Ayn Rand and the World She Made - Anne C. Heller [233]
Years later, in an interview in a small libertarian magazine, long after the scandal had harmed the reputations of everyone involved, Hank Holzer admitted that Nathaniel was innocent of all financial charges. He “did not steal any money from Ayn Rand. If that is the charge, I can tell you in my very considered, researched judgment that that did not occur. It is an unfair charge.” At the time, however, he was silent.
In her own rebuttal, Barbara stated that her friendship with Rand had never been motivated by financial considerations. “It was precisely my horror of accepting the financial gain about to be showered upon me that caused me to tell her” about Nathaniel’s unspecified “ugly acts,” she wrote. She then predicted that anyone who expressed sympathy for the evil Brandens or tried to remain neutral in the break would be pronounced immoral themselves and ostracized. As the bright, clear days of autumn reached their zenith, she and Nathaniel mailed their letter, entitled “In Answer to Ayn Rand,” to 21,000 subscribers of The Objectivist. Then Barbara and, separately, Nathaniel and Patrecia, left New York to begin new lives in Los Angeles.
The reaction to Rand’s charges against the Brandens exceeded Barbara’s prediction. Alan Greenspan, Leonard Peikoff, and others signed a terse coda to Rand’s “To Whom It May Concern” in which they renounced all future contact with the Brandens. Lest Branden disclose more information about a romantic relationship with Rand, he was discredited as a confessed liar and thief whose word on any subject could not be trusted. No questions needed to be asked or answered. If the author of the greatest book ever written declared that the Brandens “had lied to preserve their money pot and association with Ayn,” as one contemporary described the prevailing wisdom, well, then, who could doubt it? Not Allan Blumenthal—not after his philosophical torch-bearer had explained that Nathaniel had been the sexual aggressor at every stage of their affair and had exploited her financially for years. Not Peikoff or Holzer. They disseminated and enforced the party line—”You’re either for Miss Rand or you’re against her”—setting in motion a wave of Soviet-style loyalty oaths and excommunications that would eventually slow Rand’s movement to a trickle. A witch-hunt atmosphere took hold. As attorney Holzer recalled, “Ayn wanted to know on whom she could rely.” The lawyer phoned NBI tape-transcription reps, seeking evidence of any suspicious behavior on the part of Branden, while Peikoff notified the representatives and others that the Brandens were now official “enemies” and that any who objected to the phone calls or forced taking of sides would be blackballed. When Peikoff, now thirty-four years old, launched his own series of non-NBI lectures in the spring of 1969, students had to sign a waiver promising not to contact either of the pair or buy Nathaniel’s forthcoming book or subsequent books. In New York, therapists dismissed patients who asked for explanations with an air of disapproval that baffled some for years and haunts a few to this day. Holzer reportedly refused to represent some clients in midcase. Recalled Joan Kennedy Taylor, “He was supposedly handling the estate of my father [Deems Taylor]. Before ‘To Whom It May Concern’ came out, he called me and said, ‘There’s been a break. Don’t feel I’m singling you out, but I’m asking all my clients: Which side are you on? If you give me the wrong answer I can no longer represent you.’ I told him