tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post115813795942486186..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Real DealDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-10379530158553278402007-08-17T18:48:00.000-07:002007-08-17T18:48:00.000-07:00when i was 18 to 24 i read everything ayn rand wro...when i was 18 to 24 i read everything ayn rand wrote. big devotee. now, 17 years later, i noticed my thinking has changed 180 degrees. wow.mista kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00142688385474240046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1160601415188802542006-10-11T14:16:00.000-07:002006-10-11T14:16:00.000-07:00Thanks for sharing your review, Daniel. I dislike ...Thanks for sharing your review, Daniel. I dislike Valliant a great deal just from reading his arrogant posts on SOLO but I thought his book was a long overdue corrective to the self-serving BS of both Brandens and between the two it's hard to say <BR/>who is more contemptible. Obviously<BR/>Nathan is smarter but they both share Rand's bad politics on the Mideast and other issues. <BR/>And while it's true that Valliant strains to give Rand the benefit<BR/>of the doubt on everything, it is<BR/>a damning indictment of the many lies of both Brandens. It could<BR/>only be compared to Walker in the sense of a reverse mirror. Just<BR/>as Rand is the anti-Marx. If you <BR/>have been following the extensive debate here the Randroids have been<BR/>winning it hands down. I remember<BR/>Nathan's 1971 interview with Reason in which he stated that it would have been easier for him to<BR/>make a name for himself without Rand. Right. I couldn't stop laughing for a week. NO one would<BR/>ever had heard of either Branden<BR/>except for the association with Rand.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1159837866661321732006-10-02T18:11:00.000-07:002006-10-02T18:11:00.000-07:00Daniel,That is a subtheme of the book. The Brande...Daniel,<BR/><BR/>That is a subtheme of the book. The Brandens have allgedly abandoned Objectivism so they can't be trusted. So when they think that Rand was too judgmental, they believe that judgment is per se evil, when they think Rand got too angry, they believe that anger is per se evil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1159837407118294952006-10-02T18:03:00.000-07:002006-10-02T18:03:00.000-07:00Mark Plus:>You can download an interview with Jame...Mark Plus:<BR/>>You can download an interview with James Valliant from this page.<BR/><BR/>I listened to most of it. Naturally he sounds quite calm and reasonable. Just like David Icke....;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1159837301341400062006-10-02T18:01:00.000-07:002006-10-02T18:01:00.000-07:00J Goard:>How evil must Barbara Branden be! to make...J Goard:<BR/>>How evil must Barbara Branden be! to make a generalization about someone's personality that does not apply to every waking moment of that person's life.<BR/><BR/>This sort of thing is typical of the entire book. James Valliant would have you believe this is because Barbara Branden,being evil, does not think A=A.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1158202658770622812006-09-13T19:57:00.000-07:002006-09-13T19:57:00.000-07:00You can download an interview with James Valliant ...You can download an interview with James Valliant from <A HREF="http://www.prodos.com/archive073jamesvalliant01.html" REL="nofollow">this page</A>.Mark Plushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03859046131830902921noreply@blogger.com