Neil Parille

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Neil Parille

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Neil Parille
  • Favorite Music, Artworks, Movies, Shows, etc.
    Yes Rudyard Kipling
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    New England
  • Interests
    History Philosophy Theology Literature

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Neil Parille's Achievements


Enthusiast (6/14)

  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. One of the best known Josephus scholars discusses Valliant's theory (though not by name) at 3:13:30
  2. For those who don't know, Valliant's theory is a version of Roman Provenance Theory, the idea that the Roman Emperors (or people close to them) created Christianity (or perhaps hijacked it for their own purposes). This theory isn't given the time of day by anyone. Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman has said "a sophomore with 2 semesters of New Testament can see through it," or words to that effect.
  3. I live 3,000 miles away from Valliant, have never attempted to call him on the phone, visit him, or send him a regular letter. I guess that makes me a "stalker."
  4. If anyone wants to know what a brazen liar Valliant is, he repeated his claim that Durban House (the book's publisher) was independent. Here is "Durban House" reviewing David Kelley's Truth and Toleration on Amazon. Customer Review Durban House Publishing 1.0 out of 5 stars Wide Open Mind Reviewed in the United States on July 21, 2002 Kelley endorses a concept of "tolerance" that includes the "toleration" of the comprehensive dishonesty of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. A "Big-L" Libertarian is almost by definition one who uncritically embraces the Brandens or Rothbard in their dishonest slams on Ayn Rand, just as Kelley has now embraced the Brandens. Politically, the valid concept is "rights." Morally, the concept of "tolerance" is meaningless. Debating, discussing or working with someone depends on having an honest colleague or rival to do it with, whatever you agree or disagree about. Nothing positive can come from cooperating with the dishonest. "Tolerating" the dishonest, in any non-political sense, means endorsing it -- voluntarily giving it the very credibility it does not deserve. Would Kelley debate flat-earth advocates or those who deny the Holocaust, if he found in a particular case, he wasn't totally sure whether the advocate was evading or not...? 22 people found this helpful WWW.AMAZON.COM
  5. I don't think Peikoff edited PARC, much if at all. For example, Valliant says that Rand never met Barbara again after 1968. Certainly Leonard would have heard of the 1981 meeting. There is also the ethical issue of editing a book critiquing books you've sworn you'd never read. Also, Jim mentions Brandens post -68 writings which I doubt Leonard read.
  6. Michael, According to JV, Weiss will be publishing a reprint of the 2005 PARC with a new introduction. If Valliant owns the rights, then it probably won't cost much money for Weiss to print it.
  7. Casey Fahy in 2005, __________ When he published that part, on my own website, we both believed that doing so would jeopardize what relationship he had had with Leonard Peikoff. I can personally vouch for the fact that Jim did not consult with Peikoff or anyone else associated with ARI about the content of his book—at all, ever. As proof of this, when Dr. Peikoff did make Rand's papers available to him, Peikoff told Jim that his first reaction to the very idea of the project was, and I quote, "Am I gonna have to pick a fight with Valliant now?" And, it was reading those original essays alone that convinced Peikoff to make Rand's notes available. Period. ___________ In the comments to this article both James and his wife commented without correcting this egregious error.
  8. Peikoff pod cast 76 from 2009. _______________ Now I have another question from the same person about two individual objectivists with a public profile. In a long question, he wants to know what I think of them, do I agree with them and my answer is I thoroughly approve of the intellectual battle waged by Jim Valliant and Diana Shay Shaw [Hsieh]. I admire the work of both to the extent that I know it. _______________ I wouldn't get from this that he and Valliant are such close friends and that he even helped write The Passion of Ayn Rand's Cricits.
  9. This is what Valliant says. I recall Valliant saying he and Peikoff weren't close friends. Does anyone recall where Valliant said (or denied) anything like this? (7) James Valliant on Peikoff - TDO 352 | Jonathan Hoenig, Nikos & James Valliant - YouTube It's about 14 mins in.
  10. Someone must have gotten to Yaron because he just launched a nasty attack on Branden.
  11. I don't know how many who supported it red it closely. A couple people did mention that Valliant overdid it and was acting like a prosecutor wanting a conviction. I imagine most people now know that in 2009 biographies came out that more or less confirm the Branden accounts. The most recent review on Amazon is July 4, 2021. Before that it was 2019.
  12. My point is that there was a lot of early support for the book and now people who praised it must realize the book was BS. I don't know if Yaron supported the book when it came out but he must be aware that as of yet there is no rebuttal of theBranden books.
  13. He claims that Rand was "unconventional" so it's not surprising she held unconventional views on sex and marriage. OTOH, she did swear the Brandens to secrecy. PARC is a case of collective buyer's remorse.
  14. At 34:33 According to Yaron we'll have to wait until the Archives are available.