The Passion of James Valliant’s Criticism, Part II

[Ellen Stuttle]

A single anecdote should throw enough light on Rand's character to disprove this hypothesis. The libertarian economist Murray Rothbard was for a time part of Rand's circle of friends. But when Rand learned that Rothbard's wife was a Christian, she gave Rothbard six months to convert her to atheism, or else divorce her. Rothbard of course did neither, and was, accordingly, excommunicated soon thereafter.

As best I recall, both NB and BB have said -- and Rothbard somewhere acknowledged -- that that story is false. For one thing, Rothbard was never so close to the "Inner Circle" as to be described as having been "excommunicated." For another, AR didn't demand that Rothbard convert his wife from atheism. Possibly Barbara will see this post and comment. I did not know Murray Rothbard, but I know persons who knew him well who say that he adopted a policy of deliberately exaggerating or outright fabricating certain stories in order to discredit various opponents, personal and/or political. I.e., I recommend exercising caution regarding anything Rothbard is reported as having said about his brief relationship with AR.

Ellen

___

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; I believe the first place the story about Ayn Rand and Rothbard's wife Joey is "It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand". The author Jerome Tucciala says that is not a factual account of the events he relates. I don't have a quote from the book and I am going on my memory.

I think that Rothbard did not believe the facts should interfere with a good story.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I had a different point in mentioning that. One of the central theses of PARC is that most all personal criticism of Rand by academics can be traced to the Brandens. In this case, another hypothesis in PARC was dismissed outright by an academic based on an account not given in a book by the Brandens.

But for the record, I looked it up and the story apparently came from columnist Samuel Francis. Here is a source claiming that the Francis wrote an article about Rand called "The Real Secret of Ayn Rand's survival" in The Washington Post.

Here is an account by Jim Peron from Is Objectivism a Cult? Part 2.

Rothbard Pulls the Christian Card

In a 1996 column Frances launched an attack on Rand. And to paraphrase Jerome Tuccille's book "it usually begins with Murray Rothbard." In his column Frances denounced Rand as an anti-Christian cultist. He offers two pieces of evidence for this attack. First, "the characters in her books are always sketching the symbol [of the dollar sign] in the air like early Christians sketching the sign of the cross." Now, of course, as is widely known Rand wrote four novels. Together they total around 2,500 pages which easily amounts to somewhere between 700,000 and 1 million words. In three of these books the dollar sign isn't mentioned at all. In Atlas Shrugged the main character John Galt sketches the dollar sign a grand total of one time. Yet Frances has the characters [plural] in Rand's books [plural again] always sketching the sign. In fact one character, in one book, sketches it once.

Frances, the anti-immigrant activist, accused the immigrant Rand of turning "herself and her ideas into her own private church." He says that a story "about my late friend Murray Rothbard" shows how this was true. Frances wrote:

Murray, one of the world's leading free market economists and libertarian thinkers, was a lifelong agnostic, but his wife, Joey, was and is a Christian. When they were younger, they had some truck with Rand and her circle of worshipers, but then the Great One found out about Joey's faith.

Rand gave Joey six months to soak herself in Rand's own screeds against religion. If, at the end of that period, Joey abandoned her beliefs, she and Murray could sign up with the Source of All Truth Herself. If not, Murray would have to divorce Joey, or else they would be exiled to the outer dark. Murray, quite properly, told Rand to go take a flying jump in the lake (or words to that effect). He kept his wife, and his wife kept her faith, and somehow they managed to live happily without the benefit of Ayn Rand's wisdom.

This story has been making the rounds for decades. And if true it would certainly show Rand in an extremely bad light. If the "exile" of Rothbard had to do with an edict to divorce his wife because of her beliefs, then his attacks might be justified. But the correspondence between Rothbard and Nathaniel Branden, which still exists, showed the "exile" was over the charges of plagiarism. Rothbard's story makes him appear the victim while the documentation which exists in the form of letters would indicate a certain lack of honesty on his part. One can understand why Rothbard might have a motive to create a very different account for his departure from his very brief stint in Objectivist circles.

Once told a story can't be untold and takes on a life of its own. Propagandists have always known this and Rothbard was a propagandist. Unfortunately he was always most successful at "smashing" his opponents than he ever was at building up support for a free society. Sociologist Ted Goertzel used Rothbard's false claims in his book Turncoats & True Believers (his discussion of Rand is amateurish and filled with absurd claims). Goertzel alleges:

When economist Murray Rothbard's wife could not be persuaded to give up her Christian beliefs, Rand and Branden suggested that he leave her and take a more rational mate. He refused. At a later meeting, Rothbard was denounced for not smoking cigarettes. A purge trial was held, which Rothbard refused to attend. Rothbard left the cult and continued to fight the Randians in the Libertarian Party.

Not only did Rothbard lie about Rand demanding he divorce Joey but he covered up the real reasons.

Earlier in the article, Peron gave Rothbard's written account (and Peron's his own speculation):

What Rothbard may or may not have told Samuel Francis and other friends is hard to pin down. But his article in Liberty did go into detail. And that article is not quite the story that has been recounted. In his own account Rothbard doesn't actually say he was told to divorce his wife by Rand. In fact he makes Branden the villain and instead of being "told" to divorce her he only claims that it was hinted at and never specifically stated.

In his account Rothbard says that the most serious reason for his break was his wife's religion. He says:

My wife Joey was and is a practicing Christian. I knew from the very beginning that the Randians were fanatically antireligious, that Rand hated God far more than she ever hated the State. So I put it squarely to Branden at our very first meeting: "Is it your view that I should divorce Joey because she's a Christian?" "Of course not," Nathan replied, "how could you think we were such monsters." Branden's answer lulled me into a false sense of security. As the months wore on, however, I came to realize that while Branden was technically telling the truth, the Randian attitude was, if possible, even worse. For no, I was not supposed to divorce Joey because she was a Christian; I was supposed to spend several months hectoring the poor girl to convert her to atheism; if that failed I was supposed to divorce her.

Now how was this allegedly done? Rothbard says that Branden "casually" asked if Joey would like to attend his lecture on theism or at least listen to the tape of it. Even Rothbard says this was "reasonable." He says later that Branden was surprised that the tape had no effect on Joey and that he mentioned if Barbara were showing signs of being religious he would sit her down and talk about it. Rothbard then claims he was told he should do the same with other Christian friends.

Now this differs significantly from what other people claim Rothbard had told them. In Rothbard's written account Rand had nothing to do with the issue, contrary to the claims of Samuel Francis. There was no demand to read Rand's non-existent "screeds" on the issue. And instead of being ordered to divorce Joey if she didn't become an atheist, he only charges that Nathan hinted as much. In my opinion the discrepancies between the various versions of this story are probably attributable to Rothbard. I think it likely that the story evolved or changed depending on who was told and under what circumstances. Samuel Francis obviously believes that the version he recounted is exactly what Rothbard told him. Yet that account and the one printed in Liberty are rather different.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

There's some value in trying to sort out what led to Murray Rothbard's departure from Rand's circle. Not an easy task, though, given the ongoing duel of egos between Rand and Rothbard...

But there's no need to lean on that particular departure.

An unfortunate consequences of Jeff Walker's book being so badly written and so driven by animus is that really damning material from his and other people's interviews with the Smiths, the Blumenthals, the Hessens, and the Holzers gets overlooked. Since all of those folks stayed with Rand after Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were expelled, the behavior they complain about can hardly be blamed on the malign influence of NB and BB.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Further on the parting of the ways between Rothbard and Rand. (I realize, Michael, that the reason you quoted from the "Overcoming Bias" blog was only tangentially related to the truth of it re Rothbard and Rand. But since that subject has come up....)

Rothbard is quoted (by Peron) as having written in his Liberty article (I suppose the article meant is "The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult"):

I knew from the very beginning that the Randians were fanatically antireligious, that Rand hated God far more than she ever hated the State.

Where did he get that idea -- if in fact he ever got it? The description doesn't match what was said in The O'ist Newsletter (?) about AR & Co. being atheists but not militant atheists. I think the passage is quoted somewhere on this website.

Also, consider the story Joan Kennedy Taylor -- a reliable source ;-) -- told about Ayn's attitude toward Joan's father's religious beliefs *. Joan's father, composer Deems Taylor, became friends with Ayn. Albeit somewhat to Joan's surprise, Ayn told her to leave her father alone about his beliefs, he was an old man and they comforted him. Of course it could still have been that Ayn expected Murray Rothbard to hector his wife -- who was much younger than Deems Taylor -- on the subject of her beliefs. Still, the description of Ayn as "hat[ing] God far more than she ever hated the State" doesn't ring true with anything I can recall hearing from any other source.

The story Peron reports one Ted Goertzel as telling is even more far-fetched:

At a later meeting, Rothbard was denounced for not smoking cigarettes. A purge trial was held, which Rothbard refused to attend.

I wonder if that account by Goertzel is the source of the story I've sometimes encountered elsewhere that people in Rand's circle were expected to smoke.

Ellen

* Joan's account can be found in the Full Context interview with her.

EDIT: Chris G. -- thanks, Chris -- sent me a PM correcting my misspelling of Deems Taylor (I'd spelled his first name "Deams").

Here's a link to a wiki article about him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deems_Taylor

___

Edited December 21, 2007 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

Folks,

Justin Raimondo, in his bio of Murray Rothbard, quotes a letter from Rothbard indicating that his wife's religion was a source of dispute with the Rand movement.

The letters Raimondo quotes are sufficiently detailed such as to indicate that Rothbard was quite involved with the Rand movement.

Rothbard's late wife Joey also said in a 1996 Mises conference that her religion was an issue. (I have the tape.)

[Chris Grieb]

I don't know all the details of Rothbard's involvement in the early days of Objectivism but I have one detail.

There was a party where there was a great deal of drinking and one of the guests began to imitate Nathaniel's lecturing style. Another guest played a student who had spent all her money on the lectures. Various other guests played other NBI students. Many years ago I heard the tape. It's what you would expect from a bunch of people who have been drinking.

Nathaniel Branden heard about the party and the tape. Reportedly he demanded it be given to him or destroyed. Rothbard refused. This incident as well as the plagiarism charge led to his break with Rand and Branden.

I am reluctant to reveal the names of the other people invovled but of the names I have heard all of those I have heard of continued to be interested in Objectivism.

Although several broke at later times.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sometime you come across something so funny that is a shame to let it slide without mentioning it.

William Scott Scherk (our own dear WSS) recently has been discussing on SOLOP with James Valliant how the scientific community is underwhelmed by David Harriman's attempt to teach "the fundamental principles of science better than most scientists" and Valliant's own feeble appearance on the Richard Dawkins forum to explain and defend Objectivism.

I read the entire thread on the Dawkins forum (and Valliant's 50 posts), so here is a summary of Valliant's part. Things were going more or less OK for him while he was explaining how Rand and Rand's ideas have been constantly misrepresented (especially by "certain enemies"). It sounded reasonable enough, so some highly intelligent folks over there started asking him to explain himself and Rand (and Objectivism, and what Objectivists know about science). They got JV-PARC gobbledygook in return and it became funny to see how they weren't buying it. Then two or three of Valliant's critics showed up and that gave him an easy out. He said it was all their fault and stopped posting. Now I believe he no longer thinks it is a good thing to defend Ayn Rand's reputation to the scientists. (Did I see a tail between his legs while slinking off?)

But in the heat of the discussion on SOLOP, WSS popped out with this:

Valliant's son: "Dad, you said that you would get me a bike for Xmas."

Dad: "Sir, I invite you read the record. It speaks for itself."

Son: "DAD!!! you SAID."

Dad: "Maybe you should examine your own record, no, sir, since it seems you are unable to track a 'discussion'?"

Son: "Dad, I forgot. I might as well be talking to a horse. Thanks for the autographed copy of PARC. I will add it to my collection. Asshole."

That is dead center and such a perfect portrayal of Valliant's rhetoric (at least, one of his techniques) that I am still laughing.

Good Lord, William. You didn't say Court Jesters were supposed to be that funny!

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

About Murray Rothbard: Rothbard was never part of "Rand's Circle." He visited with her -- along with a group of her friends and aquaintances -- several times, and that was all. From the start, she did not like him, but continued to see him because he had written her a beautiful and enthusiastic fan letter about Atlas Shrugged, and despite his anarchism she wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt as long as possible. He was never told -- nor was it hinted at -- either by Rand or Nathaniel or anyone else, that he must convert his wife from religion on pain of excommunication; nor was he told -- nor was it hihnted at -- that he should divorce her if she continued to be religious. He was rejected by Rand when she charged him with plagiarizing her ideas (and mine) on the nature of free will. Of course Rand disapproved of Joey Rothbard's religious beliefs, as she disapproved of anyone's religious beliefs.

Nathaniel saw Rothbard a number of times, although not after the plagiarism incident. His reason was that he was attempting to help Rothbard, who had a very severe problem of agrophobia and could not, for many years before and after this, leave New York City or even ride in an elevator.

The idea that Rothbard was "denounced" for not smoking is too preposterous to require comment. Rand never suggested to anyone, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances, that one ought to smoke; she merely explained, when asked and only then, why she continued smoking in spite of the Surgeon General's warning. Her reason was that the arguments from statistics about the dangers of smoking were not definitive.

Ellen, you wrote: "I know persons who knew him [Rothbard] well who say that he adopted a policy of deliberately exaggerating or outright fabricating certain stories in order to discredit various opponents, personal and/or political. I.e., I recommend exercising caution regarding anything Rothbard is reported as having said about his brief relationship with AR." I heartily second Ellen's recommendation.

James Heaps-Nelson, you wrote: "t was really only possible for Barbara Branden to render one side of the story. Her research pool only consists of those who split with Ayn Rand." You are mistaken. Here is a random sampling consisting of only a few of the interviewees who remained on good terms with her:

Marc Jafffe -- who commissioned her to write an introduction to Ninety-three for Bantam

Donald Klopfer, Bennett Cerf's partner

Bertha Krantz, Rand's friend and copy-editor at Random House

Mrs. Alan Collins, wife of Alan Collins who was Rand's friend and literary agent until his death in 1968

Margit von Mises, wife of Ludwig von Mises

Jack Portnoy, her cousin

Sterling Silliphant, screen-writer with whom Rand worked for a year as he wrote a script for a projected ten-hour television adaptation of Atlas

Mimi Sutton, Frank's niece and Ayn and Frank's good friend, who spoke with Ayn as late as the night before her death

Fern Brown, Ayn's niece

Daryn Kent-Duncan, Ayn's secretary for many years

Alan Greenspan

Mike Wallace

Robert Bleiberg, publisher of Barron's

Barbara

[John Dailey]

~ 'Mike Wallace'? I'm aware of the interview, and that he was impressed with her, but...

~ 'Phil Donahue' not included? She did say on his show that she considered him 'honorable' -- (well, before the overly mucho-analyzed insult-incident.)

LLAP

J:D

Edited December 30, 2007 by John Dailey

[Chris Grieb]

Barbara; You made no comment about my post. Have you not heard about the incident involving the party. I have heard the tape.

[Neil Parille]

I think for PARC analysis the main thing is that neither of the Brandens relies on Rothbard for his/her picture of Rand and neither uses the break with Rothbard as evidence of "Rand-the-excominicator." [sic]

Valliant's insertion of Rothbard in his book just confuses readers who don't know the background.

[galtgulch]

Rand never suggested to anyone, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances, that one ought to smoke; she merely explained, when asked and only then, why she continued smoking in spite of the Surgeon General's warning. Her reason was that the arguments from statistics about the dangers of smoking were not definitive.

Barbara

I was made aware of Objectivism in 1968, one year after I finished medical school. When I met Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum years later, after I had served two years in the military, she was signing autographs after her speech, a cigarette holder in her hand. I was shocked because by then virtually every doctor in the country had given up or never started to smoke. How could she not know?

In fact to this day I enlighten patients of mine who smoke about the damage smoking causes. It is not a matter of statistics except perhaps regarding the incidence of lung cancer.

Even one cigarette daily can cause what is called squamous metaplasia. The normal self cleaning lining of the bronchii, pseudo stratified, ciliated, columnar epithelium, which keeps the lungs clean of inhaled dust, undergoes a change to stratified squamous epithelium identical to the skin. This happening occurs universally in one hundred percent of people who smoke and leads at least to chronic bronchitis and some degree of pulmonary emphysema, which can be quite disabling as it reduces the surface area for respiration.

I regret that I did not take advantage of the moment to plead with her to learn about such things because it was obvious that she was not aware, that her behavior was inconsistent with her professed philosophy, and that she was heading for trouble. Unfortunately I did not although at worst she would have found me to be rude. Realize i was in a long line of admirers who wanted her signature and I felt it was not the time nor the place.

I am sure she had physicians of her own. It was 'none of my business' but I obviously still feel that I should have ventured to be obnoxious at that moment instead of keeping my mouth shut. Who was I to tell or advise her what to do? She was on some sort of pedestal. I should have found a way.

This reminds me of NB's situation in which his wife, with a history of epilepsy, went away with him on a weekend without her anticonvulsant pills, which led to her probably having a seizure and falling into their pool and drowning. What am I suggesting here? Think about it!

Now we find ourselves aware of things of which our fellow travelers on this planet and in this society are unaware. Their ignorance is leading them in life and freedom threatening directions and their decisions, such as the one coming up in the political primaries, nominating conventions and the election for president, will depend on their errors or mistaken premises.

Keep passing the torch!

galt

[Brant Gaede]

Rand never suggested to anyone, for any reason, at any time, under any circumstances, that one ought to smoke; she merely explained, when asked and only then, why she continued smoking in spite of the Surgeon General's warning. Her reason was that the arguments from statistics about the dangers of smoking were not definitive.

Barbara

I was made aware of Objectivism in 1968, one year after I finished medical school. When I met Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum years later, after I had served two years in the military, she was signing autographs after her speech, a cigarette holder in her hand. I was shocked because by then virtually every doctor in the country had given up or never started to smoke. How could she not know?

In fact to this day I enlighten patients of mine who smoke about the damage smoking causes. It is not a matter of statistics except perhaps regarding the incidence of lung cancer.

Even one cigarette daily can cause what is called squamous metaplasia. The normal self cleaning lining of the bronchii, pseudo stratified, ciliated, columnar epithelium, which keeps the lungs clean of inhaled dust, undergoes a change to stratified squamous epithelium identical to the skin. This happening occurs universally in one hundred percent of people who smoke and leads at least to chronic bronchitis and some degree of pulmonary emphysema, which can be quite disabling as it reduces the surface area for respiration.

I regret that I did not take advantage of the moment to plead with her to learn about such things because it was obvious that she was not aware, that her behavior was inconsistent with her professed philosophy, and that she was heading for trouble. Unfortunately I did not although at worst she would have found me to be rude. Realize i was in a long line of admirers who wanted her signature and I felt it was not the time nor the place.

I am sure she had physicians of her own. It was 'none of my business' but I obviously still feel that I should have ventured to be obnoxious at that moment instead of keeping my mouth shut. Who was I to tell or advise her what to do? She was on some sort of pedestal. I should have found a way.

This reminds me of NB's situation in which his wife, with a history of epilepsy, went away with him on a weekend without her anticonvulsant pills, which led to her probably having a seizure and falling into their pool and drowning. What am I suggesting here? Think about it!

Now we find ourselves aware of things of which our fellow travelers on this planet and in this society are unaware. Their ignorance is leading them in life and freedom threatening directions and their decisions, such as the one coming up in the political primaries, nominating conventions and the election for president, will depend on their errors or mistaken premises.

Keep passing the torch!

galt

When I was in junior high school (1957) one of my teachers demonstrated to our/his class what must happen to a human lung when cigarette smoke was inhaled. He lit up a cig and blew its smoke through a kleenex which left a brownish residue. Imagine, he said, a lifetime of smoking and what must be left behind in your lungs which are much finer filtering agents than kleenex.

I became a light smoker of Camel unfiltered cigs around the early 60s then I went into the army where "Take Five!" meant smoke one. In 1965 I spent 13 nights with Gen. Eisenhower at Ft. Gordon, GA after he had a heart attack when I was undergoing SF medical on-the-job training. I realized his condition had a lot to do with his smoking. He had had a previous heart attack in 1955 while President. I continued smoking while in service and Vietnam in spite of more than an occasional cough and bronchial spasm brought on by running during training in Texas. I knew the humidity had something to do with it, plus smoking.

The spasms went south when I left Texas and have never returned. A doctor subsequently told me it was fist cousin to asthma. I am also a life-time hay fever sufferer, which didn't help. In regard to hay fever, it is now nothing near what I suffered as a child and adolescent, either because I outgrew it or because people no longer cultivate Bermuda grass here in Tucson. My earliest memory might be waking up in my crib crying for my Mother because I felt I couldn't breath. She herself had worse hay fever than I did.

Since I was on the verge of being killed in combat (and almost was) for a year in Vietnam, I couldn't give a damn about smoking's effect on my health. I smoked. About a pack a day. Any more I coughed too much. Any less, I coughed too much, too. I also had an allergy to cig. smoke according to a skin-scratch test I had as a child.

After discharge (1967) I continued to smoke. Then Eisenhower died on my 25th birthday in 1969. I wasn't afraid of lung cancer, but I was afraid of heart disease and especially emphysema. I stopped smoking. For two months I puffed on small cig. size cigars without inhaling then I stopped those too and haven't smoked since. I asked myself if I kept smoking how would I feel about it in 25 years and what would be the state of my health? I also remembered the truck driver who gave me a lift when I was hitchhiking in New Jersey who couldn't stop smoking one after the other and who couldn't stop coughing.

I think Ayn Rand reduced smoking to ideology. She thought it was pro-life, etc. Actually, what smoking does is enable you to focus down on what you are doing by screening out extraneous noise. That's why old-time newspaper rooms were filled with cigarette smoke. My alcoholic Father, ex-newspaper-reporter, smoked his whole life and died of lung-cancer. I fed him beta-carotene in mega-doses for several years before he died just to prevent that. Ironically, that was likely the catalyst that triggered his cancer. Diagnosis to death was only two months, so it was a good death. He just went to sleep.

When I took Basic Principles of Objectivism in Tucson in 1968 (continued live in NYC that year), Barbara Branden sent along a missive read by Peter Beatson (whatever happened to him?) that an example of an inappropriate question forwarded to NY to be answered by Ayn Rand would be "Why do you smoke?" I can't tell anyone what violence that such a statement does to be today as opposed to then, when I was still susceptible to obedience to authority considereing my young age, three years in the army and almost 12 years of public education. I mean, what the f___!? She couldn't handle such? What kind of pussy was she?

Basically, smoking took ten years off of Ayn Rand's physical life and 15 years off her productive life. If she didn't know better, she should have.

--Brant

Edited December 31, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Barbara Branden]

I was made aware of Objectivism in 1968, one year after I finished medical school. When I met Ayn Rand at the Ford Hall Forum years later, after I had served two years in the military, she was signing autographs after her speech, a cigarette holder in her hand. I was shocked because by then virtually every doctor in the country had given up or never started to smoke. How could she not know?

In fact to this day I enlighten patients of mine who smoke about the damage smoking causes. It is not a matter of statistics except perhaps regarding the incidence of lung cancer....

I regret that I did not take advantage of the moment to plead with her to learn about such things because it was obvious that she was not aware, that her behavior was inconsistent with her professed philosophy, and that she was heading for trouble. Unfortunately I did not although at worst she would have found me to be rude. Realize i was in a long line of admirers who wanted her signature and I felt it was not the time nor the place.

I am sure she had physicians of her own. It was 'none of my business' but I obviously still feel that I should have ventured to be obnoxious at that moment instead of keeping my mouth shut. Who was I to tell or advise her what to do? She was on some sort of pedestal. I should have found a way....

Galt, please do not feel regret that you didn't speak to Rand about her smoking. I can guarantee that it would have had no effect except to make her furious with you. I saw exactly that reaction very often when people ventured merely to ask her why she smoked.

At the time you met her, 1968, she of course did know that doctors everywhere were warning their patients not to smoke. I'm certainly not defending Rand's decision, but she was convinced that the evidence was not sufficient to warrant her giving up something that gave her pleasure. However, she did not undertake any detailed study of the evidence. She stopped smoking only when she was diagnosed with lung cancer, in 1973.

What I think was very wrong was that after her diagnosis, after she stopped smoking, she refused to announce her change of mind publicly, or at least to her students and the readers of her newsletter. Many of the latter had continued smoking becdause Rand had said there was not sufficient evidence to warrant stopping. Of course, they should have done their own investigating and come to their own first-hand conclusions, but nevertheless she surely was obligated to tell them that she now believed that smoking was a clear and present danger.

Barbara

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I came from a family where most of the men were cigar smokers and it didn't seem to shorten their life any. However my uncle Jim does have a persistent cough and doesn't play tennis and other sports as much as he used to. What made me decide never to smoke was seeing the lungs of lifelong smokers in in pictures in biology class. It was so disgusting I vowed to never do that to myself.

Not smoking goes along with other things like regularly indicated mammographies for women, colonoscopies after 40 or earlier for those who have a family history of colon trouble, prostate exams for men and regular monitoring of blood pressure, cholesterol etc.

Jim

Edited December 31, 2007 by James Heaps-Nelson

[Brant Gaede]

Statistically a smoker has a 1 in 7 chance of dying from lung cancer. If he stops smoking he still has a 1 in 7 chance ten years later. For longer time periods they are still gathering data. This says nothing about heart disease, emphysema or other cancers. If I was still smoking I would drink several glasses of green tea a day, in fact I do even though I stopped smoking almost 39 years ago.

--Brant

[Newberry]

Barbara: "What I think was very wrong was that after her diagnosis, after she stopped smoking, she refused to announce her change of mind publicly..."

hahahahah, I think since smoking was featured in Atlas, she would stay mute rather than imply anything could be off in the novel. I would think that would be a primary consideration--for practical matters, other's should use their judgment as you pointed out.

Try correcting an artist after they have committed by signing it off. ;) It ain't go'in ta happen.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

What I think was very wrong was that after her diagnosis, after she stopped smoking, she refused to announce her change of mind publicly, or at least to her students and the readers of her newsletter. Many of the latter had continued smoking becdause Rand had said there was not sufficient evidence to warrant stopping. Of course, they should have done their own investigating and come to their own first-hand conclusions, but nevertheless she surely was obligated to tell them that she now believed that smoking was a clear and present danger.

Allan Blumenthal told me after he'd split with her that he'd tried without success to get her to make an announcement. She had the belief that cancer resulted from "bad premises." Thus she was mystified as to how she could have developed cancer and she didn't want even the reason for the operation identified.

Ellen

___

[John Dailey]

~ Ok. 'Smoking's covered re Rand's established-as-defaulted moral-obligation-to-others which she...forgoed.

~ Now, to highlight all moral scandals (what other kind are there?) she's defaulted upon, what did she say about obesity and alchohol-imbibing (apart from her hiding that her spouse was a drunk)? Let's get those covered in our National Enquirer concerns.

LLAP

J:D

[Alfonso Jones]

(speaking of a meeting with Rand in a line to get a signature . . .)

I regret that I did not take advantage of the moment to plead with her to learn about such things because it was obvious that she was not aware, that her behavior was inconsistent with her professed philosophy, and that she was heading for trouble. Unfortunately I did not although at worst she would have found me to be rude. Realize i was in a long line of admirers who wanted her signature and I felt it was not the time nor the place.

I think your judgment at the time was correct. I chuckle, in fact, imagining the reaction you would have likely received if you had pressed the issue with her.

Sad - such a brilliant woman, and so closed to inputs.

In my life I have had the opportunity of working closely with and being mentored by two MAJOR creators/innovators (both were business gurus, as the jargon goes). Both exhibited behavior patterns which sound familiar to anyone having strong familiarity with Rand and the Rand/NB relationship and eventual schism:

1) Only a very few people were taken seriously in offering inputs (unless those inputs were praise). VERY FEW. And if those inputs were in the form of creating new concepts ideas, still fewer people.

2) LOYALTY was highly prized by the creator/innovator. I was often led to wonder how the creator/innovator would respond to two colleagues - one who was infinitely loyal, the other less loyal (but still of high integrity) but more intelligent and creative. I suspect that both of the creator/innovators would have gone for loyalty.

3) Lots of long discussion sessions spent with a small group of people, discussing ideas late into the night.

4) An "enforcer" who acted to work to set group norms and ensure loyalty to the creator/innovator. In both cases - I was that enforcer. I can recall, in the case of the second creator/innovator, rereading My Years With Ayn Rand and Passion of Ayn Rand several times and marvelling at the parallels.

5) They were both amazing generators of ideas, prolific in generating thoughts and concepts.

6) Looking back on both experiences - lots of pain, but I would not give up either one. I would have done a lot of things differently, with the benefit of hindsight, however.

I wonder how frequent this pattern really is. I'd be interested in hearing from others with similar experiences.

Alfonso

[Newberry]

Alfonso,

Nice post.

My sister was a world class tennis player. She beat Martina Navratilova at the US Open, twice semi-finalist at the French Open, Runner-up at Wimbledon Mixed doubles at 18 years old. She once lost a brutal match to Virginia Wade at Wimbledon after leading 5-1 in the third set. That match was on a packed Center Court, 14,000 people applauding every mistake my sister made.

The pressure that great athletes deal with is almost unbearable--the closer to the match makes them highly strung and extremely careful of what they allow into their consciousness. Saying anything to them which takes them off their course, for even a fraction of a second, will be met dismissively. It really doesn't matter if it is the wisest thing in the world that is being said, not holding the bigger context of athlete is a mistake.

People working on very large projects in which they are responsible will feel very much in the same way. I think it is naive and petty for subordinates to offer these kinds of people advice about anything--they simply have no room in their consciousness for anything not clearly on their path.

If one must offer advice, it better will be crystal clear in what manner this facilitates the direction that the innovator wants to go--and it better not be something that the innovator already thought of and rejected.

The strange thing is that there are often people addicted and fixated on these great people and spend a great deal of time trying to find a way to correct or add to, not their own work, but the creator's work. Instead of getting praise, the adviser will simply be trashed.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Folks,

I recently posted this on my blog:

_________________________

PARC: Four More Points

Since my two critiques of PARC, I've moved on to other projects, but here are a few things worth mentioning.

1. Frank's Drinking

One of the most notorious misrepresentations by James Valliant in PARC is his misquote of what Barbara Branden says Rand's housekeeper told her concerning liquor bottles in Frank O'Connor's studio.

Here is Barbara Branden (emphasis added):

He retained his studio in the apartment building where he and Ayn lived, and continued to spend his days there. And each week, when Ayn's housekeeper went to the studio to clean it, she found no new paintings but, instead, rows of empty liquor bottles.

Here is Jim Valliant (emphasis added):

As her sole corroboration for these sources, Ms. Branden refers to the 'rows of empty liquor bottles' in O'Connor's studio which Rand's housekeeper is said to have found there after O'Connor's death.

Now, finding empty liquor bottles "each week" and finding them "after O'Connor's death" are two different things.

Robert Campbell has pointed out that the source for Valliant's misreport is apparently Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult.

Barbara Branden relates that toward the end when people came into Rand's apartment, "the first thing they smelled was alcohol, and Frank had clearly been drinking," even in the morning. Now "Frank would fly into rages over nothing." After he died, his studio was found littered with empty liquor bottles. [TARC, p. 264.]

Walker does refer to an interview with Barbara Branden for the part in quotes, but nothing for the statement about the liquor bottles.

2. The Break With The Holzers

In PARC, Valliant speculates that the split might have something to do with Henry Holzer's views concerning constitutional interpretation. I came across this 1996 interview with Erika Holzer on her website (the brackets and all punctuation are Holzer's).

FC: Did you show her any of your writing?

Holzer: Ayn had already seen samples of what I called my "practice pieces." These she went over with me in great detail, giving me invaluable literary feedback. But by the time I had completed my first novel Double Crossing some years later, she and I had become estranged.

FC: Over political or philosophical issues?

Holzer: Neither. It was a personal matter involving some friends of hers who'd known her a lot longer than we had. Even after this estrangement, she remained cordial to my husband and me whenever we'd see her at some public event, such as a lecture on Objectivism, even telling us that, unlike everyone else she had "excommunicated," her "door was always open to us . . . " [For various personal reasons, my husband and I chose not to re-enter that door.] It was too bad, really. When we were still friends, Ayn said to me on more than one occasion that I'd never have to endure from the liberal publishing establishment what she'd had to endure — all those endless doors being slammed in your face. That, given her clout, she would see that the right doors remained open to me. But that never happened. I did have to wage that enormous uphill battle she had promised to spare me. It went on for many years.

I have no idea which friends of Rand's Holzer is referring to, but: (1) she does describe their break with Rand as an "excommunication" (contrary to Valliant's description of the break); and (2) it didn't have anything to do with political or philosophical issues (for example animal rights or constitutional interpretation).

3. Speculation in PARC

James Valliant likes to claim that there this is too much speculation in the Brandens' books. I should have highlighted more the fact that Valliant is the king of speculation.

To take one example, Barbara Branden says that Frank told her that he wanted to leave Rand, "'But where would I go? . . . What would I do? . . .'" [PAR, p. 263.]

Here is Valliant:

The manifest absurdity of believing that a husband of a very successful author--whose crucial role in that author's own work had been publicly professed by Rand--would be left penniless from a divorce cannot be ascribed to O'Connor but to Ms. Branden. (Even in those days, husbands of high-income wives could--and did--get attractive settlements.) [PARC, pp. 151-52.]

Barbara Branden was an eyewitness and I see no reason to doubt her recollection. Even if what Valliant says is true about husbands receiving generous settlements (a claim he doesn't document) Frank might not have known this or might have felt there was something wrong about asking for money from Rand.

After quoting from Rand's notes for Atlas Shrugged from 1949 where Rand writes that Rearden takes pleasure in the thought of Dagny having sex with another man, Valliant writes that "this particular account of male psychology is almost certain to be an expression of her husband's own psychology." [PARC, p. 166, emphasis added.] This note isn't even about Frank and was written before Rand met the Brandens.

Or take this piece of speculation on p. 167 of PARC (emphasis added):

O'Connor almost certainly believed that his wife was an exceptional genius and a woman intensely loyal to her values. He may well have appreciated his wife's complex emotional--and intellectual--needs. Possessing such a sensitive and daring soul [it's now a fact] may well have given him the capacity to embrace his wife's quest for joy, a capacity obviously not shared by the Brandens. (And he surely could have left Rand without much fear, had he truly objected to the situation.)

The only direct evidence bearing on the affair's effect on Frank are the reports of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden that it hurt Frank. To the extent that one need speculate, experience indicates that these types of relationships cause hurt and even the innocent party may feel "conflicted." Valliant has to admit that "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." [PARC, p. 157.]

4. Alan Greenspan

In his recent memoirs, Alan Greenspan (a member of the Collective who sided with Rand in 1968) says he remained a "close friend" of Rand's until her death. On the back of my copy of PAR, there is a supportive blurb from Greenspan: "A fascinating insight into one of the most thoughtful authors of this century."

If someone who knew Rand well for 30 years vouches for the book, by what right does Valliant (who didn't know Rand) denounce the book as one long "arbitrary assertion"?

Edited January 2, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

When I took Basic Principles of Objectivism in Tucson in 1968 (continued live in NYC that year), Barbara Branden sent along a missive read by Peter Beatson (whatever happened to him?) that an example of an inappropriate question forwarded to NY to be answered by Ayn Rand would be "Why do you smoke?" I can't tell anyone what violence that such a statement does to be today as opposed to then, when I was still susceptible to obedience to authority considering my young age, three years in the army and almost 12 years of public education. I mean, what the f___!? She couldn't handle such? What kind of pussy was she?

Basically, smoking took ten years off of Ayn Rand's physical life and 15 years off her productive life. If she didn't know better, she should have.

(I must have a narcissistic personality; this isn't the first time I've quoted myself.)

I would like to point out that at the time and in that context it was quite appropriate for Barbara to state that such a question was inappropriate. And Ayn Rand was no pussy.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I just peeked in at SOLOP, and I saw that Neil has posted his Four More Points there as well. It's interesting to see that Pompous Pigero is challenging Neil to state in what respect Rand consciously breached her convictions.

It reminded me of the fact that I think Rand consciously breached her convictions in To Whom It May Concern, and it made me wonder which shapes Pigero and his crew of true believers would twist themselves into in order to justify the false reasons that Rand gave for The Break.

Hell, even Diana Hsieh, back before she caught The Fever, categorized Rand as having "fabricated all sorts of false justifications in 'To Whom It May Concern' -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break."

I knew I had a link to Hsieh's comments, and I quickly found it in the OL archives:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2003/03/hon...nd-affairs.html

But it turns out that the link no longer takes you to the blog entry. It has disappeared.

The blog entry was from March 27, 2003, so I looked for it in Hsieh's archives for that month and year:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2003_03_01_monthly.html

...but was unable to find it. Odd, huh?

So then I did a web search and found an archived version elsewhere:

http://web.archive.org/web/20070605134154/...nd-affairs.html

Thursday, March 27, 2003

Honesty and Affairs

By Diana @ 9:52 AM

Another raging debate on the Nathaniel Branden Forum is the moral status of Branden and Rand concealing their affair from others, both before and after the break. Here's my take:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, mpignotti2001 wrote:

> While I'd grant that keeping such a secret from very close friends is

> not necessarily psychologically the healthiest thing to do, I don't

> think it is immoral and that people do have a right to decide what

> they tell or don't tell friends.

I agree with Monica on this point. Neither Rand nor Branden were under any obligation to disclose their affair to friends. It was nobody's business but their own (and their spouses).

But Rand was obligated to tell the truth about the reason for her break with Branden, which she did not. If she wished to keep the affair private, as would have been reasonable, she could have cited irreconcilable personal differences and even the Brandens' dishonesty. Instead, she fabricated all sorts of false justifications in "To Whom It May Concern" -- and failed to mention the real reason for the break.

In Basic Principles of Objectivism, Nathaniel Branden argues that honesty requires that we take responsibility for the reasonable inferences of others. Misleading technical truths are not honest. Even if every word that Rand wrote about the Branden's in "To Whom It May Concern" were true, the letter would still fail that test miserably.

Ayn Rand's dishonesty in the aftermath of her break with Nathaniel Branden is certainly disappointing to me, but hardly devastating. I admire Rand as a novelist and a philosopher, but her personal conduct is ultimately irrelevant to me.

E-mail Diana / PermaLink / Comments (Popup) / Trackbacks / BlogThis

I just don't understand why a blog entry would disappear like that.

J

Edited January 3, 2008 by Jonathan