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*:


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 At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries.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):


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:


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


On Feb, 29, Neil posted:


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

On Feb, 29, Neil posted again:


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

On Feb, 29, Neil posted once again:


On March 1, Valliant responded:


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.


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.


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:


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:


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):


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:


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.

PARC was published in 2005. The NoodleFood link doesn't work.

--Brant

Brant,

Both now corrected. Thank you.

I also added a small part (about Valliant claiming there was no reason to think anyone told him there was no meeting between Barbara and Rand).

Michael

Michael,

I recalled Mr. Valliant's 2006 statement about arbitrary assertions from that Q&A. It helped me to understand how the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion is put to use by Leonard Peikoff and his followers.

I'd forgotten that he brought up the doctrine specifically in connection with Barbara Branden's 1981 meeting with Ayn Rand.

Wow...

Let's see how he can wriggle out of his assertion, made in public a little less than two years ago, that the Ayn Rand Archives had no information confirming the 1981 meeting.

Let's also see how Mr. Valliant accounts for the steady disappearance from the Web of Dr. Peikoff's personal endorsement.

The Peikoff Institute really is in a bind now. If they keep selling Mr. Valliant's book, they will continue to take eminently deserved hits for promoting such an unscholarly, grossly slanted product of blind zealotry. If they quit selling it, they will, as you noted, be seen as admitting in front of everyone in Rand-land that PARC is... well... an unscholarly, grossly slanted product of blind zealotry.

Robert Campbell

Is that quite accurate? Aside from the technical nit of its not being provable how "the entire orthodox Objectivist community" reacted, my understanding is that Harry Binswanger in particular, who's rather a prominent personage in that community, disapproved of the whole project from the beginning. Has he said anything favorable about the book, does anyone know?

Ellen

PS: Grammatical detail in the sentence above the one quoted. Should be "Rand's own journal entries at the time prove [not proves] her to be such a victim."

___

Chuckle.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving group.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

I concede the point about Binswanger. I have heard something similar. There were probably some other exceptions, too. But I want to keep the phrase in for rhetorical reasons because the impression one had at the time in the online discussions was the way I stated. There was thundering silence from the orthodox Objectivists who objected to PARC, at least at the places I read, and I read just about everything public there was to read on this.

Besides, it's always good to give the boneheads something to bitch about.



Thanks for the grammar correction. I am making the improvement now.

Michael

In PARC, Valliant says that Peikoff read the draft of the first part of PARC that was on the web. (It was removed prior to PARC.)

I have never seen the draft and am wondering if it contains the claim that there were no further meetings between AR and BB. Since Peikoff must have known this meeting took place, it is interesting that he didn't inform Valliant of his fact.

Concerning the orthodox objectivst community, the orthodox blogosphere strongly supported PARC, but I'm not sure about the more prominent folks associated with the ARI such as Binswanger, Gotthelf, Schwartz, etc.

I found a way out (i.e., being correct and maintaining my rhetoric).

I put in the word "almost."

Michael

Qualifiers are such useful words. ;-)

E-

___

Just out of orneriness, I decided to put this thing on the front page for a while.



(I left a link behind in the ARI Corner, though.)

Outside of my natural persuasion toward making trouble, it actually raises some important issues that transcend PARC.

Michael

Could you summarize those briefly, separating them from the exegesis? I'm feeling bone-weary at the prospect of wading through the above to find them.

I neither give credence to PARC nor see any reason for me to read it at the library, let alone buy it. (What library would waste the money? Even local governments aren't so crabbed or silly in professional outlook as to thus gratify 0.01 percent of their patrons.)

The Rand estate's archives are applying the shredded tatters of what's left of their scholarly or objective value to abet such printed vendettas. This, though, is almost ancient news, and archivist Jeff Britting — the only half-rational ARI employee (or shill) I've ever encountered, in person or not — has been sinking with his ship for years now.

As for Valliant, methinks you doth ... well, not "protest too much," but "give him more attention than he's worth." So Peikoff still lends PARC a promotional blurb at his satrapy's bookstore — or he doesn't. What enduring difference does it really make? I'm hard-pressed to find any.

Steve,

I get tickled at you sometimes. I honestly think you don't see certain things. I think it did not occur to you that there might be a problem with pointing to my writing, talking about "wading through it" as if it were muck, then expecting not only a civil reply but a summary so you don't have to do all that wading. In other words, you expect me to treat my own writing as trash and still do your homework for you so you don't have to bother reading it.

That's all right, though. I am not offended, just amused (in a benevolent manner)...



The issue is separating zealotry and tribalism from the ideas.

PARC is a zealot's manifesto. It is not a rational analysis. I fully know I can't kill it dead, but I can make sure there is enough online so that people who wish to look into the matter can cut to the chase and realize that this is a product of irrational fanaticism, not reason.

Do I like the fact that Objectivism is infested with irrational fanatics? No.

Can I ignore this fact if I value the ideas? No.

I can shed light.

I can make it clear that some Objectivists reject irrational fanaticism.

And I can provide clear examples of irrational fanaticism in certain products like PARC to help people identify them as such.

Otherwise, let each man think for himself. Women too.

That's the issue in a nutshell.

Michael

The discussion flourishes in SLOP-land and I know I should really let it lie for now, but the following quote from Valliant gave me a belly-laugh like I haven't had in a long time. From this post.


In PARC Valliant said NB has the soul of a rapist and that both Brandens are liars, manipulators, etc. about 50 gazillion times and... and... and...

Did I say he was out of contact with reality? Or did I say it?

Oh the pain... the pain...



Michael

Michael,

This is my favorite from Valliant:

“In addition, I was not writing a biography of Rand, and a total evaluation of this break [with the Smiths] was well beyond PARC's scope. (I believe it involved other reasons, as well.)”

Recall that when he was proved wrong with respect to the 1981 meeting between Rand and Barbara Branden, he said, "Now, as to how the meeting may have gone down... (the most suspicious part of all)?"

The only thing suspicious here is Valliant's claim that he has sources that have provided him a different version of various events.

Michael, thank you for at least noting your broader aim more directly. That much I had gathered already, I'd have to note.

I apologize again for my style of expression, and my overabundant exasperation, when it comes to sectarian pie-fights. (After a while, they all get that way. I haven't hidden how I feel about them.)

You said that I expect you "to treat my own writing as trash." You're doing here what you have so often (wrongly) accused others of doing about you, citing what "expectations" are presumed to be in my head. I didn't even conceive of this, let alone believe it.

Yet when you quote, at the outset, an entire two-year-old announcement of an appearance at the Chicago Objectivist Society, it strongly suggests a hard slog for the reader through primary sources — such as they are — and not a compact argument. My rough skimming afterward tended to support this.

I'm sorry if my saying that this is something to "wade" through bothers you, but I simply have to say that I've lost patience with the broader brouhaha from all sides. As with anything approaching the length of a philosophic journal's article — such as Neil Parille's pieces, as well, to be fair — a brief summary, or points one can skim on first viewing, is a courtesy to a sorely swamped reader.

[snip snip]

Valliant's failure to say "Sorry about that; it was a mistake" (in reference to his statement that nothing in the Ayn Rand archives corroborates that Barbara Branden met with Ayn Rand in 1981) would be appropriate if he were representing a client before a jury, since he would need to avoid letting it look to the jury like his client's mistake. He allowed that, yes, something in the archive does corroborate the story of the meeting. That's enough to set straight the information the jury gets about that point. But he didn't say "I was wrong when I said nothing in the archives corroborates it."

'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 Hardy

Unreal, if he actually doesn't know "how one would conclude this from PARC."

Well, let's see, we start on pg. 6 with his describing the Brandens' respective books as:



And that's only the beginning...

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?) -- is this gem from pg. 15:



The purple in that patch of prose is so refulgent, I wonder if it had help in part or in whole from Casey Fahy.

Ellen

___

Ellen,

The Bulwer-Lytton awards, I think they're called.

Although that specimen of Mr. Valliant's prose is purple enough to compete, it isn't convoluted enough to win.

Robert Campbell

Grey; I found to my shock that the Fairfax County Library has several copies of PARC. I hope they were contributed. I don't know if ARI has encouraged the placing of PARC in other libraries.

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


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.

Only on a Dark and Stormy Night.

Ba'al Chatzaf

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

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?

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

deleted dupe
mistakenly by me

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.

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

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

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

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.)



___

Pure argument from intimidation and a smoke screen.

--Brant

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

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


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

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.

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

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

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

Brant,

He might mean my post to Mike Hardy:


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

SOLOP has become so slow and sticky it's getting too hard to visit. I did catch Linz lying about not coming here. If you read his stuff you'd know he comes here all the time.

--Brant

The slow stickiness of the site is periodic, much worse at some times than at others.


That comment puts him in a bind: to deny it (unless of course it's quoted there preceding his denial) would be to affirm that he is reading at least this thread.

Multiple someones, for sure, are reading this thread -- more someones than OL regulars. Notice the read count.

Tomorrow I'll post with a serious point concerning AR's chronic implication that to hold philosophic views other than hers was ipso facto a sign of irrationality. Too tired tonight.

Ellen

___

Ah, Maestro MSK... I wish I had more time for this but as of late I've been moving into a new condo, started a new job, and am trying to wrap that danged album. BUT, I do have time to say this--

You know I admire you for many reasons, but one of the main ones is your relentless, meticulous saving of things. Lordy, you must have a separate hard drive just to make sure all these chestnuts stay archived, as they should!

And now he's put you on notice, eh? Oh my. You bad, bad monkey, Maestro. Better board up, go to the mattresses, and wait for the Men In Black to confiscate your books and pistols.

Eff him. He had this one coming. There may not be a formal BBQ, but a little freezer burn will do nicely.

A basic complaint against PARC is it is a prosecutor's brief--Valliant threw in everything including the kitchen sink. Now he's threatening Michael with lawyers, sounding something like a thug. I guess yesterday's Internet pressure got to him and he snapped. It seems that he read Michael's article for the first time yesterday. Both Michael and Neil are like dentists who won't stop drilling with Robert dropping in now and then with special instruments.

None of this is my style or comfort zone, but neither was PARC. What goes around comes around. PARC proved Nathaniel Branden was much worse a louse to Ayn Rand than what he admitted to in his memoir and he admitted a lot. It also denigrated Ayn Rand by publishing her notes and thoughts that should have been evaluated and used by serious and competent scholars, not a lawyer. Both Branden and Rand were much better people in those days than you'll find in PARC, which rips them out of their broader contexts both as human beings and regards their work. Whatever their flaws, the Brandens' memoir and biography tried to honor those contexts with Barbara striving mightily with the humanity of it all.

It is not the Brandens who have been avenging themselves on Ayn Rand all these years, it is Leonard Peikoff, who never got to have a life of his own--a life not under the thumb of a real, then as an imagined, Ayn Rand. The proper life of an individual as a human being is not the Eddie Willers of Objectivism.

--Brant

Brant,

I have no doubt at all that this is true.

Michael

You know, Brant, my father was a dentist, as was his father before him. Perhaps I have taken up the family trade, in my own way

I think you are right on here, in every respect.

-- PARC has made Nathaniel Branden look worse than he did already

-- PARC has made Ayn Rand look a lot worse than she did already

-- Leonard Peikoff's purported defense of Ayn Rand has badly hurt her reputation, in the years since her death. If your goal was to make her look bad while concealing your true intent, you couldn't plan it any better. First, spend 18 years refusing to respond to an unflattering biography. Then, hand the rebuttal over to a third-rate author who doesn't do any scholarship, has to go to a shady publisher to get his book out, and doesn't know the difference between calling people names on discussion forums and publicizing his opus. In the meantime, emulate most of her worst traits and encourage others to do the same.

Like light from a distant star, points 2 and 3 will eventually reach the zealots.

Robert Campbell

Nevertheless, it is too hard for me to believe LP did what he did with conscious intent to get back at AR. I don't think there's any good evidence for that, at least none I know of. He's too incompetent considering the life situation he locked himself into. Morally, as with AR, things have to appear okay on the surface no matter what insanity there is below decks. Thus when one looks in the mirror an image of perfect integrity looks back.

--Brant

Brant,

I agree—I have no reason to think that Dr. Peikoff has consciously tried to hurt Ayn Rand's reputation.

But he's achieved the same results as he would have if he'd set out to discredit her.

Robert

Except James Valliant would have stopped him?

--Brant

Interesting enough both OL and SOLOP rank just below 200,000 in Web sites visited (Alexa). Noodle Food is just below 1,000,000. I though Diana was more popular than that.

--Brant