The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V
by Neil Parille

In chapter four of The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, James Valliant takes issue with what he alleges is the financial, intellectual and personal exploitation of Ayn Rand by Nathaniel and Barbara Branden which culminated in the 1968 break. Both Brandens concede that they deceived Rand about Nathaniel’s personal life but deny any financial or intellectual exploitation of her.

As is well known, Rand publicly denounced the Brandens in “To Whom It May Concern” (“TWIMC”). Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, in separate responses, replied to Rand. (Rand then said nothing further on the subject.) This at least gives readers the ability to make a limited “common sense” evaluation of the charges, although it is ultimately difficult to come to firm conclusions without having access to primary source material and interviews. Valliant, who had complete access to the Ayn Rand Archives, is of little help here. He doesn’t supplement his critique of the Brandens’ books with any previously unreleased interviews. He does mention in the endnotes that he has reviewed certain letters and documents in the Archives (such as the business plan Barbara Branden drew up in 1968 for a new lecture service) but doesn’t reproduce them or discuss their contents.

Lies and More Lies

According to Valliant, Rand’s defense in “TWIMC” was accurate whereas the Brandens’ responses were “dishonest . . . relying on direct personal slander.” (PARC, p. 90.) However, Valliant concedes that “Rand was not telling her readers everything.” (PARC, p. 95.)

It is evident from reading “TWIMC” that there was an undisclosed “personal” matter that provided the backdrop for the dispute. For example, Rand says that she was “shocked to discover that he [Branden] was consistently failing to apply to his own personal life. . . the fundamental principles of Objectivism . . . .” She says that Barbara Branden later disclosed that Branden “suddenly confessed that Mr. Branden had been concealing from me certain ugly actions . . . in his private life . . . .” (TWIMC, pp. 3-4.)

Although Rand did not say what these “ugly actions” were, she did reference Branden’s letter of July 1968. She wrote, “Mr. Branden presented me with a written statement which was so irrational and so offensive that I had to break my personal association with him.” (TWIMC, p. 3.) Left unsaid was that this statement was a several page letter which Nathaniel wrote to Rand explaining that their difference in age prevented him from resuming a sexual relationship with her. (JD, p. 375.) Branden reports that Rand was furious when he hand-delivered the letter to her. (JD, pp. 376-77.) Rand spent numerous pages in her diaries denouncing Branden and the letter. (PARC, pp. 311-69.)

Branden’s response to this claim about the letter was the following:


It is tempting to say, as does Valliant, that this portion of the Branden’s response was, if not gratuitous, at least misleading. In my opinion, the most natural implication of what Branden says is that Rand wanted to start a relationship. I don’t think most readers would conclude that Rand and Branden had a relationship which she wanted to restart. However, one must consider the context. At the beginning of the affair, all parties agreed to keep the affair secret. Rand, by mentioning the letter, in effect broke the agreement. By phrasing his response the way he did, Branden was able to keep his word and respond to the substance of “TWIMC.”

An additional matter is the addendum to “TWIMC” signed by four NBI lecturers (Allan Blumenthal, Alan Greenspan, Leonard Peikoff, and Mary Ann Sures) who announced that they were breaking all ties with the Brandens and “condemn[ing]”
them “irrevocably.” Of these four, only Allan Blumenthal knew of the affair. I find it a bit unfair for Rand to ask (or allow) these three people to sign such a statement without telling them know the complete story.

In hindsight it would probably have been better for Rand to write a short statement that she was ending her association with the Brandens for personal and professional reasons. In light of such a personal attack on the Brandens and indirectly referencing the affair, I find the Brandens’ response measured.

The Play’s Not the Thing

Rand begins her critique of Nathaniel Branden’s supposed change in “intellectual attitude” by referring to his production of Barbara Branden’s stage version of The Fountainhead which, according to Rand, “seemed to become his central concern.” Needless to say, I have no way of verifying whether Branden’s involvement with this project took too much of his time, much less whether it was “authority-flaunting, unserious and, at times, undignified.” Valliant presents no evidence that Rand’s allegations are accurate. I am unaware of such a claim being made in the diaries reproduced in PARC, although the play is mentioned a few of times by Rand. (PARC, pp. 306, 308 and 334.)

Rand then mentions two additional “defaults” with respect to Branden’s responsibilities concerning Objectivism: (1) “the growing and lengthening delays in the writing of his articles” for The Objectivist and (2) his failure to rewrite his “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course. These are, to a certain extent, subject to confirmation.

With respect to articles for The Objectivist, Rand says “[w]e also agreed that we would write an equal number of articles and receive an equal salary.” She adds:


Valliant made no effort to determine whether Rand’s claim on this is true. Fred Seddon did. His findings (which I have not attempted to verify) are as follows:


As far as Branden’s alleged failure to update his “Basic Principles” course, I am not in a position to verify this. Valliant appears to believe that Branden is in error:


Valliant sneers at Branden’s contention that he planned a full update by 1969, but this is possible. It is likewise possible that Branden, after breaking with Rand, was not particularly interested in doing a substantial rewrite. I do find plausible Branden’s claim that of greater concern was his book on psychology, which was finished in late 1968 and published in 1969. Branden’s version of events, all things considered, is at least as likely as Rand’s, if not more likely.

Financial Exploitation

Rand accused the Brandens of financial exploitation. With respect to Nathaniel Branden she asserts that he authorized an improper loan from The Objectivist to NBI, and implies that there were additional improprieties. (TWIMC, pp. 4-5.) With respect to Barbara Branden, she implies that Branden proposed a business plan for a reorganized lecture service that was financially so unreasonable that is was little more than an attempt to cash-in on her name. (TWIMC, pp. 6-7.) We shall see that there is no evidence to support these claims.

Valliant supplements Rand’s allegations in an additional way. He alleges that the Brandens’ deception of Rand concerning Nathaniel’s affair with Patrecia was motivated by financial concerns. Had Rand learned the truth, she would have broken with one or both of them, thus cutting off their “meal ticket.” In addition, he asserts that Nathaniel Branden was gradually drifting away from strict adherence to Objectivism and his failing to disclose this to Rand constituted continued exploitation.

The Brandens’ business relationship with Rand was likely beneficial to all parties, but there is no reason to think that their deception of Rand about Nathaniel’s affair with Patrecia was motivated primarily by financial concerns. It is more likely that they feared Rand’s volcanic temper and the shattering of the Objectivist movement if the relationship was disclosed. As even Valliant concedes, Nathaniel Branden’s finances improved dramatically when he moved to California and went into private practice full-time. (PARC, p. 108.) Branden writes in his memoirs that after the break, NBI was liquidated and the amount after debts was $45,000 – which was split among him, Barbara Branden and Wilfred Schwartz. He adds that “[t]his was all that was left of ten years of work. I had no other personal savings.” (MYWAR, p. 354.) Barbara Branden doesn’t discuss her financial situation at the time of the break, but it doesn’t appear to have been strong. In any event, it was Rand’s intention of naming Barbara Branden her heir that prompted Branden to disclose the truth to Rand (which Valliant, bizarrely, attempts to turn into further evidence of her alleged exploitation of Rand). (PAR, pp. 342-43; PARC, p. 119.) People as talented as Nathaniel and Barbara Branden no doubt could have established themselves in stable careers by 1968 had money been their life’s ambition.

This chapter is an additional example of Valliant’s one-sided writing. In his attempt to convince readers that the Brandens were motivated by a desire to cash-in on Rand’s name there is little, if any, mention of the countless hours of uncompensated time that they spent advancing (if not creating) the Objectivist movement. Instead (in keeping with Rand’s 1968 denunciation), their contributions are slighted:


In an interview with Barbara Branden, Rand said the following (as reported by Mrs. Branden):


Likewise, one certainly wouldn’t know the substantial role that Nathaniel Branden played in turning Rand’s ideas into the mature philosophy of Objectivism. In For the New Intellectual, Rand thanked Nathaniel Branden for his contribution of the “Attila” and “Witch Doctor” archetypes. In the forward to “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” published in The Objectivist in 1966 (which her followers consider her most important writings), she acknowledged the importance of Branden’s article “The Stolen Concept.” One need only consider the seminal essays Branden wrote such as “The Psychology of Pleasure.” In fact, his “Basic Principles of Objectivism” course was the first systematic presentation of Rand’s ideas and was listened to by countless thousands of students throughout the United States. Branden may have been Rand’s “student,” but he was Objectivism’s first teacher.

Barbara Branden devoted more of her time to the business side of the Objectivist movement, but she contributed articles to The Objectivist and presented a lecture series entitled “The Principles of Efficient Thinking” at NBI. Rand’s slight of Branden in “TWIMC” (“I cannot say as much for Barbara Branden” in comparison to Nathaniel’s “waste” of “human endowment”) was entirely unfair given her years of devotion to Objectivism and Rand’s previous praise of her talents and character (which she compared to the heroes of her novels).

Financial Wrongdoing

Perhaps Rand’s most serious charge against Nathaniel Branden is her contention that he financially exploited her. The centerpiece of this claim concerns a loan for $22,500 (or $25,000, depending on whom you believe) that Branden authorized from The Objectivist to NBI.

By way of background, The Objectivist (which was co-owned by Rand and Branden) and NBI (which was owned by Nathaniel Branden) were separate corporations. They shared a common business manager, Wilfred Schwartz. In September 1967, NBI secured a fifteen-year lease at the Empire State Building. The Objectivist was a subtenant, paying $6,000 a year to NBI. NBI’s rent was due yearly (and in advance). From time to time Branden had authorized loans from The Objectivist to NBI. The Objectivist was profitable and the loans had been paid back. This much is agreed upon, or at least not disputed.

In July 1967, Branden authorized a loan from The Objectivist to NBI for $22,500. (Rand claimed that it was $25,000.) In any event, the loan included the $6,000 payment for The Objectivist’s lease, making it in effect a $16,500 (or $19,000) loan. It appears that this loan was greater than previous loans. It was repaid shortly before the break, probably in August 1968. According to Rand, the loan was made without her knowledge, in violation of the articles of incorporation, constituted almost the entire cash reserves of The Objectivist, and was not repaid until she insisted.

Here is Branden’s version of events:


Valliant alleges that this constitutes an admission by Branden that the loan in question constituted “the depletion of most of the cash reserves of The Objectivist . . . .” This is his reasoning:


I’m no accountant, but I am at a loss to see how Valliant reaches this conclusion. While we don’t know the cash in the bank at the time of the loan, approximately four months prior it was $33,881. Valliant doesn’t mention this amount. Approximately eight months after the loan was made (but before it was paid back) it was $17,438. (Valliant mentions only this later amount, and gets it slightly wrong.) What is the evidence that this loan depleted the cash reserves of The Objectivist? I can only assume that Valliant believes that $17,438 contains funds from the repaid loan ($17,438-$16,500= $938), but the loan wasn’t repaid until months later.

Concerning whether the articles of incorporation required consent of both Rand and Branden for such transactions, I can’t comment since I have not seen the document. Valliant doesn’t say whether the Archives has a copy. Valliant alleges that Branden admits in Judgment Day that at the time of incorporation there was an “oral agreement” that there would be “mutual agreement on all decisions.” (PARC, p. 109.) Actually, Branden says only that there was an oral agreement that The Objectivist would not publish something the other opposed and if there was a falling out The Objectivist would cease publication. (JD, p. 291.)

The September 1968 Business Plan

After it was agreed that NBI would close, Barbara Branden presented Rand with a ten-page business plan for the creation of a new lecture service. The lecture service would take over NBI’s lease and The Objectivist would remain a subtenant. Branden presented this plan to Rand, which she rejected. Rand stated:


In both her 1968 response and in PAR, Branden takes issue with Rand’s claims. Her response contains numerous points not addressed by Valliant which, if true, undercut Rand’s version of events. Branden claims that Henry Mark Holzer had in fact approved of the business plan. She alleges that the plan was accompanied by forty seven pages of analysis. If true, Rand’s claim that the plan did not contain “any relevant factual material” is likely false.

In any event, Rand’s claim of financial exploitation of the lecturers appears unfounded. Rand asserts that lecturers were treated unfairly, using as an example the fact that percentages paid to NBI lecturer’s declined as NBI’s grosses increased. Why this should be surprising or unfair is beyond me. A decrease in percentage paid to lecturers doesn’t necessarily correspond to a decrease in payments. Here is Branden’s response:


Valliant repeats Rand’s claim that Branden’s proposal was only a “projection” and adds “without the draw of NBI’s ‘star’ lecturer, Nathaniel Branden, which as she says were based on NBI’s past performance, were of little value.” (PARC, p. 120.) Perhaps the report did mention the possibility of an initial fall-off in revenue. (Valliant’s comment about Nathaniel Branden is interesting given his attempt to downplay his contribution to Objectivism in the book.) Rand said that her name was a “gold mine” and it is certainly possible that a revised lecture service could have been equally profitable.

Valliant, who had complete access to the Ayn Rand Archives, was in a position to shed some light on these questions. He mentions that a copy of Branden’s business plan was likely found in the Archives, yet doesn’t reproduce it or discuss its contents. (PARC, p. 404.)

Conclusion

Having now critiqued chapter four in-depth, our conclusion that PARC’s mistakes and distortions are so systematic as to render it seriously flawed as a critique of the Brandens’ works is further strengthened.

The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part IV
by Neil Parille

In Chapter five of The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics (“PARC”), James Valliant discusses Frank O’Connor, Ayn Rand’s marriage with O’Connor, and the effect of the affair with Nathaniel Branden on O’Connor. Valliant takes aim at the most controversial claim in The Passion of Ayn Rand (“PAR”) -- Barbara Branden’s contention that Rand’s affair with Branden led O’Connor to consume alcohol excessively.

Mistakes Big and Small

This chapter contains more of what we’ve come to expect from Valliant’s work: numerous misrepresentations of the Brandens’ books. For example, on page 138 Valliant implies that attendees at the NBI lectures guessed there was an affair. But in the page quoted in Judgment Day (“JD”), Branden says “[o]ur students would listen as if we were discussing life on another planet, and I wondered . . . they don’t hear . . .?” (JD, p. 345.) Branden is saying the opposite. On page 139 Valliant quotes Nathaniel Branden on Rand, “she was still reticent about the resurrection of the affair” as proof that he was making sexual advances to Rand in 1967 and 1968. I don’t get that impression from the context. It concerns Rand’s attitude, not Branden’s.

Another misrepresentation concerns the question of whether Rand could accept that her age was a barrier to a resumption of the affair in 1968. As Valliant tells us, Rand was sincere about Branden’s concern about the “age issue” and gave him a number of “outs” about it. According to Valliant, Branden refused, at most giving “’non-verbal’ signals” to Rand “which . . . he does not specify.” (PARC, p. 140.) (Incidentally, in the pages cited by Valliant, the words “non-verbal” and “signal” do not appear.)

Perhaps it is best to quote what Branden says in full, and underline the sections that Valliant quotes in his book (the italics are in the original Judgment Day).


Contrary to the impression created by Valliant, Nathaniel Branden thought he made it sufficiently clear to Rand that her age was a barrier to a continued relationship.

Valliant quotes Barbara Branden, “Ms. Branden even tells us that she asked Branden at the time of the break what he did not take advantage, over the years, of the ‘outs’ Ayn offered you about the issue of her age.” (PARC, p. 140.) However, read in context, Barbara Branden seems to agree with Nathaniel Branden that Rand’s protestations that age was a legitimate barrier to a continued sexual relationship were not sincere. (PAR, pp. 340-41.)

In a later chapter, Valliant makes much of the claim that Rand allegedly writes in her journal that she would not object to Branden ending their relationship because of her age. (PARC, pp. 194-98.) A review of these passages indicates that they are substantially more ambiguous than Valliant makes them out to be. In any event, when Branden did send Rand a letter explaining in detail how the difference in age made it impossible for him to continue with a sexual relationship, Rand spent significant time in her journal discussing it (PARC, pp. 311-49) and, of course, denounced the letter viciously in “To Whom It May Concern.”

Into the Void

Early in this chapter Valliant states that, according to the Brandens, “O’Connor was a void of a human being—a void into which he poured alcohol and grief.” (PARC, p. 147.) Putting aside the question of Frank’s consumption of alcohol (which I will discuss later), it is certainly unfair to claim that the Brandens describe him as a “void of a human being.” Their discussion of O’Connor is quite favorable. Indeed, most of the positive things Valliant relates about O’Connor come from the Brandens’ books.

Rand’s Marriage a Fraud?

In PARC, 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 claimed that Barbara Branden describes the O’Connors’ marriage as “something of a fraud . . . .”


However, 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’ 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. It is not hard to believe that in such an unusual marriage one or both of the parties would consider divorce. Even Valliant concedes, "[w]hether they were always truly happy together, especially in light of Rand's affair, can be questioned . . . ." (PARC, p. 157.)

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:


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? . . .'" Branden interprets this as, in part at least, a concern for how Frank would support himself after a divorce. (PAR, p. 263.) 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.”

Troubles in the Forties

Barbara Branden reports that the O’Connors’ marriage was in such trouble in the forties due to the lack of intellectual communication that Rand considered divorce. Contrary to Valliant, there is little evidence that undercuts this. Valliant does not cite a single report of any “intellectual communication” between Rand and O’Connor, or between O’Connor and someone else. When asked post-PARC about the opinion that members of Rand’s inner circle had of Frank’s intellectual abilities, the most Valliant was willing to report is a claim by Leonard Peikoff that O’Connor was “no dummy.” Branden’s contention that the O’Connors’ marriage was troubled due to a lack of intellectual communication is believable.

The once piece of evidence which Valliant can point to support a contrary inference is a letter from Rand to Archibald Ogden in 1949 in which Rand wrote that O'Connor was a "severe critic" and that he "refused to see that it [Atlas Shrugged] was bigger in scope and scale than The Fountainhead." (PARC, p. 161.) The former is rather nebulous and it's hard to see what to make of it unless we are given some examples. The latter is not evidence, knowing Rand's frustration that people were slow to understand her ideas.

There is evidence which rebuts Valliant’s claim that there was sufficient intellectual communication between Rand and O’Connor. The first piece of evidence is the affair with Nathaniel Branden. Part of the reason for the affair was likely Rand's belief that Nathaniel provided her with an intellectual relationship that was lacking. Leonard Peikoff says in the Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life documentary that Rand embarked on the affair with Branden because she needed more than Frank could offer intellectually. I don't find it hard to believe that if Rand embarked an extra-marital affair for such a reason, she might also have considered divorce for the same reason.

The second piece of evidence is the following account from PAR itself, which indicates that Rand turned to Frank’s brother Nick for intellectual “feedback”:


Mimi Sutton was Frank's niece. She was never part of Rand's inner circle and never had a falling out with her. (In fact, she spoke to Rand shortly before her death.)

Frank O’Connor’s Consumption of Alcohol

The most sensational charge in The Passion of Ayn Rand was Barbara Branden’s claim that the affair led to Frank consuming excessive quantities of alcohol. As Branden tells it:


This “recovered alcoholic” was identified by Barbara Branden in 2006 as Don Ventura, a sculptor. According to Branden, she has a letter containing Ventura’s statement. I have not seen this letter, so I can’t comment on the substance of it, but I find no reason to doubt that Ventura was an acquaintance of O’Connor’s and knew him well enough to comment on his drinking habits. Valliant’s surmise that that such a witness didn’t exist (PARC, pp. 142-43) is without merit.

