Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Dragonfly]

But when I first pointed out to Valliant his misrepresentation of the break with Dr. Blumenthal, did he concede he made a mistake? Of course not. I got typical Valliant evasion:

I had no need to quote Ms. B quoting the Blumenthals, Neil, since it was Ms. B who had absurdly "lumped" all of Rand's breaks into the same package -- not me. Why don't you quote Ms. B about that?

Indeed a blatant attempt at evasion and obfuscation. Are the people at Solo really so braindead not to see through it? It's one of Valliant's common tricks: when confronted with incontrovertible evidence that he has been wrong, he'll never admit his error, but he'll make some remark that is only obliquely related to the question (but in fact doesn't anwer it at all, its sole purpose is to muddy the waters) and he then pretends to have refuted your argument. Those dumb soloists of course fall for it, line, hook and sinker.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Valliant's new version [re the breaks with Allan Blumenthal and with Henry Holzer] is:

Indeed, it was not Rand who ended the relationship with either of them, but, rather, it was they who left Rand. [in point of fact, it appears that Rand did end the relationship with Mr. Holzer.] *

But when I first pointed out to Valliant his misrepresentation of the break with Dr. Blumenthal, did he concede he made a mistake? Of course not. I got typical Valliant evasion:

I had no need to quote Ms. B quoting the Blumenthals, Neil, since it was Ms. B who had absurdly "lumped" all of Rand's breaks into the same package -- not me. Why don't you quote Ms. B about that?

What passage in Barbara's text is he asking to have quoted?

If he has page numbers in mind, let him give them.

As Neil said, in my post #243 I provided "lengthy excerpts" concerning the break with the Blumenthals -- I quoted the entire segment describing that break.

The Kalbermans broke with Ayn not long afterward. Barbara quotes Elayne's description of why and how. It isn't quite totally clear from this passage to whom the "our" in "our final conversation" refers, but I think the persons meant are Ayn and Elayne, Harry not being present, though he also discontinued seeing Ayn when Elayne broke with her:

pg. 388

Soon after, her relationship with the Kalbermans came to an end. "Our final conversation was a shouting match," Elayne recalled, "because of the things she was saying about Allan and Joan. I was shocked, and I told her I was shocked; they had been so good to her, particularly when she had had surgery. How could she have forgotten that? She was very upset; she began saying that Joan had tried to undermine her rationality over the issue of the tree [referring to Ayn's thinking the IV stand when she was recovering from surgery was a tree outside the hospital window], and that Allan had accused her of repression. The conversation went from bad to worse--and that was the end."

Barbara continues in the next paragraph:

pg. 388-89

Of the original collective, Ayn's closest, most loving friends for years, Nathaniel and I were gone, and Joan and Allan, and Harry and Elayne; Mary Ann was living in Maryland and came to New York only rarely; Alan Greenspan was too busy to see Ayn often. Only Leonard remained to carry the burden of Ayn's unhappiness and Frank's illness. Even Frisco, Ayn's most beloved cat, had died; she sat with him, holding one small gray paw and petting him, throughout the night of his death; she had other cats, but Frisco--Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia--once the tiny kitten who had motored with her from California to New York and had stubbornly dozed on her manuscript pages during the years of writing Atlas, had always been her favorite.

From there it's only 22 pages to the end of the "Denouement" chapter, which also ends Part V. Part VI is the Epilogue, which talks about Ayn's influence on particular persons and on the culture.

So I don't know what he's asking to have quoted.

Ellen

* As to the break with the Holzers, Valliant keeps describing this as their breaking with Ayn. I think he gets his idea of who broke with whom from misreading a particular quote which has a possibly ambiguous "other" in the wording. I've always heard that it was Ayn who broke with the Holzers; however, I've never heard through any source particulars of why. Something to do with a mutual friend, apparently something embarrassing to the Holzers, since they field the question without providing details.

There might be something in the Full Context interview with Erika which states unambiguously who initiated the break. Are Full Context interviews available on-line?

___

Edited June 4, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is another of Valliant's double standards that just came to mind.

In using material from The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker, Valliant stated the following (in footnote 61, p. 393):

It is assumed, however, that he [Walker] has not grossly misquoted persons alive at the publication of his book.

I wonder what makes a man use that standard for Walker but not for Barbara.

No. That is not precise. I know what makes a man do that. He is boneheaded.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just read the latest on the "Exploitation" thread on SOLO.

Would you please inform James Heaps-Nelson that Barbara did not write the script of the movie of Passion?

I did here.

THANK YOU, kind sir!

E-

___

While we are at this, please look at this post.

The only place where I couldn't ,in fact, say what I thought was OL.

This is sheer nonsense. He has never been moderated on OL. He has always posted what he thought on OL.

Of course, he has not been applauded for posting crap. In fact, he has been called on it and rebutted with quotes showing his errors time and time again, but that is another issue. Apparently, all those pesky little facts and demands for accuracy make him uncomfortable.

Despite my normative-before-cognitive analysis of why a person does this, I am starting to entertain doubts about his honesty again. There are just too many errors of this nature in this guy's statements. The fact that he keeps making them to receive applause is just too evident to ignore.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

This is from the 1996 Full Context interview which is available on erikaholzer.com:

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.

This supports the contention that the break was initiated by Rand.

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

This is from the 1996 Full Context interview which is available on erikaholzer.com:

[....]

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 . . . ”

[....]

This supports the contention that the break was initiated by Rand.

-NEIL

____

"unlike everyone else she had 'excommunicated,'”

Neil, isn't that the sentence from Erika which Valliant quotes to support his claim that the Holzers broke with Ayn?

Only he quotes it as: "unlike others she had 'excommunicated,'”?

I.e., he changes the wording to wording which makes it just possible, on the basis of unclear grammar and the implicit addition of a comma, to interpret it as meaning: "unlike others, [which others, as distinguished from the Holzers] she had 'excommunicated, [...]."

Do you know which thread the dispute occurred on?

Ellen

___

Edited June 5, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

This is the thread where it was discussed --

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4008

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

This is the thread where it was discussed --

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4008

-NEIL

____

Thanks. I'll look at it when I get home from dinner.

E-

___

[Philip Coates]

> I suspect some getting even with Ayn Rand [by Peikoff] for her not having confided in him about the affair and for having had an affair at all with Nathaniel -- against whom Leonard, I feel sure, must have had his resentments as did the others in the Collective.

Ellen, could you please stop psychologizing?

In this case, not only against Peikoff, but quite a long list of other people.

You are not inside the heads of a whole group of people and unable to catalog their secret resentments (unless they told you or you have quite a bit of other evidence besides a free-wheeling - and somewhat non-benevolent - ‘suspicion’.)

[Barbara Branden]

Ellen: "I suspect some getting even with Ayn Rand [by Peikoff] for her not having confided in him about the affair and for having had an affair at all with Nathaniel -- against whom Leonard, I feel sure, must have had his resentments as did the others in the Collective."

Phil: "Ellen, could you please stop psychologizing?

"In this case, not only against Peikoff, but quite a long list of other people.

"You are not inside the heads of a whole group of people and unable to catalog their secret resentments (unless they told you or you have quite a bit of other evidence besides a free-wheeling - and somewhat non-benevolent - ‘suspicion’.)"

Phil, you are being extremely unfair. Ellen's statement is simple common sense, not "psychologizing." Leonard had every reason to believe that he was Rand's confidant -- and in many respects he was correct. Further, he had heard, long before The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, constant rumors about an affair between Rand and Nathaniel, rumors which he vigorously denounced; and even after Passion was published, he hotly denied there had been an affair. One doesn't have to be inside his head to think that when he learned Rand had not confided in him about a relationship that spanned fourteen years and had been central to her life, and that she had allowed him to defend her against what he believed were appalling accusations, he would feel both hurt and resentful. One has only to have a minimal understanding of human psychology.

As for the resentment Leonard and other members of the Collective felt against Nathaniel, don't you think it's time you read Passion?

Barbara

[Philip Coates]

Barbara, I stand by my view for the following reasons [by the way, what might be psychologizing by someone distant from the scene like Ellen and taking everything at second or third hand, might not be for someone such as yourself, who has vastly more direct knowledge]:

i) Ellen claims to know that Leornard would feel resentment, not toward Rand, but toward NB. If your argument proves anything it would be resentment against her, wouldn't it?

ii) Even on that point - resentment toward AR: Someone's romantic relationships - especially one of this kind is *very* private, even from close friends. So, simple reflection and common sense on his part would seem to indicate that it is reasonable that she didn't tell him. And, thus, one would not have to feel resentful. **I** would certainly not feel resentful if the circumstances were exactly the same – so much for it being a universal of human psychology.

iib) You said: "she had allowed him to defend her against [the idea of a relationship[". But I don't think she had any choice without revealing the private relationship.

iii) Ellen goes further than saying L was resentful toward NB, she says it would have to be true of a long list of people. Do all of them have a claim on her revealing her most intimate relationships? Does point #2 not enter into their thinking? Does E know that of all them?

iv) Worst of all, Ellen claims knowledge not merely about the resentment, but about this: "I suspect some getting even with Ayn Rand [by Peikoff] for her not having confided in him about the affair and for having had an affair at all with Nathaniel"

Getting even? What kind of mind would do that? And how does she know this which goes MUCH FURTHER than mere 'resentment'!!

>don't you think it's time you read Passion?

Patience, please. :-) I expect I will...in due course. ( But then I'll have to read everything else - PARC, MYWAR, Facets of AR...... AAARGH!!!)

[Philip Coates]

Barbara,

Despite our disagreement on the above matter, I want to say great article on poetry today on "The Atlasphere"! (Several of the excerpts you cite I had not known, and they are very beautiful and inspiring.)

[Daniel Barnes]

Mr. Barnes, you violated the Geneva Convention against torture by doing this to me. -

Ooops. My bad. Write in haste, repent at your leisure.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen: "I suspect some getting even with Ayn Rand [by Peikoff] for her not having confided in him about the affair and for having had an affair at all with Nathaniel -- against whom Leonard, I feel sure, must have had his resentments as did the others in the Collective."

Phil: "Ellen, could you please stop psychologizing?

"In this case, not only against Peikoff, but quite a long list of other people.

"You are not inside the heads of a whole group of people and unable to catalog their secret resentments (unless they told you or you have quite a bit of other evidence besides a free-wheeling - and somewhat non-benevolent - ‘suspicion’.)"

Phil, you are being extremely unfair. Ellen's statement is simple common sense, not "psychologizing." Leonard had every reason to believe that he was Rand's confidant -- and in many respects he was correct. Further, he had heard, long before The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, constant rumors about an affair between Rand and Nathaniel, rumors which he vigorously denounced; and even after Passion was published, he hotly denied there had been an affair. One doesn't have to be inside his head to think that when he learned Rand had not confided in him about a relationship that spanned fourteen years and had been central to her life, and that she had allowed him to defend her against what he believed were appalling accusations, he would feel both hurt and resentful. One has only to have a minimal understanding of human psychology.

As for the resentment Leonard and other members of the Collective felt against Nathaniel, don't you think it's time you read Passion?

Barbara

Barbara,

Thanks much for your comments. I appreciate the defense. You're right of course about sheer common sense knowledge of people.

In addition to it's being time Phil read Passion, it's time he read some of the history of my posts on OL.

A further factor he leaves out, besides general knowledge of people, and familiarity with the material in Passion, is that I know or knew all the particular people of whom I spoke -- i.e., the Collective members, including late joiners (the Smiths, the Holzers) -- except Alan Greenspan, whom I never met, and Mary Ann Sures, whom I met only once. With most of them, I heard of the resentments against Nathaniel from them. [Edit: I didn't ever meet Edith Efron either. I was forgetting about her having been part of the Collective for awhile, since she was already gone well before I moved to New York. She, however, has been quoted in print as making particularly negative comments about Nathaniel. She was noted for having a scathing tongue.]

In Leonard's case, he didn't directly tell me -- he on principle didn't mention either of the Brandens. But others told me, also of his having some jealousy not just resentment against Nathaniel.

Regarding his finding out about the affair: I think this would have been one of the bigger shocks of his life, both because of Ayn's not having told him and because of his image of her. There's a quip Nathaniel reports in Judgment Day having made to Ayn concerning what Leonard would think: "He thinks you're a virgin!" Psychologically accurate, though not literally.

As to Leonard's method of getting the diary published, there has to be something explaining the peculiar way he chose -- i.e., letting James Valliant use the material in PARC. I doubt that he's so very blinded by Ayn worship that he entirely fails to see that those diary entries aren't entirely flattering to her. And I don't believe that someone who's as accomplished a writer as Leonard is himself -- a person who's even taught how to present arguments -- could fail to be aware of the enormous presentation flaws in PARC. My original belief was that the first version of the book -- the version which appeared on Casey Fahy's website -- was more straightforward and factual, and that Leonard didn't know what the finished book would be like. But going by what Jon Lentendre says (and I trust Jon's report) the web version was no better than the final book. So I think that motives have to be involved beyond the difficult (from his perspective) problem of what to do about getting the diary published and the Brandens' respective books answered.

Ellen

PS: An additional point. Phil's remark is an example of half of the reason why I wish AR had never written that damned "Psychologizing" article. Half of the reason is because it led her followers to mistake proper psychological analysis and speculation for "psychologizing" and thus to be bad at psychology. (The other half is that it encouraged them to engage in actual "psychologizing," as she defined the term, and to make moral psychological judgments for which they haven't evidence.)

___

Edited June 5, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Robert Campbell]

Further, he [Leonard Peikoff] had heard, long before The Passion of Ayn Rand was published, constant rumors about an affair between Rand and Nathaniel, rumors which he vigorously denounced; and even after Passion was published, he hotly denied there had been an affair. One doesn't have to be inside his head to think that when he learned Rand had not confided in him about a relationship that spanned fourteen years and had been central to her life, and that she had allowed him to defend her against what he believed were appalling accusations, he would feel both hurt and resentful.

Barbara,

One of the many many odd things that Jim Valliant has done lately, over at SOLOP, is to deny that Leonard Peikoff ever denied there had been an affair between AR and NB.

I didn't make an issue of it in that particular exchange, because Peter Schwartz and Leonard Peikoff had both issued proclamations of arbitrariness against your book--proclamations so vague and sweeping that they would readily encompass any claim on your part that there had been an affair.

But then Mr. Valliant insisted that he could divine, somehow, that an assertion that there had been an affair was exempted from these dismissals.

He seemed to be insinuating, in addition, that Leonard Peikoff had actually known about the affair for a long time before your book was published.

I figured that this was all more Valliantoid weirdness.

But it does make me curious what Leonard Peikoff told him.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

In post #358 I said I'd look at the SOLO thread where Valliant's quote from Erika Holzer's interview for Full Context was discussed.

I was too tired when I got home and went to bed instead of burning late oil on the web. This morning, I wanted to check the original FC interview -- I mean the hardcopy paper version -- before reading the SOLO thread, just in case there'd been a change between the wording in the original and the wording used on Erika's website (which I hadn't yet looked at either).

Well, folks.....would you believe? There are MANY changes between the original interview and the version on Erika's website. The website version has been pretty extensively edited, although the meaning hasn't been changed. Some material's left out; other material is added; details of wordings of questions and replies are frequently changed.

Notice that the heading on the webpage describes the material as:

Excerpts from Interview with Erika Holzer

by Karen Reedstrom, for Full Context (1996)

Here's the relevant segment from the webpage:

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.

FC: Did she ever read Double Crossing?

Holzer: Good question. I doubt if she did more than leaf through the first part. She took me aside once before a Q and A session after some lecture on Objectivism, and she said something about how she'd read "part" of the novel, adding in a kind of vague way that she'd had some "problem" with a particular scene early on in the story. But before she could be more specific, we were interrupted. I later learned that, at the time, her husband Frank was quite ill; obviously, she was terribly distracted by that.

Here's the same segment from the original publication:

Full Context

February 1996

pg. 3

Q: Did you show her any of your writing at the time?

Holzer: She had been shown samples of my earlier attempts by Allan Gotthelf, then a young philosophy student, who was already friendly with her, and had read what I called my practice pieces. He very generously got them to her, and got her to read them. She went over those pieces with me. This was before I was in the so-called inner circle, and before we were her lawyers so it was a thrilling encounter for me. She gave me wonderful feedback on them, and thought I had real potential. Then by the time I wrote my first novel we were already personally estranged. It wasn't a philosophical or political difference but a personal matter. She was still talking to us, and if we would see her at a public occasion she would be friendly. I believe she did read part of Double Crossing but it was when she was not well and Frank was not well. There was a lot going on in her life. She was going to read it, and get back to me and give me feedback. I don't have a clear recollection of what all happened. Of course I wanted her to endorse it. When I was her lawyer, and we were working together, she had said: "Erika[,] you won't have to go through what I went through with all of the doors of the liberal establishment in publishing slammed in your face. I will help you." But by the time I was ready our situation had changed. I think that there was one point when I ran into her at a lecture, after she had had my novel for a very long time, and she said she'd read part of it and that she'd had problems with it of some kind. What they were was never fully clear to me. She never did help me, except that she helped me to be the writer that I am, and in that she helped me a great deal. For that I'll always be grateful.

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Among the questions which are left out in the "Excerpts" from Erika Holzer's Full Context interview which appear on her webpage are a couple pertaining to Nathaniel, one pertaining to the accuracy of the Brandens' respective books, and one in which the issue of animal rights is mentioned.

This material comes between the passage quoted in the post above and the question which directly follows on the website, that about favorite writers:

Full Context

February 1996

pg. 3 - 4

[Note: The remarks about Nathaniel Branden's book pertain only to Judgment Day; the interview was conducted three years before the revised memoir was published.]

Q: Nathaniel Branden is a very controversial personality among Objectivists; how well did you know him? And are you still friends?

Holzer: Nope. We were never friends. We knew him as well as anyone who was around the inner circle in those days. But I can't say we had a personal relationship; it was just like everybody else. I liked him well enough at the time, I guess.

Q: The Ayn Rand Institute makes him out to be a real villain and other people think he's okay. I was just wondering about your view.

Holzer: He's no friend of mine, let's put it that way. Barbara Branden is a friend of mine. I like her and like the book that she wrote. I read enough of Nathan's to have a lot of problems with various aspects of it, but that was a long time ago. I don't even remember the details of it. Joan and Allan Blumenthal are friends of mine; need I say more?

Q: You and your husband are mentioned in both Nathaniel Branden's book [JD] and Barbara Branden's book. Are there any inaccuracies you'd like to clear up for our readers?

Holzer: There were inaccuracies in Nathan's book, but it's all over with. He's gone his way, and we've gone ours. I don't remember what they are now; they weren't important. In Barbara's I don't recall inaccuracies. It was a more accurate take of what was going on at the time. It was a very sad thing, that business. I'm just glad that it's over and done with as far as I'm concerned. I still think that Ayn was an authentic genius, and I'm personally grateful to her for all the things that I learned from her and the time that she spent with me. She was extremely brilliant in her literary guidance. I never took a fiction writing course, just hers, and everything else I've just learned on my own. And I consider myself a pretty good writer. I've gone on in other directions. I don't know what she'd think of my work one way or another, but that's not the point. She was my literary mentor no question about it. And I'm grateful for it. Hank, likewise, used her philosophy to very good avail in all of the years he taught at Brooklyn Law School. He used her principles, and infuenced countless lawyers with the right philosophy.

Q: Do you and you husband still consider yourselves Objectivists today?

Holzer: Yes. I don't know anymore what that means. I worry about labels. I certainly would strongly disassociate myself from Leonard Peikoff's take on animals. We believe in animal rights. Ayn and I and Hank had many discussions on that subject, and she was very sympathetic with looking and hoping that Hank would find a way to objectify and protect animals. On the other hand the last time I talked to Leonard Peikoff, which was many years ago, he was roundly condemning us for our views on animals. So that's one big place where I strongly differ from him. I think David Kelley is doing a fine job. When people ask me how they can learn more about Objectivism, I always steer them to Kelley's group rather than the other one.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One of the many many odd things that Jim Valliant has done lately, over at SOLOP, is to deny that Leonard Peikoff ever denied there had been an affair between AR and NB.

Robert,

There are so many people who were around back then who report that Peikoff denied that there had been an affair that there never has been any reason to doubt it in my mind. Also, if there never had been any denials, why on earth would there be a public announcement by Peikoff, in the Ford Hall Forum at that, that there actually had been an affair? One does not announce what everyone already knows in that kind of context; one announces new stuff. Only a bonehead (like Valliant) would insinuate otherwise. For example, here is a story by Robert Bidinotto about back then (written in March 2005):

If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.

That is the Objectivist criticism leveled so often against religious faith, in such faith-based notions as a perfect, infallible God. The criticism, however, loses none of its force when self-described "Objectivists" employ that irrational methodology, and when their perfect, infallible goddess is Ayn Rand.

In this vein, let me tell you a story...and I beg your indulgence at the length of this post as a result.

Back in the mid-1980s, when rumors of Barbara's forthcoming biography began circulating, I vividly recall the "official" Objectivist position -- stridently maintained for years by Peikoff, Schwartz, et al. -- that the Brandens were filthy liars for even daring to absurdly suggest that there ever had been an affair between Rand and Nathaniel Branden. I just as vividly remember the "reasoning" offered to support these denials: that Ayn Rand was madly in love with and faithful to her husband; that Branden was a low-life and that a relationship with him would have been morally and psychologically impossible for "a heroine" and a "spiritual giant" like Ayn Rand; that Leonard Peikoff, as an intimate friend of Rand's and as her "intellectual heir," would have been in a position to know the truth of the matter, and that he had always vigorously denied it; that you'd have to believe Ayn Rand was less than she was, and that her Intellectual Heir was a bald-faced liar, in order to believe the claims of the sleazy Brandens; etc., etc.

That, my friends, was the official Party Line about the affair...before Barbara's book came along.

Around that same time, I was still on speaking terms with ARI people, and in fact had been writing for Peter Schwartz's Intellectual Activist. As a reviewer for other publications as well, I received an advance copy of Barbara's book in galley form, and of course devoured it quickly. It blew me away, to say the least. The details provided by Barbara were utterly compelling, and left no doubt in my mind that the disastrous relationship had, in fact, occurred; that it had been covered up for years; and that Rand's own account of the reasons for her break with the Brandens was -- to put it in Objectivese -- a highly selective re-creation of reality.

Given that I already knew Schwartz's hatred of the Brandens and his pre-publication hostility toward Barbara's book (which he had not even yet read), and given that I knew I'd be giving it an enthusiastic early review, I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

About the same time, still prior to the book's publication, I went to a party in New Jersey at which some people prominently affiliated with ARI were present. The subject of Barbara's forthcoming book came up, and I mentioned that I had read a review copy and would be reviewing it soon. One of those prominent ARI people, an artist, asked with an indignant tone: "Well, does she [barbara] contend that Miss Rand and Nathaniel Branden had an affair?"

I remember the sick look on all their faces when I replied, "She supplies a great deal of compelling detail that convinces me that there was an affair."

