My AmazonReview of "The Reasonable Woman," allegedly by Wendy McElroy


Recommended Posts

I found this file last night. It is a private email that I sent to Wendy in an effort to resolve our dispute.

These missives are undated because I had no Internet connection at the time. I therefore wrote my material in a Word Document (which is why I have copies on my hard drive) and then took them to Laura's place to send via email.

This procedure is what led Kinsella to threaten Laura Kroutil, my future wife. She never posted or forwarded any comment about this affair. Her sole crime was to permit me to use her Internet connection.

As usual, this offer got no response at all -- except, of course, Kinsella's threat to initiate force against me if I did't stop sending emails to Wendy.

You see, I was forbidden by the imperious Kinsella to communicate with Wendy in any way. This attempt to communicate constituted harrassment, according to the Sun-King Kinsella.

And people wonder why I am so hostile to that statist asshole.

Ghs

Wendy,

I am writing this letter in good faith, and I ask that you read it in that spirit.

I am offering you a way out of this situation, but first let me explain what I plan to do in the future, if we cannot reach a settlement.

First will come postings with extensive parallel quotations (a high percentage of them verbatim) between two articles I published years ago in the “LD/Extemp Monthly” and in eight consecutive pages of your chapter on definitions. I also plan to post copies of the published newsletters on Sharon Presley’s website.

Second, in a few days I will be giving printouts of the FOR manuscript to two friends, who will begin in earnest the task of locating every replicated and near-verbatim passage in TRW. As FOR chapters are finished, I will make them available on Sharon’s website. They will be cross-referenced to TRW, so people can compare for themselves.

I think you understand the impact that all this will have on your side of this dispute. As I said, however, I am willing to settle this now, if you are. My proposal is as follows:

(1) You will post the statement: “George H. Smith wrote a substantial portion of THE REASONABLE WOMAN, and I apologize for not giving him proper credit.”

(2) You will pay me $8,000 (U.S.) for my rights, as specified below. If you are unable to pay this in a lump sum, I will accept $3000 up front and work with you on the rest.

My part of this deal is as follows:

I(1) I will assign to you the right to use all material written by me in THE REASONABLE WOMAN, while stipulating that I also retain my rights to the same material.

(2) I will post the following statement: “Wendy McElroy and I have resolved our dispute in an equitable manner. I encourage others to accept Wendy’s apology, as I have, and support her future work. I now consider this matter closed, and I hope that others will do the same.”

I have honestly tried to word this in a dignified manner, so as to cause you as little embarrassment as possible. If you have a problem with some part of this proposal, I am willing to consider your suggestions. Please think it over and get back to me as soon as you can.

George

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Another file from 1998. This one is a little puzzling. It is incomplete, and I don't think I ever sent it out this as is. I drew from parts of it for some of my missives. All the material is accurate and unchanged.

On the Legal Threats of Wendy McElroy, Plagiarist and Censor.

By George H. Smith

With Two Addendums:

1. An Offer to Settle with Wendy McElroy

2. An Open Letter from Sharon Presley

“[W]e demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any other communication, in writing or orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy did not co-author FOR, or that she has lied, breached contracts, stolen others’ work, or engaged in any other unlawful or unethical activity that would adversely affect her career as a writer and professional reputation related thereto.” – N. Stephan Kinsella, the Sun-King and Attorney-at-Law..

Question: What do Wendy McElroy and Bill Clinton have in common? Answers: (1) Both are as guilty as hell; (2) Neither is able to defend themselves owing to impending legal action. How convenient.

In McElroy’s case, she has threatened to initiate a lawsuit against me for libel and defamation of character. I have a received a tedious, long-winded and poorly written series of threats from her attorney, one Mr. N. Stephan Kinsella – hereafter and forever known as “the Sun-King Kinsella.” I fear Mr. Kinsella won’t understand this reference, so perhaps one of the secretaries in his law firm will be kind enough to explain it to him -- very slowly. (The Canadian McElroy apparently had to search as far as Texas to find anyone who was willing to take her case. Any further south and the letter I received would have been in Spanish.)

Following are some bits and pieces that are relevant to this matter. If this bores you as much as it does me, try skipping down to my personal comments.

1. McElroy claims to have co-developed the material for my Fundamentals of Reasoning classes.

a. In THE REASONABLE WOMAN, she expressly admits that I created FOR and that she was a participant.

b. I was teaching FOR from my apartment in Hollywood fully one year before I had even met McElroy, and the FOR material remained essentially unchanged during subsequent years.

c. Did McElroy, as a supposed co-developer, ever teach even one FOR class? No. Did she ever co-teach a class? No. Did she ever assist in teaching a class? No. Did she ever do anything more than attend a few classes when we lived together? No.

d. My standard FOR handout, originally written in 1974, includes my name at the end of nearly five pages. Does McElroy’s name appear on this handout? No. Does it appear on any advertisements for FOR? No. Did she ever tell any of the many dozens of participants in FOR that she had co-developed the material? No.

2. McElroy says she was a co-signer of the lease for “The Forum for Philosophical Studies” when I opened offices on Sunset Blvd.

a. Does she have copy of that lease? No.

b. I sponsored lectures and classes by people other than myself, such as Jeff Riggenbach and Tibor Machan. I also had guest lecturers once a month. Did McElroy ever teach a class for the Forum? No. Did she ever give so much as a single lecture? No. Did her name appear on any of the advertisements for the Forum? No.

c. I began using the business name “Forum for Philosophical Studies’ shortly after the publication of my first book in 1974, long before I had met McElroy, and several years prior to opening offices on Sunset Blvd.

d. When I opened the suite of offices, McElroy used one room, which I had soundproofed, for her “Reichian therapy.” The business sign on our door read: “George H. Smith, Forum for Philosophical Studies. Wendy McElroy, Personal Consultant.” I was paid for teaching philosophy, including FOR. McElroy was paid for pinching and punching nude bodies. We used the offices at different times, owing to the screams that would frequently emanate from her room and disrupt my classes.

