What do you call a guy who mutilates an 8 year old child with a bomb, just to make a political statement?

In Tribute to
The Greatest Star Who
Never Lived

The Politics of the Twilight Zone:
Where Ryan Meets Ayn

Your purchase helps support this site
50 pages, short and sweet. Closeout Price!  While Supplies Last!
Only $ .99
Free Kindle and Nook Reader Software downloadabe for MAC or PC!
Here you will first learn about the "logically water tight" web which this despicable woman, Ayn Rand
created to dupe everyday people into people believeing they were somehow"immoral" if they stood up to the
 selfishness and greed which inevitably comes with the unregulated Laissez Faire capitalism she championed.
Simply put,  this book reveals the bizzare labyrinth of philosophical smoke and mirrors that Rand used to dupe
millions of people into believing that traditional golden-rule morality was immoral, and that hatred,  selfishness,
greed, and hatred  and contempt for the vast majority of people on this planet was some kind  of "virtue." Sound
 like Romney, Ryan and the rest of the crazed tea partiers? That's not at all an accident. It is because they have all entered into Rand's web of deception, been bitten by the spider, and are now showing the effects of her poison. 
In the course of the unfolding of Rand's grand scheme, you will learn about the logical fallacy, used not only by
 Rand, but most other advocates of the far right, called  entitizing. This technique is what is behind such expressions
as "war on terror" and  "life begins at conception." Have you always known these expressions were somehow weird, but never been able to explain quite why? This book will explain it.  Learn also how Romney and Ryan are  constatantly entitizing "freedom," and how they all learned how to it from that master of deception, Ayn Rand. 

B & N Nook Version
Amazon Kindle Version


This site also sponsored by:
Book Cover
A far more extensive study of Rand, aimed mainly at
people who have already read some of the great philosophers,
such as Plato and Aristotle, Kant and Hegel. 
Your purchase helps support this site
Hundreds of pages for only $3.99
Free Kindle and Nook Reader Software downloadabe for MAC or PC!
Amazon Kindle Version

B & N Nook Version


Good will toward all... except members the LGBT community of course. The Church has ways of treating such heretics! Just ask St. Joan of Arc. (Know why these scum bags really burned her alive?)

LaPierre: NRA's Chief Kid Killer

Latest Statement from Mitt Romney

New Clint Eastwood Movie Trailer:
Dialogue with an Empty Chair

Mitt's Wet Dream Fantasy:
Social Security AND Medicare;
 putting the elderly onto the streets. And Mitt calls this "decency and hope." Yeah, right.


Sorry your space ship to Golub crashed Mitt! Our collective Etch-A-Sketch memory of you being cleared right Now! Bye Bye Mittens, you mean heartless bastard! Have fun Firing More People at you rotten Bain Capital! But remember, whatever happens, you'll still suck!

... and when the Republican party rapes the middle class, and the poor, by taking away home mortgage deductions, Medicare, and social security that too will be a gift to us that God intended!  And if the evanazical voters who talk to Jesus vote us in, that will prove that it's God's will! Does Paul Ryan agree? Click here to find out!

Welcome to and   Sponsored by:

Romney and Ryan for China 2012

"This is Rob Zerban Speaking!"
Hope you enjoyed the little John Galt parody here. But Rob is certainly no John Galt. He is much better than that little mama's boy. He is a  small businessman in Kenosha Wisconsin (about 50 miles from where my Great Grandfather was an early settler in the 1860s) running against Paul Ryan (who thinks he is John Galt) for his House Seat. Yes, Ryan is hedging his bets, running for both VP and his old house seat. Wisconsin law allows that. The race is very close, and even 5 or 10 bucks donated to his campain would be much appreciated.
                     Click Here to Donate to Rob's Campaign.

                    Romneyware is Vaporware.
          Romney Numbers are POOTA Numbers
Vaporware? That's a term which originated in the computer industry to describe either hardware or software announced by a company, but didn't really exist. But announcing just the same helped the announcer to compete in the marketplace. For example. IBM by announcing its System/360 Model 91 3 years early, it cut into competitor sales because it was superior to anything the competitor had. The catch, of course, was that for 3 years the Model 91 was "vaporware" and did not exist. Competitors trying to sell real computers, in other words, had to compete with a fantasy machine. Sound familiar? It should, because in the first debate with Obama, Romney pitched the political equivalent of vaporware, which we here dub Romneyware. He also had lots of POOTA (or POOMA) numbers.
POOTA (sometimes POOMA) numbers. And old acronym used by aerospace engineers for figures nobody believed: Pulled Out Of Thin Air (POOTA) or Pulled Out Of My A** (POOMA). So however you chose to spell it, this s what Romney's figures all were. Perhaps they should be called POORA numbers (where the R stands for Romney).    


Got no Time to do the Math? Yeah Right, Paul-loves-Ayn Ryan

It's obvious what Ryan is now saying. He's going to take from the jobless, senior citizens, the disabled, and those making under $100,000/yr. and give to rich scum like his running mate. This "no time to do the math line by line" is just con-man talk. Anyone who has ever been conned before knows that. The ultimate plan is to take us to an Ayn Rand utopia, where the rich and the powerful dictate to everyone else. It's really that simple. See The New Feudalism. Link below.


Paul Ryan the Flim Flam Man
Click here for a 17 min video
by a man who ran against Paul Ryan

Also Sprach Das Romnoid.
Here is the latest folks, just hours before the first debate. Social Security is "welfare" now.  You get back some of what you paid in all you life,  and the Romnoid calls that WELFARE.  Old people should forget about retirement, and go out and find "good paying jobs." Where? In China, obviously. This is where Romney and his ilk sent them all. The common cockroach which works hard morning noon and night to keep your storm drains open deservues more respect than this Robot of the Right.

Williamic Park?
 Does anyone know if enough genetic material from William the Conqueror survives so that he could be brought back, much like those dinosaurs in Jurassic Park? If you could, you'd have the ultimate Republican. You wouldn't need Romney or Ryan  anymore.  You wouldn't even need to worry about elections anymore. One man would own the whole planet  and everyone and everything on it. He would be like John Galt on steroids. A true Ayn Randian wet dream. 

To really understand Paul Ryan (and to a lesser extent Mitt Romney), one needs to understand something about Ayn Rand, the goddess of Laissez Faire Capitalism that Ryan and the rest of the Tea Partiers almost literally worship. Basically, Rand held that nobody has any duty to anyone, save possibly ones self (Technically, Rand denied there even was such a thing as duty, because Kant said there was, and she was out to deny everthing Kant ever said--- aside from one or two things she plagairized  from him. Yes, "Galt's Pledge" in Atlas Shrugged is lifted right out of Kant). Being "moral" according to Rand meant acting in ones own "rational" (whaever the hell that meant) self-interest. All transactions freely made between one individual and another were, by definition, "moral" in Rand's morality, regardless of consequences for 3rd parties not partners to the deal. Like much of Rand, sounds reasonable until you begin to think about it--- which most of her followers, like Alan Greenspan and Paul Ryan, never do. What is wrong with this simple "free trade" between  individuals principle? Suppose Smith pays Jones a thousand dollars to murder Smith's wife, and both mutually consent "freely" to the deal? Is this moral? Following Rand's principles, it is. Likewise if Smith sells Jones a company employing 1000 workers, and Jones lays off all the workers and hires virtual slave labor overseas to do the work. This is one but one of many reasons why Ayn Rand was such a total intellectual fraud.  It is why no respected academic philosopher subscribes to any of her theories as well--- just mean, rich, nasty, and heartless billionares and slime politicians like Romney and Ryan.

Romney in Ohio: ‘My heart aches’ for struggling Americans
Hahaha! At long last, Mitt has said something funny!
Yes, Mitt's heart aches for you! Perhaps Patsy Cline sang it best. Click here to hear Patsy Cline sing it better than anyone else.
She was the best! Don't you miss her? We miss you Patsy! You had so much class! You were a beacon of beauty and truth!

On Mitt Romney Not Getting Why Airplane Windows Don’t Open

The question, or the issue, everyone is evading: this is a man who supposedly "earned" hundreds of millions of dollars. Is it really possible that someone as utterly stupid as Mitt Romney could *earn* that much money?  If not, how did he get it? And what does this say about the socio- economic  and legal system. (aka "free market" capitalism) that enabled this scumbag to amass that much wealth, without doing any good for anyone else in return? On other words, we have a system in which hard work and innovation no longer get you anywhere. It's a system that rewards  deviousnes, bribery, and trickery, and theft. This is what capitalism has become. A game of murderers and thieves, "competing" to out do each other. Not a lot different conceptually from inner city street gangs. Basically, it's the same model with vastly different scales. This is what Mitt Romney, more than any candidate in the past, represents.  It is now literally and figuratively staring us in the face.

Did Mitt Borrow "Money from his Parents" to Start Bain Capital?
Hell No!

See some of Mitt's finacial backers in action. Think they'd never do here what they did in other countries? You decide.
Click Here

About the 47%
No doubt you've heard the Boco Raton tape. This is the total Ayn Rand mindset. It shows Romney is every bit as much a Randian as Paul Ryan. Everyone is either a "producer" or a "looter" in this childish mindset. The only "producers" are businessmen. If you punch a clock, you're a "looter" stealing your wage from your employer (who in fact "produced" the money he paid you). Just as significantly, Romney thinks he, the Walton family, etc. do not depend on government for anything. Ayn Rand's idol Aristotle saw through this 2400 years ago. The more you have, the more you depend on government to protect what you have. Like cops to prevent banks where Mitt has his money deposited from getting robbed. And how about Mitt's and Walmart's employees? They need to public transportation to get to work. They need government subsidized medical service to stay alive so they can continue working for Feign Capital. (Or is that Bain Capital? Whatever company that is that makes rugs that lie like Republicans). Bottom line, Ayn Rand was a very shallow and inept thinker, although she was extremely street smart. She knew how to dupe and deceive. In her world,  everything is bipolar: black or white; nothing is gray. You produce or you loot. If you're not a business hack like Mitt, you're a looter. (Just as an aside, doesn't Paul Ryan draw a paycheck can get full health converage from Uncle Sam? Isn't that snide little bastard part of the 47%. Without government, where would this little prick be)?
   So, just who are the real looters in the real world? Mitt has hundreds of millions  he didn't used to have. He *earned* that? He deserves to have more than 1000 times the wealth of an Einstein, a Jonas Salk, a Neil Armstrong,  or 10000 that of a Beethoven or a Schubert? Give me a break! 

Mitt Romney: Logan Act Violator?
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web
Order Code RL33265
Conducting Foreign Relations  Without Authority:
 The Logan Act
February 1, 2006
Michael V. Seitzinger Legislative Attorney American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Conducting Foreign Relations  Without Authority:  The Logan Act

Summary: The Logan Act, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 953, states:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authorityof the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The Logan Act was intended to prohibit United States citizens without authority from interfering in relations between the United States and foreign governments. There appear to have been no prosecutions under the Act in its more than 200 year history.  However, there have been a number of judicial references to the Act, and it is not uncommon for it to be used as a point of challenge concerning dealings with foreign officials.  Although attempts have been made to repeal the Act, it remains law and at least a potential sanction to be used against anyone who without authority interferes in the foreign relations of the United States.

So take that evil smirk off your face and
Cram it !
're not the President
And thank God you're not!
You're only helping freed the frenzy.
STFU!!! You're an IDIOT!

me pay taxes?



Music to accompany this 3 picture sequence:

Dmitri Shostakovich: Symphony No. 9 in E flat major, Op. 70

Anti Rand: A Critique of pure Sophistry


For, as we have said, the art of the sophist is a money-making art which trades on apparent wisdom, and so sophists aim at apparent proof... for sophistry is an appearance of wisdom without reality.                                                                                                                                   ----Aristotle
                 (Quoted from Aristotle's On Sophistical Refutations, 171b32-7. Tr. E. S. Forster. Loeb Classical Library Vol. 400 (Harvard, 1955). P. 63 )

Far Right Wing Pointy Heads
 Hitting the Debt Ceiling
July 27, 2011

Some call it political theater. but there's really nothing the least bit entertaining about it, unless of course like "Rand" Paul Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, and others, you happen to be part of the Wall Street "Good 'ol Boy" Network looking to foist another rip off scam on the American People, bigger even than the "housing bubble" which embezzled billions from private retirement accounts (those AAA derivatives based on junk loans, that were held largely by retirement funds). The plan now is to really "go for broke" and  "privatize" and then bilk not billions, but trillions from the Social Security Trust Fund. Why should "Good Christians" want to do something so heinous? The answer is very simple. Because they need the money, just as a junkie needs another fix, a megalomeniac needs more power, and a pathological sex addict needs another orgasm.  You'd better beleive, these scoundrels will be cream'n for a week if they pull this one off. However, what ever maybe left of the capitalist system will be in smolders. Such is the life of an addict-- and those within the sphere of his influence. It has been said correctly that addictions (alcohholism included) destroys falilies. The sort of addiction we are dealing with here destroys civilizations.

     So, if the capitalist system hasn't collapsed yet, it is clear that it is about to. All this garbage about "free markets," deregulation, and "free speech rights" for corporations, going back to Ayn Rand devotee Ronald Reagan, has brought us to the very dramatic dead end which is now tying up phone lines to Washington. Too little, too late. Neither "grand plan" is going to be enough to fix anything. Rather, as any competent economist will tell you, spending cuts will smolder what's left of the "economic recovery." To put it simply, it's like the "Bush tax rebates" of some years ago in reverse. Cuts in social security and Medicare will mean millions of people have a lot less money to spend. That will mean millions of small business owners now borrowing from personal savings to barely stay afloat will go under. It all snowballs downward from there. You don't need a Ph.D. in economics to understand this, folks.
    In short, the dogma of big corporation profits before people is going to have to be cast aside because the masses simply are not going to  be able to tolerate it any longer. A managed economy is going to have to be a big part of the final answer. Having the US government seize US Banks, oil companies, and other large corporations  may well have to be another. Last but not least, a constitutional amendment declaring that living and breathing human beings are the only "persons" under the law will be of paramount importance. Until that happens, Wall street, with its unlimited "campaign financing" (i.e. bribes to politicians)  is going to own both the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and Capitol Hill, regardless of the party labels of the office holders (if you are perplexed at Obama's willingness to cave on social security, realize this and you won't be).  This is at the heart of the current problem: Wall Street wants to take control of not only the Social Security trust fund, but the world.  When they get the Social Security funds (as the next major step in their quest for "private" world rule), they will do with it exactly what they did with the nation's home mortgages.
    Endgame: the social security trust fund goes into the pockets of the nation's ruling elite.  Old and disabled people, and everyone else who cares about them, will be at the mercy of a lot that has swallowed Ayn Rand's "Morality of Selfishness" hook line and sinker, and has no use for people too old or unable to work whatsoever. Yes, they really do want it all. That's the bottom line folks. You can either stand up to these bastards, or beleive them when they tell you that what they are doing is for your own good. and that it is God's will. The decision is yours. Think it through, and you just might realize that if indeed the God of these people is the God of the Bible, Lucifer was a first cousin of the Greek Promethius, and had a darned good reason to rebel. Do you really want to spend all of enternity under the domination of a God as mean and ruthless as this? So forget about "obeying your masters" as the Apostle Paul commanded you to do.
(Ephesians 6:5  1Timothy 6:1).  The Apostle Paul was nothing more than the Rand Paul of his day.  

This is John Galt Speaking

                                                                             March 18, 2011 Update

The owner of this site has sarcastically asked, "What would John Galt say now?"  Well, I've said it once and I'll say it again.  F
or twelve fifty five years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man of integrity, who tells the truth to his money hungry bosses as work, something they cannot stand. I am the man who blows the whistle on shoddy nuclear engineering practices, to no avail.  This is why nuclear power can never be made safe. Not because engineers such as myself cannot make it safe, but because our managers would never let us because 1) that would raise the cost; and 2) nuclear meltdowns are actually profitable.  Nuclear investors are interested in only one thing: profits.
   Yes, my mom misquotes and misrepresents me to no end in her novel Atlas Shrugged. I never went on strike; the capitalists bastards I worked for fired my ass. I thereby got branded as a whistle blower. Why else do you think I would have worked menial jobs?   That was all I could get. 
      One thing my mom says that was correct is that the world is falling apart because of its moral code. But what she got backwards was the nature of the moral code the capitalist world lives by: altruism. Oh, so those goons who fired me and others for blowing the whistle on nuclear safety were altruists?  I don't think so!  The "moral code" that has brought the world to the brink of destruction is exactly the one my dumb mom preached and practiced: "looking out for number one."     Just as a little aside, I am tired of being ridiculed for saying "existence exists." Aristotle never said it, I never said it. That was my stupid mom, not me. I also know full well that it was Leibniz, not Aristotle who first said "A is A." I fully agree with Leibniz that "A is A" is just a trivial "truth of reason" and says nothing about the real world.
     I could go on, but I'm worried about the radioactive cloud from Japan arriving any day now. I'm heading for a cave in the Colorado Mountains where there is no WiFi. C-Ya. 

            The Free Market is Melting Down
                                                    March 16, 2011 Update

What is happening in Japan at the Fukashima Reactor is a good deal more than a nuclear meltdown, but of the economic social system which produced it. No, it's not a technological failure, nor even an act of "God" or "mother nature," which ever you prefer, because the design of the General Electric Mark 1 Reactor was, to put it bluntly, crap, and known to be crap at least since 1972 . Why then were these reactors ever built? Because they were economically attractive for both buyer and seller. If you buy Ayn Rand's Objectivist Ethics, this was a completely moral transaction because because it was freely made by both parties. Herein lies the utter stupidity of Rand's so called ethics: The Tokyo Electric Power (TEPCO) and the builders were in actually not the only "parties" to this deal, because hundreds of thousands of other people were put at risk. These people, some of whom may now have to pay the ultimate price  for this rotten design, are the  "forgotten men of of cheap nuclear power," to use an expression of Rand herself, slightly altered to fit this state of affairs.
      But this crappy design is just the beginning. Acting in their own "rational self interest" (i.e., in such a way as to minimize costs and maximize profits) the builders of these plants played ever proverbial trick in the proverbial book-- falsify test results, covering up known problems, and so forth. Throughout the history of the nuclear power industry, there have been countless nuclear whistleblowers, who have sacrificed their careers to make nuclear power as safe as it reasonably could be. Tragically, the sacrifice of countless careers (no body wants to hire a whistleblower) by countless nuclear engineers, technicians, and other workers, was not enough. Tonight as I type this, an unknown number of brave Japanese military people are deliberately sacrificing their lives in the hope of keeping their country inhabitable. And in so doing, they are acting completely contrary to the "Objectivist ethics" of Ayn Rand. If this these combined facts do not convince you that Ayn Rand's so called "morality" is in fact an utter perversion of morality,  and diabolically evil, nothing will.      

The Free Market is Death
June 19, 2010 Update

As I type this, at the wonderful Vons Supermarket (not being facetious here, this is the nicest Vons anywhere) Near Vermont and Sunset in Hollywood, the News is that the CEO of British Petroleum, Tony Hayward is attending a "Glitzy yacht race around England's Isle of Wight." Does this not rank right up there with Nero playing his fiddle while Rome burned? Or could it be that Hayward knows for certain something the rest of us naysayers only suspect? namely, that this well in the Gulf of Mexico isn't ever going to be taped, and that Planet Earth has now beome, in a manner of speaking, planet Titanic, and we're all going down? If that's so, it makes perfect sense for Hayward to say in effect "the hell with it all" and go have some ocean fun while that is still physically possible? Why worry what history may say about him when there's not going to be any history?