Even after publication of Barbara's book, the "official" position was still heated denial: continuing accusations that the Brandens were liars, that their accounts were "non-objective." But I noticed cracks in the public facade. In his own published screed against Barbara, Peter Schwartz asked in his closing paragraphs: So what if any of the claims in Barbara's book happen to be true? The real importance of Ayn Rand, he said, lay in her philosophy and novels: "It is her books that she should be judged by."

A curious position coming from people who had long argued that Objectivism permits no breach between mind and body, theory and practice -- and who had, since 1968, used that very argument against the Brandens.

Then -- FINALLY -- at a Ford Hall Forum speech which I attended, Peikoff revealed during the Q&A that he had recently "discovered" among Ayn Rand's personal papers some letters that confirmed that, Yes, there had been an affair.

Folks, you would have had to have been there to appreciate the thundering silence that greeted this stunning revelation. Imagine the sounds of hundreds of trains of thought suddenly screeching to a halt before hitting some unexpected obstacle on the track...then trying frantically to somehow reverse direction prior to impact. I mean, you could see it in the eyes around you: the smugness of moral superiority suddenly replaced by darting sideways glances, each person wondering how he should take this cataclysmic news, what others were thinking about it, how to reconcile it with all the previous self-righteous denunciations of the Brandens being liars...

The best historic analogy I could come up with was how U. S. Communist Party members responded early in the World War II period to sudden news from Moscow of the "Hitler-Stalin Pact." Overnight, the hated Nazis, denounced for years, were to be considered allies. Many of the more honest Party members quit in disgust. What remained was an unthinking contingent of dogmatists whose first loyalty was not to reality, but to their venerated icons: Stalin and the Party.

But just as new rationalizations flowed forth to encourage the Party faithful to navigate this startling ideological about-face, so too did Peikoff & Co. soon offer what have now become the familiar rationalizations for Rand's private behavior. No longer was their argument the one Schwartz had advanced in print -- i. e., that Ayn Rand should be judged only by her books. No, now they offered a new defense: that Ayn Rand had done absolutely nothing wrong. And more: that there was nothing wrong with extramarital affairs generally; that Rand had entered this one with everyone's full "rational" knowledge and complete "moral" consent; that the only thing wrong with it was that Nathaniel Branden had deceived her about his moral character, before, during and after the relationship began. In short, Ayn Rand was a totally innocent victim of the devious Branden. This was the new Objectivist Party Line.

I tell you this story to provide a broader context for the discussion underway here. James was absolutely correct in saying: "The problem with ARI is that being 95% right isn't good enough, when the 5% wrong that you are is viciously intolerant and blind."

Let me put it a nicer way, however.

There's a passage in Atlas Shrugged when Francisco tells Rearden that he's committing a grave mistake. Irrationalists, says Francisco, want to blind themselves to perceiving the good. Rearden, by contrast, wants to blind himself to looking at evil. But even though Rearden's motives are noble, Francisco points out, the error is the same: it's the refusal to face facts. And faking reality always results in destruction.

In this case, those who idolize Ayn Rand may have only the purest of motives. I certainly sympathize with their desire to find and venerate real-life heroes, the desperate quest to discover some living example of human perfection.

But if one has to torture facts in order to uphold such an icon, the consequences of that manipulation will boomarang back, ultimately undercutting one's entire philosophy.

How can one defend rationality and integrity against irrationalism and blind faith, if, like a religious dogmatist, he is willing to blind himself to unpleasant or uncomfortable facts? How can one defend independence if he is willing to blindly follow some false Party Line and "not make waves" in order to avoid being expelled? How can one feel self-esteem and pride if one undercuts his own independent rational judgment, and knows that his silent acquiescence is rooted in cowardice? How can one uphold the principle of justice, if he is so committed to falsely maintaining the "perfect" reputation of his hero (Rand) that he is willing to brand as liars anyone who reveals unpleasant truths (the Brandens) -- or to unjustly vilify some of the finest, most honorable Objectivists (e. g., David Kelley, George Walsh, etc.) whenever they write something that clashes with the Party Line?

To repeat what I said at the opening:

If you set off-limits to rational inspection any area of reality, that sets a methodological precedent for arbitrarily descending into irrationality whenever the truth becomes too painful or inconvenient to confront.

Let me then apply this, then, to the speech by Yaron Brook. While I'm always pleased whenever someone from ARI says something in a reasonable way, I can't get past a simple, sad fact: The context in which such statements are made does not allow for expressions of independent thought, if the thoughts expressed are in any way critical of Ayn Rand, her self-proclaimed "intellectual heir" or anything they've ever said or written, about anything.

Anyone affiliated with ARI who doubts this contention is cheerfully invited to test it.

I might leave with those lacking such courage with this question: Why not?

Another question to ponder: Do you honestly believe that a character such as Howard Roark would be comfortable inside a group such as ARI?

Still, the lack of a written denial has always bothered me. Isn't there a statement from Peikoff or one of his inner circle anywhere about this? It is a shame there were no online forums back then. But still, they must have written letters or made some kind of statement in a student publication somewhere.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Still, the lack of a written denial has always bothered me. Isn't there a statement from Peikoff or one of his inner circle anywhere about this? It is a shame there were no online forums back then. But still, they must have written letters or made some kind of statement in a student publication somewhere.

Michael

I'd be surprised if any explicit denial was made in a publication, because to deny the affair would require mentioning the rumor and mentioning persons who were becoming unmentionable. Notice even as late as the "Sense of Life" movie -- in which they had to say something about the Brandens and about the affair -- how little is said.

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

I sent Schwartz an e-mail telling him that I would no longer be able to write for his newsletter. (I didn't bother to explain why at the time, knowing full well that he'd understand the reason within weeks.)

Was there email then?

-NEIL

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

This is the thread where it [the Holzers/Rand break as described by Erika on her website version of her Full Context interview] was discussed --

http://www.solopassion.com/node/4008

-NEIL

____

I got around to checking that thread ("PARC: Four More Points").

It wasn't that he misquoted what Erika wrote; it was that he misread it, maybe by not noticing the ELSE in her:

"unlike everyone else she had 'excommunicated,'”

Here's the relevant sequence:

[Here]

1. PARC does not "speculate" that the break with Holzer had to do with Constitutional interpretation, but, rather, states that such differences were NOT decisive at all -- and that it was NOT Rand who broke with Holzer, despite BB's own contradictions.

[Here]

2. Both Erika Holzer's interview and TARC indicate that the break was initiated by Rand (that's why 'excommunication' is used in both places). I wish these sources were more specific, but if you have additional information, please share it with us.

[Here]

And doesn't Ms. Holzer say the opposite? Was that just a typo?

Ellen

___

[Neil Parille]

Incidentally, the Holzers were interviewed in 2006 by the Objectivist History Project. It would be interesting to hear what they said.

-NEIL

____

[Barbara Branden]

Ellen: "In one of his lecture courses, I think "The Art of Reasoning," he [Leonard] talks about this and says -- and recommends as a method (gasp!!!) -- that he had to learn to suppress his questions (since he knew that Rand's answers were right, so he had to "suppress" his sideshoot thinking until he'd gotten the right answers firmly enough in mind he could trust himself not to be misled. I heard this tape one Thanksgiving when one of the friends who spend Thanksgiving with us brought the course in which it appears for part of our Thanksgiving Seminar entertainment, but I might not have remembered correctly which of his taped lecture series that is."

Ellen, I'm stunned by this. Does anyone have -- or can anyone get -- the exact quote?

Barbara

[Barbara Branden]

Phil: "Patience, please. :-) I expect I will [read Passion]...in due course. ( But then I'll have to read everything else - PARC, MYWAR, Facets of AR...... AAARGH!!!)"

No, you won't have to.

Barbara

[Robert Campbell]

Was there email then?

Neil,

I was introduced to email when I started my job with IBM in October 1985.

So, yes, there was email in 1986, though users were a small minority then.

Robert