friends?

Ellen

I have never attended any of the ARI events, no.

I had no idea that Harriman and Kelley were friends until this whole thing blew up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the people in that Facebook thread ...

Highlights:

Alex Epstein:

Among admirers of Ayn Rand, of which I am one, there has been a bunch of discussion over the last couple days connected to Barbara Branden and her recent funeral. It has been suggested that those who would refuse to go to that funeral must be "petty," "antisocial," etc.

Let me say why the thought of going to that funeral is horrifying to me. Branden made a career off publishing an incredibly unfair, non-objective, and damaging "biography" of Rand.

I'm only familiar with the incredibly fair and surprisingly objective biography of Rand that Branden published. Where can I read the other one that Epstein is talking about?

As far as Epstein's claim that Branden's book was "damaging" to Rand, I think that the truth of Rand's behavior is indeed damaging. But even more damaging than Branden's revelations are those of Rand's own childish and self-unaware journal entries that were published in Valliant's own-goal of a book. They're much more damaging than everything that both Brandens wrote combined. As is her "To Whom It May Concern" article. Really, really stupid.

Alex Epstein:

I have been permanently, positively influenced by Rand. I learned from her work how *not* to be petty and to make sure that everything I do in my life matters. I learned from her work to consciously pursue happiness in all areas of life, including social. Given these debts and many others, how could I possibly attend an event *celebrating* someone who did decades worth of damage to Rand's reputation? It would be no different than attending a "celebration" of a newspaper reporter who dragged my best friend's name in the mud.

Then how can Epstein celebrate Rand's existence, since she attacked others' reputations with lies, smears and falsehoods? In her work, she attacked greater thinkers and creators than herself. She made really stupid and vicious misinterpretations and misjudgments of their work, ideas and morality.

Alex Epstein:

We live in an era where it's so easy to dismiss people for being "judgmental." It's true that you have to be damn careful in passing judgment (especially public judgment) and many aren't--but it's also true that you have to be damn careful to know which people, and movements, and politicians, are bad for your life and need to be judged accordingly. If judgment is done correctly, it doesn't make you "petty" and "antisocial." It makes you a happier person, and a force for good.

(This is not to pass judgment on everyone who attended that funeral. I imagine most of the people don't know much about Ayn Rand's ideas or the relevant history. But those of us who do are absolutely right to want nothing to do with it, and to explain to others why we think Barbara Branden was a force for bad.)

I wonder what the specific complaints are that Epstein has against Branden. Does he think that she was lying when revealing that Rand had an affair with Mr. Branden? Was Barbara a "force for bad" because she withheld from Rand the truth of Branden's affair with Patrecia?

Jonathan Norton:

It's disgusting that anyone would pay their respects to someone, knowing enough to understand that they don't deserve any respect. When you are primarily known because you slandered someone great, you deserve nothing but contempt.

Again, no specifics. Which of Branden's statements about Rand does Norton believe are slander? If Branden is "primarily known" for this alleged slander, why is it that I don't know what statements were slanderous? Does Norton mean "primarily known" to the general public, or does he mean "primarily known" only to himself?

Amy Peikoff:

I read the Branden books in college and noted two things: (1) they were written after Rand died, when she could no longer respond to their smears...

But then again, while she was alive Rand never responded to the Brandens' public refutations of her false accusations against them in "To Whom It May Concern," so why would she respond to the contents of their books about their relationships with her?

Amy Peikoff:

...and (2) somehow the most outrageous behavior attributed to Ayn Rand in those books, is behavior which, miraculously, was witnessed only by the Brandens & Frank O'Connor, who was already dead.

That's just false. I've heard of a lot of people who claimed to have witnessed outrageous behavior displayed by Rand, not just the Brandens and O'Connor. Often times it's from people who remained close to her, and who therefore try to downplay or spin her outrageous behavior, but it's still there. And Rand's own diary entries that were published in Valliant's silly book are some of the biggest and best examples of Rand's outrageous behavior. She comes across as having the romantic-emotional maturity of a 5th grade girl. Blind, vindictive, controlling, hypocritical and envious.

Fred Weiss:

Anyone who knew her well - and I've known and spoken to a number of them plus I had some (strictly) business dealings with her myself - will tell you that she was a slut. And you know what, that's not even the worst of it.

As for NB, he's even worse than her!

