ARI has been sponsoring its essay contests on the novels for decades in order to promote them. This has resulted in millions of new readers.

ARI's writing and speaking on "applications" is necessary to show how Ayn Rand's ideas are related to current events and controversies. Few people are inclined to look into a philosophy without that.

What did you find that Ayn Rand left unexplained? There is always more to explore and learn, but she formulated a comprehensive philosophy, recently discussed here along with the published sources at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

It was an enormous breakthrough when Leonard Peikoff allowed, beginning several years ago, his several lecture series to be sold very inexpensively at the ARI e-store https://estore.aynrand.org/ along with many books, including his own OPAR -- in addition to the more recent no-cost ARI Campus http://campus.aynrand.org/. The comprehensive, radical new ideas, including an entire way of thinking, is crucial for more people to understand.

I read We the Living and Anthem when I was in school, and my kids read We the Living in high school as well. They didn't make as much of an impact until after I had read Atlas Shrugged and then explained in detail to my kids.

I think there are two things that must be focused on to hasten the spread of Objectivism in the near future (next 20 years): 1) Getting as many teenagers and young adults to read Ayn Rand's novels as possible. 2) Explaining the principles of Objectivism and the arguments for them in a thorough and powerfully convincing way that will satisfy intelligent, thoughtful and honest people, even if they are deeply mistaken in their philosophical thinking at the moment.

The Ayn Rand Institute has been focusing largely on applications of Objectivism. This may be an okay strategy for helping people who are already sympathetic to Rand through her novels, but just need a little boost to take the ideas seriously. But I don't think it's a good strategy for advocacy more generally.

This is part of the reason I started my blog, Objectivism for Intellectuals: https://objectivismforintellectuals.w... I think it does something to fill the gap I see. (Ayn Rand wrote wonderful essays on Objectivism, but she leaves many things unexplained that I think need to be spelled out and explained in today's culture.)

I think ARI is moving in the right direction with ARI Campus, but I still think even more free, accessible argument for the principles is needed.

Building your business was more important.

I didn't read his web site or any others at that time and wasn't aware of the issues you describe. In those days, except when he was in town, (Detroit) I would see him with a mutual friend. Otherwise I was working at building a business which was a 7 day 12 hour job. I'm sure what you say is true because there is a very big blank space in my seeing or talking to him until Barbara died.

Did you read Branden after Psychology of Self Esteem (written before the break)? HIs entire method of thinking reversed. He was even into New Age mysticism and was spreading very ugly attacks on Ayn Rand on his website and in his book on her. You should read the Valient book showing how he reversed himself on Objectivism and personally betrayed his own integrity leading up to the break, leaving Ayn Rand with no choice, all based on Ayn Rand's personal journals that contradict what Branden said about her position,.

Branden has been associated with Ayn Rand for a long time and had started NBI on his own despite her reservations. Aside from his pompous style he had done a lot of good in explaining non-fiction elementary elements of her philosophy to a core group of people interested, lasting for several years. But there is no sign that he even if he hadn't cracked up that he could have taken it beyond the level of those with a particular interest in her ideas to become a dominant, nation-wide movement. If he had tried he would have become a kind of 'guru' that is antithetical to the kind of independent thought and understanding Ayn Rand sought and without which the influence of her ideas cannot spread.

OK. That's your perception. I knew the man. We were just acquainted true, but he adored Rand and had the intelligence and energy and force of personality to create a movement that wasn't a cult. Rand on her own originally had no intention of doing what Branden did. I'm sure she would have been wonderful at it, but most of her time was spent in writing. Very precise writing that in order to meet her very high standards, required almost all of her time and concentration. Brandon on the other hand, put aside his pursuit of higher degrees and writing books to devote most of his time to the spread of Objectivism. Even well after the split, his only criticisms of Rand, if they can be called that, were very mild compared to her actual critics. When I asked him straight out to describe what he thought of Rand (2 years after) he replied, "She has a high opinion of the possibilities inherent in mankind."

You wrote that "The Newsletter under Rand was less interesting".

I don't know what your personal experiences were and wouldn't try to describe them, but I see no reason to think Branden could have ever made Ayn
Rand's ideas into a dominant national movement no matter what he might have done.

"Objectivism carried too far." Nonsense! Brandens' problems have nothing to do with objectivism.

Interesting. Viewing the same thing from different perspectives. Sort of like witnesses trying to describe the same incident to the police. I don't think I implied that Ayn Rand was uninteresting at that time. She never failed to stimulate and clarify.

Ayn Rand's periodicals remained interesting and only changed format once, when she changed from The Objectivist to the Ayn Rand Letter, written mostly by herself and therefore better. It didn't peter out, she announced that she was no longer publishing it (though it was always behind schedule). There were several tape transcription courses in the 1970s, mostly but not exclusively by Leonard Peikoff and Ayn Rand continued to speak, especially at Ford Hall Forum. The Peikoff lectures and all or most of the Ford Hall presentations are still available.

I don't know anything about the speculations of bitterness, lap dogs and addictions, or the kinds of groups you were in, and I never knew the Brandens or attended their lectures. They were gone by the time I discovered any of this. I didn't have any reason or desire to try to befriend the people around Ayn Rand and had no reason to believe they would want to, especially since I was just starting out.

One problem was the insistence that people who knew nothing about the Brandens' problems take a stand against them and have nothing to do with their work, which was very puzzling. Eventually the Brandens provided the reasons themselves through their own actions, as was later documented by Valient's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics.

There isn't anything in this that indicates Branden could have otherwise made Ayn Rand's ideas into a dominant national intellectual movement.

Hey, I just got an idea. Imagine if the guy in the "Fifty Shades of Gray" was an explicit Objectivist? I think if he had learned Objectivist philosophy, he would have mended his ways in the same way.

Ergo: we need a block-buster novel with mass appeal (sex, as we know, has quite an appeal) interwoven with a carefully described reasons why the heroes are heroes because they are Objectivists. The movies, unfortunately, did not achieve that. "Atlas Shrugged" is a novel. I feel sorrow for anyone that tried to make a screenplay from it.

It seems to me clear that you can pick in many other political ideologies items with which the Objectivists agree and would support. Political ideology is just that: the platform for a party or a candidate, a manifesto explaining the long term policy goals and such.

On the other, a coherent and all-encompassing philosophy as Objectivism is, covers much wider scope, including everything that individuals encounter and experience throughout their adult life. The key is that one has to have cognitive ability to recognize self and learn to trust Reason as the ultimate arbiter of all identifications, conceptual relationships, evaluations and decisions. Observe that libertarianism has virtually nothing to say on metaphysics, epistemology or esthetics. I did not include ethics because one could argue that their ideas on private property, free markets and social liberty imply some ethical valuations.

A philosophy is a guide to good life, all of human life, as ancient Greeks explicitly stated and thoroughly explained. I would argue that ancient Egyptians started on that road a couple of thousands of years earlier.

Political ideology is a guide to good government. That is an enormously narrower field of focus.

From those responding to my thread, it appears that a quick spread of Objectivist ideas is not in Objectivism's best interests. As I expected, people will have to discover Objectivism for themselves.

If you run across any FIT aerospace, mechanical, or chemical engineers that have graduated since 2000, they have come through me. Don't hesitate to ask me for a reference. I'll remember them. They become like my children.

Thanks for this response. I think you hit on a lot of important characteristics and factors.
Are the Mormons and JW's really growing fast? That's surprising news to me.
Objectivism is a complex system of ideas and principles. Thus it has to spread as a movement, not a fad. To answer Jim's question, I think we need to ask, can a movement spread quickly? If so, how?
There's many excellent books and researchers on this topic. And we have historical examples to learn from ourselves. I gave a few authors below and we can identify more.
At this time, based on what I know, the movements I'm aware of that spread quickly did so because they riled up people with fear, hysteria, and hatred. So perhaps we don't want it to spread fast. As you said, we don't want sheeple.
I believe what we need to spread fast (and can achieve) is for those of us who share our values to connect, trade, and encourage each other as much as possible so that we can succeed and thrive as much as possible, as fast as possible, before the sheeple push us all over the cliff. That's why I'm here. :-) Who's with me?!

Interesting, thanks Jim. And kudos for what sounds like a large positive impact already! I don't know much about your context. But I do know there's far too much collectivism and relativism being abused into college students today! Talk about abuse of position--don't get me started. :-/

I must disagree with you. I'm not defending Branden's actions, or for that matter, Rand's. However, I was there in the sense that I was active in our Ayn Rand enclave when things fell apart. The Newsletter under Rand was less interesting with less current views by a variety of people. It kept changing format until it just sort of petered out. No more classes by tape were sent out and everything seemed to tighten up into the New York "collective." Rand's amphetamine addiction was increasing and a definite feeling of bitterness emanated from her and those close to her. Piekoff was brilliant but more of a lap dog than even Branden. Plus, if anyone thought Nathaniel was hard to approach, he was easy compared to Leonard. I realize I'm talking about Objectivist icons and it might seem as if I have something against them. Not true. They gave me more than I can ever pay back. In my opinion Rand and those around her, Including Barbara Branden are people who literally saved my life in the sense that I would have been adrift if not for the compass they gave me. But reality is what it is and what is, is truth.

Txs. I was just confused for a moment.

Branden's personal behavior was his own self destruction. Ayn Rand saw him for he became and acted accordingly. She continued on without him and didn't need NBI. She continued to publish a journal and books, continued to speak, and continued to sponsor some very excellent lecture series. There isn't anything Branden could have done to make Ayn Rand's ideas into a dominant national intellectual movement no matter what he had done.

At the very least it is important to slow down the progressive demise for our own life span. But for anyone who regards human civilization as a value, even apart from offspring living in the future, then it should be defended with a proper philosophy. "Longer than we have" refers to stopping a fundamental change in this country for the worse, which in turn makes it much more difficult to restore freedom. But as long as there is freedom of speech, at least in the form of the underground as it was during the Dark and Middle Ages, then better ideas can be spread with better consequences for the future.

Yes, there is nothing wrong with a method "working" to achieve one's goals. But that isn't what the philosophy of Pragmatism means.

Not you, but the kind of people you were refuting.

Yes, she did. There is nothing to be gained from the watering down through inconsistencies. But she also did no expect that everyone in a society should or should want to become an expert in technical philosophy. Her goal for a popularity and general influence of Objectivism meant the basic ideas such as the presentation in Atlas Shrugged. Professional intellectuals are expected to understand more, and it is essential that they do.