Nathaniel Branden would seem to have a great sense of humor. He published a book, Judgment Day, in which he copped to being a long-term liar, and he published a revised version of his memories of that period of long-term lying, My Years with Ayn Rand. And he can laugh at himself about it, too, as he shows in this recent interview:
NB: Well Rand wasn’t entirely consistent on what she thought about these subjects. I remember once being in her apartment when Leonard was there. He had acquired a new girlfriend and Ayn asked him: is it a romance, or is it an affair, or is it an enjoyable sexual encounter? I don’t remember the words verbatim, but she gave him a choice of three. She also said it in a way that implied that any answer was acceptable. And Leonard almost fell off the sofa in shock. He said, “You mean you would approve?” Ayn said, “Why not?” Anybody who had read her books would also have fainted. You’re shocked, aren’t you?AM: I am.
NB: So if ever I were to publish that story, the forces of evil would say it’s one more example of what a liar Nathaniel Branden is. But it happened. So there’s a lot of confusion about sexuality among Objectivists.
Get that? Only the quaint "forces of evil," nudge nudge wink wink, those conspiracy-mongering, tinfoil-hat-wearing goobers, would actually judge Branden to be a liar simply because he, well, lied. A lot. And for years. How...how judgmental. How moralistic.
(And, dear reader, ask yourself: Did this story actually shock you? Really?)
But he's still at it, Branden is, still at the lying and still attempting to profit from it, and there are people out there -- forces of good, I guess? -- helping him in that endeavor. That is, he's still out there telling lies, and there are people out there -- I suppose I'm supposed to think of them as good people, you know, Superman, the Federation so ably served by Kirk and Spock and Picard, whatever -- who know this and are abetting him.
Do remember this, this question right here, when we get to the end.
In 1962 a book, Who Is Ayn Rand?, by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, was published, with a paperback edition issued in 1964. The book, in both editions, is long out of print. I have no idea how long either edition remained in print. I do know that I have seen very few copies of either edition in my life.
In an interview appearing in the October 1971 issue of Reason magazine, Branden stated: "I wish that the book [Who Is Ayn Rand?] had never been written.... I speak for Barbara Branden as well as myself in saying we repudiate that book."
A few years ago, however, Branden "allowed (as he informs us)" the principal essay in that book, "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged," to be reprinted as a pamphlet. I was living in Egypt when my interest in Objectivism was rekindled, and it was only internet access (such as it was in Egypt) which allowed me to pursue that interest. The only Ayn Rand book I ever saw in Alexandria was a battered (but sold as new) paperback edition of Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which I bought for something under thirty pounds. No other choice there.
But I discovered Prodos and The Free Radical and a far more active Ayn Rand Institute than I'd remembered -- and I bought the Branden pamphlet. I remembered having read Who Is Ayn Rand? -- the first piece of Objectivist literature I ever did read-- in the early Seventies, and being impressed by that moral revolution of which Branden wrote, and by the brief Rand biography in the book written by Barbara Branden. I only knew of morality, in 1974, as something brought by the Catholics and other churches, and had never heard of egoism or eudaimonia. Besides, I was learning to play the guitar and I wanted to be Keith Richards, and the Catholic church promised only to stand in the way of that, thank you very much.
Yes, I was very interested in this moral revolution, and after reading Who Is Ayn Rand? I went to check out the rest of the Objectivist corpus. All of it. I began with Atlas Shrugged and I was hooked after that.
Branden writes, I read at the beginning of his pamphlet, "Except for a few cuts of superfluous words or sentences, the essay is reproduced in its original form," and he ends his introduction with the words,
I have allowed this essay to be republished as originally written because Ayn Rand thought so highly of it as an introduction to her moral philosophy and because, therefore, I believe students of her work will find it of historical interest -- and also because there is much here with which I continue to agree.
But after years of Branden's backing and filling, and especially after buying and reading James Valliant's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, I decided to compare the pamphlet version line by line with my own 1964 paperback edition. Now why, gentle reader, did it occur to me to do this? Well, from the Nathaniel Branden Institute (1958) and his Basic Principles of Objectivism course to "In Answer to Ayn Rand (1968)" to his Reason interview (1971) to his cute little "Benefits and Hazards" (1982) talk to Judgment Day (1989) to its revisons in My Years with Ayn Rand, why...well, it seems that Dr. Branden has acquired a little habit, that habit being to, uh, dissimulate, just a bit, and to blame others for that dissimulation. So I just thought to pursue some checking.
It was an instructive pursuit.
Most of the editorial changes were very minor: italics removed in many cases, and quite a number of instances of changing "Ayn Rand" to "Rand." But change # 31 (by my count) is not minor:
In the May, 1964 Paperback Library edition of Who Is Ayn Rand?, we read, on page 27:
The concept of an ethics based on man's metaphysical
nature is not, as such, new. Many philosophers of antiquity, as well as many of the post-Renaissance system builders, claimed to have derived their systems of ethics from such a base. In their attempts logically to connect the specific values they
advocated with their descriptions of man's metaphysical nature, one may discern two major trends.*
That asterisk takes us to a note at the bottom of the page, which reads: "I am indebted to my associate Leonard Peikoff for the identification of these two trends."
The same paragraph appears on page 19 of the pamphlet version, but -- surprise, surprise -- the note of indebtedness to Leonard Peikoff appears nowhere.
So in 1962 Branden is "indebted" to Peikoff for this "identification," but by 1971 he's repudiated it all, and wishes the book had never been written, and by 2000, it is "superfluous," and is edited out of existence. That one item of acknowledgment, see, is apparently not of "historical interest" to students of Ayn Rand's work. Oh no. Nor could it be an example of Nathaniel Branden taking credit for Leonard Peikoff's work and thought. Nope. Oh no. It is now "superfluous." Sheesh.
Quite the journey, that. Perhaps some would call it "growth." Probably take some toleration to see it, though.
Branden twice in one paragraph, then, makes the claim that the essay is published as it originally appeared in 1962, except for a "few" cuts of some "superfluous" words. It is not, and I don't think the substance of this particular change qualifies as "superfluous" material.
And who abetted this little bit of airbrushing of history? Why, the pamphlet's publisher, The Objectivist Center -- which is still selling the pamphlet.
Except that...well, a prominent Objectivist Center official, Robert Bidinotto, claims that it all just never happened. No, really, The Objectivist Center has never endorsed Nathaniel Branden nor carried any of his books or published any of his stuff. Let's hear Bobby B's own words on this, from an internet post made Wednesday, December 14 2005:
Hmm.... Gosh, folks, an outside observer -- one without any dog in this race -- might begin to wonder if all those initial proclamations of "only defending Ayn Rand against the Brandens," of organizational independence, etc., were truly sincere, or if perhaps some broader agenda is at work here. It might certainly seem that way, since no one at TOC has said a public word in defense of the Brandens views or books about Rand, since the organization has never carried their works or endorsed them, and since it has in fact meticulously avoided any attempt to enter the fray concerning Ayn Rand's private life.
Well, gosh, folks, that's it, isn't it? The Objectivist Center doesn't carry any of Branden's "works," except for the ones they do carry, and the ones they do publish. That's pretty clear, isn't it? One would truly belong to the "forces of evil" to conclude otherwise, because, gosh, folks, any other conclusion would be, I guess.."superfluous."
Right.
(NOTE: My line-by-line comparison of the two published versions of "The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged" was done in October 2005 and made available via email to James Valliant and Casey Fahy, both then engaged in battle and debate on the old SoloHQ forum. While they made use of my discovery and thanked me for it, they were the ones publicly defending Ayn Rand's achievements and reputation. Thanks, Jim and Casey, for fighting the good fight.)
Posted by Craig Ceely at May 4, 2006 01:24 AM