    It makes sense. But don't blame Hayward. As the defendants at Nuremburg put it they were just following orders. Hayward likewise was just following orders-- the orders of the free market.

The Free Market is theft

It's theft, pure and simple, of the poor by the corporate elite. Witness the private paramilitary (many Israeli) now patrolling the streets of New Orleans, preparing for "gentrification (i.e., theft from mostly poor Black people of their "former" homes).  This is what "free market radicals" (such as Rand) have wanted for decades. Now we've got it. In brief, what America has is no longer a government but corporate mafia rule.

June 3, 2009 Update
About the proposed closing of 80 % of California's State Parks

    As this is being written, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his band of right wing fellow Republican swine (with apologizies to the animal anti-defamataion league-- no real pig is as evil as Schwartzenegger and the Republicans in Sacramento, we know) are just about creaming in their jeans at the prospect of a Randian /libertatian/neocon dream about to come true in California. Schwartzenegger is proposing the closing of 80% of all California State Parks (100% of all that have camp ground facilities). "Hey, Stadt Parkz, daz  izt Sozializm!" Donzt you know dat!? And what do they expect you to do? "bend over and take it," as the saying goes.  Why is this supposedly "necessary?" Because this is what conservatives have wanted for decades? Yes, but it's also because the state's wealthiest, who can afford to fly to Europe if they want to vacation, don't like paying taxes. In brief, this is their way of saying "screw you" to the working people of this state-- the very ones who are being asked to bail out the nations biggest corporations and biggest banks.
     In response, you have two choices: light up a bowl, and open a can of Bud or Coors Horse Urine and watch a ball game (what Schwartzenegger and his gang expect you to do), or you can get active and do something about it.

Mid-February 2009 Update

  Most of what you will read on this site was written approximately two years ago. So, with all that has happened in the U.S. and the world economically in the last two years (much of it under the tutelage of Rand protege Alan Greenspan), I decided an updatewas long overdue.
What we are witnessing now is the virtual meldown of the entire world capitalist system. To the best of my knowledge, even Karl Marx never envisioned anything quite like this. If anything, it's like an inversion of what Marx envisioned. The workers of the world, generally speaking have not united (except after the fact, a few isolated spots like Iceland). In America specifically, the American Worker has been far too busy downing his Bud or his Coors as he watched his favorite professsional sports team on the "tube," to be bothered with anything as ho-hum as making revolution. Instead, the system has "burned itself out" or "melted down" on its own. This "nuclear melt-down of the world capitalist system" was neither engineered nor brought about by the working class. It is rather the culmination of the Reagan Revolution begun some 28 years ago. Perhaps we could trace it back a bit further to September 4, 1974 with the swearing in of Alan Greenspan as the Chairman of President Gerald R. Ford's Council of Economic Advisors (word is that Ayn Rand accompanied Green Span during the festivities surrounding that swearing in).
    In either case, it was with the Reagan Administration, beginning in January 1981 that "deregulation" and "privitization" became mantras under the general rubric of "supply side" (or if you prefer, "trickle down") economics. Those around at the time will surely remember Arthur Laffer and his "Laffer Curve," Office of Management and Budget Director David A. Stockman, and the embarrasing December, 1981 Atlantic Monthly Article "The Education of David Stockman."  In that article, Stockman admitted to a reporter that Reagans 1981 "Kemp Roth" tax cut was little more that "a Trojan Horse to bring down the top (tax) rate" because "It's kind of hard to sell trickle-down."
     Horrifying as all of this was to those to the left of center, it was just the beginning. Add to that Reagan's elimination of medical deductions and "tax averaging," both of which significantly benefitted the middle class, and Reagan's touch anti-union stance with his firing of 10,000 PATCO air traffic controller union members, the pattern soon becomes clear. A major effort to transfer wealth was underway: from the middle to the upper. The middle class, in other words, was headed for extinction. It's former members to join an increasingly impoverised lower class.  "Trickle down" was in actuality a misnomer for "Flow up."
    What's next for the "middle class,"  those who "own" their own homes?" For many of these people, whose "equity" has gone negative with the housing crash, the "American Dream" of home ownerships has become a nightmare. This is especially true of those who purchase during the "bubble" phase of a few years ago-- thinking that "people will always need to live somewhere, therefore housing prices will keep going up indefinitely." Their real estate brokers and their lenders, of course, all know that this was not true. But both made small fortunes for themselves through "lending magic." Now, while some of these recent buyers struggle to hold on, many have already their homes and it's a buyer's market now for foreclosed bank held properties. Many lenders have either failed outright, or been consumed by slightly stronger institutions (often putting the acquiring institution itself at far greater risk of failure as a result).  A scenario where everybody loses? Not quite. Remember the 18 Billion of bonues the executives of these failed institutions paid themselves just before their institutions went broke? These "good old boys" did quite well for themselves. Hey, if you're going to run your institution into the ground, good Objectivist and capitalist principles dictate that you do it at a profit, right? Also, I have heard reports of failed mortgage packages being sold to Billionare investors at one cent on the dollar. Eventually someone is going to have to own all of these empty foreclosed homes, right? You now have a hint of who these owners just might be. Rememebr what I said at the outset of this update, about the Reagan Revolution's (with a little help from Newt Gingrich's Contract on America-- remember that?) plan to eliminate the middle (home owning worker) class? That particular revolution is being televised. Nearly every day, you see reports of tens of thousands of jobs being lost, and countless homes being foreclosed. Cities like Dayton Ohio, which were heavily dependent upon the failing U.S. Auto Industry, are particularly hard hit. The only ray of hope on the horizon is President Obama's stimulus package. But even the most optimistic of analysts aren't expecting any immediate results from that. In the mean time, more big financial institutions teeter on the verge of collapse. 
      In all fairness, it must be admitted that what is happening now with the bailout plans of first the Bush administration and now the Obama Administration are nothing like what Ayn Rand called, or anyone else would call "Laissez Faire" capitalism. But at the same time, it must be realized that it is because the kind of Laissez Faire capitalism Ayn Rand (more than anyone else) advocated was more completely and more fully realized under the G.W. Bush administration than at any prior time in history that these pseudo socialist plans have, out of desperation, been implemented.
      If one wants to make a comparison between the current real situation and the one Ayn Rand fictionalized in Atlas Shrugged, the heroes and the villains have switched places. It's the "Galt's Gulch" crowed, controlling their assets from their mountain hideaway, that have caused the collapse. Now this same group has gone crying to the Wesley Mouch and Mr. Thompson types begging for help. In Rand's novel, the collapse comes about in the main because the "smart people," the people with brains and skills, have all gone on strike. IN the current real situarion, many skilled people are indeed out of the economy and have been for years. But it's not because they went on strike. It is because the Laissez Faire economy found little use for them. Experience American engineers, for example, have been pushed out of the work force because under pressure from major Silicon Valley contributors, Sen Barbara Boxer has long pushed for "H1B visas." These allow foreign students registered in places like UCSD and UCLA to stay and work in the country for six years after graduation. Not only is this a rotten deal for the older more senior engineers who get put out of the work forece, it's a rotten deal for the California tax payer who funds these institution. Looking out for their own best interests, the respective departments prefer foreign students over American Student for a number of reasons (e.g. they pay a higher tuition rate). Obviously, it works well for Sen. Boxer's Silicon Valley contributers (not to mention Sen Boxer herself) as well. For the people of the State of California, it's a rotten deal.
       More to come.

