Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

Lookee at the love letter I just read from Perigo to you:

That's it Neil

I have to hand it to you. You now ask me to send my webmaster on a wild goose chase for evidence for a charge you have made *without* evidence?!

You're out. If you change your mind and decide to do the decent thing, let me know.

Now what was your grave offense?

Just because you outed him for sending spies around? And he wants to deny this?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah...

Oh, the pain... the pain...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Isn't it amazing how the very worst offense, from Mr. Perigo's standpoint, is to suggest that he is a schemer and plotter of backstage maneuvers?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I edited my article above to include the following text. Now at least one person within the ARI orbit is taking PARC seriously enough to make a public statement.

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

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

June 8, 2009

To my listeners:

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

Thank you,

Leonard Peikoff

Dear Mr. Wales,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Leonard Peikoff

Executor, Estate of Ayn Rand

[Rich Engle]

I said it early into this fiasco: Valliant would not exist were it not for the work of others. He is a swanky parasite. Try doing something original. Instead, he started off-rip by dovetailing off Rand's work, Nathaniel's work, and tried to establish himself on that premise.

In the music world, we see that all the time. It is like a guy that has a halfway-decent "tribute band," but has no ideas of his own.

Worse yet, he doesn't even acknowledge his influences; he simply feeds off them. He is a flash in the pan, and not a good one at that.

Innovation takes a lot of work. I have never seen a single original idea out of that man. He sucks the vapor-trails.

rde

Edited June 9, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

test

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't know if the following news will be maintained, but it does deserve a comment.

i was looking up something on Nathaniel Branden and a Google link to his Wikipedia entry came up. I had not seen it in a long time, so I went there (Nathaniel Branden). I also went to Barbara's entry (Barbara Branden).

Lo and behold, there is not a singe mention of Vailiant's book.

Those who followed the PARC affair know that Valliant, and/or his wife, got busted on Wikipedia for using sockpuppet accounts to modify entries. And for repeatedly and contentiously making changes against the wishes of the editors. Even so, references to PARC abounded on Wikipedia for the longest time.

Since I was already on Wikipedia just now, I also tried to type in "James Valliant" in the site's search field. It redirects to Objectivist movement. And there is no mention of Valliant or his book anywhere in that article.

In fact, the only place on Wikipedia I found Valliant's work listed (other than a few talk pages) was here: Bibliography for Ayn Rand and Objectivism.

Like I said, I don't know if this state of affairs will remain. Wikipedia is always changing. But that's where it stands right now.

I imagine the irony of this will not be lost on those who lived through this sorry episode in O-Land. It isn't lost on me. So much so that I am appending it to an old relevant thread.

When I look back on the effort I and others put in against Vailliant's embarrassing attack propaganda, I'm glad to see there was a long-lasting effect. But I sometimes wonder if this awful book would not have imploded over time all by itself. It certainly was weak enough: intellectually, objectively, stylistically, and even in simple things like getting quotes wrong. Not to mention the sheer meanness of spirit and blind Rand-worship underpinning the tome.

Still, no regrets.

The Brandens continue to be honored, as they should. In fact, I believe their good reputations have been strengthened with the public because of all the noise.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

As far as I can tell, Jim Valliant is still being protected by Richard Lawrence. No further action has been taken against him at Wikipedia for sock-puppetry, joint use of the same userid, etc.

However, the ruling against his book being considered a "reliable source" has not been overturned—at least not so far.

I no longer contribute to Wikipedia because of its needlessly complex and often perverse rules, capriciously enforced.

But I did notice yesterday that Ahmad Jamal's Wikipedia entry once again gives his birth name. (Some Wikipedia administrator caved, two years ago, when Mr. Jamal, who changed his name when he converted to Islam, made the patently absurd claim that his parents had named him "Ahmad Jamal" at birth, and threatened to sue if Wikipedia fid not accede to his demand.)

So maybe Wikipedia will remutate into a better environment for contributors.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

I noticed that as well.

Hardly anyone mentions his book anymore. For some reason, 100 Voices hasn't got much notice either. In fact, there seems to have been an order from on high to ignore it.

Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

In her Raritan Quarterly piece, Jennifer Burns says that in 2001, ARI had entered the era of glasnost.

Chris Sciabarra's take is that ARI and the Archives had merely gone from Stalin to Khrushchev.

Andrew Bernstein performed his public penance the year after Burns started her research. I wonder what Jeff Britting had to say about that...

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

Hardly anyone mentions his book anymore.

A newbie or two asked about it within the last day over on OO.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24637entry303374

Stand by for a defender to arrive. You have to love posts 3 and 4: "He's a con-artist. Please ignore him." "Branden or Valliant?"

[Robert Campbell]

A newbie or two asked about it within the last day over on OO.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24637entry303374

Stand by for a defender to arrive. You have to love posts 3 and 4: "He's a con-artist. Please ignore him." "Branden or Valliant?"

No defender so far...

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

Hardly anyone mentions his book anymore.

A newbie or two asked about it within the last day over on OO.

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24637entry303374

Stand by for a defender to arrive. You have to love posts 3 and 4: "He's a con-artist. Please ignore him." "Branden or Valliant?"

I just commented on that thread that the statement that you quoted on quotations still cracks me up, and one of the moderators felt the need to delete my comment, which cracks me up even more.

J

[9thdoctor]

I just commented on that thread that the statement that you quoted on quotations still cracks me up, and one of the moderators felt the need to delete my comment, which cracks me up even more.

Yeah, I saw that. How can they object to your post while letting mine stand? Did they send you an explanation? Maybe a few more Valliantquoats® are in order. It's not like either of us brought up the subject.

[william.scherk]

Valliantquoats®!!

More. The Hardesty/Valliant discourse in the obscure thirteenth circle of Randian Hell -- Amazon comment threads on book review pages -- is a fiery furnace shucking out smoking hot ingots of goodness for all. Golden.

So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is an entire world of bad in not-Book, and we ignore it now. What Burns suggested about the fiercely-fought guerilla war madness of the Objectivish milieus, surely that is wrong? Randians/Orthos/Neos/Cryptos/Pomos never go all Mexican Wrestling on each other, do they?

We may be need to coin a new term for the actual howlers that are accurately transcribed from the titanic struggles in the heart of the Furnace of Bullshit.

ValliantDrippings? ValliantHowlers? or a portmanteau, maybe -- what is a good name for nuggets of inestimable nuggetness, directly taken from the Vast internet Corpus of James Valliant? .

I am so tired, my hands have cramped, this stalking is hard on me. I think Jennifer Burns accurately described those whom in another context, I call the NutterZone. It is an elastic term. It usually denotes the Others, those who need the fire of reason to cleanse them, but it can expand and retract like a slime mold. Make sure it never touches you or you will be envelloped.

And I say that as both a Progressive and Marxist, as well as a member of the Rand Cult!

So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is not the not-Book that we deplore, but its spirit of prosecution and one-eyed madness, its prolixity and its constant re-birth in the fiery furnaces. Or not.

ValliantNutNotes®? ValliantBars®? ValliantMishnah® ValliantNuggetz®?

Edited January 11, 2013 by william.scherk

[Reidy]

I can't help wondering why, if nobody takes this book seriously, the current thread has attracted more than a thousand posts in the course of almost five years. Can any book by Branden, Sciabarra, Machan, Gotthelf, Peikoff, Walker, Weiss, Tara Smith, George Smith or any of Rand's biographers match that?

[Jonathan]

I just commented on that thread that the statement that you quoted on quotations still cracks me up, and one of the moderators felt the need to delete my comment, which cracks me up even more.

Yeah, I saw that. How can they object to your post while letting mine stand? Did they send you an explanation?

No, the new game at OO is for a moderator to delete my posts without notification or explanation.

J

[Jonathan]

And I say that as both a Progressive and Marxist, as well as a member of the Rand Cult!

In O-land, I've most frequently been called a Kantian Pomo Nihilist, so that's that label that I want to go with.

ValliantNutNotes®? ValliantBars®? ValliantMishnah® ValliantNuggetz®?

Valliantine® Powder?

J

[Robert Campbell]

It's a book that no one takes seriously.

It's also a book that would not exist without the personal sponsorship of Leonard Peikoff.

If PARC had been limited to what's now its firat half, if would still be gathering cobwebs in some corner of the Internet.

It was when Peikoff opened the doors of the Archives, and granted permission to publish Rand's diaries, that PARC became a book. Sort of.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

I can't help wondering why, if nobody takes this book seriously, the current thread has attracted more than a thousand posts in the course of almost five years.

Bill just explained it in post 1014.

J

[Brant Gaede]

I can't help wondering why, if nobody takes this book seriously, the current thread has attracted more than a thousand posts in the course of almost five years. Can any book by Branden, Sciabarra, Machan, Gotthelf, Peikoff, Walker, Weiss, Tara Smith, George Smith or any of Rand's biographers match that?

Or Rand?

There were about 1000 posts over 13 months then only a few until the current iteration.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

And, of course, WSS is right that, as long as Jim Valliant is alive and posting, he will generating new nuggets of high nugget value.

Self-promotion that never fails to self-undermine.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Valliantquoats®!!

More. The Hardesty/Valliant discourse in the obscure thirteenth circle of Randian Hell -- Amazon comment threads on book review pages -- is a fiery furnaceshucking out smoking hot ingots of goodness for all. Golden.

So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is an entire world of bad in not-Book, and we ignore it now. What Burns suggested about the fiercely-fought guerilla war madness of the Objectivish milieus, surely that is wrong? Randians/Orthos/Neos/Cryptos/Pomos never go all Mexican Wrestling on each other, do they?

We may be need to coin a new term for the actual howlers that are accurately transcribed from the titanic struggles in the heart of the Furnace of Bullshit.

ValliantDrippings? ValliantHowlers? or a portmanteau, maybe -- what is a good name for nuggets of inestimable nuggetness, directly taken from the Vast internet Corpus of James Valliant? .

I am so tired, my hands have cramped, this stalking is hard on me. I think Jennifer Burns accurately described those whom in another context, I call the NutterZone. It is an elastic term. It usually denotes the Others, those who need the fire of reason to cleanse them, but it can expand and retract like a slime mold. Make sure it never touches you or you will be envelloped.

And I say that as both a Progressive and Marxist, as well as a member of the Rand Cult!

So, why no one cares about that not-Book of his anymore? Because it is not the not-Book that we deplore, but its spirit of prosecution and one-eyed madness, its prolixity and its constant re-birth in the fiery furnaces. Or not.

ValliantNutNotes®? ValliantBars®? ValliantMishnah® ValliantNuggetz®?

What in the hell is "Mexican Wrestling"?

--Brant

in a bean dip mosh pit?

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Check out WSS's 2006 posts on SOLOP, with La Lucha Libre, freely flowing insults in Mexican Spanish, and the Photoshopped poster of Chris Sciabarra.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I can't help wondering why, if nobody takes this book seriously, the current thread has attracted more than a thousand posts in the course of almost five years.

Pete,

I'm going to give this a shot since it is a good question.

On a literal level, we have to look at how many posters are on this thread, not just how many posts. It's like the Szasz book on Amazon, which got 3 whole reader reviews. But one of those reviews got 78 comments (or thereabouts)--and most all of those are between Valliant and Hardesty. Does 78 posts represent any kind of credibility that the public is engaged when there are only 2 dudes slugging it out?

Of course not.

Ditto for PARC threads with just a few more players.

But let's get away from literally. On a symbolic level, PARC is a very painful metaphor similar to another--an image I acquired years ago in college. It perfectly represents one of the reasons PARC discussions attract a public of sorts--but notice that the group is made up of the same suspects over and over, or sporadic (very sporadic) joiners in the fun.

The image comes from poker. During a time in college, I decided to play cards to help pay my bills. I was actually successful for a while, but I did not like the discipline needed to keep at it correctly over the long haul. I have an addictive bent to my subconscious makeup and walking away from the table with winnings in my pocket without placing just one more bet always felt like a profound violence against my inner nature.

I have stayed away from gambling ever since those days.

Anyhoo... I remember the looks on people's faces as they would stare at a losing hand when called. They would keep trying to rearrange the cards in their minds and the intensity often made them sweat. Especially if the pot was big. But no matter how much they stared, no matter how much smoke came out their ears from overheating their brains, the cards always stayed the same.

I see this same stare around discussions of PARC. (I include myself as one of the gawkers.)

The PARC-adherents want desperately for reality to not be what it is. They want a rewritten version of Rand in line with a sanitized story they carry in their heads. Their arguments carry the same impression as staring at a losing hand. No matter how much they rearrange stuff in their minds and pump it out, the same facts keep coming back to haunt them and they just can't seem to convince anyone except fellow true believers. They have an urgent hunger--a craving--to believe they are not hypocrites, but instead, keepers of the flame.

On the other side, we get people who have been impacted on a deep level by Rand, and they keep staring at this situation trying to rearrange the cards, too. They want desperately to not have such blatant hypocrisy in O-Land. It bothers them that Objectivism--the philosophy that brought them so much value, insight and clarity--is somehow not enough to prevent this from happening to people who seem reasonably intelligent. And no matter how long they stare at the hand, the cards stay the same. Valliant & Co. are boneheaded, advocating blind belief in Rand up a storm with all the tenacity and logic of a backwater revivalist preacher (but without the color), and this is right in front of them, with official sanction to boot.

Humans are naturally attracted to things that don't fit--things that are out of whack--in their environment. Evolutionary psychologists claim it is a subconscious survival mechanism. Well PARC represents something seriously wrong in O-Land. So we all stare at it.

I believe this is the source of the attraction you questioned.

To outsiders, though, all it looks like is a lot of fussy light with no heat.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

The PARC-adherents want desperately for reality to not be what it is. They want a rewritten version of Rand in line with a sanitized story they carry in their heads. Their arguments carry the same impression as staring at a losing hand. No matter how much they rearrange stuff in their minds and pump it out, the same facts keep coming back to haunt them and they just can't seem to convince anyone except fellow true believers. They have an urgent hunger--a craving--to believe they are not hypocrites, but instead, keepers of the flame.

On the other side, we get people who have been impacted on a deep level by Rand, and they keep staring at this situation trying to rearrange the cards, too. They want desperately to not have such blatant hypocrisy in O-Land. It bothers them that Objectivism--the philosophy that brought them so much value, insight and clarity--is somehow not enough to prevent this from happening to people who seem reasonably intelligent. And no matter how long they stare at the hand, the cards stay the same. Valliant & Co. are boneheaded, advocating blind belief in Rand up a storm with all the tenacity and logic of a backwater revivalist preacher (but without the color), and this is right in front of them, with official sanction to boot.

Humans are naturally attracted to things that don't fit--things that are out of whack--in their environment. Evolutionary psychologists claim it is a subconscious survival mechanism. Well PARC represents something seriously wrong in O-Land. So we all stare at it.

This is precisely why the PARC phenomenon still gets anyone's attention.

It isn't that hard to figure out, either.

Which is why I have no trouble understanding those outside of Randland who ignore the phenomenon altogether—and I have no trouble sympathizing with them.

It's those who bring it up, merely in order to condemn the critics of PARC, that I can't help believing are playing with crooked cards.

Jennifer Burns considers herself personally entitled to condemn PARC in terms as harsh as any that have ever been used around here.

But then she considers herself entitled to use reactions to the book and its author by PARC's critics as grounds for writing them off in their turn.

In effect, only Dr. Burns is permitted to criticize Mr. Valliant or his opus. No one else outside of Randland can be bothered, while everyone inside of Randland is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Robert Campbell