Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I don't recall any statement attributed to Nathaniel Branden, to the effect that Leonard Peikoff would never release Ayn Rand's journal entries about him.

I don't subscribe to the Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. Otherwise, I would be sorely tempted to slap that label on Chris Cathcart's claims about controversial matters in Rand-land. I do think that Mr. Cathcart has an ingrained tendency to blurt out proclamations without consulting any relevant evidence. I've concluded that his online statements are best ignored.

Robert Campbell

PS. On a different topic, how much direct contact was there between Lonnie Leonard and Ayn Rand?

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

On page 87 of PARC, Valliant writes:

His motive for the first correction is simple self-defense. Branden's overheated response to the publication by Leonard Peikoff to Rand's private journals--and, perhaps, a fear of what her journals might contain--points to a potentially motivating factor in his mea cupla in the second instance.

There is no footnote.

Valliant has a habit of reading things into various statements, e.g., Barbara's claim post-PARC that she heard the RR story from Rand was turned into "not even after NB said in his biography that they heard the story from Rand did Barbara Branden claim to have heard the story from Rand."

-NEIL

____

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On the contrary of Nathaniel never claiming that Peikoff would never release the notes, on p. 11, PARC makes a big issue out of Nathaniel's criticism of Peikoff for publishing Rand's journals (not the PARC ones), and on p. 379-380, Valliant even says Nathaniel was terrified of the public release of the journal notes provided by PARC.

He gives as evidence Nathaniel's own speculations that Rand would rewrite parts of their relationship in her notes (sourcing JD and MYWAR). Nathaniel was illustrating his view of how Rand justified certain things to herself. Valliant, the bonehead, took this to be fear of being exposed. I don't have time to type all that out, but one comical speculation by Valliant bears quoting (p. 380):

One can almost see the beads of sweat gathering on Branden's forehead over the prospect of the release of Rand's journals.

Those who can believe that deserve to. I have some great deals on the Eiffel tower for cheap for them, too.

EDIT: My post crossed with Neil's.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

OK, so Mr. Cathcart is taking Mr. Valliant's strained and tendentious inferences, applied a little more tendentious straining of his own, and presenting the results as fact.

It's not like he's never done that before...

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

He remembered the telephone call back in '77 when the Lonnie Leonard issue broke.

Here and here are a couple recent posts of mine on ARCHN about the LL issue.

Thanks for the links.

True though it is that O'ism attracts some unattractive people, I think it's most unfair to blame LL on O'ism. Lonnie was out to set up a personal power game from the start, and he used Objectivism. OK, fine, there was something there which he could use for his purposes, but that doesn't say that his purposes were the fault of Objectivism, any more than the purposes to which Nietzsche's ideas were put by the Nazis were Nietzsche's fault.

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I'm blaming Lonnie Leonard on Objectivism.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I'm blaming Lonnie Leonard on Objectivism.

J

Actually, yes, your discussion gave me the impression that you were blaming Objectivism for Lonnie.

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS. On a different topic, how much direct contact was there between Lonnie Leonard and Ayn Rand?

As best as I've been able to put together, very little to none. Lonnie arrived in NYC in '66 or '67 -- the date's given somewhere, but I don't recall where I saw it.

Nathaniel says that he has no recollection of meeting Lonnie, if he did meet him -- NB, as you know, left NYC in late '68.

I've never heard any reports that Lonnie attended gatherings at AR's during that time, though he was Allan's protege then and for the next couple years. Probably he attended NBI courses.

As of '71, Allan had disassociated from Lonnie. Mostly, as I detailed in one of the posts on ARCHN -- see J's post 2 above for the links -- the Lonnie group kept separate from the main group.

I listened on the alert, I can assure you, after the case was made public, for any indication from persons close to Ayn that Ayn even heard of it. I heard no such indications -- but I didn't frequent places where Harry B. & co. might be present, so maybe they said things I didn't hear.

I would like to know, if anyone finds evidence on the subject:

Did AR ever meet LL?

Did she hear about the scandal (or was she spared)?

(It's my hope that she was spared. She had more than plenty of other grief during those years, with the Blumenthals spliting with her, Edith -- who'd been a source of comfort -- moving to the West Coast, her husband in worsening health physically and senile mentally.)

Ellen

Here again are the links already posted to comments of mine about the Lonnie Leonard drama:

Here and here.

There's also a third post on the topic on that thread -- this one says more about why I don't hold O'ism responsible for Lonnie:

Here.

___

Edited May 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't subscribe to the Peikovian doctrine of the arbitrary assertion.

I don't subscribe to the Peikovian doctrine thereof either. Nonetheless, I think that there are statements which are arbitrary, by which I'd mean made with no regard to evidence. (That's not a formal definition, understand, just a characterization.) Mr. Cathcart tosses off more than a few of those, I'd say. His glib coming up with things is different from Linz's interpreting things with Linz-mythed glasses so as to arrive at an account of events which suits Linz's drama (e.g., that OLers take orders from Barbara). Linz takes a kernel of something actual and doctors it to his specs. Cathcart just comes up with stuff...from where???

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

I hope that I haven't given the impression that I'm blaming Lonnie Leonard on Objectivism.

J

Actually, yes, your discussion gave me the impression that you were blaming Objectivism for Lonnie.

E-

___

Well, my view is not that Objectivism caused or encouraged Leonard to do what he did.

I think that Objectivist culture probably played a big part in making his behavior possible. I think that Objectivism attracts a lot of people who are willing to worship something or someone, and to worship more devoutly, not to mention more hatefully, than most of the deeply religious people I've known. I think that the Objectivist culture, then and now (though less so now), strongly disapproves of certain lines of inquiry, and is extremely resentful of anyone who dares to apply Objectivists' rules and standards of judgment to Objectivists and their ideas, especially to those who are seen by themselves and others as Objectivism's most prominent defenders, leaders or spokesmen. There's a lot of effort put in to trying to control or discredit dissenting opinion versus trying to calmly and confidently answer it. There's a lot of "You're not one of us if..."

I think that Leonard probably took advantage of all of that.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

J,

I agree that Lonnie took advantage of much of what you describe just above, but not really of this part:

[...] especially to those who are seen by themselves and others as Objectivism's most prominent defenders, leaders or spokesmen.

Something I'm attempting to get through here -- I hope people will read the links I provided to ARCHN posts, since I say stuff there about this point -- is that Lonnie was considered a renegade. I think Plasil didn't really understand that point well herself.

I'm having lots of Lonnie tales and scenes emerge (by "scenes," I mean visual memories of persons from whom, circumstances in which I heard tales, along with the occasions when Lonnie was there at the early months of Allan's course). When next I have time to write a long post, I'll try to describe some of that, protecting identities of confidants. It's material which should be on the record to "flesh out" a completer picture than Plasil knew of.

Meanwhile a question for those of you who have read Therapist. You, J, quoted in post #229 from pp. 215-217:

"(Is that not what Dr. Leonard had counted on the evening following his Christmas party?)"

Do you recall off-hand (I can find it in the book, but this might need some searching): Was the Christmas party the night he played a nasty game with a gun, taunting one of his (male) devotees to shoot him? Or was it something else besides that?

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Something I'm attempting to get through here -- I hope people will read the links I provided to ARCHN posts, since I say stuff there about this point -- is that Lonnie was considered a renegade. I think Plasil didn't really understand that point well herself.

If I'm recalling correctly, Plasil did recognize that Leonard was something of a renegade, especially when it came to his views on sex, and I think she had that opinion prior to the sessions in which he molested her. I think she even mentions that he was openly critical of Objectivists' and of Objectivism's views of sex. I got the impression she saw him as being both a renegade and as having the endorsement of the Official Objectivists, which may have even made him ultra-heroic: he was respected enough from on high that he could blaze his own renegade path without losing the sanction of Rand's Official Objectivists.

I'm having lots of Lonnie tales and scenes emerge (by "scenes," I mean visual memories of persons from whom, circumstances in which I heard tales, along with the occasions when Lonnie was there at the early months of Allan's course). When next I have time to write a long post, I'll try to describe some of that, protecting identities of confidants. It's material which should be on the record to "flesh out" a completer picture than Plasil knew of.

I'd be very interested in hearing your recollections.

Meanwhile a question for those of you who have read Therapist. You, J, quoted in post #229 from pp. 215-217:

"(Is that not what Dr. Leonard had counted on the evening following his Christmas party?)"

Do you recall off-hand (I can find it in the book, but this might need some searching): Was the Christmas party the night he played a nasty game with a gun, taunting one of his (male) devotees to shoot him? Or was it something else besides that?

Yes, the Christmas party was the night of the gun incident. It began as a bit of playful roughhousing between Leonard and a patient named Tony, who quickly demonstrated that he was physically superior to Leonard and able to easily handle his attacks. That angered Leonard, who threw a punch after Tony had restrained him and told him to "cool it." Leonard challenged Tony to punch him back, threw more punches, and eventually took out a gun, put it into Tony's hands and challenged him to shoot him.

It's starts on page 106 of the paperback.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I got the impression she [Plasil] saw him as being both a renegade and as having the endorsement of the Official Objectivists, which may have even made him ultra-heroic: he was respected enough from on high that he could blaze his own renegade path without losing the sanction of Rand's Official Objectivists.

No, he had no "sanction of Rand's Official Objectivists," except from Allan PRIOR to Lonnie's going his own way over the sex issue. As I've said several times, it was ostensively over that that Allan and Lonnie parted company, and Allan stopped referring clients to Lonnie at just about the time Plasil started therapy with Lonnie. Lonnie's going his own way DID make him look ultra-heroic in the eyes of his idolizers but not because of the added plus of Official Sanction, because of his "daring" to break with the Official View.

Thanks for the refresher and pg. no. re the Christmas party. I thought that was the time of the gun incident but couldn't remember for sure, and would you believe......?

I spent a couple hours looking for the book, which I have in Xerox, bound in a 3-ring black notebook, and was about to start "going nuts" not being able to find it, and then remembered I'd brought it upstairs to the computer room at some earlier point to look up a quote -- it was sitting there in plain sight on our scanner: The Purloined Therapist.

More later.

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

I tried to add this note soon after I'd posted the previous, but the OL server had gone done, I suppose for its monthly whatever routines.

--

I wrote:

[Lonnie] had no "sanction of Rand's Official Objectivists," except from Allan PRIOR to Lonnie's going his own way over the sex issue. As I've said several times, it was ostensively over that that Allan and Lonnie parted company, and Allan stopped referring clients to Lonnie at just about the time Plasil started therapy with Lonnie. Lonnie's going his own way DID make him look ultra-heroic in the eyes of his idolizers but not because of the added plus of Official Sanction, because of his "daring" to break with the Official View.

Another way of saying this, which might make clearer to present readers how Lonnie was viewed then -- by which I mean between Allan's stopping referring clients to Lonnie (in 1971) and the breaking of the scandal (in 1977) -- is that Lonnie had sort of the bad-boy "image" then which Linz has today in the eyes of Official Objectivism-dom. This might make Lonnie's status at the time clearer, emotionally, to persons today.

I am NOT saying (spelling this out in an attempt to prevent further Linz-myth grievances) that Linz and Lonnie are of a moral equivalence. Lonnie's doings were in a category well beyond anything of which I'd consider Linz guilty, though I suppose it's perfectly clear that I'm no admirer of Linz. I'm just trying to convey how Lonnie was viewed by the wider NY O'ist community at the time the events described by Ellen Plasil occurred. Ellen Plasil, I think, didn't really understand that the Official Sanction she believed knighted Lonnie hadn't ever properly been provided to begin with, had instead come from one particular person (Allan B.) unbeknownst to "higher authority," and had already been withdrawn by that particular person even as of the time when she fell under Lonnie's spell.

Ellen

___

Edited May 30, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Jonathan]

I am NOT saying (spelling this out in an attempt to prevent further Linz-myth grievances) that Linz and Lonnie are of a moral equivalence.

I don't think that it really matters how carefully you try to spell it out. At some point in the future Pigero will distort your comment and use it to play up his victimhood. It will probably turn out that Barbara ordered you to morally equate Pigero with Leonard.

Ellen Plasil, I think, didn't really understand that the Official Sanction she believed knighted Lonnie hadn't ever properly been provided to begin with, had instead come from one particular person (Allan B.) unbeknownst to "higher authority," and had already been withdrawn by that particular person even as of the time when she fell under Lonnie's spell.

Yeah. I was thinking that there was a difference between Plasil's perceptions and reality -- she didn't seem to know until very late in her treatment that Leonard was no longer "sanctioned" and no longer having new clients referred by Blumenthal.

J

[Ellen Stuttle]

I am NOT saying (spelling this out in an attempt to prevent further Linz-myth grievances) that Linz and Lonnie are of a moral equivalence.

I don't think that it really matters how carefully you try to spell it out. At some point in the future Pigero will distort your comment and use it to play up his victimhood. It will probably turn out that Barbara ordered you to morally equate Pigero with Leonard.

You're right of course in regard to Linz himself. But I wanted the spelling out clearly on record available for quoting in case he does start using the comparison and others accept his use.

Ellen Plasil, I think, didn't really understand that the Official Sanction she believed knighted Lonnie hadn't ever properly been provided to begin with, had instead come from one particular person (Allan B.) unbeknownst to "higher authority," and had already been withdrawn by that particular person even as of the time when she fell under Lonnie's spell.

Yeah. I was thinking that there was a difference between Plasil's perceptions and reality -- she didn't seem to know until very late in her treatment that Leonard was no longer "sanctioned" and no longer having new clients referred by Blumenthal.

See, that in itself is indicative of the extent to which Lonnie was trying to keep his people as a separate enclave. A number of them didn't mingle with wider O'ist circles. I've been thinking of comparisons with this FLDS business, and with how little knowledge members except the leaders have of the wider world. For instance, I'm just about sure that I never met Ellen Plasil. If I did meet her, it would only have been at a particular party I attended where there was a large group of Lonnie people and a sprinkling of outsiders. (The party was given by someone who was a "fringe" client of Lonnie's -- that is, saw Lonnie occasionally but wasn't part of the central group -- and whose main circle of friends weren't Lonnie clients. I've recently checked with someone who was at that party; she thinks that Ellen Plasil wasn't there.)

Something in regard to Allan: Do you realize how much he could have spared Ellen Plasil if he'd thought to call her before she started with Lonnie and tell her his endorsement had been withdrawn? I'm going to check the details of timing in the book. [*] I did that at one point and as best I recall Plasil didn't start with Lonnie until a month or so after the parting between Allan and Lonnie occurred. Of course Allan might not have known when Plasil was going to start therapy, or even that she did start -- until the time when she called hoping for some advice from him.

Ellen

[*] Edit: I checked the book. Ellen Plasil gives the date of her starting therapy with Lonnie as January 6, 1972. He required a 6-month waiting period, to commence upon her arrival in New York City. This would put her arrival there at 6/6/71 or not long before. (He might not have had a scheduling opening exactly 6 months post her arrival.) So, yes, the parting between Allan and Lonnie had happened before then. I think it happened in early spring 1971, but it might have been earlier. I'm not recalling what the weather was like. I'll have to check my notes from the course I was taking with Allan to see when Lonnie disappeared from the scene.

___

Edited May 31, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Returning to the topic of this thread -- I'll continue about Lonnie next week on a separate thread:

Here is a post by Robert Campbell, titled "The strongbox in the dungeon," which is masterly, both in the way it "puts it all together" and in the writing.

A+, Robert!

I like your "strongbox in the dungeon" hypothesis:

It's as though no one else may bring up an issue like Randian arguments from intimidation, because NB and BB didn't.

Somehow, no one but "the Brandens" is allowed to introduce any criticisms of Ayn Rand's character or actions.

I first noticed the peculiar dismissal by James Valliant and his friend Casey Fahy of the relevance of any criticism of Rand not based on the Brandens' books as far back as some brief encounters between me and them in late 2005 or early 2006 on SOLOHQ. I hadn't at that point yet started to read PARC, but I commented to the effect that on independent grounds I thought the portraits presented by the Brandens were substantially accurate, and that when I first read Passion shortly after it was published, I already thought a fair amount of what Barbara says about Rand's characteristics. (I also thought some things she doesn't say, and there are details where I don't agree with her interpretation, but overall I think her portrayal of what Rand was like is accurate.) Valliant and Fahy were as if outraged at my daring to assess Rand from personal sources.

Ellen

___

Edited May 31, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Along with Neil and Robert, I've been watching James Valliant's various changes in his story over time.

One of the story alterations in a recent post (here) pertains to the amount of truth he says is to be found in "the Brandens'" accounts.

It becomes tiresome to observe -- again and again -- that PARC is aware that much truth is to be found in the Branden biographies -- it says so repeatedly -- and I've said so even more.

He did make the statement once that I recall in PARC that "[m]any of the claims made in the Brandens' books are undoubtedly true". (If he made it other times, he could provide some page references.) The once that I recall was in the final chapter of Part I ("VI. School or Cult?," pg. 173). I noted the sentence with a couple exclamation points in the margin when I first read it, since it was strikingly out-of-keeping with his usual descriptions. However, the jarring discord from his typical theme of the Brandens' dishonesty is muted by the context in which it appears and by his going on to say that even such true claims as the Brandens might make have to be considered "arbitrary."

Here in sequence, with some highlighting added, are three prominent passages in which he discusses the dishonesty he claims to find, followed by the passage in which the discordant sentence appears.

PARC, pg. 4, pg. 6

[highlighting added]

[O]nly an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. [....]

Moreover, even if there is no truth to be gleaned from these works and they are wholly arbitrary, the necessary dirty work of exposing them remains, since they are published as historical records by primary sources, and future generations will not have the benefit of Rand's contemporaries to dispute their specific allegations.

[....]

What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents--and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works.

Despite the claims these biographers make that their memoirs are drawn from personal experience, it will be seen that their intense personal animosity towards Rand--which emanates from that experience--has scarred all aspects of their work.

We shall see that rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources, uncorroborated, self-serving assertion, and extensive internal contradiction, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand--which might be regarded as credible considering the authors' obvious hostility toward her--of little value as well. Any praise they offer seems, in the end, a mere acknowledgement of the observations of far more honest sources.

PARC, pg. 128

[highlighting added]

The persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand's life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.

They will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate, and omit whenever it is convenient to their stories. Where necessary, they will pull out of their magical hats a very "private" conversation that one of them "once" had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies. We have also seen that the Brandens' reports cannot be taken at face value because of the vast internal contradictions in their impossible portrait of Rand, even ignoring their prevailing dishonesty on these subjects.

The level of corroboration rationally required to verify their assertions makes the Brandens' own narratives virtually useless. Where the Brandens are our only source, the topic must be marked with a giant asterisk and an attached footnote reading, "Highly Dubious."

Hence, it is senseless to examine the Brandens' accounts of private conversations between Rand, O'Connor and the Brandens, leading up to the affair, or their conversations leading up to the break, or any other conversation for which there is no independent verification.

[Except of course we can trust the Brandens when they say that Rand sought approval from both spouses for the affair.]

PARC, pp. 170

[highlighting added]

[T]he Brandens, as we have seen, must be entirely discounted as witnesses to the history they relate. They admit the truth only insofar as the existence of other evidence compels them. Their boldest assertions are unfailingly made where no corroboration is possible and often in contradiction to the available evidence, including their own direct observations. [Notice, those "direct observations" are here described as "available evidence," when those observations confirm something Valliant believes to be true.] They have each demonstrated a level of dishonesty--both in the methodology and in the content of their works--which must be considered fatal to the reliability of anything they report. Their hostility to and joint cause against Rand is ineluctable.

PARC, pg. 173-174

[highlighting added; italics in original]

Winston Churchill is credited with a pithy rationalization for government disinformation: "Some truths are so important that they need to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." Leaving aside the ethical cynicism that this implies outside of the (limited and temporary) context of national security, such a policy is difficult to sustain over time. As every seasoned liar knows, for it to be believed, a lie must be surrounded by a bodyguard of truths.

Many of the claims made in the Brandens' books are undoubtedly true. A good many of them are demonstrably false, misleading, one-sided and self-serving. Being unclear as to their sources--often overtly suppressing their sources--it is not generally possible to distinguish the true from the false, and therein lies the problem for the usefulness of these works to historians.

Again and again, the Brandens produce suspicious evidence from "private conversations" that contradicts the entire body of verifiable information, but which conveniently helps them grind their particular axes.

We have seen that the rest of their evidence against Rand consists of purely emotional assertion devoid of fact--precisely what Rand's philosophy terms an "arbitrary" assertion. According to Objectivism, arbitrary claims are neither true nor false. They are, in this sense, "worse" than false, bearing no relation to reality whatever--even a negative one. It is error even to attempt to refute them.

On the surface, the Brandens' biographical efforts consist of factual claims made by people who knew their subject well. Therefore, the identification of their works as being arbitrary can only be made after (at least some) careful analysis. As we have seen, such analysis readily demonstrates that a sweeping dismissal is, indeed, warranted.

Even if one day some of the Brandens' assertions are verified by more credible sources and evidence, the Brandens will not have helped to establish their truth. Considerable independent research will be necessary to accomplish this. And it does not matter whether these discoveries cast Rand in a positive or negative light.

If one day, for example, it is somehow established, to the surprise of the author, that Rand's callous indifference drove her husband to excessive drinking, the current analysis will still stand, and the Brandens' credibility will not have been enhanced in any way. The basis of their inferences will be no more credible and no less arbitrary.

But the historical record can become clouded with the assumptions of a tradition that is largely legendary. It would be tragic if Rand's biography suffered the same fate at the hand of the Brandens' viciously crafted legend.

___

[Dragonfly]

Ellen,

I see repeatedly the remark "highlighting added" in your texts, but I don't see any highlighting in the text.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

I see repeatedly the remark "highlighting added" in your texts, but I don't see any highlighting in the text.

Are you saying that the color emphasis doesn't show up on your screen? (It does on mine.) Or is the issue the term "highlighting"?

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

I don't see any color emphasis.

[Robert Campbell]

DF,

The color emphasis I see in Ellen's post isn't the greatest--it's purple against blue.

Robert

[Dragonfly]

I don't see any purple letters. Letters in quotes are dark bluish grey and the letters in the main messages are black (against a very light and a light bluish grey background respectively). I don't see any more colors in the text. Apparently the possibility of highlighting depends on the skin*) you use, so perhaps it would be better to use bold for "highlighting", as this always works.

*) I use "IPB 2.2.0 Default"

[Neil Parille]

Following up on Robert's claim that Valliant implies (or states) that the Branden books constitute the "best" case that can be made against Rand, I'll quote this from PARC (p. 76) --

Understandably, those who remained friendly with Rand did not make themselves available for Ms. Branden to interview.

All those with whom Rand had a "break" share precisely the same bias and precisely the same interest in presenting Rand as an "authoritarian" as do the Brandens. Ms. Branden's book appears to have been the receptacle for all the stories most likely to demonstrate Rand's alleged injustices to each of them individually and collectively, but none that might explain Rand's side.

Thus, the information sources used by Ms. Branden share a distinct perspective on Rand. Rather than mitigating the effect of the author's personal bias, their contributions merely magnify it.

While most of these individuals have themselves given talks or have been interviewed about their relationships with Rand, none of them appears able (or willing) to provide any facts or details that cannot be found in Ms. Branden's biography, apart from two or three new anecdotes.

Even the missing anecdotes appear to have been weighed carefully for possible inclusion before being omitted. The Passion of Ayn Rand Rand seems to represent their collective "best shot" at Rand.

-NEIL

____

Edited May 31, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

Following up on your post, if Valliant says the Branden books are arbitrary and nothing should be accepted without corroboration, why did Valliant tell me that he doesn't dispute the accounts of the Kalbermans and the Blumenthals in PAR?

This must mean that Valliant undertook efforts to verify their claims.

-Neil

____

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh, dear, I was hoping, DF, that you were merely objecting to the term "highlighting," that maybe you were thinking of that as meaning a color strip such as would be drawn with a Magic Marker and were objecting to the usage for different-color lettering. But you say you don't see the purple lettering -- and Robert finds the contrast not good.

Darn. I dislike the look of bold emphasizing; and I took some care to select the purple, which looks both clear and pleasing to my eye on my screen.

But...

Here's the post re-done using bold emphasis.

-- RE-POST of Post #267--

Along with Neil and Robert, I've been watching James Valliant's various changes in his story over time.

One of the story alterations in a recent post (here) pertains to the amount of truth he says is to be found in "the Brandens'" accounts.

It becomes tiresome to observe -- again and again -- that PARC is aware that much truth is to be found in the Branden biographies -- it says so repeatedly -- and I've said so even more.

He did make the statement once that I recall in PARC that "[m]any of the claims made in the Brandens' books are undoubtedly true". (If he made it other times, he could provide some page references.) The once that I recall was in the final chapter of Part I ("VI. School or Cult?," pg. 173). I noted the sentence with a couple exclamation points in the margin when I first read it, since it was strikingly out-of-keeping with his usual descriptions. However, the jarring discord from his typical theme of the Brandens' dishonesty is muted by the context in which it appears and by his going on to say that even such true claims as the Brandens might make have to be considered "arbitrary."

Here in sequence, with some bold emphasis added, are three prominent passages in which he discusses the dishonesty he claims to find, followed by the passage in which the discordant sentence appears.

PARC, pg. 4, pg. 6

[bold added]

[O]nly an analysis of the biographies themselves makes possible the conclusion that they are largely arbitrary and often demonstrably false. [....]

Moreover, even if there is no truth to be gleaned from these works and they are wholly arbitrary, the necessary dirty work of exposing them remains, since they are published as historical records by primary sources, and future generations will not have the benefit of Rand's contemporaries to dispute their specific allegations.

[....]

What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents--and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works.

Despite the claims these biographers make that their memoirs are drawn from personal experience, it will be seen that their intense personal animosity towards Rand--which emanates from that experience--has scarred all aspects of their work.

We shall see that rhetorical maneuvering, insinuation, failure to name sources, uncorroborated, self-serving assertion, and extensive internal contradiction, render even the positive things the Brandens have to say about Rand--which might be regarded as credible considering the authors' obvious hostility toward her--of little value as well. Any praise they offer seems, in the end, a mere acknowledgement of the observations of far more honest sources.

PARC, pg. 128

[bold added]

The persistent dishonesty of the Brandens about their own part in Rand's life makes it impossible to rely on them as historians of events for which they are the only witnesses.

They will recollect, suppress, revise, exaggerate, and omit whenever it is convenient to their stories. Where necessary, they will pull out of their magical hats a very "private" conversation that one of them "once" had with Rand to prove what all the rest of the evidence denies. We have also seen that the Brandens' reports cannot be taken at face value because of the vast internal contradictions in their impossible portrait of Rand, even ignoring their prevailing dishonesty on these subjects.

The level of corroboration rationally required to verify their assertions makes the Brandens' own narratives virtually useless. Where the Brandens are our only source, the topic must be marked with a giant asterisk and an attached footnote reading, "Highly Dubious."

Hence, it is senseless to examine the Brandens' accounts of private conversations between Rand, O'Connor and the Brandens, leading up to the affair, or their conversations leading up to the break, or any other conversation for which there is no independent verification.

[Except of course we can trust the Brandens when they say that Rand sought approval from both spouses for the affair.]

PARC, pp. 170

[bold added]

[T]he Brandens, as we have seen, must be entirely discounted as witnesses to the history they relate. They admit the truth only insofar as the existence of other evidence compels them. Their boldest assertions are unfailingly made where no corroboration is possible and often in contradiction to the available evidence, including their own direct observations. [Notice, those "direct observations" are here described as "available evidence," when those observations confirm something Valliant believes to be true.] They have each demonstrated a level of dishonesty--both in the methodology and in the content of their works--which must be considered fatal to the reliability of anything they report. Their hostility to and joint cause against Rand is ineluctable.

PARC, pg. 173-174

[bold added; italics in original]

Winston Churchill is credited with a pithy rationalization for government disinformation: "Some truths are so important that they need to be surrounded by a bodyguard of lies." Leaving aside the ethical cynicism that this implies outside of the (limited and temporary) context of national security, such a policy is difficult to sustain over time. As every seasoned liar knows, for it to be believed, a lie must be surrounded by a bodyguard of truths.

Many of the claims made in the Brandens' books are undoubtedly true. A good many of them are demonstrably false, misleading, one-sided and self-serving. Being unclear as to their sources--often overtly suppressing their sources--it is not generally possible to distinguish the true from the false, and therein lies the problem for the usefulness of these works to historians.

Again and again, the Brandens produce suspicious evidence from "private conversations" that contradicts the entire body of verifiable information, but which conveniently helps them grind their particular axes.

We have seen that the rest of their evidence against Rand consists of purely emotional assertion devoid of fact--precisely what Rand's philosophy terms an "arbitrary" assertion. According to Objectivism, arbitrary claims are neither true nor false. They are, in this sense, "worse" than false, bearing no relation to reality whatever--even a negative one. It is error even to attempt to refute them.

On the surface, the Brandens' biographical efforts consist of factual claims made by people who knew their subject well. Therefore, the identification of their works as being arbitrary can only be made after (at least some) careful analysis. As we have seen, such analysis readily demonstrates that a sweeping dismissal is, indeed, warranted.

Even if one day some of the Brandens' assertions are verified by more credible sources and evidence, the Brandens will not have helped to establish their truth. Considerable independent research will be necessary to accomplish this. And it does not matter whether these discoveries cast Rand in a positive or negative light.

If one day, for example, it is somehow established, to the surprise of the author, that Rand's callous indifference drove her husband to excessive drinking, the current analysis will still stand, and the Brandens' credibility will not have been enhanced in any way. The basis of their inferences will be no more credible and no less arbitrary.

But the historical record can become clouded with the assumptions of a tradition that is largely legendary. It would be tragic if Rand's biography suffered the same fate at the hand of the Brandens' viciously crafted legend.

___