The Relation between Capitalism and Freedom is Inverse

Contrary to what my old college professor Milton, and old college chum David Friedman are fond of telling people, to say nothing of the goddess of darkness that is the central topic of this site,  pure Laissez Faire capitalism is not a necessary precondition for personal liberty and freedom. Nor is even the less pure, stinky kind we have in the world today.  The reason for this is actually quite simple: the more big business you have, the greater the concentration of economic power you are going to have. Even former Michigan governor, and 1968 Republican presidential primary candidate,  George Romney knew that; and at the 1968 convention, his delegates tried unsuccessfully to put forth a Republican platform plank opposing such massive concentrations of economic power. No, Romney would not have been as good as RFK, but he would have been a hell of a lot better than Nixon. Too bad he told the world he was changing his position on the Vietnam War to one of opposition from former support because he had formerly been "brainwashed" by the Johnson administration. That single word was fatal to his campaign.
        Case in point: City of San Clemente, very recently. A street busker, a clarinetist named Patrick Crosby, after 2 years of playing in the same general area to the delight of most, had a little verbal spat with a manager of the largest employer in town, a bar and restaurant establishment called the Fisherman's, located on San Clemente's municipal pier. The Fishermans' calls their buddies, the deputies of the Orange County Sheriff (a man himself surrounded by scandal, named Mike Corona) and Crosby is verbally abused, and given a misdemeanor citation for "not having a special event permit." later changed, reportedly, to "operating without a business license."
    Just in case anyone doesn't know, what Crosby, a solo act, not obstructing pedestrian traffic, was doing is protected under the First Amendment. But in places like Orange County, California, big money and big business trump the US Constitution. Crosby will literally need to make a federal case of his ordeal. Although he will, most people in his situation would not be able to for economic reasons. So much for capitalism and freedom. When Ayn Rand and my old college chum David, and his dad Milton, speak of the freedom that goes along with capitalism, they may think they're talking about the kind of freedom that was recently stolen from Patrick Crosby, but they're not. What they're really talking about is the freedom of the rich and powerful to dominate and oppress others. This is what "capitalism and freedom" means now, and what it has always meant.

   Who was the fountainheadthe one who paved the way culturally, for the neoconservative, neofascist, racist Laissez Faire Capitalist thugs (in government, in the oil industry, and companies like Dick Cheney's Halliburten) that are now fully in control of the U.S. government? Whose portrait is proudly displayed in the Washington D.C. office of the neofascist right wing "think tank" (actually, propaganda mill) called the Cato Institute? And who was it that founded the new kind of "moral theory" than can "rationally justify" such things as deliberate outright lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction to the American people and the world, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of Afghanis and Iraqis with Bush's illegal and utterly immoral Shock and Awe campaign, 35,000 or more severe American casualties in those two misadventures, plus an Italian government body guard here, or a Reuters sound technician there, murdered in cold blood by U.S. soldiers, who afterward thought their murderous deed was something to laugh about? Yes, according to reports I've heard, these soldiers, while laughing hysterically, told the brutally murdered (shot in the face) sound technician's family that the loved one they lost wasn't really worth fussing about. Not at all hard to believe--- neither the deed, nor a Lt. Col. Steven Boylan's (spokesperson for the U.S. military in Iraq and Director of Combined Press Information Center) public rationalization of the deed on Democracy Now as "understandable under the circumstances," although I'm old enough to know that Americans didn't used to be this way. Plus, the wholesale suspension and violation of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights and liberties of U.S. Citizens with the so called "Patriot Act," (of which "liberal" Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a strong supporter) and gross violations of the Geneva Conventions in the form of prisoner torture? And last but certainly not least, who laid the "philosophical foundation" for the decision to cut the budget for levee repair (that might have saved the lives of thousands of mostly Democrat voting African Americans), on the part of W. Bush and the Republicans? Look no further than the "ethics of selfishness" of Ayn Rand. But Rand was an outspoken atheist, one might counter argue. Aren't Bush and his cronies all evangelical Christians?I will answer that this way: if you truly believe that Bush (or for that matter, Pat Robertson) is a Christian, then my name's Michael, and I'm what is called an archangel. I also have a famous toll bridge in New York (Brooklyn specifically) that I'd like to sell you. In other words, while Bush and some of the other members of the crime family he calls his Administration do indeed publicly label themselves Christians, the truth of the matter is that, again, whether they so label themselves or not, they're all a bunch of Randians, or Objectivists. Their common "morality" comes not out of the Bible, but straight out of the 58 page "Galt's speech" near the end of Ayn Rand's "literary masterpiece," Atlas Shrugged (1957), and Ayn Rand's collection of essays, "The Virtue of Selfishness" (1962).
    Who is John Galt?  Perhaps you've seen bumper stickers over the years asking that question, and wondered. Keep reading, keep checking for updates to this site. We'll tell you who this fictional little moron, who knew nothing, but thought himself entitled to "lay down the law" and rule everything, really was.
But what's the big deal about this speech of his? Well, this is no ordinary speech--- of course, it's not really even a speech. It's the full and complete statement of Rand's supposed "philosophy" of "Objectivism" (another misnomer if there ever was one). So when we talk about John Galt, we're really talking about Ayn Rand herself. But Ayn Rand liked to harbor the delusion that Galt was something more than just a figment of her own imagination. She speaks of him this way in her essays, and according to Barbara Branden's biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand, she spoke of him in every day life as though he were something beyond herself. So, since Ms. Branden and others in Rand's inner circle went along with this little delusion of hers, we might just as well too. Just don't tell any present day Rand follower that there really is no John Galt, please. That would be like telling a small child that there is no tooth fairy or No easter Bunny. 
      So, aside the fact that he had a mother, but no father (although he was by no means born of a "virgin"), who was John Galt? As we will explain, in ever increasing detail as time goes on, he was, for starters, an intellectual thief who stole a whole scattering ideas and famous lines from famous philosophers, such as German philosopher Immanuel Kant, and thereafter claimed them to be his own. What is more, he outright lied about what these great thinkers (even Aristotle, the one he supposedly liked) had said, counting on his listeners to be too ignorant, too unintelligent, or too lazy to check him out on his assertions. Even worse, he claims, at the end of this incredibly long winded speech, to live by a principle that is completely at odds with the crude, dog-eat-dog capitalist system he is advocating: that he will never treat others, merely as a means to his own ends (this stolen straight out of Kant, by the way). The reality, of course is that every big corporation wants each employee working for it to regard his or her employment as the single most important thing in that employee's life (they call this work ethic); hence it inherently treats employees, basically, little more than as means to its own corporate ends. This clearly violate Galt's pledge. (Perhaps after 10 hours of non-stop purple prose, he was counting on most of listeners to have long since turned him off). Not only that, in marketing their goods and services, customers are similarly seen as means toward the end of corporate profits. Corporations care little whether their goods or services actually benefit their customers; they merely want to make them to think they do (e.g., the cigarette ads of a few decades ago, and fast food restaurant ads today). In brief, it is the exact opposite of what Galt pledges that most real businesses (certainly, all big businesses) operate by: the corporation rules. What is more, they not only own society's means of production, for practical purposes, they own the people who live in the societies they dominate. If you want to understand why Pat Robertson wants Hugo Chavez assassinated, this is basically it. Chavez is standing up, and standing up mightily, to these corporate scoundrels who think the world to be not only a stage, but their stage.  Robertson, of course, like most televangelists, is their paid stooge.
    Rand herself, incidentally, did exactly the same thing: those in her inner circle, called "the Collective," were expected to cater to her every whim. Thus the claim by some apologists that Objectivism is somehow separable from the way Rand lived her own life is completely false. Rand lived exactly by the sophistry, and con artistry, she preached.
    So when Galt makes that pledge at the end of his speech, to neither live for the sake of another man, nor ask another to live for his, he does he mean it? Well, he half means it. That is to say, he wants big corporations to be able to make claims against you and me, to treat and use others (either as employees, customers, or geographical neighbors) to their own best interests, but at the same time he wants you and me to pledge not to make any claims upon them in turn. In this way, the rich and powerful can use that power to become even richer and more powerful, and therefore to get themselves into an even stronger position to dominate the less powerful.
    This is the way so called "free enterprise" has always worked, and always will work, so long as the majority people getting the proverbial short end of the stick are duped into falling for it. The only thing new with Galt is that he is trying to sell this now as a moral creed, trying to convince the under class that they are moral wretches if they don't allow big business a free hand in maximizing profits. Thus in essence, John Galt was one of the biggest con artists in all of pulp fiction. 

     More importantly and more significantly, we will explain to you, as this site further develops, how all of this garbage, which Rand, with the help of her imaginary hero-friend, John Galt, and her various minions (these days, mostly the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage--- not to mention Supreme Court nominees Judge Roberts and Alberto Gonzales) have preached for so many decades, has finally crept into and poisoned American culture, creating a whole new set of social and moral attitudes on the part of the average American, who for the most part has never even heard of Ayn Rand. (How it is possible for someone who has never even heard of Rand to be influenced by her will be explained in considerable detail later, as we further develop the site. For now, suffice it to say that it involves the sociological notion of habitus). And it is this cultural poisoning, we will argue, that has made it possible for American soldiers to torture prisoners, and to kill innocent people, such as journalists and their body guards, and then laugh at and poke fun of their victim's loved ones.
    With the knowledge and insight we hope to impart, it is our hope that our site's visitors will then see the need, and be better equipped, to help reawaken the dormant humanistic values of brotherly love, compassion, equality, and community, that were born, and once flourished, here in America. And if all of us passionate patriots can all work together to save America, as a man named Ray Taliaferro likes to say, that should be a good first step in saving the world because at the moment, it is the rulers of America (and their corporate financial backers) that are hell bent on destroying the world, if not through global warming, and if not through conventional war, then through nuclear weapons in space. Why you ask? To what conceivable end? The answer to that one is really quite easy when you think about it: the capitalist system works on the profit motive, and as it turns out, wars and destruction are extremely profitable--- you make and sell the bombs to the taxpayers, and then you get the reconstruction contracts to rebuild what you destroyed (also funded by the same lower and middle class taxpayers). But it's not all merely for the sake of financial profit; it's also for the sake of the amusement of those in control--- only, amusement in the Harris and Klebold
sense of the term. But of course, George W. Bush is a little too much of a coward and too much of a little weasel to do any of the actual shooting himself (to say nothing of bearing the direct personal consequences, as Harris and Klebold did). He'd much rather have others, such as Casey Sheehan, do all of that for him, and simply play the part of a fighter aircraft pilot in a San Diego publicity shot. In other words, George W. Bush can best be understood as a bit of a cross between Harris and Klebold, a wanna be Tom Cruise, and a video game junkie. Only, the "game" W is playing is the real world. And as in most violent video games, the more people he kills, the higher his score. And this just gets him off to no end. Notice, when you understand this, it is easy to also understand why, when he was the governor of Texas, he just about had an orgasm when hearing Carla Faye Tucker (a true Christian) had been put to death. An amoral man? Not at all. According Ayn Rand's theory of Objectivism, George W. Bush is not the sort of man who has lost, or never known morality, but on the contrary, the one who has discovered it. (See Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged).

What is
Anti rand is new voice on the web for the promotion of freedom, reason, and compassion, as well as universal human rights for all inhabitants of this earth--- not just Americans, not just the super rich and powerful, and not just the executives of large corporations and their stockholders. That is to say, we believe that every person who walks this earth ought to be entitled to the same freedoms, rights, and protections that are guaranteed (at least in theory) to every citizen of the United States in the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution known as the Bill of Rights (plus of course, the U.S. Declaration of Independence). We are further dedicated to opposing the ever accelerating trend toward privatization of public property on a global scale, and corporate domination of the political process--- indeed, we believe corporations should be taken out of the political process entirely. As this site intends to show, these disturbing trends were seeded decades ago by the sophistry of novelist and pseudo-philosopher, Ayn Rand. This site is therefore dedicated not only to exposing the numerous contradictions and fallacies contained in Rand's own writings, but those being promulgated today by her present day followers, admirers, and advocates. These include, but are not limited to, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan (a protege and close personal friend of Rand's), SEC Chairman Christopher Cox, a self proclaimed Rand admirer, Rush Limbaugh, and the Ayn Rand Institute of Irvine, California. In brief, while Ayn Rand claimed to be a champion of liberty and human rights, all of the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction: that freedom for Ayn Rand, in the final analysis, meant nothing more and nothing less than freedom of the rich, the powerful, and the deceptive to oppress, dominate, and control--- and the freedom of the rest of us to submit to their domination, accepting it as an objective "fact of reality." And what is more, that such a small, rich, and powerful minority should exercise dominion over the rest, seeking only it's own self interest, with little or no concern for the rest of humanity, and that the rest of humanity should accept it, Rand claimed was a moral necessity dictated by reason itself (on the supposed ethical basis of what she called rational self interest). Most amazing of all, the followers of Rand, who uncritically accepted this and the rest of the nonsense which Rand called Objectivism, Rand dubbed new intellectuals. This, we submit, is Orwellian New Speak par excellence. The purpose of this site therefore, is to expose Objectivism for the metaphysical, epistemological, and logical nonsense, and moral evil, that it truly is.  

    Was Ayn Rand correct about anything? Yes, we think that recent history shows, beyond question, that Ayn Rand was indeed correct about one thing: that ideas do have consequences. For example, because of George W. Bush's ideas about budget priorities (the idea that his misadventure in Iraq was a higher priority than levee reinforcement in New Orleans, and that 40% of  Louisiana's National Guard had more important work to do in Iraq than they did back at home), tens of thousands of New Orleans' sick, elderly, poor, and disabled are now either dead, or breathing their last breaths. No, these people were not killed by any "natural disaster," they were killed by George W. Bush and the Republican Party's 2001 budget ax. Did the fact that New Orleans was a predominantly African American City, and the knowledge that mass deaths there would likely increase the strength of the Republican party in the region, enter into the budget considerations? Could it be said that Bush and the Republicans didn't exactly gamble the lives of these people away, but actually figured that such a disaster (which would not only kill people, but raise crude oil prices, and therefore oil company profits) as a potential boon to their interests? Oh, no; we would never suggest that

    Now, just who is Ayn Rand? Her followers say she was the greatest mind that ever lived. We at Anti rand say something quite the opposite. Ayn Rand (1905--1982), was born Alissa Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg Russia. Her adopted 
first name, correctly pronounced, sounds nothing at all like "Ann," but more like "ion" or "eye'n" but somewhat compressed into one syllable. After emigrating to the United States in her late teens, and a few unimportant (for our purposes here) career detours along the way, she became one of America's best known novelists and essayists, to the point of gaining something of a cult following beginning in the late 1950s with the publication of her magnum opus, a novel called Atlas Shrugged. Although the "Rand movement" probably peaked in 1968 (the time of her "repudiation" of former associates Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, after Nathaniel broke off a long running romantic affair with Ayn, known to both of their respective spouses), her influence remains enormous to this day--- both directly and indirectly. In fact, the recent movement toward "privatization" of everything from roads to water supplies might well be seen as the fulfillment of a Randian dream of a half century ago. All property, Rand held, should be privately held.
     But Ayn Rand did not stop with political theory. Indeed, she herself claimed that her entire political  theory was based on a metaphysical, epistemological, and moral philosophy of her own invention, one which she called Objectivism. In brief, the metaphysics of Rand's Objectivism says that the basis of all knowledge is the so called "axiom of existence" which says existence exists. Her Objectivist epistemology,(theory of knowledge) in brief, says that things really areas we perceive them (whether this applies to such things as mirages in the desert or on the road, Rand never quite got around to telling us). The basis of Objectivist ethics, finally, is selfishness--- or more precisely, what Rand called "rational self interest." But such an ethics, as we shall prove, turns out to be nothing more and nothing less than a philosophical nihilism --- quite the opposite of the "absolutism" Rand claims it to be.
     This initial page is just a start for an entire project   The plan is, eventually, to critically discuss all aspects of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. In the end, we intend to show that Ayn Rand was anything but the voice of freedom and reason she claimed herself to be., and that if she is seriously to be regarded as part of the history of Western philosophy at all, she marks its nadir.

What is fundamentally wrong with Objectivism?  Basically, everything--- beginning with the supposed "axiom of existence" which according to Rand says "existence exists" and "A is A." Rand  attributes this nonsense to Aristotle, but the truth of the matter is that Aristotle never said anything of the sort. "A is A" was first formulated about 320 (not 2300) years ago by the German (not Greek) philosopher and mathematician Leibniz (in a posthumous work of his called the New Essays) as a "truth of reason." Such "truths of reason," according to Leibniz, told you absolutely nothing about anything actually existent--- whether a given thing (e.g., Bigfoot or UFOs) did or did not exist, or about any sort of objective reality. What is more, neither Aristotle, nor Leibniz, nor any other real philosopher I know has ever claimed that "existence exists." Why not? Because every other philosopher prior to Rand (and for the most part, since) has realized that the assertion is not only meaningless (as some critics of Rand have argued) but outright false. This link explains why. What is so terribly wrong with Objectivism? 

               What is fundamentally wrong with Rand's theory of knowledge? her basic Objectivism?  Basically, what is wrong is that she claims to know the way things as they "really are," as they "really exist" independently of human cognition or knowledge. But this is, in effect, a contradiction: the claim of a super knowledge, in a manner of speaking, beyond knowledge, which nobody has. Sure, it's reasonable to assume that there are things in this world that exist independently of human cognition, the noumenal world, or the Ding an such, as Kant put it in German, or the "thing in itself" as we generally translate that phrase into English. But how can we talk about such things as they are "in and of themselves," independently of human cognition? Clearly, we humans only know what we know. We don't know what we don't know. But Rand is claiming to know that which, by definition, by her own admission, is not known---  the world of things, untouched by human knowledge. This is patently absurd.
    But Ayn Rand has a response to this simple truism, first formulated by Kant (with
his "neumenal-phenomenal" distinction). She throws a little girlish temper tantrum, and lambastes poor old Immanuel Kant as "morally evil," "an enemy of man's mind"--- while at the same time plagiarizing from him elsewhere. That is to say, Rand seems to think she can win the argument with screams, shrieks, pouts, and pretentious sanctimonious moral outrage. Nowhere does Rand even try to attack Kant's argument. This is why we call her by such names as pseudo philosopher and sophist, and why it's quite literally a joke to call this woman an intellectual (to say nothing of her blind followers). For further discussion on the basic problem of epistemology, see my What is Knowledge?

