Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

Forbes

After Cashing Out Of The Permian, This Oil Tycoon Is Reinvesting - In Ayn Rand Forbes He's backed two other movies, less anodyne, more odd: Atlas Shrugged II (2012) and Atlas Shrugged III (2014). He got involved after filmmakers tackled the first part of Ayn Rand's epic novel, but couldn't find backing to complete the series. I'm a big ...

Visit link:

After Cashing Out Of The Permian, This Oil Tycoon Is Reinvesting - In Ayn Rand - Forbes

New York Times

David Grann: By the Book New York Times I still remember my misery getting to the end of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. In recent years, I've become more coldhearted and will often quickly ditch a book I don't like yet I'm not so coldhearted to name names. Whom would you want to write your bio?

See the original post:

David Grann: By the Book - New York Times

On October 25, 2016, at a Florida rally, Donald Trumpboasted of his intentions to repeal the Affordable Care Act: Youre going to have such great health care at a tiny fraction of the cost, and its going to be so easy.

On February 28, President Trump mused from the White House, I have to tell you, its an unbelievably complex subject. Nobody knew health care could be so complicated.

On March 6, House Republicans unveiled the American Health Care Act, their plan to repeal and replace Obamacare.

On March 23, President Trump demanded a House vote on AHCA. Hours later, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan pulled the bill from consideration. They didnt have the votes.

The stunning failure of AHCA, President Trumps top legislative priority, was the first high profile chance for Mr. Trump to showcase his leadership skills. Several factors contributed to its swift belly flop. Speaker Ryan badly miscalculated his ability to massage the political and ideological needs of his caucus, despite a massive Republican majority that had been salivating to scrap Obamacare for years. Crucially, the substance of the bill pleased no one. According to an infamous Quinnipiac poll released on the eve of the Congressional showdown, just 17% of the public supported the AHCApopularity roughly on par with Subways Jared Foglewhich makes the White Houses current bid to resurrect the bill all the more dubious. But equally significant is that the bills implosion served as a swift rebuke to Trumps oft-touted skills as a dealmaker; the president flexed his negotiating muscles, meeting repeatedly with congressional Republicans and twisting arms on Twitter, but he was unable to persuade his own party.

Though stung by its failure, Republicans are currently reviving AHCA in a bid to beef up Trumps 100-day scorecardand its fate is far from certain. But the initial AHCA disaster is indicative of why Trump is struggling to find his footing. As his presidency reaches its 100-day mark this weekend, Trump is floundering under the weight of historically low approval ratings, failed legislation, self-inflicted controversies, simmering overseas tensions, and an ongoing FBI investigation into his potential collusion with a foreign adversary. The most obvious factor is his personality and temperament, and indeed, Trumps affinity for chaos has not been tempered by the weight of the office. But many of his problems are more boring, stemming from his flat disinterest in leading the charge on policy.

Legislation tailored to Trumps stated goalsdriving down costs and boosting coveragemay have garnered public support. Instead, the CBO estimated the AHCA would leave 24 million without insurance and significantly increase premiums for millions. His AHCA bear-hug is the most prominent instance yet of Trump abandoning central promises to acquiesce to mainstream conservatism. As his governing style emerges, it appears that Trumps presidency is flailing because he fundamentally misunderstands his own appeal.

Trump the Campaigner prevailed by positioning himself as the establishments worst enemy. This was especially advantageous during the primaries, as he courted a party disgusted with politicians of all stripes. Republican voters greeted him as a refreshing antidote to the smarmy phoniness of Ted Cruz, the focus-grouped robotics of Marco Rubio, and the effete weakness of Jeb Bush. Trump dismantled his competition, exploiting their weaknesses with the precision of the worlds most hurtful schoolyard bully. Combative, acidic, and obsessed with winning at all costs, Trump was uniquely suited to prevail against the tempered caution of DC politicians, conquering each rising candidate as if levelling up in a video game.

He utilized the same tactics against Hillary Clinton, contrasting his outsider status and business acumen with her coziness with Washington and seemingly endless black cloud of scandal. He never successfully lifted his own favorability numbers out of the toilet, but he ably molded the matchup into a lesser of two evils dynamic capitalizing on Clinton fatigue and a perfect storm of unanticipated events, including a host of Wikileaks revelations and James Comeys late-October letter to Congress.

One can imagine a successful Trump presidencyor one, at least, that harnesses the campaigns populism and amasses public support. Elitists and experts were blind to Trumps appeal partially because he aggressively poked at longstanding partisan conventions; similarly, a successful President Trump might internalize the lessons of 2016 and seek to reshape the parties to his liking. Congressional Republicans spent years building the case for entitlement reform; Trump insisted Medicare and Social Security were sacred. The GOP scoffed at Obamas infrastructure proposals; Trump touted it as a top priority. Conservatives historically favor free trade; Trump sneered at recent trade deals with contempt. Trumps promise to drain the swamp, a central closing argument, implicitly condemned both parties. Equally intriguing was foreign policy; Trump cast Bush hawkishness as foolish and Obama diplomacy as nave and unsafe, instead proposing vaguely that we be smart and strong. Even where they lacked coherence, these proposals were framed as irrefutable common sense. Trump often sounded like your uncle a few beers deep, disgusted with our stupid leaders and convinced the problems were easily fixableif only someone smart could be in charge. Hell, it could even be you or me. His confidence was compelling, even if his policy grasp didnt exceed the average YouTube comment.

The problem with Trumps ideology being the blueprint for his success is that, as it turns out, Trump doesnt really have an ideology. WrestleManiaopticsappearance of strength, embarrassment of rivalsovershadow principles; Trump is more animated by what CNN panelists deem to be a political win than whether or not he executes a consistent and effective governing philosophy. He wears his interests on his sleeve; ask yourself how many times this year you have heard Trump dive into specific AHCA provisions, and then ask yourself how many times you have heard him reference his electoral victory. The variance is telling.

This worldview is in stark contrast to Speaker Ryan, a key architect of the pre-Trump modern Republican vision. Ryan bristles not only at Trumps abrasive rhetoric and tone, but also at his ventures outside of traditional conservative orthodoxy. Ryan has never been surer of his destination, but hes deeply uncomfortable that Trump has become his vehicle. Theirs is the most obvious of shotgun weddings, a couple mismatched in all but their desire to raise this new set of tax cuts as their own. If their pairing was for a class project rather than as two of the governments most powerful men, it would likely end with Trump knocking a red-faced Ryans copy of Atlas Shrugged off his desk.

As Trump has attempted to convert his ideas into policy, an ideological tug-of-war in the White House has >stumbled into public view pitting the more traditional conservatives (Ryan, Vice President Pence, First Son-In-Law Jared Kushner) against the burn-it-down nationalism of Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller that fueled the campaign. At the moment, it appears the traditional conservatives have the upper hand. In 2016, Trump troubled foreign policy experts by declaring NATO obsolete and promising to label China a currency manipulator. This month, he reversed both stances. In 2015, he came out against the Export-Import Bank; this month, he called it a very good thing. In 2013, he savaged President Obama for proposing military intervention in Syria; this month, he ordered intervention himself, savaging Obama for not doing it earlier.

Supporters suggest these flip-flops reflect the pragmatism necessary to navigate the complicated dynamic with Congress. Its difficult not to feel, though, that this is just an extension of Trumps slippery relationship with the truth. Within hours of his inauguration, he sent his press secretary out to lie about his crowd size. Last month, he falsely tweeted that President Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, prompting congressional Republicans to twist themselves into pretzels to corroborate his social media ramblings despite all evidence to the contrary.

Flip-flops are not the same thing as an outright lie, but both have been stubborn constants in the Trump presidency so far. If he can win an election claiming that Mexico will pay for a border wall and then govern based on the reality that they will do no such thing, where does that leave us? It probably doesnt really matter if he was lying all along or if somebody finally sat him down and explained reality to him; were stuck with the tab either way. Trumps motivations may be unclear, but his embrace of conspiracy theories and disingenuous FAKE NEWS accusations are muddying the water in ways that will be difficult to reverse. The constant misdirection and distortion of truth will have a corrosive effect likely to far outlast any of his policy changes in the first 100 days.

It has been suggested that every presidents successor is his opposite. This is true of Barack vs. Donald: just listen to them speak. Obamas sentences stalled and buffered as he formulated the best version of his thoughts; Trumps barrel ahead like a freight train with a conductor as unsure as we are of how this will end. The professorial Powerpoint presentation of Look . . . Let me be clear is a world away from the wide-eyed cocaine bender of Its gonna be fantastic, that I can tell you. . . Believe me.

These stylistic tendencies bleed into their governing too. Its why Obamacare squeaked past the finish line after a robust, methodical thirteen-month debate, while the AHCA crashed and burned after three weeks. Similarly, its why the Trump administration rushed out a travel ban that couldnt pass legal muster, and replaced it with another one that still couldnt. They want the sugar high of a promise kept without eating their vegetables, and it has given the early days of the administration an unmistakable stench of incompetence.

Analysis of a Presidents first 100 days can be arbitrary and overblown; a lot will happen before the 2018 election consumes Washington. It is useful, however, in measuring a presidents effectiveness when his political capital is at its peak. As Trump reaches his milestone, its impossible to shake the feeling that he is in over his head, unsure of his convictions and unable to lead effectively. While an early flurry of activity suggested a productive agenda, most of his executive actions are minor (the Keystone Pipeline and all 35 of its jobs), moronic (the 2-for-1 regulations rule), already reversed (the federal hiring freeze), or tied up in the courts (the travel ban)and the legislative scorecard is even uglier.

The confirmation of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court (achieved by stealing a vacant seat and changing Senate rules) remains his single big victory. The November Carrier jobs deal showed a glimpse of the populist president Democrats feared Trump might be. Disregarding the merits of the deal, Carrier was a PR slam-dunk that positioned Trump as a champion of the workingman. Since then, Trump has tamed his big government impulses, pursuing something more palatable with Tea Party-style conservatism.

This suggests that President Trumps inner compass will point to convenience before any overarching philosophy. Paired with his volatile temper and disregard for norms and institutions, it lends the Trump administration an unprecedented level of unpredictabilityand with it, a palatable national anxiety. Maybe tomorrow well wake up to more tweets about Schwarzeneggers Celebrity Apprentice ratingsor maybe well bomb North Korea. Even now, 100 days into it, we have no idea what the rest of a Trump presidency has in store for us. Neither does Donald Trump.

Link:

Trump's First 100 Days: We Don't Know What He's Thinking and Neither Does He - Paste Magazine

INTRODUCTION

Ayn Rand held that art is a re-creation of reality according to an artists metaphysical value judgments. By its nature, therefore, a novel (like a statue or a symphony) does not require or tolerate an explanatory preface; it is a self-contained universe, aloof from commentary, beckoning the reader to enter, perceive, respond.

Ayn Rand would never have approved of a didactic (or laudatory) introduction to her book, and I have no intention of flouting her wishes. Instead, I am going to give her the floor. I am going to let you in on some of the thinking she did as she was preparing to write Atlas Shrugged.

Before starting a novel, Ayn Rand wrote voluminously in her journals about its theme, plot, and characters. She wrote not for any audience, but strictly for herselfthat is, for the clarity of her own understanding. The journals dealing withAtlas Shruggedare powerful examples of her mind in action, confident even when groping, purposeful even when stymied, luminously eloquent even though wholly unedited. These journals are also a fascinating record of the step-by-step birth of an immortal work of art.

In due course, all of Ayn Rands writings will be published. For this 35th anniversary edition ofAtlas Shrugged,however, I have selected, as a kind of advance bonus for her fans, four typical journal entries. Let me warn new readers that the passages reveal the plot and will spoil the book for anyone who reads them before knowing the story.

As I recall, Atlas Shrugged did not become the novels title until Miss Rands husband made the suggestion in 1956. The working title throughout the writing was The Strike.

The earliest of Miss Rands notes for The Strike are dated January 1, 1945, about a year after the publication ofThe Fountainhead.Naturally enough, the subject on her mind was how to differentiate the present novel from its predecessor.

Theme. What happens to the world when the Prime Movers go on strike.

This meansa picture of the world with its motor cut off. Show: what, how, why. The specific steps and incidentsin terms of persons, their spirits, motives, psychology and actionsand, secondarily, proceeding from persons, in terms of history, society and the world.

The theme requires: to show who are the prime movers and why, how they function. Who are their enemies and why, what are the motives behind the hatred for and the enslavement of the prime movers; the nature of the obstacles placed in their way, and the reasons for it.

This last paragraph is contained entirely inThe Fountainhead.Roark and Toohey are the complete statement of it. Therefore, this is not the direct theme ofThe Strikebut it is part of the theme and must be kept in mind, stated again (though briefly) to have the theme clear and complete.

First question to decide is on whom the emphasis must be placedon the prime movers, the parasites or the world. The answer is:The world.The story must be primarily a picture of the whole.

In this sense,The Strikeis to be much more a social novel thanThe Fountainhead. The Fountainheadwas about individualism and collectivism within mans soul; it showed the nature and function of the creator and the second-hander. The primary concern there was with Roark and Tooheyshowing what they are. The rest of the characters were variations of the theme of the relation of the ego to othersmixtures of the two extremes, the two poles: Roark and Toohey. The primary concern of the story was the characters, the people as suchtheirnatures. Their relations to each otherwhich is society, men in relation to menwere secondary, an unavoidable, direct consequence of Roark set against Toohey. But it was not the theme.

Now, it is thisrelationthat must be the theme. Therefore, the personal becomes secondary. That is, the personal is necessary only to the extent needed to make the relationships clear. InThe FountainheadI showed that Roark moves the worldthat the Keatings feed upon him and hate him for it, while the Tooheys are out consciously to destroy him. But the theme was Roarknot Roarks relation to the world. Now it will be the relation.

In other words, I must show in what concrete, specific way the world is moved by the creators. Exactlyhowdo the second-handers live on the creators. Both inspiritualmattersand (most particularly) in concrete, physical events. (Concentrate on the concrete, physical eventsbut dont forget to keep in mind at all times how the physical proceeds from the spiritual.) . . .

However, for the purpose of this story, I do not start by showinghowthe second-handers live on the prime movers in actual, everyday realitynor do I start by showing a normal world. (That comes in only in necessary retrospect, or flashback, or by implication in the events themselves.) I start with the fantastic premise of the prime movers going on strike.This is the actual heart and center of the novel. A distinction carefully to be observed here: I do not set out to glorify the prime mover (that was The Fountainhead). I set out to show how desperately the world needs prime movers, and how viciously it treats them. And I show it on a hypothetical casewhat happens to the world without them.

InThe FountainheadI did not show how desperately the world needed Roarkexcept by implication. I did show how viciously the world treated him, and why. I showedmainly what he is.It was Roarks story. This must be the worlds storyin relation to its prime movers. (Almostthe story of a body in relation to its hearta body dying of anemia.)

I dont show directly what the prime movers dothats shown only by implication. Ishow what happens when they dont do it.(Through that, you see the picture of what they do, their place and their role.) (This is an important guide for the construction of the story.)

In order to work out the story, Ayn Rand had to understand fully why the prime moversallowedthe second-handers to live on themwhy the creators had not gone on strike throughout historywhat errors even the best of them made that kept them in thrall to the worst. Part of the answer is dramatized in the character of Dagny Taggart, the railroad heiress who declares war on the strikers. Here is a note on her psychology, dated April 18, 1946:

Her errorand the cause of her refusal to join the strikeis over-optimism and over-confidence (particularly this last). Over-optimismin that she thinks men are better than they are, she doesnt really understand them and is generous about it.

Over-confidencein that she thinks she can do more than an individual actually can. She thinks she can run a railroad (or the world) single-handed, she can make people do what she wants or needs, what is right, by the sheer force of her own talent; not byforcingthem, of course, not by enslaving them and giving ordersbut by the sheer over-abundance of her own energy; she will show them how, she can teach them and persuade them, she is so able that theyll catch it from her. (This is still faith in their rationality, in the omnipotence of reason. The mistake? Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone.)

On these two points, Dagny is committing an important (but excusable and understandable) error in thinking, the kind of error individualists and creators often make. It is an error proceeding from the best in their nature and from a proper principle, but this principle is misapplied. . . .

The error is this: it is proper for a creator to be optimistic, in the deepest, most basic sense, since the creator believes in a benevolent universe and functions on that premise. But it is an error to extend that optimism to otherspecificmen. First, its not necessary, the creators life and the nature of the universe do not require it, his life does not depend on others. Second, man is a being with free will; therefore, each man is potentially good or evil, and its up to him and only to him (through his reasoning mind) to decide which he wants to be. The decision will affect only him; it is not (and cannot and should not be) the primary concern of any other human being.

Therefore, while a creator does and must worshipMan(which means his own highest potentiality; which is his natural self-reverence), he must not make the mistake of thinking that this means the necessity to worshipMankind(as a collective). These are two entirely different conceptions, with entirely(immensely and diametrically opposed)different consequences.

Man, at his highest potentiality, is realized and fulfilled within each creator himself. . . .Whether the creator is alone, or finds only a handful of others like him, or is among the majority of mankind, is of no importance or consequence whatever; numbers have nothing to do with it. He alone or he and a few others like himaremankind, in the proper sense of being the proof of what man actually is, man at his best, the essential man, man at his highest possibility. (Therationalbeing, who acts according to his nature.)

It should not matter to a creator whether anyone or a million orallthe men around him fall short of the ideal of Man; let him live up to that ideal himself; this is all the optimism about Man that he needs. But this is a hard and subtle thing to realizeand it would be natural for Dagny always to make the mistake of believing others are better than they really are (or will become better, or she will teach them to become better or, actually, she so desperatelywantsthem to be better)and to be tied to the world by that hope.

It is proper for a creator to have an unlimited confidence in himself and his ability, to feel certain that he can get anything he wishes out of life, that he can accomplish anything he decides to accomplish, and that its up to him to do it. (He feels it because he is a man of reason . . .) [But] here is what he must keep clearly in mind: it is true that a creator can accomplish anything he wishesif he functions according to the nature of man, the universe and his own proper morality, that is, if he does not place his wish primarily within others and does not attempt or desire anything that is of a collective nature, anything that concerns othersprimarilyor requires primarily the exercise of the will of others. (This would be an immoraldesire or attempt, contrary to his nature as a creator.) If he attempts that, he is out of a creators province and in that of the collectivist and the second-hander.

Therefore, he must never feel confident that he can do anything whatever to, by or through others. (He cantand he shouldnt even wish to try itand the mere attempt is improper.) He must not think that he can . . . somehow transfer his energy and his intelligence to them and make them fit for his purposes in that way. He must face other men as they are, recognizing them as essentially independent entities, by nature, and beyond hisprimaryinfluence; [he must] deal with them only on his own, independent terms, deal with such as he judges can fit his purpose or live up to his standards (by themselves and of their own will, independently of him) and expect nothing from the others. . . .

Now, in Dagnys case, her desperate desire is to run Taggart Transcontinental. She sees that there are no men suited to her purpose around her, no men of ability, independence and competence. She thinks she can run it with others, with the incompetent and the parasites, either by training them or merely by treating them as robots who will take her orders and function without personal initiative or responsibility;with herself, in effect, being the spark of initiative, the bearer of responsibility for a whole collective.This cant be done. This is her crucial error.

This is where she fails.

Ayn Rands basic purpose as a novelist was to present not villains or even heroes with errors, but the ideal manthe consistent, the fully integrated, the perfect. InAtlas Shrugged,this is John Galt, the towering figure who moves the world and the novel, yet does not appear onstage until Part III. By his nature (and that of the story) Galt is necessarily central to the lives of all the characters. In one note, Galts relation to the others, dated June 27, 1946, Miss Rand defines succinctly what Galt represents to each of them:

For Dagnythe ideal. The answer to her two quests: the man of genius and the man she loves. The first quest is expressed in her search for the inventor of the engine. The secondher growing conviction that she will never be in love . . .

For Reardenthe friend. The kind of understanding and appreciation he has always wanted and did not know he wanted (or he thought he had ithe tried to find it in those around him, to get it from his wife, his mother, brother and sister).

For Francisco dAnconiathe aristocrat. The only man who represents a challenge and a stimulantalmost the proper kind of audience, worthy of stunning for the sheer joy and color of life.

For Danneskjldthe anchor. The only man who represents land and roots to a restless, reckless wanderer, like the goal of a struggle, the port at the end of a fierce sea-voyagethe only man he can respect.

For the Composerthe inspiration and the perfect audience.

For the Philosopherthe embodiment of his abstractions.

For Father Amadeusthe source of his conflict. The uneasy realization that Galt is the endofhis endeavors, the man of virtue, the perfect manand that his means do not fit this end (and that he is destroying this, his ideal, for the sake of those who are evil).

To James Taggartthe eternal threat. The secret dread. The reproach. The guilt (his own guilt). He has no specific tie-in with Galtbut he has that constant, causeless, unnamed, hysterical fear. And he recognizes it when he hears Galts broadcast and when he sees Galt in person for the first time.

To the Professorhis conscience. The reproach and reminder. The ghost that haunts him through everything he does, without a moments peace. The thing that says:Noto his whole life.

Some notes on the above: Reardens sister, Stacy, was a minor character later cut from the novel.

Francisco was spelled Francesco in these early years, while Danneskjlds first name at this point was Ivar, presumably after Ivar Kreuger, the Swedish match king, who was the real-life model of Bjorn Faulkner inNight of January 16th.

Father Amadeus was Taggarts priest, to whom he confessed his sins. The priest was supposed to be a positive character, honestly devoted to the good but practicing consistently the morality of mercy. Miss Rand dropped him, she told me, when she found that it was impossible to make such a character convincing.

The Professor is Robert Stadler.

This brings me to a final excerpt. Because of her passion for ideas, Miss Rand was often asked whether she was primarily a philosopher or a novelist. In later years, she was impatient with this question, but she gave her own answer, to and for herself, in a note dated May 4, 1946. The broader context was a discussion of the nature of creativity.

I seem to be both a theoretical philosopher and a fiction writer. But it is the last that interests me most; the first is only the means to the last; the absolutely necessary means, but only the means; the fiction story is the end. Without an understanding and statement of the right philosophical principle, I cannot create the right story; but the discovery of the principle interests me only as the discovery of the proper knowledge to be used for my life purpose; and my life purpose is the creation of the kind of world (people and events) that I likethat is, that represents human perfection.

Philosophical knowledge is necessary in order to define human perfection. But I do not care to stop at the definition. I want touseit, to apply itin my work (in my personal life, toobut the core, center and purpose of my personal life, of mywholelife, is my work).

This is why, I think, the idea of writing a philosophical nonfiction book bored me. In such a book, the purpose would actually be to teach others, to present my idea tothem.In a book of fiction the purpose is to create, for myself, the kind of world I want and to live in it while I am creating it; then, as a secondary consequence, to let others enjoy this world, if, and to the extent that they can.

It may be said that the first purpose of a philosophical book is the clarification or statement of your new knowledge to and for yourself; and then, as a secondary step, the offering of your knowledge to others. But here is the difference, as far as I am concerned: I have to acquire and state to myself the new philosophical knowledge or principle I used in order to write a fiction story as its embodiment and illustration; I do not care to write a story on a theme or thesis of old knowledge, knowledge stated or discovered by someone else, that is, someone elses philosophy (because those philosophies are wrong). To this extent, I am an abstract philosopher (I want to present the perfect man and his perfect lifeand I must also discover my own philosophical statement and definition of this perfection).

But when and if I have discovered such new knowledge, I am not interested in stating it in its abstract, general form, that is, as knowledge. I am interested in using it, in applying itthat is, in stating it in the concrete form of men and events, in the form of a fiction story.This lastis my final purpose, my end; the philosophical knowledge or discovery is only the means to it. For my purpose, the non-fiction form of abstract knowledge doesnt interest me; the final, applied form of fiction, of story, does. (I state the knowledge to myself, anyway; but I choose the final form of it, the expression, in the completed cycle that leads back to man.)

I wonder to what extent I represent a peculiar phenomenon in this respect. I think I represent the proper integration of a complete human being. Anyway,thisshould be my lead for the character of John Galt.He, too, is a combination of an abstract philosopher and a practical inventor; the thinker and the man of action together . . .

In learning, we draw an abstraction from concrete objects and events. In creating, we make our own concrete objects and events out of the abstraction; we bring the abstraction down and back to its specific meaning, to the concrete; but the abstraction has helped us to make thekind of concrete we want the concrete to be.It has helped us to createto reshape the world as we wish it to be for our purposes.

I cannot resist quoting one further paragraph. It comes a few pages later in the same discussion.

Incidentally, as a sideline observation: if creative fiction writing is a process of translating an abstraction into the concrete, there are three possible grades of such writing: translating an old (known) abstraction (theme or thesis) through the medium of old fiction means (that is, characters, events or situations used before for that same purpose, that same translation)this is most of the popular trash; translating an old abstraction through new, original fiction meansthis is most of the good literature; creating a new, original abstraction and translating it through new, original means. This, as far as I know, is onlyme my kind of fiction writing. May God forgive me (Metaphor!) if this is mistaken conceit! As near as I can now see it, it isnt. (A fourth possibilitytranslating a new abstraction through old meansis impossible, by definition: if the abstraction is new, there can be no means used by anybody else before to translate it.)

Isher conclusion mistaken conceit? It is now forty-five years since she wrote this note, and you are holding Ayn Rands master-work in your hands.

You decide.

Leonard Peikoff

September 1991

PART ONE

NON-CONTRADICTION

Chapter I

THE THEME

Who is John Galt?

The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bums face. The bum had said it simply, without expression. But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie Willers, mocking and stillas if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him.

Why did you say that? asked Eddie Willers, his voice tense.

The bum leaned against the side of the doorway; a wedge of broken glass behind him reflected the metal yellow of the sky.

Why does it bother you? he asked.

It doesnt, snapped Eddie Willers.

He reached hastily into his pocket. The bum had stopped him and asked for a dime, then had gone on talking, as if to kill that moment and postpone the problem of the next. Pleas for dimes were so frequent in the streets these days that it was not necessary to listen to explanations and he had no desire to hear the details of this bums particular despair.

Go get your cup of coffee, he said, handing the dime to the shadow that had no face.

Thank you, sir, said the voice, without interest, and the face leaned forward for a moment. The face was wind-browned, cut by lines of weariness and cynical resignation; the eyes were intelligent.

Eddie Willers walked on, wondering why he always felt it at this time of day, this sense of dread without reason. No, he thought, not dread, theres nothing to fear: just an immense, diffused apprehension, with no source or object. He had become accustomed to the feeling, but he could find no explanation for it; yet the bum had spoken as if he knew that Eddie felt it, as if he thought that one should feel it, and more: as if he knew the reason.

Eddie Willers pulled his shoulders straight, in conscientious self-discipline. He had to stop this, he thought; he was beginning to imagine things. Had he always felt it? He was thirty-two years old. He tried to think back. No, he hadnt; but he could not remember when it had started. The feeling came to him suddenly, at random intervals, and now it was coming more often than ever. Its the twilight, he thought; I hate the twilight.

The clouds and the shafts of skyscrapers against them were turning brown, like an old painting in oil, the color of a fading masterpiece. Long streaks of grime ran from under the pinnacles down the slender, soot-eaten walls. High on the side of a tower there was a crack in the shape of a motionless lightning, the length of ten stories. A jagged object cut the sky above the roofs; it was half a spire, still holding the glow of the sunset; the gold leaf had long since peeled off the other half. The glow was red and still, like the reflection of a fire: not an active fire, but a dying one which it is too late to stop.

No, thought Eddie Willers, there was nothing disturbing in the sight of the city. It looked as it had always looked.

He walked on, reminding himself that he was late in returning to the office. He did not like the task which he had to perform on his return, but it had to be done. So he did not attempt to delay it, but made himself walk faster.

He turned a corner. In the narrow space between the dark silhouettes of two buildings, as in the crack of a door, he saw the page of a gigantic calendar suspended in the sky.

It was the calendar that the mayor of New York had erected last year on the top of a building, so that citizens might tell the day of the month as they told the hours of the day, by glancing up at a public tower. A white rectangle hung over the city, imparting the date to the men in the streets below. In the rusty light of this evenings sunset, the rectangle said: September 2.

Eddie Willers looked away. He had never liked the sight of that calendar. It disturbed him, in a manner he could not explain or define. The feeling seemed to blend with his sense of uneasiness; it had the same quality.

He thought suddenly that there was some phrase, a kind of quotation, that expressed what the calendar seemed to suggest. But he could not recall it. He walked, groping for a sentence that hung in his mind as an empty shape. He could neither fill it nor dismiss it. He glanced back. The white rectangle stood above the roofs, saying in immovable finality: September 2.

Eddie Willers shifted his glance down to the street, to a vegetable pushcart at the stoop of a brownstone house. He saw a pile of bright gold carrots and the fresh green of onions. He saw a clean white curtain blowing at an open window. He saw a bus turning a corner, expertly steered. He wondered why he felt reassuredand then, why he felt the sudden, inexplicable wish that these things were not left in the open, unprotected against the empty space above.

When he came to Fifth Avenue, he kept his eyes on the windows of the stores he passed. There was nothing he needed or wished to buy; but he liked to see the display of goods, any goods, objects made by men, to be used by men. He enjoyed the sight of a prosperous street; not more than every fourth one of the stores was out of business, its windows dark and empty.

He did not know why he suddenly thought of the oak tree. Nothing had recalled it. But he thought of itand of his childhood summers on the Taggart estate. He had spent most of his childhood with the Taggart children, and now he worked for them, as his father and grandfather had worked for their father and grandfather.

The great oak tree had stood on a hill over the Hudson, in a lonely spot on the Taggart estate. Eddie Willers, aged seven, liked to come and look at that tree. It had stood there for hundreds of years, and he thought it would always stand there. Its roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers sunk into the soil, and he thought that if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole of the earth with it, like a ball at the end of a string. He felt safe in the oak trees presence; it was a thing that nothing could change or threaten; it was his greatest symbol of strength.

One night, lightning struck the oak tree. Eddie saw it the next morning. It lay broken in half, and he looked into its trunk as into the mouth of a black tunnel. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing insidejust a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape it left had not been able to stand without it.

Years later, he heard it said that children should be protected from shock, from their first knowledge of death, pain or fear. But these had never scarred him; his shock came when he stood very quietly, looking into the black hole of the trunk. It was an immense betrayalthe more terrible because he could not grasp what it was that had been betrayed. It was not himself, he knew, nor his trust; it was something else. He stood there for a while, making no sound, then he walked back to the house. He never spoke about it to anyone, then or since.

Eddie Willers shook his head, as the screech of a rusty mechanism changing a traffic light stopped him on the edge of a curb. He felt anger at himself. There was no reason that he had to remember the oak tree tonight. It meant nothing to him any longer, only a faint tinge of sadnessand somewhere within him, a drop of pain moving briefly and vanishing, like a raindrop on the glass of a window, its course in the shape of a question mark.

He wanted no sadness attached to his childhood; he loved its memories: any day of it he remembered now seemed flooded by a still, brilliant sunlight. It seemed to him as if a few rays from it reached into his present: not rays, more like pinpoint spotlights that gave an occasional moments glitter to his job, to his lonely apartment, to the quiet, scrupulous progression of his existence.

He thought of a summer day when he was ten years old. That day, in a clearing of the woods, the one precious companion of his childhood told him what they would do when they grew up. The words were harsh and glowing, like the sunlight. He listened in admiration and in wonder. When he was asked what he would want to do, he answered at once, Whatever is right, and added, You ought to do something great . . . I mean, the two of us together. What? she asked. He said, I dont know. Thats what we ought to find out. Not just what you said. Not just business and earning a living. Things like winning battles, or saving people out of fires, or climbing mountains. What for? she asked. He said, The minister said last Sunday that we must always reach for the best within us. What do you suppose is the best within us? I dont know. Well have to find out. She did not answer; she was looking away, up the railroad track.

Eddie Willers smiled. He had said, Whatever is right, twenty-two years ago. He had kept that statement unchallenged ever since; the other questions had faded in his mind; he had been too busy to ask them. But he still thought it self-evident that one had to do what was right; he had never learned how people could want to do otherwise; he had learned only that they did. It still seemed simple and incomprehensible to him: simple that things should be right, and incomprehensible that they werent. He knew that they werent. He thought of that, as he turned a corner and came to the great building of Taggart Transcontinental.

The building stood over the street as its tallest and proudest structure. Eddie Willers always smiled at his first sight of it. Its long bands of windows were unbroken, in contrast to those of its neighbors. Its rising lines cut the sky, with no crumbling corners or worn edges. It seemed to stand above the years, untouched. It would always stand there, thought Eddie Willers.

Whenever he entered the Taggart Building, he felt relief and a sense of security. This was a place of competence and power. The floors of its hallways were mirrors made of marble. The frosted rectangles of its electric fixtures were chips of solid light. Behind sheets of glass, rows of girls sat at typewriters, the clicking of their keys like the sound of speeding train wheels. And like an answering echo, a faint shudder went through the walls at times, rising from under the building, from the tunnels of the great terminal where trains started out to cross a continent and stopped after crossing it again, as they had started and stopped for generation after generation. Taggart Transcontinental, thought Eddie Willers, From Ocean to Oceanthe proud slogan of his childhood, so much more shining and holy than any commandment of the Bible. From Ocean to Ocean, foreverthought Eddie Willers, in the manner of a rededication, as he walked through the spotless halls into the heart of the building, into the office of James Taggart, President of Taggart Transcontinental.

James Taggart sat at his desk. He looked like a man approaching fifty, who had crossed into age from adolescence, without the intermediate stage of youth. He had a small, petulant mouth, and thin hair clinging to a bald forehead. His posture had a limp, decentralized sloppiness, as if in defiance of his tall, slender body, a body with an elegance of line intended for the confident poise of an aristocrat, but transformed into the gawkiness of a lout. The flesh of his face was pale and soft. His eyes were pale and veiled, with a glance that moved slowly, never quite stopping, gliding off and past things in eternal resentment of their existence. He looked obstinate and drained. He was thirty-nine years old.

He lifted his head with irritation, at the sound of the opening door.