She was a slut?!?!!! Heh. This from someone who is defending a woman who spent years secretly fucking a married acolyte of hers while married herself?

Fred Weiss:

I can't say it better than Leonard Peikoff: "Let us not cohabit with or become alchemists in reverse, i.e., men who turn the gold of Ayn Rand into lead."

Rand turned her own gold into lead by having double standards in her personal life -- she expected of those closest to her what she didn't expect of herself, she condemned others while exempting herself for exactly the same behavior.

Judd Weiss:

I hate thinking about it. I hate talking about it. It was worst horror I ever had to endure. The prosecution against me lasted 1.5 years, of trauma, that cost me directly $160,000 to defend, and far more in ancillary damage, until the sex assault charges were finally dropped by the prosecutor. All because of an obsessed mentally unstable girl who I did not have sex with, but who managed to have me arrested anyway with a lie to the police, because I made it clear to her that I didn't want this immature girl as a girlfriend.

I'm sorry if Weiss was falsely accused and traumatized, but maybe he should learn something from the $160,000 legal ordeal?

Maybe consider not making out with and fingering a woman who one doesn't know very well and who one is about to decide is too "immature" to have as a girlfriend? Maybe get to know a woman for more than one date and discover that one actually admires and respects her and wants to possibly fall in love with her before consensually sticking one's tongue down her throat and one's hand up her skirt? Maybe reflect on the idea that kissing and fingering are usually seen as signals of closeness and fondness, and that if one then announces that one's not interested in the girl, one may have contributed significantly to sending her mixed messages, misleading her, taking advantage of her and justifiably angering her? The playboy-rockstar-teenboy-fantasy mindset of looking at women as objects can have consequences. If one wishes to act like an immature, horny teenboy and make out with and fondle women that one has no other interest in, one should make damned sure that the woman explicitly knows and agrees prior to any physical intimacy that one is most definitely not intending to signal closeness and fondness, or anything other than physical enjoyment.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Epstein's claim that Branden's book was "damaging" to Rand, I think that the truth of Rand's behavior is indeed damaging.

Jonathan,

I wish I could see signs of that damage, but I don't.

(Actually, I don't wish to see that at all. :) )

Read the latest leftie mainstream articles on Rand. Do they ever mention the affair, much less anything potentially derogatory coming from Barbara's book? I can give a slew of links if need be from this year alone.

The biggest complaint I have seen about her personal life within the mainstream context, one that actually does come up at times, is that she used Medicare to help with her medical issues at the end of her life. Somehow that's supposed to invalidate her ideas, but the only people who get goosey over that is the far leftie choir.

Think about this. If Rand were so damaged, why are lefties still writing mainstream articles complaining about her? And why does the mainstream right still write about her?

Celebrity-wise, why does her name keep coming up? Just today, it's in the mainstream (on Drudge) that Johnny Depp's new flame Amber Heard is a huge fan of Ayn Rand. WTF? Isn't Rand supposed to be damaged?

Why does her name keep coming up over and over on both Fox and MSNBC?

I could go on and on.

Rand's books still sell in the hundreds of thousands each year (if not over a million--I haven't done a check recently). How does that compare to the vast majority of bestselling authors of her day?

Some damage.

Jeez...

That whole "Branden damage to Rand" meme is just a myth--and not a very good one if you do a reality check. It's Objectivism fundamentalist food and nothing more. Notice that it never comes up anywhere or by anyone except within a fundie context.

It's garbage.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

A word about Judd's legal trouble.

Your speculations might be correct, but also, it could be that he was targeted for all the right-wing and libertarian stuff he promotes, seeing as how he runs in top-level circles.

Or maybe it was a whole lot of things all mixed together. I can come up with even more possibilities, starting with a possible overzealous arrogant prosecutor.

The important thing to me is the legal system cleared him. There's no reason I personally will condemn him for getting burned by an obsessive woman. On the contrary, I sympathize with him.

Our legal system doesn't allow us to ban obsessive neurotic people like we can on forums. :smile:

It favors them.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

A word about Judd's legal trouble.

Your speculations might be correct, but also, it could be that he was targeted for all the right-wing and libertarian stuff he promotes, seeing as how he runs in top-level circles.

Or maybe it was a whole lot of things all mixed together. I can come up with even more possibilities, starting with a possible overzealous arrogant prosecutor.

