[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore
by Michael Stuart Kelly

In early 2005, an unknown author and government attorney, James Valliant, published a book entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It is abbreviated as PARC.

The thesis of the book is that both Brandens had badly damaged Rand's reputation by smearing her in an underhanded—not easily perceived—manner in their published books and that Rand's own journal entries at the time of the break between her and the Brandens prove her to be such a victim.

At the time of publication, this book received the endorsement of almost the entire orthodox Objectivist community. This was fueled by the fact that Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir, had granted Valliant the right to publish Ayn Rand's journal entries from the time of the break, going from the end of 1967 up to the middle of 1968. Peikoff also heartily endorsed the book by claiming the following*:

Peikoff said:

Jim Valliant... is one of the few people that knows what he's talking about when he says something.

I admit I also think of Valliant sometimes as a "that" and not as a "who." I also admit that this is not very important, but there it is. This quote was posted by the Chicago Objectivist Society in their announcement of Valliant's talk on April 15, 2006.

* NOTE ON MAY 20, 2008: Valliant just revealed that this quote is from the video jacket of Ideas in Action, which, according to him, was published 10 years earlier than PARC. I just documented this in a post. As you can see in the full context in the Noodelfood post reproduced below, there is a strong insinuation that Peikoff wrote this to plug PARC. At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries. I have no formal knowledge of what his evaluation of the finished book is, but I have a good guess, and I guess it has changed over time.

There are no archives of this announcement on the Chicago Objectivist Society's website and the Wayback Machine entry for it apparently has been deleted. The entire announcement, however, was repeated verbatim on Noodlefood on March 21, 2006. Here is the full blog post in case it should likewise disappear one day (I did not include the links in the post):

Hsieh said:

Tuesday, March 21, 2006
Jim Valliant in Chicago on April 15th
By Diana Hsieh @ 9:20 AM
The Chicago Objectivist Society is hosting two lectures by Jim Valliant about The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics on April 15th:
Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Integrity by James Valliant

James Valliant, the author of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, is presenting two new lectures to the Chicago Objectivist Society. For the last twenty years, Ayn Rand has been the victim of attacks on her behavior and psychology inspired by the biographies of Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden. Finally, a critical response to the Branden's allegations has been published, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, by James S. Valliant.

In this two-part lecture, Mr. Valliant first examines the problems with the Brandens' accounts. The second part of this lecture is a unique insight into Ayn Rand's character from the only author who has had access to her private journals.

"Jim Valliant... is one of the few people that knows what he's talking about when he says something." -- Leonard Peikoff, author of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Part I: Ayn Rand and the Virtue of Integrity

This engaging lecture lays to rest the myths about Ayn Rand's life and character that have been promulgated by her detractors. It is highlighted by extensive, never-before-published personal journal entries of Ayn Rand. These passages are immensely valuable, not only in revealing the claims of Rand's critics to be profoundly inaccurate and unjust, but also in showcasing her epochal mind at work resolving complex questions of personal life.

Part II: Working With Ayn Rand's Journals

Mr. Valliant will discuss the process of writing this book, how and why the Estate of Ayn Rand made Rand's private journals available to Mr. Valliant - and his surprise at the dramatic confirmation of his hypotheses. Mr. Valliant will describe his experience working with Rand's Estate, and share his insights about Ayn Rand's personality - her serenity and rationality, her righteous anger, her careful moral judgment of others, and, above all, her remarkable integrity.

About James Valliant

James Valliant is the author of *The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics* and the editor of Ayn Rand's private journals used during his research. His op-eds have appeared in publications such as The San Francisco Chronicle.

He has been a Deputy District Attorney in the San Diego area for over 16 years. Mr. Valliant is a magna cum laude graduate of New York University with a degree in philosophy. He received his JurisDoctorate from the University of San Diego. With his wife, he created the 1995 television interview show, Ideas in Action, the winner of two prestigious Cinema in Industry (CINDY) Awards.

Mr. Valliant is a regular expert commentator on several news programs in San Diego, California, including Fox 6 and KUSI news programs as a religious, legal, and political analyst. His next book is on the origins of the New Testament, and will be titled, Behind the Cross.

Date: Saturday, April 15th

Time:
12:30-1:00 pm: Author Meet and Greet/Reception
1:00-2:40 pm: Part I: Lecture + Author Signing
2:45-4:00 pm: Lunch Break
4:00-6:00 pm: Part II: Lecture + Author Signing

8:00 pm: Dinner with Mr. Valliant
Location: Downtown Chicago at the DePaul University Campus. More specific information will be provided to registrants.

Cost: $44 per person ($34 full time students) before April 3rd
$49 ($39 full time students) after April 3rd

Enrollment: E-mail contact@chicagoobjectivists.org your RSVP.

You can pay with a credit card via the Chicago Objectivist Society's web page.

The comments to the post had nothing of interest to add. There is a repeat of the entire Noodlefood post on the Objectivism Online Metablog dated March 21, 2006. Also, there is a notification by Stephen Speicher on Mar 18 2006 on the Forum4AynRandFans which also gives the Peikoff quote.

I ask the reader to please excuse the level of detail on documenting this Peikoff quote, but this is a perfect concrete example of two points that are germane to what I am discussing here, which is that nobody is taking PARC seriously anymore.

Point 1. The method used by Valliant of distorting reality and rewriting it to fit his evaluations does not come from him. It comes from the top of the heap. I remember reading this Peikoff quote all over the place back when it was first posted. Currently, the three places linked above are the only ones left that I have been able to find. If you want to check for yourself, I suggest you Google it. Just to make sure, I checked the Google, Yahoo, Live, Ask and Mahalo search engines. This is a clear indication that someone has been going around asking people to remove it.

This kind of behavior is tiresome to people who have their own lives to lead and it eventually becomes difficult to document. The idea behind doing that is to distort public image through constant corrosive activity. As an old saying goes, "Drops wear down the stone, not by strength, but by constant falling."

Rhetoric-wise, this is the exact method used in PARC. Valliant did not arrive at this method on his own. He learned it from his orthodox Objectivist betters.

Point 2. The very fact that the quote is being silently removed is an indication that ARI is starting to distance itself from Valliant's book, or at least Peikoff no longer wants to provide such a solid endorsement. Granted, PARC is still being sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore, but I personally think that this is a face-saving measure. If ARI removed it from the catalog, that would be tantamount to admitting that Peikoff made a colossal mistake in entrusting Rand's journals to such an incompetent boneheaded author as Valliant.

The fact is that nobody but a Branden-hater ever really took the PARC seriously in the first place (except for a convert or two on the Internet forums over the last 3 years—and you can count those converts on the fingers of one hand). The act of demonizing a person or group to the extent PARC did is a solid indication of tribalism.

If you want to have a good example of how this works in reality, go to the comments section on the Amazon sales page for PARC. You will find two basic kinds of comments: people who solidly endorse the book, but pepper their comments with practically nothing but wishful opinions about burying the Brandens, and readers who are appalled at Valliant's obvious distortions.

You can also notice that those who are appalled are generally given one star and those who express approval are given 5 stars. What this means is that there is a small tribe actively trying to manipulate the rating system to present a false public image that PARC is making some kind of impact. They want to give the impression that the majority of Amazon visitors disapprove of the negative reviews. Unfortunately, there are too many negative reviews for this to come across as intended and the distortion is obvious.

Now here we come to a real problem with discussing PARC anywhere. The tribe members are (or were) committed to defending the book at all costs. This meant that they did not care about the veracity of any facts. They have tried to win any and all arguments by wearing people down.

Valliant is particularly slippery in this respect in his online behavior. He is an active poster on the Solo Passion website and was active on its precursor, SoloHQ. He always leaves himself wiggle-room to get out of owning up to an obvious fact if it goes against his Branden demonizing Rand whitewashing campaign, but then he comes back the next day repeating his original point as if the fact that was presented did not exist.

This is trying to win an argument by wearing people out, not by having actual facts that contradict the one presented. Unfortunately for him, people have become aware of this. It is the main reason that PARC is not being taken seriously anymore.

What's worse is that nobody is ever convinced by this method. They are merely silenced for a while. They get bored. There is only one reason this obvious truth is not understood by Valliant and those who do like he does: they are disconnected from reality. If they were connected, they would understand that they are not defending Rand at all. They are simply driving people away from the discussion, even their own tribe-members.

Still, Valliant is so slippery that his method is hard to document in an open-and-shut manner that cannot be denied even by acolytes. However, Neil Parille gave a brilliant performance in nailing Valliant to the wall in a manner that eliminated the wiggle-room. Valliant literally had no way out and capitulated. He had to just to save face. But he still did not capitulate entirely to owning up to the facts. And he is still trying to win God knows what by wearing folks down. (He seems oblivious to the fact that there are precious few of us left who even read him.)

Here are some highlights to a discussion between Valliant and Neil. It concerns the veracity of Barbara Branden's meeting with Ayn Rand shortly before she died. This issue was discussed amply in other places where PARC was discussed, with Valliant using a wide range of his traditional smarmy rhetoric, but frankly I do not feel like wading through all of that again. The recent discussion is more than enough to illustrate my point.

On Feb, 27, 2008, Neil mentioned the following on Solo Passion:

Parille said:

Jim says on page 94 that "Rand never saw [Ms. Branden] again." That's incorrect. On pages 397-400, Barbara Branden discusses meeting Rand in 1981.

On Feb, 28, Valliant responded (amidst a plethora of smarmy language):

Valliant said:

Also, Ms. B. makes the claim that she later saw Rand. Is there any corroboration of this self-serving claim? (Do try to keep the rest of PARC in mind.)

On Feb, 29, Neil posted:

Parille said:

You say that Barbara Branden never met Rand again, so you believe that she is lying.

What did you do to attempt to verify or refute her claim? Did you contact the housekeeper who Barbara says was there? (You claim she says Barbara misrepresented her on Frank's alleged drinking, so I assume you talked to her). Did you contact the ARI archives and ask if they had any correspondence relevant to this issue (Barbara says she wrote a letter to Rand after the meeting)? Did you ask Peikoff if he knows anything about this meeting?

Valliant refused to answer and made a smarmy post instead, accusing Neil of avoiding questions.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted again:

Parille said:

1. Did you contact the housekeeper who Barbara says was there?

2. Did you contact the ARI archives and ask if they had any correspondence relevant to this issue (Barbara says she wrote a letter to Rand after the meeting)?

3. Did you ask Peikoff if he knows anything about this meeting?

Not difficult questions.

Valliant still refused to answer, although he posted more smarmy crap.

On Feb, 29, Neil posted once again:

Parille said:

You are claiming that BB made up this story of a 1981 meeting. Considering that you often find the Branden books credible, I think you have the burden of proof in showing that this meeting was fictional.

That being said, I did email the Archives and asked them about this. If they respond and give me permission to post it, I will do so.

On March 1, Valliant responded:

Valliant said:

Of course, I make no such argument in PARC as the one you are now arguing against, but imagine, for just a moment, if you can, that it even acknowledged Ms. B.'s claim about meeting Rand later -- despite your inability to provide any corroboration at this point. (But do keep up your researches -- you're bound to learn.)

I think if Valliant had imagined the outcome, he would not have been so smarmy here. Just to make sure that this issue is understood correctly, Valliant is lying. He actually did "make such argument in PARC." It is on page 94. Here is a direct quote (and Neil already quoted part of this). Valliant is discussing affairs in 1968 during the time of the break.

Valliant in PARC said:

At her attorney's advice, Rand authorized him to invite Ms. Branden to a meeting so that they could discuss the accusations she was making. Ms. Branden never came and Rand never saw her again.

How can anyone imagine, other than making it up or lying, that Barbara would report later meeting Rand if "Rand never saw her again?" Valliant is either incredibly sloppy here or he is the one lying. I think he is both based on his behavior.

What's worse, Valliant not only refused to admit he had not checked the archives or Peikoff, he insinuated that no corroboration existed and that he had actually checked the archives.

But let's not take him at his insinuation. Let's take him at his word. In July 2006, Barbara made a speech at The Atlas Society's summer conference entitled "Objectivism and Rage." Valliant participated in a book-signing nearby around that time to try to cash in on TAS's public. During the Q&A following a speech he gave, he made the following statement (and this is from the horse's own mouth). This mp3 was posted on Solo Passion for a while. I cut off the beginning and end to reduce the size. What is left was extracted whole, without editing, from the original.



If you have any trouble operating the player, just right-click on the link below and choose "Save target as" (or link or file or something similar) to download the mp3 file to your hard disk. The file's real name is Valliant2006_07_06_QA-shortened.mp3.

Valliant's opinion of Barbara's last visit to Ayn Rand

Here is a transcription.

Quote

Valliant: Yes, Andrew?

Andrew: What do you think of the fact that Barbara Branden visited Ayn Rand before she died, uhm [unintelligible]?

Valliant: No. There is no corroboration in any of Ayn Rand's notes or in any of the evidence from the Ayn Rand Archives that there was such a meeting as Barbara Branden describes later in their lives. That doesn't mean it was the case. It doesn't mean it wasn't the case. I will have to say what I said [unintelligible] in the book about that.

Everything that either one of the Brandens says that does not have independent corroboration from a credible source is to be dismissed out of hand as an arbitrary assertion.

What can be more self-interested than her reconciled with Ayn Rand?

She didn't think I was such a bad person. She forgave me. Forget what 1968… all that denunciation by Ms. Rand, because, you know, in the end she forgave me.

What could be more nakedly self-serving than such an assertion? If there was such a meeting, I have no idea what was said. I have no idea whether or not Ayn Rand spat in her face if there was such a meeting, which, probably, would have been the appropriate behavior. But no. No.

Branden has a similar story about his third wife meeting Ayn Rand—Devers Branden—and such a semi-reconciliation as well.

Both stories I dismiss out of hand.

Can there be any doubt that Valliant claims to have the authority of the Ayn Rand Archives to doubt Barbara's story? Is there any wiggle-room at all here?

Then came the bomb.

On March 7, Neil posted a thread on Solo Passion entitled "Barbara Branden's Meeting With Ayn Rand In 1981." Here is the text of that post:

Parille said:

In The Passion of Ayn Rand, Barbara Branden says that she met Rand in 1981 and wrote Rand a letter thereafter. (PAR, pp. 397-400.)

In The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, James Valliant says that Rand never saw Barbara Branden again after their split. (PARC, p. 94.)

I contacted the Archives of the ARI and they confirm that there is evidence that this meeting took place. Specifically, although the letter mentioned by Barbara Branden was not found, Cynthia Peikoff (who was Rand's secretary in 1981), mentions the letter and the meeting in the forthcoming 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand, by Scott McConnell.

Reference assistance, courtesy the Ayn Rand Archives, A Special Collection of the Ayn Rand Institute.

I thank the Archives for their response.

Did Valliant say "Oops!"? Did he say, "I'm sorry for the mistake"? Did he say, "I actually did not consult the archives about this"?

No.

He acted as if he knew all along how it would turn out. Take a look at this incredible lack of owning up (on March 7). What is amazing about the post is that Valliant is so boneheaded he doesn't even see the implications in his own statement. Here is what he said about the ARI archives in that post:

Valliant said:

It showed that even if the documentary evidence that you were looking for doesn't exist (something I had already noticed), they will work to give you their best information.

Say what?

Does this mean that "they will work to give you their best information" to Neil, but did not give their best to Valliant when he was right there in the building during extended stays doing research for his book?

Can there be any doubt that Valliant is lying about something?

I think he is an incredibly shoddy scholar and/or equally shoddy liar. No wonder Peikoff (or his supporters) is silently removing his endorsement from the Internet.

Even with Valliant's own mendacity rubbed in his nose in public, he still had the gall to say (in that boneheaded post):

Valliant said:

Now, as to how the meeting may have gone down... (the most suspicious part of all)?

And, of course, this information has no impact on anything else in that chapter. Not one little thing. So, perhaps, you might want to take my earlier suggestion, ignore this item, and tell me what's wrong with the conclusions -- or, indeed, anything else -- in that chapter.

If you can.

To be fair, Valliant thanked Neil twice, once in that boneheaded post and once on another thread. Neil has also documented some of this in his article on OL, "The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part III."

Since then, Valliant has not become more humble. He has not asked for corrections (other than rhetorically to try to prove that none need to be made in PARC). He has not shown good will at all to accept facts and question whether or not he may have made other incorrect assumptions. On the contrary, he has started melting down and some of his current posts border on unintelligibility.

For instance, in later trying to chastise Neil (March 12), Valliant made an incredibly stupid blunder again, practically fessing up to his own shoddiness:

Valliant said:

And you're still making stuff up, I see. No one told me that there was no meeting -- and there is no reason to suppose that anyone did.

Of course there is no reason to suppose that anyone at the archives told him anything if one already knows that he did not ask anyone about it. But since he claimed he knew what was and was not in the archives (and there is much more online from Valliant making this claim than I gave above if anyone wants to look for it), it is reasonable to think someone from the archives told him there was no meeting between Barbara and Rand, or at least there was no evidence in the archives of such.

Now I want you, dear reader, if you are still awake or with me in this life-shattering topic, to think about the following. (That was sarcasm.) Look at how much crap was needed to get Valliant to stop spreading one boneheaded smear (with an accompanying bare-faced lie) out of a gazillion in PARC.

It would be possible to do that point-by-point and I assure you that Valliant would not fare well in the exercise. But who has the time for all of that?

I would not suggest using the following method on hardly any other book, but I know this one in depth. It is 100% safe to conclude that if Valliant used such sloppiness and lack of morality in the issue of Barbara meeting Rand at the end of Rand's life, he did that in other cases in PARC. As I said, there are gazillions. In fact, he did that so often that this is exactly what the people in the Amazon reader reviews of PARC sensed and what made them so appalled. The real issue is not pro-Rand or contra-Rand or pro-Brandens or contra-Brandens. It is the implications involved in fabricating and endorsing an intellectual swindle.

Objectivism is a philosophy of integrity, or it is supposed to be. Is lack of integrity, outright lying and gross intellectual sloppiness what ARI really wants to endorse? Do they really want their name associated with this crap? Do they really want to show the world that Peikoff will endorse something irrationally out of hatred—even when it has been incontestably proven wrong—and not out of reason?

PARC is not a serious book. Valliant is not a serious scholar. Shame on the people who allowed some of Rand's most intimate writing to see the light of day in this bonehead's hands. And shame on the people who endorsed this mess.

* * * * *

EDIT on June 9, 2009: Dr. Peikoff finally made a public statement with reference to PARC. It is on his website, but after the time of this posting passes, you will probably have to locate it by searching for it. As presented currently, it is a note to the podcast of June 8, 2009. The message in its entirety is given below. Oddly enough, Dr. Peikoff CC'd his personal email addressed to Mr. Wales to Robert Campbell. I say odd because he had never had any communication or contact with Robert before that virtual carbon copy.

Peikoff said:

Welcome to the official website of Leonard Peikoff — the world's foremost authority on Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.


June 8, 2009

To my listeners:

I would appreciate any help that you can give me in my effort to reverse Wikipedia’s decision in this issue.

Thank you,

Leonard Peikoff


Dear Mr. Wales,

I learned recently to my astonishment that while books by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, attacking Ayn Rand and her personal life, enjoy the status of reputable references in Wikipedia, a book disputing their claims and presenting the opposite viewpoint has been removed from your list as non-reputable. I refer to The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics by James Valliant published in May 2005. On its face, this is a policy of egregious injustice on your part.

As Ayn Rand’s executor, heir, and longtime personal friend, I will testify in any forum to the accuracy of Mr. Valliant’s book. I do not pretend to know every detail of the clash between Rand and the Brandens, but I do know firsthand the essential truth of the Valliant book. I leave aside here my own personal observations and discussions on this issue with Rand, because the book itself contains lengthy excerpts from her own personal notes, which completely bear out Valliant’s thesis in her own words. I released these notes only after a 20 year wait, because in Valliant I found at last a writer who would give her personal viewpoint a rational hearing, neither hostile nor worshipful.

My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand. Surely such an individual and her claque have a transparent motive to kill this book. Can you justify removing one side of this dispute, the one endorsed by someone with my credentials? Do you describe as “reputable” only enemies of Ayn Rand?

There are those in the academic world who question the objectivity of Wikipedia. I hope that your action on this matter will prove that they are wrong.

Sincerely yours,

Leonard Peikoff
Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand

[Dragonfly]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 18 2008, 05:30 PM, said:

A "favorite" paragraph of mine -- because it deserves one of those awards for lousy writing (what are they called: the Buhler Lytton awards or something like that?)

The Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest, which has hilarious contributions.

Valliant said:

Most helpfully for her readers, Ms. Branden wears her own distorting prejudices on her sleeve. The portrait of Rand that she paints is so filled with contradictions, both explicit and implicit, that they form a striking spectacle of their own that focuses the eye away from Rand and on a disturbing portrait of Ms. Branden painted with impressions of Rand refracted through the prism of her conflicted mind. Just as in non-objective art, the prism of Ms. Branden's mind soon becomes the focus, since what is reflecting through it is clearly impossible.

A prism of the mind that becomes the focus...? A portrait of Ms. Branden painted with impressions of Rand...? Hmmm...

Indeed, we could use it as an entry for the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

This post has been edited by Dragonfly: 18 May 2008 - 10:21 AM

[BaalChatzaf]

Dragonfly, on May 18 2008, 12:20 PM, said:

Indeed, we could use it as an entry for the Bulwer-Lytton fiction contest.

Only on a Dark and Stormy Night.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

I wonder if Valliant's animus toward Nathaniel Branden started with youthful exposure to Murray Rothbardian animadversions upon same. For Rothbard NB was "Hitler."

--Brant

[Greybird]

Brant Gaede, on May 18 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

[...] For Rothbard [Nathaniel Branden] was "Hitler."

You write this as if you're quoting Rothbard directly. Please tell us exactly where you read this, lest we become entitled to believe that you're channeling Peter Schwartz.

(I guess "channeling" implies that the source has died. Well, there's "is," and there's "ought to be" ...)

Rothbard slung recriminations to the point of being baroque in his "Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," and he pushed satire well beyond reasonable boundaries in his "Mozart Was a Red," but as far as I know — and I've read millions of words of his — he never came anywhere near likening Rand or her circle to Nazis.

Let's leave that (low) caliber of personal smearing over at The Atlas Society, shall we?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike Hardy, on May 18 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

'Nother words, he's acting like a lawyer whose duty is to a client who has taken a certain position.

So why might that be the appropriate way for him to behave?

Mike,

I am unsure about the meaning of your statement and question, and if I get it wrong, I apologize and would appreciate a clarification.

If it means what I think it does, I admit that in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients, so they don't really need to make any amends when they are caught lying. Dey are jus doink der jops, Herr Führer! Sieg Heil!

I don't like the practice and I don't condone it as good professional practitioner ethics. I think it's shyster level practice and I would never hire a lawyer who would lie in court for me. (If he would lie to the court, he most certainly will lie to me.)

Now, since we are discussing a book that I presume the author wants to be taken seriously, I personally can't take an author seriously who is caught lying red-handed and thinks it is OK to pretend otherwise. That is one of the reasons I don't take that book seriously. I believe it is one of the reasons nobody else is taking it seriously anymore either, as stated in the title to my article.

(Of course there is a whole slew of reasons why nobody is taking it seriously anymore: piss-poor writing, machine-gun-like rhetorical excesses, a mountain of incorrect facts, boneheaded speculations, altered Rand journal entries with a demand you take him at his word on what was altered or not, and many other things. But I will stay with bare-faced lying for now.)

What else is Valliant lying about? That's a reasonable question in light of what I (and Neil and others) have presented. Since one cannot verify Valliant's countless allegations without going through all that crap Neil went through, it is also reasonable to seek information from more reputable sources.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

deleted dupe
mistakenly by me

This post has been edited by Brant Gaede: 18 May 2008 - 07:39 PM

[Neil Parille]

Following up on what Michael said, Valliant has admitted by my count a total of 6 mistakes in PARC. When I and others first pointed them out to him, did he concede that he might be mistaken? No, he engaged in a pattern of verbal abuse and name calling (just look at the issue of the 1981 meeting where Valliant's smarmy attittude was on full display, refusing to answer the simple question of what efforts he took to confirm his conclusion that the meeting never took place).

Just today Valliant conceded for the first time that the change to Penthouse Legend consisted of a change to one line in one performance of the play and not in the play's "production." This mistake was pointed out to him by Chris Sciabarra almost three years ago.

And these are only a small percentage of the misquotes and misreports in his book.

Valliant deserves credit for making these changes, but his modus operandi does not indicate someone who is interested in finding the truth.

This post has been edited by Neil Parille: 18 May 2008 - 04:36 PM

[Mike Hardy]

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 18 2008, 02:50 PM, said:

Mike Hardy, on May 18 2008, 09:32 AM, said:

'Nother words, he's acting like a lawyer whose duty is to a client who has taken a certain position.

So why might that be the appropriate way for him to behave?

Mike,

I am unsure about the meaning of your statement and question, and if I get it wrong, I apologize and would appreciate a clarification.

If it means what I think it does, I admit that in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients, so they don't really need to make any amends when they are caught lying. Dey are jus doink der jops, Herr Führer! Sieg Heil!

Although I do think that in some circumstances the legal system encourages lawyers to be dishonest, I was actually referring to something else. Valliant said the Ayn Rand archives contained nothing to corroborate that Barbara Branden met with Ayn Rand in 1981. Later he said the archive does contain some such corroboration. That could be a mistake rather than actual dishonesty. But you seemed to complain that he didn't say "I made a mistake" when you thought it was appropriate. Now Valliant could say "As long as I allowed later that the archives do corroborate that the meeting happened, thereby setting the record straight, no one can consider it dishonest." But if he's extremely averse to saying "I made a mistake" when that could be appropriate if we're talking about _him_ rather than about the topic of his book, then we might consider under what circumstances might that behavior be appropriate. It would be appropriate if he had a duty to keep things strictly on the topic of the Brandens and to make whatever case could be made against them consistent with the evidence. Why would he have such a duty to advocate for one side rather than acting like a judge or a scientist weighing the evidence on all sides of the dispute? -- Mike Hardy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mike Hardy, on May 18 2008, 05:18 PM, said:

Why would he have such a duty to advocate for one side rather than acting like a judge or a scientist weighing the evidence on all sides of the dispute?

Mike,

It is not a question of duty. It is a question of credibility on the free market.

When I look, I see that Valliant is treated as credible only where zealots write: Web 2.0 (Amazon reader reviews, Wikipedia, blogs of zealots, etc., and they haven't even really used places like MySpace, etc.). I am at a loss to find anywhere else. I can't help but notice that Web 2.0 applications are for free, both for writer and publisher.

And, of course, it is a free market. People are free to take PARC and Valliant as seriously as they want to. They can buy more copies of PARC, quote Vailliant in their writing as an authority, show up at his lectures (if and when he speaks), and so on. But I don't see it happening, not even in the orthodox Objectivist community at large and not even for free.

To be accurate, I do see some activity by a few zealots and I see Valliant posting for free on Solo Passion with precious few people reading what he has to say (i.e., zealots and people like me who are interested in holding his accusations to a higher intellectual standard than he uses). And I see him grateful for what little attention sporadically comes his way whenever someone like Neil Parille, Robert Campbell or William Scherk show up and actually take him seriously for a moment and provide a target for his zealots. Then he and zealots make a show as if there is some huge controversy. But it is always a "straw fire" to use a Brazilian term. Flare-up and poof, it's over.

You may have no objection to Valliant's behavior because of a very remote possibility that he was mistaken and not lying about the archives issue, but you cannot deny that he is a shoddy and lazy scholar. The sources alone in PARC prove this.

Technically, there is a remote possibility that a used-car salesman is not lying when he presents facts to you on selling you a car. You can trust such a source. I will not. I treat Valliant on that level based on his behavior. But he broke no laws. You are free to buy your ideas wherever you wish. I am too. And so is everybody else.

As they are apparently doing.

If Valliant wants to be taken seriously and blast the Brandens, his own house better be in order as regards the behavior he blasts. It isn't and, on looking, he isn't.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Greybird, on May 18 2008, 01:22 PM, said:

Brant Gaede, on May 18 2008, 11:15 AM, said:

[...] For Rothbard [Nathaniel Branden] was "Hitler."

You write this as if you're quoting Rothbard directly. Please tell us exactly where you read this, lest we become entitled to believe that you're channeling Peter Schwartz.

(I guess "channeling" implies that the source has died. Well, there's "is," and there's "ought to be" ...)

Rothbard slung recriminations to the point of being baroque in his "Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult," and he pushed satire well beyond reasonable boundaries in his "Mozart Was a Red," but as far as I know — and I've read millions of words of his — he never came anywhere near likening Rand or her circle to Nazis.

Let's leave that (low) caliber of personal smearing over at The Atlas Society, shall we?

See "My Break With Branden and the Ayn Rand Cult," Liberty, Sept. 1989 p.28. He used the word "Fuhrer." I remembered "Hitler." I'm not going to keep looking for "Hitler;" that's enough.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re Rand's contention (currently a topic on this SOLO thread) that Objectivism was so consistent, logically one either had to accept all of it or none of it, here's a place where she said something to that effect in print. (I think there's also someplace in The Objectivist Newsletter, but I'm not remembering where off-hand.)

Rand said:

Conclusion of
"To Whom It May Concern"

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.

(September 15, 1968)

___

This post has been edited by Ellen Stuttle: 18 May 2008 - 09:52 PM

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen Stuttle, on May 18 2008, 08:48 PM, said:

Re Rand's contention (currently a topic on this SOLO thread) that Objectivism was so consistent, logically one either had to accept all of it or none of it, here's a place where she said something to that effect in print. (I think there's also someplace in The Objectivist Newsletter, but I'm not remembering where off-hand.)

Rand said:

Conclusion of
"To Whom It May Concern"

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.

(September 15, 1968)

___

Pure argument from intimidation and a smoke screen.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen and Brant,

The two sentences preceding this passage are just as important:

"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."

The SOLOPpers are pretending that Ayn Rand's insistence on total acceptance of her ideas was simply a matter of "protecting the brand." What they are overlooking is her obvious belief that anyone who is not a true Objectivist is, or will soon be, foundering in a swamp of irrationality.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Robert Campbell, on May 19 2008, 07:17 AM, said:

Ellen and Brant,

The two sentences preceding this passage are just as important:

"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."

The SOLOPpers are pretending that Ayn Rand's insistence on total acceptance of her ideas was simply a matter of "protecting the brand." What they are overlooking is her obvious belief that anyone who is not a true Objectivist is, or will soon be, foundering in a swamp of irrationality.

Robert Campbell

Could be, but in this case she is simply using Objectivism as a weapon. This is an example of Rand putting more on her philosophy than is really there. Official Objectivism will do to you just what she said it would, but true philosophy is passive: reality, reason, self interest and individual rights, not everything Rand ever said and published. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Rand when she sacrificed her life to the god of Atlas Shrugged, it was the sacrifice. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged her, her husband and the Brandens, it was the private adultery, an adultery steeped in dishonesty and moral relativism. It wasn't Objectivism that damaged Nathaniel Branden (and Rand) in the 1960s, it was his dishonesty. Eschewing religion, I haven't studied the Objectivist catechism since the early 70s. I decided to study (aspects of) reality instead. I found that almost all "philosophy" aside from objectivism and some political philosophy is worthless garbage divorced from reality and science.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have been put on public notice, folks, by none other than Valliant. See here.

Valliant said:

Let me put him on public notice: his words are an irresponsible and baseless defamation of my spotless professional character.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

As an attorney, Valliant should know that you can only be defamed for statement of incorrect fact resulting in perveivable loss, not opinion. I don't ever recall discussing his professional behavior as a lawyer except to notice that he was a government employee. And I learned that from him. Now, if, as an author, I think he acts like a shyster lawyer because of a bunch of boneheaded rhetoric and so forth amidst a metaphorical legal brief like he did with PARC (and I am not alone, as witness the Amazon reviews for an independent venue, but there are others), that is my opinion. He is the one who established the fantasy of lawyer in court of public opinion, not me.

He is a terrible author, too.



For the record, I have very little knowledge of Valliant's performance as a government lawyer and I wouldn't dream of making an opinion about it, much less a statement of fact, unless I became aware of his performance from court records or newspaper accounts. If anything I ever wrote insinuates that I have knowledge of his activities as a government lawyer, let me make it clear that I do not have such knowledge and I will be glad to retract any statement that so insinuates. Translated, that means I do not know if he was a good government lawer or a terrible government lawyer, whether he won the government's cases or lost them, whether he properly prepared his cases for the government or whether he cribbed.

I just don't know. He may have done any of that or all of it at one time or another for all I know.

Dayaamm! I thought he was better than that at being slippery.

Well, I guess I have been notified.

He told me!

Does he wanna sue? Bring it on. It would be a terrible blow to the reputation of a professional attorney to lose in court to an amateur. You need a case before you can sue.



Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Michael; Keep it coming. This is getting fun.

The charge has been made that Objectivists sometimes used lawyers as a means of intimidating individuals. Sounds like Valliant is following in their footsteps.

This post has been edited by Chris Grieb: 19 May 2008 - 09:21 PM

[Brant Gaede]

He's threatening to sick lawyers on you who don't have libertarian qualms. That is, he's threatening to initiate force against you by proxy. Consider your rights violated.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris and Brant,

Certain Objectivists (or people who call themselves that) certainly like to play make-believe at intimidating others. It's almost a pity to show them just how impotent they are in the real world against actual men. Valliant only had power when he was working as a government employee. Without the government as his boss, he is nothing. Philosophically, without ARI backing him, he is nothing as an author.

I wish I could take Valliant seriously because of Rand's journal entries in PARC, but I just can't. Especially because of the arbitrary and unscholarly way he treated Rand's journal entries. But I am not talking about that right now. I am talking here within the context of his lame threats and pompous buffoonery, and that is not to be taken seriously ever by any rational man or woman.

Shame on anybody who gets intimidated into silence because of some boneheaded crap like what he just presented.

In terms of actual impact on the Objectivist world, this dude has been banished to the Objectivist equivalent of Siberia and there he will stay, except for a possible short-lived "poof" here or there. (Frankly, I don't expect to see hardly any of those poofs, either.) If he wasn't formally banished to the Siberia of O-Land, it sure looks that way. Maybe that is just a matter of time due to the huge quantity of research and scholarship flaws in PARC (not to mention those "other" "pesky" integrity issues ). After all, there are rational standards that even the most ardent Branden-hater needs to observe to keep his or her public credibility.

(I gotta stop this crap about bashing boneheaded losers... I have real work to do... But this is fun...)



Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

He says you said he "lied to the court." I couldn't find where you said that. If you did it's obviously a metaphorical court. I don't know about his ARI banishing. PARC is over three years old. As a book it's pretty worn out of the public interest.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

He might mean my post to Mike Hardy:

Michael Stuart Kelly, on May 18 2008, 03:50 PM, said:

If it means what I think it does, I admit that in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients, so they don't really need to make any amends when they are caught lying. Dey are jus doink der jops, Herr Führer! Sieg Heil!

I don't like the practice and I don't condone it as good professional practitioner ethics. I think it's shyster level practice and I would never hire a lawyer who would lie in court for me. (If he would lie to the court, he most certainly will lie to me.)

Heh.

Valliant might have thought I was talking about his professional practice as a government employee. What a bonehead!

Where does he think lawyer jokes come from? Thin air? Ever hear them?

Q. When can you tell a lawyer is lying?
A. When his lips are moving.

There are oodles of them. It is a whole formal category of jokes. My assumption is that this is because, as I said, "in the USA lawyers are expected to lie in defense of their clients." Actually, they are expected to lie, period.

I would not be surprised if Valliant ever lied in court, but I would be basing my lack of surprise on his behavior on Objectivist forums and PARC, not on observing him practice the profession of lawyer. I presume he has never been caught lying in court, but like I said, I would need to see court records to say one way or another. Whether he has actually lied in court and not been caught (or not) is for him to say, not me. I have no knowledge one way or the other.

Thus, anything I could say about that would be an arbitrary assertion. So, for example, if I were to say that James Valliant was a government lawyer of high integrity and had a "spotless professional character," I would actually be making a totally arbitrary assertion as defined by Peikoff, i.e., a statement without cognitive content. None whatsoever.

I know that if he were in private practice, I would never hire him. But my reason would be far more serious than the one I gave above.

And for the record, I still do not condone lying in court.

Michael