The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

by James S. Valliant

Read Rand's own never-before-seen journal entries about the Brandons. Author Valliant shines light on the truth hidden by the Brandens' biographies and sets the record straight.

Genres: Biography, Philosophy

433 pages, Hardcover

First published May 1, 2005

Reviews

[Chris Cathcart · Rating 5 out of 5]

(PARC = Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics)

Nathaniel Branden used Rand as his 'psychotherapist' for months on end in 1968, feeding her a web of lies about his feelings toward her and a younger woman with whom he had been having an affair. When Rand discovered this web of lies from her putative 'intellectual heir' pretending to be the epitome of Objectivist virtue, she flew into a rage and cast him out of the movement.

In his subsequent 1989 memoir, 'Judgment Day,' Branden omitted all this crucial context - all the stuff he was lying to Rand about - and in the process made Rand's rage appear to be a response to his rejecting her for a younger woman: "a woman scorned." That's not what it was about. It was always about his dishonesty. Unfortunately, for close to two decades in which the Estate of Ayn Rand had left Rand's journal entries about these events unreleased, Branden's context-omitting portrayal of things stood unanswered and used by Rand's critics to further smear her. But it was Branden providing the fuel and doing the initial smearing through his omissions about his previous lies. So he (a) lied for months on end to Rand in '68, and then (b) smeared Rand in his '89 memoir. No contrition, no admission of the serious moral offenses that really explained his ouster from the movement.

When excerpts from Rand's journal - detailing her attempts to make sense of what Branden was telling her, as she extended him every benefit of the doubt - finally saw the light of day in PARC and revealed the full context, what was Branden's response? Evasion. He had no answer, of course. In an interview he dismissed PARC without providing any reason (only further engaging in un-objective dishonesty, flouting the principles of rationality he purported to espouse for decades). In sum: He committed a major injustice to Rand, not once, but again twenty years after the first time. And then, with his 2006 evasions, he lost all credibility (about Rand and his relation to her, at any rate) for good.

(As for the challenges he raised in his 1982 "Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" essay, namely about the challenges for highly intellectual people attracted to Rand's ideas to live up to the ideals depicted via her fictional heroes: his treatment was superseded shortly thereafter by Peikoff's 'Understanding Objectivism' course, which in addition to being released later in book form can be accessed online for free at the Ayn Rand Institute 'Campus' website.)

My only significant caveat about PARC is that it goes after Barbara Branden as well, but this was all really about Nathaniel. (Note that Rand agreed to a benevolent meeting with Barbara in 1981, while she never wanted anything more to do with Nathaniel; why would she trust him again?) It's evident that Nathaniel didn't tell Barbara the real story, either, since she found Rand's anti-Nathaniel rage rationally inexplicable and much too severe for "merely" having been rejected romantically for another woman. It would explain how Barbara objected at the time to Rand's rage, which precipitated her own ousting as well. (It's doubtful Barbara knew the context behind Rand's "curse" on his potency, a context that would suggest that Rand was throwing Branden's "sex freeze" lies back at him.)

It's safe to assume that Nathaniel lied and concealed the truth to as many people as he figured he need to, at that time, and later on. This would extend even to whatever he told or didn't tell to Patrecia about his '68 'counseling' sessions with Rand. (Did he tell her about how he bad-mouthed her to Rand to convey the impression to Rand that he couldn't be involved with someone so far below his lofty standards?) It would extend to what he told Allan Blumenthal after Rand turned Branden's 'therapy' over to him, namely, that he had romantic feelings for Patrecia but omitting the crucial context of the ongoing affair. (For this, Blumenthal not only signed the 1968 letter repudiating Branden but left the board of directors of the Institute for Objectivist Studies when Branden was invited to speak at IOS in the mid-'90s. Why on earth should anyone's assessment of Branden vis a vis Rand and Objectivism differ from Blumenthal's?) Once the lies began, there's no reason to think they ever stopped, anywhere or to anyone. That he continued his lies-by-omission in '89 would further support this reasonable characterization.

(This goes also for his post-2006 reporting to second-rate Rand biographer Anne Heller ['Ayn Rand and the World She Made,' 20009] that Rand had told him "We're either sexual or we're nothing." Even if Rand said it, there's no knowing the context and given his record Branden simply can't be relied upon to supply the full context. For any epistemically responsible observer, one not relying on things like hopes or wishes that Branden couldn't be *that* slimy and dishonest to the very end, "Branden being reliable about Rand" simply does not and cannot compute, it's a cognitive blank. Heller just fell for his tricks once more after all the evidence of his repeated tricksterism available to her, is all. So, post-2006, Branden can summarily dismiss PARC without any explanation, but still speak of Rand by feeding context-free material to a philosophically vacuous hit-and-run biographer. Reading between the lines, this post-PARC Heller-feeding *was* his sneaky way of responding to PARC and making himself look a victim. So he was just that slimy even after PARC, was he not?)

The most extensive high-profile back-and-forth about PARC that I know of, is that between Valliant and Chris Matthew Sciabarra (scholar of Rand and 'dialectical method,' editor of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and friend of the Brandens) at Sciabarra's blog. Sciabarra wrote a review there, and the back-and-forth took place in the comments section. After two exchanges, Sciabarra "closed" the discussion, as if somehow the 'dialectical tension' remaining had inexplicably been resolved even though it was clear that Valliant was on very firm ground (and that any faults in his case would be minor and incidental). As Sciabarra should know as well as anyone, true Aristotle-caliber dialectic doesn't just stop without a clear resolution.

PARC's critics, in all their passion, could never counter this damning indictment of Nathaniel Branden on the essential point: given a proven track record of repeated lies, omissions, and unjust smears, anything negative he says or implies about Rand - without corroboration from an honest source - simply can't be trusted. I can also say that my own view of Rand improved considerably in the wake of PARC. Before PARC, it was the word of two biographers (one seriously dishonest) going unanswered, on a pretty major course of events in Objectivist history. Before PARC, it was "Rand as woman scorned letting her emotions override her reason," and after PARC it's "Rand being treated like crap by her then-'intellectual heir' and responding how any normal person in such a context might respond." That's one major anti-Rand smear out of the way, at least.

[John Harder · Rating 1 out of 5]

First the background. Ayn Rand (a personal hero of mine) carried on an affair with a married man half her age after she obtained permission to do so from both her husband and her lover’s spouse – bizarre, I know. After 14 years the affair ended and her lover, Nathanial Brandon wrote a tell-all and highly uncomplimentary book called My Years with Ayn Rand, and Brandon’s wife also wrote a rather disparaging book called The Passion of Ayn Rand.

The Passion of Ayn Rands’ Critics is the response to this criticism. The book is meticulous and detailed, and taken as a defense, it does its job well – but my God is this boring – and this from a Rand fan who has also read the Brandon’s works. Valliant is coming to Rand’s defense, but as he continually mentions in the book, Rand herself did not give a damn what people thought and made no attempt to respond to the books – an innocent person does not care what other people think if his heart is pure. After 400 pages of protesting I think it is safe to say he doth protest too much.

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

A STRONG CRITIQUE OF THE BRANDENS’ BIOGRAPHICAL PORTRAYALS OF AYN RAND

Author James Valliant wrote in the Introduction to this 2005 book, “The truth of Rand’s philosophy is, of course, untouched by their [Nathaniel and Barbara Branden] allegations, one way or another. They are distracting and troublesome not simply because they are almost always irrelevant, but most importantly because they are historically inaccurate. To date, no detailed analysis of the Brandens’ accounts, one which addresses all of the major themes of their work, has appeared. Such an analysis is clearly overdue. Too much of the discussion of Rand and her ideas has been---and continues to be---based solely upon the accounts of two sources whose very reputations hinge on how history will interpret their roles in the events they purport to relate.” (Pg. 2)

He continues, “Rand’s private journals… provide the fascinating account of how an extraordinary mind systematically unmasked the systematic deceit of a rather extraordinary deceiver, and they provide a tragic chronicle of how a romantic soul was cruelly manipulated by a man to whom she had given her highest trust and affection.” (Pg. 7)

He summarizes, “As we proceed, Mr. Branden will be seen to invent implausible, improbable, and impossible quotations for Rand---again and again. Ms. Branden will be seen to make bold assertions even in the face of conclusive evidence to the contrary---again and again. The Brandens’ books are themselves replete with evidence that this kind of dishonesty pervades all aspects of their ‘biographical’ efforts.” (Pg. 14)

He acknowledges, “Rand was certainly in one sense very alienated from the world around her. She was at times depressed, angry and harsh. Presumably, she was, at times, tense, irritable and demanding---as I fear, most of us are. Rand’s fierce anger, however, was an unusually intense and major part of her personality---of this, there can be no doubt.” (Pg. 30)

He observes, “Rand did have a lot of pain and suffering to deal with in her life. Yet, even if… the Brandens’ accounts can be credited, Rand appears to have dealt with this pain remarkably well, for she emerges looking much better than her detractors do, simply from their own renderings of Rand. The Brandens were close to Rand for eighteen years, and they have demonstrated every desire to criticize her on every possible count, no matter how tenuous, frivolous or contradictory. In short, this must be the VERY BEST case to be made against Ayn Rand.” (Pg. 53)

He points out, “In lectures and interviews, both the Blumenthals and the Holzers have endorsed the portrait drawn by Ms. Branden of Rand the Authoritarian. This has not deterred the Blumenthals from their own policy of ostracizing Nathaniel Branden (who is Dr. Blumenthal’s first cousin)---in 1996, they severed all association with an organization which had invited Branden to speak.” (Pg. 75)

He notes, “it is also clear that Mr. Branden was dishonest about matters other than his love-life and to many more people than his lovers. By his own admission he was giving Rand rhapsodic praise in his first book for something he did not think was her ‘strong point.’ If he was so conscious of his growing doubts as to make the psychology chapter ‘by far the briefest,’ then Branden was also conscious enough of the potential impact of these doubts on the content of his essay, as well as its length. Branden was lying to his READERS. Such was the intellectual respect Branden gave his public.” (Pg. 105)

He recounts, “Branden admits that he was afraid that the entire structure he had built at NBI on Rand’s endorsement would be destroyed if he were to reveal the truth to Rand about his other affair. Recall that at this time Branden is married to Ms. Branden, having an affair with Rand which is known to their respective spouses, AND having an affair with a third woman which both he and Ms. Branden are concealing from Rand.” (Pg. 107)

He comments, “During the course of this secret affair, his marriage to Barbara Branden now in shambles, Branden nonetheless refused to give his wife permission to have an affair of her own (with a married man), when she had the honesty to come forward with her own new interest… Branden would continue for some time in this stance against Ms. Branden’s own affair while secretly commencing his own, according to Ms. Branden.” (Pg. 116)

He suggests, “The phrase ‘plotting annihilation’… in light of the actual evidence, takes Brandenian distortion to a new and intriguing level. Rand’s only written references to the Brandens after the break were the aforementioned statement and a brief ‘p.s.’ in a couple of books which still contained essays by Branden, to the effect that he was ‘no longer associated with’ Rand or her philosophy. That’s it. Then, complete silence. While Rand also removed Mr. Branden’s name from the dedication to ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ this hardly amounts to ‘professional destruction.’ His essays---and his name—remained in Rand’s books, ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ and ‘Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal.’” (Pg. 121)

He points out, “Whatever one’s opinion of the Rand-Branden affair, at least Rand was honest about it to those who mattered—scrupulously, rigorously honest. Honesty is a key virtue in Rand’s ethics, which, on the other hand, have no commandment against adultery.” (Pg. 141)

Of the TV movie ‘The Passion of Ayn Rand,’ he states, “Ms. Branden’s lies to Rand on behalf of Mr. Branden are hardly mentioned. Mr. Branden’s intellectual and professional exploitation of Rand is not presented at all. The extensive and deceptive counseling sessions are not depicted. The philosophy of Objectivism is repeatedly misrepresented… Whole characters are created from whole cloth. These are just a few of the movie’s radical projections from Barbara Branden’s empty claims.” (Pg. 174)

He states, “Branden had painted himself into a corner by professing for years that Rand was the only KIND of woman he would desire. If his had been such a soul… Nothing could have parted him from it, not age, not anything. This is precisely why, at first, Branden kept the new affair a secret. If his love for Patrecia was what his soul really needed, then why not come forward to Rand, just as he had been honest with his wife about his earlier relationship with Rand? Because he knew that it revealed his soul to be something other than what he had told Rand---and what he had told the world---it was.” (Pg. 225-226)

Although one might be advised to read the Brandens’ own books for “contrast,” this book is a powerful critique of Nathaniel Branden (and to a lesser degree, Barbara), that will be “must reading” for fervent supporters of Ayn Rand.

[David Arceneaux · Rating 5 out of 5]

There are two parts to this book. The first part is a detailed analysis of what the Brandens wrote about Ayn Rand in their books, and the second is a look at what Ayn Rand wrote in her diaries about the Brandens.

This book is an important answer to the Brandens' books, which are used to reinforce the opinions of those who already hate Ayn Rand.

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

Judge, and prepare to be judged.

[Jason Letman · Rating 4 out of 5]

An insightful analysis of the Branden's biographies and lenghtly passages from Rand's personal journals. It is fascinating to see her mind at work on a personal problem.