Thx.

--Brant

A  weird little website  unearthed some Ayn Rand notes from her FBI file, apparently -- in an online publication dating back to August of 2016 (posted by the executive editor there, JPat Brown).  The story, at Muck Rock, is predictably arch and sarcastic and rests upon a few unexamined assumptions, but some of the docs featured at the site are sort of interesting -- if you are a historian of Rand.

-- I did a little searching around OL to see if this had already appeared on site. If I find an earlier reference I will cross-link here and there.

[MSK made reference to this and another item in press: see Ayn Rand Helped the FBI Identify It’s A Wonderful Life as Communist Propaganda]

New material for Ayn Rand fans ... from ARI's "New Ideal" section at their website.  Click and go screen capture on the new publication "A New Textbook of Americanism":

-- excerpt:

Quote

Finally, the book includes never-before-published Rand comments from a philosophy workshop for scholars. These excerpts from the workshop, part of a series held between 1969 and 1971, offer a glimpse of Rand’s engagement with several thorny issues in political thought. Two issues caught my attention. One is Rand’s stress on the importance of objectivity in a proper political system, both in the functioning and procedures of the law and in the government’s use of retaliatory force. The other comes up in her critique of international law and the “laws” of war; here Rand discusses her view of what’s morally permissible, on the battlefield, to a country waging a war in self-defense. To read these excerpts is to gain a deeper appreciation for the distinctiveness of Rand’s political thought. Because she upholds the ideals of reason and individualism, in her political thought she differs fundamentally from not only conservatives and liberals but also libertarians and especially anarchists.

See also the Table of Contents that covers the 'new' material -- via Amazon's Look Inside (screen capture):

Some history William? Ellen knows stuff.

From: Ellen Stuttle To: atlantis Subject: ATL: RE: Rodin and Rand Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 23:33:44 -0400 Bill Dwyer writes:  I'm left wondering whether Mary Ann Sures consulted Rand before venturing forth with an opinion on this. Had Sures' impression been different from Rand's, I'm sure her article never would have been published.

Roger replied, "I don't understand how your final two sentences relate, Bill. Since the article ~was~ published, their impressions ~were~ the same."

Bill replies: I meant, I wondered if she consulted Rand to determine Rand's views before deciding what to write....Sures was an Objectivist in good standing, and could easily have feared the wrath of Rand if she expressed a contrary view.  It is a sure bet that if she wanted to get her article published, her opinions had to conform.

The likely way that article got written is this... Once upon a time, there was a split between AR and Nathaniel Branden, in the summer of '68.  Meanwhile *The Objectivist* was months behind publication schedule.  When publication of the magazine resumed in

September, the issue # was Volume 7, Number 5 -- that is, the issue for May.  There then proceeded to be a race to catch up with schedule, and Rand basically *told* various of her associates:  "Write something on such and such topic."  It wasn't a question of her associates "wanting" to get an article published, but of their being enlisted to save the ship by getting the magazine caught up.  They were back on a timely schedule by January '69.  However, the articles except those by Rand herself and by Peikoff continued to be for the most part a "filler" type of article.  From what I was told by some of those who wrote articles during that time, Rand "heavily edited" their contributions.

One article went so far as to include outright falsehood, the article by Allan Blumenthal on "The Base of Objectivist Psychotherapy," in which he says, "(I am indebted to Ayn Rand for the definition of psycho-epistemology, and for the conception and development of this method of treatment.)" Ellen S

Not quite a full Ayn Rand sighting, and only as fresh as a year old, but someone went to a lot of trouble to put this together. Those someones at the Foundation for Economic Education, as it turns out. Well, Jeffrey Tucker and Jennifer Grossman and a bad wig. Yes, that Jennifer Grossman.

I felt an involuntary cringe a couple of times, but that is probably witchcraft.

Headline: That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand

Video:

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

Not quite a full Ayn Rand sighting, and only as fresh as a year old, but someone went to a lot of trouble to put this together. Those someones at the Foundation for Economic Education, as it turns out. Well, Jeffrey Tucker and Jennifer Grossman and a bad wig. Yes, that Jennifer Grossman.

I felt an involuntary cringe a couple of times, but that is probably witchcraft.

Headline: That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand

Video:

 

Capes and Dollar Signs????????  Good grief!

15 hours ago, william.scherk said:

Not quite a full Ayn Rand sighting, and only as fresh as a year old, but someone went to a lot of trouble to put this together. Those someones at the Foundation for Economic Education, as it turns out. Well, Jeffrey Tucker and Jennifer Grossman and a bad wig. Yes, that Jennifer Grossman.

I felt an involuntary cringe a couple of times, but that is probably witchcraft.

Headline: That Day I Interviewed Ayn Rand

Video:

 

Cringe-worthy? Sure. But I like the fact that Undead Ayn is physically more attractive than the original. That's a very rare occurrence in zombie physics. Usually the undead person looks much worse than she did in her original living condition.

J

16 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Capes and Dollar Signs????????  Good grief!

The capelet-dress worn by the badly-wigged Grossman is I think inspired by this Rand outfit:

I imagine Rand hadn't shown as much thigh at the time of the photo as does Grossman's costume:

Even if tiresomely stale and unpersuasive, this article shows Rand's enduring relevance. "She Nasty Girl." Lives in lib heads hurr hurr.

How Ayn Rand contributed to America’s greed

Quote

The “Atlas Shrugged” author made selfishness heroic and caring about others weakness

Being at this forum since 2006, I could thoroughly masticate the article, even if I am un-Objectivist (and/or deranged as my loyal opposition declares).  My first recourse would be to curse the mystical thinking about altruist humankind. I mean, in my Arch Objectivish voice, a slice of fishy sarcasm on a slab.

The article is rather long, and you can almost see the atrocious reference-list from which the writer has squeezed old juice. A bit bitter and old, add emotive language, infuse up a taint of awfulness, so Rand's philosophy can be blamed for yet another era's woes. If I had to read a lot of this material in a row with no bike rides I would immediately lurch to the right. Maybe not all the way to the right of Ted Keer, but still.

Quote

[...] After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either “Self” or “Self-Esteem” in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remained an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest until his recent death in December 2014.

Ayn Rand’s personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the “unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence.” After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she needn’t mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

 

How Rand’s philosophy seduced young minds

When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rand’s The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasn’t much difference between the comic books and Rand’s novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

 

Rand said, “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible....The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and man’s happiness on earth—or the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces.” For many young people, hearing that it is “moral” to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: “My ex-husband wasn’t a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.”

To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: “Metaphysics — objective reality. Epistemology — reason. Ethics — self-interest. Politics — capitalism.” How did that philosophy capture young minds? [...]

In the Old Days, nine separate accounts would snack on this for three days. I am expecting Brant will take the first bite after me.

"How ugly was the graphic illustration of Rand herself in the Salon republication of the Alternet original?" you ask ...

An antidote to bad wigs, faked accents, and loaded language about the Curse of Ayn Rand.

Not quite an 'Ayn Rand Sighting,' but an example of recent work from the Ayn Rand Institute's media/promotion arm, under the rubric "New Ideal."

The Rubin Report: Why It Is Critical to Be Fact-Oriented

Ben Bayer Keith Lockitch -- March 11, 2019

Quote

[...] After a wide-ranging intellectual discussion with a focus on the rigorous development of standards of morality and science, it is refreshing that the conversation ends with Rubin’s pointed question, “Where does fun fit into this?” To find out whether Binswanger and Salmieri are any fun, and whether they think this is what counts in a life lived in the pursuit of happiness, watch the video until the end!

A snapshot of some of the other offerings via New Ideal:

From Diana Brickell's Twitter list Objectivism: https://twitter.com/DianaBrickell/lists/objectivism: Unpublished Ayn Rand letters.

Quote

The forty letters have been divided into four groups by subject matter. Although there’s unavoidable overlap among subjects, the first group (eight letters) pertains to Rand’s activities in Hollywood, the second (fourteen letters) to her fiction writing, the third (twelve letters) to her nonfiction and political activism, and the fourth (six letters) to her more personal correspondence.

The first group is online now, with the remaining groups slated for publication in coming weeks.

Direct link to the first tranche of published letters: https://courses.aynrand.org/works/previously-unpublished-letters-of-ayn-rand-group-1/

17 hours ago, william.scherk said:

From Diana Brickell's Twitter list...

Hadn't seen the Comrade's Twitter account previously.

Eeesh. Did Greta Van Susteren swallow Alanis Morissette's nana?

Anyway, wow, scrolling, notice the abandonment of Objective notions of judgement and justice, and the sheer rage? Put on you profiler hat. What do you see, Agent Hotchner?

J

12 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

Hadn't seen the Comrade's Twitter account previously.

Eeesh. Did Greta Van Susteren swallow Alanis Morissette's nana?

Anyway, wow, scrolling, notice the abandonment of Objective notions of judgement and justice, and the sheer rage? Put on you profiler hat. What do you see, Agent Hotchner?

Jonathan,

I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.)

Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here).

Quote

I'm so in awe of Christine Blasey Ford's courage, but her fussiness about wording and her academic comments on memory formation have stolen my heart.

Ah... the matters of the heart...

She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. 

Objectivism in action, that it is...

Michael

I keep up with the Brickell list, but am blocked from viewing her timeline ...

Very, very angry person there, especially when it comes to the issue of sexual assault. Accusations equal immediate verdicts of guilt. And how dare that bastard defend himself, and show emotion in doing so. After what he did to me! Er, I mean, to her!

16 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I keep up with the Brickell list, but am blocked from viewing her timeline ...

Heh. Billy, what did you do to get blocked? Whatever it was, it must have been pretty damned horrible, because the Comrade is pretty tolerant and easy going.

When you combine Objectivism with cult, cult will be the last thing standing. The genesis of this is Atlas Shrugged itself and Galt's speech, which was all Moses coming down from the mountain. Nathaniel Branden, logically enough, took this and ran with it. It was perfect for the 1960s.

--Brant 

What is perfect for today is acting rationally off data and acceptance of things as they are with ideology as the goalposts.

Radical change is okay in one's head, but that's for oneself. It's not to be imposed on others in the name of any righteousness. That's the primary screwup of the left. The left took righteousness and morality and chucked all else except brute force.

--Brant

On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I skimmed Diana Brickell's own feed a bit. (Like you, I hadn't seen it before.)

Did you see the mountain of love she heaped upon the hoax lady (CB Ford) in the Justice Kavanaugh hearing? This is a direct quote (from here).

Ah... the matters of the heart...

Ford is a psychologist, and knows stuff about the brain, and she mentioned some chemicals, technical terms and theories, and therefore she could not possibly have been mistaken, misremembering, or lying about Kavanaugh.

On 7/2/2019 at 9:27 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

She also said she's a supporter of Beto O'Rourke. 

Objectivism in action, that it is...

  

Michael

She seems to really hate Ted Cruz, and was "supporting" Beto out of spite for Cruz. I haven't seen why she has these feelings. Lots and lots of anger. She seems to have found an outlet for some of it in making customer complaints to companies.

She should think about getting a "I want to speak to your manager" haircut.

J

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

When you combine Objectivism with cult, cult will be the last thing standing...

Indeed!

Steve Hassan blunders in a Twitter thread:

He gets about five things badly RONG in the first five tweets in the thread. If you are on Twitter and want to bark sense at Steve ...

William,

I like Steve despite his own cult-like tendency.

He has contributed important work to cult studies and he's very smart. I've read some of his books (his first two) and God knows I have seen countless videos by him. (I came across him when I was studying Scientology as a phenomenon.)

Now for the bad side. He sometimes poisons his insights with cult-behavior himself. The first time I noticed this was something he admitted to. When he was talking about his initial attempt to solve the cult-business for human-kind (which is already a tell), he was literally involved in kidnapping cult members and trying to forcibly deprogram them. He had to learn the hard way that was not correct behavior in a modern free civilization.

Another is in his constant oversimplifying of group behavior.

Here's just one example, but there are several. In his world, cult leaders are charismatic, so by logical extension in his mind (but using inverted reasoning in reality), all charismatic leaders with large followings are cult leaders. He actually believes that. And like Don Quixote, when he sees one and it gets to him, off he goes to fight his windmills. 

In other words, when Steve latches onto this mode of thinking and applies it to a specific person, he often makes serious mistakes--the ones I call cognitive mistakes within my "cognitive before normative" reasoning process. He misidentifies things so he can bash his target. Normative first, it doesn't matter what one sees. In other words, he sees a windmill as an enemy, so he charges in self-righteous conviction to save the world from it.

The thing is, he mixes this stuff with a lot of stuff he gets right. So, ultimately, he ends up selling bad ideas with the good.

In one of his more boneheaded attempts, he wrote a book in 2019 called The Cult of Trump: A Leading Cult Expert Explains How the President Uses Mind Control. He doesn't see that he is calling half (actually more) of the US population a cult.  

Does he do this on purpose? I don't think so. I think his own way of thinking (his epistemology) got more damaged than it originally was when he became a Moonie back in the day. Like it or not, the Moon cult used highly effective brainwashing techniques.

I can see a main vulnerability, a cognitive bias out of control, in all this. And not just in Steve. But Steve-wise, at the very bottom, I sense a desire in him to be better than a different set of humans. If that condition is satisfied, if he can feel superiority over some others he can point to, irrespective of the context, God is in his Heaven and all is right with the world.  

That's what led him to be a Moonie. (I know this from my own introspections and study of cognitive biases.) He never got rid of that frame after he left the Moonies and I base that on observing his work and videos. That's why he needs to demonize targets with sweet poison--that is cover a toxic idea like demonization with a sweet covering like love and reason.

At root, this ends up being nothing more than a posture in a dominance hierarchy frame of thinking. Not a quest for truth, although that is included. In other words, he says quest for truth is his main motivation, and he does do some of that, but it isn't the prime mover in his deeds. His deeds show his neediness to be superior.

Take that away and I think he would get bored.  

As to his errors about Rand, they are worth discussing. They are boilerplate and have been discussed in O-land--by Rand lovers and Rand haters--ad nauseum for decades.

I do believe his cult-observations about the Rand world should be looked at, though, if one is interested in separating the wheat from the chaff. That is, keeping the good stuff from Rand while sending the bad stuff to the intellectual garbage pile. If one does not believe she has both, I doubt that person will grok what I am getting at.

But Steve is not a person you want to use for conclusions since they are so uneven. He is a person you want to learn technical stuff from, though. His technical part is solid. So what he says about the Rand world is worth thinking about, even when he is wrong. Besides, learning about cults and how to get rid of toxic influences in your own life is important in the age of the Internet.

At the very least (but there is the good side), one can look at Steve and say he got XXXX wrong. And within that conclusion, I believe it's worth it to also think about why someone with the intelligence of Steve perceives me (who is, say, a Trump supporter and Rand supporter) in that cockeyed way where I am either a cult member, a victim, or a villain myself.

Why? Why does that happen? I know I'm not that way, but there it is and there he is.

So it's time to pause. At this level, it doesn't matter whether the answer is within me or within him. The important part is to find a good question like this and think it through. In that sense, if one can keep to the reason frame--the identify correctly in order to judge correctly frame, Steve's work is good to prompt independent thinking about several important human behavior and thinking process issues.

When Steve is on, he's quite good. When he's off, it's still good to think about why.

Now, do I need a smartass zinger to end with? Of course I do.

After Steve did that long-ass twitter thread bashing Rand with old boilerplate and sweet poison, his last tweet, as of now (see here), ends with this pearl of wisdom.

Quote

Ayn Rand's influence is still WIDELY felt today. So much of the opposition we see around SIMPLE actions like masking is very Randian in nature.

Randian?

Objecting to being made to wear provably ineffective masks is Randian?

Heh...

It's so odd that he doesn't see the way masking itself became a rabbit's foot, and the vaccine scam itself became a cult with Fauci (Tony Science) as head guru and all monies flowing up to him and his peeps. 

That's because, at root, Steve is fighting what he perceives as one cult (Rand, Trump, etc.) with another (Scientism, which, basically, he is in so he doesn't perceive it).

To use a metaphor, when you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Inspired by Steve Hassan, maybe we can coin a term and call this hammer epistemology?

Michael

This is new to me. Atlas Shrugged will be produced again?

Brief video blurb/tease from the media group: