Intellectual Morons is about how ideology--not Left ideology or Right ideology, but all ideology--makes smart people fall for stupid ideas. Ayn Rand is admired by many conservatives, but she is no conservative. Conservatism is the rejection of ideology. Rand is the epitome of an ideologue. Lest we forget this, we have Whittaker Chambers's classic 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, the Objectivist equivalent of the Bible. The National Review piece contains one of the most famous lines in the history of that magazine. Inspired by Rand's Nietzschean disdain of the weak, Chambers wrote that on almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice could be heard, saying: "To the gas chambers--go!" That's pretty harsh, but so was Rand.

Elsewhere, Chambers turns the volume down, and delivers the most effective argument in the piece: "Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts."

Thanks for taking on Rand, she is miserable. In fact, she is one of my biggest pet peeves in that when I go into a new bookstore I always check their philosophy section to see how many Rand books they carry. She was not a philosopher! So when I see a bookstore have a tiny philosophy section in which Rand books occupy 20% of the space I know I am in a really crappy bookstore and I leave.

Thanks for the enlightenment, and esply for Chambers' review. I have read Atlas Shrugged at least 4 times over a long period, and have been intrigued by it, I must admit. Not that I ever agreed with the bare-knuckle materialism disguised as good public policy or pretending to be strength, but the kernel of Rand's thinking does, I believe, have much relevance and some validity to cut to the core of many of our society's ills. Our welfare system comes readily to mind, as does the general nature of our society in blaming, extolling victimhood, and being averse to accepting responsibility. We're obviously an "entitlement" society, and it is that awful character trait that Rand excoriates so well. We can take her stuff for what it's worth, jettisoning the chaff, the silliness, of her unidimensional characters who reduce their complex lives to even-money exchange.

You make frequent attacks against "ideology" as such, but your posts make it clear that you subscribe to the Christian ideology of original sin. Those of us who demand a modicum of consistency and intellectual seriousness would regard your anti-intellectualism as a display of either obtuseness or dishonest effrontery.

If you wish to attack Ayn Rand, perhaps you should take the time to learn at least the basics of her philosophy, in particular, her rejection of materialism.

"Inspired by Rand's Nietzschean disdain of the weak..."

Can you provide evidence that Rand holds a disdain for the weak? I don't think so, since she doesn't hold this view. But, apparently, this is just the beginning. In you Town Hall article you write:

"In Rand’s books, she fantasized about the destruction of the portion of humanity standing in the way of her ideals. Examples of this include the holocaust that concludes Atlas Shrugged."

That would be a valid example of Rand fantasizing about eliminating those who disagree with her. That is, it would be if you didn't make it up. Last time I read the book it didn't end with the systematic slaughter of millions of people, but then again maybe I have bad reading comprehension.

If you want to argue against Rand, go ahead. But lying about her actual views, and then making up a story that can easily be seen as false by looking in her book, is dishonorable at best. Lying about one's opponents in order to refute them is something I'd expect from the left, I suppose now I can expect it from those on the left, too.

Sorry, that should read: "Lying about one's opponents in order to refute them is something I'd expect from the left, I suppose now I can expect it from those on the right, too."

Mike, you do "have bad reading comprehension." Either that, or you are ignorant of what a small "h" holocaust means. Here's an excerpt from dictionary.com: "Holocaust comes from Greek holokauston (“that which is completely burnt”), which was a translation of Hebrew ‘lâ (literally “that which goes up,” that is, in smoke)." At the conclusion of Atlas Shrugged, the world is in ruins. It had to be destroyed to be saved. "The road is cleared," Galt states. "We are going back to the world."

Holocaust does indeed mean that, among other things. But when say something, like oh I don't know, this:

"Novelist Ayn Rand hated Nazism and Communism, but this didn’t stop her from imitating many of the unattractive aspects of those ideologies in both her fiction and in her real life."

And then, in the same paragraph, reference the holocaust, a certain implication is left.

Either way, that doesn't address the accusation that she had a disdain of the weak, nor the fact that she explicitly rejected materialism.

Mike, what does Dagny Taggart write in lipstick on the statue of Nathaniel Taggart? What symbol appears on the cigarettes made in Galt's Gulch?What does John Galt trace in the sky to conclude Atlas Shrugged? Answer: the dollar sign.

Is that a rejection of materialism, or an appropriation of the very symbol of materialism?

Dan,

I'm sorry to say that you reveal yourself to be completely ignorant of philosophy. Chambers refers specifically to "philosophical materialism" which has nothing to do with money. Philosophical materialism is the belief that only matter exists. The communists were materialists, rejecting the existence of man's mind as an irrational myth. Objectivism rejects materialism, acknowledging that there exists both matter and consciousness, and that neither is reducible to the other (even though consciousness is dependent on matter, specifically, the brain).

Don, get a clue. Rand chose the dollar sign as her personal symbol. It's Objectivism's cross, its crescent, its star of David. If the dollar sign doesn't represent materialism, nothing does.

I don't think her use of the dollar sign symbolizes materialism. It may be a symbol of such to you, but it was not to her. Read the money speech in the first half the of the book.

From the PLAYBOY interview with Ayn Rand:

PLAYBOY: You've been quoted as saying "The cross is the symbol of torture, of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. I prefer the dollar sign." Do you truly feel that two thousand years of Christianity can be summed up with the word "torture"?

[AYN] RAND: To begin with, I never said that. It's not my style. Neither literarily nor intellectually. I don't say I prefer the dollar sign -- that is cheap nonsense, and please leave this in your copy. I don't know the origin of that particular quote, but the meaning of the dollar sign is made clear in *Atlas Shrugged*. It is the symbol, clearly explained in the story, of free trade and, therefore, of a free mind. A free mind and a free economy are corollaries. One can't exist without the other. The dollar sign, as the symbol of the currency of a free country, is the symbol of the free mind. More than that, as to the historical origin of the dollar sign, although it has never been proved, one very likely hypothesis is that it stands for the initials of the United States. So much for the dollar sign.

Now you want me to speak about the cross. What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn't that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.

---

Don,

You are right. I think you are speaking over Flynn's head.

Quoting Chambers, "Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc."

Rand rejected both the Materialists ("Mystics of the Muscle" like Skinner and Marx who reject consciousness and reason) and the Idealists ("Mystics of the Spirit" who reject the primacy of existence in favor of the "supernatural", i.e. God, ghosts, and gremlins). (For those who are interested see Chapter 1 of Dr. Leonard Peikoff's *OPAR*, http://www.peikoff.com/opar/ )

Flynn should have done his homework.

Guys, when the Kool-Aid wears off, please join us for a rational discussion.

Rand denied she was a materialist. She also denied she was an adulterer. It shouldn't surprise us that human beings--you do agree that Rand was a mere mortal?--often deny charges that cast them in an unflattering light. Rand wore a dollar sign as a brooch, for goodness sake. That action, as well as the words in Atlas Shrugged, doesn't mesh with the words you present.

Again, I think the dollar sign (as Rand uses it) indicates freedom more than anything else. I think Francisco's money speech in Atlas Shrugged makes that pretty clear. I am not a philospher, but I am pretty sure freedom and materialism are not the same concepts.

Freedom and materialism are not the same concepts, Podraza. You are correct. But the dollar sign symbolizes money. You can't get around this. Rand chose that symbol--the symbol universally recognized (at least in America) as the symbol of money--as her own. To say that for Rand, the dollar sign symbolizes freedom is to make the point that Rand equates freedom with money. That's what the dollar sign is--a symbolic representation of money.

Dan,

I don't know why you're insulting us. We're merely pointing out that (a) you don't understand what "philosophical materialism" means, and that (b) Rand was very clear on what the dollar sign represented to her. You are free to disagree with her interpretation, but you are not free to pretend her interpretation was something other than it was.

In Rand's view, the dollar sign represents wealth, which, she argued, is a product of man's mind. Is that materialist? Only in the sense that she didn't condemn the material products of thought on which man's survival depends. Not in the sense that she elevated material goods above non-material values, and certainly not in the philosophical sense which denies the existence of the mind.

How interesting, that you accuse Objectivists of being blinded by ideology, while you fail to honor even the most obvious facts.

Don, the most obvious fact is that the dollar sign symbolizes money. A is A. $ is $.

Well, after an argument like that, what can I say? Res ipsa loquitur.

Dan,

(If we are on Kool-Aid, then you are on crack. Enough already.)

(1) The word "materialism" can refer to several things.

(a) In the conventional sense (as I think you are trying to use it) it means those who love material (cars, guns, drugs) things at the expense of spiritual ones (love, happiness).

(b) "Philosophical materialism"--the term Chambers used and which you quoted--is different and far broader.

Quoting Chambers, "Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc." This is what Chambers is against.

Chambers thinks religion, faith and God are the philosophical basis of society. Chambers sees *philosophical* materialism as the "rejection of God" as a basis for society. What Chambers is against is a non-faith based, non original sin, non-religious moral code as a basis of society. It is this viewpoint that Chambers identified as philosophical materialism. (Did you even read Chambers "classic" piece?)

Quoting Chambers, "It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life....such answers however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities."

(2) "The dollar sign symbolizes money." So what? Money is not a bad thing if you work honestly for it. I love making money. Making money is virtuous because it allows me to buy things that support my life.

Guys, I think it's pretty clear what type of "materialism" I'm referring to, just as it is pretty clear what type of "holocaust" I was referring to in my piece on TownHall. Podraza, who is arguing on your side, clearly recognized the type of materialism I'm talking about, disagrees, and has posted his disagreement. That's fine. You guys are arguing with a straw man--or perhaps, with what Chambers said--but not with me. I sense that you know this. Rather than play sophists and apply a separate concept to the words that I'm using, why not address the very real things that I said on Rand's appropriation of the symbol of materialism as her own symbol and the ending of Atlas Shrugged where the world is laid to waste.

1. Doesn't Rand's promiscuous use of the dollar-sign imagery indicate a materialist outlook?

2. Doesn't the world made into a wasteland at the end of Atlas Shrugged--reread the last eleven lines--remind you a bit of the Afghan Communist who said: "We'll leave only one million Afghans alive--that's all we need to build socialism"?

Dan,

You say we are arguing with a strawman. Well, okay, that is possible. Then why won't you define your terms? Why not define what you mean by "materialism"? You say it's pretty clear what you are referring to, but obviously it isn't.

I have offered several possible interpretations of that word, and yet the only one you have commented on has been my arguments concerning philosophical materialism. You say that's not what you meant, but what Chambers meant. Well, okay, but *you* are the one who quoted Chambers approvingly. Can't you see why this would at least be confusing to me?

As for (2), there you're dropping the entire context of the novel. The characters do not set out to murder the rest of the world. They have merely withdrawn their effort from a society that sought to enslave them. That is quite different from massive slaughter, which is how The American Heritage Dictionary defines "holocaust." The heroes of Atlas Shrugged were the ones who were being coerced - they did not initiate force against anyone.

1. Atlas Shrugged is 1168 pages long. Any reference to a specific passage of the book necessarily "drop[s} the entire context of the novel." Should we never, then, quote from Atlas Shrugged or refer to isolated passages without laboring over the entire story? I described the conclusion of the novel, and it is completely accurate.

2. I define materialism--as I use it in this thread--as a preoccupation with worldly things, specifically money. Don, you probably already know this, but this is the way the word is almost always used. Particularly when I'm using this term in the midst of discussing money and dollar signs, your feigned ignorance about the manner in which I'm using this word is a bit much. Stop being a sophist.

3. Dictionary.com defines holocaust as a "Great destruction resulting in the extensive loss of life, especially by fire." Again, you introduce a concept into a word that isn't stated or implied by me--that Dagny, Galt, and company "set out to murder the rest of the world" (they didn't)--or even a necessary part of the definition. You're battling strawmen again, which is particularly bothersome since this issue has already been addressed well up in the thread.

I await the answer to my two earlier questions. Let me also add another one. There are dozens of things that I admire about Rand, her philosophy, and her novels. For instance, I loved reading Atlas Shrugged, her concept of "blank out" helps anyone truly understand many liberal arguments, and the fact that she couldn't speak much English upon arriving on our shores but ended conquering the language to such an extent that she is one of its most beloved novelist is amazing. My question to you, and any student of Objectivism reading: What are the defects in Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy?

1 & 3) That's ridiculous. The point of the novel is to illustrate that the looters cannot support themselves and without the producers to sustain them, they destroy themselves. No one is saying that there is no destruction or, as you would, 'holocaust' at the end of the novel. The problem is that you're attempting to use that fact to support a claim that the Producers destroy the Looters, which is untrue.

2) It's also clear that you've either presented irrelevant citations to support your definition of materialism or you're attempting some verbal slight of hand. Either you mean philosophical materialism or you mean materialism "as a preoccupation with worldly things, specifically money." The two are not the same.

If you do, as you claim, mean the latter, then I'm sure fans of Objectivism would concede the simple fact that Rand did not acknowledge anything else with which to be preoccupied. So, what would a preoccupation of unworldly things be? Immaterialism? Are you arguing that there's a virtue in poverty?

Rand did not see money as an end in itself. As another commentor suggested, review D'Anconia's money speech for clarity on what money meant to her. That fact in itself stands counter to your notion that Rand was a materialist as you mean it.

As for your last question: have you stopped beating your wife?

Trey, to cite a flaw in Rand's character, novels, or philosophy, is in no way comparable to the question: "have you stopped beating your wife?" Are you insane?

Dan,

Per your previous 2 questions.

1) Ayn Rand used the dollar sign to symbolize free trade and a free mind, and perhaps broadly the trading of value for value. Anyone with even a shallow knowledge of Objectivism realizes that this principle applies to both material and spiritual issues. I'm a bit lost, honestly, as to what you're implying with this question. Given the sense in which you're using the term "materialism" (not philosophical materialism, but rather a preoccupation with things such as money) are you trying to suggest that Objectivism advocates the pursuit of money as a primary? How would you account for heroes in Ayn Rand's novels that don't do this? For instance, Howard Roark in The Fountainhead? If you aren't trying to suggest this, then what *are* you trying to suggest?

2) Don is right that you need to set more context here. The fact that Atlas Shrugged is a large book makes that even more true, not less. Let me see if I understand you, though. You are saying that, because Ayn Rand dramatizes the collapse of the United States in Atlas Shrugged, and presumably a lot of people die, this makes her similar ideologically to, say, Hitler who would exterminate millions Jews--correct me if I'm wrong.

Ayn Rand certainly did say that such a collapse would occur if the producers left society. What's your point? Is it that the non-producers deserve to leech off the producers? Is it that Any Rand was evil for saying such a thing would happen? Is it that the producers are evil for not wanting to let people leech off of them? I'm not trying to be cute, but I simply don't get your point.

If you have dozens of things you admire about Ayn Rand, why would you include her in a book called Intellectual Morons? Why would you write a post titled "Ayn Rand: Intellectual Moron"? That doesn't particularly make sense to me.

As far as your last question goes, I'm not quite sure what your motivation is in asking it. I agree with all of Objectivism, which from my studies I have found to be a fully consistent system of philosophy. I greatly admire Ayn Rand for originating it, and believe that she practiced it consistently. There are non-philosophical areas where I differ from her. For instance, I don't particularly like "tiddlywink" music. I don't really see why that helps in the discussion of the above issues.

Perhaps the real reason you asked this question was because you want people to look cultish by agreeing completely with Objectivism. Well, I agree completely with Objectivism. Also, I agree completely with the heliocentric model of the solar system and with the equation "2+2=4". I suppose you can count me in as cultish on those accounts as well.

Actually, if I've understood things correctly, you've written an entire book dedicated to making the argument that anyone who agrees with anything whole-heartedly is a 'moron.'

Your entire position amounts to nothing more than saying, "The only absolute is that there are no absolutes."

I'm neither insane nor stupid. And you lack both integrity and virtue.

Randroids, I'm still waiting for a substantive criticism of Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy. Disagreeing with her love of "tiddlywink" music is a start. Are you guys really individualists, or are you just a mass of joiners submitting to the thoughts of a guru? On what points do you find Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy not to your liking?

Dan,

I am a patient guy, but this is pathetic. You have been unable to make any of your criticisms against Rand stick, so now you want us to help you out? Read through this thread once more. Look at the posters who have been polite, charitable, and rational. Then consider which of us slung insults while evading the issues. Well, I don't deal in intellectual dishonesty, so this will be my final comment. If anyone else feels I haven't answered any of Mr. Flynn's point, please feel free to email me and I was do so privately.

Dan, do you always argue in false dichotomies or do you rely wholly upon invective and bullying?

The fact that you also rely on misdirection and outright lying to make your case illustrates the point of why I asked if you stopped beating your wife earlier.

I've certainly gained enough insight into your ideology of non-ideology and the sort of person that subscribes to it to know I want none of it.

I leave my computer for a day and miss out on the battle I helped start! It is almost useless to comment now, but this is kinda funny. On October 2, 2004 02:18 AM Dan said,

"Randroids, I'm still waiting for a substantive criticism of Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy. Disagreeing with her love of "tiddlywink" music is a start. Are you guys really individualists, or are you just a mass of joiners submitting to the thoughts of a guru? On what points do you find Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy not to your liking?"

Name calling? That's all you have left?

Students of Objectivism,

My question still stands unanswered: What are the defects in Rand's character, her novels, and her philosophy? Your evasion of this question is starting to make a lot of you appear like pod people. It's not like I'm asking you to condemn Rand. I'm just asking for one thing in three categories--her character, her novels, and her philosophy--that you find flawed. Do you have minds of your own, or have you leased them out to Objectivism? Answer the question.

If you're going to be so intellectually corrupt, you should at least have the decency to be more subtle about it. You'll never get people to fall for your tricks if you're that ham-handed. Where is your shame, man!

Trey, I'll never get you guys to fall for my tricks? I'm afraid I already have. To quote Don, res ipsa loquitur.

(1) PHILOSOPHIC MATERIALISM

I was arguing with the quote at the top of this thread. You brought up Chambers' trash National Review piece--I did not. Since you obviously have forgotten what you have written let me quote it for you:

"… Lest we forget this, we have Whittaker Chambers's classic 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, the Objectivist equivalent of the Bible. The National Review piece contains one of the most famous lines in the history of that magazine. Inspired by Rand's Nietzschean disdain of the weak, Chambers wrote that on almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice could be heard, saying: "To the gas chambers--go!" That's pretty harsh, but so was Rand.

Elsewhere, Chambers turns the volume down, and delivers the most effective argument in the piece: "Systems of ***philosophic materialism***, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts."

You wrote ***philosophic materialism*** in your quote. So it is fair game. And the reason we are arguing with Chambers is because his (false) argument is far more interesting then your lame request.

INTELLECTUALS 1, THE CULT OF FLYNN 0

(2) Worldly things (cars, gold, food, clothes) are not a bad if you work honestly for them. I love making money and acquiring "worldly things" as you do. Life in this world means one should be "preoccupied" with this world.

INTELLECTUALS 2, THE CULT OF FLYNN 0

Flynn's Homework Assignment: Discuss what is so wrong with the "preoccupation with worldly things" (as you see it) using examples?

(3) DISAGREEING WITH RAND

Are there points I disagree with Rand on? Yes. But you have yet to show any reason why I might gain anything out of discussing those points with you as you clearly are either too dishonest or too dumb (perhaps both) to grasp what is Rand saying.

But, I am interested in why Flynn is so dishonest and to see what animates him. Does any have any ideas on this? What are Flynn's flaws in his character and works?

There were several typos in the above post so please use this:

(1) PHILOSOPHIC MATERIALISM

I was arguing with the quote at the top of this thread. You brought up Chambers' trash National Review piece--I did not. Since you obviously have forgotten what you have written let me quote it for you:

"… Lest we forget this, we have Whittaker Chambers's classic 1957 review of Atlas Shrugged, the Objectivist equivalent of the Bible. The National Review piece contains one of the most famous lines in the history of that magazine. Inspired by Rand's Nietzschean disdain of the weak, Chambers wrote that on almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice could be heard, saying: "To the gas chambers--go!" That's pretty harsh, but so was Rand.

Elsewhere, Chambers turns the volume down, and delivers the most effective argument in the piece: "Systems of ***philosophic materialism***, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts."

You wrote ***philosophic materialism*** in your quote. So it is fair game. And the reason we are arguing with Chambers is because his (false) argument is far more interesting then your lame request.

INTELLECTUALS 1, THE CULT OF FLYNN 0

(2) Worldly things (cars, gold, food, clothes) are not bad if you work honestly for them. I love making money and acquiring "worldly things" as you do. Life in this world means one should be "preoccupied" with this world.

INTELLECTUALS 2, THE CULT OF FLYNN 0

Flynn's Homework Assignment: Discuss what is so wrong with the "preoccupation with worldly things" (as you see it) using three real-world examples.

(3) DISAGREEING WITH RAND

Are there points I disagree with Rand on? Yes. But you have yet to show any reason why I might gain anything out of discussing those points with you as you clearly are either too dishonest or too dumb (perhaps both) to grasp what Rand is saying.

But, I am interested in why Flynn is dishonest and I am trying to understand what animates him. Does anyone have any ideas on this? What are the flaws in his character and works?

An uneffective comment doesn't become effective if you post it twice. It's just the same lame, evasive comment repeated. Anyhow, I'm still waiting on my answers--and I sense I'll be waiting quite a bit longer. I didn't realize you guys were true believers when this thread started. It's clear now. Your problem isn't so much with my criticism of Rand, or Chambers's criticism of Rand. Your problem is with any criticism of Rand.

Dan Flynn,
You are a dishonest man who wishes to use the intellect of others to make your own point, a point which is not worth making to begin with. In this entire thread, I have not found one single instance where you have acted as a man of integrity would. You do not define your arguments, preferring to entice your followers, if there are any, with mud-slinging and name-calling. After all the vague generalities you call arguments have been logically and empirically demolished, you turn to the despicable tactic of using your superiors' intellect to prove your point, by throwing a challenge! Here's some advice, try it. THINK FOR YOURSELF... and come up with a logical flaw in Rand's characters, her novels, her philosophy.
Siddharth

The way to show that someone is a true believer is to confront them with an error or flaw in what or whom they agree with and see what the reaction is.

A true believer would change the subject, ignore the argument, or otherwise reject the evidence soley because it contradicts their belief. A person committed to the truth, regardless of whether it challenges his emotional attachment to an idea, would respond with arguments relevant to the supposed errors or flaws.

With this in mind, ask yourself who is the true true-believer in this discussion.

Yes, it's obvious that Dan Flynn is irrationally committed to the idea that ideology, as such, i.e., any system of ideas, is by definition wrong and that any adherents of such a system are therefore true-believers. All evidence to the contrary -- such as people willing to make substantive arguments in support of their positions -- is ignored. The incredible irony and hypocrisy here are easy to see. What's less clear is why Dan Flynn thinks anyone who observes him in action for more than five minutes won't see it.

The fact that Life does not always march to the tune of ideology, does not make embracing one or more ideologies bad. It makes inflexible ideology or inflexible reliance on ideological opinions bad. It does not negate the point that SOME type of rational ideology may serve as a guideline. What else is morality itself, but a rational guideline?

I love Burritos!

Ha! Its always fun to see randriods in action. They really are bottom feeding philosophical necrophiliacs. Rand was, without a doubt, a horrible human being. Any "objectivist" who fails to see Rand's obvious short comings is a total cultist, no better than Scientologist. On the top 100 list of books chosen by the public all the top books were either Rand or Hubbard. Not just their "good" books, but every piece of garbage they have ever written. How else can you explain objectivism and scientology, if these were not cults then people would just call themselves fans of these authors.
They are irrationally obsessed with Ayn Rand and need medical help. I am not saying this as a joke I am being totally serious. A=A, Objectivism=Cult. Also see "why people believe weird things"

Hey Flynn keep up the good work, these High School students are starting too look pathetic.

I stopped reading Whittaker Chamber's review immediately after the words : "An eloquent warning about philosophic materialism". Whoever he isn't hasn't got a clue what materialism is or that Rand denounced materialists as neo-mystics. He's probably a bible basher too, judging from the constant references to god. Thanks, but I'd prefer a review written by someone with some sense.