I found Ayn Rand because of my work with the Lakota School Levy in my home community. Even though many of the things I have said in my articles here are similar to the work of Ayn Rand, it was not until I was doing research into the source of many public education problems that I inevitably ran across the work of Ayn Rand from the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s, right in the heart of Roosevelt’s New Deal. Much of what we perceive as education rights come from this period in American history, and were ripe with communism being broadcast from The Soviet Union and Europe prior to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini fascism. Roosevelt was openly selling communism to America with American flags disguising the truth—not being purposely malicious, but naively, pompously, reckless with a vision driven by the so-called intellectuals of the time.
American intellectuals were in denial of the corrosive effects of communism and continued to promote it as the political philosophy that was in vogue. As a consequence, millions upon millions of Americans have been “taught” incorrectly what being an American is, so they have allowed communism to seep slowly into The United States without the grand, sudden change that happened in Russia of which Ayn Rand was a direct victim. To understand who Ayn Rand was, and what kind of events brought her about I highly recommend viewing this very extensive documentary shown below. For those who have not heard about her, or who know of her, but not much detail on who she was, this documentary will cover most of your questions.
In my own work over education funding, and the actual content of what is being taught in public school interacting with the type of people that public education is manufacturing for American society, I found that I was dealing with the symptoms of a great sickness but no matter what was proposed, the members (victims) of public education both young and old were intent to continue with a mindless blob like mentality that defied reason. The problem is a failed philosophy across the entire fabric of American society.
The United States started with a proper ideal in the Constitution, but immediately right out of the gate began to lose sight of the intention as human beings functioning from failed philosophies slowly destroyed the original idea. Seeing this, I realized that a new philosophy was needed to fix all of society, not just the education system–so I sought to invent that new philosophy here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom by hashing out the problems of the day properly identifying the issues and correcting them. But while doing research of the progressive period, I found Ayn Rand’s books and discovered with great relief that she already had dedicated a lifetime to solving the philosophical problems occurring in America. Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is the key to solving most of our modern problems, and I know that because I arrived at many of her conclusions independently through rational observation, and in discovering her late, can verify the quality of her interpretations.
The political parties of the left and right do not like Ayn Rand because she was against all forms of collectivism. To those who wish to hide in the masses her philosophy is a serious threat to everything they are as people, and that is a painful realization. So Rand was attacked as being overly simplified, extreme right-winged, too selfish, and an utter failure. In fact critics point to a couple instances in her life as if to rationalize why none of her philosophy of Objectivism should be followed. The first is that she mentored Allan Greenspan the former Federal Reserve Chairman. Greenspan held the economy together for many years covering for poor banking practices by continuously lowering interest rates. Greenspan, a very dedicated pupil of Ayn Rand miscalculated the level of selfishness investors had as the high quality men of business did not show themselves in reality as they did in Ayn Rand’s books. Ayn Rand has taken the brunt of Greenspan’s naïveté about human nature, reminding many that the work of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are works of fiction, and not mirrors of reality. They are representations of the way of the world should be according to Ayn Rand, not as it is, and Greenspan got caught not adapting the ideas of Objectivism with the reality of the situation to some extent. Still, Greenspan was able to control the economy in many ways that would classify him as “the best.” The United States did very well with Allan Greenspan as the Federal Reserve Chairman.
The second mark against Ayn Rand was an affair with Nathaniel Branden that went on for over a decade. Rand participated in the affair with the consent of her husband Frank O’Connor. The relationship ended with Rand blowing her top on Branden when the much younger man wanted to break it off. At the time Rand was in her 60’s while Branden was only 38. That lack of judgment is used against Rand to point out her Objectivism philosophy is seriously flawed.
Many of the enemies Rand had are the same type of enemies that I have attracted here at Overmanwarrior’s Wisdom, and I received the link seen below from one of them to attempt to undress Ayn Rand over those two incidents in a scathing criticism of Objectivism as a whole, in hopes to stop the growing support of it. The person who sent me the link was accusing me of being a blind Rand supporter who needed to learn the flaws of Objectivism and also accused me of being an apologist for extreme right-winged politics. Check out the article, because this type of thing encompasses the extent of Rand’s supposed failures from the “collectivist” viewpoint.
If you watched the documentary on Rand you will know that her husband Frank O’Conner struggled to find his own light of greatness, since Rand’s light shown so brightly. Rand and Branden it would appear confused biological impulse with shared ideas of the highest nature and Branden broke off the affair when Rand was simply too old to be attractive to him sexually as he began to have sex with some of his young university students, namely Patricia Gullison. These relationships where early experiments with the concept of “open marriage” and they simply don’t work, because the spouses will always view their husbands and wives as “personal property.” There is an ownership in the word, “my husband,” or “my wife,” that makes open relationships impossible unless the parties are simply kidding themselves. I’ve met many of these types in Key West, who believe they are functioning in an “enlightened” fashion. But they are simply functioning from biological impulse where their bodies are in control of their minds, not the other way around. In Rand’s case, lessons learned, she and her husband lived the rest of their lives relatively happy with one another.
As far as Nathaniel Branden you can see in the clip below his account of how the affair occurred and why he did what he did. As an advocate of Objectivism he mistakenly “sexualized” his profound feelings for Rand’s ideas and it appeared that Rand did the same with a much younger man, getting from him what she wanted physically, which was a mistake. She became possessive of Branden when she shouldn’t have. The theory she wrote about makes much more sense of the written page, because as an author you have the benefit of editing and rewriting. In real life, you can’t take those kinds of things back if you make a mistake, so if you do something you wish you hadn’t, you can reedit. I’m sure Rand would take it back if she could, but she was also pushing against the edge of reality in working out her Objectivism and mistakes along the way contribute to wisdom. Repeating the mistakes over and over again is when stupidity comes into play, which is not the case with Ayn Rand.
The other party of this affair Barbara Branden the wife Nathaniel who was also consulted with before the affair began can be seen below. Obviously, she loved and respected Ayn Rand enough to memorialize her with books of her own which she still travels and speaks to the public regarding her profound respect for how Rand lived her life. I would say in hind-sight if Ayn Rand were alive today and looking back on this whole event she would declare Barbara and Nathaniel as looters of her good name. They did not make anything of themselves separate from her, and are attempting to make money off “her” name, not their own exploits. They have used their relationship with Rand to achieve a level of success, which would not be in line with the ideas of Objectivism. The reality of people like Barbara are that they are groupie friends of Ayn Rand’s no different than the women who sneak back stage at a rock concert to sleep with a rock star. They told Rand what she wanted to hear so they could say they knew her, and Rand mistakenly believed that they “got it.” They did not. They were and are still are simply fans who knew her.
The failures that occurred in and around Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism did not occur because of a failure of the philosophy, but in the human participants to fully grasp its meanings. Beholding an idea and then doing justice to it authentically are two separate things, and humans often bring their own emotional baggage to whatever situation they participate in.
The same cannot be said of movements like Communism or Socialism, because although humans do distort the essence of those concepts with faulty understanding, the idea of collectivism that is required to sustain Communism is inherently evil, because it goes against the wills and freedom of an individual. It requires the consumption of existence and allows the weakest members of society to dictate the strength of the culture. That may not sound like a fair statement, because we have been conditioned to believe that saying such things are unfair, yet without the incentive to strive for strength, and to be better the next day than one is the day before, the human race regresses instead of advances.
There is much more evidence to display why collectivism fails in all the ways that Ayn Rand articulated in her books than the failures of Objectivists, Rand included, in following her philosophy to the great potential that exists. The failures are not in the thinking, it is in the weakness of human potential to carry the idea to its full maturity. These early steps by Rand and her followers were akin to infants stumbling while learning to walk, and even the greatest athletes in the world who can run and leap over hurdles stumbled while learning to walk. Objectivism is a process that the infant mind of mankind needs to learn so that it can walk forward. Without such a philosophy human existence simply cannot advance.
I have shown at this site how human medicine is about to change. Human life spans are about to be extended indefinitely, regenerative medicine will prevent old age, and most cancers have already been solved by a doctor in Dallas. Flying cars have already been invented, yet are put on the shelf in favor of electric cars and a commitment to public trains, a symptom of a philosophy that is stuck in the past, to the world of trolley’s and trains, when the world of tomorrow is in the sky, and in space.
It was not the great visionary Ridley Scott who was wrong in his film Blade Runner, or even Alien when he predicted how far society would advance in the last couple of decades. It is not the fault of Stanley Kubrick because his predictions of space stations and artificial intelligence had not come to be by the year 2001 Space Odyssey. And it is not the fault of Robert Zimeckas because the world does not look like it did in his film Back to the Future II. Those filmmakers based their thoughts on The United States innovation during the space race, and it was capitalism that drove Americans to the moon. But once we conquered that achievement, we stopped, as communism had taken over American culture indirectly with progressivism spread by party politics. It was a continuing failed philosophy that slowly took America from a country who could send man to the moon with only a fraction of the population holding a college education, to a society of education addicted students burdened with debt but no jobs to occupy and a space program that for the first time in over 30 years is allowing the General Assembly Building at NASA to be open to the public—because nothing is going on.
The stagnation of our economy is because America allowed the intellectual progressives to implement soft communism in America, and Ayn Rand tried to warn our society. She was ridiculed because her work went against the wishes of these pretentious leeches. Education in America fails because they are focused on teaching collectivism, not individualism, and because of their dedication to the wrong philosophy, it is producing a majority of the population that is functioning from failed thoughts and failed lives. Such a culture cannot thrive under any circumstances.
If you want to know who is destroying life in America look to those who point at Ayn Rand and call her names, or attempt to distort her opinions with rhetoric. The people who are doing such things know that her views of how the world should be will apply pressure on their lives that they don’t wish, because laziness is driving their motivations. Reading what she wrote so many years ago has convinced me that the proper course for American society is in her work. Novels like Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead should be required reading, because they are the Great American stories that are uniquely products of life in The United States, and they should be treasured as such.
Educators in America at all levels for the most part are still committed to a path of socialism aimed at complete communism and as institutions; they are fundamentally flawed, and cannot be saved. Money won’t fix them, better teachers cannot help them, and government commitment is powerless to make them productive, because they are functioning from a failure at philosophy, which is the backbone of any culture. Without philosophy, a culture is nothing but random ideas. Philosophy gives meaning to the thoughts, and if society is functioning from the wrong philosophy, nothing can be done to save it. Public education will always fail because it is built on the wrong premise. It teaches collectivism and dependence instead of individuality and independence. Collectivism leads to social demise 100% of the time, individualism leads to growth, 100% of the time. It is that simple.
I am sorry to all those who intended for me to be a school board member, or a politician of some merit, an honest man in a dishonest profession. And I’m sorry to those who hoped to solicit my help in obtaining money from the state to prop up public education. I’m sorry to my Tea Party friends who wish to stack the political deck against the current crop of politicians with lobbies of their own, protests and political action, with my lack of participation. Even though that’s the way the game is played, and I see the merit in it, my path is not there. I say I’m sorry not for me, but from what those others expected of me, because I’m going in a different direction. I have no desire to maintain the current system in any form except for a commitment to the United States Constitution as it was written in the beginning, and I intend to change my career as a result to make sure that happens.
In the beginning I thought things could be fixed by just pointing out the problems. Now that I know the problems I was seeing are simply symptoms of a greater universal quandary, I am no longer interested in attacking the symptoms. The ultimate failure is in American culture picking the wrong philosophy to advance our society. The current one is leading to our demise, so a new one must be selected and the best I’ve seen to date is Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.
The enemies of Objectivism understand the implications, which is why I was sent the negative article about Ayn Rand seen above. They know that their life will change if America embraced Objectivism so they are violently opposed to it, Ayn Rand or anyone who champions her. They also understand that if left to my way of thinking the intellectuals of our current society will be discarded as useless, and they will lose their power–so they intend to fight, which is their choice. I intend to see an end to everything they support. So with two different ideas so opposed, there is no co-existence. They wish to maintain a collective society, and I wish to promote individualism, which will be my new selected career. That is the only way, and there is no middle ground. Regarding education, with what I’ve seen from the education empire of college degrees to public education, I seen nothing worth preserving as it stands now. The entire thought process needs a radical reinvention of itself and this simply won’t happen so long as the discussions are swept under the rug. It’s now time to pull out all the garbage that has been hidden under the rug and get it out in the open to make way for a new foundation to build our society upon, not one of smelly carpets or parasite infested flooring built on collectivity. The new foundation must be built on individuality or nothing. The collective society has been tried now for over 100 years and it is a failure, and only fools would continue to follow that path. For now on, the only thing that matters is individuality, because within that concept the solutions to most of the world’s problems evaporate before our eyes, and for me, nothing else is acceptable.