Peikoff: The Great Pretender

[Robert Campbell]

Speaking of chronology, there has been some dispute concerning when the Blumenthals split from Rand. Barbara gives at as 1978. Heller, I recall, once says '77 and once '78.

Does the Objectivist Calendar provide any information?

Neil,

The October 1977 issue (number 10) carries a brief notice about the Foundation for the New Intellectual on page 2.

Besides giving what is probably a new address for the Foundation, it drily notes that Allan Blumenthal "is no longer associated with the Foundation."

So it was definitely 1977.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

A full refund for the unexpired portion of your paid subscription will be mailed to you within the next four months. There are two reasons why it may take this long: 1) it will take my bank several weeks to supply the checks I need to send out refunds; and 2) I plan to prepare all the refund checks myself.

The answer to the question about Barbara Weiss's departure is at least hinted at in this very item.

Why would she have needed to get new checks printed, if she planned to continue working for Rand?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Correct, Steve, I meant up-close vitriol [from Peter Schwartz], maybe dating as far back as 1971, if that's the correct date of the founding of the Libertarian Party. I was talking about stuff from WELL before the schism with David. I'm not sure exactly when Schwartz appeared on the O'ist scene, but at latest it was some years before AR died.

Ms. Stuttle cannot of course admit that anything she ever posts is preening or vaporing. So she clouds the issue instead.

I had thought the point, if there ever was any, of her non-memoir regarding Peter Schwartz was to "establish" that Schwartz had reasons for hating David Kelley that pre-dated and overrode the publication of Barbara Branden's book and Kelley's response thereto.

Well, Schwartz may have hated David Kelley for a long time. Who knows? Schwartz rose to such prominence as he attained in Rand-land on the strength and abundance of his professed loyalty to Ayn Rand and his professed hatred of all those many people he believed himself obligated to hate. What he didn't have, prior to 1986, was anything that he could use to get a rival like Kelley excommunicated.

What, after all, was Schwartz's reaction to Leonard Peikoff doing book-signings (of The Ominous Parallels) for Laissez-Faire Books? Did he like what Peikoff was doing? Despite the joke from the 1990s, Schwartz couldn't use "the sanction of libertarianism" to purge Peikoff, now could he? Peikoff has been purge-proof since 1982. He inherited the Estate and Schwartz didn't.

As for Schwartz hating libertarians, Ayn Rand was on record ripping them by name in 1971—and was on record ripping the Rothbardians well before that. So we can be sure he hated libertarians (or at least put on a convincing show of hating them) from the minute he walked in her door.

So what? Anyone who wished to gain or retain the approval of Rand and Leonard Peikoff during her final decade would have had to hate libertarians, or provide a convincing simulacrum of such hatred. What was David Kelley's expressed attitude toward the Libertarian Party in, say, 1978?

What is clear from the record is that Schwartz did not move to purge Leonard Peikoff in 1982, when Peikoff was signing the books under the auspices of LFB. And that in 1986 Schwartz declared The Passion of Ayn Rand to be a tissue of arbitrary assertions. Leonard Peikoff chimed in and piously refused to read it; David Kelley read the book and recommended it to others.

If Ms. Stuttle really doesn't believe that the skids were then greased under David Kelley, let her propose a coherent alternative explanation of her own.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The person who used that phrase was one of the same people from whom I heard tales of Edith's complaining about David Kelley's talking to libertarians. David ended up "excommunicated," and then some years later Edith ended up likewise.

Whoop-te-do.

All this appears to mean is that Edith Packer went along with the prevailing sentiment within the Ayn Rand Institute regarding David Kelley giving a talk under the auspices of Laissez-Faire Books.

This hardly means that she went along out of personal conviction; even less does it mean (as Ms. Stuttle appeared to be darkly intimating) that Ms. Packer helped to instigate David Kelley's excommunication.

What does Ms. Stuttle imagine would have happened had Edith Packer defended David Kelley's decision to give a talk at the Laissez-Faire Supper Club? Wouldn't Ms. Packer have simply become the next person designated for excommunication?

None of this constitutes a defense of Edith Packer's actions or inactions in 1988-1989. It's just an acknowledgment of institutional realities within the Ayn Rand Institute at the time.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

The October 1977 issue (number 10) carries a brief notice about the Foundation for the New Intellectual on page 2.

Besides giving what is probably a new address for the Foundation, it drily notes that Allan Blumenthal "is no longer associated with the Foundation."

So it was definitely 1977.

It's possible that the Blumenthals left in '78 and the calendar was behind schedule.

-Neil Parille

Edited July 11, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Robert,

The October 1977 issue (number 10) carries a brief notice about the Foundation for the New Intellectual on page 2.

Besides giving what is probably a new address for the Foundation, it drily notes that Allan Blumenthal "is no longer associated with the Foundation."

So it was definitely 1977.

It's possible that the Blumenthals left in '78 and the calendar was behind schedule.

-Neil Parille

Neil,

The Calendar was announced as an irregular publication. Therefore, there was no reason for the cover date to be out of synch with the calendar date.

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> Schwartz rose to such prominence as he attained in Rand-land on the strength and abundance of his professed loyalty to Ayn Rand and his professed hatred of all those many people he believed himself obligated to hate.

Robert, how would you know that this is the reason?

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

Can you point to a single publication by Peter Schwartz that expresses original insights or presents arguments of such cogency as to account for his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Is there an issue on which Schwartz does not take an original position but has given the best presentation of a standard position?

Have you ever heard tell of Schwartz displaying unusual management skills, or adeptness at charming donors to give money to the Ayn Rand Institute?

And if he has no great ideas, doesn't write especially well, has no new insights to confer, gives evidence of no special management talents, and can't charm prospective donors, well... then what would explain his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Robert Campbell

[Alfonso Jones]

Phil,

Can you point to a single publication by Peter Schwartz that expresses original insights or presents arguments of such cogency as to account for his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Is there an issue on which Schwartz does not take an original position but has given the best presentation of a standard position?

Have you ever heard tell of Schwartz displaying unusual management skills, or adeptness at charming donors to give money to the Ayn Rand Institute?

And if he has no great ideas, doesn't write especially well, has no new insights to confer, gives evidence of no special management talents, and can't charm prospective donors, well... then what would explain his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Robert Campbell

Robert -

You just cast a net which will catch more than a few fish in orthodox Objectivist-Land.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

And if he has no great ideas, doesn't write especially well, has no new insights to confer, gives evidence of no special management talents, and can't charm prospective donors, well... then what would explain his moderate prominence in Rand-land?

Moderate prominence of Rand-land?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of chronology, there has been some dispute concerning when the Blumenthals split from Rand. Barbara gives at as 1978. Heller, I recall, once says '77 and once '78.

Does the Objectivist Calendar provide any information?

The October 1977 issue (number 10) carries a brief notice about the Foundation for the New Intellectual on page 2.

Besides giving what is probably a new address for the Foundation, it drily notes that Allan Blumenthal "is no longer associated with the Foundation."

So it was definitely 1977.

It's possible that the Blumenthals left in '78 and the calendar was behind schedule.

The Calendar was announced as an irregular publication. Therefore, there was no reason for the cover date to be out of synch with the calendar date.

Robert's correct that the Calendar was an irregular publication. It appeared only as and when there was something to report, such as the start of a new lecture series, etc.

The Blumenthals broke with Ayn Rand in 1977. I left full-time employment at Lippincott toward the end of September 1977. I heard the news via a phone call from a friend when I was at my office at Lippincott, I'm not sure exactly how many weeks before I left. I wrote a letter to Allan in October and spoke with him on the phone before he and Joan left for California. They decided before long that Palm Springs wasn't a place they found congenial to live in, though they liked visiting there. They returned to NYC in the summer of 1978. The day they were scheduled to return, there was a horrendous fire (arson, as it turned out) which burned down the restaurant on the grounds of the apartment complex in Philadelphia where Larry and I had an apartment. (I also had an apartment in NYC, which I kept through the end of 1980.) I don't recall the exact date, only that I hoped the restaurant's burning (I'd loved the restaurant) wasn't an omen. I had a conversation with Allan in his new office a bit later that summer, on a terrifically hot day -- the train from Philly had been delayed, its air-conditioning wasn't working well; the cab ride was slow, and again the air-conditioning wasn't good; my first several minutes at Allan's office were spent recovering from the heat ordeal.