      Need a short introduction to Objectivism? Follow the link below to my One Drachma Course in Objectivism. The one drachma charge is purely voluntary. If paid at all, it must be paid in drachmas.  But as far as I know, they haven't minted these coins for 2300 or more years, so they're a bit hard to find these days. Should you be visiting the ancient ruins of Athens some time in the near future, you might look around on the ground. Perhaps the ancient Greeks threw these 1 drachma coins around the way we Americans do  pennies. (In case anyone  wonders, yes, I do stoop to pick up pennies. It's a big thrill for me when I find one--- something for nothing, as the saying goes. Plus, they come in very handy at times).
 A One Drachma Course in Objectivism.

    What do we mean by Universal Human Rights? A very good question with a very precise answer--- one that is the result of an enormous, heroic, group effort on the part of several people (among them Eleanor Roosevelt), spearheaded by two great philosophers (real philosophers) from the middle of the 20th century: Jacques Maritain and Richard P. McKeon. McKeon will be familiar to some readers of this site as the notorious "Chairman" character in Robert Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. But forget Pirsig's paranoid description of him; the truth is that the man was nothing less than a sage. Follow this link to that answer. Universal Declaration of Human Rights

What is fundamentally Wrong with Ethical Egoism? 
Some people will be surprised to learn that Ayn Rand's theory of "ethical egoism" (or As Rand herself put it more simply, "selfishness," or more verbosely, "rational self interest") really didn't originate with Ayn Rand. Rand was simply the first publicly recognized figure to take the theory seriously. And the reason for this is quite simple: Ethical Egoism, as a moral theory, has one fundamental problem: you cannot preach it without at the same time violating it! That is to say, if I am truly selfish, the last thing in the world I want is for you or anyone else to be selfish--- on the contrary, I want them to be altruists, especially in their dealings with me. That is why no real philosopher has ever taken ethical egoism very seriously--- it's quite literally a philosopher's joke (much like "The Society for Solipsism"). But Rand claims that the theory can be made valid if one realizes that reason dictates that I recognize the equal right to be selfish for everyone. But in fact, this introduction of the term "rational" in the name of the theory only makes the theory more absurd. If I do in fact recognize the right of others to promote their own selfish ends, even when the realization those ends is detrimental to me, I am thereby unselfishly contradicting my own principle of selfishness! Ergo: Rand's is in actuality a theory of irrational  self interest. However, as we shall explain below, if you have attained above average political influence, power, and wealth, you begin coming out ahead with this theory. And the more powerful, wealthy, and influential you are, the bigger a win it is for you. But by the same token, the poorer and less powerful you are, the worse deal it is for you.
     The way this works is not difficult to see. Simply put, the more power, wealth, and influence you have, the more selfish you are able to be, for the simple reason that you have a greater ability to advance your own selfish interest. What those of far less power and influence are able to do to further their own interests is small in comparison to what you're are able to do to advance yours. So, how does this work out practically, when poor and powerless people (e.g., the majority of people in Kansas who vote Republican) who are not, as the saying goes, "the sharpest tools in the shed," accept the hypothesis that everyone has an equal right to be selfish? The rich get richer and the poor get poorer! Again, this is an entirely predictable result for the simple reason that the rich have far greater means at their disposal to pursue their own selfish ends, thus ensuring that they're going to come out way ahead on this raw deal. To put it another way, Rand's moral theory becomes a proverbial stacked deck--- stacked in favor of the rich, the powerful, and the manipulative. To put it still another way, Rand's Objectivist Ethics is a con game, pure and simple, against the uneducated (or very poorly educated) poor. And interestingly enough, Rand herself had a phrase which fits this quite well (although she didn't apply it in this way): the sanction of the victim. That is to say, the poor or middle class person who has to struggle to make ends meet, and possibly doesn't get the medical treatment he or a family member needs, yet buy into Rand's sucker morality, honestly believes it right and just that he should struggle as he does, and be denied needed medical treatment.  Nietzsche likewise had a phrase for this, although he didn't apply it in this way either: the slave morality. For Nietzsche slave morality was the morality slaves invented for themselves, and used against the former masters; here, it's the morality invented or promoted by the former masters for the slaves, for purposes of duping the freed slaves into voluntarily putting themselves back into a condition of servitude toward the masters.
     But Rand is not exactly an innovator here. The kind of socio-political and economic "raw deal" we get from Ayn Rand long predates her, although it went by different names--- such as individualism. Why individualism? Because like Rand's (admittedly slightly more nutty) theory of rational self interest, older theories of individualism work on the exact same lie of inequality--- that the worker and the big corporation, for example, are "equal parties" in a "free" employment contract. Why aren't they equal? And why isn't this truly a "free trade" deal? Because the individual worker needs the job a lot more than Henry Ford, say, needs the worker. The worker and his family go hungry if he and Ford aren't able to agree on wages and working conditions; Ford merely hires someone else, and the assembly lines keep moving. No, we are certainly not saying individuals should not have rights--- quite the contrary. We are simply saying that in conservative economic theories (as advanced by some personal friends of mine, I must confess), so called "free market individualism" works against the best interests of most individuals; it is that which we at Anti rand oppose.
(By "we," I mean not just me, but those who support my effort here as well).

What is this Ayn Rand Institute all about?
Perhaps this question can best be answered, at least initially, with a concrete example of the sort of thing these folks do. Specifically, I am referring to something I wrote a few years ago in response to an outdoor bulletin board posting at my local community college. That is to say, the link below will be to a rebuttal counter post I made at the time to a posted short essay produced by a member of the staff of the Ayn Rand Institute. This posting, which I accidentally found while perusing a campus bulletin board, immediately made me realize that the world was still being haunted by the ghost of this horrible woman, Ayn Rand, and the dark shadow cast by her supposed "ideas." It is also what prompted me to write my book 
(yet to be published) about Rand, and how her ideas have slowly crept into and poisoned American culture--- almost without anyone directly realizing it. Specifically, the original post (which I will not mirror here for copyright reasons) was an indirect but brutal attack on intellectual freedom, in the thinly veiled guise of an attack a class of people which fascists and authoritarian minded people have always loved to hate: college professors. Why? Because college professors by and large are the thinkers of a society, and represent the most significant single threat to the ruling power structure.  Your teachers

20504 hits since

Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional