Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[william.scherk]

Also, I see that WSS neglected to cite, in his post on the same SOLOP thead, my agreement with Hsieh's comments on Rand's dishonesty in To Whom It May Concern, and Valliant and Pigero are either not aware of the fact that I gave it as an example of Rand's dishonesty, or they're pretending that they're not aware of it. I'm disappointed in WSS, not just for the entertainment value that he's deprived us of by not citing my quoting of Hsieh, but, much more importantly, because I fear that the future historians who will one day pore over SOLOP might end up with a false impression of my degree of thoroughness.

Forgive my dereliction. It is difficult enough to add the essential links to Valliant's often ill-referenced fulminations.

It bears in mind that James and Lindsay hold that SOLO is the last chance for the Brandens and their supporters to honestly weigh in with honourable critiques of PARC. At the same time, Lindsay has OL read by his boorish sidekick Moonberry, and James hunts through the thickets, cherry basket in hand.

In any case, I think Diana had it wrong back in her TOC-acolyte days and I think she has it wrong in her ARI-acolyte days. Because the quartet got no counsel from outside themselves, none of them heard anyone saying, "Are you people crazy? Do not have an affair. Do not sanction an affair. That way lies heartbreak and disaster."

[Mike11]

If Rand had defined "birds" as "warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrates" and then claimed that chimney smoke was a type of bird even though it wasn't a warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrate, would Valliant need it explained to him in what way she had contradicted herself?

Actually that can be made logical really easily, just use the magic word,

Qua.

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

I noticed from my previous post that Mr. Valliant's (perhaps) favorite method of argument is the use of words and phrases such as "seems," "assumes," "seems to assume," "may be trying to insinuate," "if . . . this is what they believe" and the like. When one points out that he has no evidence for such an assertion, he will triumphantly tell you that he merely said "seems . . . ."

For example:

Ms. Branden also tells us: "Ayn Rand never told her family in Russia her new name . . . they never knew she became Ayn Rand." Ms. Branden may be trying to insinuate that Rand was being neurotically secretive, perhaps even turning her back on her family. This is the sort of vague impression we will see the Brandens persistently attempt to create. Ms. Branden certainly claims that this was an important reason why Rand lost contact with her family shortly before World War II—they did not know her name. (PARC, p. 12, Ellipsis in the original.)*

Here are some more:

These “differences” (over Libertarianism) are not so trivial as the critics suppose. They were certainly not trivial to Rand. But, rather than simply disagreeing with Rand over, say, the importance of systematic honesty in forming political and intellectual alliances, they accuse Rand of “intolerance.”

They assume that the policy of breaking with someone in a permanent way is in itself somehow authoritarian. “My gosh, for purely ideological reasons?”

As indicated, both Brandens seem to assume that such a “break” constitutes some form of persecution. Ayn Rand does not want to see you anymore, and, therefore, your rights have been violated.

Allan Blumenthal, a psychiatrist, has asserted that literally “all of Objectivism” was the product of Rand’s efforts to cope with her own psychology. He thus appears to have endorsed a form of psychological determinism—entirely rejecting, it seems, the possibility of objective cognition, a rather fundamental tenet of Objectivism.

Pleasant or unpleasant, according to Objectivism, it is morally necessary to make appropriate ethical judgments of others. If this is what the Brandens and their friends now dispute, then they no longer believe in the basics of Rand’s ethics and should say so far more plainly, rather than accuse Rand of hypocrisy.

-NEIL

____

Note:

*What Branden said in full is:

Ayn never told her family in Russia the new name she had chosen. She had no doubt that she would one day be famous, and she feared that if it were known in Russia that she was Alice Rosenbaum, daughter of Fronz and Anna, her family's safety, even their lives, would be endangered by their relationship to a vocal anti-Communist. Through all the years that she corresponded with her family, until, just before World War II, Russia refused entry to mail from the United States and she lost track of them—they never knew she had become "Ayn Rand." (PAR, pp. 71-72.)

Edited June 12, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Jonathan]

Valliant:

Jonathan's psychologizing of Mr. Heaps-Nelson is a rather stunningly grandiose and baseless bit of theorizing.

Actually, I was challenging James Heaps-Nelson's "psychologizing." He has tainted his inquiry by pretending to know, in the questions he asks ("Why is it so important for some people to find fault with Ayn Rand? Why the attempt pull her down?"), the motives of those who are willing to freely discuss Rand's errors, contradictions and moral breaches without getting all pissy and defensive.

J

[Daniel Barnes]

I hear tell James Valliant is quoting my comments on PARC from this thread over at Solopassion. For the record, as someone critical of both Rand's intellectual achievements and the cult of personality that she and her followers encouraged, I think PARC is essential reading. But not for the reason James Valliant thinks it is. If he wants to quote me on the subject, I'm only too happy to help him out. Here's my 5 Star Amazon review in full.

Key quote: "Valliant's `case against the Brandens' amounts to nothing more than one vast, nutty, vexatious litigation, with page after page of innocent trivia tortured until it confesses its sinister intent."

THE REAL DEAL

With "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" James Valliant scores what may turn out to be Objectivism's biggest own-goal yet. An unprecedented combination of wiggy conspiracy theorizing and bug-eyed idolatry, the book has not only succeeded in dividing the struggling Objectivist movement for the nth time, but has the potential to scupper what's left of Rand's reputation for good. Noted Rand critic Greg Nyquist drolly dubbed it "manna from heaven", and you can see why. Valliant's `case against the Brandens' amounts to nothing more than one vast, nutty, vexatious litigation, with page after page of innocent trivia tortured until it confesses its sinister intent. Valliant's targets, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, are portrayed as such credulity-defying evil masterminds that the book might have been better titled "The Protocols of Ayn Rand's Critics". But the lasting damage comes from Valliant's rash decision to publish Rand's extensive personal notes about her romantic breakup with Nathaniel Branden. He presents these notes - just like everything else Rand ever did, incidentally - as compelling evidence of her genius. However, far from being what Valliant calls "MRI"-like insights into the human mind, I fear most people reading these lengthy pseudo-psychological ramblings will see an altogether different picture. Littered with private self-aggrandisements, tragi-comic emotional rationalizations, and miscellaneous philosophical crazy-talk, the revealing psychological insight they give us is not into Branden's mind but Rand's own.

For example, when Branden, at 38 some 25 years her junior, breaks off with Rand for the luscious young Patrecia, Rand construes it thus:

"I am convinced that the clearest and probably conscious fear in his mind was the fear of admitting that I was 'too much for him'...I was too much for him - in every sense of the phrase and in a deeper sense than would apply to the type of men he despises. I want to stress this: *I was and am too much for him*. This is my full conviction, reached with the full power, logic, clarity and context of my mind..." And so on in similarly excruciating fashion. In his prosecutorial zeal, Valliant fails to notice his new evidence indicts his client. I can't help but feel a little sorry for the old girl - she's surely rolling in her grave having stuff like the above dragged into the public glare by those who claim to be defending her.

Ultimately "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" is a classic alright, but not in the way the author wanted it to be. It actually stands as the unintentional companion volume to Jeff Walker's "The Ayn Rand Cult". The difference is that Walker's book was written by an outsider looking in, so could never be completely convincing. This, however, is the real deal.

[Jonathan]

At the same time, Lindsay has OL read by his boorish sidekick Moonberry...

Goshy gosh, old chap, it's been too long since we've gotten together for drinkies! Have I told you that I've hired a butler? Did everyone hear that? I've hired a butler! That's how much money I have! Impressed? And he's not even one of those cheap, dark-skinned sorts. I can afford quality, light-skinned servants.

Do you remember the quality minds that were participating on SOLOHQ just a few short years ago? The fact that Loonberry is someone Pigero values enough to keep around is a testament to how far SOLO has fallen.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, I was challenging James Heaps-Nelson's "psychologizing." He has tainted his inquiry by pretending to know, in the questions he asks ("Why is it so important for some people to find fault with Ayn Rand? Why the attempt pull her down?"), the motives of those who are willing to freely discuss Rand's errors, contradictions and moral breaches without getting all pissy and defensive.

Jonathan,

You probably stated this better than I have (I call it problems of accuracy), but this is very typical of what my complaint about him is.

James's posts are full of errors like the one you mentioned when he talks about Rand. When he talks about other things, he is more prone to be accurate and less prone to take out the crystal ball or simply make things up. He certainly makes far fewer errors.

Michael

[Jonathan]

If Rand had defined "birds" as "warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrates" and then claimed that chimney smoke was a type of bird even though it wasn't a warm-blooded, egg-laying, feathered vertebrate, would Valliant need it explained to him in what way she had contradicted herself?

Actually that can be made logical really easily, just use the magic word,

Qua.

You're right that "qua" is powerful Objectivist medicine, but in the case of trying to make chimney smoke qualify as a type of bird, I think a different O-trick would be used -- the same one used to keep architecture as an art form while allowing it to contradict Rand's definition and requirements of art: simply asserting that the contradictory thing is in a "category by itself" within the larger category of what it contradicts. Architecture is the sole member in the special category of art forms which are utilitarian and don't recreate reality, so chimney smoke would also be in a special "category by itself" -- the category of birds that are not birds but which Objectivists want to be birds.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Valliant is now clamoring once again for your removal from JARS.

The lame insinuation is that you are the reason ARI scholars do not publish in the journal and that his word would bring them in. Har-dee-har-har. (Of course that is only insintuated, so deniability is built-in as usual with him.)

But I don't blame him for trying. It's no wonder. In everything but word and a face-saving gesture or two, he has essentially been removed from ARI.

He's lonely.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

It's obvious that Jim Valliant wanted to get Chris Sciabarra for failing to endorse his book.

He wasn't too discreet about it, back in April 2006.

But he doesn't dare admit that, and is desperate to change the subject.

The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies was effectively off-limits to writers from the Leonard Peikoff Institute before anyone had ever heard of Jim Valliant.

If that situation changes, it won't be because he put in a word with anyone.

I wonder how much longer the Ayn Rand Bookstore will carry his tome.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

It's obvious that Jim Valliant wanted to get Chris Sciabarra for failing to endorse his book.

He wasn't too discreet about it, back in April 2006.

And these days he isn't being too discreet about trying to emphasize everything in the book which could be taken as leaving grounds for criticism of AR.

Back then, circa April 2006, it wasn't just pay-back; there was getting free from any appearance of obligation to reply to anything in JARS -- the ARI crowd looked like his best source of attention then.

(Diana, similarly, wanted free from the albatross around her neck of her past friendship with Chris.)

Ellen

PS: Fixed typo, "kneck." See REB post #488.

___

Edited June 12, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Here's my 5 Star Amazon review in full.

[....]

THE REAL DEAL

[....] Littered with private self-aggrandisements, tragi-comic emotional rationalizations, and miscellaneous philosophical crazy-talk, the revealing psychological insight they give us is not into Branden's mind but Rand's own.

For example, when Branden, at 38 some 25 years her junior, breaks off with Rand for the luscious young Patrecia, Rand construes it thus:

"I am convinced that the clearest and probably conscious fear in his mind was the fear of admitting that I was 'too much for him'...I was too much for him - in every sense of the phrase and in a deeper sense than would apply to the type of men he despises. I want to stress this: *I was and am too much for him*. This is my full conviction, reached with the full power, logic, clarity and context of my mind..." And so on in similarly excruciating fashion. In his prosecutorial zeal, Valliant fails to notice his new evidence indicts his client. I can't help but feel a little sorry for the old girl - she's surely rolling in her grave having stuff like the above dragged into the public glare by those who claim to be defending her.

[....]

Daniel, that might not be how she would react. She didn't see "stuff like the above" as grandiose then. Were she witnessing now, she still might not see any reason to be embarrassed by it.

Ellen

___

[Roger Bissell]

Michael,

It's obvious that Jim Valliant wanted to get Chris Sciabarra for failing to endorse his book.

He wasn't too discreet about it, back in April 2006.

And these days he isn't being too discreet about trying to emphasize everything in the book which could be taken as leaving grounds for criticism of AR.

Back then, circa April 2006, it wasn't just pay-back; there was getting free from any appearance of obligation to reply to anything in JARS -- the ARI crowd looked like his best source of attention then.

(Diana, similarly, wanted free from the albatross around her kneck of her past friendship with Chris.)

Ellen

___

A couple of quick comments:

1. James Valliant can kiss our collective (though individualist) asses, if he thinks that ~any~ of us are going to take ~his~ advice on what and how to publish. Feh. (And I don't mean Casey.)

2. Ellen, good to see you exercising your nack for creative spelling.

REB

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert,

I noticed from my previous post that Mr. Valliant's (perhaps) favorite method of argument is the use of words and phrases such as "seems," "assumes," "seems to assume," "may be trying to insinuate," "if . . . this is what they believe" and the like. When one points out that he has no evidence for such an assertion, he will triumphantly tell you that he merely said "seems . . . ."

For example:

Ms. Branden also tells us: "Ayn Rand never told her family in Russia her new name . . . they never knew she became Ayn Rand." Ms. Branden may be trying to insinuate that Rand was being neurotically secretive, perhaps even turning her back on her family. This is the sort of vague impression we will see the Brandens persistently attempt to create. Ms. Branden certainly claims that this was an important reason why Rand lost contact with her family shortly before World War II—they did not know her name. (PARC, p. 12, Ellipsis in the original.)*

It would be hard to vote on what's possibly his "favorite" method of argument, since he employs so many rhetorical techniques.

In the paragraph you quoted, he goes on to use another, the method of asserting what the Brandens' motives are in writing a passage:

This is the sort of vague impression we will see the Brandens persistently attempt to create.

In addition to the "impression" not being "vague" in the quote from BB, had he correctly quoted her, even if it had been vague in the original, how would he know she was deliberately attempting to make it vague?

A related technique is his saying that they "suppress" information they don't provide. How does he know they even remembered what he says they suppressed? Or, supposing they did remember, that it occurred to them to state whatever it was?

An example is his saying that Barbara left out why Ayn split with the Smiths. Maybe it didn't occur to Barbara to say anything about it. The only place she even mentions that split is in one paragraph in a list of persons from Ayn's past who were no longer friends, for one reason or another (some of them had died), in her last years.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

2. Ellen, good to see you exercising your nack for creative spelling.

REB

LOL. I'll fix it but leave the original kneck in a PS, so folks know what you're spoofing.

E-

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

PARC 'CONCESSIONS' AND DISCLAIMERS

This is a partial list. I'll edit with additions and further citations as I proceed to gather those.

1) Chris Sciabarra's review of PARC was honorable.

2) PARC doesn't argue for Ayn's "'perfection' in any way," "even in some 'operative' sense." (See.)

2a) When last I checked the SOLO threads, Valliant hadn't answered my puzzled inquiry (here): "IS he saying that he DOESN'T think that '[Rand] indeed was such a figure as those she projected as ideals'?"

3) PARC doesn't dispute the Blumenthals' account of their break with Rand as reported in Passion* (despite this account's being unflattering about Rand).

(* The full account, from pp. 386-88, is quoted on this thread in my post #243 -- scroll down.)

4) PARC doesn't evaluate the Brandens -- or specifically Nathaniel Branden either -- as "evil incarnate" or "the epitome of evil" or other such extreme depictions (despite its describing Nathaniel as "a rather extraordinary deceiver,"* arguing that Nathaniel displayed "the soul of a rapist,"** and evaluating the Brandens' respective books as "monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents"***).

(* Pg. 7, ** pg. 383: "While his behavior was not, technically, rape, Branden's was nothing less than the soul of a rapist[,]" *** pg. 6.)

5) PARC makes no evaluation, pro or con, of the accuracy of Rand's evaluations of Patrecia as a "nonentity" (not an exact quote from the diaries) and other negative depictions.

6) PARC makes no charges of dishonesty against John Hospers (despite its describing Passion as the "collective 'best shot'" of all those with whom Rand broke, and stating that "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").

8) Vallaint, I think, said I was wrong in my statement that "It's clear that he [Valliant] wants Nathaniel barred from Objectivist meetings; he wants Nathaniel basically 'ridden out of town on a rail' from any respectability in the O'ist world" (see, last paragraph) -- although he later quoted Rand's permanent repudiation of the Brandens as spokespersons for her philosophy as reason why they shouldn't be speaking at Objectivist gatherings.

---

On Barbara's "Inquisitor" description of Ayn Rand, which Valliant keeps mentioning as particularly egregious: I've previously provided some support for that description; especially illustrative is the Blumenthals' account of their reasons for breaking with Ayn.* Features of Ayn's own diary entries are public exhibit A. (I'll discuss why at a later time.)

(* See my post #243 -- scroll down -- on this thread.)

Ellen

___

Edited June 12, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I want to register a total rejection of the presumptuousness and control freak manner in which Valliant has asked for your removal from JARS. What a piece of work!

I find his behavior, er... grubby. Petty. Snoopy. Gossipy. Kindergarten-level. Totally lacking in understanding normal social boundaries. And, to be precise, totally at odds with Objectivist values.

He doesn't want to observe. He wants to rule.

Look at history. For all of the differences people have had all these years with ARI, has anyone to your knowledge on the other side of the fence publicly asked for the removal of one of ARI's directors? For instance, considering the present, do you know of anyone who is at odds with ARI who has asked for the removal of, say, Britting or Epstein and invoked Yaron Brook's name to do it?

I really dislike the word "bizarre" because this has been watered down from overuse to mean "something I disagree with" in Objectivist-speak, but taken at its original meaning, I find Valliant's behavior on calling for your removal from JARS while mentioning Chris to be bizarre.

It is bizarre bizarre. Singular bizarre (which is the true meaning). Nobody else does this. Do you know of anyone at ARI who has asked for, say, Will Thomas or Ed Hudgins to be removed from TAS and called on David Kelley to do so?

I keep saying it, but I will repeat it because his acts prove it.

James Valliant is a bonehead.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

One of the claims of Valliant in both is book and his posts has been that those who have said critical things about Rand haven't been specific enough. He said recently that Hospers' "[v]ague assertions of 'conformist atmospheres' and reacting badly to criticism' are not evidence of any kind, but conclusions."

Nontheless, he isn't prepared to say Dr. Hospers is lying. So is it possible then that what Dr. Hospers says is true? One certainly doesn't get the impression from his book that it remains an open question whether Rand had the "bad side" described by Dr. Hospers and others.

And, as Ellen notes, how can Valliant accuse Rand's "critics" of making a "collective best shot" at Rand if it's possible that what they are saying is true (and Peikoff in error)?

As I've pointed out numerous time, Valliant doesn't dispute the account of Dr. and Mrs. Blumenthal. Their account of their split with Rand is nearly two pages long (pps. 386-88) and quite detailed. Their account, the accounts of Dr. Hospers, the Kalberman's account, Dr. Hessen's statement, etc. all end up supporting the description of Rand offered by the Brandens.

[Neil Parille]

Here's another gem of research by Mr. Valliant from the revised version of "Mullah Rand":

(Valliant) Under the all-pervasive influence of two giants such as Rand and Mises, Rothbard’s anarchism almost strikes one as a form of desperate self-assertion.

I happened to be reading Rothbard's semi-autobiographical work The Betrayal of the American Right. Rothbard places his conversion to anarcho-capitalism in the winter of 1949-50, which is before he met Rand and (perhaps) before he met von Mises.

-NEIL

____

Edited June 13, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I beg your leave once again to duplicate a post you made in Siberia. It is self-explanatory and extremely well done.

Some cold, hard facts

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Fri, 2008-06-13 02:08.

Mr. Valliant has grown desperate to create a diversion, by once again repeating his demand that I be fired from The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Before we get into that little demand of his, I will simply note that in July 2005 Mr. Valliant, the good cop, said that that Chris Sciabarra had supplied "comments that are serious, substantive, and that avoid personal abuse." In April 2006, Mr. Valliant the bad cop was questioning whether Chris Sciabarra had "actually addressed the substance of PARC."

Let Mr. Valliant wriggle out of that contradiction, if he can.

To be fair, in April 2006 Mr. Valliant had several motives for sticking it to Chris Sciabarra. These included pleasing Mr. Perigo, who wanted revenge on Dr. Sciabarra, and currying favor with the Ayn Rand Institute, by extracting himself from any commitment to publish in a journal that has been off-limits to ARIans for years. They also included payback for failing to praise his book.

Now for a little historical background:

The Ayn Rand Institute has had it in for Chris Sciabarra ever since he published Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, back in 1995. Not long afterward, a faithful ARIan named John Ridpath publicly proclaimed it to be a "worthless book."

Meanwhile, the Estate of Ayn Rand indulged in some arrogant, nasty game-playing with Dr. Sciabarra over Ayn Rand's undergraduate transcript from the University of Leningrad.

So when Chris Sciabarra opened shop at the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies in 1999, he did not exactly garner applause from the Leonard Peikoff, er, Ayn Rand Institute and its principals.

In 2002, any hope of détente was postponed indefinitely, when Andrew Bernstein published a one-paragraph reply to a review in JARS—and ended up having to do penance, in sackcloth and ashes, for his grievous sin. (In 2002 I doubt that a poll of 100 randomly chosen denizens of Rand-land would have came up with 2 who knew anything of James Valliant.)

In 2004, when Diana Hsieh made her noisy conversion to ARIanism, one of her many signals was ... declaring that she would never publish in a journal so blighted and iniquitous as JARS. By 2005 she was making the journal out to be the absolute ruination of Objectivism.

JARS, then, had been off-limits to Tara Smith, Onkar Ghate, Shoshana Milgram, Keith Lockitch, Allan Gotthelf, Bob Mayhew, Jeff Britting, et al.—well before anyone had heard of Jim Valliant; well before I began mixing it up with Mr. Valliant online in 2005; and well before he found it useful to take exaggerated offense at my remarks in April 2006.

Now, to whom is Mr. Valliant addressing his demand that I be fired?

The editors of JARS are Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Roderick Long, and Stephen Cox.

After Mr. Valliant's participation in "Dialectical Dishonesty," it will be a cold day in hell before Chris Sciabarra responds favorably to any request coming from him, on any subject.

Mr. Valliant reviewed Stephen Cox's book on Isabel Paterson, being sure to "temper" his praise for the book with a smarmy remark about how, of course, it would never be sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore. So Dr. Cox, a real scholar, will fall over himself to accommodate an imperious demand from Mr. Valliant, a phony scholar?

So maybe Mr. Valliant thinks he can convince Dr. Long to run me out? I guess Mr. Valliant could preface his demand with one of his tirades against anarchism...

Or maybe Mr. Valliant thinks he can mobilize the editorial board to share his indignation. Here are their names: Doug Den Uyl, Mimi Gladstein, Robert Hessen, John Hospers, Lester Hunt, Eric Mack, Doug Rasmussen, and Larry Sechrest.

He's going to need a lot of luck. Especially with Dr. Hessen, that exemplar of utter bitter warpage when it comes to a person he knew named Ayn Rand.

When Mr. Valliant delivers up this classic of bloviation:

Your current performance — alone — is enough reason for ARI scholars to shun JARS until you are long gone.

he is obviously being historically inaccurate. The aforenamed scholars avoided JARS for six solid years before I ever challenged Mr. Valliant online —and nearly seven before I criticized Tara Smith's citation practices in this forum.

But that isn't all.

He is trying to create the impression that he is one of them, and that he speaks for them.

If only I were given my walking papers, as Mr. Valliant demands, and time allowed for the Geiger counter to settle down to a few scattered bursts, then Jim Valliant would say the word—whereupon Drs. Smith, Ghate, Lockitch, Britting, and all the rest would come rushing, and clog JARS' in box with their submissions.

Problem is, Mr. Valliant isn't one of them.

First, because he is not a scholar.

Second, because for so long he pretended not to be an apologist for the Ayn Rand Institute. The way things have developed, with the revelations of Mr. Valliant's failures at scholarship, many at ARI will now be happy to back him up in his denials.

Mr. Valliant has no leverage with any of these folks whom he imagines to be his colleagues. He is in no better position than Owen Glendower, supposing he can "summon up spirits from the vasty deep." Will they come when he does call for them?

In 2006, Mr. Valliant burned his bridges with the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

This year, he lost any slim chance he might have had to gain a speaking platform with The Atlas Society.

And the commendations haven't been flying thick and fast from the Ayn Rand Institute. No one at ARI who actually knew Ayn Rand has praised Mr. Valliant's book since it was published. I haven't heard of Yaron Brook promoting PARC during his speaking tours, either.

If the leadership of ARI could find a face-saving way to stop selling his book, I expect they'd take it.

So all Mr. Valliant has left is Mr. Perigo's forum, with its incredible shrinking audience.

I doubt there will be any further published reviews of PARC, though an autopsy may be performed here or there.

Meanwhile, over at the Ayn Rand Institute, a quick, quiet interment has to be the more attractive prospect.

Robert Campbell

If anyone is interested in seeing what you answered (and what I rejected above), here is the bonehead's post:

Why Campbell Should Be Fired

I have no idea why a man like Valliant would ratioinally set himself up for failure so predictably and so inappropriately. The only explanation is that he is irrational.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

From RC on SOLO:

Some cold, hard facts

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Fri, 2008-06-13 02:08.

Now, to whom is Mr. Valliant addressing his demand that I be fired?

The editors of JARS are Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Roderick Long, and Stephen Cox.

After Mr. Valliant's participation in "Dialectical Dishonesty," it will be a cold day in hell before Chris Sciabarra responds favorably to any request coming from him, on any subject.

Mr. Valliant reviewed Stephen Cox's book on Isabel Paterson, being sure to "temper" his praise for the book with a smarmy remark about how, of course, it would never be sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore. So Dr. Cox, a real scholar, will fall over himself to accommodate an imperious demand from Mr. Valliant, a phony scholar?

So maybe Mr. Valliant thinks he can convince Dr. Long to run me out? I guess Mr. Valliant could preface his demand with one of his tirades against anarchism...

Or maybe Mr. Valliant thinks he can mobilize the editorial board to share his indignation. Here are their names: Doug Den Uyl, Mimi Gladstein, Robert Hessen, John Hospers, Lester Hunt, Eric Mack, Doug Rasmussen, and Larry Sechrest.

He's going to need a lot of luck. Especially with Dr. Hessen, that exemplar of utter bitter warpage when it comes to a person he knew named Ayn Rand.

Right on, bro. And seconds to MSK's applause for the bravura performance of the whole post.

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

One of the claims of Valliant in both is book and his posts has been that those who have said critical things about Rand haven't been specific enough. He said recently that Hospers' "[v]ague assertions of 'conformist atmospheres' and reacting badly to criticism' are not evidence of any kind, but conclusions."

What "vague assertions"?

He says he's read the Hospers "Conversations With Ayn Rand." Has he? Doesn't sound as if he has.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am sometimes at odds and sometimes not with a poster on Solo Passion, Brendan Hutching. But I must say, he is mopping the floor with the boneheads in the face of being called some really foul names.

(He set the boneheads off because at an earlier date he made a quip about Rand having a moistie for Nathaniel Branden. The visual apparently was information overload for more delicate natures. I suspect he was attacking the religious tone of how Rand is presented in Siberia. It sure worked, too! The pseudo-outrage was hilarious.)

Since he is normally cordial and intellectual, reading him responding to Perigo in kind is very funny. See here.

Incidentally, if you (reader in general) have the patience to wade around the garbage thrown at him, read his other posts on that thread. His analyses of the Objectivist movement and historical figures are clear, they sound spot on to my ear, and he has the patience to mercilessly take Valliant's online rhetoric apart, rationalization by rationalization.

He is almost as good as Neil.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

A PS to my post #497 saying "Right on, bro" to RC's detailing how "boneheaded" (MSK's language) Valliant has been in his attempt to get RC fired from his position at JARS:

And to top it off, Valliant "plighted his troth" with Linz! Oh, there's a great example of philosophic discourse at its best!

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

A placeholder adumbration of things to come.

Valliant's Method and His "Case"

The method is mostly as described by Daniel Barnes in Daniel's Amazon review "The Real Deal":

Key quote: "[....] page after page of innocent trivia tortured until it confesses its sinister intent."

The "case" -- that is: What is Valliant trying to prove?...

This has become increasingly problematic given Valliant's progressive disclaimers, especially important among them these from my post #491:

He says he isn't trying to establish AR's "perfection" in any "operative" sense;

Or NB's "incarnate" evilness.

What then IS he trying to prove?

A succinct answer from him to this question -- say, 50 words max, preferrably fewer -- would be appreciated preceeding an attempt to outline the actual course of his book's "argument."

Ellen

___

Edited June 13, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle