The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Robert Campbell]

Although I appreciate Dennis Hardin's dissection of Jim Valliant's book, I think he's being too rough on Brian Doherty.

Doherty hastily inserted a footnote about The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, shortly before his own book went to press. He could have ignored PARC, but tried instead to do the responsible thing.

Doherty is fairly careful to qualify various theses as Valliant's, not his own. What's more, if Doherty uses the word "interestingly" the way a lot of academics do, it doesn't constitute an endorsement of Valliant's interpretation of Rand's journal entries.

From the other portions of Doherty's book that I've read so far, I see no indication that he would be treating PARC so respectfully if he'd had more time to read and study it.

Some of what's the matter with Mr. Valliant's opus can be recognized on a first reading. But so much has gone wrong as to exceed the immediate grasp of most readers, even if they are highly knowledgeable about the persons, the events, and the ideology in question. As Michael and Neil have shown, the full awfulness of what Valliant has written takes time and effort to appreciate.

Robert Campbell

PS. That alleged poem about Dubya Bush and Abe Lincoln is one of the worst I've ever read. It deserves a Bulwer-Lytton prize.

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I have a feeling that there will a small cottage industry of critiques of Radicals. I may even have a few.

Edited April 16, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

Chris,

I expect there will be many criticisms of Brian Doherty's book.

But probably not on account of his being soft on Jim Valliant...

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; I hope that some of better ones of Radicals can be incorporated in the paperback edition.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A meltdown is happening over on Solo Passion and it relates to some of the themes that underlie my hostility toward PARC. It is on the following thread:

The OTHER Fatwa: Peikoff and The Medical Perspective AGAINST VOTING Dem

My animosity to Perigo, Valliant and Diana Hsieh (and vice-versa) is well known, so I don't want to stand back and mock them simply because the widespread prediction (that they would end up at each other's throats) made at the time they joined forces came to pass. Matters are what they are and nobody knows what tomorrow holds, anyway. For the present, leave it to say that the law of causality so far has not been denied and those who applied it earlier made an accurate prediction.

If this were the whole essence of what I have observed over there (in addition to the power games, the frail egos, etc.), I would not bring it up. However, there is a deeper philosophical premise, a hidden one, that needs to be brought to light and the present meltdown is a perfect example of what happens when it is not identified. Ignoring this principle is very dangerous to people of good will, but to those with a hostile and belligerent nature, it causes nasty useless bickering and falling out where nobody is right and everybody is wrong.

In October of last year, Peikoff posted on his site the famous phrase:

In my judgment, anyone who votes Republican or abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life—which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world.

This position has been defended tooth and nail ever since by the ARI-friendly people by pointing to a preparatory phrase in the same pronouncement:

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The debates raged before and after the elections and included the morality of this alternative, equating Democrat with "rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer," and Republican with "rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer." This has been a staple of discussion on Solo Passion for months.

But apparently, what got left out was anyone examining the moral worth of the example itself. If you think about it a minute, you see that this is the crucial point and everybody missed it.

Look at what Ayn Rand said in a similar case. In Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, pp. 113-114, she stated the following:

Question: A rational person finds himself in a life-threatening situation, such that unless he kills an innocent man, he will be killed. Under such circumstances, is it morally permissible to kill an innocent person?

AR: This is an example of what I call "lifeboat questions"...

. . .

But suppose someone lives in a dictatorship, and needs a disguise to escape. If he doesn't get one, the Gestapo or GPU will arrest him. So he must kill an innocent bystander to get a coat. In such a case, morality cannot say what to do.

. . .

... formally, as a moral philosopher, I'd say that in such emergency situations, no one could prescribe what action is appropriate. That's my answer to all lifeboat questions. Moral rules cannot be prescribed for these situations, because only life is the basis on which to establish a moral code. Whatever a man chooses in such cases is right—subjectively. Two men could make opposite choices.

I have seen this point made elsewhere by Rand, but I am unable to find it right now. This example serves well enough, however. The fact is that there are situations where morality simply does not apply—only subjective judgment does.

Now let us look at Peikoff's moral alternative again: "the choice between a rotten ... killer, and a rotten ... killer." All the other adjectives are nonessential (enfeebled, despairing, ever stronger, and ambitious). What we are dealing with is a choice between two rotten killers as per Peikoff's own statement.

Did Peikoff forget the Objectivist maxim that "Morality ends where a gun begins"? Peikoff literally said it is immoral to choose the stronger gun to kill (oneself and innocents) and it is immoral to not choose one of the two guns in such an impossible choice. So in Objectivism, a weaker gun for killing (oneself and innocents) is suddenly more moral than a stronger gun?

Where in hell did Rand ever say that?

This choice is a lifeboat choice if we are literally talking about killers. I'll take Peikoff at his word. He said we were. So on this point he is in flagrant disagreement with Rand. To her, this choice would be outside of morality. And the choice would be subjective. Period.

Now let us return to the meltdown. We have three individuals (Perigo, Valliant and Hsieh) who have made their respective ascensions in life by persecuting others. That is what they do and it is not contentious to say so. One need only to look at their respective public acts and see the plentiful number of examples.

Now what happens when people like that make a mistake of the dimension Peikoff did? Simple. They fall out and bicker with each other. Each side thinks his position is moral. All thee have made long lists of hairsplitting arguments to prove their so-called moral choice. And they have done so more than once. This has gone on over months.

But the truth is that morality does not even apply to the situation they are discussing. Not one of them ever stopped to ask whether it did. (To be clear, morality does apply to some of the points made in the discussions, but it does not apply to the root situation.)

If anyone has the patience to read the linked thread over there, one will find that Valliant and Hsieh have now both separately called Perigo immoral and Perigo has called each separately immoral (and all have heaped on other nasty adjectives). These are three individuals who banded together mainly for the purpose of publicly calling the Brandens immoral (and calling Chris Sciabarra and many others immoral for good measure).

On looking at this dispassionately, isn't it reasonable to ask that they define their concept of morality a little more carefully before trying to label this person or that as immoral? Isn't it also reasonable to assume that if they are so dead wrong about Peikoff's pronouncement, but each gave long lists of reasons over months as support for their "morality," then they also could be wrong about the targets they call immoral (with long lists of reasons)? Frankly, this episode alone stains their credibility enough for one to consider that their respective moral condemnations over the months might be irrationally based.

Now here is the most important part and the main reason for bringing this up. Let's leave them and think about our own lives. We need to apply this observation to our own thinking and take extra care that we are not engaging in making long lists of reasons to justify an error that will lead us to condemn someone (or ourselves) unfairly.

Morality is for promoting life, not for choosing a manner of death. That is a good standard to apply when in doubt. When the only choice is what way we (or innocents) are to die, then morality is out the window. We have to do the best we can and there is no moral principle to follow any longer. Insisting that one choice is moral and the other is immoral does not miraculously make a principle spring into existence. Reason must be applied to the premise before making any long lists.

As an extension to this, we definitely should not judge as immoral a person who did have to choose one way or the other in such a horrible situation.

Michael

[Rodney]

This is all fun to read. If they brought half the intellectual energy they now devote to maintaining their "integrity" and "purity" to serious analysis of actual philosophical questions, say the analysis of math's relation to reality, they might make some contirbution.

[Chris Grieb]

Rod; I think you're on to something. Don't some of these people just want to smell the roses or write a paper on the topic you mentioned.

Edited April 30, 2007 by Chris Grieb

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

You're damn right--morality is about living your life, not about choosing who will kill you.

What's more, in treating elections as an unavoidable choice among killers, Dr. Peikoff is once again revealing his overwhelming cultural pessimism.

Robert Campbell

PS. As for the food presently flying at SOLOP, I was greeted with jeers and catcalls when I predicted that it would end this way:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/881.

Hard to believe it's been just one year...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Here are a couple of quotes. The first is your prediction. I am mentioning it because I want it highlighted. People can make correct predictions of this nature when they use reason. The quote is from the article you linked, Fractious Factions, Unsteady Coalitions.

Eventually, Mr. Valliant will begin to find Mr. Perigo more of a burden than a blessing. Or Mr. Perigo will launch into a tirade against Mr. Valliant over some issue great or petty. Or... who knows?

All I can say is, it would not be wise for Mr. Valliant to make any sizable investment that presupposes the durability of this kind of coalition.

When it's all blown up and blown over, JARS will still be here. ARI will still be here. Neither, I suspect, will have changed its spots. Despite Ms. Hsieh's incessant exultations over its imminent downfall, I also expect TOC will still be here. Most important, Ayn Rand's writings will still be here—and in comparison with the least among them, Mr. Valliant's political maneuvers will look petty, faint, and ridiculous.

The next quote is from a recent post by Valliant on Solo Passion here.

This has nothing to do with "civility" or manners, and everything to do with ethical accusations as ugly as they are unfounded.

He is talking about Perigo, but this is a perfect description of PARC! Right from the horse's mouth!

It's funny, but I'm serious, and the irony is not lost on me.

My own comments, past and present, those of several others (Brown, Sciabarra, Zimmerman, you, etc.), Neil's article at the start of this thread (and later entries on his own blog), and a growing body of critical examination of the accuracy of PARC are all proving, item by item, that it is a sorely damaged document—that it is not credible scholarship irrespective of its thesis.

So I also want to make a prediction like you did. I predict that after a while, all who have adopted this book but the die-hard Branden haters are going to be embarrassed that they did so and distance themselves from it (probably never mentioning it anymore rather than making an outright backpedal), and that the people at ARI will slowly realize the travesty that was inflicted on Rand's writing and gradually withdraw its support of PARC. This second will take longer and will only happen as more and more high-profile people disclose and blast the inaccuracies that permeate PARC. As ARI has no problem with public acrimonious breaks, this is a possibility with Valliant (despite his sycophancy toward Peikoff), however the hatred of the Brandens is a very strong value over there and it is a good guess that it will temper their behavior. I think slowly backing off is more likely. I have no doubt, though, that despite the Branden hatred, even those people will eventually have to see that A is A when it is rubbed in their noses publicly against Valliant's constant assertions in PARC that A is not A.

Michael

[Greybird]

I had thought, upon joining two months ago, that this site was intended to provide, primarily, an opportunity to give life to productive enthusiasms and interests. And to move, in significant measure, beyond the incessant sectarian strife among Objectivists. To not ignore it, but, nonetheless, to focus far more on our having a host of "better things to do," as David Kelley once phrased it.

It appears that OL is being turned into a redoubt for those on yet another side of a major conflict. To say (publicly) that this devolution, in significant part, is disappointing to me would be greatly understating the case.

I have, as I've said earlier, not read PARC. I'm unlikely to do so very soon. From the extensive quoting, and Parille's critique, I am extremely dubious of it, as with the work of any openly admitted Peikoff sycophant. I don't plan to ever enrich the author by doing anything more than buying a second-hand copy, if that.

Yet it's dismaying to see other sites alluding to this place as the Church of Branden, bypassing any sense of individuals who make independent judgments. The many planned efforts (from private and public notes) against a book that from all reports seems to give little enlightenment, aside from a cynical opening of a few more of Rand's private journals ... well, these seem to promise to add to the pigeonholing, of everyone in the vicinity of such critiques, and I'm tired of it.

I note this — with the shellshocked sectarian weariness returning that I'd hoped to escape for a while — and, for now, move on.

[Chris Grieb]

Steve, I hope you'll stay around OL.

I will be frank I've stopped looked at SOLO and I haven't missed it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

With all due respect, this is not happening in a vacuum. If you have any real interest in the matter, here is a series of public discussions where you can investigate the context.

We are not called the Church of Branden because I don't like someone or some kind of spat. And we are not called the Church of Branden by everyone. We were called that since the beginning by a small number of highly vocal people during history and events caused by them without our participation over a long period of time. Only later did we start defending against the attacks.

If you look at those links in the place I provided, you will see that this small group of people had invaded just about everywhere that communication was free (and they are a cheap lot—without free communication, this problem would not exist). They were bashing the Brandens with a huge barrage of malicious material. Their participation amounted to nothing but heckling, but it was nonstop and it was everywhere Objectivism was discussed. Everywhere.

