"To Whom It May Concern" - a Summary

“To Whom It May Concern” — A Summary
 
Ayn Rand (AR) published an article in The Objectivist in May 1968 to announced “This is to inform my readers and all those interested in Objectivism that Nathaniel Branden (NB) and Barbara Branden (BB) are no longer associated with this magazine, with me or with my philosophy.” She proclaimed:

I have permanently broken all personal, professional and business association with them, and have withdrawn from them the permission to use my name in connection with their commercial, professional, intellectual or other activities.

I hereby withdraw my endorsement of them and of their future works and activities. I repudiate both of them, totally and permanently, as spokesmen for me or for Objectivism.

The article provides a detailed account of her reasons

BULLETS 

AR was observing a “disturbing change in Nathaniel Branden’s intellectual attitude. It seemed to indicate his gradual departure from the principles of Objectivism, a tendency toward non-intellectual concerns, a lessening of interest in philosophical issues and in the Objectivist movement as such.”

NB’s “
To mention two of Mr. Branden’s defaults on his responsibilities: the growing and lengthening delays in the writing of his articles for this maga- zine (I have, at times, been late with my own articles, but not chronically nor to such an extent) ; … [and] his failure to rewrite the “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course for his own organization, Nathaniel Branden Institute.

In regard to this last: he had discussed with me, well over a year ago, the fact that his “Basic” course needed reorganizing, rewriting and updating, inasmuch as a major part of its material had been published in this magazine, a view with which I strongly agreed; he assured me that he would do this as soon as he finished writing his book on psychology; neither task was done.
 
It is important, at this point, to state the exact nature of my relationship to NBI and to THE OBJECTIVIST.

 
NBI and its various affiliates (NBI Book Service, NBI Communications, NBI Press, NBI Theater) were organized and owned entirely by Mr. Branden (with the participation of Mrs. Branden). I had no business or financial interest in any of these corporations and no part in their management. My interest was strictly and exclusively intellectual: I permitted Mr. Branden to use my name and my ideas, in the sense that his organizations were to teach my philosophy and could recruit students from among the readers and admirers of my books; I retained intellectual control over the content of what was to be taught.
 
In the past few years, as I was told by its principals, the combined gross income of NBI and its affiliates was about $400,000 a year. I neither asked for nor received any part of it. The only money these organizations paid me was a small royalty on their recordings of my public speeches, a token payment for an introduction to one of their books, and, only in the last two years, a token fee for the two guest lectures I gave in the “Basic” course.
 
My motive in regard to NBI was: a) to help the spread of Objectivism; b) to help Nathaniel Branden make a name for himself, since he was, at the beginning, committed to Objectivism and would have had a terrible struggle gaining recognition through conventional channels in his own profession, psychology; c) to give the students of Objectivism an opportunity to meet one another and to associate with people who shared their ideas, in the midst of a hostile culture.
 
Mr. Branden’s stated long-range goal in regard to NBI was to create a philosophically educated group of Objectivist intellectuals who would apply the principles of Objectivism to their own professions, and who would serve as a hard-core audience for the future works of young Objectivist writers, thus helping them to break through the blockade of the “liberal” Establishment-a goal of which I thoroughly approved.
 
THE OBJECTIVIST (formerly THE OBJECTIVIST NEWSLETTER) was an independent venture, entirely separate from NBI and its affiliates. It was originated and owned jointly by Mr. Branden and me. Our incorporation agreement stated that all policy decisions were to be made by our unanimous consent. We also agreed that we would write an equal number of articles and receive an equal salary. I did not take any remuneration for the use of my name, even though my name constituted the main commercial asset of the publication. I was to do the final editing on the articles of other contributors, and Mr. Branden was to do preliminary editing and to supervise the financial-business aspects of the publication. It was firmly understood between us-and repeatedly stressed by me through the years- that the financial affairs of the publication were to be kept strictly separated from the financial affairs of NBI and its affiliates.
 
If you check over the back issues of this publication, you will observe that in 1962 and 1963 Mr. Branden and I wrote about the same number of articles and that he carried his proper share of the burden of work. But beginning with the year 1964, the number of articles written by me became significantly greater than the number written by him. On many occasions, he was unable to deliver a promised article on time and I had to write one in order to save the magazine from constant delays. This year, I refused to write more than my share; hence the magazine is now four months behind schedule. (I shall now make up for this time lag as fast as possible.)
 
During the past three years, my“My personal relationship with Mr. Branden was deteriorating in a puzzling manner: it was turning into a series of his constant demands on my time, constant pleas for advice, for help with his writing, for long discussions of his personal, philosophical and psychological problems. About a year ago, I warned him that this was becoming a policy of intellectual and professional exploitation and, if it continued, I would break my association with him.

“I was shocked to discover that he was consistently failing to apply to his own personal life and conduct, not only the fundamental philosophical principles of Objectivism, but also the psychological principles he himself had enunciated and had written and lectured about. For example: he was unable or unwilling to identify the motivation of some of his actions or the nature of his long-range goals; he admitted that in many respects he was acting on the basis of unidentified feelings.”
END BULLETS

AR then explain her difficult situation:

This placed me in a terrible dilemma: it meant that he did not practice what he preached, that he demanded of his students a standard of conduct he failed to demand of himself.
 
Such an attitude is not morally permissible in any writer or lecturer; it is worse in a lecturer on philosophy and psychology; it is still worse in a lecturer on morality, who has to exemplify in his own conduct the moral principles he advocates. It is intolerable in a lecturer on Objectivist morality: Objectivism does not permit any variant of the mind-body dichotomy, any split between theory and practice, between one’s convictions and one’s actions.
 ###

AR described her attempts to with NB, to effectively give him another chance, but then,

 

Mrs. Branden suddenly confessed that Mr. Branden had been concealing from me certain ugly actions and irrational behavior in his private life, which were grossly contradictory to Objectivist morality and which she had known about for two years.
 
I confronted Mr. Branden with her accusation and he admitted it. He admitted that his actions had involved the deliberate deception of several persons for a period of some four years. 
At my lowest opinion of Mr. Branden’s behavior, I had not expected conscious deception on his part. I have always been willing to give a person the benefit of the doubt in regard to errors of knowledge-and I had extended that benefit for too long in the case of Mr. Branden. I have never accepted, condoned or tolerated conscious breaches of morality. This was the last of the evidence which caused me to break all professional, as well as personal, association with him.

It gets worse.

### 
Another and simultaneous shock was the discovery of the nature of Mr. Branden’s financial policy in regard to THE OBJECTIVIST.

AR explains in detail how NB embezzled a large sum of money from The Objectivist (which he co-owned with her) to subsidize NBI (which he owned outright). 

The realization that Mr. Branden was exploiting me intellectually and professionally had been bad enough; that he should also attempt to exploit me financially was grotesquely sickening.
 ###

With regard to BB, AR wrote that the “case of Barbara Branden is far less complex and much more obvious.” She recounts how BB,

 ###

made a formal announcement to the staff of NBI and its affiliates, in which she denounced Mr. Branden’s behavior, declared that I was fully justified in my repudiation of him, and stated that he had resigned from all his organizations. Mr. Branden made a parting statement to his staff. Those who were present told me that he admitted his failure to practice Objectivist principles and that he admitted I was justified in repudiating him; they quoted him as saying that Miss Rand had given him a blank check on the use of her name and he had defaulted on his responsibility.

AR explains how she expended considered a business proposition of BB’s that ultimately was unacceptable. Instead, AR offered BB a salaried position at The Objectivist and a personal loan to help her to start a book service business. The next day, BB’s attitude changed dramatically and she “began to utter veiled threats and undefined accusations against” AR, and she apparently reunited with NB who “suddenly reappeared on the NBI scene.” Both Brandens, and an associate,

screamed insults, threats and accusations against me to my attorney and to their own staff. The substance of their accusations was that I had been unjust to them. Since this change in their attitude occurred when they realized that my business association with them was finished and that the gold mine involved in their use of my name was shut down, draw your own conclusions about the cause and motive of their behavior.

AR then addresses the concern that,

 this public repudiation might be a severe blow to the Objectivist movement, that many students admired Nathaniel Branden and would be badly hurt by this disillusionment, that their morale would suffer, that the enemies of Objectivism would take advantage of it and would attack and smear me with renewed vigor, that this would be professionally embarrassing to me-and, therefore, wouldn’t it be better to cover up the truth about the Brandens, i.e., to adopt a policy of pragmatic expediency and deception?
 
But my decision on this did not take me any longer to reach than the time required to formulate that question. I do not fake reality and never have. I do not seek or want any value that requires such faking. I hold that no value can be achieved that way. I hold that that way is neither practical nor moral.
 
Since the facts are as they are, all those concerned should recognize them and act accordingly. As far as I am concerned, I have made an error of knowledge and must be prepared to take the consequences. Whatever these might be, they are never as hard to bear as the consequences of a breach of morality. 

AR then addresses another question: “How could Nathaniel Branden do this?”

She begins by saying NB “was an unusually intelligent man who had the potential to become a great man. He chose to stifle that potential. It is a terrible waste of a priceless human endowment: ability-and it is a tragedy. (I cannot say as much for Barbara Branden.)”

Finally, AR addresses what she believed to be the cause of NB’s downfall and betrayal
 

What caused it? Psychological conflicts and contradictions. Bad premises cannot be held still: they must be corrected or they will grow and choke off the good ones. He did not choose to correct them. In a grimly tragic way, this is a demonstration of the Objectivist theory of volition: man’s mind, values and knowledge do not function automatically; no amount of past thinking, of established virtues, of acquired knowledge will guarantee that a man will remain rational and virtuous next day, next year or in the next emergency; the act of focusing one’s mind and of facing reality remains an act of volition, to be performed anew in every hour and issue of one’s life.
 
But, it is asked, how could any psychological contradictions become so devastating in view of Mr. Branden’s intelligence and great knowledge? The answer is that his contradictions became devastating precisely because of his intelligence and his great knowledge. A lesser man with mixed premises would be able to muddle along, not too happily nor too destructively, for a much longer time. But a man of Mr. Branden’s knowledge cannot afford a single contradiction; the inner conflict becomes too great and too explosive: it necessitates such massive evasions that it destroys his rational values and divorces his theoretical knowledge from reality and from application to himself.
 
If Mr. Branden never intended to correct his contradictions, then he made a mistake about the philosophy he chose to profess: he should have chosen Existentialism, which, recognizing no general principles, gives ample scope to contradictions, to self-exemptions from general rules, to undefined feelings and unknowable whims. If such was the case, he did not belong in Objectivism. Consistency is one of the cardinal requirements of Objectivism, both philosophically and psychologically. It is a dangerous philosophy to play with or to accept half-way: it will stifle the mind that attempts to do so. In this respect, Objectivism, like reality, is its own avenger.
 
I regret that the demonstration of this fact had to come in so tragic and ugly a form.
 ###