Read more:

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand | NOOK Book (eBook ... - Barnes ...

Forbes

This Oil Tycoon And Ayn Rand Fan Says 'I Feel Better Living In Texas' Forbes In Atlas Shrugged, Rand created an oil tycoon character named Ellis Wyatt, who made his fictional fortune figuring out how to coax oil out of Colorado's thick layers of shale. A half-century later real-life oil mavericks like Harold Hamm, Mark Papa ...

Original post:

This Oil Tycoon And Ayn Rand Fan Says 'I Feel Better Living In Texas' - Forbes

LISTEN TO TLRS LATEST PODCAST:

By Preston Chaffee

But Without the Government Who Will

Youve heard it. Ive heard it. Weve all heard it. That nagging questions that liberty lovers just cant seem to shake: but without the government who will build the roads.

We have of course responded with some pretty hilarious memes but the frequency of this quasi defense reveals a disturbing trend among American citizens they honestly have no idea where their tax money goes. The Feds collected $3.27 trillion dollars in 2016, enough to build 1.6 million miles of road, but just 13,788 miles of road were paved so where did all that money go? Well, first we had to spend $80,000 torturing mice until they developed speech impediments. Then there was that janitor in San Francisco who makes $270,000 per year by signing up for overtime and then sleeping in a broom closet during that overtime hes gotta get paid too. Then of course, 200 people who had been dead for the entire year racked up $9,600,000 in medical bills. These facts being readily at hand, your response to the above question might be but without government, who will make the mice stutter?

Now, youd think that when someone is taking twenty of thirty percent of what you make, that youd want to know that it was being spent reasonably, wisely and in a way that might in some tangential way make your life better but youd be wrong. Every year think tanks, political action committees and a handful of liberty loving politicians will release dozens of reports detailing all kinds of insane (and in some cases hilarious) wasteful government spending. It will come to you as no surprise that these reports, with their pie charts, line graphs and massive bibliographies fail to reach your average Joe. Thats why I invented Pork Barrel.

Pork Barrel is the worlds first libertarian card game it attacks government waste, fraud, abuse, corruption and incompetence with carefully sourced facts in a consumable and fun format. Too often we rely on the timeless works of libertarian scholars like Ayn Rand or F.A. Hayek to indoctrinate and persuade but Atlas Shrugged is 561,996 words long whos got time for that? While were begging people to read Mises or Bastiat, a generation is being hoodwinked into socialism by late night TV comics. These edutainers, blur the lines between entertainment and education, comically trashing people with whom they disagree, and making the government seem like a common sense solution to every problem. We need our own edutainers. The recent release of the album Veracity by Backwordz certainly fits the mold and is an interesting first step. Likewise, Pork Barrel, which is as fun as it is informative, will destroy even the most ardent statists faith in the efficacy in just a few hands about 35 hours faster than reading Atlas Shrugged.

In the marketplace of ideas, political opinions are bought and sold not by political philosophers, but by every form of media we consume everyday. Comedians, reality TV stars, even the subtle undertones of video games all can persuade people to think one way or another. We need to insert our pitch into these mediums. Exposing the fraud and incompetence of government is a central and eye catching component of that pitch. Perfectly honest and respectable people will probably always stand by taxes to pay for police, schools and roads but the more they know about $270,000 janitors, $80,000 speech therapies for mice and a $9,600,000 health bill for dead people, the more questions they will ask and that is the first step.

ayn randcard gameF.A. Hayekgovernment spendingPork Barrepork barrel

Follow this link:

Pork Barrel: A Card Game Exposing Gov't Spending - The Libertarian Republic

The Atlas Shrugged author made selfishness heroic and caring about others weakness.

Ayn Rands philosophy is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society.To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. Gore Vidal, 1961

Only rarely in U.S. history do writers transform us to become a more caring or less caring nation. In the 1850s, Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) was a strong force in making the United States a more humane nation, one that would abolish slavery of African Americans. A century later, Ayn Rand (1905-1982) helped make the United States into one of the most uncaring nations in the industrialized world, a neo-Dickensian society where healthcare is only for those who can afford it, and where young people are coerced into huge student-loan debt that cannot be discharged in bankruptcy.

Rands impact has been widespread and deep. At the icebergs visible tip is the influence shes had over major political figures who have shaped American society. In the 1950s, Ayn Rand read aloud drafts of what was later to become Atlas Shrugged to her Collective, Rands ironic nickname for her inner circle of young individualists, which included Alan Greenspan, who would serve as chairman of the Federal Reserve Board from 1987 to 2006.

In 1966, Ronald Reagan wrote in a personal letter, Am an admirer of Ayn Rand. Today, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) credits Rand for inspiring him to go into politics, and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) calls Atlas Shrugged his foundation book. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says Ayn Rand had a major influence on him, and his son Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is an even bigger fan. A short list of other Rand fans includes Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christopher Cox, chairman of the Security and Exchange Commission in George W. Bushs second administration; and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford.

But Rands impact on U.S. society and culture goes even deeper.

The Seduction of Nathan Blumenthal

Ayn Rands books such as The Virtue of Selfishness and her philosophy that celebrates self-interest and disdains altruism may well be, as Vidal assessed, nearly perfect in its immorality. But is Vidal right about evil? Charles Manson, who himself did not kill anyone, is the personification of evil for many of us because of his psychological success at exploiting the vulnerabilities of young people and seducing them to murder. What should we call Ayn Rands psychological ability to exploit the vulnerabilities of millions of young people so as to influence them not to care about anyone besides themselves?

While Greenspan (tagged A.G. by Rand)was the most famous name that would emerge from Rands Collective, the second most well-known name to emerge from the Collective was Nathaniel Branden, psychotherapist, author and self-esteem advocate. Before he was Nathaniel Branden, he was Nathan Blumenthal, a 14-year-old who read Rands The Fountainhead again and again. He later would say, I felt hypnotized. He describes how Rand gave him a sense that he could be powerful, that he could be a hero. He wrote one letter to his idol Rand, then a second. To his amazement, she telephoned him, and at age 20, Nathan received an invitation to Ayn Rands home. Shortly after, Nathan Blumenthal announced to the world that he was incorporating Rand in his new name: Nathaniel Branden. And in 1955, with Rand approaching her 50th birthday and Branden his 25th, and both in dissatisfying marriages, Ayn bedded Nathaniel.

What followed sounds straight out of Hollywood, but Rand was straight out of Hollywood, having worked for Cecil B. DeMille. Rand convened a meeting with Nathaniel, his wife Barbara (also a Collective member), and Rands own husband Frank. ToBrandensastonishment, Rand convinced both spouses that a time-structured affairshe andBrandenwere to have one afternoon and one evening a week togetherwas reasonable. Within the Collective, Rand is purported to have never lost an argument. On his trysts at Rands New York City apartment,Brandenwould sometimes shake hands with Frank before he exited. Later, all discovered that Rands sweet but passive husband would leave for a bar, where he began his self-destructive affair with alcohol.

By 1964, the 34-year-old Nathaniel Brandenhad grown tired of the now 59-year-old Ayn Rand. Still sexually dissatisfied in his marriage to Barbara and afraid to end his affair with Rand,Brandenbegan sleeping with a married 24-year-old model, Patrecia Scott. Rand, now the woman scorned, calledBrandento appear before the Collective, whose nickname had by now lost its irony for both Barbara andBranden. Rands justice was swift. She humiliatedBrandenand then put a curse on him: If you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological healthyoull be impotent for the next 20 years! And if you achieve potency sooner, youll know its a sign of still worse moral degradation!

Rand completed the evening with two welt-producing slaps across Brandens face. Finally, in a move that Stalin and Hitler would have admired, Rand also expelled poor Barbara from the Collective, declaring her treasonous because Barbara, preoccupied by her own extramarital affair, had neglected to fill Rand in soon enough onBrandensextra-extra-marital betrayal. (If anyone doubts Alan Greenspans political savvy, keep in mind that he somehow stayed in Rands good graces even though he, fixed up byBrandenwith Patrecias twin sister, had double-dated with the outlaws.)

After being banished by Rand, Nathaniel Branden was worried that he might be assassinated by other members of the Collective, so he moved from New York to Los Angeles, where Rand fans were less fanatical. Branden established a lucrative psychotherapy practice and authored approximately 20 books, 10 of them with either Self or Self-Esteem in the title. Rand and Branden never reconciled, but he remained an admirer of her philosophy of self-interest until his recent death in December 2014.

Ayn Rands personal life was consistent with her philosophy of not giving a shit about anybody but herself. Rand was an ardent two-pack-a-day smoker, and when questioned about the dangers of smoking, she loved to light up with a defiant flourish and then scold her young questioners on the unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence. After an x-ray showed that she had lung cancer, Rand quit smoking and had surgery for her cancer. Collective members explained to her that many people still smoked because they respected her and her assessment of the evidence; and that since she no longer smoked, she ought to tell them. They told her that she neednt mention her lung cancer, that she could simply say she had reconsidered the evidence. Rand refused.

How Rands Philosophy Seduced Young Minds

When I was a kid, my reading included comic books and Rands The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. There wasnt much difference between the comic books and Rands novels in terms of the simplicity of the heroes. What was different was that unlike Superman or Batman, Rand made selfishness heroic, and she made caring about others weakness.

Rand said, Capitalism and altruism are incompatible.The choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest, with its consequences of freedom, justice, progress and mans happiness on earthor the primordial morality of altruism, with its consequences of slavery, brute force, stagnant terror and sacrificial furnaces. For many young people, hearing that it is moral to care only about oneself can be intoxicating, and some get addicted to this idea for life.

I have known several people, professionally and socially, whose lives have been changed by those close to them who became infatuated with Ayn Rand. A common theme is something like this: My ex-husband wasnt a bad guy until he started reading Ayn Rand. Then he became a completely selfish jerk who destroyed our family, and our children no longer even talk to him.

To wow her young admirers, Rand would often tell a story of how a smart-aleck book salesman had once challenged her to explain her philosophy while standing on one leg. She replied: Metaphysicsobjective reality. Epistemologyreason. Ethicsself-interest. Politicscapitalism. How did that philosophy capture young minds?

Metaphysicsobjective reality. Rand offered a narcotic for confused young people: complete certainty and a relief from their anxiety. Rand believed that an objective reality existed, and she knew exactly what that objective reality was. It included skyscrapers, industries, railroads, and ideasat least her ideas. Rands objective reality did not include anxiety or sadness. Nor did it include much humor, at least the kind where one pokes fun at oneself. Rand assured her Collective that objective reality did not include Beethovens, Rembrandts, and Shakespeares realitiesthey were too gloomy and too tragic, basically buzzkillers. Rand preferred Mickey Spillane and, towards the end of her life, Charlies Angels.

Epistemologyreason. Rands kind of reason was a cool-tool to control the universe. Rand demonized Plato, and her youthful Collective members were taught to despise him. If Rand really believed that the Socratic Method described by Plato of discovering accurate definitions and clear thinking did not qualify as reason, why then did she regularly attempt it with her Collective? Also oddly, while Rand mocked dark moods and despair, her reasoning directed that Collective members should admire Dostoyevsky, whose novels are filled with dark moods and despair. A demagogue, in addition to hypnotic glibness, must also be intellectually inconsistent, sometimes boldly so. This eliminates challenges to authority by weeding out clear-thinking young people from the flock.

Ethicsself-interest. For Rand, all altruists were manipulators. What could be more seductive to kids who discerned the motives of martyr parents, Christian missionaries and U.S. foreign aiders? Her champions, Nathaniel Branden still among them, feel that Rands view of self-interest has been horribly misrepresented. For them, self-interest is her hero architect Howard Roark turning down a commission because he couldnt do it exactly his way. Some of Rands novel heroes did have integrity, however, for Rand there is no struggle to discover the distinction between true integrity and childish vanity. Rands integrity was her vanity, and it consisted of getting as much money and control as possible, copulating with whomever she wanted regardless of who would get hurt, and her always being right. To equate ones selfishness, vanity, and egotism with ones integrity liberates young people from the struggle to distinguish integrity from selfishness, vanity, and egotism.

Politicscapitalism. While Rand often disparaged Soviet totalitarian collectivism, she had little to say about corporate totalitarian collectivism, as she conveniently neglected the reality that giant U.S. corporations, like the Soviet Union, do not exactly celebrate individualism, freedom, or courage. Rand was clever and hypocritical enough to know that you dont get rich in the United States talking about compliance and conformity within corporate America. Rather, Rand gave lectures titled: Americas Persecuted Minority: Big Business. So, young careerist corporatists could embrace Rands self-styled radical capitalism and feel radical radical without risk.

Rands Legacy

In recent years, we have entered a phase where it is apparently okay for major political figures to publicly embrace Rand despite her contempt for Christianity. In contrast, during Ayn Rands life, her philosophy that celebrated self-interest was a private pleasure for the 1 percent but she was a public embarrassment for them. They used her books to congratulate themselves on the morality of their selfishness, but they publicly steered clear of Rand because of her views on religion and God. Rand, for example, had stated on national television, I am against God. I dont approve of religion. It is a sign of a psychological weakness. I regard it as an evil.

Actually, again inconsistent, Rand did have a God. It was herself. She said:

I am done with the monster of we, the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this one word: I.

While Harriet Beecher Stowe shamed Americans about the United States dehumanization of African Americans and slavery, Ayn Rand removed Americans guilt for being selfish and uncaring about anyone except themselves. Not only did Rand make it moral for the wealthy not to pay their fair share of taxes, she liberated millions of other Americans from caring about the suffering of others, even the suffering of their own children.

The good news is that Ive seen ex-Rand fans grasp the damage that Rands philosophy has done to their lives and to then exorcize it from their psyche. Can the United States as a nation do the same thing?

Bruce E. Levineis a practicing clinical psychologist. His latest book is Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite.

Link:

A clinical psychologist explains how Ayn Rand seduced young minds and helped turn the US into a selfish nation - Raw Story

Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, charged with towering questions of good and evil,Atlas Shruggedis Ayn Rands magnum opus: a philosophical revolution told in the form of an action thriller.

Who is John Galt? When he says that he will stop the motor of the world, is he a destroyer or a liberator?Why does he have to fight his battles not against his enemies but against those who need him most? Why does he fight his hardest battle against the woman he loves?

You will know the answer to these questions when you discover the reason behind the baffling events that play havoc with the lives of the amazing men and women in this book. You will discover why a productive genius becomes a worthless playboy...why a great steel industrialist is working for his own destruction...why a composer gives up his career on the night of his triumph...why a beautiful woman who runs a transcontinental railroad falls in love with the man she has sworn to kill.

Atlas Shrugged, a modern classic and Rands most extensive statement ofObjectivismher groundbreaking philosophyoffers the reader the spectacle of human greatness, depicted with all the poetry and power of one of the twentieth centurys leading artists.

Continued here:

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand - Google Books

There is a new book in the White House and it was written by a Russian born woman. Her book expresses the philosophy of rugged, uncompromising individualism, the fear of an overbearing government and a conformist world in the corporate boardroom. The book now has a follower in the White House and many places of power.

Who was this Russian woman, she is Ayn Rand, born in 1905 in St Petersburg, Russia, who saw her family impoverished and driven to the edge of starvation by the Soviets, an experience that forged her contempt for all flavors of socialism. She left Russia in 1926 and immigrated to America.

Her first successful book was the Fountainhead published in 1943, which tells the storyof Howard Roark, a brilliant and dedicated architect who destroyed one of his own buildings rather than allow his designs to be modified for some nebulous collective good. Then, in 1957, came Atlas Shrugged, the story revolves aroundJohn Galt, an inventor and capitalist genius, who leads a walk out of the people who actually made the country run, leaving the hangers-ons to struggle to survive.

In those novels and in the lectures that followed she explained her philosophy called Objectivism. It described a belief that man exists for his or her own sake, that the pursuit of happiness is the highest moral purpose, that we must not be forced to sacrifice for others. Her books described a country dying from over regulation and too much government control. One that had so many corporate sycophants that they slowed the wheels of innovation and in fact stopped progress. The world began to decay while the government and corporate fat cats continued to dance the night way.

Her work appealed to a reader who was young and searching for an ideology that presented a high ground for dreaming of and then becoming successful. One of her most early follower was Alan Greenspan who was later appointed by President Reagan to serve as chair of the US Federal Reserve. He was one of the architects of the Reagan free-market philosophy a bulwarks of American capitalism.

Now a new group of champions for Rands philosophy has arisen starting with Trump himself who named the Fountainhead as one of his favorite books. Along with Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and CIA director Mike Pompeo have named her works among the most influential in their lives.

So why does this group claim to be inspired by her? The answer is that Rand shapes her hero as the people of action who get things done. She makes heroes out of entrepreneurs, people who shape the future by relying on their own instincts, intuition, knowledge andsurrounding themselves with like-minded people.

However, there is a difference here, a transformation from the idea of all for themselves, to one of service for their country. These very successful people are giving up a life of billionaires to try to reform our country. This is far different from those who become rich and then build a bubble around themselves and their friends. These new heroes, who are working to save our country, have seen the opportunities that helped them become rich and successful; being destroyed the pass administrations vision of re-distributing wealth created by our workers and giving it to other countries and people living here who contribute nothing.

Therefore, some of our best and most successful have stood up and said no more. Their intent is to roll back government and give the free market a chance to provide jobs and wealth to those who want to work for it. For those that just want to be supported by those who are working, things are about to change. No one will starve, but big screen TVs and cars are something they might just have to work for to enjoy. A new world where farmers dont have to worry about the EPA declaring a seasonal stream a national waterway, a world where proposed new rules are carefully examined to make sure they make sense.

In her book Atlas Shrugged Rand described a world where the finest and most creative people pulled out and setup their own enclave and allowed society to collapse , but today we have those same people she described as heroes standing up and working to re-establishing what made America great. They are enduring great personal criticism, yet working long and hard to return to us and our children the opportunities for success, we need to thank them greatly for their sacrifice and hope they can turn the tide so Rands prediction of our society being devoured by the demands of socialism never occurs.

Read more:

Ayn Rand - Mesquite Local News

Editorial Board | Published 2 hours ago

Another Republican state house, anotherbill scoring cheap political points by crying foul against liberal professors. At least this one does not even feign policy knowledge or responsibility.

A bill introduced in the GeneralAssembly calls for the Board of Governors to ensure that the experiences of students in the entire UNC system achieve ideological balance. Okay, Einstein, barring the fact that this kicks the responsibility completely to the BOGwithout a single recommendation of how to achieve that, you do not even define your terms. Which ideologies would you like to be in balance? What is your definition of ideology? What are the grounds for complaint or harm if a student feels that ideologies are not in balance?These technicalities are of course all beside the point.

Basically this public servant feels their public should never have their kids exposed to one page of The Communist Manifesto without an equal number of pages assigned from Atlas Shrugged. This bill operates on the premise that all ideologies (in this particular case, probably summarized in the philosophical position me ornot me) have had equally influential weight and historical durability. Take that premise away and Marx and Rand, for better and worse, are not even close. But lets entertain this idiocy for a moment.

Hey sir, against the capitalist arguments of von Mises, Smith and Friedman, we can put the arguments of that guy whose death was just celebrated onGood Friday. You know, the one who said it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get to heaven. And that ideology by all accounts should, if Western Civ is re-required, be the honking concert speaker to your puny Beats headphones advocating free markets.

You do it to yourself, just you, and thats why it really hurts (sang Thom Yorke). Rand herself in Atlas Shrugged warned capitalists that they gave up philosophy at their peril. The real thinkers, even to her, always win the hearts and minds, if not the money, of the people. Money is always vulnerable to taking. Hearts and minds less so.

We do not deny the vitality of conservative thinkers. We celebrate the best of them. We in fact need more of them to counter the endless lame self-congratulatory political ranting of the worst leftist (and too often hostile) professors and TAs.

And here is where the balance comes in. We are not infants. We get the bias, and it is most certainly there. We, as Tar Heels, would not be here if we could not think through it.

Hey, conservatives: You want to set the terms of the debate? Get in the ring. Instead of hustling off to a B-school job, or a Republican political consultancy or appealing to know-nothing GA members, live on student loans and ramen for the time it takes to get a PhD and have your way with us dopey snowflakes. Invite socialists to talk at the B-school. Get into student policy positions where you can stop idiot professors saying that they are almost all liberal, but conservative students are welcome for their interesting views.

Civil democracy in this town, county, stateand nation depends on each side keeping the other honest. UNC needs more organically grown conservatives, not idiots without qualifications and learning forced on us. We welcome all comers.

Visit link:

A bill that balances ideologies? Balance this! - The Daily Tar Heel