Ellen

Edited July 13, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

A full refund for the unexpired portion of your paid subscription will be mailed to you within the next four months. There are two reasons why it may take this long: 1) it will take my bank several weeks to supply the checks I need to send out refunds; and 2) I plan to prepare all the refund checks myself.

The answer to the question about Barbara Weiss's departure is at least hinted at in this very item.

Why would she have needed to get new checks printed, if she planned to continue working for Rand?

I wonder about that, too. It might be a hint of departure. On the other hand, the announcement says:

It is likely, however, that this list will be used to notify former subscribers of lectures that will be given in their area. Therefore, please let us know of any change in your address. (When informing us of a new address, be sure to include your old address and zip code.) [My emphasis]

Which might be a hint that she'd still be associated with Rand.

As far as Barbara Weiss resigning, I think this is probable. Cynthia Peikoff was Rand's secretary in her final year, so there was likely some sort of formal change.

Barbara Weiss wasn't formally Rand's secretary. Although Heller describes Weiss as Rand's secretary, and Weiss is sometimes referred to elsewhere by that description, the description is misleading. Weiss was business manager of the Objectivist post-break. She oversaw publications. She dealt with incoming mail, screening it and fielding stuff herself. (After the break, she sent cancellation notices to rank-and-file folk whose letters, by her judgment, didn't meet guidelines.) She wasn't the secretary in the sense of typing for Rand's writing. Thus Cynthia's being the secretary toward the end of Rand's life doesn't show anything one way or the other about a change in Weiss' status. There'd been many secretaries over the years who typed for Rand.

I'd like some verification as to whether Weiss actually resigned, or just had less to do and wasn't around much or what.

Ellen

PS: More re Packer and Schwartz later.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Once again, please, let's stay out of the gutter

> Schwartz rose to such prominence as he attained in Rand-land on the strength and abundance of his professed loyalty to Ayn Rand and his professed hatred of all those many people he believed himself obligated to hate.

> Robert, how would you know that this is the reason?

Robert, I asked -you- to justify your very strong claim.

You can't refuse to do so and pitch the ball back in my court asking me an array of questions prior to your answering anything!!

,,,,,,,,

Nonetheless, and this is all prior the "Libertarianism" essay, I'll point out that he was the first one to start an (at the time) successful magazine, "The New Intellectual".

He also (before he went off the deep end) wrote some good essays on journalistic, current events issues. And at one of the summer conferences gave a talk which most people thought was the best one at that conference. It was on foreign policy, was quite good...and had nothing about going around and indiscriminately nuking civilians or such.

,,,,,,

My reason for challenging you on your point is that you simply cannot go around recklessly charging that everyone who follows ARI is a Randroid, only willing to praise people for being loyalists.

Unlike some people on these forums, you are too intelligent a person to be oversimplifying things like this from a distance and without direct contact with many of these people.

Unlike yourself, I was in those circles for a quite a while and your "demonizing" claims are way exaggerated.

The issues are sufficiently varied and complex that there are good, honorable people in -any- faction within Objectivism as well as lesser people.

Edited July 12, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

> Schwartz rose to such prominence as he attained in Rand-land on the strength and abundance of his professed loyalty to Ayn Rand and his professed hatred of all those many people he believed himself obligated to hate.

> Robert, how would you know that this is the reason?

It simply seems to me that his prominence had to do with his stewardship of The Intellectual Activist and it evaporated when he gave that up.

Hating libertarians seems to satisfy loyalty to Ayn Rand (post death) who couldn't stand them. I have no way of knowing if he was sincerely attacking libertarianism with his notorious article or just making out like a pig in mud making points with Peikoff. It was a pretty bad piece, slimming a lot of people with about as superficial an analysis as you could imagine.

--Brant

Edited July 13, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Philip Coates]

> It was a pretty bad piece, sliming a lot of people with about as superficial an analysis as you could imagine.

Yes it was. The problem is cherry-picking. He hunted down the most extreme statements he could find from 'radical libertarians' that an Oist would disagree with...and then he claimed that these were 'essential' to the movement and represented its mainstream.

Just embarrassing to have that inserted into one of the collections of AR's essays. And for it to appear on the ARI website, if it does.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Ellen Stuttle]

Chronology: "Perversion of Liberty," The Passion of Ayn Rand, Kelley L-F talk, "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," "Fact and Value"

First, let's get the sequence of events straight.

May 10, 1985, and in two subsequent installments the dates of which I don't have:

"Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" was published in

The Intellectual Activist

in its original, long form. (I have facimilies of the complete piece.)

June (?), 1986: The Passion of Ayn Rand was published.

I have one of the first X copies, which were signed by Barbara. The date on the signature page is "June 11, 1986."

Early (before 2/27) 1989: David Kelley speaks to the Laissez-Faire Supper Club.

February 27, 1989, "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners" by Peter Schwartz is published in

The Intellectual Activist

. Peter mentions among "those who support" Libertarians, who he says (his underscore) "are patently

not

allies in the ideological battle for capitalism," those who "serve as after-dinner speakers at Libertarian functions."

April 19, 1989, "A Question of Sanction" is sent by David Kelley as an open-letter email date-stamped Wed, 19 Apr 89 21:27:44 EDT. David says near the beginning,

I recently spoke to the Laissez-Faire Supper Club on the role of Objectivism in defending freedom--the incident to which Peter Schwartz refers in his article. I have also accepted an invitation to speak on the ethical foundations of rights at the Cato Institute's Summer Seminar in July.

May 18, 1989: "Fact and Value" by Leonard Peikoff is published in Volume V, Number 1, "The Intellectual Activist."

The first three paragraphs specify the precipitating connection to David Kelley:

I agree completely with "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," Peter Schwartz's article in the last issue of

TIA

. That article has, however, raised questions in the mind of some readers. In particular, David Kelley, one of the persons whom the article implicitly criticizes, has written an articulate paper in reply, identifying his own philosophy on the relevant topics. He has sent a copy of this paper to me and to many other individuals.

In my judgment, Kelley's paper is a repudiation of the fundamental principles of Objectivism. His statements make clear to me, in purely philosophic terms and for the first time, the root cause of the many schisms that have plagued the Objectivist movement since 1968. The cause goes to the essentials of what Objectivism

is

. I have, therefore, decided to interrupt my book on Objectivism in order to name this cause once and for all.

In the following, I am presupposing a basic knowledge of Ayn Rand's ideas. I am writing to and for Objectivists, whether or not they have seen Kelley's paper.

The fundamental issue raised by Kelley concerns the relationship between the true and the good. What kind of thing, Kelley asks, can be true or false, and what kind good or evil? In other words (my words): what is the relationship between

fact

and

value

? Kelley takes a definite stand on this issue, one which leads him, logically, to uphold "tolerance" as "a virtue in the cognitive realm," and to accuse Schwartz and others like him (myself and Ayn Rand presumably included) of "zealotry," "hysteria," "non-intellectuality," "malevolence," "closed-mindedness" and the like.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

OK, some questions.

If Schwartz's writing the first version of "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" had anything to do with David Kelley's refusing to condemn Barbara's book unread, why did it appear a year before Passion? (How early were galleys or advance copies of the book available? Did Kelley and/or Schwartz read galleys or advance copies? Does anyone know?)

And why did it have the prefatory remarks copied in the next post?

If Peter Schwartz was merely looking for an excuse to get rid of Kelley when he wrote "On Sanctioning the Sanctioners," why did he wait three years? Could he have found no excuse meanwhile?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

This statement appears on the front page of the May 10, 1985, double issue, Volume III, Numbers 19 & 20, of The Intellectual Activist in which the first about half of the l-o-n-g original version of "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty" was published.

The Intellectual Activist

Volume III, Numbers 19 & 20

May 10, 1985

[underscores in the original]

Libertarianism

Libertarianism has come to acquire a highly visible place on the political landscape. The Libertarian Party had over three hundred candidates running for office last year throughout the country. In 1980 its presidential nominee was on the ballot in all 50 states and drew over 900,000 votes. In 1984 (with much less financing available from its major contributor), the Libertarian Party's presidential ticket was on the ballot in 38 states and garnered 229,000 votes.

On a broader front, numerous magazine and newspaper stories on the Libertarian movement have appeared in recent years. Various Libertarian organizations have sprouted, with purposes ranging from influencing political issues to producing academic papers. Among the more prominent, besides the Libertarian Party, are: the Cato Institute (a public-policy research center, which sponsors seminars and publications on topical questions); the Society for Individual Liberty (one of the oldest Libertarian groups, with chapters all over the country and a monthly newsletter, Individual Liberty); and the Center for Libertarian Studies (which produces a variety of scholarly material). In addition, a number of Libertarian periodicals are being published, including Reason and Libertarian Forum (edited by Libertarianism's master strategist, Murray Rothbard).*

It is the fact of this public recognition that makes Libertarianism such an insidious ideology. For it has managed to delude a wide audience into believing that it upholds the inviolability of individual rights. People accept Libertarianism's claim to being an uncompromising advocate of freedom and an unwavering foe of any initiation of force. As a result, Libertarianism has succeeded in drawing the support of many genuine advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, who regard Libertarianism as an intellectual ally. Conversely, it has attracted the antagonism of many who smear capitalism in the belief that Libertarian doctrine epitomizes the pro-laissez-faire viewpoint.

Both sides are grievously mistaken.

On the pages that follow, we offer our evidence.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*Other Libertarian entities are referred to in the accompanying article but are no longer in existence. These include: Students for a Libertarian Society (for years, a major organizer of campus activism); The Libertarian Review (which was widely regarded as the magazine most loyal to "hard-core" Libertarian principles) and its insider newsletter, Update; Inquiry magazine (which was aimed primarily at the left and focused on issues of foreign policy and civil liberties, while playing down matters of economics); and Frontlines, the "in-house" newsletter published by Reason magazine.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert, re your post #154:

What I heard indeed was that (quoting you) "Ms. Packer helped to instigate David Kelley's excommunication." I don't have any written confirmation of this. If it's true, I don't think it would have been because of any hesitancy to defend David if she thought he should be defended, considering the capability for criticizing activities of members of the Board of Advisors which Edith displayed during the lead-up to the expelling of her and George.

Did either of them make any overtures to Kelley after they were kicked out at ARI?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

On looking up the current Wikipedia page for George Reisman, I found a link to an ARI Watch collection of the major documents pertaining to Reisman's and Packer's expungement from ARI - link. Included are links to the complete Richard and Gen LaGreca Sanford materials from which I've quoted some excerpts.

Here's an excerpt from a "To Whom It May Concern" summary statement by George Reisman dated November 15, 1994.

link

[Reisman is talking about why he's cancelling the summer TJS conference] [...] even if Dr. Peikoff were magnanimous enough never to hold it against the person for speaking for us, the same could certainly not be said for Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger who, Dr. Peikoff had repeatedly said he could not control.

The only explanation I can give at this point for Dr. Peikoff's uneven application of the criterion of "containment" and for his response to our memos to the ARI Board of Advisors of October 1993, is the attitude he expressed to Linda Reardan in July of this year, to the effect that he considers rejection of Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger to be a rejection of him and thus of Objectivism. Obviously, we disagree with Dr. Peikoff on this matter, because we believe that serious criticism of these gentlemen is both warranted and is in the interest of Objectivism. In addition to the criticisms we express in the materials that accompany this letter, we must stress our disagreement with Harry Binswanger's policy of discouraging graduate students in philosophy from pursuing their doctorates and, when asked for his view of how ARI's contributors would regard this policy, his attitude that he didn't care about what the contributors thought.

In closing, I want to say that I unequivocally reject the notion that the attacks made on us are aimed primarily at Edith and the alleged difficulties of dealing with her, as has frequently been alleged by those concerned. They are aimed at me and at TJS. If they were aimed at Edith, there would have been no reason to destroy TJS, which is what has happened, at least as far as summer conferences are concerned.

The essence of the situation is that Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger do not want to answer to criticisms, neither ours nor anyone else's, and, we are sorry to say, that Leonard Peikoff does not want them to have to answer either. Because they do not want to admit this, they have decided to get rid of us, by declaring us to be immoral.

Here's some material about the issue of Peter Schwartz's lecturing on psychology (and other subjects)

link

[This is by Edith.] I also have some questions as to Peter Schwartz teaching writing. I believe that he is qualified to teach techniques in writing. However, techniques are taught in a context involving the teacher's knowledge of other fields, like philosophy, economics, and psychology. Speaking only for psychology and only for myself, my concern is that Peter will offer misinformation concerning psychology, in view of his recently having given a public lecture on the subject and his announced intention to deliver more such lectures in the future. Most people, knowing that he is on the Board of Directors of ARI, mistakenly assume that his ideas on psychology are approved of by other Objectivist psychologists. To the best of my knowledge, he has not checked out his ideas on psychology with any psychologist or psychiatrist, Objectivist or otherwise. I want to go on record that I do not think he is qualified to say anything about the subject of psychology, and should definitely not accept payment for doing so, especially when the payment is made possible only by virtue of his affiliation with ARI. George tells me that he has similar special reservations about Peter lecturing on economics.

link

[This is by George and Edith together.] In answer to paragraph six of Peter's letter, Edith stands by her statement that Peter knows nothing about psychology and should not take money for lecturing on the subject (especially when his audience is created by virtue of his position with ARI). She admits to being mistaken in raising this objection in conjunction with his teachings of writing.

Edited July 13, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Barbara Weiss again:

Does anyone remember when Leonard Peikoff's course on Grammar was? I think it was in 1980.

Were announcements sent out, and, if so, by whom?

Also: When and of what did Barbara Weiss die? And how old was she?

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Bungay on Mannheimer as AR's possible "heir"

See post #54 for earlier discussion.

In tracking references to Rand's amphetamine use, I came across a statement in Goddess of the Market which indicates that Jack Bungay did mean financial beneficiary in saying that he thought that Albert Mannheimer would be Rand's "heir." Burns uses the phrase "heir after Frank."

Goddess of the Market

Jennifer Burns

2009, Oxford University Press

pg. 110

Jack Bungay, an assistant to Hal Wallis [...], who spent a few months lodging with the O'Connors when he was between apartments, observed [Rand's] fondness for a host of younger men who sought her counsel. Most prominent among these was Albert Mannheimer, an aspiring screenwriter whom Bungay believed to be Rand's heir after Frank. [*]

--

[* note 25, pg. 315]: Jack Bungay, Oral History, ARP [Ayn Rand Project]; Walter Seltzer. Oral History, ARP.

[it isn't clear if the report of Bungay's opinion re "heir after Frank" comes directly from his material or indirectly from Seltzer's. The direct quote Heller gives -- "She was terribly terribly fond of him [Mannheimer]. They were very close fiends. I thought he was going to be her heir then."; pg. 177 World; see post #54 -- doesn't say "after Frank." Burns directly quotes Bungay about AR's sensuality in the footnoted paragragh.

Burns references June Kurisu as one of the sources for the material in the paragraph which comes next, but she doesn't say anything about Kurisu's reporting that Rand called Mannheimer her "intellectual heir."

Troubled and intense, Mannheimer was a frequent visitor to the O'Connor household. He was reeling from the dramatic suicide of a former girlfriend, who killed herself in his apartment after a heated quarrel. Overcome by guilt at her death, Mannheimer clung to Rand's insistence that he bore no fault. The two grew noticeably close. She nicknamed him "Fuzzy" and he brought her extravagant gifts, including an enormous bottle of Chanel perfume. At times Manheimer's feelings for her grew intense. "I love you Ayn, in a way I have never before loved anyone and never shall again," he told her in an impromptu letter written after one of their visits. He groped for images to describe their relationship, comparing her to the open country, the way a scientist feels "having discovered something new; or a writer loves the feeling of having created a beautiful phrase." It was impossible to feel depressed around her, he wrote, calling her "the ultimate in human beings I have known." Although she did not discourage such outpourings, Rand's letters to him were full of advice rather than suppressed passion. The two eventually drifted apart in the early 1950s. [*]

--

[note * 26, pg. 315]: "Actress Peggy O'Neil Dead in Writer's Home," Los Angeles Times, April 14, 1945, A1; Oral History interview with June Kurisu; Albert Mannheimer to Ayn Rand, undated, ARP [Ayn Rand Project] 003-13A.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand on Thaddeus Ashby

I came across something by Rand herself on her relationship with Thaddeus Ashby. The material is from a letter of Rand's to Isabel Paterson.

Lest people object that we don't know if the wording has been altered, I'll first quote what Jennifer Burns wrote about the editing of the Letters volume in her "Essay on Sources" included in Goddess of the Market:

Goddess of the Market

Jennifer Burns

2009, Oxford University Press

[my emphasis]

pg. 291

The editor of the Letters of Ayn Rand (1995) acknowledges that "some of the less interesting material within letters" and "the routine opening and closing material" have been deleted. [*] These omissions are of high interest to the historian, for it is here that Rand notes details of her schedule, makes offhand comments on recent events in her life, and includes unique touches that personalize her communication. Looking at the originals of Rand's letters has helped me reconstruct the web of contacts she maintained and track shifts and developments in key relationships. I did not discover any changes to the body of her correspondence. The letters as published have not been altered; they are merely incomplete. Scholars can benefit from this material, but historians in particular should note that inportant insights can be gleaned only from the originals. [**]

[* note 2, pg. 344:] Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn Rand ed. Michael S. Berliner (New York: Dutton, 1995), xvi-xvii.

[** note 3, pg. 344:] To understand the differences between Rand's letters as written and as published, readers may wish to compare the edited version of Rand's August 1, 1946, letter to Leonard Read (Letters, 298-300) with a complete PDF of the original letter posted on the website of the Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org).

Thus, it seems we can safely assume that Rand wrote what's quoted about Ashby, but we don't know if she said more which is left out.

August 4, 1945

AR to Isabel Paterson

Letters

The letter begins on pg. 180.

It's dated August 4, 1945.

pp. 185-86

[....]

Did Linda write to you [Paterson] that Frank and I have adopted a son? Well, not exactly--he's twenty-one, so he can't be adopted. But he's now living with us--and we both consider him in the nature of a son. He was a pilot in the Pacific--out of the Army now, by reason of two airplane crack-ups and malaria. How did I find him? He hitchhiked across the continent from New York, because he had read The Fountainhead. I'll tell you more about him when I see you. It's a very curious thing to me--he's a replica of me, as I was at twenty-one, or as near a replica as one person can be of another. Frank says that he's a kind of reincarnation of me before the time.

Frank asks me to tell you that he's knee-deep in alfalfa irrigation--and is perfectly willing to let the world go to hell. I'm not. I'll always hold out for the exceptions.

Love from both of us,

[An editorial note is added:]

AR's paragraph about her "adopted" son refers to Thaddeus Ashby, a young fan, who later admitted to AR that his whole "history" (including being a combat pilot) was fictitious.

[9thdoctor]

http://www.peikoff.com/2011/04/25/episode-161/

From today’s podcast, the last question, not available as a single question on the website:

You said that you have no plans to designate an intellectual heir, as Ms. Rand designated you as hers. You said it’s up for grabs. Why do you take this attitude? Well I can only answer by giving you a boastful, even a megalomaniacal 4 word answer: nobody I know qualifies.

[PDS]

No Dale Carnegie, he.