The Split in a Nutshell

[Danneskjold]

The one thing I must say about Objectivists is we seem to be extremely fascinated with our own intelligence. Now, it may not always be a bad thing to think and speak intellectually, but people here refuse to explain in layman's terms what happened with Objectivism and the whole split story. I don't know what the hell's going on with you guys. The whole split preceded my birth by about twenty years and so I have not the slightest inkling of what's going on other than that according to the Brandens they got screwed and according to one of the other groups the Brandens deserved it. Also I've drawn that Ayn Rand wanted to make sure that her philosophical discussion left no room for interpretation, which I can understand seeing as according to Objectivism there's always only one correct answer.

So please, for my sake and perhaps the sake of some other members, will someone explain the split up of Objectivism in a nutshell and with words that a person with a good vocabulary but perhaps not an extremely advanced one.

Edited November 5, 2006 by Danneskjold

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Danneskjold,

I don't want to disillusion you, but the Rand-Branden split, and the maintenance of Branden hatred over all these years by the orthodoxy, is no different than almost any conflict in human history.

It is all about money, sex and power, not necessarily and consistently in equal portions and not necessarily in that order.

Unfortunately, the philosophy itself, which is a marvelous achievement, has not had much of an influence on the events.

That is about as simple as I can make it.

Michael

[Mikee]

Danneskjold,

The "split" is not important except to certain people who have an ax to grind. The true details and context are only known to the participants. Any discussion by outsiders [EVERYONE else] simply becomes an argument.

[Brant Gaede]

The one thing I must say about Objectivists is we seem to be extremely fascinated with our own intelligence. Now, it may not always be a bad thing to think and speak intellectually, but people here refuse to explain in layman's terms what happened with Objectivism and the whole split story. I don't know what the hell's going on with you guys. The whole split preceded my birth by about twenty years and so I have not the slightest inkling of what's going on other than that according to the Brandens they got screwed and according to one of the other groups the Brandens deserved it. Also I've drawn that Ayn Rand wanted to make sure that her philosophical discussion left no room for interpretation, which I can understand seeing as according to Objectivism there's always only one correct answer.

So please, for my sake and perhaps the sake of some other members, will someone explain the split up of Objectivism in a nutshell and with words that a person with a good vocabulary but perhaps not an extremely advanced one.

Getting screwed is a pretty universal human condition. Life goes on. People come together then friction drives them apart. The refusal to accept and deal with the friction means many live in the past, at least in some respects. The residue is a turf war and not so proper representations of what Objectivism is as a philosophy and in one's life. Ayn Rand had it right; she was the center of her universe. Her followers have it wrong for she is the moral center of their lives. Such a person must be or become a fantasy or mythic figure.

--Brant

Edited November 5, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Ellen Stuttle]

You guys are giving him talk in the sky. I think that what he wants to know is the brass tacks of what happened. Here it is, brief form:

Ayn and Nathaniel started having an affair (both their respective spouses knew about it) in January 1955.

After the publication of Atlas -- and the generally negative reception by the intelligentsia -- Ayn fell into a depression and for the most part discontinued the affair.

Some years later, she wanted to continue. Meanwhile, Nathaniel (who by then was separated from Barbara) had fallen in love with and started an affair with a younger woman named Patrecia. He kept Ayn at bay with various pretexts and excuses.

Eventually, he told Barbara what was going on between him and Patrecia, and eventually Barbara insisted that Ayn had to be told the full truth (Ayn had meanwhile been told part of the truth, that NB was interested in Patrecia, but not that he'd already been having an affair with Patrecia for four years).

Ayn, furious, decided to show Nathaniel the door. She became angry enough with Barbara in the final stages, she showed Barbara the door, too.

That's the basic sequence, "in a nutshell."

Ellen

___

Edited November 5, 2006 by Ellen Stuttle

[Victor Pross]

Man, it must be difficult walking on eggshells hoping you don’t make those little crunching sounds.

[Danneskjold]

Thank you Ellen. Now I know what happened.

So what happened exactly once the split was complete? What are the differences in philosophy? I understand that Peikoff worships the ground Rand walked on, and I presume that the Brandens hold Rand in a respectable light intellectually at least. Are there any other major differences than how strictly someone follows Rand?

[Chris Grieb]

Danneskold; I think that if you will look at Nathaniel's books in a couple of them he has annoted essays he published first in the Objectivist. He has a few comments of emphiasis and or disagreement. He also wrote an essay The Benefits and Hazards about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. On the last I don't have the full title but if you go to Branden's web site you should find it. Peikoff has published a brief memoir Thirty Years with Ayn Rand. Charles and Mary Ann Sures have published a book Facets of Ayn Rand which talks about their relationship with Ayn and Frank. The split is over and done with so don't spend too much time on the issue. The last come from someone who went through it and does not want to go through something like that again. Good luck!

[Bidinotto]

Danneskjold, you may find this helpful:

http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth-34-1738-.aspx

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Danneskjold, I have two criteria for dealing with the schismology in the Objectivist Movement:

1. An honest search for truth 2. People shouldn't be censored for expressing their opinions on this and other topics.

Jim

[Ciro]

The split wasn't more than the return-for everyone- to their natural mental balance.

It had to happen, or they would have been all insane by now.

Ciro

[Rich Engle]

The Break<tm>, given that it involved charismatic leaders of a powerful movement, displayed retro-virus like power. It became a group psychodrama. Even in recent days, decades after all this, opportunists, movement-climbers have, sadly, parlayed some attention to themselves by climbing on the back of an ancient, personal misery. In the end, none of them will benefit long haul from that bush league punk-ass stuff. Because? Because none of it has anything to do with them, or anyone else other than the principals themselves.

Event becomes legend, legend becomes myth... Storytelling is a very powerful thing, but power can be used to different ends.

And, people love high content dirt, just as much as they love rubbernecking accidents.

It'll never die, but with any luck it will continue to become less significant.

[Chris Grieb]

The Break<tm>, given that it involved charismatic leaders of a powerful movement, displayed retro-virus like power. It became a group psychodrama. Even in recent days, decades after all this, opportunists, movement-climbers have, sadly, parlayed some attention to themselves by climbing on the back of an ancient, personal misery. In the end, none of them will benefit long haul from that bush league punk-ass stuff. Because? Because none of it has anything to do with them, or anyone else other than the principals themselves.

Event becomes legend, legend becomes myth... Storytelling is a very powerful thing, but power can be used to different ends.

And, people love high content dirt, just as much as they love rubbernecking accidents.

It'll never die, but with any luck it will continue to become less significant.

Rich; Am I supposed to think Valliant.

[Rich Engle]

Chris-

Um, er... (sputter)...

You're the master of your own thoughts?

rde

I promised the Maestro, I did I did I did...

[Peri]

Now, now...why drag in Valliant? His book adds nothing to the practice of Objectivism as a philosophy at the end of the day, does it?

Ok, so it made some noise amongst certain individuals, but most of the people out there in the world at large who admire Rand's philosophy remain untouched by it, because it quite frankly doesn't matter to them. They absorb what they absorb through Rand's work.

Just my opinion....

[Victor Pross]

Well, well, Peri...you're back. I missed you.

[Peri]

Well, well, Peri...you're back. I missed you.

Oh Victor, I am flattered. I was moonlighting on the internet board hosted by Lennon's kid, who's just put out a quite tasty new album called "Friendly Fire." Met a few Sean Lennon fans interested in Rand on that board, btw.

That off-topic stuff being said, I would tell the original poster that Ms. Stuttle pretty much summed up 'the break' pretty well, and not to dwell on it too much. It might be interesting from a biographical or historical perspective, but I think you can be an Objectivist w/o aligning yourself to any particular "camp" but the only one that matters--your own.

[Kat]

Hey Peri, missed ya! I'm interested in taking a look at the other site, after all I did name my kid after that guy. I really haven't kept up with him at all or heard any of his music. Good stuff? Can you send me the url?

Back on topic. Three ingredients intensify the mix.

1) Lovers – Nathaniel dumped Ayn and she tried to destroy him and told people to pick a side...and many did. (sex)

2) Family – We all know that family feuds are the worst type. Leonard & Barbara are cousins and she brought him into the fold, he airbrushes the Brandens out of O'ist history and has financially burdened them with lawsuits. (money)

3) Envy – Leonard never was named "Intellectual Heir" by Ayn, but Nathaniel was. (power)

Stir the pot a bit and you will find a a recipe for a bit more than a split based on philosophical differences, (although there are some very basic philosophical differences at the heart of the Peikoff-Kelly split). Again, it basically boils down to sex, money and power. Reading "To Whom it May Concern" is very telling. Unfortunately, it cannot be posted online. As you read things over time, you will find that sometimes Objectivists aren't that Objective, just human.

Kat

[Peri]

Hey Peri, missed ya! I'm interested in taking a look at the other site, after all I did name my kid after that guy. I really haven't kept up with him at all or heard any of his music. Good stuff? Can you send me the url?

Back on topic. Three ingredients intensify the mix.

Stir the pot a bit and you will find a a recipe for a bit more than a split based on philosophical differences, (although there are some very basic philosophical differences at the heart of the Peikoff-Kelly split). Again, it basically boils down to sex, money and power. Reading "To Whom it May Concern" is very telling. Unfortunately, it cannot be posted online. As you read things over time, you will find that sometimes Objectivists aren't that Objective, just human.

Kat

Including the original Objectivist herself. In some places, that's dangerous to say. Happily, this isn't one of those places.

Kat, I love the way you boiled that down to its elements. Sex/Money/Power. The stuff that makes the world go 'round -- and why the *story* remains so potent, even today. Whatever else you may think of humanity, I think we are all are suckers for a good story. Which Rand obviously knew, since she chose to express some of her deepest thinking through writing fiction.

[Addicted2learn]

As a newcomer to an O'ist way of life....it is a valid question that bears scrutiny. You literally cannot read about objectivism without stumbling across this topic. Even on this board it is blatently obvious. O'ist seem to side with one or the other. Split barely touches the contraversary. I personally am just now learning more about the Brandens. I still have yet to form an opinion (lack of knowledge), but am willing and have an open mind to see both sides.

Thus far I have only a "hollywood" examples to pull from which I take with a grain of salt. In the two movies I have seen, one from Piekoff and one from B. Branden it is apparent that POV is/was a main ingredient. For whatever its worth...IMO A Sense of Life (which barely touched on it) was more....forgiving I'll say than The Passion of Ayn Rand (which was more the theme).

One of the biggest things I took from TPoAR, was that Ayn Rand was human afterall In my experience O'ist do place her on an immortal pedestal. While I do have a very hard time with some of the chosen script (ie: Ms. Rand faulting B. Branden for being "selfish") I can only take in consideration that it was an axe she had to grind or that it really happened the way she said, or that it was the hollywood spin. In any case (considering her involvement), I did grasp the final concept that only those who were involved will ever know the final truth in the matter.

What I am curious of is why is Peikoff such tabboo here? I have not yet read his or Brandens works (but plan to read both); but for what seemingly seems like such an open forum on "Objectivist Living" I am perplexed by this. He (from what I have thus gathered) has an important role in forwarding the O'ist movement. Please parden any ignorance I may demonstrate in this...I am said "virgin" in these here waters I would think( from what I have thus grasped from you fine folks) that at least his POV would be considered more than the "nameless one" or "that other guy". Do their opinions vary that much? Is it just different context or is it personal preference? Does anyone have suggested readings for either? I am working my way through AR works first...but curiosity bodes answers on which to read next.

[Rich Engle]

Well, I'll be glad to answer that, as the resident (yet further integrated) heretic.

Peikoff? Hmmm.... simple.

I'd rather go out to dinner with Nathaniel than Leonard.

I'm breaking the no-flyzone rule, but hey, it's pent up.

I hear these shrill guys like Cathcart and Weiss going off about Nathaniel, under their new umbrella (PARC, have you READ PARC?).

I don't talk to him these days, but I've worked with him in business, and I've attended his lectures/workshops. Here's the deal: He's not the goddamn Antichrist. As a matter of fact he is very much, above all, a fantastic businessman. Nathaniel doesn't need defense, this is more along the line of bragging rights. To call him sleazy simply belies; it makes you a dumbass. Worse-- it makes you the kind of person that would never have the stones to say that kind of thing right to a man, when he's staring you in the eye.

Example Regarding How People Have Fun With Being Captain Obvious:

The whole www.nathanielbranden.net cybersquatting porno episode. Now, this can happen to anyone. RCR, I have not talked to (he is admin of NB's Yahoo site). One thing that Ms. Hsieh does not make frequent mention of is the, er, objective fact that she was, for a good time, Nathaniel's web-mistress.

As a standalone, this doesn't really mean any matter, but I'm just sayin'.

Cathcart, once again, was a in full form as far as inept clown mode when he went for a statement regarding something as typical as a dot-net site getting jacked for porno. Did you hear what he said? The soul of a mystic! He said (reasonably accurate paraphrasing) that it had something to do with "the man's sleazy history."

Goddamn brilliant. Take the father of the self-esteem movement, and cobble up an association with his (former) website getting jacked for porno. Talk about loose association. Basically, he was implying that Nathaniel's karma got him what he deserved. Rightio!

I've played pool with sleazy bikers that busted out better moves than that one. He is such a master of humour!! Nothing like witty, dinnertable rep-pahr-tay! Yes!

But back to Peikoff. Keep it simple: AR lost her stud (and make no mistake about it, NB may not have full Elvis power but he definitely has Tom Jones power, William Shatner power, at lthe least), she got scorned, and she went for the 180 opposite choice. That's why you have a troll like Leonard Peikoff running the battleship, such as it is. He's capable, and he's still even smart. That's not the problem. He's just not Atomic Playboy quality.

NB remains a stud. Peikoff never was. Poor Leonard, as they say.

There, that should do it.

rde

It's all about the company you keep.

[Addicted2learn]

ok...lol...that's the fluff, and....LMAO I have no idea what you are referencing with the site or the peeps involved. I am truly the :baby: in the woods here. Even while you call him a troll, you mention his intelligence...... Bottom line, does he warrent my time reading his works? Which is better to further my understanding of Objectivism? I'm not looking for a stud, lover or playboy...just a decent understanding of objectivism on a deeper level. Like I said...I am still working my way through Ayn Rand's writings. It would be nice to have follow up and an addition POV, an addendum in more modern times if you will.

[Rich Engle]

Have you read PARC?

(*heh*)

Make your own choices. Read Peikoff. Personally, I can't stand his work, because it has very little innovation in it, it's more like gospel preaching. Although, like anyone else he does have his moments.

You be the judge-- that's the lesson anyway.

If you have read, at minimum, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, you already understand. Then you can read Barbara's "The Passion of Ayn Rand," and Nathaniel's "My Years With Ayn Rand."

That way you can find out who these two evil-doers are. Rightio!

I love all these characterizations of Barbara, in particular. She hangs around here, thank heavens. I've never met the woman but we correspond from time to time. I know she's a sweetheart and a total hottie. How's that? Once again: I'd rather go out to dinner with her than Leonard. That's how I measure things, basically.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Amy,

You should read everything and come to your own conclusions. Nothing beats your own judgment in your life. I am frankly biased on this issue, so I am not really your best independent source. I encourage you to get the other side as well. I am a good source of information, though.

About Peikoff being taboo, he is not really taboo. He is Barbara Branden's cousin, although they are estranged. She is the one who introduced him to Ayn Rand back in the 50's. As OL is a site devoted to honoring her and Nathaniel Branden as part of its reason for existence, there is an inevitable antipathy toward those who attack the Brandens.

As you become more familiar with the Objectivist subculture, one thing will stand out (with an exception now and then). Most of the enmity comes from the Peikoff/ARI camp. Whenever you see some kind aggressive behavior on this side of the divide it is usually due to responding to a vicious attack. A recent exception was the The Lepers of Objectivism, where Barbara actively proclaimed that people who wish to bomb schools and homes based on the ideas the people hold (and nothing more) be shunned. This is the first time I ever recall her doing that, and IMHO it was for a very good reason. Objectivists simply cannot promote using force against schools and literal censorship on pain of death by bombing or nukes. That is nuts and it needs to be denounced.

Whenever you see an attack from the Peikoff/ARI camp, it is usually in the name of "defending the honor" of Ayn Rand, or keeping Objectivism "pure" as a closed system, or something like that. They hurl many accusations of evasion, immorality, dishonesty, etc., but it all boils down to Rand worship. They venerate Rand as a goddess and do not accept contrary views, even when the evidence is rock-solid against something she did.

Let there be no mistake. On this side of the divide, the Peikoff/ARI crowd constantly accuses us of trying to denigrate Rand's image. However, all of the people I have known and met over here hold Ayn Rand up as a major benefactor of humanity and a great woman. We do see her flaws, however, and do not cringe at discussing them. Truth is held higher than any single person, but Rand's merit is never in question.

Frankly, if it were not for the grandstanding, power games, wholesale accusations, excommunications, etc., coming from the Peikoff/ARI side, there wouldn't even be a divide. There are some highlights on OL I can point you toward that clearly show the aggressive behavior of that crowd:

Air brushed Objectivist publications and materials

I am presently writing an article based on this (if I ever finish the thing), but I can tell you that the air-brushing goes way beyond removing the names of the Brandens. In works like The Ayn Rand Lexicon, which is an ARI-sanctioned publication, you will find whole Objectivist concepts omitted when they came from Nathaniel Branden--for instance, "social metaphysics." They promote Branden hatred to the point of trying to alter the philosophy itself.

Barbara Branden, Robert Hessen and the 1998 Rand Auction

Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism

These are all documented instances with plenty of material directly quoted from both sides, so it is very easy (when you get the time to read all that) to judge without fear of making a mistake.

Despite my bias, I always try to present the facts and let them speak for themselves. I try to hold "moral condemnations" down to a minimum. For every 100 names thrown at me, I will give one back. Here is a funny list of the names I have been called in under 2 years total of Internet activity in the Objectivist subculture for daring to challenge the dogmatic aspects of Objectivism and for standing up to some petty little guru-wannabees.

You won't see this behavior on OL because Kat and I decided to establish a place where Objectivist ideas can be discussed without all that foolishness.

If you have a real strong stomach and a whole lot of time, you can go through the discussion threads of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. As the author (Valliant) participated in many of the discussions, you will be able to get a close-up look at his manner of his reasoning (and that of his supporters). It is a very interesting study in cult-like crowd psychology.

But like I said, don't let me influence you.

Michael

[Addicted2learn]

thank you both....my reading list seems to never end now...which is a good thing w/ the exception of time

stated elsewhere but I have read Atlas, Fountainhead, Anthem, We the living, and have The Romantic Manefesto and the Epistomology(?)....waiting for me at the library.

I know...in the end it is my own opinion and interpretation that matters, but I was just curious. Thank you Michael, for your reply because it was one of your comments I was referencing and its nice to see you hold up to my original opinion. Don't get me wrong...I wasn't fishing or testing, just curious. Wow your list of names is indeed impressive

Every situation has two sides, especially something as intense as this split seems to be. Coming from someone so new to Objectivism, it is truly a pleasure to see my (ahem) "faith" in this site has proved to be valid. I will eventually read both Peikoff and the Brandens works, I was looking for a starter direction.

well...as for me No, I do not think Ayn Rand is infallable- Yes, I have come across a few of these zealots.

From what I have read thus far, this site is as you and Kat intended Michael. and just the kind of place I was looking for...a place to not get instantly bashed as soon as you bring up an alternative POV. A place to learn and share ideas and to further my own growth. As biased as you may be, you still have the fortitude to venture "across the lines" and inform. Thank you again.

oh and BTW-what is PARC?

Edited December 10, 2006 by Addicted2learn