So I set up an Objectivist place where the Brandens could not be bashed. I owe a debt of gratitude to both Brandens, but especially to Barbara. During the worst time of my life, her biography of Rand helped me make a decision to want to live again. I will not stand idle and watch her constantly be insulted and unjustly accused of lies and do nothing.

Members of this small nasty little gang have tried to invade OL and I would not let them. That is the main reason for the name-calling. During the first 6 months or so of OL, I even would not have them discussed except for the most neutral of issues like event announcements (and even then, only briefly), yet the barrage of filthy names was nonstop.

They are still quite vocal at other places, but their influence is diminishing and some of them are now at each other's throats. (I admit that this last brings me pleasure.) I intend to see their smear campaign completely discredited. If people want to discuss past errors of the Brandens or anybody and stick to the facts, OK. But I will not permit the lies and smearing and heckling about the Brandens to continue in the nonstop manner it has been happening without standing up and doing something about it.

If you don't like being associated with a place that these nasty people call the Church of Branden, then you certainly will not like being associated with the Brandens (and myself for making this place), because these same people have called us dishonest pricks, scum, lying bastards, we need to commit suicide, parasites, and things even worse. (They also, to a lesser degree, have extended this courtesy to David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra and others, all of whom we honor here.) Do you want to run the risk that they will start in on you too? Then you are correct to analyze with whom you associate. They certainly will not stop because anybody wants them to. And even if we stopped talking about them altogether, they will continue. If fact, silence emboldens them.

This got to the absurd point of lunacy that there was even an article once that stayed on the front page of another forum for months claiming that Rand never wrote another fiction work after Atlas Shrugged because of the moral failings of the Brandens, and thus mankind was robbed of its wealth. This was accompanied with a lot of profanity and vituperation. And that site was well read.

If you don't believe me about these things and how all this came about, read the links. It's all there in the links I provided. All you have to do is read. You might also check out here and here for some extra corroboration.

OL is a place of many values. One of them is as a reference. As issues arise that discredit these people and their more hateful and despicable works (not all works, mainly the spiteful ones), especially PARC, I fully intend to make sure that information about them is easy to research. Let people who are curious come here and get the other view, with selective links and information that are readily at hand.

OL is only one place. That small nasty gang has the rest of the Internet the world over and they use it everywhere they can get away with it.

If my policy bothers you, all I can say is that the site belongs to Kat and me and you are a guest. You are welcome to come and go here as you please and your presence is a value. I read your posts with pleasure.

But I will not change my policy about those people, not for you, not for anyone. You decide what you want to do about your own values.

Michael

[Greybird]

First, thank you for the personal comments above.

I entirely believe you about the smears as to the Brandens, Sciabarra, and others. I saw much of it already from lurking at SOLO Passion and Rebirth of Reason, long before you kindly provided those links, and it's why I didn't even try to start posting at either of those rhetorical cesspools. I've been disgusted with Diana Hsieh for years.

All of that being true, I posted above for only one reason: to express and register disappointment. My initial impression of OL was somewhat incorrect. To whatever far smaller degree, beyond the occasional even fiery defense of the Brandens and others (I've done that here already myself) ... you're nonetheless rolling in the mud with the sectarian pigs. It may be a necessary ablution, in some context, but it's still unsavory. I didn't want anyone to draw any impression that I felt otherwise.

You really don't have to remind me that this is your forum, Michael. I think Objectivists tend to recognize property rights. I don't think you're putting your property to optimal use in keeping up the live sectarian fire. (Rather than letting it weaken from, ultimately, a lack of an audience ... what were those PARC non-best-seller sales figures, again?) But I'm the last one to even suggest that it's not your right to use it for that purpose. At least it's not swamping all of the other traffic here.

And my reference to "moving on," Chris, was to going to other subjects, not giving up on this setting. Even with the coastal batteries shelling unworthy, already-leaking, hardly valiant {g} targets, it's still a pleasant citadel to spend time in. When necessary, I'll even help repel sectarian marauders. It's just that I neither relish nor prefer to spend much time on such a project.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It may be a necessary ablution, in some context, but it's still unsavory.

