The Rewrite Squad

[Robert Campbell]

One thing I planned to include in my review but decided against was a response to what was probably the scuzziest thing that Rothbard ever wrote. In one of his hit jobs masquerading as a review, Rothbard stated that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding Patrecia Branden's accident, and he suggested that NB may have been complicit in her death; i.e., in so many words, Rothbard accused NB of murdering his own wife.

George,

In fact, this is one place Murray Rothbard went that Jim Valliant has stayed out of.

And it's hard to get scuzzier than Jim Valiiant.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Obviously not the Sixth or Ninth Symphonies, Fidelio, the Choral Fantasy, most of the string quartets and piano sonatas....

If she thought Beethoven's music expressed the "Malevolent universe" idea, then what was her reaction to Mahler? Run screaming from the room?

Jeffrey,

I would have to assume that she hadn't heard any of the pieces you mention (or had paid no heed to them).

Rand's comments would lead you to believe that Beethoven wrote everything in C minor.

To which I say, fire up the first movement of his Third Piano Concerto—and don't forget to include the Alkan cadenza

I doubt she ever listened to anything by Mahler.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

ND suggested transcribing the answers from the available recording of Ayn Rand's speech "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World." Made in April 1961, it is one of the earliest recordings of her question and answer sessions, and a very good one. On this recording, her answers are long (mostly in the 5 to 10 minute range) and, for the most part, well organized.

I'll alternate some answers from "Faith and Force" and with some additional items from her last Ford Hall Forum appearance.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Faith and Force 1961

Q&A, Track 3, 0:00 through 7:19

Next question.

Q: How does the philosophy of Objectivism apply to the kind of cultural problem such as the underprivileged, underdeveloped Negroes in Africa or in the American South?

A: The question is how does the philosophy of Objectivism apply to the underdeveloped nations, such as the Negroes in Africa or in the American South.

Well, observe: the American South is the one part of the country that had never been capitalist. The South was an agrarian society, uh, and in fact, more feudal, Middle Age feudal, mid, feudalism of the Middle Ages rather than industrial capitalism. Which is why the South hold, held on to slavery.

Now Objectivism stands for capitalism, and capitalism is the one system that is incompatible with slavery. In fact, capitalism did wipe out slavery in the 19^th century, uhh, including the American Civil War and even Russian serfdom. Capitalism cannot function with slave labor, and the moral principles implicit in capitalism do not permit slavery.

Therefore, the first thing that Objectivism would hold in regard to underdeveloped nation is that the only way in which we can help them to develop is not by giving them material help, not by sending free teachers down there, but by teaching them freedom, political freedom—only that. Any nation, no matter what, how low a development, if they establish a political system which protects the right of the individuals, the progress and development of that nation will be phenomenal. Then the best in all men works to raise that society and to contribute to the progress of all. But not by self-uh, sacrifice, by plain intelligent self-interest, because capitalism, as you can observe in history, raises the general standard of living, and men on all levels of ability are rewarded and get much more than they could get under any form of statism or tribal rule.

Now if you wanted to help the, euh, situation in Africa, the one chance, one chance they have—the only thing one can do for them—is teach them the theory of freedom. If people who have lived for centuries in violence would discover that they have a chance to exercise their ingenuity to create something, and that their rulers will protect them rather than forbid it or expropriate it, you will be amazed what productive talents suddenly will rise.

Observe that at the, eb, the start of the Industrial Revolution most, euh, nations in the world were pretty primitive—euhh, perhaps not as far back as the African, uh, people—but, still, they were savages in the Middle Ages compared to what they are today. And then one century of freedom under government protection—that is, a government that protected men from violence, protected their individual rights and their individual property—after one century you can't recognize the nature of the civilization, of the material prosperity and undreamed-of talents suddenly appear among men. Well, I would predict that the same thing would happen in Africa, if there were anybody to teach them what is freedom and what is capitalism. Unfortunately, that's not what we are exporting today. That's not what we are teaching them. And all we are doing what we will arm them without giving them the kind of ideology that should go with those arms—the ideology of freedom and human rights. And we'll only help them to destroy each other in civil wars, same as all the other, more civilized nations of the earth are now doing; they're all destroying each other by violence.

So that, euhh, the only thing one could do for the underprivileged is, of course, that which freed the privilege for any human being—freedom and protection of your rights.

As to the present situation in the South, freedom, capitalism, and rational education is what will solve it, not violence as they're doing it now. If you want my opinion of the Southern situation, the real evil there are the state laws which enforce segregation by law, but the solution of it is not enforced, uh, uh, integration by Federal law—because it's two forces fighting each other, both immoral. What should be done? Uhh, I don't know how quickly one could ever persuade people to that, but I would advocate is that repeal of any law which attempts to legislate moral issues or which penalizes men or discriminates against men on any ground whatever: racial, ideological, religious, or any other.

The real evil in the South started with their state laws, but then the Federal government, imposing Federal, ehh, force on it, will only create more mutual hatred, more underground hypocrisy. If you really want to solve the problem, set men free. In every free country, prejudice vanishes automatically, and such prejudice as might remain, remains only among the lunatic fringe or the kind of people who properly would be afraid to admit it openly—and if so, who cares to associate with them? Leave them to have it if that's what they want. That is, any fanatics of, uh, prejudice, bigots or racists in a free society.

But when they have government power behind them and when they enforce their prejudice, one way or the other, when they enforce segregation or integration by force, all that you will get is more race prejudice and every racial group of all, will differ not only White against Negro, but every racial stock will then draw closer together because collectivism drives men into racism. Racism is the most primitive form of, uh, collectivism, the easiest, because it's the almost animal kind, automatic, to be drawn to a collective by birth—not even of your choice but simply of accidents—the easiest collectivism for men to draw into. And today's ideas are pushing them into it.

Now remember that the smallest minority on earth is the individual. And if you do not protect individual rights, you will not be able to protect minority rights, and if you don't protect those, then, of course, the majority will have no rights either. Because a minority or a majority is only composed of individuals. If you don't stand for individual rights, you will have no rights of any other kind. And you have the whole of history to show you how a majority that infringes individual rights perishes also.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 36-38)

Mayhew has apparently decided that Rand and her questioner should not be using the word "Negro." But it was current in 1961. Would he edit the word out of old issues of the Chicago Defender? She used "Negro" in 1961, and "black" from 1974 to 1978—just like millions of other Americans.

In his second paragraph Mayhew misrenders "the best in all men works to raise" as "the best in all men work to raise." And how is it that a non-native speaker understands English-language conditionals better than Mayhew does? Where Rand said "you will be amazed what productive talent will arise," Mayhew substitutes "you'd be amazed what productive talent will arise." Meanwhile, he doesn't fix "the real evil there are the state laws."

Mayhew cuts part of Rand's tenth paragraph and all of her eleventh, presumably because she said the same things in her essay on racism. But this Q&A is from April 1961, substantially pre-dating that essay.

[Robert Campbell]

Faith and Force 1961

Q&A, Track 5, 4:01 through 10:09

Q: Who in your mind best enunciates capitalism today and can you comment on the form of capitalism advocated by Kelso and Adler in The Capitalist Manifesto?

A: I missed the first part of your question. What did you say?

Q: Who best in your mind enunciates capitalism today?

A: Oh, the question is who best enunciates capitalism today, and then you want me to comment on the Kelso and Adler Capitalist Manifesto.

Well, to answer you on the last first, that book is anything but a manifesto or pro-capitalist. It is a real collectivist document which, uh, is based on the idea that a government can do anything and that you're going to force competition on people by force. Uhh, those authors have a, eah, new book since then and continue the same idea; in effect they think that capitalism is government controls for a certain purpose, such as competition.

This is only giving credence to a very widespread error, that capitalism is a system in which government exercises certain controls, but for the advantages of the rich or the employers. And therefore the welfare state then is government controls for the advantages of the poor of, or the employees. Well, that's a false dichotomy.

Pure capitalism is laissez-faire capitalism. It means no government control, no interference into the economy, into production and trade, neither on the side of management or labor or the rich or the poor. Now the Adler-Kelso theory is government controls to force their particular unworkable version of contradictions—that's not capitalism.

Now if you want to say, me to recommend what authors I would consider the best expositors of capitalism today, the first book I would recommend is Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. I will repeat it for those of you who may want to get it: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt. H-A-Z-L-I-double T. Now this is the best book as an introduction to the basic principles of free enterprise or capitalist economics. It's very easy reading, it's not popularized, but a very well written, very clear, uhh, primer for beginners in economics but on a high intellectual level, and it will give you a very good working knowledge of what a capitalist system is.

The next book I would recommend would be Omnipotent Government by Ludwig von Mises, M-I-S-E-S. Generally, Ludwig von Mises today is the best economist, the most consistent, uh, and the most erudite. Uhh, he is the arch, uh, economist, the dean of all the pr, uh, economists of capitalism. He has written a great many books, some of them are much too technical for beginners, but as any one author I would say Ludwig von Mises is the best of the pro-capitalist economists.

Now I want to stress only one point. I do not agree with any authors I will name now, neither Mr. Hazlitt nor von Mises, in many other respects; for instance, about epistemology or morality. Uhh, both of them are more or less on the Benthamite or utilitarian school of social morality; this isn't the issue here. As economists, I do agree because they prove their case and you can judge them strictly on the ground of their economics.

If you want an idea on how capitalism works, I would say first Economics in One Lesson as an introduction, then read Omnipotent Government by von Mises, which is a work showing how the intellectuals of Europe—he takes particularly Germany as the example—led to the totalitarian state: by what steps they led Germany to Hitlerism. And he gives you dates and places; he gives you a complete documented record, which is an excellent book to show how ideas destroy a culture.

Uh, next I would recommend another book by Ludwig von Mises called Socialism. It's a refutation of every single claim and every single attempt at a socialist economy ever proposed or tried by anyone. It is like kind of an omnibus of all socialist fallacies, very brilliantly and rationally exploded—ek, Socialism by Ludwig von Mises.

There's another very interesting book I would recommend, but it's out of print today, that's Capitalism the Creator by Carl Snyder. I believe he is dead now, so it's not a current author, but it was published some 20 years ago. That's an excellent book, again to give you, eahhh, at least a working understanding of the economics of capitalism.

And as a warning, I would suggest that you stay away from authors like Kelso and Adler if your point, ehh, purpose is to discover what capitalism is. Those are middle-of-the-road modern intellectuals.

Above all, I would not recommend Hayek, euhh, who, uh, is very often mentioned and is probably one of the more widely known economists who is allegedly for capitalism, but he is not; he is actually middle-of-the-roader. He is for a mixed economy and, therefore, a great favorite among the liberals. He's a liberal capitalist, if you know what that means, and that is a contradiction in terms and you'll get nothing but pretty difficult confusions out of his books. Therefore, if you read him, read him very critically, but I would not recommend him, certainly not as a guide to capitalism.

I think those should be enough.

Ayn Rand Answers: not included.

[Robert Campbell]

Faith and Force 1961

Q&A, Track 4, 0:00 through 10:02

What's next?

Q: If I understood what you were telling us, you were inclined to believe that the violence of totalitarian governments and of thugs is the result of altruism. If, uh, a national government is physically stronger than the subject peoples, or a successful thug is physically stronger than a weaker victim, may not self-interest instead of altruism lead the government or the thug to resort to physical violence?

A: Uhh, let me repeat the question. It's fairly long; correct me if I didn't get it right. You say that I said that the morality of altruism leads individual thugs and governments to resort to physical violence, and your question is: If an individual thug is stronger than other men, uh, or a national government is stronger than other people, uhh, did you say that reason would make them resort to violence?

Q: Yes.

A: Is that the way you stated it?

Q: Yes.

A: Now, to begin with, reason consists of knowing the nature and the consequences of your own actions and of knowing where your rational self-interest lies. Reason does not mean that anyone can arbitrarily decide, by whim, whichever it is that he wants is to his own self-interest. That… men certainly do it, but it's not rational. To go by reason means that you do not see your self-interest in whichever you may desire; you are not guided by emotions or whims, you have rational, moral, philosophical reasons for your desires, the goals you try to achieve. First, as a preamble.

Now the first issue that reason would demand of you is the recognition of human rights. Why? Well, I briefly indicated it in what I have read to you, uh, the basis of the morality of Objectivism, which is the first system of rational morality; it is a morality not based on any whim, categorical impe, imperative, or revelation.

It's based on a very simple fact. Man has to exist by means of his mind. Euhh, it wouldn't take a long process of reason to observe that anything that you may want or need has to be produced and that man has to possess knowledge in order to produce it, and that reason provides that knowledge.

Once you know that, then if you decide that you don't want to exist by means of production, since you're physically strong, you prefer to rob or enslave somebody else—if you then decide that you will live not by means of reason but by means of your muscle—you are contradicting the only base on which you could have any justification for your existence. You are guil, uh, guilty then of the most fundamentally irrational contradiction.

The only ground on which you can claim the right to your own life is the same ground that you have to grant to the entire human species. If you claim an exception, if you claim a double standard, you cannot defend it in reason. If you want to be rational, then you have to realize that the only ground on which you could justify your right to your own life is the fact that man has to exist by means of his reason, that his life is in his own hands, and that he as, has to serve his own interests, but that that same consideration applies to every human being. You could not claim it, philosophically and rationally, for yourself if you do not grant it for oth, to others. And therefore to say, "I know that men exist by reason, but I am going to use a club instead," is not going to be valid rationally.

More than that, a man of self-esteem, a man who uses his reason, does not want the unearned. He does not want anything from others which he has to obtain by means of force or coercion, by individual crime or by government force and regulation. And man of reason and self-esteem does not want the unearned. He deals by men, with men as an equal, by trade; his reason'll tell him why.

More than that, a man of reason plans his life long-range. It is the particular distinction, if you want a psychological easy diagnosis, the particular distinction of a rational man from an evader is that a rational man thinks, plans, and acts long-range, while the more neurotic and evasive a person the shorter the range of his interests. The playboy or the drunkard, the kind of pleasure chaser who is unable to look beyond the range of the immediate moment, is a very irrational, miserable neurotic. A rational person lives long-range.

Now, no rational person is going to decide that it's to his self-interest to rob and murder others and resort to force, because he knows too well that others will answer him and should answer him by the same means. No rational person ever starts wars. More than that, this is so in theory, but read actual history. Who started wars? Who led America into World War II, uh, I? Woodrow Wilson, a humanitarian reformer. He did not do it for any selfish, greedy reasons. You know the stories which you might have heard about the selfish greed of capitalists leading people to war with countries, but it just isn't so, historically. Woodrow Wilson led America into World War I because he thought it was a crusade to save the wor, make the world safe for democracy, to spread freedom through the world. What did Franklin D. Roosevelt do in World War II? He pushed this country into war to save the world and bring them the Four Freedoms, if any of you might remember the slogan. And observe in both cases that the state of the world after those wars was infinitely worse than it was before and precisely in most of the respects that those particular humanitarians wanted to correct. In both cases, the world became more enslaved, with a greater spread of dictatorships, poverty, and misery.

But more important than all, in the whole of history you will never find a dictatorship, from the Egyptian Pharaohs on up to Mr. Kennedy—uh, who is not a dictator yet, but if he isn't one, it will be up to you to see that he isn't one—there has never been a dictator or a potential dictator who has ever justified dictatorship from the ground up with selfishness or individual rights. It is only on the grounds of the altruist morality that a dictator can get away with it. He always has to offer his victims some kind of goal and tell them to sacrifice their personal interests to it. And the reason why I mentioned Mr. Kennedy is because I'm very concerned—it's a very dangerous sign—when a presidential candidate tells you he is going to demand sacrifice of you, without even telling you for what—where sacrifice has become an end in itself. It's just morally good to sacrifice and don't ask why and to whom.

Take a look at Hitler. If any of you have read Mein Kampf or any of the Nazi publications which are available in history books, you will be surprised to what extent they utter altruistic slogans that are indistinguishable from the Communist slogans. Uhh, they despise individualism and the bourgeois selfishness, as they call it. What do they ask of the German people? Service to the state and the country, self-sacrifice, the merging of your interests in the great national racial whole, etcetera. There has never been a dictatorship that did not use altruistic slogans and the altruist morality to make men sacrifice themselves or bear self-sacrifice. There never have been in history; there never can be in theory.

But when a man tells you "You have the right to live for your own sake, but you have right to sacrifice anybody else," you may be sure that what he is telling you has no vested interest in it on which any dictator could make a stand. No dictator could last or even come in by telling you that you have a right to your own life and that he has no right to force you. Just try to project as a science fiction, as an exercise, how a dictator would attempt to come to power and then to rule without the use of the altruist morality, and you'll see that it's impossible.

Uh, on the other hand, the Declaration of Independence was actually the document that by implication did contain my morality, the Objectivist morality—but only by implication. What did it say? Man has a right to his own life, his own happiness, his own liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness, not service to others. And observe what kind of magnificent and benevolent society was the result. That, really, should be enough to convince you.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 115-117)

You know Mayhew's been there when every "has to" has become a "must." He also decided to move Rand's comment about being worried by JFK's calls to sacrifice, and made lots of small cuts for no particular purpose.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 7:57 through 8:59

(The question is almost entirely lost, as is most of the repetition by the moderator.)

A: For healthy children to use handicapped materials… I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing. The whole progression of everything they're doing to feature or pamper or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped—including, you know, the kneeling buses, and all kinds of impossible expenses…

I do not think that the retarded should be allowed to come near children. Children cannot deal and should not have to deal with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, then they give it some attention if they're interested. But it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something that they have to live down to… [abrupt ending and gap in the tape]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 124-125)

What do you think of the special education programs wherein retarded children are educated alongside normal children?

I think it's monstrous, as is everything they're doing to feature or favor the incompetent, the retarded, and the handicapped, at an impossible expense. The retarded should not be allowed to come near children, who cannot—and should not have to—deal with the tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When the children grow up, they can give it some attention, if they're interested; but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something they must "live down" to.

I don't know how Mayhew could have heard the question, unless he had access to a more complete recording. More likely he reconstructed it. The answer ends abruptly; after her final sentence on the recording, there's a gap in the tape.

[Robert Campbell]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 4:03 through 5:20

Moderator: In your speech, you mentioned that you are an advocate of increased defense spending. How could you justify your calling for increased defense spending in light of the method of collecting the money for that spending, which coerces people who may want to be giving that money into supporting it?

A: In a very general sense, I oppose taxes generally, and you can read, eb, my alternative in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

But so long as you do have taxes, those who do not want to pay for defense, if they were at all honest men of integrity, should leave this country immediately [applause] because by what right do you live in this country if you do not want to spend money from, for a primary necessity: Protection against military conquest, and a monstrous kind of military request. And to deny that we need defense today—well then, I think those people should be recommended for an asylum. [Laughter]

Ayn Rand Answers (p. 8)

Flavor-removed.

[Chris Grieb]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 7:57 through 8:59

(The question is almost entirely lost, as is most of the repetition by the moderator.)

A: For healthy children to use handicapped materials… I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing. The whole progression of everything they're doing to feature or pamper or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped—including, you know, the kneeling buses, and all kinds of impossible expenses…

I do not think that the retarded should be allowed to come near children. Children cannot deal and should not have to deal with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, then they give it some attention if they're interested. But it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something that they have to live down to… [abrupt ending and gap in the tape]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 124-125):

What do you think of the special education programs wherein retarded children are educated alongside normal children?

