The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

I think an author's introduction is as good as place as any to find his "point." Here is Valliant:

"However, only an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. For those of us who never met Rand, to dismiss entirely and without consideration those critics of Rand who knew her would be a mistake . . ." (p. 4.)

"We shall see that the rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources . . . and extensive internal contradictions, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand . . . of little value as well." (p. 6.)

So isn't Valliant's "point" that books by "the Brandens" are false? And does Valliant have a method for us to evaluate his claims other than checking his descriptions of the books, his footnotes, etc.?

[Neil Parille]

Rich,

If Valliant could show that I have distorted what he said, I assume he would. His silence, as they say, "speaks volumes."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I see that you replied to my post #145, but I don't see that you actually addressed any of the three related questions I posed.

Ellen,

OK, let's go through the 3 questions.

Do you believe that there is no one who read Valliant's book and believed he'd "vindicated" Rand who isn't a mental robot?

I did not claim anyone was a mental robot. I don't consider true-believers to be mental robots. I did state that the issue of mind control was operating with PARC. Those who hold PARC up as the gospel truth and bash the Brandens are in with ARI, SLOP, etc. Those who question it are out and are treated by the "in people" as enemies, not only of those organizations, but of Objectivism, reason, justice, etc., altogether.

Valliant's book was written to be read out of focus and it is overly-repetitive—just like the mind control technique I mentioned above. The idea is to convince someone by "the frequent repetition of the same ideas over an extended period of time" in order to form a habit (a "brain imprint" or a "neurological circuit"). Do I believe that otherwise highly intelligent people were affected in this manner by reading PARC?

Hell yes.

And by saying that, I am actually being complimentary because I am giving them an out. I am saying they were affected by a mind-control technique, not that they chose to be part of an intellectual lynch mob on purpose. Maybe not all of them were sensitive to the social dynamics of the peer pressure, but they stood by and watched an intellectual lynching, often in the foulest language possible, unfold over a period of almost 2 years so far and DID NOT SPEAK UP FOR OBJECTIVITY. This intellectual lynching extended to smearing Chris Sciabarra in the most bigoted scapegoating manner I could ever imagine, YET THESE PEOPLE REMAINED SILENT.

Do I hold them accountable for that? I sure as hell do. They should be ashamed of themselves. I hold that part of their choices in total contempt. I think they are intelligent enough to own up to the error, if it was error, and after watching this sickening spectacle carried out in the name of reason over a long period of time, I just don't feel like playing the game of letting them think they were right in order to spare their delicate feelings. They sure as hell had no delicate feelings when they supported people calling the Brandens "scum" and worse.

(For instance, what of someone like Jeff Perren (sp?), who's a really smart guy, and Bill Perry, likewise, and some persons whom I won't name whom I consider quite honorable and also capable of thinking for themselves but less possessed of intellect than the aforenamed?)

I cannot discuss these two without betraying confidences. All I can say is that I have very good reason to believe that both of them held the Brandens in high contempt way before PARC came out and I don't see them changing that opinion even if every single word of PARC were proven to be false one day. PARC was simply gravy on the meat of an already formed opinion.

How do you help in trying to encourage those who were convinced, on however careless a reading, or from whatever desires to believe that AR was Ms. Incredible, to re-examine if you accuse them en masse, as if they're all the same, of having had their critical abilites wiped out?

That's a strange question. How do you convince a person who was part of a lynch mob that he should not have taken part in the lynching as a supporter? In this particular case, I trust the intelligence and integrity of the independent thinkers to own up to when they were wrong, just like I have done on several occasions (and so have you, if I remember correctly). If they truly hold reason as supreme, they will be open to reason and a rational argument. Frankly, this is where I think Neil's posts are doing damage big-time to the silent supporters of the disgusting ringleaders.

If they are not open to reason, nothing will convince them except more mind-control and peer pressure. Do you really want to play that game?

I don't think my opinions are going to matter one way or the other except to let the ringleaders know that I find them loathsome and maybe shock the truly independent ones out of their mental fog and complacency.

Now on to the rest of your other post.

I'm aware that you might have meant your comments as applying only to those who have responded in favor of PARC on Neil's current threads on SOLO. However, you didn't limit your remarks to those people, but instead referred generally to the psychology of "those who are convinced.":

Could it be that Valliant's a liar and those who are convinced don't need to worry anymore about details like facts?

[....]

Those convinced by Valliant do not really want to restore Rand, however. They want to restore and validate their own faith. They feel lost without God. I speak metaphorically, but that is the central issue. They feel lost without God and they have scapegoated religion too long to backpedal.

These are highly insulting descriptions of those -- and there are some -- who are not persons motivated in the way you describe but who nevertheless believe that PARC did a service in "setting the record straight," in "letting Ayn Rand's side of the story be heard."

Then let them be insulted. This is EXACTLY the way I see it.

Of course, people who have not witnessed the shameful spectacle of the online debates with Valliant and his cronies, where "restoring Rand as a heroine" was hammered over and over along with the Brandens being "liars," "scumbags," "evil" and anything else rotten people can imagine are not really included in my generalizations. But here, let me include you, as an OL member, in the opinions of these learned paragons of rationality. The following list of descriptions has been leveled at OL and OL members over an extended period of time because of our support of the Brandens and stand against the lynching. These pearls of erudition were not all made on the same site, nor made by the same people. They come from multiple sources. I am not even mentioning the names I have personally been called. Someday, when I have nothing to do, I might comb the Internet for these things about NB and BB, except I think the list would be too numerous to undertake without investing a HUGE amount of time.

Cockroach Corner

Branden Community Church

Nasty folks (malicious motive)

Communist Living

Intellectual/cultural ghetto for the Brandens

Any port in a storm

Branden Temple

ObjectivistLying

The anti-Rand site for Brandroids, back-stabbers & buttlickers

Subjectivist Living

Bad vibe

The Shao-lin Temple of Barbara Branden

The Fearlessly Independent Thinker's Shrine to Barbara Branden

O-Lying Brandroids

O-Liars

O-Lying ghetto

Ollie den

Basically where all the dishonest people who've been run out of the Objectivist movement go to die

(Said about OL): "I'm willing to wrestle in mud, but not in shit"

OLLies

(Said about OL): "'Intellectual bankruptcy' may be too generous as applied to them"

Objectivist Livers

Objectivist Not Living

Objectivist Dying

Objectivist Undead

Smearing Rand-diminishers

People who don't love or hate

Jellyfishness and mounds of spineless goo

It may be ruined (said gleefully about the hack of the OL site in July 2006)

That place is full of them, operating in bad faith. (Said about alleged phonies on OL)

A hostile site that may be dying

Most of its activity was directed against SOLO & much of that against me personally. (Said by a self-flatterer)

These creatures are beyond contemplation in their awfulness

OL could go from Objectivist Living to Objectivist LaRouchies

Flaky ghetto

Some of the people you are concerned about convincing participated in this and/or applauded it. I guess we just have different reactions to them.

As you're aware, I'm concerned to try to reach exactly those people and encourage them to think it through again. I don't feel that you help when you tar with the same black brush everyone who, from whatever causes -- in some cases I think it was mostly hasty reading, believes that Valliant did present a meritorious case.

To tell you the truth, I suspect many of them are are followers anyway and will change their opinions to the extent the ones they follow change theirs. I don't think my opinion matters to that kind of person in convincing him one way or the other.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

The only Objectivists I know on either side of this issue is via email, so I can't comment on anyone in particular. I will say that when I read PARC, I thought that many claims by Valliant were quite tendentious, but a few were probably correct (he had so many, so how could some of them not be correct?). It was only when I ordered the Brandens books and did some checking that I realized just how bad PARC was.

[Rich Engle]

Ellen,

I think an author's introduction is as good as place as any to find his "point." Here is Valliant:

"However, only an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. For those of us who never met Rand, to dismiss entirely and without consideration those critics of Rand who knew her would be a mistake . . ." (p. 4.)

"We shall see that the rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources . . . and extensive internal contradictions, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand . . . of little value as well." (p. 6.)

So isn't Valliant's "point" that books by "the Brandens" are false? And does Valliant have a method for us to evaluate his claims other than checking his descriptions of the books, his footnotes, etc.?

Heh.

Right off the rip, even an atheist might consider the possibility of a lightning strike when a guy like Valliant has the balls to use the term "rhetorical maneuvering" on anyone other than himself.

I only wish he went to silence speaking volumes, but he does not. Instead, he is sniffy and attacky. True colors, Neil, true colors. It would be more OK, at least for me, if he simply admitted his actual motivation. But that's the thing-- I'm not sure he is aware of what those are.

If you've been around long enough, been around the entertainment industry in particular (and that includes cocktail parties with novelists...er..."authors") you come to know what a dog and pony show looks like.

[Dragonfly]

I found the reaction of one of the randroids on Solo revealing: "Don't you have anything better to do with your time?". It reminded me of James Taggart's "don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me". Please don't disturb our cultish belief with unwelcome facts, we remain faithful to our Lying Lawyer!

[Rich Engle]

I found the reaction of one of the randroids on Solo revealing: "Don't you have anything better to do with your time?". It reminded me of James Taggart's "don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me". Please don't disturb our cultish belief with unwelcome facts, we remain faithful to our Lying Lawyer!

Yeah, the general deflection going on hasn't escaped me. Taggart & Toohey 101. Talking out of both sides of the mouth... Like I said, if you go for the context, you get told that you haven't paid heed to the details. If you go for the details, you don't get the context. And that's the "A" game. Coin-of-the-realm is more like you say... "don't you have anything better to do..." or notably the gross parry by Valliant where he questions Neil's knowledge of Objectivism. You don't have to know squat about that to pick apart citations. Nice balls-- he goes so far to say that Neil took a "few" things and, and....wah wah. Heck, Neil's article was comprehensive, footnoted. And he even said there might be a couple of flaws in it. At least he admits to the possibility of error. James just does the cha-cha anytime someone starts bearing down on him.

And I would expect no less. He's one of those "hah hah...oh, you know..." cocktail party guys. And a sloppy scholar, to boot. I thought I knew smarmy until I read his replies to all this.

I can hardly wait until he gets this new pig about the Bible out...the religious academics are going to ream him a bright shiny new one, just on presentation alone. Ow, my balls!

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I may be the one on SOLO who said "It may be ruined" referring to OL and the hacker attack, but not gleefully. It may have been repeated by someone. Even out of the context I was then in I didn't want OL to go under. Some people on SOLO were celebrating. I actually told readers of SOLO who were OL members to go back and support OL until Linz objected. I was on good terms with him at the time.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

I hope we don't degenerate into talking about the doings over there. It's already a stretch to talk about PARC, but one that I think is worth it, just because of the lack of any substanstive action going on about it over there, all 5 or 6 of them. It does make me wonder what some of those guys ended up being, though; I saw better out of several of them over at Rebirth of Reason back when.

I'll never understand it. If you look at Barbara and Nathaniel's lives, their work, they simply moved on, did well, and never made a career out of hurting others. As far as I've ever seen, they totally walk their talk. Trying to run them up the pole just isn't going to get any traction, even if a lawyer/author goes for it.

[emb021]

Neil has posted his recent PARC comments on SLOP, where Valliant hangs out.

James Valliant on TARC

James Valliant on Nathaniel Branden as Objectivist Heretic

What tickles me is that he is not being refuted at all. Phil Coates has a post mentioning why. The contempt these people hold for their own audience is awe-inspiring. I think it blinds them to the fact that some of their own convinced ones will think:

The second one is the most... interesting in its responses. Phil make a good posting pointing out the poor responses to Neil's stuff. (I seem to recall the Phil had struck me as one of the, uh, rational few on SOLO).

I like the claim by 'wngreen' (who had posted several useless comments) that Neil has been refuted by several. Hmmm, unless I missed something, I don't recall any such thing. Unless I have a different concept of refusion...

Its just this sort of cr*p that while I will take a look at what's going on at SOLO, I have NO desire to comment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I may be the one on SOLO who said "It may be ruined" referring to OL and the hacker attack, but not gleefully. It may have been repeated by someone.

Brant,

That might have been you, or not. I do remember you commenting about OL back then. If it was you and my "gleeful" remark is wrong, I will change it. I did not keep the names or places when I started compiling that list (and I still add to it), so I will have to look it up (someday).

Incidentally, I admire you enormously. You walked away in public from some serious peer pressure back then and I know it was extremely painful. Outside of the peer pressure, there were internal conflicts to deal with. But you would not deny your independent judgment, despite how seduced you had become with the whole emotional appeal of the lynching. (I do not think the perpetrators of that peer pressure do that innocently, either. I think they know exactly what they are doing. They are guilty as all hell of using every trick they can learn for manipulating crowds to perform a lynching.)

I have been caught up in that myself and I know just how hard it is to walk away and openly declare why in public the way you did. That takes balls and integrity. That did not go unnoticed. I want to state on record that I give you one of the greatest compliments within my own values that I ever give anybody:

I trust you.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, thanks for those kind remarks.

In regard to the emotional appeal to lynching, I was not aware of such. It is obvious considering the last two years as a totality, that lynching best characterized the situation you are talking about, first in the original SOLO, then in SOLOP.

Sometimes you really don't know where you are, then you leave, in my case out of disgust, and you realize how shitty that place was and you wonder if more was involved then Objectivist dolts advocating genocide.

In the 19th C. some of my fraternal ancestors argued about whether it was all right to cut bread since the Bible mentioned the breaking of bread. This kind of deportment in which people get ground up in rationalistic moralizing and intellectualizing is the bane of young Objectivists and older ones who should know better (mea culpa). If you feel you have to give up or even denounce family and friends because they are immoral or have the wrong ideas, take care; you may be wrong, about a number of things. I don't think Objectivism is a religion, but it can be used that way.

--Brant

Edited March 21, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

I was waiting around for the Head Curmudgeon to take the podium (put on your rain slicker):

... how anyone can read Rand's journals in PARC without seething with contempt for the dirty, rotten, conniving bastard that was Nathaniel Branden, aided and abetted in his dirty, rotten connivings by Barbara. It's just heart-breaking, knowing what we know, to see Ayn struggling to understand what she didn't know but was quite perceptively "intuiting" with her "stomach feelings." I don't believe, given their reactions to PARC, either Branden feels a shred of remorse about his/her despicable, opportunistic conduct at that time. They could come clean still—really come clean as opposed to the token, self-servingly spun coming-clean of their books—but I don't believe either of them has the character or courage to do it. In which case, at the very least they could tap such group-thinking apologists and conduits as Mr. Parille and Phil on the shoulder and urge upon them a prudent veil of silence.

Linz

MSK, I know and generally agree with your directive to not cross-promote the local trolls, but hey, this one is so classic, how could I not? Oh, the moral outrage ! Heavens, I am about to fall into a faint, surely as he nearly did upon holding forth. I hope he has a fainting couch next to his air-conducting podium.

douche bag

–noun a small syringe having detachable nozzles for fluid injections, used chiefly for vaginal lavage and for enemas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1930–35]

[Brant Gaede]

I hope Michael deletes this and the previous post. Rich, you made a mistake in my opinion, bringing this here.

--Brant

Edited March 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

You are right. If feels... er... "dirty"... to see Perigo's trite and silly words here on OL. It is illustrative of the irrational element in Objectivism, however, so let's leave it as an example of what to avoid.

There is one issue in that sputtering nonsense, however, that shows the tribal mentality extremely well. This issue has not been addressed too much, so I want to comment on it here. That is the charge of being a conduit for Barbara.

I know for a fact that Neil is not a conduit for anyone. From his offline communications with me (and he approached me first), he has shown to be independently troubled by the poor quality reasoning in PARC and the fact that it has been uncritically accepted by some otherwise intelligent people. He has not been in contact with Barbara, at least not before his article and not during the time of all those blog posts. I suspect that he is not in contact with her now, but I can't say for sure.

I don't know about Phil, but I have never been aware of any particular closeness between him and Barbara. They are cordial with each other in a friendly manner, but it has always been my impression that it stopped there. Phil's history shows that he has always operated in a manner true to his own convictions and I am unaware of him ever being a conduit for anybody on any issue.

It is inconceivable to a tribal mind that a person can be motivated by love of reason and not love of a particular person. It is also inconceivable to a true-believer that a person can love reason and his own independent judgment over loving Rand (God forbid!).

When the facts cannot be addressed rationally, as in both Neil's and Phil's comments, the tribal mind and true-believer type takes recourse to attacks on personalities and makes unfounded accusations. But in this particular case, I hold the charge of being a conduit to be an innocent error and not lying, as is usual. I think this person honestly cannot conceive of an independent rational mind. He is a social animal to the core.

Michael

EDIT: I changed a statement above. What now reads: "... he has shown to be independently troubled by the poor quality reasoning in PARC and the fact that it has been uncritically accepted by some otherwise intelligent people,"

used to be:

"... he has shown to be independently troubled by the poor quality reasoning in PARC and the fact that it has been so widely accepted by many intelligent people."

My original statement was a complete and careless slip of rhetoric. Obviously PARC has never been "widely accepted" by many anything, much less intelligent people. Nor will it ever be. Its influence has been severely limited and should actually disappear over time.

[Brant Gaede]

In that case, Michael, I will comment of Linz's post: If life were a cheap soap opera populated with paper-mache characters, these are the kinds of contrived observations one might make through one's tears. The man's understanding of people is as thin as his understanding of anything else.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

Just for the record, after I started posts on my blog concerning PARC, I notifed Barbara Branden of that fact. We've exhanged a few emails since that time, but she has never suggested any topics, avenues of criticism or whatever concerning PARC, nor have I asked her for any.

[Rich Engle]

Hey, trust me, ladies and gentlemen, when I say it took a considerable amount of contemptlation to do what I did.

There is a convenant we have here, and I chose to break it. This is a decision I didn't make that quickly, because I have a deep level of respect for MSK. But, included in his understanding, I think, is that sometimes one has to allow for breaking barriers. I did that, and if apologies are necessary, I make them.

Why did I do it?

Off the rip, Perigo's response was rote, expected. Maybe that was why, because I so expected it, and he delivered.

You know, if you read his writing, it's got this tone of "moral outrage" to it. It's Toohey-like, and that pisses me off. Perigo continues to be a phoney. I long for the day that they pick his bones off the NZ shoreline, what is left of them after the fish get done. He is a true horror of a man, because he is such the social metaphysican. He doesn't even do a good job at being a raving homosexual; something I might support. He is so about his own being not a person, but a personality, that it sickens me. The man sickens me, he always has, and as far as things look now, he always will. He is a talent-challenged opportunist, and not a good one at that. I only have gratitude for not having the means to tune into his radio show.

The man is a scoundrel, and on top of that, a talentless one.

There is a piece of me that enjoys Perigo, much as Hunter Thompson enjoyed the time he spent with Nixon, but it wears thin, and quickly. He is a social gadfly, and he nauseates me for that.

Is there a piece of me that feels bad about violating MSK's "prime directive?" Yes, but only for a minute. The hot sick wind of that thing that is Perigo bypasses any positive sentiment.

A mistake, Brant? Maybe, only because I perpetuate this spewed crap. But, there are times to point out the obvious.

rde

Apologies to MSK for pushing the envelope.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, it's worked out okay, Rich. It can't be a bigger deal than we make it; the man's so small.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

He is no bigger than we make him to be, Brant, And that came into my consideration. Why cross- promote such a creature? But I did, and that's that.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Dragonfly]

Ah, but who takes Perigo seriously nowadays? He's just too ludicrous. Here is a wonderful example (thanks to Daniel for the tip):

I sometimes run what I call "philosophical/ethical boot camps"—one-on-one tough-love "counselling" sessions with folk who, accurately I hope, think I might be able to help them unravel confusions in their lives they are finding intractable. I do this free of charge, since I'm not a professional and don't set myself up as one—where I suspect folk have a clinical condition (such as depression) I send them off to get a professional diagnosis, dubious and all as I am about modern-day psycho-babble. But a recurring leitmotif running through all cases, clinical and non-clinical, is self-deception, sometimes of the most appalling magnitude, which is usually dragged out only after the most intense questioning that would make the hardest interview I ever did on television seem like patter-cake. (One of the requirements of the boot-camp is that there be no taboos and no evasions.) When the self-deception is dragged out, it's often the first time the self-deceiver is fully, consciously aware of it. He also realises how much, by extension, he's been deceiving others (in an effort to conform to their values, or lack thereof, of course). He is aghast at himself. Then, if the person is intent on becoming true to himself, the really hard work begins of changing the habits of a lifetime of social metaphysics.

Any takers for such a boot camp session with the master?!

[Rich Engle]

Heh...

That's one of those things you see out of such creatures. Meaning, they are so full of themselves, that they think they can bypass training (psychobabble and all) and offer counseling(!).

Right on! My gentle audience: I trust you can see the problem here! Yeah, sign up, The Creature will set you straight...

I knew a guy just like this, a musician. Actually, he's the one that turned me on to Atlas Shrugged. You'd think that would be something. On the other hand, he gave me Atlas and "Critique of Pure Reason" at the same time. I'm not sure if he helped more than he hurt. He used to leave notes on my doorstep, and criticize the way we rinsed off our dishes. He would call us in for "counseling" sessions (I never did it but for once, just because I wanted to fuck with him, it was sport).

Yeah, visions of grandeur. Legend in the mind. Air conducting. I'd like to see him work a real day job...putting in a straight 8 would probably transform him, though, then he'd start preaching even more.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is a fresh assault from the orthodoxy:

Dissemblers Unmasked

by Edward Cline

I read this thing, but I couldn't stop laughing. Seriously. Just about every mark of the true-believer is embedded in this article. At least Edward Cline did not sneak in this view. He started with a bang right from the beginning.

I was attending lectures and other events at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in a sub-level of the Empire State Building in 1968 when the Rand-Branden matter "blew up.' Most regular attendees were left utterly ignorant of the reasons behind the conflict. I recall receiving the statements from both Ayn Rand and the Brandens about why it was all over, and of the two statements - even though the concrete particulars of Nathaniel Branden's offenses especially were unfathomable to me and would remain so for years - I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements.

He granted Rand's version sole veracity back then without even looking?

Heh.

Incidentally, Cline is a guest writer for ARI. He is not listed as one of the writers, but his name appears as author and co-author on some works presented on the website.

There is another small matter. I received an email addressed to me and a bunch of others from a young man. If he wants to be identified, I will gladly do it. It mentioned another quote from the article:

I have always characterized libertarians as 'ventriloquists' for liberty.

Then the young man pointed out that Cline wrote dozens of articles for Reason magazine all during the late 1980s. Peter Schwartz's essay, "Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty," came out in The Intellectual Activist in May-June and December 1985. This young man also claimed that Schwartz denounced Reason Magazine in addition to libertarianism, but I have been unable to find any comment online. If Schwartz denounced libertarianism and recognized Reason Magazine as a libertarian periodical, he obviously had to include it. At any rate, the young man asked the following question about Cline's dozens of articles in Reason: "Wouldn't this then make HIM a "ventriloquist for liberty"?

I was highly interested in reading Cline's Revolutionary War novels, the Sparrowhawk series. Most fiction written by Objectivists I have read is not too good, so I had hopes for this. I just looked briefly at the Amazon customer review section for the first book. There are several strong ARI supporters I recognized. In the sixth book of the series, there is only one review all total (by a rabid Randroid). This makes me wonder about Cline's actual public acceptance.

Just because a person has written and published 15 novels does not mean that he has written 15 good novels. I ignore raving from ARI people for one of their own.

I know this is only an indication and does not replace actually reading his work. But if the general quality of Cline's writing is the same as it was for this caricature-like ARI-lockstep review of PARC, his novels just dropped some notches on my list of reading priorities.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As this is a thread for Neil's article, I want to mention that in Cline's review, he did cite some research on criticisms of PARC. Here is the quality of his research, from the article itself:

After finishing Valliant's book, I wondered if there had been any reply to it by the Brandens or any of their allies. What could anyone possibly say against it, except in the form of more evasions, rationalizations, and lies? On the Internet (and that's as far as I plan to go) I found irrelevant criticisms about some typos in the book, and some inconsistencies in style (National Review vs. The National Review!), comments on the production value of the physical book, and the like. Some anonymous person took Valliant to task for citing Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult, charging him with basing some of his factual statements on material found in that book, when Valliant had otherwise dismissed it as a tract largely founded on Branden material, that "critic" forgetting that Valliant qualified himself in that respect in terms of corroboration with other sources.

I wonder how Neil feels about being "some anonymous person" for such an erudite author. It probably keeps him up a night...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I was attending lectures and other events at the Nathaniel Branden Institute in a sub-level of the Empire State Building in 1968 when the Rand-Branden matter "blew up.' Most regular attendees were left utterly ignorant of the reasons behind the conflict. I recall receiving the statements from both Ayn Rand and the Brandens about why it was all over, and of the two statements - even though the concrete particulars of Nathaniel Branden's offenses especially were unfathomable to me and would remain so for years - I gave Rand the benefit of the doubt and granted her statement sole veracity, simply on the basis of her literary and philosophical achievements.

Not the first time I've read somebody denigrating NBI or Ayn Rand or Objectivism because NBI resided "unglamorously in the basement" or in a "sub-level" of the Empire State Building.

The reason NBI was there was because of the physical structure of the building. There was no room on any upper level for a significantly sized auditorium. I believe the rent was 25k/yr. Today, adjusted for inflation, that'd be into 6 figures. More than likely, adjusted for everything else, that would be well into six figures. There was nothing cheap about it. There's a legitimate criticism in that, but that'd be a business criticism.

--Brant