The important thing to me is the legal system cleared him. There's no reason I personally will condemn him for getting burned by an obsessive woman. On the contrary, I sympathize with him.

Our legal system doesn't allow us to ban obsessive neurotic people like we can on forums. :smile:

It favors them.

Michael

I'm not condemning him either, but simply suggesting that he review his own behavior and how it may have contributed to his misfortunes.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if Weiss was falsely accused and traumatized, but maybe he should learn something from the $160,000 legal ordeal?

Maybe consider not making out with and fingering a woman who one doesn't know very well and who one is about to decide is too "immature" to have as a girlfriend? Maybe get to know a woman for more than one date and discover that one actually admires and respects her and wants to possibly fall in love with her before consensually sticking one's tongue down her throat and one's hand up her skirt? Maybe reflect on the idea that kissing and fingering are usually seen as signals of closeness and fondness, and that if one then announces that one's not interested in the girl, one may have contributed significantly to sending her mixed messages, misleading her, taking advantage of her and justifiably angering her? The playboy-rockstar-teenboy-fantasy mindset of looking at women as objects can have consequences. If one wishes to act like an immature, horny teenboy and make out with and fondle women that one has no other interest in, one should make damned sure that the woman explicitly knows and agrees prior to any physical intimacy that one is most definitely not intending to signal closeness and fondness, or anything other than physical enjoyment.

J

Very wise statement J.

In social movements, political campaigns, causes, sports teams and rock bands, there are folks that vicariously live on the intensity of a dedicated person.

One has to remember Ayn's semi-soiled golden rule...

432.jpg

“Tell me what a person finds sexually attractive and I will tell you their entire philosophy of life. Show me the person they sleep with and I will tell you their valuation of themselves.”

A little tough when you made the choice he made.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Epstein's claim that Branden's book was "damaging" to Rand, I think that the truth of Rand's behavior is indeed damaging.

Jonathan,

I wish I could see signs of that damage, but I don't.

(Actually, I don't wish to see that at all. :smile: )

Read the latest leftie mainstream articles on Rand. Do they ever mention the affair, much less anything potentially derogatory coming from Barbara's book? I can give a slew of links if need be from this year alone.

The biggest complaint I have seen about her personal life within the mainstream context, one that actually does come up at times, is that she used Medicare to help with her medical issues at the end of her life. Somehow that's supposed to invalidate her ideas, but the only people who get goosey over that is the far leftie choir.

Think about this. If Rand were so damaged, why are lefties still writing mainstream articles complaining about her? And why does the mainstream right still write about her?

Celebrity-wise, why does her name keep coming up? Just today, it's in the mainstream (on Drudge) that Johnny Depp's new flame Amber Heard is a huge fan of Ayn Rand. WTF? Isn't Rand supposed to be damaged?

Why does her name keep coming up over and over on both Fox and MSNBC?

I could go on and on.

I agree that Rand hasn't been damaged politically by the affair or the resulting splits/shitstorms. No one is trying to invalidate her politics based on her sex life. The only damage caused by her affair, her treatment of her husband, and her vindictiveness (and lies) against the Brandens, has been to people's judgments of her theories and opinions on psychology, sexuality, gender, romantic love, etc. I think that most people who are familiar with her views on those subjects now recognize what a mess of a fucked up fantasy world she was living in, that she was far from identifying the realities of her own life, motives and actions much less of coming up with any objective theories that were applicable to all humans.

Rand's books still sell in the hundreds of thousands each year (if not over a million--I haven't done a check recently). How does that compare to the vast majority of bestselling authors of her day?

Some damage.

Jeez...

That whole "Branden damage to Rand" meme is just a myth--and not a very good one if you do a reality check. It's Objectivism fundamentalist food and nothing more. Notice that it never comes up anywhere or by anyone except within a fundie context.

It's garbage.

I agree that the "Brandens damaged Rand" meme is total bullshit. It's a Randroid method of playing victim, demonizing others, and trying to blame others for their own failures.

As for real, actual damage, the idiotic publishing of Rand's comments on the Hickman case -- especially her moronic view that those who publicly condemned him were guilty of greater sins themselves and were opposed to the daring individual confidence that she imagined that he projected -- have been used against her much more often and effectively than anything the Brandens ever wrote.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now