Steve,

I fully agree. It is unsavory.

When my task is done (and it is not eternal), you can rest assured that I will no longer comment about those people, even when they spew their bilious yawp.

And my reference to "moving on," Chris, was to going to other subjects, not giving up on this setting.

Oops.

Sorry. My misunderstanding.

I am very pleased to have made an incorrect inference. It feels good to be wrong.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Steve,

I'm glad you're going to be around.

I have stopped looking Noodle Poison completely.

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ Very thought-provoking perspective re Piekoff's statements and arguments, and Rand's. More thought-provoking are yours re analysis of theirs.

~ However, I don't see 'voting' as a choice-situation that falls within anything worth calling a 'life-boat situation.' Analogies can be made in some apropos contexts; but, strict comparisons? I don't think so. --> Voting (in America) is really not a 'life-boat' type of decision-making choice...beyond metaphorically; especially since it's obvious that one KNOWS (unlike 'life-boat situations') that one gets another chance in 2-4 yrs. You're over-stretching a point here, Mike; you're putting both House and Frasier to shame.

LLAP

J:D

Edited May 2, 2007 by John Dailey

[Robert Campbell]

John,

It's Dr. Peikoff who's maintaining that voting in American elections is morally unavoidable-that the choice involved is a choice between two groups of killers--that only cowards would refrain from voting. It's hard to make this stuff up

Steve,

There was far more on this board about Messrs. Perigo and Valliant and their entourage a year ago. The Rants thread was really churning for a while. As most here have disengaged from the fora where these folks do their shouting and sliming, there's been less and less. I was merely pointing out that I predicted a falling out between Mr. Perigo and Mr. Valliant a year ago, and now it has happened as predicted.

Personally, I'm happy to move on to celebrating the life and achievements of Slava Rostropovich, or discussing perceptual illusions, or .... (lots of other possibilities on OL, all of a life-affirming nature).

Robert Campbell

[emb021]

As for the food presently flying at SOLOP, I was greeted with jeers and catcalls when I predicted that it would end this way:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/881.

Hard to believe it's been just one year...

I just read your above posting, and the responses.

The general feeling I was left with was sort of... did these people read the same thing I did?

I liked how their responses to your 'hate-filled posting' was basically hate-filled comments. pot-kettle-black.

On a slightly different example, there was a thread on SOLOP commenting about a newspaper article on the recent anniversary of Atlas Shrugged (they gave the link). While a decent article, it had the usually quotes from people who don't get it.

And who was the first to comment about this article??? Valliant with a brief note on how 'refreshing' (his words) that Branden wasn't mentioned.

My thought was 'how is this relavent'???

Linz soon responded with an agreement.

Sigh.

Valliant strikes me as a 'one trick pony'.

I noted on a recent thread a comment by Linz to "Hsiekovians". Is this a reference to a break down between Linz and Hsieh??? I guess I missed that.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Peikoff's nutty stuff is funny because he's continually attaching this huge importance to elections and then advocates voting for an enemy. It's amazing that someone who has faced the postmodern left in academia for so long is advocating voting them into office as a feeble enemy. Well, I think I need new logic lessons or something here.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael B,

I have debated with myself for a while on whether to mention the following or not, but after weighing the values involved, I decided I want this on record. I write to you because you are not familiar with the history.

Should you venture into any of the present contentious threads over on Solo Passion, you will see an example of how a purposeful lie is floated as a form of publicity. You will read constantly that the ARI supporters "flounced off" like Branden supporters did before, but the forum is open for anyone to post. The idea is to start over with an aura of moral correctness, fearlessness in facing inconvenient truths, commitment to integrity, yada yada yada.

Here is the lie. Branden supporters did not "flounce off" when Perigo and Valliant got into bed together (and a little earlier). Several key ones were banned and moderated, starting with Barbara on SoloHQ and on down. Admittedly, she announced her intention to leave and agonized over it a bit in public, but then they canceled her account.

When SoloHQ was split into RoR and Solo Passion, despite the friction that defending Barbara entailed, I managed to keep membership at Solo Passion. Then, because of my constant defense of Barbara and NB, Valliant explicitly called me an enemy of Objectivism (see here) and I responded that I was an enemy of his, not the philosophy, because of the spirit and method contained in PARC and his online demeanor, which reminded me of South American power mongers. I stated then (and I stand by it today) that I am grateful he does not have to power to enforce his ideas with a gun (like he does as a public prosecutor) because I have no doubt he would use that power. And that resulted in my own account being canceled. (See here. I just reread that post and I became quite proud of myself. )

The fact is that I am one of the best Branden defenders out there. The very existence of OL proves it with a vast amount of research (like the airbrushing stuff), oodles of quotes from their works, etc. And also, I identified that little game of online heckling that was being promoted by the small group of Branden-haters, and made a place where it was not allowed so a second view could be obtained by readers. This one small voice at a distance (and those who joined by their own volition) has done more damage to the Branden smear campaign than any other single cause.

The real reason I was not allowed on that site ever since was because I defended the tribe's scapegoat way too well for comfort. They needed easy enemies in Valliant's face, not ones with actual arguments. They needed the appearance of objectivity, not actual objectivity. The value was and is forming a tribe, not arriving at the truth.

Kat's account was not immediately canceled when mine was. I made a point of asking her not to leave on my behalf, but to follow her own conscious. She decided to stay on as member, but step down as regional leader. And she decided to register her protest of the constant insulting of the man she loved in her own colorful fashion (see here and here). That was enough to cancel her account. So she did not "flounce off" either.

I could go on with some other Branden supporters, but I don't want to look like I am dragging them into this. Let's just say that there are several other cases of banning and/or moderation because of support for the Brandens. I don't think Robert Campbell was banned because of the loss of prestige OL's success caused the anti-Branden gang, added to Robert's own academic standing.

For further record, here is what my response was back then (Dec. 2005). We went for the longest time on OL without mentioning Solo Passion except briefly and in a highly neutral tone (sporadic announcements and so forth). Here was the reaction that I garnered from Solo Passion posts. (I add to this list over time, so count only about half for the time up to when I allowed criticism of Solo Passion to start and to take into account quotes from other sites).

Now I couldn't care two hoots about posting on a site of a petty little man I despise, one who prostitutes his intellect for public image, but I do want to make it clear to you (and conceivably others who have not followed the bickering) that his allegation that Branden supporters "flounced off" is just one more of his lies. (Obviously, I have never tried to return, nor would I.) And his hatred of me is because I expose him for what he is and am successful at it (and good at it). Believe me, in addition to what I have done in public, I have many e-mails from him (and others) that tell one hell of a story about his corrupted thinking back when we corresponded. I don't release them out of respect for property rights. I can't even say the same about this dude.

Here is the purpose of floating the lies they do on Solo Passion. There is a law of group psychology that states that an idea will become accepted as truth if it is repeated often enough, irrespective of how irrational it is. As the purpose is to build and manage a tribe (to "save the world" or whatever), one of the strongest forms of attraction is to find a scapegoat. Repeating lies about oneself and the scapegoat is one of the primary techniques used for this purpose.

btw - This is one of the main rhetorical techniques used in PARC and even the literary style is shot through and through with it.

Now that I have the identification of this particular lie on record, I doubt I will discuss it much anymore.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Here's history as I remember it (feel free to correct any errors or misperceptions):

Pigero is bright and active, attacking political foes out there in the real world.

Pigero and Barbara develop a friendly online relationship.

The balance in Pigero's head appears to shift, and he becomes more about promoting Pigero than ideas. When he's not praising people for having praised him, congratulating himself multiple times for having expressed an opinion, or concocting lame neologisms with which to praise himself (such as "KASS"), Pigero spends a lot of time expressing massively disproportionate rage at those who politely question or disagree with him, especially friends.

Pigero throws several tantrums and becomes very abusive. After temporarily getting control over his emotions, he often partially apologizes and then edits out the most vicious parts of his angry posts (so, if you go back and look at the record now, keep in mind that much of it has been expunged, which will make Pigero look less infantile than he actually was).

On at least one occasion he publicly blames his behavior on the consumption of too much wine.

After the cycle of abuse repeats itself many times, Barbara and others insist that Pigero do something about his behavior. Apologizing for it after the fact will no longer wash. Putting an end to the behavior is required if friendships are to continue.

This is unacceptable to Pigero. Rather than putting an end to being an abusive asshole toward his friends*, he decides to pretend that being an abusive asshole is proof of his integrity, his sense of justice and his allegedly grand "sense of life." He pretends that it's not an issue of how he treats others -- of getting control over his childish temper and dealing with his personal problems -- but of people trying to take away his "passion" and tell him what to do with his property (SOLO). When people speak to him in the way that he speaks to them, he whines that they are abusing their host. It's "KASS" when he does it. It's something to wail about when others respond in kind.

SOLO members attack Jim Peron, a man who has been accused of having promoted NAMBLA in the past, something which Peron denies. He is accused of having published a periodical geared toward the advocacy of pedophilia, which he also denies. Barbara reports that she knows Peron, and doesn't believe the accusations. Pigero is infuriated that "Majesty" doesn't take his side on the issue. It appears to be more of a personal matter than anything else. It's as if Pigero isn't getting the respect and loyalty that he thinks he deserves. He seems to be upset in the same way that he was when Barbara praised an online version of an article that had already appeared in the Free Radical, Pigero's publication, months earlier (he was devastated that she hadn't read it in her free subscription copy).

Pigero continues to be a personally abusive asshole to Barbara, as well as many others, and Barbara announces that she's leaving SOLO.

James Killbourne writes an article accusing Pigero of alcoholism. Pigero allows it to be posted on SOLO. Barbara reads it and assumes that Pigero has allowed it to be posted because he agrees with it and intends on getting help (remember, he has publicly stated that drinking too much wine was responsible for his posting things which he later regretted). She agrees that getting help is a good thing, is supportive of Pigero, and wishes him the best.

Pigero accuses Barbara of publicly "smearing" him with the accusation of alcoholism.

After posting again after her announcement that she is leaving SOLO, the SOLO staff cancel Barbara's account, saying that she announced that she' going to leave, so they're going to make sure that she leaves.

Barbara clearly explains (via SOLO member David Brown) that she mistakenly assumed that Pigero's willingness to publish the "Drooling Beast" (the article in which Killbourne accused Pigero of alcoholism) was based on his agreeing that he had a problem with alcohol. She reminds readers that she was supportive of the idea that Pigero get help if he felt he needed it.

Pigero and his toadies ignore this explanation, and continue spread the lie that Barbara accused Pigero of alcoholism. They use their lie to support the claim that she has a history of making such smears, including against Frank O'Connor, who, they seem to want to agree with Peikoff, collected rows and rows of empty booze bottles in his art studio for mixing paints. She can't be trusted, they say -- Pigero is not an alcoholic, yet Barbara publicly smeared him with the accusation, so she must have been smearing O'Connor as well. And she wasn't trying to salvage her friendship with Pigero by insisting that he drop the abusive behavoir. She was trying to manipulate and control him, to destroy his virtuous "passion" just as she and her evil ex-husband tried to manipulate and control Ayn Rand.

Pigero continues to lie about the events of his past relationships, he continues to abuse the people with whom he associates, and they continue to eventually wake up and flee from him in droves. The more people he drives away from himself, from SOLOP, and from Objectivism, the more virtuous he imagines himself to be.

J

* Actually, I don't know that he has "friends." It's probably more accurate to say that he usually surrounds himself with a few reliable toadies who see him as some sort of celebrity, a few naive newbies who haven't yet discovered what he actually is (and who will be shocked on the day that he treats them in the same way that he eventually treats everyone), a few convenient temporary alliances with people with whom he shares a common enemy, and occasionally there's also someone to whom he's kissing up because they have public name recognition.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Jonathan

[Jonathan]

Speaking of Pigero, I think it's unfortunate that Objectivist Living lacks "KASS" and similar cutesy catch phrases which we all repeat like members of a cult. I don't know about the rest of you, but as a dedicated Brandroid, I want a means of expressing my conformity. I want a special vocabulary which signals to others that I've surrendered my individuality to our leaders and to our collective. We should have newspeak words and phrases, just like they have over on SOLOP.

So I thought I'd offer a few suggestions for OL groupthink neologisms:

"Tockin'" could be used to mean "totally rockin'"! Since it kind of sounds like "talking," it would be extremely clever when used in a sentence. "Hey Paul, now you're Tockin'!" Get it? Now you're talking, and you're totally rockin' at the same time! Ha, ha, ha! It's the most hilarious thing ever written! It's a "Guster" -- or "gut buster" (think of a SOLOP Belly Laugh times ten). Man, I'm Tockin', and I must have lots of Tockinality to have come up with such Tockin' stuff! I've surely got "Full Fervor for the Full Fire!" (okay, maybe that one needs a little tweaking yet).

Actually, Tockin' could also express our loyalty to TOC, since T, O and C are the first three letters of Tockin'. And we could also use TASty, which could mean both "tasty" and "I support TAS."

(At this point, I'd like to remind you all of how Tockin' clever and Guster hilarious I am for having thought of all of this, and that OL now has TASty Tockinality as well because of my being here! Tockin'! We're so much better than all of the Tockless enemies of Objectivism! Tockin'!)

Anyway, I think it would be Tockin' if each of us came up with some TASty contributions for our cult vocabulary, and then our Tockin' leaders, The TASty Brandens, could decide which of our suggestions are Tockin' enough to become part of our official TASty OL language.

Tockin'!!!

J

P.S. I'm very busy at the moment, but when I find some time, I'll post a couple dozen more posts praising myself for my Tockinality. In the mean time, the rest of you should feel free to congratulate me, as well as yourselves, for being Tockin'. That would be completely Tockin'!

P.P.S. I just want to say Tockin' a few more times because an important part of such catch phrases is to repeat them over and over again as if they are the most cleverly awesome thing ever created. Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin' Tockin'!!!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

That was the most TASS post I have ever read. That'll show the TASS-less society.

Here's a slogan idea I just devised based on your brilliant and important new sociological concept of keeping the herd in line, er... I mean ideological identification: Don't bother knockin' unless you're tockin'.

Michael

[Jonathan]

I'm glad that you recognize how Tockin' I am, MSK. It shows me that, at least as long as you praise me, you're a true friend of mine, and, therefore, that you're also a true friend of Objectivism. You've got the Tockinality to know Tockinality when you see it!

Like me (actually, probably due to me) you have "Amazing Ardor for the Absolute Acme!" (yeah, I know, that slogan's still not quite Tockin' enough yet).

Tockin'!

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

There is one small addition I want to make to your analysis about Peron and how it impacted events. Perigo was one of the founders of the NZ libertarian party. Under his guidance, it floundered and flopped around, but basically stayed tiny and did nothing but yap to a minuscule public. When Peron arrived to help it along, the whole libertarian movement in NZ started becoming organized and actually started bothering the powers that be in very concrete terms, like people getting elected and laws being passed. What used to be a cocktail party joke slowly started becoming an inconvenient force to be reckoned with. Peron did not bow to The Ineffectual One, but instead became The Driving Force. The Ineffectual One, cast aside, became hate-filled and envious of The Driving Force.

Peron needed to be stopped by the powers that be and an ineffectual dude instated once again to lead the libertarian movement (any old dude would do). The Ineffectual One's hatred and envy of Peron was what the doctor ordered. Since the whole ideological foundation of The Ineffectual One's platform was Objectivism and he was being used as a pawn by the powers that be to make their move (but he perceived it as making his own move just as he was supposed to think—and all this was done through an independent agency called The Locke Foundation to ensure deniability for all), it was causing The Ineffectual One acute grief at home to have Barbara Branden (a living icon from the founding days of Objectivism) stand up against the smearing of The Driving Force on The Ineffectual One's own website. That's where the initial underlying tension came from (in addition to the personality disorder you mentioned).

All the rest was window dressing, including the pedophilia thing (although The Driving Force actually was embarrassingly arrogant and inconsistent in his public interviews and tripped all over his own ego).

Just tockin' to myself out loud...

Michael