Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Vindication of Ayn Rand
The Autonomist ^ | 03/11/05 | Cass Hewitt

Posted on 03/11/2005 6:17:42 PM PST by Hank Kerchief

The Vindication of Ayn Rand

A review of James S. Valliant’s The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

by Cass Hewitt

Who would have thought that within the seemingly sedate and cerebral world of philosophy would be found a history to rival any Hollywood drama for intrigue, passion, seduction, lies, betrayal, black evil, and the ultimate triumph of the good—and which is also a fascinating detective story.

Among those who rose to heights of fame in the last half of the twentieth century none was as charismatic as the author-philosopher Ayn Rand. Her electrifying, radical novels depicting her fully integrated philosophy, which she named Objectivism, broke on popular consciousness like a storm and caught the enthusiasm of a generation seeking truth and values in the aridity of postmodernism. She was a sought after speaker, her public lectures filled to standing room only. She was interviewed on Prime Time television and for high circulation magazines.

She taught a philosophy of individualism in the face of rising collectivism; an ethic of adherence to reality and honesty; of objective truth against the subjectivist antirealism of the Counter Enlightenment philosophies and presented the world with a blue-print for day to day living.

On the coat tails of her fame were two young students who sought her out, convinced her their passion for her ideas was genuine and became associated with her professionally, intellectually, and ultimately personally. They were Nathaniel Branden, now a noted “self-esteem” psychology guru, and his then wife, Barbara Branden.

Not only did Branden, 25 years Rand’s junior, become her favored student, he was so professionally close to her that he gave Objectivist lectures with her, edited and wrote for the “Objectivist Newsletter”, and formed a teaching venue, the Nathaniel Branden Institute, to teach details of her philosophy to the army of readers of her novels hungry for more. Rand dedicated her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged to him (along with her husband), and named Branden her intellectual heir.

Then suddenly, in 1968, Rand issued a statement which repudiated both the Brandens, totally divorcing them from herself and her philosophy. In “To whom it may Concern,” [The Objectivist, May 1968] Rand gave her explanation for the break detailing Brandens departure from practice of the philosophy.

However, in 1989, 7 years after Rand’s death, Nathaniel Branden published his book Judgment Day, a supposedly detailed biography of his famous philosopher-mentor. In it he painted a picture of a woman very different from that recognized by her army of admirers —a dark, “repressed“, angry woman who tortured and pilloried anyone who remotely disagreed with her, with no patience for any views not exactly her own, with an almost pathological arrogance and dictatorial tyranny.

Barbara Branden published her own “warts and all” version of her reminiscences earlier, in 1986. The Passion of Ayn Rand (later made into a movie) presented a similar picture of Rand. Both categorically stated that the reason for the break between Rand and the Brandens was because Nathaniel and Rand had been involved in an extra-marital sexual relationship while still married for a period of 14 years and that Nathaniel’s refusal to continue the affair had reduced a tyrannical Rand to hysterics.

Rand is presented as a seriously psychologically disturbed individual whose very philosophy was not only flawed but dangerous. Both books and their authors have become accepted as the last and most reliable “word” on Ayn Rand, and most works describing Rand today mainly trace back to these two as sources.

However, in 2002 a prosecuting lawyer, James Valliant, published on the Internet the results of his examination of these two books. Studied with the critical eye of a dispassionate investigative mind he saw serious errors: major contradictions both within each book and between both. Apparent to him was that a major act of deliberate deception had been perpetrated by these two well known, highly respected adherents of Rand’s philosophy.

For a considerable time before the final split the Brandens had drifted away from Rand’s philosophy but it was much worse. They lied to her about themselves, the state of their marriage, their multiple sexual affairs, and Nathaniel Branden’s secret four year love affair with another woman while he was supposedly carrying on a sexual liaison with Rand herself . Worst of all, was the reason for the deception. The lies enabled them to use her name to promote their own early publications and the considerable income they were deriving from the “spin-offs“. Nathaniel Branden admits that he frequently “paced the floor” trying to work out how not to wreck the “life he had built up for himself” as Objectivism’s authorized representative. At his wife’s urging that he admit his secret affair to Rand he responded “not until after she writes the forward for my book."

