Chris Grieb

What Robert reports about PARC's description of Nathaniel Branden as a student of Objectivism is really bad and my memory of Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life suggests that the air-brushing is really getting bad. I think it was clear that Branden had been very close to Ayn Rand and importtant to Objectivism.

Let me add my welcome. What Rand have you read?

Has anyone ever asked Mayhew or any of the other ARI folks why they have airbrushed Nathaniel Branden out of Objectivism. An explanation might be interesting.

It's being suggested that the last night's Times Square bomb was South Park related:

http://www.businessinsider.com/time-square-car-bomb-police-investigate-link-to-south-park-and-2007-london-bombing-2010-5

Pretty thin.

I loved all the cable coverage of the attempted bombing. Talking heads told us in dozens of different ways that police had no idea who was behind it. Ripe material for Jon Stewart, I would think.

Ghs

I'm shocked! Shocked!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob -

I'm not certain what you find most shocking, but what strikes me is that the report appears in the National Enquirer and the reported tryst is not with an extraterrestrial!

Bill P

Bill P; The National Enquirer's reputation has improved after their coverage of the John Edward's love child. The Enquirer was nominated for a Pulitzer.

I have posted on my blog that it is being proposed that we declare May 1st Victims of Communism Day. I think this is a great idea. May 1st is the day of one of the great socialist holidays.

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

I always thought it funny that one of the features in the Playboy which had the Ayn Rand interview was the girls of Eastern Europe and the Soviet block. I suspect Ayn would not have approved.

I suspect that was not a coincidence, but there's no way of knowing. The interviewer, I think, was Alvin Toffler who subsequently wrote "Future Shock."

--Brant

Don Hauptmann interviewed Toffler about the Playboy interview. Don also purchased the interview materials at a big auction Playboy had. I think you find the article at the Atlas Society website.

Dennis,

You've described Objectivist fundmentalism perfectly.

The fundies' rewriting of history extends all the way to rewriting Rand herself, with permission obtained from the arbitrary moral authority exercised by Leonard Peikoff.

Robert Campbell

Barbara and Robert—Thank you! I really wish I could take full credit for this summation, but I might be accused of plagiarism from the author of the article on Christian fundamentalism. The similarities are quite amazing. The principles are essentially the same. Only the concretes differ.

Isn’t it a riot? Peikoff and his sycophants think they are blazing a radical new trail through philosophical history, when, in fact, their version of Objectivism perpetuates the same madness that ushered in the long, barbaric nightmare of the Middle Ages. You can’t ask people to surrender their brains, no matter how wonderfully rational your explicit philosophy might be. As soon as men begin acting like sheep, there’s no telling what new horrors could engulf the world.

I heard George H. Smith give an excellent talk on ‘Objectivism and Religion’ back in the early 70s, shortly after I moved to California from Tennessee. I remember thinking that the issue would resolve itself as soon as the Rand-Branden schism was no longer in the forefront. After all, in her PLAYBOY interview, Ayn Rand said that ‘Objectivism is its own defense against those who would treat it as a dogma.’ But that was before she chose Leonard Peikoff as her new intellectual heir.

When Bush looked into Putin’s eyes, he should have seen the soul of Joseph Stalin. When Rand looked into Peikoff’s eyes, she should have seen the soul of Immanuel Kant.

Hey, Dennis, good to see that you are alive and kicking.

I have never been a good prognosticator, but perhaps my worst prediction of all time occurred not long after Ayn Rand's death in 1982. In a talk for some supper club or other in the L.A. area, I predicted that the dogmatic wing of Objectivism would not long survive Rand's passing, at least not as a significant force.

My prediction was based on the belief that dogmatic Objectivism was largely a charismatic phenomenon, one sustained by Rand's extraordinary personal characteristics. I speculated that Peikoff, lacking Rand's charisma, would be unable to exercise the tight control needed to maintain an orthodox movement.

What I didn't foresee was the institutionalization of orthodoxy through ARI, nor did I appreciate how Peikoff's closely guarded monopoly on Rand's papers would stifle future scholarship by denying access to writers with different points of view.

Rand has become far more of a cultish icon under ARI than she ever was under NBI. Having been ordained by Peikoff, who in turn was ordained by Rand herself, ARI passes the only true Rational Spirit to future generations of believers.

The next occupant of the See of St. Peikoff remains to be seen, but I don't think it will matter that much. So long as the person is not totally incompetent, ARI will continue to exert influence into the foreseeable future.

Let us hope that this prediction is as bad as my earlier prediction. 8-)

Ghs

Ghs: I'm sorry your prediction was wrong. I think they have made an excellent choice with Yuron Brook and the demoting of Michael Berliner.

Like the mosquito in the nudist colony I don't know where to start.

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

I always thought it funny that one of the features in the Playboy which had the Ayn Rand interview was the girls of Eastern Europe and the Soviet block. I suspect Ayn would not have approved.

How embarassing. To try again:

First link

Second

On the bright side, if you can see it here at all, you will probably have seen it here first.

I am not surprised. We never find out until later about the unseen effects of policies.

Do you think the change in the way she answered questions could be one of the results and tramuas from the split?

Jerry; Have you looked at ARI prices for their conferences which until Las Vegas were always at pricey places?

Gulch; You wonder why no one takes you seriously.

Reminds me of Ma Chalmers in Atlas Shrugged or of the Great Leap Forward in China:

http://politicaltick...-CMeJm&hpt=Sbin

http://www.consumera...ol_chicken.html

Reidy; The links don't work.

'1272401183' post='97296']

Ed,

While I certainly look forward to attending this conference, I note with some dismay the departure from past conferences which were held on college campuses where the accommodations were rather spartan, but were also cheap. This can hardly be said of the Embassy Suites in Alexandria, where rates start around mid $240. per night. This will end up in raising the average cost for attending the conference (including room and meals) by a factor of at least four or five times when compared to past TAS Summer conferences. I estimate around $2,000 plus, just for accommodations and meals, not counting the conference registration fee.

Perhaps it is assumed that attendees have the financial resources of a Midas Mulligan (using his pre-crash estimates). However, such costs put the conference out of the range of many students and other on fixed incomes who would have liked to attend.

Some of the "alternative" hotels that have been listed have lesser rates, but many (the cheapest, of course) are not in walking distance (which, in any case, considering the neighborhoods, running might be necessary to extend your life expectancy).

I applaud the efforts of the conference organizers, for the upcoming and the past year's Las Vegas conferences. The agenda looks excellent. But, perhaps in the future the conference can be held at locations less extravagant?

Jerry; The reason for picking the Embassy Suites was that at some of the previous Summer Seminars the dorm accommodations were so Spartan. Union and Towson come to mine.

Robert; Thanks for the update.

George Carlin was a very wise man. I miss him.

CNA; Thanks for the reminder. Happy Birthday Kori!

Roger; Thanks so much for the update. It is good to know that Chris S. has not left this mortal coil.

Todd S.; Welcome! Sounds like you have some things to offer.

I agree with Ba'al. Your joke is very funny.

Michael; With all due respect people who stay silent while other people suggest murder because of cartoons should expect a little bigotry.

I too heard from Chris S. I would not want to be facing three operations. Makes me wish prayer worked.

I guess no news is good news but how are things going with Chris S.

Could someone who has this book answer a question? My recollection is that, in his treatment of honesty, Branden said expressly that honesty precludes what Peikoff calls "privacy lying" (lying in answer to a nosy question). Is this accurate?

Yes, it is accurate. Here is a quote from Lecture 10: (italics mine)

"Honesty does not mean that you owe an answer to any idle or impertinent question anyone chooses to ask you. You do not owe information to those

who have no right, purpose, or business to question you about matters which do not affect them. In such cases, honesty consists of refusing to answer,

not of lying. In such cases, you may point out, if you care to, that their question is improper, but you don't lower yourself to the status of a a liar for

the sake of their impropriety. "

Barbara

Dear Barbara,

Not to nag, but, do you think that it might be your turn to publish a transcription?

Mary Lee Harsha

I believe that Ms. Branden is working on turning her lectures into a book. I think she want to make the lectures something more than just a transcript of her Principles of Efficient Thinking course.