Concerning O’Connor’s drinking in later years, this appears well-documented. Branden has the statements of Elayne Kalberman, Barbara Weiss and Eloise Huggins. Kalberman and Weiss report that O’Connor drank excessively. Huggins was Rand’s housekeeper who in PAR is reported to have found empty bottles “each week” in O’Connor’s studio. (PAR, p. 366.) Valliant argues that Rand’s housekeeper was unhappy with what Branden reported about her. Valliant’s only evidence for this is a statement by Leonard Peikoff reporting that Huggins allegedly took issue with Branden’s characterization of her statement. (PARC, p. 144.) It is also the case that in his later years O’Connor suffered from senility and that this may have caused or exacerbated any excessive consumption of alcohol. One can only hope that all parties will release, to the extent confidentiality requirements permit, witness statements and interviews. My tentative conclusion is that O’Connor did consume alcohol excessively in his later years, and probably earlier.

Frank O’Connor the Hero

Both Nathaniel and Barbara Branden write that Rand praised O’Connor’s abilities beyond what they were in reality. Valliant’s response to such claims is that Rand, in praising O’Connor as a “hero,” was only praising his values and not implying that he had the intelligence, abilities and ambition of Randian heroes such as Howard Roark and John Galt. He says:


This is another misrepresentation of what Barbara Branden says. She says:


Branden does give more than one, solitary example. Whether Rand’s comment that “[a]ll my heroes will always be reflections of Frank” (PARC, p. 158) does not contain at least a tinge of exaggeration, I leave to others to decide.

Roll Up Your Sleeves

During our debate on some of these questions, Valliant chided me on an alleged failure to do a “roll-up-your-sleeves” type investigation which seeks out all the available evidence. Such a charge is unfair given that I am willing to travel to the Ayn Rand Archives in California to see if Valliant’s claims can be verified. Nonetheless, Valliant’s claim is odd in that, by his own admission, he had complete access to all the material in the Archives and also (by his own admission) refused to even listen to the interviews that could shed light on these and other issues. Keeping in mind that PARC was published in 2005, the following is from various newsletters of the Archives (2000 and before):


Valliant’s critics cannot be blamed for not doing the necessary archival and other research when he had the opportunity to access a tremendous amount of material which could have helped (or undermined) his case, but failed to do so.

Conclusion

Having now critiqued chapter five of in-depth, our conclusion that PARC’s mistakes and distortions are so systematic as to render it seriously flawed as a critique of the Brandens’ works is further strengthened.

Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore
by Michael Stuart Kelly

In early 2005, an unknown author and government attorney, James Valliant, published a book entitled The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. It is abbreviated as PARC.

The thesis of the book is that both Brandens had badly damaged Rand's reputation by smearing her in an underhanded—not easily perceived—manner in their published books and that Rand's own journal entries at the time of the break between her and the Brandens prove her to be such a victim.

At the time of publication, this book received the endorsement of almost the entire orthodox Objectivist community. This was fueled by the fact that Leonard Peikoff, Rand's heir, had granted Valliant the right to publish Ayn Rand's journal entries from the time of the break, going from the end of 1967 up to the middle of 1968. Peikoff also heartily endorsed the book by claiming the following*:


I admit I also think of Valliant sometimes as a "that" and not as a "who." I also admit that this is not very important, but there it is. This quote was posted by the Chicago Objectivist Society in their announcement of Valliant's talk on April 15, 2006.

* NOTE ON MAY 20, 2008: Valliant just revealed that this quote is from the video jacket of Ideas in Action, which, according to him, was published 10 years earlier than PARC. I just documented this in a post. As you can see in the full context in the Noodelfood post reproduced below, there is a strong insinuation that Peikoff wrote this to plug PARC. At any rate, Peikoff endorsed PARC enough to let Valliant use Rand's unpublished journal entries. I have no formal knowledge of what his evaluation of the finished book is, but I have a good guess, and I guess it has changed over time.

There are no archives of this announcement on the Chicago Objectivist Society's website and the Wayback Machine entry for it apparently has been deleted. The entire announcement, however, was repeated verbatim on Noodlefood on March 21, 2006. Here is the full blog post in case it should likewise disappear one day (I did not include the links in the post):