Her philosophy is ignored by all serious institutions, and ”Objectivism has to make its way through the world via a cult. like Amway or Scientology.

So, post now to withdraw your claim.

If instead you intend to support your claim, clearly define this legal and medical condition per DSM. Cite the doctor’s reports that diagnosed her. Do not quote other people’s claims and rants. This term is not to be tossed around like an internet meme. It is an onerous extraordinary claim of a horrifying condition, and requires extraordinary evidence.

Don’t call on “the standard criteria of psychopathy” without specifically citing them per DSM and professionals, don’t presume what others said or thought, don’t tell me to assume she “fits” random unspecified aspects of this mental illness.
.
Don’t tell me what you hope I’ll understand – I am not going to help you by stipulating the claims you are floating.

And again … this is a blog post by Jon Rappoport concerning the Ideas of Objectivism in The Fountainhead. Tu quoque attacks on the author not only display your inability to counter these ideas, but that you consider it legitimate to attack a person to discredit her thought. This is void.

However, I think non-psychopaths who read his narrative will concur that the behaviour he attributed to her, most evidently later in her life, conforms to standard criteria of psychopathy. As she has had many defenders, more favorable assessments of her character and personality undoubtedly exist, and I would think you could direct interested persons to these as a counterbalance to Branden’s account. In his support, key Collective member and psychiatrist Alan Blumenthal came to the conclusion that Rand suffered from several personality disorders.

You will understand, I hope, that, after his years of the closest identification with and emotional investment in Objectivism, Branden was concerned not to discredit Ayn so utterly as to throw the baby of principles he believed in out with the bathwater of her malicious behavior. Thus, for example, he characterized her not as insane, but rather “insane”. Nor would it have been comfortable for him to admit to having been for many years completely taken in by, to the point of worshipping, a person who was pathologically mentally unwell.

It should be noted that he used Objectivism as a springboard for his post-Rand career, theorizing extensively about self-esteem, one of the themes he and Ayn focussed on in their discussions.

Clearly define this legal and medical condition per DSM. Cite the doctor’s reports that diagnosed her. Do not quote other people’s claims and rants. This term is not to be tossed around like an internet meme. It is an onerous extraordinary claim of a horrifying condition, and requires extraordinary evidence.

If you don’t do this, your diagnosis is not only void, but sick.

Meanwhile, this is all avoidance. You claimed that Objectivism itself is “inherently symptomatic of psychopathy” without citing the DSM characteristics and the elements of the philosophy that indict it. You continue to argue tu quoque by proxy, flinging the words of one person (not yourself!) against a personality to discredit her philosophy. This is void.

Here’s another–the mine is rich–which unquestionably indicates that Branden regarded Rand as being mentally deranged, without applying a label to her condition: After she had bombastically, and with evident malicious intent, condemned him to [sexual] impotence “for the next twenty years” [for becoming interested in another woman], he says, “I looked deliberately at Allan [Blumenthal]. I thought: You are a psychiatrist. How do you assess the mental and moral state of a human being who would say what Ayn had [sic] just said?” If you do not detect psychopathy in her rage to hurt, then we obviously differ in our understandings of what constitutes psychopathy. I do not profess to have professional expertise in the matter, but there are generally accepted checklists for the symptoms, and readers following this exchange might want to assess the quotations I have provided against these. Of course if Branden himself was fabulating, then there would be no point in doing this. However, I personally find his detailed account of the dissolution of his once intense collaboration with Rand to be plausible. If you disagree, all you need to do is say so.

You did not answer my challenge: per your claim, either N. Branden or you are calling Ayn Rand a psychopath. That is a stupendously onerous claim, and a devastating diagnosis if true. The conversation cannot continue unless you respond, or withdraw the claim.

So, which is it: are you claiming it, or are you saying Branden claimed it. If the former, prove it. If the later, cite the exact quotation and full context.

The way in which Ayn Rand consistently pontificated and verbally bullied others leaves no doubt that the descriptor suits her mental processes.

Regarding point (1), I am relying on what Nathanial Branden revealed about her nastiness when crossed, which he discovered (after he became a primary target) extended to psychopathically* working to destroy the careers and very lives of acolytes whom she adjudged to be insufficiently adoring (i.e., displaying independent-mindedness); in her perception, no one could simultaneously be honest and reject the absolutist conclusions she arrived at by applying her reason to the postulates from which she chose to work. She freely expressed contempt for others throughout her career, apparently becoming maniacal about it only later in life. You seem to concur with her that any persons at the receiving end of this contempt had to be, by definition, dishonest. Since Branden was the object of her most violent contempt (after she had lauded him for over a decade, named him as an heir in her will, and dedicated her magnum opus to him), I suppose that you must reject as dishonest anything he had to say about her and their relationship, which eliminates our having any common ground on which to have a discussion.

On point (2), as, contrary to conventional mythology, many “collectivist” movements have actually been supported by “capitalists”, I don’t accept your assumption that they are incompatible categories.

On point (3), I might be mistaken, but I thought a major theme of her writing was that in society there are creative worthies and parasitical hangers-on and that the former should be in position to dictate policy. This sounds to me like an oligarchical arrangement, but since Randians, like Marxists, define terms in ways that suit them rather than for the purpose of permitting discussion on the basis common understandings, I have no further comment for you.

*By conventional criteria for the condition, some tenets of “Objectivism” as expressed by Rand are inherently symptomatic of psychopathy.

Your corrections:
1) Rand has no contempt for any honest person on any level;
2) Cooperation is the hallmark of Capitalism and has rendered stupendous general welfare far far above any ever provided by collectivism;
3) Ayn Rand does not champion oligarchy — which operates through private/govt enmeshment;

I will dispute you as long as necessary until you admit the truth about Ayn Rand. Am I a pilpulist?