3. The Sun-King Kinsella claims that my 1989 contract with McElroy proves that she had co-authored the earlier FOR manuscript.

a. The FOR manuscript was dated by McElroy Oct. 2, 1988, over one year prior to our contract.

b. The contract nowhere refers to a book on The Fundamentals of Reasoning, but refers instead to an unnamed book on reasoning. Are we to suppose that, owing to this reference to an unnamed book, McElroy somehow acquired rights to everything I have ever written on the subject of reasoning, both published and unpublished?

c. Can McElroy produce anything – any drafts, notes, correspondence, etc. – to substantiate her claim that she co-authored the FOR manuscript? No. She conveniently claims to have destroyed all such material, including the dozens of tapes from which she transcribed the FOR manuscript.

d. The FOR manuscript uses the first person throughout – “I,” “me,” etc. McElroy claims she wrote it like this to simplify matters. But would it not have been equally simple to use the plural pronouns “we” and “us,” if in fact this was co-authored material? Blank out.

e. There is conversational material in the FOR transcripts, including questions and answers (listed as Q and A) that are inserted into the text without introduction or previous explanation. A strange way indeed to write a finished manuscript.

f. I inserted a number of personal notes to myself in the FOR manuscripts, as reminders for future revisions. (See my earlier posting, “The Lighter Side of Plagiarism.”) There are also many grammatical errors (typical of spoken dialogue) and considerable duplication (owing to the same material taken from tapes of different classes). Again, very strange for a finished manuscript.

McElroy claims that I plagiarized from her, in effect, by including my own material in ATHEISM, AYN RAND, AND OTHER HERESIES (1991). She also claims that I owe her compensation for teaching my own FOR classes from my own notes. And she has attempted, through her attorney, the Sun King Kinsella, to silence me through intimidation, by threatening to sue for libel and defamation of character. (This latter, of course, presupposes that one has character to begin with.)

The Sun-King Kinsella has also threatened legal action against Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, Laura Kroutil and other third parties who might have the temerity to forward my postings to various lists. (See Sharon Presley’s letter, Addendum II below.)

McElroy’s lawsuit, should it occur, promises to be an important challenge to freedom of speech on the Internet. I encourage every libertarian out there to become a participant in this historic event. Here’s how. Simply forward one or more of my postings to someone else. This, according to McElroy’s attorney – who apparently received his law degree through an Iraqi correspondence course– will make you guilty of libel and defamation of character. Thus you need only confess your crime to this intrepid enemy of the First Amendment to earn your place among the future champions of free speech.

I encourage libertarians (especially attorneys) to defy the imperious edict of Wendy McElroy and her ventriloquist’s dummy, the Sun-King Kinsella. Wear your little fingers to the bone by hitting that “send” icon on your computer screens, thereby striking a blow for freedom of speech and press. As for the Sun-King Kinsella, I responded (in part) as follows:

“SUBJECT: Idiot lawyers.

Dear Mr. Kinsella:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Yours truly,

George H. Smith”

You can confess your crime to the Sun-King Kinsella at: <NSKinsella@compuserve.com.>

Or confess directly to Wendy McElroy, Court Censor, at:

<mac@zetetics.com>

############

ADDENDUM I: AN OFFER TO SETTLE WITH WENDY MCELROY

“We further demand that you immediately cease and desist from directly contacting Ms. McElroy in any form whatsoever, and that you also immediately cease threatening, extorting, blackmailing, or harassing Ms. McElroy.” – The Sun-King Kinsella

(The following was sent to Wendy McElroy on Sunday morning, May ???? I followed this up with a brief note on Monday, in which I again expressed my desire to settle the dispute between us and my willingness to consider any counter proposal. The following day I –along with Sharon Presley and Tim Starr –received the threat of legal action via Federal Express from the Sun-King Kinsella.)

. .

“Wendy,

I am writing this letter in good faith, and I ask that you read it in that spirit.

I am offering you a way out of this situation, but first let me explain what I plan to do in the future, if we cannot reach a settlement.

First will come a posting with extensive parallel quotations (a high percentage of them verbatim) between two articles I published years ago in the “LD/Extemp Monthly” and in eight consecutive pages of your chapter on definitions. I also plan to post copies of the published newsletters on Sharon Presley’s website.

Second, in a few days I will be giving printouts of the FOR manuscript to two friends, who will begin in earnest the task of locating every replicated and near-verbatim passage in TRW. As FOR chapters are finished, I will make them available on Sharon’s website. They will be cross-referenced to TRW, so people can compare for themselves.

I think you understand the impact that all this will have on your side of this dispute. As I said, however, I am willing to settle this now, if you are. My proposal is as follows:

(1) You will post the statement: “George H. Smith wrote a substantial portion of THE REASONABLE WOMAN, and I apologize for not giving him proper credit.”

(2) You will pay me $8,000 (U.S.) for my rights, as specified below. If you are unable to pay this in a lump sum, I will accept $3000 up front and work with you on the rest.

My part of this deal is as follows:

(1) I will assign to you the right to use all material written by me in THE REASONABLE WOMAN, while stipulating that I also retain my rights to the same material.

(2) I will post the following statement: “Wendy McElroy and I have resolved our dispute in an equitable manner. I encourage others to accept Wendy’s apology, as I have, and support her future work. I now consider this matter closed, and I hope that others will do the same.”

I have honestly tried to word this in a dignified manner, so as to cause you as little embarrassment as possible. If you have a problem with some part of this proposal, I am willing to consider your suggestions. Please think it over and get back to me as soon as you can.

George

############

ADDENDUM II: AN OPEN LETTER FROM SHARON PRESLEY

“[P]lease note that under defamation law, not only is publication of certain false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be defamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamation and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action. Thus, for example, Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and others, in republishing your libelous comments, may also be implicated with liability for defamation and libel.” – The Sun-King Kinsella.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some important elements of my General Theory are contained in this parable.

George,

You wouldn't be trying to say, would you, that Ms. McElroy is a fervent believer in the moral perfection of Wendy McElroy?

You know, it's never been a mystery why purblind zealots would endorse Jim Valliant's dreadful book.

What's challenging is understanding why someone who is a not a Rand-worshiper would endorse it.

Those few I have come across seem to be either

(1) Narcissistic personalities for whom the promotion of Rand-worship is a means to an end (exacting revenge on those who have wounded their egos, getting flunkies to defer to them and pump their egos back up); e.g., Lindsay Perigo.

or

(2) Narcissistic personalities who secretly identify with the moral perfection that her worshipers attribute to Ayn Rand (and that Rand sometimes attributed to herself); e.g., a former contributor here, now to be found online in the company of Lindsay Perigo.

Wendy McElroy is a non-zealot who gave Jim Valliant's book a favorable review.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Stephen Kinsella!

A note of thanks to let you know much you have done for me. I haven't felt this much energy and enthusiasm for many years, and I owe it all to you. If it weren't for you, or if Wendy had gotten a bright and less thuggish attorney, Wendy and I might have resolved our dispute 12 years ago, and then I would never have been able to post all this material, which will be accessible to the whole world for ever, and ever, and ever.

So thanks again, Stephen, for being such an incompetent attorney! I am so very glad that you applied your principle of Threaten Force and Never Negotiate so consistently over the past 12 years. It has worked out splendidly for your client, don't you think? You must be very proud.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wendy McElroy is a non-zealot who gave Jim Valliant's book a favorable review.

Robert Campbell

Really? I didn't know that. How very, very interesting.

The Machiavellian Mind of Wendy McElroy never sleeps, so I will have to give some thought to what her strategy was here. She was obviously attempting to ingratiate herself with that crowd, but why?

Is Wendy's review available online? If I read it, I can probably figure out whom she was trying to manipulate, and possibly why. Wendy never writes shit like that without a long term plan. She makes Diana Hsieh look like Shirley Temple.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.30

Book review of James Valiants' The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

on Monday 05 May 2008

by Wendy McElroy author list

in Ayn Rand and Objectivism

For the first time, I find it necessary to comment on a book's reviews-to-date before

offering my own critique of it. The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics (Durban House Publishing, $27.95) by James S. Valliant has been blasted by its own passionate critics in both formal reviews and online discussions. The book's provocative subtitle, The Case Against the Brandens (Nathaniel and Barbara Branden), almost guarantees that admirers of those two popular writers will assume a defensive stance. But the response has been more than defensive; it has verged on questioning the Valliant book's right to exist.

Certainly, the subject matter is distasteful. Valliant's The Passion chronicles three views of the same event and of its sad fallout: namely, Nathaniel Branden's long-term affair (1954–1968) with Ayn Rand. The fall-out was nothing less than the bitter cleaving in half of the Objectivist movement; it is a schism that survives to this day.

The much-discussed affair was first explored in print from Barbara Branden's perspective

in her biography of Rand, The Passion of Ayn Rand (1986), which became a Showtime movie of the same title in 1999. Nathaniel Branden's point-of-view was aired in his memoir Judgment Day: My Years With Ayn Rand (1989), which issued in revised form as My Years With Ayn Rand in 1999. Rand, who died in 1982, never publicly offered her viewpoint but rumors have circulated of personal journals that discussed "the affair." Such discussion was absent, however, from the posthumously published Journals

of Ayn Rand (1997).

Consequently, what was known of "the affair" emerged almost entirely from two people Rand had ostracized, and whose involvement in "the affair" makes the very possibility of their objectivity questionable. This is not an accusation of dishonesty but a comment on human nature. It is natural to remember a complex, painful series of events in a manner most favorable to yourself, especially in the face of being denounced over that event. People have more sympathy toward their own motives and suffering than toward that of others. Moreover, since the accounts occurred after Rand's death, any first-person rebuttal was precluded. Until now, that is, with Rand's voice emerging through never-before-published excerpts from her personal journals.

The Passion is divided into two parts: Valliant's defense of Rand or, as some would phrase it, his attack on the Brandens; and, excerpts from Rand's personal journals which are narrated by Valliant. Both parts have drawn sharp criticism.

I address the criticisms revolving around Rand's journal excerpts because they are the most basic ones. Those criticisms call into question the right or propriety of The Passion to exist. Some of the voices questioning The Passion's propriety are not hostile. For example, the renowned Rand scholar Chris Sciabarra voiced an understandable embarrassment at reading Rand's most private thoughts, which he did not believe she meant to become public. The crux of this objection: rather than constituting a defense of Rand, the publication of her private journals is a violation of her privacy.

I disagree.

People may keep journals for intimately private reasons. For example, to vent painful emotions and, so, ease them or to clarify confusion by expressing it. But people do not preserve and bequeath journals to an executor in order to preserve privacy. Rand may have intended to destroy the more personal journals and, somehow, neglected to do so. But this explanation seems implausible. Rand was not careless, especially regarding her writing or intellectual legacy. She was meticulous; Rand once claimed that every word of Atlas

Shrugged was le mot juste – a result of conscious and careful selection. She then proceeded to defend the use of 'this' adjective rather than 'that' one in a sentence that had been randomly pointed out to her. Rand also defended her intellectual legacy with fierce tenacity. Those who organized "Objectivist" groups were expected to request permission before using that label. Nor could Rand – a best-selling author and nexus of controversy – be unaware of the posthumous interest that would surround her papers, especially ones dealing with "the affair." If Rand preserved those intimate journal entries and assigned all rights to her executor (Leonard Peikoff), then it is only reasonable to assume that she wanted them published or, at least, she wanted that option to be available

at Peikoff's discretion.

The question now becomes: did Rand's estate exercise that option in an appropriate

manner? I believe it did, and my reasons are threefold.

First: the breadth and persistence of the rumors ensures that the subject will not disappear.

For over three decades, snicker-inspiring details of "the affair" have circulated widely and without abatement. Critics of Rand typically turn any conversation about her philosophy or achievements – whether it occurs at a dinner table or at an academic conference – into an analysis of her allegedly "twisted" psychology. Their demeaning comments are based in large measure on the information and interpretation provided by the two Branden biographies. Through their eyes, Rand becomes a pathetic and deluded older woman whose self-declared rationalism cannot withstand being jilted by a much younger man. She becomes a callous, aging wife who forces her devoted husband to tolerate an affair that may have driven him to alcoholism.

In his Introduction to The Passion, Valliant pushes this phenomenon into the forefront as an explanation of why he believes a defense of Rand and "the affair" is necessary. He writes, "Of greater concern is the more recent trend toward personal attack against Rand in order to dismiss her ideas – and how often the philosopher's sex life is brought up in discussions of her epistemology or political theory." He continues, "The root of this trend can be traced to two persons: Nathaniel and Barbara Branden."

In response to such personal attacks, Objectivists tend to distance themselves from Rand "the woman" before discussing Rand "the philosopher." Or they defensively explain that it is an ad hominem – that is, a logical fallacy – to discredit the truth of a person's statements by reference to that person's character. The statements or philosophy are true or false on their merits. Both responses acknowledge the "truth" of the Branden's accounts, however.

So far the world has heard only one side of what was essentially a messy divorce in both the personal and professional sense. But the uncontradicted account of "the affair" and break up has assumed the stature of fact and the account has severely damaged Rand's intellectual legacy. To me, the real question regarding the appropriateness of releasing Rand's voice is "why did it take so long?"

Second: the truth is important to those who admire Rand, especially to those who have been personally transformed through her influence.

I am one of them. As such, I would like to understand an important event in my life. At 15-years-old, I became an Objectivist through reading We the Living and, then, everything I could find by Rand. Her impact on my life was profound and benevolent. At 15-years-old, I needed a role model; I needed an ideal at whom I could look up and toward whom I could climb. The one-dimensional John Galt was a poor substitute for the flesh-and-blood woman who had created a philosophy and movement out of nothing more than her passion for ideas.

I first heard of "the affair" in my early twenties from a second-hand rumor passed on by a friend. Years before, someone he knew had been asked to house-sit Nathaniel Branden's house while Branden was out of town. The house-sitter grabbed the opportunity to go through Branden's personal papers and spread the details across Los Angeles, eventually, reaching me. At that point, I had already developed significant political disagreements with Rand; specifically, I was a Rothbardian and an individualist anarchist. Rand had ceased to be a desperately needed ideal and, so, the impact on me was dulled.

But I've wondered how the 15-year-old I used to be would have reacted. I think the news would have been devastating. I also wonder how many other teenagers are deprived of the chance to use Rand as a role model due to accounts of "the affair."My point is not that Rand's personal life or character should be whitewashed for the greater good; truth is the greatest good. But if the facts have been presented incorrectly or in a manner that renders Rand pathetic, then I want the record corrected so that other 15-year-olds regain the opportunity to admire Rand both as a woman and as a philosopher.

Third: the Objectivist movement is historically important; its record should be preserved and presented accurately in a manner that provides perspective on its development.

The split up between Rand and the Brandens – in particular between Rand and Nathaniel Branden – is a pivotal development in the history of the Objectivist movement. The Nathaniel Branden Institute collapsed and left a void that has not been filled. Objectivist groups across North America dissolved into bitter schisms. For example, a friend was banned from a discussion group he had helped to form because he refused to take Nathaniel Branden's book The Psychology of Self-Esteem off his shelf. From one day to the next, his circle of friends became a circle of condemners. Even today, the '80s schism tends to define the Objectivist movement by splitting it into small "o" and capital "O" Objectivists, the latter being viewed as Rand purists who revile the Brandens.

It is strange to hear Rand scholars and admirers suggest that her perspective on such a key movement event might best be left unavailable. I am hard pressed to think of similarly important material from other diaries or correspondence that historians would advocate burying.

The reason offered for this suggestion: admirers wish to spare Rand embarrassment. That reason is commendable but invalid on several grounds. Not to be crude, but Rand is dead and incapable of being embarrassed. The only impact could be on her legacy and that has been as badly damaged by the Brandens' books. Strangely, however, I have not heard people object to how embarrassing it was for Rand to have both those accounts available.

Moreover, I found her journal entries to be far from embarrassing. In fact, I was relieved by both their content and their tone. Far from the rantings and ravings of a scorned lover, I discovered the soul-searching of a confused woman who was desperate to make sense of a relationship. Rand counsels Branden for months in an attempt to help him (and one imagines herself) come to grips with what's happening. Of course, the attempt is futile as Rand is missing the information that would make sense of it all: Branden's other and ongoing affair.

Having argued that The Passion is an appropriate book, it is time to ask if it is a well-written one. This brings us back to the first section of the book in which Valliant presents a full defense of Rand.

The style of Valliant's defense has drawn as much fire as its content. For example, Valliant has been accused of constant repetition, of giving the benefit of all doubt to Rand and none to the Brandens, of exaggerating the Brandens' misdeeds and motives, etc. In his review of The Passion, David M. Brown of Laissez-Faire Books correctly observes of Valliant, "he's smart enough to know that this is not all the fault of one party, however much he may have focused his mind on the task of letting Rand utterly off the hook."

I agree. But such criticism misses the point.

Valliant's book is not a scholarly work that aims to provide a balanced view; nor does it pretend to be. Valliant's book is not written in a "popular" manner that seeks to entertain; nor does it pretend to be. The Passion is best viewed as a legal brief, with all the strengths and weaknesses inherent in that sort of document.

Valliant, a real-life district attorney, has taken on Rand as a client whom he defends against the Brandens' accusations. And the best defense is an offense, with the Brandens becoming "the accused." Like a good attorney, he does not credit both sides; he does not give the opposition any benefit of the doubt. He advocates for his client. In saying this, I do not suggest that Valliant has adopted the attitude of "I stand by Rand, right or wrong." Rather, I believe he decided before conceiving the book that Rand was overwhelmingly in the right and, then, adopted a legalistic style of demonstrating his conclusion.

The legalistic presentation involves several stylistic tactics. Again, no benefit of the doubt or softening of the indictment is offered to the accused. Valliant is out to get a conviction on all counts from the jury: his readership.

Accordingly, he repeats the charges against the Brandens as every new piece of important evidence is revealed. More than this, he reviews the arguments to date in order to integrate each new piece of evidence into the overall argument. He drives home to the jury the pattern of the Brandens' supposed turpitude, a pattern he establishes by demonstrating how every alleged lie or deceit relates to every other one presented. Matters both small and large become threads in the pattern. For example, Valliant exposes in repetitive detail the minor and not-so-minor discrepancies that exist between the Branden's two de facto Rand biographies as well as the discrepancies between Nathaniel Branden's first and revised edition his book.

Personally, I dislike The Passion's legalistic style. I do not enjoy curling up with a legal brief or a court transcript, and the book reads like one. I also think Valliant's legalistic approach damaged the credibility of his arguments as much as it strengthened them in places.

Consider one of the criticisms leveled at Valliant's style: he gives the Brandens no benefit of the doubt but, instead, consistently ascribes ill motives to their actions. Thus, the discrepancies between the biographies become evidence of conscious dishonesty. This approach weakens his argument. All of us know that there are often natural discrepancies – even important ones – between two people who remember an event from their unique perspectives. Perhaps each of the Brandens does remember events in a self-serving manner; even this would not constitute dishonesty. Human memory is flawed in the best of circumstances.

But this defense of the Brandens easily becomes an offense. Even if the many discrepancies between the biographies are not due to dishonesty – even if they constitute tricks of memory, a differing interpretation of events, or simple carelessness – they still call the accuracy of their portrayal of Rand into question. In short, the discrepancies introduce a reasonable doubt as to whether the biographies present Rand accurately.

In its place, Valliant attempts to present a far warmer portrait of Rand as a woman of humor, charm, compassion, and loyalty to friends.

But, again, I stumbled over an aspect of Valliant's approach. It was not the legalistic style but the framework of Objectivist theories of psychology, with which I am in significant disagreement. In short, I balked at much of the cognitive analysis of psychological motives which was offered by The Passion. For example, Valliant writes in analyzing Nathaniel Branden's underlying motives or psychology, "'Rationalism,' as Rand used the term, is not to be found in the standard texts – being first identified by Objectivism – and it is a relatively rare phenomenon, most common among intellectuals. Hence, the 'rationalist-repressor' is a relatively rare species of repressor." In short, Valliant's attempt to psychoanalyze the Brandens was not convincing and – given how much of the book the attempt absorbed – it constitutes a major flaw.

Nevertheless, The Passion accomplishes one of the psychological goals Valliant intended. To a significant degree the book restored to me and (I believe) others a better opinion of "Rand the woman." For one thing, it was important to me that NBI, a beacon of light in the cultural darkness, had not been shattered by a pathetic aging woman who had taken a fancy to a younger man. Her actions are now understandable and no longer inexplicably vicious. Also, as a result of Valliant's arguments, I no longer accept certain previously assumed facts that had lowered my opinion of "Rand the woman." For example, I find no reason to believe Frank O'Connor was an alcoholic – a condition to which many people presumed "the affair" had driven him or made more chronic.

I am pleased to have read The Passion. I intend to re-read it. And I am grateful to Valliant on several points while disagreeing with him on others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George,

Wendy McElroy's review of Valliant's book originally appeared on the Mises Institute site.

Here 'tis from her website:

http://www.wendymcel....php?content.30

She has denied angling for support from the Ayn Rand Institute, and the likelihood of her acceptance into the ARIan fold is indeed vanishingly small.

Robert Campbell

Added in editing: Ahh, Starbuckle posted it first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d. When I opened the suite of offices, McElroy used one room, which I had soundproofed, for her “Reichian therapy.” The business sign on our door read: “George H. Smith, Forum for Philosophical Studies. Wendy McElroy, Personal Consultant.” I was paid for teaching philosophy, including FOR. McElroy was paid for pinching and punching nude bodies. We used the offices at different times, owing to the screams that would frequently emanate from her room and disrupt my classes.

George,

Wendy was practicing "Reichian therapy"? Did she have any training in this area? I know of one branch of therapy that was largely based on some of Reich's work on emotions and their relationship to the body. It is called Radix. As I recall, Nathaniel Branden was himself an advocate of Radix therapy and had at least a casual friendship with Charles Kelley. Many years ago, I actually took a couple of Radix workshops and was very impressed with what I saw and experienced. The Radix Institute offers training programs for Radix teachers. I think these are two year training programs. After watching the work of an experienced Radix therapist, I do not think that this kind of work could be competently performed by someone who had not had at least a year or two of training. On the other hand, your description of "pinching and punching nude bodies" does not sound very much like what an experienced Radix therapist would do. Where did Wendy get the idea that she was qualified to perform this kind of work?

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.30

Book review of James Valiants' The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

on Monday 05 May 2008

by Wendy McElroy author list

in Ayn Rand and Objectivism

...

Thanks for posting this review. I wonder who wrote it. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d. When I opened the suite of offices, McElroy used one room, which I had soundproofed, for her “Reichian therapy.” The business sign on our door read: “George H. Smith, Forum for Philosophical Studies. Wendy McElroy, Personal Consultant.” I was paid for teaching philosophy, including FOR. McElroy was paid for pinching and punching nude bodies. We used the offices at different times, owing to the screams that would frequently emanate from her room and disrupt my classes.

George,

Wendy was practicing "Reichian therapy"? Did she have any training in this area? I know of one branch of therapy that was largely based on some of Reich's work on emotions and their relationship to the body. It is called Radix. As I recall, Nathaniel Branden was himself an advocate of Radix therapy and had at least a casual friendship with Charles Kelley. Many years ago, I actually took a couple of Radix workshops and was very impressed with what I saw and experienced. The Radix Institute offers training programs for Radix teachers. I think these are two year training programs. After watching the work of an experienced Radix therapist, I do not think that this kind of work could be competently performed by someone who had not had at least a year or two of training. On the other hand, your description of "pinching and punching nude bodies" does not sound very much like what an experienced Radix therapist would do. Where did Wendy get the idea that she was qualified to perform this kind of work?

Martin

Wendy had several years of training under a licensed Reichian therapist, and, as I recall, she was pretty close to getting the number of hours requred for her own license. But her trainer was also her lover before she met me, and they had a very nasty split. After that Wendy set out on her own and never bothered to get a license. To her credit, Wendy was very good in this field.

My reference to pinching and punching was meant to be sarcastic.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert Campbell called my attention to this blog by Wendy:

09/09/2004 Archived Entry: "Regaining self-respect"

News Flash from the Swift Drink Veterans for Kerry: Bush served in Vietnam after all.

On a purely personal level...

A topic has been turning constantly over and over in my mind for about four weeks now -- and for much longer than that on a sporadic basis. Last night it competed with sleep, which means it is time for me to commit thoughts and impressions to paper...so to speak. I have flirted with the possibility of writing seriously on the topic of domestic violence and "victimhood" for years now but, ultimately, I have always shyed away because the topic is uncomfortably personal. Now circumstances have changed somewhat.

About twenty years ago, I was in a long-term and physically abusive relationship that left me legally blind in my right eye due to a hemorrhage and subsequent scarring in the center area of my vision, which cannot be corrected by laser surgery. The next day I confronted the man whose fist had broken half the capillaries in that eye. He listened attentively and then responded that I'd failed the test. If I'd really loved him, I wouldn't have brought up 'last night'. Silence on the subject became a habit for me, and one I haven't shaken off yet...for a lot of reasons -- embarrassment, fear of my own anger, shame, confusion. And, yet, I've not had been allowed the luxury of forgetting. In the almost two decades since I ended the relationship, the extreme slander and stalking by the fellow has kept my antenna up tho' I only once had to resort to an attorney and a cease and desist.

Now I hear that his current wife has accused him of domestic violence; accusations that he apparently claims are based on false memories planted by his in-laws. I have hashed over the development with another woman who was also in a long-term relationship with fellow - in fact, she had the bad fortune to replace me - and our conversation helped me sort through some of my reactions. (I'm lucky to have her in my life; we became friends a few years ago from a starting point of wanting to help each other get over the lingering damage of the abuse we'd both experienced.)

...

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/blog/00000469.html

This is absolutely bizarre. Wendy is obviously referring to me.

Forget about the violence part. Wendy claims all kinds of other nutty stuff. Wendy had that eye problem from the first day I met her; indeed, I took her many times to the Jules Stein Eye Clinic at the UCLA Medical Center to have it treated -- unsuccesfully, unfortunately -- during the first year or two of our relationship.

Well, at least it is clear what Wendy's strategy will be. Expect a spate of articles, and possibly a book, accusing me of beating her up.

Is there no depth to which this loathsome woman will not lower herself?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I hear that his current wife [i.e., Laura Kroutil} has accused him of domestic violence; accusations that he apparently claims are based on false memories planted by his in-laws.....

Where, may I ask, did Wendy "hear" this? I was never accused by Laura of using violence against her. This is sheer fabrication.

And where did Wendy come up with this "false memories" bullshit? I have no idea what this even refers to.

Has Wendy become totally unhinged?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, if Wendy the Pure wants to play her vicious little game, all bets are off. Another 1998 file, which, prior to this point, I have only shown to two close friends. These parables were my way of venting my anger without going public with things that would embarrass Wendy. Plenty more where this came from.

Popsicle

Why She Did What She Did: A Causal Theory

Little Mac was known far and wide as “the popsicle queen.” She loved popsicles, especially when they came in variety packs, with all different shapes, sizes, and flavors. She would eat popsicles everywhere – in planes, trains, and automobiles, in alleys and laundry rooms, on beaches and park benches, and even on rides at Disneyland, where popsicle-eating was strictly forbidden.

Little Mac never ate a popsicle she didn’t like, and she was always careful to thank the person who gave her one. Everyone always said of Little Mac that she was most polite connoisseur of popsicles they had ever met. They also marveled at her speed and efficiency, noting that a popsicle would last longer in the hottest region of hell than in the mouth of Little Mac. She is mentioned in Guiness for her record-setting feat at a weekly popsicle party, where she consumed twelve enormous popsicles in seven minutes and 23 seconds. This record is not official however, owing to the technical question of whether the full eating of a popsicle requires its transformation into a liquid state, or whether consumption is achieved when a popsicle become so soft as to render it virtually inedible.

For years Little Mac had shoveled popsicles without restraint, often sampling new brands and flavors. But then she met a fellow with rather strict views on popsicle consumption. True, she could still eat popsicles, but only of one kind and flavor. The same popsicle week after week, month after month, year after year – this was like dragging one’s foot to stop a speeding train. It was simply more than Little Mac could endure. So one day she planted a bomb in the middle of San Francisco and blew up half the city.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.30

Book review of James Valiants' The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

on Monday 05 May 2008

by Wendy McElroy author list

in Ayn Rand and Objectivism

...

Thanks for posting this review. I wonder who wrote it. :lol:

Ghs

George, I suspect that, due to the extensive use of m-dashes in her review, it was actually ghost-written by one of her former lovers. (Heh.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought:

I represent almost none of the clients I used to represent in 1998, but I still owe them the confidences inherent in the attorney-client privilege. The same is true for Stephen Kinsella as well. It is entirely possible that he no longer has WM as a client, or, if he does, has not been authorized by her to say anything in response to any of this. I know non-lawyers go bonkers over this sort of thing, but even if she is simply a former client, he probably cannot speak about these issues.

In short, silence may mean nothing in this context.

Edited by PDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought:

I represent almost none of the clients I used to represent in 1998, but I still owe them the confidences inherent in the attorney-client privilege. The same is true for Stephen Kinsella as well. It is entirely possible that he no longer has WM as a client, or, if he does, has not been authorized by her to say anything in response to any of this. I know non-lawyers go bonkers over this sort of thing, but even if she is simply a former client, he probably cannot speak about these issues.

In short, silence may mean nothing in this context.

If this is true, then why doesn't Kinsella write a brief post stating that he no longer represents Wendy? That would take --, what, five minutes? There is no doubt that he is following this thread.

In any case, Kinsella owes me a personal apology. If I got that I would leave him alone.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/plugins/content/content.php?content.30

Book review of James Valiants' The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics: The Case Against the Brandens

on Monday 05 May 2008

by Wendy McElroy author list

in Ayn Rand and Objectivism

...

Thanks for posting this review. I wonder who wrote it. :lol:

Ghs

George, I suspect that, due to the extensive use of m-dashes in her review, it was actually ghost-written by one of her former lovers. (Heh.)

REB

I'm not sure, Roger. Let me check through my files and get back to you.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my early posted missives in the 1998 Scandal was titled "Wiggle, Wiggle, Squirm, Squirm." I haven't been able to locate this ditty in my files. I know that some people saved all this stuff, so if anyone out there has a copy of "Wiggle, Wiggle, Squirm, Squirm," please send it to me. It was my best piece of writing in this whole affair.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the almost two decades since I ended the relationship, the extreme slander and stalking by the fellow has kept my antenna up tho' I only once had to resort to an attorney and a cease and desist.

Let's take a look at my record of stalking, shall we?

1. In 1994, shortly after I had gotten out of rehab, I sent Wendy a brief email stating that we still had an unfinished book project (FOR) that we had never completed and that I needed to get underway, because I was broke and needed a project.

In my 1994 email, I also noted that I had "lost everything in storage" and that I would need access to my FOR material that she had taken with her to Canada. This included not only the tapes but several thick folders containing typed and handwritten notes as well.

Wendy responded not to me but to Vince Miller, whose computer I had used, stating that if he ever let me use his computer to send emails to her again, she would block all emails from Vince.

1994 was also the year that Wendy, by her own account, began working on TRW. Interesting coincidence, eh?

2. I had no more contact with Wendy of any kind until 1998, when the Plagiarism scandal erupted.

3. Between 1999 and 2011, I sent Wendy exactly one email around six years go. I asked if she would be interested in resolving our dispute and that if I didn't hear back from her, I wouldn't send any more emails. No more emails were sent.

Someone stop that stalker before he hurts Wendy the Pure!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I represent almost none of the clients I used to represent in 1998, but I still owe them the confidences inherent in the attorney-client privilege. The same is true for Stephen Kinsella as well. It is entirely possible that he no longer has WM as a client, or, if he does, has not been authorized by her to say anything in response to any of this.

PDS,

Mr. Kinsella is authorized, is he not, to say whether Ms. McElroy is still his client?

He can also publicly invoke attorney-client privilege, right?

As for the rest of it, we should be reminded that attorney-client privilege functions to protect the attorney as often as it functions to protect the client.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I represent almost none of the clients I used to represent in 1998, but I still owe them the confidences inherent in the attorney-client privilege. The same is true for Stephen Kinsella as well. It is entirely possible that he no longer has WM as a client, or, if he does, has not been authorized by her to say anything in response to any of this.

PDS,

Mr. Kinsella is authorized, is he not, to say whether Ms. McElroy is still his client?

He can also publicly invoke attorney-client privilege, right?

As for the rest of it, we should be reminded that attorney-client privilege functions to protect the attorney as often as it functions to protect the client.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

1. Not necessarily. Some of my clients (I represent mostly businesses) do not allow me to list them on my website, etc., or publicly name them absent a public court filing. The clients who do not want to be disclosed tend to worry that the mere disclosure indicates a prevalence of legal problems in my particular specialty, i.e., labor and employment law.

2. In some instances, yes, but you run into the problem of my #1 above when you do that. Absent an express waiver, it is always a safe assumption that attorney-client privilege is being protected, for current and former clients.

3. Actually, in theory, the attorney-client privilege protects the client, not the lawyer. A lawyer who behaves ethically does not need the protection of the privilege (insert unfortunate lawyer joke here...). If the client agrees to waive it (again, a very, very rare occurrence), it can be waived, but not simply to protect an attorney's reputation, to rebut public accusations, or to respond to Ghs' taunts, etc.

My point really is that Mr. Kinsella may have a bevy of rejoinders to Ghs' statements, and yet is hamstrung professionally (and perhaps strategically and tactically) in his ability to respond. Based upon what I've seen, my personal sympathies are with Ghs, but my professional sympathies are with Kinsella.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

d. When I opened the suite of offices, McElroy used one room, which I had soundproofed, for her "Reichian therapy." The business sign on our door read: "George H. Smith, Forum for Philosophical Studies. Wendy McElroy, Personal Consultant." I was paid for teaching philosophy, including FOR. McElroy was paid for pinching and punching nude bodies. We used the offices at different times, owing to the screams that would frequently emanate from her room and disrupt my classes.

George,

Wendy was practicing "Reichian therapy"? Did she have any training in this area? I know of one branch of therapy that was largely based on some of Reich's work on emotions and their relationship to the body. It is called Radix. As I recall, Nathaniel Branden was himself an advocate of Radix therapy and had at least a casual friendship with Charles Kelley. Many years ago, I actually took a couple of Radix workshops and was very impressed with what I saw and experienced. The Radix Institute offers training programs for Radix teachers. I think these are two year training programs. After watching the work of an experienced Radix therapist, I do not think that this kind of work could be competently performed by someone who had not had at least a year or two of training. On the other hand, your description of "pinching and punching nude bodies" does not sound very much like what an experienced Radix therapist would do. Where did Wendy get the idea that she was qualified to perform this kind of work?

Martin

I'm sure George can provide a more thorough answer than I can. However I am not aware that Wendy had or has any formal training in psychology or psychotherapy of any kind. Since I actually am a psychologist (with a Ph.D. and many years of college teaching), I understandably look askance at such behavior. As for how she got the idea that she was qualified, George will have to answer that. I can only tell you what people I knew were saying about her in the early 80s--that when she was dating a psychologist, she fancied herself a psychologist; when she was dating a poet, she imagined herself to be a poet; when she was dating a historian (George), she decided she was a historian. She has, to my knowledge, no formal training in any of these areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the almost two decades since I ended the relationship, the extreme slander and stalking by the fellow has kept my antenna up tho' I only once had to resort to an attorney and a cease and desist.

Let's take a look at my record of stalking, shall we?

1. In 1994, shortly after I had gotten out of rehab, I sent Wendy a brief email stating that we still had an unfinished book project (FOR) that we had never completed and that I needed to get underway, because I was broke and needed a project.

In my 1994 email, I also noted that I had "lost everything in storage" and that I would need access to my FOR material that she had taken with her to Canada. This included not only the tapes but several thick folders containing typed and handwritten notes as well.

Wendy responded not to me but to Vince Miller, whose computer I had used, stating that if he ever let me use his computer to send emails to her again, she would block all emails from Vince.

1994 was also the year that Wendy, by her own account, began working on TRW. Interesting coincidence, eh?

2. I had no more contact with Wendy of any kind until 1998, when the Plagiarism scandal erupted.

3. Between 1999 and 2011, I sent Wendy exactly one email around six years go. I asked if she would be interested in resolving our dispute and that if I didn't hear back from her, I wouldn't send any more emails. No more emails were sent.

Someone stop that stalker before he hurts Wendy the Pure!!!

The idea that George is or ever has been a stalker is absurd to the max. I've known George since he was with Wendy, knew him when he was with Laura. I never knew him to act inappropriately toward either of them. As someone who has taught forensic psychology, I know what the actual characteristics of a stalker are and George does not fit the profile in any conceivable way.

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