Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

(BTW, how did he use the government against Jim Peron?)

Brant,

Backstage crap by supporting an ad hoc smear group called the Locke Foundation, which supplied reports to the NZ government that would make James Valliant seem like the essence of objectivity. Perigo denies any involvement, of course, but I have seen him deny stuff in public that he discusses (and provides sources for, etc.) nonstop on his backstage email pumping machine.

One good instance of this is that I personally received a copy of Unbound from a contact he supplied me with. He wrote the guy, told him I would be in touch and asked him to please supply me with a copy. He claimed that having a NAMBLA publication like that in NZ was against the law, so he had to get it to me through another person. I have the emails in my records. In public back then, he claimed (or at least strongly insinuated) he personally did not know where one could get this publication.

I figure, if he did that stuff with me, why wouldn't he do it with others? Especially since he was in hate mode about Peron.

Doesn't in ring strange that Peron's visa was not renewed by the NZ government precisely when he was out of the country at an ISIL function where Barbara had been invited to speak? Maybe I am connecting dots incorrectly, but there are definitely dots to connect.

It is no longer a productive use of my time to post to non-financial Web sites. There are issues I no longer want to be wrapped up in to no good effect. We are on the cusp of a giant, world-wide recession and I have to deal with that as it impacts my personal situation.

I have two words for that which I am taking to heart:

Internet marketing.

Recessions and opportunities to protect yourself against them will be controlled locally. If you can escape the power of a single government and have the whole world as a marketplace at your fingertips, that is the smart thing to do. When something goes sour in one jurisdiction, you move your focus to another. (I do not believe the physical backbone connections of the Internet will be unraveled even if a worldwide depression hits.)

Just like with investing, though, you have to learn some skills and there is no room for pretending reality is different than what it is. No room for pet theories about anything, including human nature, unless reality as it exists is a large part of that pet theory. You will lose money otherwise.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because the various essays on OL contain something of a diary of the "PARC wars," I'll post here what I posted on SOLO and my blog (unfortunately, for those who wish to see any responses by Mr. Valliant in which he hits my criticisms out of the parc, one must repair to SOLO):

_______

James Valliant on the O'Connors' Marriage

In The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, James Valliant claims that “if we are to take the Brandens’ word for it, the O’Connors’ marriage was an empty fraud. For Rand, it was maintained by her fantasy-like projection of O’Connor. For O’Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens—O’Connor’s staying by Rand’s side.” [PARC, p. 152.]

On SoloPassion on July 10, 2008, Valliant said that Barbara Branden describes the O’Connors’ marriage as “something of a fraud . . . .”

As Ms. Branden describes it, Mr. Scherk, the O'Connor marriage was something of a fraud from the start -- built as it was on Rand's fantasy-like projection of a hero who embodied her distinctive values, not the reality of O'Connor, if we are to believe her. By the 1940s, it is suggested that the fraud was wearing thin -- Rand was allegedly becoming frustrated with a lack of intellectual communication. Of course, there is evidence which contradicts this portrait of a troubled marriage in the 1940s or a lack of intellectual communication -- as PARC notes. In any case, when did Ms. Branden ever say that the marriage become honest or solid thereafter? She implies that the friction had settled -- but does she ever suggest that the O'Connor marriage "got real"? (As PARC also makes quite clear, the nature of the relationship between the O'Connors carried a element of mystery for the Brandens -- note the title of the chapter.)

Contrary to Valliant, neither of the Brandens describes Rand’s marriage as a “fraud” or anything like it. It is true that the Brandens contend that Rand projected certain qualities on O’Connor that he didn’t possess (and they seem accurate in this conclusion). But this is a far cry from claiming that their marriage was “built . . . on” (much less sustained for fifty years by) Rand’s projection. Both mention the sincere love and affection that existed between the two. Like most marriages, the O’Connors’ marriage had its up and downs. Rand probably wouldn’t have embarked on the affair with Branden if she was completely satisfied with Frank as a husband.

The Brandens’ claim that Rand became “frustrated with a lack of intellectual communication” in the 1940s to such an extent that Rand considered divorce is highly believable. (And see William Scherk’s excerpt from the Brandens in which he highlights Valliant’s selective quotations.) Contrary to Valliant, there is no evidence that undercuts this. Valliant does not cite a single report of any “intellectual communication” between Rand and O’Connor. Even Valliant concedes, "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." [PARC, p. 157.] It is not hard to believe that in such an unusual marriage one or both of the parties would consider divorce.

Turning to Valliant’s recent claim that Barbara Branden never describes the O’Connor’s marriage as “becom[ing] honest or solid thereafter [e.g., after the 1940s],” this begs the question of whether Valliant’s description of PAR is correct. In any event, it is rather incredible that Valliant missed this moving description of their marriage post-1968:

Ayn had turned once more to Frank, seeking the special comfort that he alone could give her. He was the one man who had never betrayed her, who had always stood by her, who was her ally and her support through all the triumphs and traumas of her life. It appears that now, at last, she began to truly love the man she had married—or perhaps, to accept the fact that she always had loved him, loved him as he was and as he had been . . . . Without the words to name it, he [Frank] had always accepted and revered her as no one else had ever done, and the personal rejections of a lifetime made his understanding and acceptance more valuable to her than they had ever been before. She clung to him, hating to have him out of her sight . . . . It was the relationship that was the most purely emotional of her life which gave her, in the end, the most satisfaction. [PAR, pp. 364-65.]

As to Valliant’s final contention that “[f]or O’Connor, this supposed financial dependence serves to explain what is otherwise inexplicable to the Brandens—O’Connor’s staying by Rand’s side . . . .,” this is another misrepresentation.

First, only Barbara Branden mentions the possible financial reason Frank had for remaining with Rand. As is typical, Valliant has attributed something to both Brandens which is stated only by one.

Second, Barbara Branden does not say that financial concerns were the reason why O’Connor stayed with Rand for fifty years. Branden says that Frank once told her that he wanted to leave Rand, "'But where would I go? . . . What would I do? . . .'" [PAR, p. 262.] Branden interprets this as, in part at least, a concern for how Frank would support himself after a divorce. [id.] She does not claim that this was the determining factor in Frank’s remaining with Rand for the entire length of the marriage.

Third, while the Brandens do find a certain “mystery” in Rand’s and O’Connor’s love for each other, it is a stretch to say that they found Frank’s staying with Rand for fifty years “inexplicable.” (See the above quote from Barbara Branden.)

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because the various essays on OL contain something of a diary of the "PARC wars," I'll post here what I posted on SOLO and my blog (unfortunately, for those who wish to see any responses by Mr. Valliant in which he hits my allegations out of the parc, one must repair to SOLO)

The serious readers at SOLO seem to have dwindled, especially now with Valliant's lengthy absence. The biggest draw at the moment seems to be the wrangling over the toad Elijah Lineberry.

What Valliant did with the marriage quoats from MYWAR/PAR is typical. Truncate, add loaded adjectives or entirely unaccurate summary appellations (as you note he did with 'fraud'), muffle or disregard the larger context. It just doesn't wash that either of the Branden's considered the marriage a fraud or shambles, but those readers who side with his attacks on the Brandens are not likely to be swayed by any pointed criticism of the Valliant style. The old "you dance wit' the one what brung ya" kind of thing . . .

I don't think I will post to the SOLO threads concerning PARC until Valliant gets back in the game . . . he has made reference in the past to illness, and has had one or two 'drop outs' from discussion at SOLO, so I do hope he regains his health enough to post again soon if that is why we haven't heard from him in some time.

Despite my major disagreements with him, I wish him and his family the very best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On page 300, he say that no one can predict what form of disaster the country is moving towrds, but he says the most likely is a type of Nazism.

"What one can know is only this much: the end result of the country's present course is some form of dictatorship: and the cultural-political signs for many years now have been pointing increasingly to one kind in particular. The signs have been pointing to an American form of Nazism."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, peikoff's writing is very clear. One can skim the book...
Because the various essays on OL contain something of a diary of the "PARC wars," I'll post here what I posted on SOLO and my blog (unfortunately, for those who wish to see any responses by Mr. Valliant in which he hits my allegations out of the parc, one must repair to SOLO)

The serious readers at SOLO seem to have dwindled...

I have to admit, peikoff's writing is very clear. One can skim the book...

I have seen glitches with double posts and I have seen posts cross before, but I have never seen this.

Cool.

How did you guys do that?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The biggest draw at the moment seems to be the wrangling over the toad Elijah Lineberry.

Lineberry's days in the sun are coming to an end. His ego is tripping him up and he is exposing himself as the fraud he is more and more. He spins and ducks and dives all the time, and now a few decent people are finally starting to notice.

Sorry to pollute your forum with this Michael, but until just recently I have had very little support about the unethical nature of Lineberry. When it all comes out everyone will say "I knew that all along". I have no doubt about that.

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth,

You never pollute this forum, especially when exposing bigotry flying the banner of Objectivism. I agree this is dirty work, but it is honest and needed. (I personally hold value for it due to branding.)

I realize people are starting to reject this guy's bigotry now, which is why I am not down on most Solo Passion posters like I am a few of Siberia's luminaries.

One judges people by what they do and what they say. When what they do conflicts with what they say, what they do speaks far louder to me than what they say as the true nature of the person.

People, including Lineberry, claim he is not an Objectivist, etc. That's what they say. But from what I observe Perigo & Co. do (as opposed to what they say), Lineberry is the perfect concrete embodiment of the concept of KASS.

:)

(I know that might sound funny. "KASS me you fool..." But I'm also quite serious.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth,

You never pollute this forum, especially when exposing bigotry flying the banner of Objectivism. I agree this is dirty work, but it is honest and needed. (I personally hold value for it due to branding.)

I realize people are starting to reject this guy's bigotry now, which is why I am not down on most Solo Passion posters like I am a few of Siberia's luminaries.

One judges people by what they do and what they say. When what they do conflicts with what they say, what they do speaks far louder to me than what they say as the true nature of the person.

People, including Lineberry, claim he is not an Objectivist, etc. That's what they say. But from what I observe Perigo & Co. do (as opposed to what they say), Lineberry is the perfect concrete embodiment of the concept of KASS.

:)

(I know that might sound funny. "KASS me you fool..." But I'm also quite serious.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Michael for your kind words ;-)

People, including Lineberry, claim he is not an Objectivist, etc. That's what they say. But from what I observe Perigo & Co. do (as opposed to what they say), Lineberry is the perfect concrete embodiment of the concept of KASS.

Before more comes to light I just want to say that I don't think Lineberry embodies what Perigo would like SOLO to be. But he welcomed him, so that is what it has become.

Perigo and Peter Cresswell have been unable to look at Lineberry objectively because he has stroked their egos, and they have been so blinded by his flattery and promises of money, radio stations, and hope. Lineberry is a spin master, and he has relied on those on the forum not having the contacts to verify what he has been saying. Even now they probably don't believe me.

Mind you I warned Cresswell when he first showed up. He chose to think *I* was being untruthful. I like to think that was out of naivety.

Kind regards,

Ruth

Edited by Ruth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discovered that James Valliant has been not eligible to practice law in the State of California since August 16 of last year.

Since I am presumably still on public notice from this bonehead, I feel it is fair to bring his professional status to surface in our corner of the world. Here is the link to the State Bar of California search:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member...=James+Valliant

If you go to the page itself (see here), you will see two entries under Administrative Actions for James Stevens Valliant - #140853

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Administrative Actions

7/1/2008 -- Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

8/16/2007 -- Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

For the record, it also states that there are no public records of disciplinary and related actions. As I understand this statement, Valliant was suspended from the Bar last year, but was not disbarred. To better understand what "Not Eligible to Practice Law" means, here is the California Bar's explanation.

Not Eligible to Practice Law: Those listed as not eligible may not practice law in California. There are several reasons that may result in this status, including suspension, involuntary transfer to inactive status and failure to pay mandatory State Bar fees.

If anyone wants to know what MCLE means, it stands for Minimum Continuing Legal Education.

State Bar of California MCLE page

San Diego County Bar Association CLE page

I will not speculate as to why this is. I am merely reporting that Valliant is not entitled to practice law in California and has not been entitled to practice law there for almost a year as of this posting. Let people make of this what they will.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just discovered that James Valliant has been not eligible to practice law in the State of California since August 16 of last year.

Since I am presumably still on public notice from this bonehead, I feel it is fair to bring his professional status to surface in our corner of the world. Here is the link to the State Bar of California search:

http://members.calbar.ca.gov/search/member...=James+Valliant

If you go to the page itself (see here), you will see two entries under Administrative Actions for James Stevens Valliant - #140853

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Administrative Actions

7/1/2008 -- Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

8/16/2007 -- Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

For the record, it also states that there are no public records of disciplinary and related actions. As I understand this statement, Valliant was suspended from the Bar last year, but was not disbarred. To better understand what "Not Eligible to Practice Law" means, here is the California Bar's explanation.

Not Eligible to Practice Law: Those listed as not eligible may not practice law in California. There are several reasons that may result in this status, including suspension, involuntary transfer to inactive status and failure to pay mandatory State Bar fees.

If anyone wants to know what MCLE means, it stands for Minimum Continuing Legal Education.

State Bar of California MCLE page

San Diego County Bar Association CLE page

I will not speculate as to why this is. I am merely reporting that Valliant is not entitled to practice law in California and has not been entitled to practice law there for almost a year as of this posting. Let people make of this what they will.

Michael

James Valliant is very ill. He seems to have a disease that waxes and wanes. Perhaps MS.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Valliant is very ill. He seems to have a disease that waxes and wanes. Perhaps MS.

Brant,

What does that have to do with keeping good standing in the Bar?

From what I read, there is a voluntary inactive request that a lawyer can make, say, if he are too sick to practice anywhere at all. The measures I read were imposed by the Bar and not voluntary.

Being in the Bar is not the same thing as working at a job. It is like having a driver's license, except it is for lawyers.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Would Villiant have to take some action to keep his bar license?

I don't know the particulars of Valliant's situation, but the usual "action" would be to either:

1) Pay the annual dues

or

2) Submit a letter or form indicating a reason why he couldn't practice (illness, military service, . . ) and asking to be relieved for paying dues for a year.

Whether #2 would apply would depend on local regulations in the state where Valliant practices (or, it appears now, doesn't practice anymore).

NOTE ADDED LATER: It appears that Valliant also may have failed to do the required "continuing education." Many professions have such requirements, which are usually not onerous in terms of time commitment or cost.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, Would Villiant have to take some action to keep his bar license?

Chris,

It's a value judgment, I suppose. If I were a lawyer and did not want to practice law anymore (and I am not saying this was Valliant's case since suspension covers several possibilities, some quite negative, and I know very little of his professional performance), I would much prefer to have it on my record that I withdrew instead of being suspended from the Bar. That looks bad, I don't care where you go after that.

I will make one comment about Valliant's illness. I do not wish him physically ill and I hope he recovers.

Spiritually, I hope he gets a well-deserved taste of what he tried to dish out and stew in his own bile until the end of his days.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

James Valliant is very ill. He seems to have a disease that waxes and wanes. Perhaps MS.

Brant,

What does that have to do with keeping good standing in the Bar?

Well, if James Valliant has a chronic, recurring illness, one that is difficult enough to bear that it prevents him from traveling and at this time prevents him from posting to SOLO . . . it could be that he is having grave problems with his health.

It could very well be that he decided to have his license lapse, not expecting to return to any practice. It could be that his illness meant a certain amount of economic distress prevented his paying his dues.

I don't like the tone suggested by the remarks that he stew in his own bile until the end of his days. That is a repellent sentiment and belies any well-wishes uttered separately. I have no particular respect for James Valliant as an author or critic, but as a human being he has my very best wishes for recovery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William,

I stand by what I wrote. The guy was suspended last year, but found enough time during that year to post all kinds of crap on Solo Passion. I am reluctant to use a double standard here.

As a human being, I wish him well (as I stated).

Morally, since ethics is based on free choice, I wish for him what he wishes for others and has chosen to act to obtain. That means stewing in bile. May he do so and may it be terrible.

If some day he should choose differently, I will too. I am literally not an altruist, despite having a lot of empathy. When push comes to shove, I shove hard.

OK, here's another human sentiment, if that is your complaint. I sincerely hope one day he chooses not to be a malicious bonehead and not act anymore on that mental state to try to destroy others, especially people I care about, but make amends instead. I don't have high hopes for that happening, but I would be very pleased if it did happen. It would be good for him spiritually and that would bring warmth to my heart.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***smearing in a subtle way - "any stick with which to beat an opponent***

To inform readers that someone (who may be ill, who may be unwilling or unable to still wish to practice law - with no attempt to be sure why his membership lapsed) [Michael Stuart Kelly] is no longer a member of the bar is on the same level as posting that someone was once a grocery store 'bag boy' [scott De Salvo]. (with the possible exception that in the latter case, it may be a throwaway line or an unserious gibe, rather than something researched or that a serious point is being made about.)

In each case it would not be posted if it were not intended to be taken as hinting at something negative or irresponsible about one's professional life.

In each case it is a personal matter which has nothing to do with the intellectual issues on which one disagrees.

In each case, it is trying to dredge up any possible dirt, anything that looks bad or sounds bad without allowing for any possible context. Just like throwing mud in a political campaign.

Not only does this sort of thing cheapen those who might take the high road and focus on ideas, not only does it not show a lot of class when someone is sick, but even if he were healthy it's a new low in the "Oist food fight" phenomenon.

.....

"Mud and excrement stick to the thrower, to the debate, and to the audience who allow it with a chuckle - at least as much as to the target."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To preempt any attempt to counter, deflect, distract, or change the subject with the child's schoolyard argument "so and so does it too!" or "he started it!": this is not to deny that there are things like this or even worse on SP and elsewhere, but that is not an excuse plus I've pointed to other examples of feces hurling elsewhere over the last several years...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

You presume way too much. Whoever said I was not presenting dirt to discredit Valliant?

I was.

I will present more if I can find it. I will present it with the full knowledge that it will be read as dirt, too. That is and will be my intention.

I am not a nice person when I get riled and I will not pretend otherwise. I am not interested in the high road where this bonehead is concerned. That goes for Perigo and the rest of that gang. (I really don't care who started it, either. It doesn't matter at this point.)

I tell you what. You do the high road stuff as regards Valliant, Perigo, etc. I am perfectly happy to leave that field to my betters.

:)

Maybe he got rich from his book and retired.

Pete,

I almost fell off my chair laughing at that one.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> [i am] presenting dirt to discredit Valliant

Michael, one source of frustration is you often use vague or non-objective or 'emotionalist' blurred language in your writing, just like Lindsay Perigo does in his [Diana H. does not - she is a very precise writer]. (It's as if if you just picked any word that was handy, as if you did not edit your writing but shoot from the lip.)

The word "dirt" is sort of a straddle word, a euphemism. There is legitimate dirt and illegitimate dirt.

The straddle word blurs or equivocates upon the distinction I made between fair criticism and smearing or irrelevancies. This can blur or distract from the very precise points I made for those who don't take the trouble to reread my post after reading Michael's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

***smearing in a subtle way - "any stick with which to beat an opponent***

To inform readers that someone (who may be ill, who may be unwilling or unable to still wish to practice law - with no attempt to be sure why his membership lapsed) [Michael Stuart Kelly] is no longer a member of the bar is on the same level as posting that someone was once a grocery store 'bag boy' [scott De Salvo]. (with the possible exception that in the latter case, it may be a throwaway line or an unserious gibe, rather than something researched or that a serious point is being made about.)

In each case it would not be posted if it were not intended to be taken as hinting at something negative or irresponsible about one's professional life.

In each case it is a personal matter which has nothing to do with the intellectual issues on which one disagrees.

In each case, it is trying to dredge up any possible dirt, anything that looks bad or sounds bad without allowing for any possible context. Just like throwing mud in a political campaign.

Not only does this sort of thing cheapen those who might take the high road and focus on ideas, not only does it not show a lot of class when someone is sick, but even if he were healthy it's a new low in the "Oist food fight" phenomenon.

.....

"Mud and excrement stick to the thrower, to the debate, and to the audience who allow it with a chuckle - at least as much as to the target."

Yes, I agree. None of us on O-L should be stooping to this kind of tactic. There is plenty to bash in their writings and postings, without kneeing them in the groin.

Isn't Valliant one of the crowd who have spent so much energy demonizing people like the Brandens, David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra, and Robert Campbell during the past several years? Isn't this blatant smearing and attacking the personal character what you do when you want to destroy someone, as opposed to refute his arguments?

Thank you for making this case, Phil.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now