I think it's monstrous, as is everything they're doing to feature or favor the incompetent, the retarded, and the handicapped, at an impossible expense. The retarded should not be allowed to come near children, who cannot—and should not have to—deal with the tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When the children grow up, they can give it some attention, if they're interested; but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something they must "live down" to.

[i don't know how Mayhew could have heard the question, unless he had access to a more complete recording. More likely he reconstructed it. The answer ends abruptly; after her final sentence on the recording, there's a gap in the tape.]

Miss Rand seems to have very little inter-action with children in her life so where did she get the idea that seeing or being around a handicapped child was such a awful thing to happen to a child. I think some of the euphemisms are just awful "differently able", "mentally challenged",

[Robert Campbell]

Chris G,

Good question. What did she suppose happens to kids whose brother or sister or cousin is mentally retarded?

I find the Politically Correct language obnoxious and offensive, so I've stuck with "mentally retarded."

Robert C

[Brant Gaede]

Ford Hall Forum 1981

Q&A, Track 4, 7:57 through 8:59

(The question is almost entirely lost, as is most of the repetition by the moderator.)

A: For healthy children to use handicapped materials… I quite agree with the speaker's indignation. I think it's a monstrous thing. The whole progression of everything they're doing to feature or pamper or favor the incompetent, the retarded, the handicapped—including, you know, the kneeling buses, and all kinds of impossible expenses…

I do not think that the retarded should be allowed to come near children. Children cannot deal and should not have to deal with the very tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When they grow up, then they give it some attention if they're interested. But it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something that they have to live down to… [abrupt ending and gap in the tape]

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 124-125):

What do you think of the special education programs wherein retarded children are educated alongside normal children?

I think it's monstrous, as is everything they're doing to feature or favor the incompetent, the retarded, and the handicapped, at an impossible expense. The retarded should not be allowed to come near children, who cannot—and should not have to—deal with the tragic spectacle of a handicapped human being. When the children grow up, they can give it some attention, if they're interested; but it should never be presented to them in childhood, and certainly not as an example of something they must "live down" to.

[i don't know how Mayhew could have heard the question, unless he had access to a more complete recording. More likely he reconstructed it. The answer ends abruptly; after her final sentence on the recording, there's a gap in the tape.]

Miss Rand seems to have very little inter-action with children in her life so where did she get the idea that seeing or being around a handicapped child was such a awful thing to happen to a child. I think some of the euphemisms are just awful "differently able", "mentally challenged",

Off-hand I can't remember Rand being more off-base except when she hoped for a "just war" with the Soviet Union.

--Brant

diminisher?

[Barbara Branden]

Ayn Rand only partially understood humor. She also made some factual misstatements. She didn't say writing fiction wasn't important, but she could have with some of her same reasoning concerning humor. And laughing at yourself (as evil)--spitting in your own face--is something I can't get my brain around.

She didn't know a lot of what she thought she did, but in that respect she always put on a better show of it than Leonard Peikoff--i.e., more modest and interesting. Yes, she was frequently modest about what she knew, but if something pissed her off she was off to the races. It was as if the motives of the questioner were more important than the question.

--Brant

Brant,

I think the whole motives thing was Rand's way of quickly sorting lots and lots of data and opinion. It certainly wasn't foolproof, but it allowed her to be incisive. Don't bother to examine a folly, examine what it accomplishes.

Jim

This is a terrible thing to say about her, for if true it was indefensible that she would jump down someone's throat for the sake of quick and clear thinking, which wasn't the result regardless. I think she was purblind as to the effect she would have on people by acting this way and that the explanation had to have been psychological.

--Brant

Brant, by my understanding of Rand, you're quite right that she did not grasp the effect of her rants and moralizing. .She had no understanding of the power of her personality -- for good or for bad. I remember once telling her that when she entered a room, all eyes turned to her, that she exuded an aliveness, an intensity, a certainty, that had an almost hypnotic effect. She was startled by my statement; it was not at all her sense of herself -- especialy since she felt inadequate in social situations.

I did not add that I had come to understand the dangerous power of certainty after years of studying her effect on people -- that for many people, the strength of her convictions persuaded them of the truth of what she claimed almost apart from the content or reasons of those convictions.

Barbara

[Robert Campbell]

She had no understanding of the power of her personality -- for good or for bad. I remember once telling her that when she entered a room, all eyes turned to her, that she exuded an aliveness, an intensity, a certainty, that had an almost hypnotic effect. She was startled by my statement; it was not at all her sense of herself -- especially since she felt inadequate in social situations.

Barbara,

Listening to all those recordings of her question-and-answer sessions has made it clear to me how often Ayn Rand didn't really expect the thunderous applause that she got from her audiences.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Faith and Force 1961

Q&A, Track 2, 0:11 through 4:57

Q: Could you explain why did you have Dominique act as she did against Roark? Specifically, why she married Peter Keating?

(Rand asks the questioner to repeat.)

A: The question is in The Fountainhead, why did I have Dominique act as she did against Roark, particularly why did she marry Peter Keating?

Well, I did explain it in The Fountainhead through Dominique's own words, but I can elaborate it a little. Dominique's error is the error from which very many good people suffer, only not quite in so extreme a form. She was so devoted to values; she was an independent individualist; she had a very clear view of what she considered the ideal; only, she didn't think that the ideal is possible. Her error is what I call philosophically the malevolent universe premise; namely, the belief that the good has no chance on earth, that the good is doomed to lose and that evil is metaphysically powerful, that's that in reality evil succeeds and the good is doomed to perish.

Now many people make that mistake, and the reason for that mistake is that they form their conclusions by statistical impressions. That is, as you grow up, if you look around you, you will certainly see more evil than virtue; you will be disappointed more often than pleased; you will be hurt very often; you will see a lot of injustice. And with each generation, on the present cultural premises, it's getting worse and worse. Now it's by emotional overgeneralization from these first impressions that a great many people whose basic premises are good decide to become, in effect, philosophical subjectivists. They think that their values can never be shared by others, nor can be communicated to others, and therefore can never win in practical reality. That was Dominique's mistake.

Therefore, she acted against Roark because she was convinced that he should retire and never open himself up to the world to be hurt, that he should not attempt to fight the world because he was too good to win—that was in effect her attitude. So observe that her actions against Roark were really superficial. She did not create any major damage to him and she never would, but her actions implied an enormous compliment to him. They implied her enormous understanding and valuing of him as a great man and a great creative talent, and it was the misdirected application of her estimate of the nature of the world that caused her to do what she did.

Why did she marry Peter Keating? Because he was the least worthy of it. It was her symbol of rebellion in this way. She never made the mistake of deciding that she, since the world is evil, she will make terms with it, the evil, and try to be happy on the terms of others, like Keating decided and like Wynand decided. No, she was too good for that; she would not seek happiness in a world which she considered evil. So she married a man whom she could not love or respect, as a symbol of her d, defiance, of the desire not to seek anything in a world as low as she thought it was.

Well, she learned better. At the end of the book, she discovered why she had been, eh, wrong and why Roark was right.

Now Roark would not attempt to stop her. He was right when he concluded that she has to correct her own error herself; she has to be convinced of her error, or they could never be happy together. And if you translate this abstraction in less extreme forms, I venture to say that most of you—because it's true of most men—share Dominique's error is some form or another. You may not necessarily try to stop the careers of the man or woman you love, but any time that you have a good idea or a value which you hold as very important to you, you will tend to repress it. You will tend to feel, "This is good and I know it, but nobody else will understand me; nobody else will share it. Why be hurt?" Well, any time you experience an emotion of that kind, you're acting on Dominique's error—and you'd better correct it.

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 191-192)

Fairly mild editing from Mayhew on this occasion.

[Robert Campbell]

The next answer (also from the Faith and Force lecture at Purdue University, 1961) is mainly about the lessons of Atlas Shrugged for those living in the United States in 1961 and not in the alternate universe presented in the book. It's the same one that Greg Salmieri recently quoted from a transcription instead of from Ayn Rand Answers.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Faith and Force 1961

Q&A, Track 1, 0:23 through 8:49

Q: Miss Rand, in your novels, at least in We the Living and Atlas Shrugged, you give your characters rather ideal solutions to the problems of socialism and Communism. In We the Living, your characters die either mentally, emotionally, or physically. In Atlas Shrugged you endow your characters with a completely different world where they could start all over and they didn't have any heritage of altruism. How do you figure that we, with what we have to deal with, go about creating a perfect heaven [the last word is hard to hear]?

A: Well, to follow your own example, read The Fountainhead, because that is a story in which the character deals with society as it is today.

And also, of course, question your definitions. You cannot say that when characters die, this is an ideal solution. The ideal solution, using your expression, in We the Living, is merely to show that the better kind of people—the people of any integrity or independence—cannot survive under a statist dictatorship and necessarily have to perish either spiritually or physically. That is why the characters in We the Living had to die if my theme there was to show the essence of a dictatorship: anyone who escapes from a dictatorship is an exception. In the nature of a dictatorship, the extent to which men have any values of character is the extent to which they are doomed, and are slated for eventual destruction. Now that's, uh, the theme of We the Living.

In Atlas Shrugged, I showed you the practical way of dealing with collectivism—only never take things literally when they are inapplicable, or rather, take them literally only when they apply literally. What do I mean by that? Well, in Atlas Shrugged, I show that men go on strike. The men of intelligence and ability go on strike against collectivist slavery, and the world left without minds perishes. And then the meh, the men of the mind, the men of intelligence, of self-esteem, are free to start rebuilding the world.

Now the state in which we exist today, the state of collectivism we have reached, is not yet as bad as the one I present in Atlas Shrugged. I intended Atlas Shrugged, in effect, to present the society of about 10 years ahead of the time at which you read the book. It's just the immediate future or the next consistent step, if the trends of the present are to be continued. But there is no historical determinism, and these trends do not have to be continued. So long as we have not yet reached the state of censorship of ideas, one does not have to leave a society in the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged; one does not yet have to break relationships with the society.

But do you know what one has to do? One has to break relationships with the culture, meaning: while you live in this society, break all cultural relationships, meaning withdraw your sanction from those people, groups, schools, or theories which preach the ideas that are destroying you. If you read Atlas Shrugged, you will understand what I mean by the, uh, situation of the sanction of the victim. It's the, uh, situation in which the good people are helping their own destroyers and are showing how many ways men are guilty of that, through generosity or ignorance. Men are supporting their own destroyers materially and spiritually, in their private lives and in their public lives.

Now what we have to do today: anyone who is serious about saving the world would have to first discard all the kind of ideas, the entire cultural philosophy which is dominant today. Do not accept any of their ideas. Stand on your view as much as if you had to go into a separate valley like in Atlas Shrugged. Stand on your own, your own mind. Check your premises. Define your convictions; define them rationally. Do not take anyone on faith, and do not believe that your elders know what they're doing because they don't [some laughter]. You have to be the responsible creators of a new culture, if there is to be any culture.

That is the sense in which Atlas Shrugged is applicable to our period. We are not yet totally collectivized. We have a chance.

More than that, the enemy ideologies today—I mean all collectivism and altruism—are so bankrupt that nothing holds them up except inertia and default. People are still mouthing those slogans because that is all they know. The in, innovators or initiators in the realm of ideas are very rare—most particularly, moral ideals. You may observe in the history of philosophy that all ideas change in various periods, but morality is the one realm that did not change—only its superficial forms change. Men have always been taught that they have to live for others and they have to be sacrificial animals, or that the opposite would be some kind of brute, dog-eat-dog situation in which every man destroys or sacrifices every other man. And in practice you see that this dog-eat-dog idea is applicable to socialism and collectivism, but never to a free society.

In other words, morality is the one issue which men are afraid to challenge, and that is what you have to challenge today. Break with the morality of altruism, don't be afraid to assert your right to exist, but don't assert it as an arbitrary whim. You would have to know how to justify it rationally, philosophically, and why you have that right, and why if men practiced the rational morality of self-interest, their interests would not clash. Men, then, would not have to sacrifice one another so long as nobody demands or expects or gives the unearned and undeserved. If no man regards others as potentially sacrificial material for himself, or for his idea of what would be good for a third party, when men drop all of those ramifications of altruism, then you will see what a benevolent, ideal society one could have.

And America almost had it; the world came near to it at the end of the 19^th century. If you read some of the popular literature of that period, you won't believe it. You will think that this is somebody's fiction. Only it isn't. It's the naturalistic or realistic stories of that period—I refer specifically to magazines and popular fiction, which is a very good index of the general view of life, the sense of life of a culture—you do not even know what a magnificent world America had.

Now it isn't fully gone, and it's in your power to build it again.

But the retirement to which you have to go is cultural. Break with altruism and with every idea that is based on it. At least make the effort to think it out very carefully. You'll be surprised how easy that revolution will be, and how difficult it appears now—but it isn't. Just give it one day's thought, and you'll have a different view.

Now I don't mean that that's all it will take; I mean to consider what's possible, after which you will have to do harder thinking than you ever attempted before, because it'll have to be totally on your own—totally relying on your own judgment and the logic of the arguments you hear or consider, rejecting all authorities, rejecting all bromides, and taking nothing on faith. But if you try it, you'll be surprised how close the Renaissance is to us. And it's up to each human being to work for it.

Next…

Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 54-56)

To follow your example, read The Fountainhead, in which the hero deals with society as it is today. But also question your assumptions: the heroes dying in We the Living is not "an ideal solution." In We the Living, this "ideal solution" (to use your expression) shows that the better kind of people—the people with integrity and independence—cannot survive under dictatorship, and will perish, either spiritually or physically. The characters in We the Living had to die, since my theme was to show the essence of a dictatorship. Anyone who escapes from a dictatorship is an exception. Given the nature of a dictatorship, the extent to which men have a moral character is the extent to which they are doomed.

In Atlas Shrugged, I do show how to deal with collectivism. But take things literally only when they apply literally. What do I mean? In Atlas Shrugged, I show the men of intelligence and ability go on strike against collectivist slavery, the world left without them perishes, and the men of the mind are free to start rebuilding the world. Now, the state of collectivism that we have reached today is not yet as bad as what I present in Atlas Shrugged. I intended Atlas Shrugged to present a society of about ten years "ahead," in terms of collectivism, than the time at which you read the book. It's the immediate future—the next consistent step—if the present collectivist trends continue. But there is no historical determinism; these trends need not continue. So long as there isn't censorship, one doesn't have to leave a society the way the characters did in Atlas Shrugged.

One does not yet have to break relationships with society. But what one must do is break relationships with the culture: Withdraw your sanction from those people, groups, schools, or theories that preach the ideas that are destroying you. In Atlas Shrugged I describe the sanction of the victim—where the good people help their own destroyers—and show how in many ways men are guilty of it, through generosity or ignorance. Anyone serious about saving the world today must first discard the dominant philosophy of the culture. Stand on your own as much as if you moved to a separate valley, as in Atlas Shrugged. Check your premises; define your convictions rationally. Do not take anything on faith; do not believe that your elders know what they're doing, because they don't. That's the sense in which Atlas Shrugged is applicable to our period. We are not yet totally collectivized; we have a chance. More than that, the enemy ideologies today—collectivism and altruism—are so bankrupt that nothing holds them up except inertia and default.

Innovators in the realm of ideas—and especially in moral philosophy—are very rare. Observe that in the history of philosophy, all ideas change in various periods, but morality is the one realm that did not change (except in superficial forms). Men have always been taught that they must live for others—that they must be sacrificial animals—and that the alternative would be some kind of dog-eat-dog existence. And in practice, dog-eat-dog is applicable to socialism and collectivism. In other words, morality is the one area in which men are afraid to challenge the culture, and this is what you must challenge. Break with the morality of altruism. Don't be afraid to assert your right to exist. Justify rationally why you have a right to your life, and why when men practice the morality of self-interest their interests don't clash.

America came close to this at the end of the nineteenth century. You wouldn't believe some of the popular literature from that period. They are the realistic stories of that period. I refer specifically to magazines and popular fiction, which is a good index of the sense of life of a culture. You do not know what a magnificent world America was. Now it isn't fully gone, and it's in your power to build again. Break with altruism and with every idea based on it. At least make the effort to think about altruism carefully. You'll have to think harder than you ever have before, because you will be on your own—relying on your own judgment and the logic of the arguments you hear or consider, rejecting all authorities and all bromides, and taking nothing on faith. If you try, you'll be surprised how close the Renaissance is. It's up to each human being to work for it.

Lots of cutting and compressing from Mayhew.

In one of his chapters in Mayhew's edited volume of Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, Greg Salmieri expresses a preference for the actual words that Rand said on this occasion. He quotes at length from this answer on pp. 449-450 of the Mayhew essay collection and, in a footnote on p. 452, urges his readers to listen to the recording.

Specifically, Salmieri begins his quotation with the first half of paragraph 3, as I've divided things up in my transcription. He then jumps (without indicating any omissions) to the last sentence of paragraph 4 from her answer; I'm assuming this is an editing error, because he uses plenty of ellipsis dots elsewhere. He continues on to the end of the answer, making some smaller cuts, which he marks for the reader. Occasionally, he hears a phrase differently, and, of course, his paragraphing and his punctuation vary, but overall his transcription agrees with mine.

[Brant Gaede]

In 1961 she seems to have been at the height of her question answering abilities. She may have also been less defensive overall.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

In 1961 she seems to have been at the height of her question answering abilities. She may have also been less defensive overall.

--Brant

Brant,

Compared to the Q&As from 1968 and later, Rand talks faster and is more fluent (making fewer hesitation pauses and backtracks) on the 1961 recording.

She also seems more at ease with the audience, even inviting the same questioner to ask her a follow-up.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Do you think the change in the way she answered questions could be one of the results and tramuas from the split?

[Robert Campbell]

Chris,

The split could have had such an effect on her, but I would like to hear some of her answers from 1964 through 1967 before I draw that conclusion.

Apparently her 1964 and 1965 Q&As from Ford Hall Forum have not survived. There must have been recordings of the 1966 and 1967 Q&As, because Mayhew rewrote some answers and used them in his book, but those two Ford Hall Forum sessions are not publicly available.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

[Chris Grieb]

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

I always thought it funny that one of the features in the Playboy which had the Ayn Rand interview was the girls of Eastern Europe and the Soviet block. I suspect Ayn would not have approved.

[Brant Gaede]

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

I always thought it funny that one of the features in the Playboy which had the Ayn Rand interview was the girls of Eastern Europe and the Soviet block. I suspect Ayn would not have approved.

I suspect that was not a coincidence, but there's no way of knowing. The interviewer, I think, was Alvin Toffler who subsequently wrote "Future Shock."

--Brant

Edited April 30, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

Alvin Toffler was indeed the interviewer.

Rand chided him for not having read Atlas Shrugged before starting. She told him to read the entire book, resuming the interview after he'd finished it.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert,

While it's not apples to apples, Rand's 1964 Playboy interview was very good.

--Brant

I remember the Playboy centerfold spoof that had a big buildup--to what turned out to be a beautiful tractor

I always thought it funny that one of the features in the Playboy which had the Ayn Rand interview was the girls of Eastern Europe and the Soviet block. I suspect Ayn would not have approved.

I suspect that was not a coincidence, but there's no way of knowing. The interviewer, I think, was Alvin Toffler who subsequently wrote "Future Shock."

--Brant

Don Hauptmann interviewed Toffler about the Playboy interview. Don also purchased the interview materials at a big auction Playboy had. I think you find the article at the Atlas Society website.