As the author states, “the persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand’s life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.” He amply demonstrates, taking their own words from their critiques of Rand, to substantiate his conclusion that “they will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate and omit whenever convenient… [where] necessary they will pull out of their magical hats a very “private” conversation that one of them “once” had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies.”

Their criticisms of Rand are personal and “psychological,” perfect examples of the psychologizing Rand denounced, attempting to demonstrate that Rand did not live up to her own philosophy. Barbara Branden makes total about face contradictions within a few pages; draws conclusions from nearly non-existent evidence such as a single old family photo and uses such alien to Objectivism concepts as “feminine instincts” and “subjective preferences” without the bother of defining these terms.

In her The Passion of Ayn Rand, Ms. Branden draws personal psychological conclusions without any evidence. Examples such as “Her Fathers’ seeming indifference ..{had} ..to be a source of anguish.. as an adult, she always spoke as if [they] were simple facts of reality, of no emotional significance.. one can only conclude that a process of self-protective emotional repression [was deep rooted]…” and further “In all my conversations with Ayn Rand about her years in Russia she never once mentioned to me [any] encounter ..with anti-Semitism. It is all but impossible that there were not such encounters.. One can only assume that ... the pain was blocked from her memory … perhaps because the memory would have carried with it an unacceptable feeling of humiliation” Assumptions, which Valliant says, prove nothing.

It is interesting to note that Ms. Branden was an ardent supporter of Rand until immediately after the break, when such wild accusations and psychologizing rationalizations cut from whole cloth began. Indeed, Ms. Branden can be read at public Internet forums doing the very same thing to this day.

Nathaniel Branden is even more revealing. His own words not only carry the same blatant unreal contradictions as Ms. Brandens’ but he also reveals a twisted mentality capable of totally unethical acts which he then tries to portray as his victim’s faults. For example, he accuses Rand of being authoritarian and “causing us to repress our true selves” and offers as evidence his own lying sycophancy, agreeing with Rand on issues he was later to claim he had always disagreed; praising Rand's insight in topics such as psychology in which field, he says, she had little experience. Considering that it was Rand's endorsement of him he was seeking, his behavior constitutes, as Valliant says, “spiritual embezzlement.”

The complete lack of value in anything either of the Branden’s have to say about Ayn Rand is summed up with pithy succinctness by the author: “We have seen [they] will distort and exaggerate the evidence, and that they have repeatedly suppressed vital evidence and [employ] creativity in recollecting it. Both exhibit internal confusions and numerous self contradictions. The only consistencies are the passionate biases that emanate from their personal experiences. These factors all combine to render their biographical efforts useless to the serious historian.”

James Valliant has done more than demonstrate the complete invalidity—including a viscous character assassination—of both the Brandens books. Using the clear logic and language of an experienced prosecuting lawyer, with only essential editing, he has presented and interpreted Rand’s own private notes, made while she was acting as psychological counselor for Nathaniel Branden. These show her mind in action as she analyses the language of, and finally understands the bitter truth about, the man she had once loved.

Mr. Valliant not only demonstrates this is a tragic story of assault on innocence by a viciously duplicitous person, it is also an amazing detective story, and the detective is none other than Ayn Rand herself.

Over the four years of emotionally painful psychological counseling Rand gave Branden for his supposed sexual dysfunction, we see a brilliant mind carefully dissecting the truths she unearthed. By applying her own philosophy to Branden’s methods of thinking although still unaware of the worst of his deceptions, we see Rand slowly reaching her horrifying conclusion.

The picture of Rand which shines out through her notes is of a woman of amazing depths of compassion; who would not judge or condemn if she could not understand why a person thought and felt as they did; who would give all her time and energy to try to understand and help someone she believed was suffering and in need of guidance.

The facts indicate the sexual affair was apparently over 4 years before the final public split, though Mr. Valiant is careful to say he is only certain it had ended by the start of 1968 and that it was Rand, not Branden, who ended the relationship because she had finally understood his subjectivism, deceits (including financial misappropriation) and mental distortions.

From the flaws in their own works and from Rand's concurrent notes of the time it is clearly apparent that in her 1968 statement of repudiation, Rand told the truth about events and the Brandens lied. Throughout all of her years with them, Rand behaved with the integrity followers of her work would have expected. And, to quote Mr. Valliant, “The Brandens were dishonest with Rand about nearly everything a person can be … largely to maintain the good thing they had going at NBI. This dishonesty lasted for years. ..[They] not only lied to Rand, they lied to their readers .. [and] then they lied about their lies. Ever since they have continued to lie in memoirs and biographies about their lies, calling Rand's 1968 statement ‘libelous’. This remarkable all-encompassing dishonesty is manifest from these biographies and all the more apparent now we have Rand's journal entries from the same period.”

Her generous nature was unable to conceive the full truth about Nathaniel Branden. It is left to Valliant to finish the story, taking it to its full and final dreadful conclusion, showing exactly what it was Nathaniel Branden had deliberately done to this innocent, brilliant, compassionate woman, and what both the Brandens, whom Rand rejected as having any association at all with her philosophy, are still doing to this day—and why.

In the end, those who have used the Branden’s lies to claim the philosophy of Objectivism “doesn’t work, because it’s author couldn’t follow the precepts,” are shown to be completely wrong. Rand used her philosophy and psycho-epistemology to discover the truth; her philosophy to guide her actions in dealing with it and finally to lift her above the heartbreak and pain it caused her.

There is something almost operatic in the telling: A great woman, a great mind, who conceived of a philosophy of love for and exalted worship of the best in the human mind, who defended with searing anger the right of all people to be free to discover happiness, being deceived by the one person she believed to be her equal, her lover and heir, who had lied to and manipulated her for his own gains while she was alive and vilified her name and distorted with calumny the image of her personality after her death.

Perhaps in nothing else is her greatness better shown, than that she was able to rise above the cataclysm and live and laugh again. She always said, “Evil is a negative.. It can do nothing unless we let it.” In her life she lived that and proved it true.



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: aynrand; barbarabranden; bookreview; culminy; natanielbranden; objectivism; vindication
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-319 next last
To: Hank Kerchief

I used to be such a fan of Objectivism. Now I'm interested in (though not committed to) the opposite - total Subjectivism. Not as a product of relativism, but instead as an observation that it's the natural state of things, no matter what. Even objectivists must operate within their own reference frame.

The questions I can't ignore are - why ignore that which you know? Yes, they are biases, and so....? You should use all the information you have to make good choices. Why throw out certain facts?

What's the difference between loyalty and favoritism, for example, if I'm going to embrace my wife, even when I KNOW she's wrong? No Objectivist can expect to fulfill the requirements of a marriage contract, where some blind loyalty need exist (and I wouldn't have it another way, nor would she).

I'm still a big fan of Ayn Rand for her take on social structure and the simple philosophy that "I own that which I own"... roughly equivalent to her 'a is a' assertion (though that's debatable in some respects. Two apples are two different apples, and so all things are different as the space and time they occupy helps define them, in my opinion; a is NOT a - they are two different "a"'s).


21 posted on 03/11/2005 6:50:49 PM PST by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

I'm about half way thru The Fountainhead,and the Branden's sound like some of her characters.I've ck'd out AR on the net,but this(the Branden's)is news to me.What luck,she befriended a couple of sociopaths.


22 posted on 03/11/2005 6:51:28 PM PST by thombo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
"Who's John Galt" stickers were plastered all over campus, (Rutgers 1961). I was hooked. I bought the book and being a Sci Fi guy his motor seemed surreal. Having grown up in a Democratic family I didn't understand her philosophy at first. But like Churchill says when you're young you act from the heart and are "liberal". As you grow and mature you act from your intellect and become conservative.

All the Alan Colmes of the world are in a state of arrested development!

23 posted on 03/11/2005 6:55:01 PM PST by Young Werther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FreeKeys

ping the Ayn Rand list?


24 posted on 03/11/2005 6:55:43 PM PST by RobFromGa (Bush Needs to Stay Aggressive in Term 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thombo

Nathaniel Branden has some books on self esteem which don't seem too bad. It seems strange because I went to a lecture of his last year and after that I have read some of Rand's works not knowing all the history between the two.


25 posted on 03/11/2005 6:58:33 PM PST by jcdc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
"There is something almost operatic in the telling: "

Yea, over dramatized, myopic and dark. After studying Objectivism casually for 5 years, it was a downer to log onto HPO and see the best of them eating each other alive over minutia.

I suppose it’s inevitable that such a great and destabilizing power as Objectivist ideas would shake the personal lives of its pioneers, but I’d rather see people use the philosophy to our advantage and get our drama externally.

26 posted on 03/11/2005 7:00:38 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lester Moore
"It is a good book but is not the best writing. It's ideas are more important than her writing style. "

I agree. You may have seen the spoof of her writing style Atlas Dined posted here.

27 posted on 03/11/2005 7:05:42 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
but it's a pain in the arse. There's no excuse for the repetition and flowery cliche in some places

I loved the book, but I hated reading it....there were times when I found myself pulling my hair and thinking "Okay! We get it, move on!"

28 posted on 03/11/2005 7:09:45 PM PST by SC Swamp Fox (Aim small, miss small.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

What about Alan Greenspan? he had been her pretoge money guy. He had several articles in her periodical denouncing the very activity that he does now.

In the 60's he fully supported the gold standard, and in fact, made strong arguments to redouble efforts to institute the gold standard.

Since, he has become the darling of the global money elite.


29 posted on 03/11/2005 7:11:23 PM PST by SFC Chromey (Was deployed 26 of the last 48 months, and I'd do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SFC Chromey

Yea, I never quite understood his evolution.


30 posted on 03/11/2005 7:13:14 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: elfman2
At first I was intrigued by the promise of a different take on the story of The Split. But as you say...
"There is something almost operatic in the telling: "

Yea, over dramatized, myopic and dark.

From the review it sounds more Biblical to me. Every God needs a golden boy protege/assistant whose spiritual imperfections causes him to turn on God Him/Herself and become The Satan.

After studying Objectivism casually for 5 years, it was a downer to log onto HPO and see the best of them eating each other alive over minutia.

Yep.

31 posted on 03/11/2005 7:14:00 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Debugging Windows Programs by McKay & Woodring)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
I think the dark side saw this guys genius levels, figured they couldn't fool him, offered him unlimited everything, if he would drop his resentments to currency supported by air.
32 posted on 03/11/2005 7:19:29 PM PST by SFC Chromey (Was deployed 26 of the last 48 months, and I'd do it again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Your post has nothing to do with philosophy. It does have something to do with weak minds and the vice of idolatry.


33 posted on 03/11/2005 7:25:22 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gorush
I envy you...it's the only book I have read multiple times.

It's the only novel I've ever read that really needs an index.

34 posted on 03/11/2005 7:25:26 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Notice how this article doesn't mention any specifics. No counterarguments, nothing. It just smears the Brandens and fawns over Rand.


35 posted on 03/11/2005 7:27:54 PM PST by billybudd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: elfman2

That's an awesome find! Bookmarked for later.

I always thought Atlas Shrugged was about 200 pages too short. There should have been more development on John Galt. Like, the years he worked as a laborer, and the other guys would make fun of him for working on his nerdy projects instead of joining them for a beer. When they would ask why he did it, he would answer "Who is John Galt?", and they would say "You're John Galt, you idiot!"

On several occasions, he would go to his flop-house apartment where he worked on his machine, only to find the door kicked open by some local ne'er do well, causing his machine to turn to dust and he'd have to start all over. Galt would always mumble "Damn, I gotta get a stronger door!"


36 posted on 03/11/2005 7:28:42 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
"From the review it sounds more Biblical to me. Every God needs a golden boy protege/assistant whose spiritual imperfections causes him to turn on God Him/Herself and become The Satan. "

[smile] I’ve never seen Objectivists fail to give enough attention to their differences.

37 posted on 03/11/2005 7:29:41 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hank Rearden

Quit bitching. At least you got to bang Dagney.

Rearden metal bracelet, my ass!


38 posted on 03/11/2005 7:30:40 PM PST by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
That bracelet, and its wearer, have been around.

No complaints, though - quality time, quality time.

39 posted on 03/11/2005 7:33:33 PM PST by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido
"When they would ask why he did it, he would answer "Who is John Galt?", and they would say "You're John Galt, you idiot!" "

That’s the kind of thing the book needs! Some white space to bring out the shapes.

40 posted on 03/11/2005 7:35:42 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 301-319 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson