‘The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics’ - A Breakthrough Book Puts Ayn Rand’s Critics To The Test.
On the 100th Anniversary of Novelist Ayn Rand’s birth, a new book will be released with never before published essays from Best-Selling Author Ayn Rand’s private journals about her former lover, Nathanial Branden.
The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant will be released in February 2005.
Along with Valliant’s in depth analysis of both biographies it will have almost all of Ayn Rand’s private journal entries about the Brandens.
Press Release: www.emediawire.com/releases/2004/8/emw151733.htm
Rand’s never-before-seen diary entries are used along with the only in-depth analysis of the biographies written by psychologist Nathanial and his former wife Barbara Branden–the most widely read sources of information on her life
When I first started researching the likes of Branden and his exploits I felt that the damage he had done was somewhat blown out of proportion, seeing how he is such a blatant clown. But after reading this statement in that press release I would have to seriously rethink that assumption. It seems he has succesfully sold his little illusion to all those that hate the great for being great and hunger for something to substantiate their hatred- despite how hollow and improbable it seems.
Thanks for the heads-up, Don. I’m glad to see someone take those people to task. Way too much time is spent having to deal with their foolishness. Branden gets worse all the time (if that’s possible). This is long overdue.
Nate: You are right to think that this is too silly to even think about, but these people have managed to gather way too many malcontents under their anti-Objectivist wing. They are all about personalities, slandering Ms. Rand and Objectivism while claiming to be proponents. The subject won’t die and it needs to be addressed, even thought it doesn’t deserve such attention.
I saw a 4-5 page article by Valliant on the subject a coulple of years ago online. I can’t find it anymore (Now I understand why - He decided to make it into what will be a great book!) It will be a total refutation of all the nonsense (if you can actually refute the arbitrary).
Also, I am happy to find this site. The “Objectivist Singles” msn forum is adequate in some ways, but at times is overrun by everyone with any viewpoint whatsoever - including actual insults of Rand. I can take almost anything - but not THAT. I’ve browsed this site for about a week now, and am pleased that it is actually (strange to say), reason oriented and pro- Rand. So now I’ve decided to join.
Hello!
Also, I am happy to find this site. The “Objectivist Singles” msn forum is adequate in some ways, but at times is overrun by everyone with any viewpoint whatsoever - including actual insults of Rand. I can take almost anything - but not THAT. I’ve browsed this site for about a week now, and am pleased that it is actually (strange to say), reason oriented and pro- Rand. So now I’ve decided to join. Hello!
Hi Durande! (Love that screen name, btw.) Why not post something about yourself in the “Introductions” forum?
The book is now out, and while we’re all waiting to get our copies, check out this short interview with James Valliant. The link for the video is on the bottom right under the ‘recent interviews’ column.
. . . with never before published essays from Best-Selling Author Ayn Rand’s private journals about her former lover, Nathanial Branden.
This is interesting because Ayn Rand denied that she and Nathaniel Branden had ever been lovers.
This is interesting because Ayn Rand denied that she and Nathaniel Branden had ever been lovers.
Really? Where would I find this denial?
Really? Where would I find this denial?
(URL to Branden’s site removed -SoftwareNerd)
(URL to Branden’s site deleted.)
Uh, you’re kidding right? THAT’S your evidence?! Testimony of God’s malignancy from the Devil himself, no less…hehe. That’s a good one.
Next.
Uh, you’re kidding right? THAT’S your evidence?! Testimony of God’s malignancy from the Devil himself, no less…hehe. That’s a good one.
Next.
Then we’ll have to weigh this citation of Rand’s denial against any evidence that you wish to offer that she made statements to the contrary (other than in her private journals).
Then we’ll have to weigh this citation of Rand’s denial against any evidence that you wish to offer that she made statements to the contrary (other than in her private journals).
You mean like a statement saying that she’s not denying it?! What about just not saying anything at all?
What about just not saying anything at all?
Fine. We’ll compare the alleged denial with your claim (apparently) that she said nothing at all.
Fine. We’ll compare the alleged denial with your claim (apparently) that she said nothing at all.
I’m just saying that it’s hard to come up with counter-evidence, if she did in fact never say anything (publicly) about it.
FURTHER TESTIMONY TO BRANDEN’S DISHONESTY
I had advance notice of the “split” in 1968, a couple of weeks before it became generally known. That’s because electical engineer and inventor Jim Davidson (1930-1979), informal leader of our Objectivist group at Purdue University, was friends with several employees at Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI).
Jim had a library of almost 200 reel-to-reel tapes, and he eventually told us the story behind it. According to Jim’s account (which I have no reason to doubt), it was he who originated the idea of offering courses by tape transcription, sometime around 1960; after a great deal of arguing he persuaded Barbara Branden of the practicality of the idea, and she in turn convinced Nathaniel Branden. For the first several years Jim did all the copying and mailing of the reel-to-reel tapes. (After his death I saw the records he still kept in his card file.) Sometime in the middle 1960’s, not long after Nathaniel Branden had signed a contract with Jim, Branden unilaterally broke the contract when he found a firm (G.E., if I remember correctly) that could duplicate the tapes somewhat more cheaply. Jim considered suing Branden but decided not to, since he was afraid that might harm the progress of Objectivism. He later remarked that if he had gone ahead and sued, possibly the “split” might have taken place several years earlier.
I believe ARI recently acquired this tape archive from Jim’s heirs.
We had only Jim’s word for most of what he said, but I must say that all of us who knew him found him the man of the highest character we have ever met; knowing him was an unforgettable experience, like knowing Howard Roark in person.
Turning, now, to the “split” in 1968:
According to what Jim passed on to us from his friends at NBI, Nathaniel Branden gathered his staff together and told them he had never been fully an Objectivist, but had merely been “playing a role,” adding that he had “never taken Objectivism as seriously as some of them obviously had.”
Jim’s comment: NB was most likely rationalizing, to avoid the guilt of having betrayed his own values.
Reportedly, Branden was “definitely suicidal” at this time, and fled to Canada for several weeks. He later switched to alternate “explanations” of his behavior, changing his excuse to suit the occasion.
Jim was in a position to confirm some of Ayn Rand’s lesser charges, e.g. that NB had not updated his lecture courses as he had promised. And that both Brandens, well aware that a break was coming, had copied “The Objectivist”'s mailing list ahead of time, which they had no right to do.
Another member of our group commented (I think correctly): “Nathaniel Branden is the Benedict Arnold of Objectivism.”
My copy of Mr Valiant’s book hasn’t yet arrived, but I welcome any attempt to redress the enormous evil perpetrated by both Brandens.
================================================
The party who alleges that Miss Rand denied having an affair, is grossly misinformed. She never made a statement one way or the other.
This is interesting because Ayn Rand denied that she and Nathaniel Branden had ever been lovers.
What is your evidence proving that Ayn Rand denied – to herself alone or to others in spoken or written form – she had been Nathaniel Branden’s lover?
What is your evidence proving that Ayn Rand denied – to herself alone or to others in spoken or written form – she had been Nathaniel Branden’s lover?
I attempted to provide evidence, but one of the Guardians of Forum Virtue removed the link.
I attempted to provide evidence, but one of the Guardians of Forum Virtue removed the link.
Are you saying that a link is evidence of what an individual said – or didn’t say – 50 years ago?
You don’t need a link. Simply tell me the evidence. For example, does the evidence appear in her journals, her letters, or her other writings? If so, where? Please cite a page number in published works (for example: Journals of Ayn Rand, Letters of Ayn, or Ayn Rand [britting]).
Or did you yourself hear her make the statement? If so, when, where, and under what conditions? Do you have corroboration?
Or are you relying on the testimony of someone you know to be objective – that is, both honest and reliable in his reporting of past events? If so, who?
… one of the Guardians of Forum Virtue removed the link.
I assume this was meant to be sarcastic: like calling a garbage man “guardian of cleanliness”.
If so, instead of a sarcastic remark, feel free to start a thread in the relevant sub-forum if you think the moderation guidelines are wrong or wrongly applied.