Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

A Review Of The Passion Of Ayn Rand's Critics

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Diana from NoodleFood,

Casey Fahy e-mailed me this morning to alert me to a fantastic review by Peter Cresswell of James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (PARC). It's perhaps the most passionate book review I've ever read -- and thus perfectly appropriate to its subject. It's also a delight to read, so I'm pleased to strongly recommend it. Those who've already devoured PARC are sure to particularly appreciate its stubborn refusal to mince words. To whet your appetite, let me just quote one bit from the opening. Peter writes that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is:

... a book by author James Valliant--a San Diego prosecuting attorney--that examines the monstrous duplicity of her biographers, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, across almost the entire eighteen years of their time as associates of Rand. It is impossible both to admire Ayn Rand and to read this book unmoved. Valliant the attorney is out to convict, but Valliant the author makes abundantly plain--well beyond reasonable doubt--that Nathaniel Branden exploited Rand sexually and romantically, and that both Brandens exploited her professionally and emotionally, and did so consciously and fraudulently. To this day the Brandens continue with the deception, only now with us as dupes.

To put their story in a nutshell, in order to advance themselves by association with Rand they pretended to be what they were not, and in the end they both got burned by it. All else is obfuscation.

The scale of their duplicity is vast: it stretches almost from the time they first met Rand to the time of her death, and extends even after that with biographies and memoirs published after her passing that, as Valliant shows conclusively, are mired in contradiction and embroidered with tissues of self-serving lies. Rand was and still is a meal-ticket for both Branden, B., and Branden, N.; they have both done their best to consume her for their ends, and to dishonestly denigrate the philosophy and the woman they once claimed to represent.

All true.

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics reveals with crystal clarity the ongoing-to-this-day dishonesty, exploitation, injustice, and malice of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in their dealings with Ayn Rand. In so doing, it completely undermines their portrayals of Ayn Rand as a vengeful philosophical tyrant. Even better, Ayn Rand's journals reveal her heroic benevolence, patience, and honesty in her attempts to right the relationship.

In my own case, I realized that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were evil before reading PARC, just based upon Nathaniel's dishonest smears of Objectivism in his Benefits and Hazards essay and Barbara's disgusting psychologizing in The Passion of Ayn Rand. However, I didn't know just thoroughly dishonest, manipulative, and unjust they were and are until I read James Valliant's book. It was an eye-opener, even for me.

Like so many other people, reviewer Peter Cresswell was "persuaded reluctantly" to read PARC, yet he says that is "very happy" that he did. And he read it honestly, as his review shows.

Others dare not be so honest.

Bob Bidinotto has praised Barbara's The Passion of Ayn Rand for years. He contributed a quote to its back cover, describing it as "an epic tale of soaring ecstasy and searing pain, of unbelievable triumph and unspeakable tragedy." Yet just about the time that PARC was published, he decided that he's not so interested in Ayn Rand's life after all. On SoloPassion, he wrote:

My alleged "silence" about the controversy caused by your book, Mr. Valliant, has been anything but -- as my many, many posts on SOLOHQ can easily demonstrate to anyone with your proven dedication to research. Rather, as I made clear again and again, its contents simply don't interest me. The Brandens's accounts of her intimate life hold no interest for me, and neither does yours. The whole point of Mr. Fahy's post here is that such disinterest constitutes "evasion." Baloney. Years ago I finally had a gutful of all the arguments about Ayn Rand's person and private life. At some point, the poking and picking at the details, rumors, and gossip surrounding the intimate relationships of a dead woman became unseemly, even morbid.

Ed Hudgins demonstrated a similar lack of interest in the book, despite the fact that his organization regularly invites Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to speak at conferences and the like. Although willing to read criticisms of the book, he's not all that interested in reading the book itself. He said: "Robert -- Great to have you back posting on SOLO! How are you doing? Very thoughtful analysis of the Valient/Rand book. I've only glanced at it since I'm more interested in the ideas rather than personality issues, but I'll give the AR entries a read."

These two men know full well that Jim Valliant's book is a bombshell regarding the moral characters of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. They have seen many, many reports of people dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens upon reading PARC on SoloHQ and SoloPassion. Moreover, these men are the top brass of The Objectivist Center, an organization supposedly devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy, but with strong ties to both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

Yet they're not interested in the book. It's irrelevant to them. They do not care to learn that two people so intimately involved with their organization for so many years are thoroughly corrupt and dishonest. They are unconcerned that these people are the major source of vicious lies about Ayn Rand's life. They aren't bothered by the fact that Nathaniel's criticisms of Objectivism as encouraging repression are the figments of his own twisted psychology. They are happy to present these people as experts on Objectivism, even though they're still just pretending. They do not even care that they are aiding and abetting the Brandens' in their vengeful quest to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by offering them a seemingly respectable platform from which to do so.

In short, Ed Hudgins and Bob Bidinotto are determined to tolerate the evil of the Brandens, come hell or high water, yet too cowardly to even learn precisely what they are doing. As Casey Fahy said ever-so-colorfully in the comments on the review: "In reality, those who cling to the dirty bathwater of the Brandens are willing to throw the baby out just to keep wallowing in their filth for another bit of pseudo-Objectivist flattery from the false idols they have chosen to worship."

In my view, Jim Valliant's case against Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is so overwhelming that no honest person can read it without dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens for the worse -- and of Ayn Rand for the better. Moreover, a person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward. There's just no excuse for self-inflicted blindness -- particularly not from people with any measure of trust in or contact with the Brandens.

And yes, that includes those who attend TOC Summer Seminars, claiming that TOC's involvement with the Brandens isn't important. As PARC shows, Nathaniel Branden is determined to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by whatever dishonest means he can -- all because Ayn Rand dared to reject him after discovering his years and years of immorality concealed by deception. Such a person ought never speak under the banner of a supposedly Objectivist organization, particularly not with his reputation as some kindly grandfather of Objectivism. Any supposedly Objectivist organization willing to give him a platform ought to be boycotted -- by every person who sincerely values Ayn Rand's philosophy. The issue is just that serious: it's like attending a "Freedom Summit" with Uncle Joe Stalin as the keynote speaker.

So please do read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics -- sooner rather than later. No honest man will regret the few hours spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree completely with Diana's post: Valliant's book is a must-read for anyone who wishes to promote Objectivism. It is a bombshell that blasts decades of deception and dishonesty by the Brandens -- and lays to rest the numerous falsehoods about Miss Rand's personal life and behavior.

While it is true that Miss Rand's character is philosophically irrelevant, and cannot logically be used to attack Objectivism, the Branden’s lies are damaging nonetheless. They have perpetuated the thoroughly false notion that Objectivism is psychologically flawed, incomplete and cannot be practiced without substantial risks to one’s self-esteem and mental health -- and they offer their own lies about Rand’s personal life as proof. If nothing else, the Branden’s lies constitute a distraction from actual philosophical issues; they deflect attention away from the brilliant and revolutionary ways Objectivism untangles philosophy’s historical conundrums, dead ends, contradictions and package-deals.

Valliant’s book is the end for the Brandens. It is also a touchstone for the objectivity of their followers, people like Robert Bidinotto and others at TOC. Their reactions to the book, so far at least, demonstrate that there is one truth the “Truth and Tolerance” crowd cannot tolerate: the indisputable fact of Ayn Rand’s honesty and benevolence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moreover, a person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward.
Or broke? The referenced article didn't put forth the case (or even suggest what the case consisted of IIRC,) and while I'd love to read this for information's sake, I can't suggest anyone not reading Valliant's book is immoral any more than I could suggest someone not reading Branden's book is an evader.

While it is true that Miss Rand's character is philosophically irrelevant, and cannot logically be used to attack Objectivism, the Branden’s lies are damaging nonetheless.
But wouldn't the Brandens' character be equally philosophically irrelevant? If they've said false things, then that can be shown by dissecting their arguments.

They have perpetuated the thoroughly false notion that Objectivism is psychologically flawed, incomplete and cannot be practiced without substantial risks to one’s self-esteem and mental health -- and they offer their own lies about Rand’s personal life as proof.
Figuratively or literally? I've read some of the things Mr. Branden's said, and while I don't agree with everything therein, I personally haven't seen him say anything on the level you write of. But that's quite possibly due to my own inexperiences.

If nothing else, [conversations about the Brandens] constitute a distraction from actual philosophical issues.
That much seems true.

On a side-note, the information about To Lorne Dieterling was new to me :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or broke? The referenced article didn't put forth the case (or even suggest what the case consisted of IIRC,) and while I'd love to read this for information's sake, I can't suggest anyone not reading Valliant's book is immoral any more than I could suggest someone not reading Branden's book is an evader.
She didn't say anyone not reading Valliant's book is immoral; she said, " A person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward." And she is correct. The people she refers to are not refusing to read the book because they cannot afford to purchase it; they are refusing to read the book because they claim to be uninterested in the subject matter, a claim which is hard to reconcile with all of the effort they have put into promoting the Branden's lies over the years.

But wouldn't the Brandens' character be equally philosophically irrelevant? If they've said false things, then that can be shown by dissecting their arguments.
You have a way of taking my statements out of context and twisting their meaning. Here you are implying that I, or Valliant, attacked, or advocated attacking, the Branden's character instead of attacking their arguments. I did nothing of the sort, and neither does Valliant.

If a person tells vicious lies over a period of many years, the implications for their character are obvious. But exposing those lies, as Valliant has done, does not constitute an improper attack on their character.

Figuratively or literally? I've read some of the things Mr. Branden's said, and while I don't agree with everything therein, I personally haven't seen him say anything on the level you write of. But that's quite possibly due to my own inexperiences.
The purpose of Diana's post ( I assume) and my response is to encourage you to read Valliant's book. I will be happy to discuss its content -- after you read it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or broke?

lol, OK-- possibly Diana was being slightly over general, depending on how one interprets, "refuses to read," but in the case of the specific people she referred to in her post, I'm afraid she was quite justified. A lot of intelligent people were duped by the Brandens at first, and then caught on as the Brandens continued to say things that didn't add up. Now we have conclusive evidence that will settle the whole thing once and for all, and Bidinotto, who is by all the evidence I've seen an exceptionally intelligent man, says he isn't interested. To me, especially considering his name is on Barbara Branden's book, that doesn't add up.

But wouldn't the Brandens' character be equally philosophically irrelevant? If they've said false things, then that can be shown by dissecting their arguments.
Of course the Brandens' characters are philosophically irrelevant. But that doesn't mean they're irrelevant altogether. They're relevant, for one thing, to explain why they spent so much time attacking Ayn Rand's character and philosophy, on such implausible grounds, when they were once evidently so close to her. Their respective philosophies (which, I might add, have not developed much since they stopped communicating with Miss Rand) are a totally separate issue.

Figuratively or literally? I've read some of the things Mr. Branden's said, and while I don't agree with everything therein, I personally haven't seen him say anything on the level you write of. But that's quite possibly due to my own inexperiences.

I still haven't gotten to read the book yet, either-- I was about to glance through a friend's copy when I saw she'd also gotten Ayn Rand Answers, and I forgot about the other one. But I've seen quotes from both the Brandens that are literally that bad. And I could never understand why, because Ayn Rand seemed like such a sweet lady all the times I've seen her on videos, not to mention the character which must have been required to write like she did. Needless to say, I'm anxious to read her side of the story from her own private journals.

But my friend's opinion is that the corruption of the Brandens comes across as a side issue in comparison to the unspeakable integrity and virtue of Ayn Rand revealed in the book, and that its an extraordinarily inspiring and intimate story that can bring you to tears. I'll have to see for myself!.. :)

On a side-note, the information about To Lorne Dieterling was new to me :)

I missed that, in the original post. What was said about To Lorne Dieterling? I don't see it mentioned.. (I've always hoped, in the back of my mind, that AR secretly wrote that, and that one day her estate would publish it, when the state of society improves. I know it's crazy-- just a fun fantasy because I want a new Ayn Rand novel to read. :P )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is true that Miss Rand's character is philosophically irrelevant, and cannot logically be used to attack Objectivism, ...
I do agree that if the ideas are true, they are true; period. However, as was alluded to in another thread, Ad Hominem Tu Quoque can be very persuasive. It is particularly persuasive when the claimed action of the person is not simply incidental, but appears to contradict the theory they're propounding.

Someone can propound a weight-loss plan. The plan may be true. However, if the person propounding the plan is very over-weight, that does raise a legitimate question about why it is not working in their case, and whether one is overlooking some "practical problem" with their theory. There is an apparent contradiction that must be resolved. All said and done, it is the practice that "proves" the theory.

Critics of Ayn Rand criticize her knowing that they are raising an apparent contradiction. It can be a powerful argument if done right. One reason I haven't ordered Valiant's book is that I never found much to be resolved in the books by the two Branden's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's "To Lorne Dieterling"?

It was the working title to a possible novel. Here's a quote from the Journals of Ayn Rand.

Dated: November 30, 1957

First notes for: To Lorne Dieterling.

Basic theme: The story of a woman who is totally motivated by love for values—and how one maintains such a state when alone in an enemy world.

Next step of theme: The whole issue of values and of happiness. The role of values in human psychology, in the relationships among men and in the events of their lives. What it means to "live for one's own sake"—shown not on a social-political scale, but in men's personal lives.

And another quote...

The set-up of characters, at present:

Hella: the fully rational valuer.

Lorne Dieterling: the repressor (a rational man who goes off the rails on the question of action—who, starting with the absolute that he will not let people stop him, finds himself placing action above ideas).

The "practical man."

The "glamorizer."

The "idealist."

Gloria Thornton: the "energy without effort" type.

The above are pro-life people. Hella and Lorne are rational; the rest are the better types of social-metaphysicians. ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Originally posted by Diana from NoodleFood,

Casey Fahy e-mailed me this morning to alert me to a fantastic review by Peter Cresswell of James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (PARC). It's perhaps the most passionate book review I've ever read -- and thus perfectly appropriate to its subject. It's also a delight to read, so I'm pleased to strongly recommend it. Those who've already devoured PARC are sure to particularly appreciate its stubborn refusal to mince words. To whet your appetite, let me just quote one bit from the opening. Peter writes that The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is:

All true.

The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics reveals with crystal clarity the ongoing-to-this-day dishonesty, exploitation, injustice, and malice of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in their dealings with Ayn Rand. In so doing, it completely undermines their portrayals of Ayn Rand as a vengeful philosophical tyrant. Even better, Ayn Rand's journals reveal her heroic benevolence, patience, and honesty in her attempts to right the relationship.

In my own case, I realized that Nathaniel and Barbara Branden were evil before reading PARC, just based upon Nathaniel's dishonest smears of Objectivism in his Benefits and Hazards essay and Barbara's disgusting psychologizing in The Passion of Ayn Rand. However, I didn't know just thoroughly dishonest, manipulative, and unjust they were and are until I read James Valliant's book. It was an eye-opener, even for me.

Like so many other people, reviewer Peter Cresswell was "persuaded reluctantly" to read PARC, yet he says that is "very happy" that he did. And he read it honestly, as his review shows.

Others dare not be so honest.

Bob Bidinotto has praised Barbara's The Passion of Ayn Rand for years. He contributed a quote to its back cover, describing it as "an epic tale of soaring ecstasy and searing pain, of unbelievable triumph and unspeakable tragedy." Yet just about the time that PARC was published, he decided that he's not so interested in Ayn Rand's life after all. On SoloPassion, he wrote:

Ed Hudgins demonstrated a similar lack of interest in the book, despite the fact that his organization regularly invites Nathaniel and Barbara Branden to speak at conferences and the like. Although willing to read criticisms of the book, he's not all that interested in reading the book itself. He said: "Robert -- Great to have you back posting on SOLO! How are you doing? Very thoughtful analysis of the Valient/Rand book. I've only glanced at it since I'm more interested in the ideas rather than personality issues, but I'll give the AR entries a read."

These two men know full well that Jim Valliant's book is a bombshell regarding the moral characters of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. They have seen many, many reports of people dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens upon reading PARC on SoloHQ and SoloPassion. Moreover, these men are the top brass of The Objectivist Center, an organization supposedly devoted to Ayn Rand's philosophy, but with strong ties to both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden.

Yet they're not interested in the book. It's irrelevant to them. They do not care to learn that two people so intimately involved with their organization for so many years are thoroughly corrupt and dishonest. They are unconcerned that these people are the major source of vicious lies about Ayn Rand's life. They aren't bothered by the fact that Nathaniel's criticisms of Objectivism as encouraging repression are the figments of his own twisted psychology. They are happy to present these people as experts on Objectivism, even though they're still just pretending. They do not even care that they are aiding and abetting the Brandens' in their vengeful quest to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by offering them a seemingly respectable platform from which to do so.

In short, Ed Hudgins and Bob Bidinotto are determined to tolerate the evil of the Brandens, come hell or high water, yet too cowardly to even learn precisely what they are doing. As Casey Fahy said ever-so-colorfully in the comments on the review: "In reality, those who cling to the dirty bathwater of the Brandens are willing to throw the baby out just to keep wallowing in their filth for another bit of pseudo-Objectivist flattery from the false idols they have chosen to worship."

In my view, Jim Valliant's case against Nathaniel and Barbara Branden in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics is so overwhelming that no honest person can read it without dramatically changing their judgment of the Brandens for the worse -- and of Ayn Rand for the better. Moreover, a person who accepts any part of the Brandens' portrayal of Ayn Rand, yet refuses to read the book is either dishonest, irresponsible, or a coward. There's just no excuse for self-inflicted blindness -- particularly not from people with any measure of trust in or contact with the Brandens.

And yes, that includes those who attend TOC Summer Seminars, claiming that TOC's involvement with the Brandens isn't important. As PARC shows, Nathaniel Branden is determined to destroy Ayn Rand and Objectivism by whatever dishonest means he can -- all because Ayn Rand dared to reject him after discovering his years and years of immorality concealed by deception. Such a person ought never speak under the banner of a supposedly Objectivist organization, particularly not with his reputation as some kindly grandfather of Objectivism. Any supposedly Objectivist organization willing to give him a platform ought to be boycotted -- by every person who sincerely values Ayn Rand's philosophy. The issue is just that serious: it's like attending a "Freedom Summit" with Uncle Joe Stalin as the keynote speaker.

So please do read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics -- sooner rather than later. No honest man will regret the few hours spent.

I have just finished reading PARC and I agree completely with your accurate analysis of the book. I would like to know what other "platforms" the Brandens are using to exploit and destroy Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...