The Critics of Barbara Branden by David M. Brown

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I know I am pushing fair use, but this is Barbara's corner and this review is a total delight to read after the sewer of PARC. I feel like I took a bath just now.

I think this is from the May 1988 issue of Liberty magazine. It is online at the link in the title. (btw - Please visit that site. You will not be disappointed.)

Michael

The Critics of Barbara Branden

by David M. Brown

The publication of Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand in May of 1986 was an Event.

Ever since libertarians and Objectivists first learned that the project was underway, the biography had been awaited with growing anticipation. The book was bound to attract interest — and controversy. Intense controversy had dogged Ayn Rand and her work all her life, and both admirers and critics had arrived at certain strong opinions about her. Barbara Branden’s 19-year association with Rand and subsequent extensive research into her past were bound to yield both fascinating new material and a challenging reassessment of an enigmatic figure. Since Branden’s task was to reveal Rand as neither a goddess nor a sinner, but as a vulnerable human being whose virtues and flaws achieved epic proportions, three basic reactions to Branden’s perspective were possible.

The first view, which I and many other Rand admirers take, is that Branden is pretty much right. While she properly lauds Ayn Rand for her virtues, flaws are not ignored, as they could not be in a biography that honestly attempts to evaluate and understand its subject; yet Branden’s ultimate assessment is strongly positive. The second position is that Branden is too hard on Rand, that she is struggling to besmirch Rand’s character and achievement at all costs (to find “feet of clay”), and that her attacks on Rand are “interlarded with protestations of adulation” merely as a diversion from her actual motive, presumably hatred of the good for being the good. The third view is that Rand was really a moral monster with little if any redeeming virtue, and that Branden’s account is shamelessly tipped in Rand’s favor at the expense of truth, justice, and the Rothbardian way.

Most libertarians with at least a passing interest in the roots of their beliefs are acquainted with Rand’s name and achievement. Her primary concern was to articulate and defend a heroic vision of man. She was a novelist, and her Promethean heroes were men and woman of intransigent moral integrity and idealism who fought for their ambitious values in the face of tremendous opposition. Her two major works of fiction are The Fountainhead, published in 1943 when Rand was 38, and Atlas Shrugged (1957). Atlas Shrugged, because of its greater philosophic breadth and explicit defense of capitalism in terms of rational self-interest, has had the biggest impact on advocates of liberty.

Rand followed up the novels with numerous essays that spelled out even more fully her case for reason, self-interest, and capitalism. She brilliantly dissected false intellectual alternatives like faith versus skepticism, or liberalism versus conservatism, and proposed a new, objective view of man’s nature and the requirements of his survival. “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

The problem, however, for many of Rand’s followers has been that, although she was in many respects an exemplar of her philosophy, her actions sometimes contradicted it. She advocated independence, a first-hand look at reality, but was often impatient with the slightest deviation from her views — even when the disagreement was an honest one. She stated that there were fundamentally two kinds of errors human beings can make, “errors of knowledge” and “errors of morality,” but too often she treated honest mistakes as willful sins, often to the bewilderment and psychological detriment of those whom she excoriated. Even a different response to art than her own could excite a seemingly inexplicable wrath. “Ayn Rand was a woman with a powerful need for control,” Branden writes, “control of her own life, of her own destiny, and of the belief system of those she chose as her friends.”

In writing The Passion of Ayn Rand, one of Branden’s goals was to “separate the person from the philosophical system,” as she told an interviewer. “Nobody decides, when reading about Aristotle, that they have to know about how he treated his wife to understand his theories. But with Ayn, the personality and philosophy were accepted as one package.”

Rand did practice her own philosophy, but she did not always practice it consistently. And one can’t blame a philosophy for the inconsistencies of its practitioner, though some have tried to do just that.

Branden does a good job of showing that other factors besides Rand’s explicitly held ideas were important contributors to the unhappiness she suffered. These include Rand’s inattention to psychological subtleties, her own repression of suffering, and various personal disappointments, primarily her inability to find in life the “ideal man” she was able to project effectively in fiction. So, to conclude, as did Tim Ferguson of The Wall Street Journal (July 17, 1986), that “Rand’s abstraction of unremitting egoism, played out, failed its creator,” is vastly to misconstrue the complexity of what actually happened.

Most reviews of The Passion of Ayn Rand had at least a few good things to say about the book. Reviewers were fascinated by the drama of Rand’s life, which began in the sordid squalor of Soviet Russia. And they were often surprised by Branden’s apparent objectivity and magnanimity, considering the book’s most startling revelation: Ayn Rand’s 14-year affair with Nathaniel Branden, Barbara’s husband at the time, an affair undertaken with the knowledge of both Barbara Branden and Rand’s husband Frank O’Connor. Despite the snickering that this news inspired in some quarters, reviewers were for the most part fair-minded about both the biography and its subject. This comes as a surprise only by contrast with the grossly unfair treatment critics frequently gave Rand during her lifetime.

One of the most interesting analyses of the biography was written by George Gilder, a neo-rightist who claims that capitalists succeed by means of faith and self-sacrifice. “She was in some ways a monster as well as a prodigy,” Gilder wrote in the Washington Post. “Yet by relentlessly attacking the ‘unspeakable evil’ and creative impotence of socialism at the time of its greatest ascendancy and by celebrating the moral and practical imperative of capitalism at its nadir — she was one of the great benefactors of the modern world.” Barbara Branden’s biography is “written with much of the sweep, drama, and narrative momentum of the great works of Ayn Rand herself — and with the psychological insight and sensitivity that forever eluded her . . . . Rand’s life story is one of the great sagas in the history of literature” (Washington Post, June 29, 1986).

But Gilder misunderstands Rand’s concept of rational self-interest. He asserts, for example, that family life depends on altruism and that “she also misses the essential altruism, the orientation toward the needs of others, that is crucial to production for the marketplace.” Rand, of course, always stressed that altruism as a moral code meant self-sacrifice, an actual and self-destructive exchange of a greater value for a lesser value; not merely help to others per se, which may be directed by benevolence, good will or some other valid selfish motive (including the desire for profit).

Misunderstanding of Rand’s philosophy is rampant among libertarians too. Many libertarians are hostile both to Rand’s person and to many of her ideas. One such is Dr. Murray Rothbard, whose learned treatise on “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” you may have seen; it was published by Liberty as a supplement to its first issue. Rothbard spent a few months in Ayn Rand’s circle and never recovered; since then he has rarely missed an opportunity to make clear his distaste for “Randroids” and the “Rand Cult.” To be sure, Rothbard has reportedly defended Rand against some of her more virulent critics, and acknowledged his intellectual debt to Rand to Barbara Branden for use in her biography. But you sure won’t find Ayn Rand footnoted in any of his books.

I find some of Rothbard’s writings very instructive. I just read his review of Higgs’ Crisis and Leviathan, for example, which appeared in the second issue of Liberty. Excellent book review. I only wish the same objectivity and respect for greatness were evident in his discussion of The Passion of Ayn Rand (which appeared in American Libertarian, July 1986). Though Rothbard readily hails evidence of Rand’s tyrannical control over others, his reading of the biography seems to have missed the evidence of her virtues. Without an understanding of those virtues, Rand’s extraordinary influence remains inexplicable.

Branden writes that “In Ayn’s presence, and in her work, one felt that command: a command to function at one’s best, to be the most that one could be, to drive oneself constantly harder, never to disappoint one’s own highest ideals.” That’s unconvincing to Rothbard, who ascribes Branden’s long relationship with Rand to “unquenchable masochism.”

Nor does Rothbard respect Branden’s touching account of her eventual reconciliation with Rand, which he dismisses as a “pathetic claim.” His view of the biography’s main flaw, in fact, is that it functions as a biography, insufficiently dwelling on the horrors of the 1960s Rand cult, the rigidified intellectual movement that arose out of the lecture courses on Objectivism taught primarily by Nathaniel Branden. Rothbard claims that “Barbara overlooks her own high role in the cult,” but Branden admits her guilt without wallowing in it.

Curiously, Rothbard emerges as an epistemological and ethical cohort of Drs. Leonard Peikoff and Peter Schwartz, inheritors of the official Objectivist mantle. Schwartz denounced Branden’s book in a rabid epistle to the readers of his Intellectual Activist(August 20, 1986), Peikoff has not even deigned to read the biography — “it’s noncognitive,” he says — but that hasn’t prevented him from declaiming publicly on how awful it is, and on how “immoral” its author. (Keep this distinction in mind, pupils of Objectivism: to present evidence and evaluate it, as Barbara Branden does, is “noncognitive”; but to close one’s eyes to the evidence and yet pronounce judgment on it, a la Peikoff, represents cognition at its best.) Peikoff’s statement (published in both The Intellectual Activist and in Harry Binswanger’s Objectivist Forum) ran as follows:

”The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968, regarding her as immoral and an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death — attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation — I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate on this project. I had no reason to believe that the book would be either a truthful presentation of Ayn Rand’s life or an accurate statement of her ideas. Advance reports from several readers of the book in galley form have confirmed my expectations. Therefore, I certainly do not recommend this book. As for myself, I have not read it and do not intend to do so.”

Can you imagine what Dr. Peikoff’s response would be to someone who would publicly condemn Atlas Shrugged without reading it? The principle is the same in both cases.

Given the patent preposterousness of Peikoff’s declaration, one might wonder why I bother bringing it up at all, especially since Randians are not allowed to read libertarian publications like Liberty. Very simply, my appeal is to the margin. There are always a few marginal folks out there who might yet choose to proceed on an independent path despite the risk of an authority’s disapproval . . . which is, after all, what the Objectivist philosophy counsels.

In April of 1987 Peikoff delivered a Ford Hall Forum talk on “My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand,” obviously a response to the Branden biography; which he still had not read. By now, a great number of former official, semi-official and thoroughly unofficial Objectivists had been booted out of the movement for daring to admit that they liked the book, or at least that they didn’t regard it as competing with The Critique of Pure Reason for the status of most evil tome ever written.(Rand always hated Kant.) And people were wondering how Peikoff would justify his novel application of the Objectivist epistemology and theory of justice, which in the past at least, had always counseled that cognition should precede evaluation. This speech would make or break Peikoff, whose credibility was at stake. He just might salvage his reputation with a stunning display of triple logical somersaults, or he could be obliterated by an onslaught of catcalls, literacy volunteers, and gentle suggestions that he check his premises. In sum, it was win or lose, conquer or be destroyed.

Or at least, that was the expectation. As it turned out, Peikoff (who is, incidentally, the most articulate and precise of the official Randians) didn’t have much that was intelligible to say about the biography — he spent most of his lecture discussing Rand’s mental methodology, merely alluding to the book toward the end of his talk — and certainly none of his questioners tried very hard to challenge him on any of his contradictions.

But somebody did ask Peikoff what he thought about the book, and about Rand’s alleged affair with Nathaniel Branden. In a rambling 10-minute reply, Peikoff admitted the existence of the affair, which he said was confirmed by Rand’s private papers (Peikoff is the executor of Rand’s estate). He also said the affair was justified, choosing not to discuss Barbara Branden’s account of the havoc it wrought. (But let’s be fair about this; Peikoff was hardly in a position to discuss Branden’s account of anything, having not yet read her book.)

As for Barbara Branden herself, Peikoff said: “I happen to know the author of that book extremely well, being related to her and having known her for a long time, and also Nathaniel Branden, and many of these other people that I alluded to in my talk. I know entirely what they are capable of, and I would not put any credence in anything that they say. So I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts. On the contrary, by my best definition of ‘fact’ I would have no means whatever, including the fact that something was in quotes, of determining whether it ever occurred.”

Did you get that? What?

Okay, so Peikoff doesn’t trust Barbara Branden, and therefore distrusts her book, and therefore refuses to read it. Fine. But why should that affect our view of the book, in the absence of any argument from Leonard Peikoff as to why we should distrust Barbara Branden, whom he has refused to speak to for almost two decades now, and whose side of the story he has never bothered to consider? Why should we as readers deny the evidence of our own senses and the conclusions of our own reason, based on Peikoff’s say-so? Barbara Branden’s honesty and sincerity, and her love and admiration of Ayn Rand, are evident throughout The Passion of Ayn Rand. Why should we evade what we see? Are facts irrelevant?

The so-called “cult” of Objectivism could not survive for more than a few tortured years precisely because Objectivism upholds reason as an absolute. Only a few cultists remain, but they effectively manage to make royal pains-in-the-asses of themselves. Today, prominent admirers of Ayn Rand who have refused to accept unthinkingly the dictates of the Peikoff-Binswanger-Schwartz axis are treated far more shabbily by the groupies of that axis than the typical Joe Altruist off the street. Why? For the same reason apostates are shunned by the Jehovah’s Witnesses: once a True Believer has deviated from “the truth” and started to think for himself, he becomes a danger to the cause, and must be shunned and ostracized as a matter of course so that the racket may be preserved. As Rothbard points out, what’s at stake is power; what is desired is blind obedience. Peikoff had been moving away from that sort of thing since Rand’s death, but he could not silently abide an honest assessment of Rand’s life by an apostate.

Many good people who had been involved in the official movement are waving goodbye now, to lead their own independent lives and to think their own independent thoughts, which is a good thing. But libertarians should not be complacent about their own position. The Passion of Ayn Rand is a challenge to them to reevaluate their perspective also. Too many libertarians treat their “nonaggression principle” as a self-evident axiom requiring no particular philosophical proof, while using the dogmatism of some advocates of Objectivism as an excuse for ignoring Objectivism itself.

If you want to read an insightful review of The Passion of Ayn Rand, try Robert James Bidinotto’s review in On Principle, or Louis Torres essay “Boswell’s Johnson — Branden’s Rand,” in Aristos (May 1987). If all else fails, you can read the book and judge for yourself.

Ayn Rand's life is a story of courage; her achievements as a novelist and philosopher are an index of the power of an intransigently independent mind. Her story has important lessons for all of us.

"David M. Brown is a free-lance writer living in New Jersey."

[thomtg]

I know I am pushing fair use, but this is Barbara's corner and this review is a total delight to read after the sewer of PARC. I feel like I took a bath just now.

I think this is from the May 1988 issue of Liberty magazine. It is online at the link in the title. (btw - Please visit that site. You will not be disappointed.)

Michael

The Critics of Barbara Branden

by David M. Brown

The publication of Barbara Branden’s The Passion of Ayn Rand in May of 1986 was an Event.

[...]

"David M. Brown is a free-lance writer living in New Jersey."

What a wonderful review!

[Robert Campbell]

David Brown's review corroborates what I'd heard from several sources, including Robert Bidinotto, about the Q&A to Leonard Peikoff's 1987 Ford Hall Forum speech. It even gives a verbatim quote that I hadn't seen before.

It does rinse off the PARCian sewer, doesn't it?

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

You aren't pushing fair use here, Michael, you just ran over it with an 18-wheeler.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

. . .

I will not allow a thread in Barbara's corner on a marvelous essay like David Brown's to descend into petty pseudo-Objectivist snarkiness and name-calling. Not after all the garbage she has had to put up with from PARC.

Move on. There are much more interesting things to discuss.

Michael

EDIT: This post was in answer to a harsh one. Apparently the poster deleted it. I have deleted most of my post above as a result.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just sent this to Liberty:

Hi,

This is Michael Stuart Kelly. I run a discussion forum called Objectivist Living (www.objectivistliving.com) where Barbara Branden posts.

She has a special place on our site called "Barbara Branden Corner." She recently sent me an email to David Brown's 1986 review of The Passion of Ayn Rand. I jumped the gun a bit and posted the entire thing in her corner. Here is the link:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...?showtopic=7278

I included a backlink to the article on the Liberty site and made a plug for Liberty.

Since James Valliant's foul book against Barbara's book has been discussed at length on OL, David's review was like taking a spiritual bath after emerging from a swamp. I normally don't post whole articles on OL.

But sometimes other posters do. In this changing information age, I understand copying whole articles on a relatively low-traffic site where no money is involved is not totally kosher, but it is not a great sin, especially if a backlink and promotion of the original site is provided. (Links from my site are do-follow.)

Still, people in the Objectivst world tend to be prone to kneejerks, so I would like to advise you of what I did. If there is any objection whatsoever, please let me know and I will take it down.

Sincerely,

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just received an answer from Mark Rand, the Managing Editor of Liberty. He thanked me for getting in touch with Liberty and told me to feel free to leave the article posted as it was.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I just received an answer from Mark Rand, the Managing Editor of Liberty. He thanked me for getting in touch with Liberty and told me to feel free to leave the article posted as it was.

Michael

Darn it! It's very important to me not to be not backed up in all respects at all times!

--Brant

snivelling weakling

[Barbara Branden]

I am delighted with David Brown's review of Passion. Thank you for posting it, Michael.

David Brown reviewed another book shortly after it was published. He commented: "Dorothy Parker once said of a novel that it was not a book to be tossed aside lightly, but thrown with great force....The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics by James S. Valliant is an artifact of cultist mentality that should neither be tossed aside lightly nor thrown with great force but lifted by thumb and forefinger and dropped into the garbage chute across the hall."

I want to comment on a statement David Brown rightly attributes to Leonard Peikoff:

"The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968, regarding her as immoral and an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death — attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation — I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate on this project."

There are at least six errors in this statement,

1. That Passion was "undertaken against Miss Rand's wishes."

I said in Passion "I wrote Ayn i to tell her I was planning to write her biography. I wanted her to learn it from me, and to understand my reasons. Knowing that she always procrastinated about letter-writing, I was not surprised when weeks went by without a response. Finally, I telephoned -- but she refused to speak to me. I was certain that her refusal must stem from anger at the prospect of my writing her biography. But many months later, I happened to be speaking to an acquaintance who had a business relationship with Ayn. 'Ayn was in the office to talk about a business matter' he told me. 'And she said, "Barbara was in New York a while ago, We spent a day together. She's going to write my biography." She said it perfectly calmly, there was no anger in her voice -- and then we went back to our discussion.' I can only assume that if anger was her initial reaction, her attitude later changed."

2. Rand regarded me as "immoral and an enemy of Objectivism." If that was so, why did she spend a day with me in 1981 when I visited New York, and why, when we parted, did she agree to see me again next time I was in town?

3. Peikoff was "aware of Mrs. Branden's long-time hostility to Ayn Rand." I have never been hostile to Rand; critical, yes; hostile, no. I will leave it to the members of this forum, in which I have often discussed Rand, to judge for themselves my attitude toward her,

4 .Peikoff is also aware of my "public attacks on Miss Rand after she died." There have been no such attacks.

5, Because of my so-called attacks on Rand, Peikoff "refused for years to meet with Mrs.Branden." I wrote Leonard a letter not long l after I left New York and moved to Los Angeles late in 1968. I said that I knew he had heard Rand's side of the story of our break, but that he had not heard mine. I said that if ever he wanted to know the facts leading to our break as I understood them, I would be glad to see him. I added that my door was always open to him. (In the years since, I have closed that door.)

6. Peikoff "refused for years to cooperate on the project [the biography." This is an astonishing statement. I have never asked Leonard to cooperate with me on this or any other project.

Barbara

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

I want to comment on a statement David Brown rightly attributes to Leonard Peikoff:

"The forthcoming biography of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden was undertaken against Miss Rand’s wishes. Miss Rand severed relations with Mrs. Branden in 1968, regarding her as immoral and an enemy of Objectivism. Being aware of Mrs. Branden’s longtime hostility to Ayn Rand, including her public attacks on Miss Rand after her death — attacks interlarded with protestations of adulation — I have refused for years to meet with Mrs. Branden or to cooperate on this project."

There are at least six errors in this statement,

(snip)

I note that LP has a sort of gift - - - to make that many errors and misrepresentations in such a brief statement could hardly be due to accident - it must be intentional, and required a certain amount of skill.

Amazing...

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Bill, I've gotten the impression he feels misrepresentations are okay if they serve a greater good. Regardless, he's still doing it in regard to Barbara.

--Brant

[ginny]

You could be right, Brant. During one lecture, he was asked what to do if one felt unable to verbalize one's belief in reason, capitalism, etc. to an opponent. Peikoff stated that it was okay (he claimed he knew of people who did it) to quote some fictional source (some Professor with a made-up name) and use that as one's argument.

This might have been a bit much for eve the randroid crowd T.here were quite a few shocked faces in the crowd.

For the greater good of objectivism, anything goes. What's a lie or two?

Ginny

[algernonsidney]

It has been a while since I read Passion of Ayn Rand. I can not comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the book. I also have not met Mrs. Branden personally, although there is one man whom I respect immensely who has been on good terms with her for many years.

I am happy that I have read the book, however. I also agree 100% with Mrs. Branden's sentiments:

"Those who worship Ayn Rand and those who damn her do her the same disservice: they make her unreal and they deny her humanity. I hope to show in her story that she was something infinitely more fascinating and infinitely more valuable than either goddess or sinner. She was a human being. She lived, she loved, she fought her battles, and she knew triumph and defeat. The scale was epic; the principle is inherent in human existence."

Mrs. Branden definitely accomplished her goal of making Ayn Rand human.

[kiaer.ts]

It has been a while since I read Passion of Ayn Rand. I can not comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of the book. I also have not met Mrs. Branden personally, although there is one man whom I respect immensely who has been on good terms with her for many years.

I am happy that I have read the book, however. I also agree 100% with Mrs. Branden's sentiments:

"Those who worship Ayn Rand and those who damn her do her the same disservice: they make her unreal and they deny her humanity. I hope to show in her story that she was something infinitely more fascinating and infinitely more valuable than either goddess or sinner. She was a human being. She lived, she loved, she fought her battles, and she knew triumph and defeat. The scale was epic; the principle is inherent in human existence."

Mrs. Branden definitely accomplished her goal of making Ayn Rand human.

What a bizarre thing to say. Knowing your opinion of humans I suspect you mean she cut Rand down to size. Ms. Branden did no such thing. Rand was not a goddess, nor a beast, demon or ghost in need of transubstantiation. She was a human, a person, whose story Ms. Branden told.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I think he meant her image. Figure of speech and all...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Ted,

I think he meant her image. Figure of speech and all...

Michael

I don't think "View New Content" is displaying all the new posts. When I do view something new it then disappears from the list and I'd rather it stayed up for a while.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Ted,

I think he meant her image. Figure of speech and all...

Michael

I don't think "View New Content" is displaying all the new posts. When I do view something new it then disappears from the list and I'd rather it stayed up for a while.

--Brant

Jesus, Brant, I have addressed this at least six times on at least two threads. Read the "last post" thread for my elegant solution.

[Robert Campbell]

Bill P and Brant G,

I thought it might be apropos to re-post my quiz from August 2006:

Contextual Virtues: A Wee Test

(Subtitle borrowed from Matt Groening, Graduate School Is Hell.)

A passage in OPAR that has become rather notorious reads as follows:

There are men other than criminals or dictators to whom it is moral to lie. For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one’s privacy from snoopers. (p. 276)

Wondering who or what else might be encompassed in Dr. Peikoff’s dictum, I put together a little survey. It should take about two minutes of your time to complete.

Needless to say, the statements should be read as pertaining to enemies of Objectivism qua enemies of Objectivism. If the enemy of Objectivism is also a criminal, dictator, or terrorista, he or she is already covered.

The wording of the completions seems to be in vogue among younger ARIans today, though I am convinced that such duty-oriented language would have made Ayn Rand gag. No matter, the meaning is clear enough.

********

1. For an Objectivist, lying to an enemy of Objectivism is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

2. For an Objectivist, lying about an enemy of Objectivism is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

3. For an Objectivist, withholding credit for an accomplishment by an enemy of Objectivism is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

4. For an Objectivist, publishing the private communications of an enemy of Objectivism without consent is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

5. For an Objectivist, rewriting history to remove an enemy of Objectivism from the narrative is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

6. For an Objectivist, taking credit for the achievement of an enemy of Objectivism is

__ Morally impermissible

__ Morally permissible

__ Morally obligatory

Robert Campbell

Professeur de Psychologie

Apôtre de l’Arbitraire

Citationniste Enragé

[Brant Gaede]

Gee. I only lie for financial gain. Well, sexual conquests and food too. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do. Damn right!

--Brant

I did it all for Objectivism, my religion

I might lie for beer

I'll always lie for cheer

lay lady lay, on a big brass bed--I mean, lie lady lie, for a big brass bed

In jump school in 1965 I forgot to shave one morning. The sergeant inspecting my face asked, "Did you shave?" "Yes, sergeant. I shaved last night like I always do." "Well son, you're a man now. Shave in the morning."