Peikoff: The Great Pretender


Recommended Posts

This may have been mentioned on the rather extensive thread regarding Heller’s book. However, I did not see any reference to it, and I think the topic is worthy of it’s own thread.

If I have my mud-throwing Objectivist history correct, Peikoff condemns the Brandens for deception and lying in their relationship with Ayn Rand. In large measure, Peikoff’s moral indignation over the Brandens supposedly derives from his steadfast devotion to the moral purity of Ayn Rand’s name. He represents himself as her self-appointed posthumous guardian. Objectivists on both sides of the issue seem to take that much for granted.

I came across this passage in Anne Heller’s Ayn Rand and the World She Made:

“She [Rand] kept him [Peikoff] off balance by favoring him as her ‘number one man’ without designating him her official philosophical successor or ‘intellectual heir.’ After Branden, it is unlikely that she would again invest a follower with so much trust and power. Yet he must have wanted the validation that came with the title ‘intellectual heir,’ for he claimed it after her death, even posting it on his Web site, implying to others that she had bestowed it on him in her will (there is no such reference)…” (p. 387)

Following the publication of Heller’s biography, has Peikoff offered any evidence that she is wrong? Because if Heller is right about Rand’s will—and I want to stress the fact that I don’t know whether she is or not--it looks as though her self-appointed “guardian” may be the one who is actively defiling Rand’s legacy and honor. Only, in his case, Ayn Rand cannot be accused of creating an impossible situation or participating in the deception---and Peikoff’s personal campaign of lies and outright fraud continues until this day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 200
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I listened to the podcast.

Essentially, Peikoff reiterated the claim that he was her intellectual heir, but he qualified that by saying that this only meant that she believed he understood her philosophy more than anyone else and was less likely to misrepresent it. He also said he was not going to leave any intellectual heirs, so this inheritance was up for grabs.

I had a real problem listening to this podcast, but it was about minor issues. The worst was about a lady who doesn't like seafood (but the question was written by her husband). From what I understood, the people around the lady, presumably family or friends, wanted her to eat seafood. So every time she refused to eat it, she was bombarded with suggestions for other types, with the insinuation (or claim) that if she only tried that other type, she would like it. So, to avoid the aggravation, she invented a white lie, telling them that she was allergic to seafood.

Now here's the weird part. Her husband wanted to know if it was morally OK to do that. Talk about a non-issue! Keriiiiiiiiist! What's worse, Peikoff said it was immoral without even thinking about the context of the woman. He basically said what she should tell the folks, and if they did not accept that, she should cut them off as friends because they were not true friends.

I sat in pure astonishment listening to that.

Starting with the question. How on earth can a person ask for moral approval for something like that from anyone?

It's obvious to me that if you have to make a choice between bad and worse, any choice is still bad. I have no doubt the lady would prefer not to lie at all. So it's stupid to doctor it up with a label like "moral" to make it feel better--or label it as "immoral" to condemn yourself to feeling guilty.

Only the lady--in her particular set of circumstances right now--knows for sure what is bad and what is worse for her.

For instance, maybe it's her mother who is doing that... Should she cut her mother off over an irritating seafood enthusiasm in order to be "moral"?

For God's sake...

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a real art to being a "Dear Abby." Why Peikoff thinks he's qualified is silly hubris. Aren't people asking him decent questions any more? A question about white lies shouldn't devolve into ending friendships. But there is, of course, the larger historical template he shares with Rand.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I mean I can see her doing a move like that as being pragmatic. If people are badgering you without end over something that...effing g'danged ridiculous, and there is no sign of let-up, then I wouldn't feel real bad about a dodge. You get sick of goofy crap like that, you don't want to repeat ad nauseum. So, if you have to manufacture something ridiculous to deal with the ridiculous, I guess that's what they deserve. Personally, I wouldn't resort to it. I'd just say "Look, what are you so invested in that you need to modify someone else's fucking eating habits? What's in it for you? I don't like seafood, I don't eat it, and this is not going to change. Deal with it, and better yet, find something more engaging for you mind." But some people have trouble with confrontation. And they well might really be true friends. Goofy, confused ones, but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Essentially, Peikoff reiterated the claim that he was her intellectual heir, but he qualified that by saying that this only meant that she believed he understood her philosophy more than anyone else and was less likely to misrepresent it. He also said he was not going to leave any intellectual heirs, so this inheritance was up for grabs.

I agree Peikoff’s latest comments on the heir issue aren’t earth shattering, but if there’s going to be a new thread on the topic, why not? I don’t recall him saying before that his alpha status is up for grabs, meaning after his death I assume, the implication being that it hasn’t been up for grabs since 1982. He denies being a pope, but how else to interpret this?

The seafood allergy white lie answer is par for the course if you listen to his podcasts regularly. I don't find it worth bothering about when he says stupid stuff. It's often good for a laugh.

Now I've got a tune buzzing around my head, time to share it, I hope it lifts people's mood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QP8xff2X46A

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff discusses this in his latest podcast. If you have time and inclination, you could transcribe it and post it here. It’s towards the end, I think it was the last question. http://www.peikoff.com/podcasts/full-episodes/

I had heard this podcast prior to starting this thread. Peikoff does not address Heller’s claim that he is only pretending to have Rand’s endorsement as her “intellectual heir.” The questioner repeats the unchallenged assumption that Rand gave him such status, and this is what LP says in response:

“All that meant was that it was Ayn Rand’s way of saying that Peikoff knows my ideas better than anyone else, so take him as my philosophic spokesman. That doesn’t mean she’s giving an endorsement in advance of anything I say. But he is less likely to misrepresent me than anyone else, so in that sense, my philosophy is in his hands.”

It sounds as though he may be trying to downplay the significance of the title in order to defuse any possible flack that may come his way as a result of Heller’s discovery.

Obviously, it was a big deal to Ayn Rand, who first awarded that designation to Nathaniel Branden in the original "Afterword" to Atlas Shrugged. And the importance of the title is underscored once again by her apparent refusal to give it to Peikoff. She probably figured that the first thing he would do is go out and declare that Objectivism was now a frozen corpse, and that he had taken full custody of the tomb. ("As of now, I am in control here in the cemetery." Like Haig he was!)

I just wonder how she could have known that so many fledgling philosophical wizards with unborrowed vision would buy into that crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff's explication would be a sound one if he'd said it before so many others had debunked his claim (Heller was not the first). As is, it's just a bit of after-the-fact damage control, like some politician who makes a stupid remark and claims he was misunderstood or quoted out of context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff's explication would be a sound one if he'd said it before so many others had debunked his claim (Heller was not the first). As is, it's just a bit of after-the-fact damage control, like some politician who makes a stupid remark and claims he was misunderstood or quoted out of context.

I'm sorry, but I don't get the comparison. Peikoff isn't claiming he was misunderstood. And he isn't backpedaling. He continues to claim that Rand made him her "intellectual heir."

"Peikoff's explication would be a sound one...?" Really? What in the world is sound about it?

Someone else has verified that this is not in Rand's will? Out of curiosity, who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another thing on that podcast that I can't get out of my mind.

Someone questioned a line in the present-day sales-copy of The Fountainhead. Peikoff responded that he had been the one who wrote that line and he had done it that way to help with sales.

The line was about the dilemma of Roark having the woman he loved marry his worst enemy (I don't remember the exact quote). The question from the listener was why Peter Keating was considered Roark's his worst enemy in the sales copy and not Ellsworth Toohey.

Now, I have been studying sales copywriting hard for about 2 years. It is part of what you have to do to make it in Internet marketing and I have been going through the stuff of the best on the market (Sugarman, Carlton, Makepeace, Vitale, Fortin, Abraham, Bly, Garfinkel, Schwartz, etc.--and because of Glenn Beck, I am just now starting to look into Bernays--and sorry about the name-dropping, I'm just trying to make a point).

One of the best darn things I have come across on getting someone's attention in a crowded marketplace--which I am presently reading--is called How to Persuade People Who Don't Want To Be Persuaded by Joel Bauer and Mark Levy (it's a bit heavy on magic tricks, but there is a huge amount of other attention-getting and persuasion wisdom in it if you have some knowledge of the masters).

According to what I have learned, Peikoff's line, which is basically headline and sub-headline stuff, actually didn't make much of a difference in sales one way or another. It does make The Fountainhead sound like run-of-the-mill melodrama--hell, run-of-the-mill soap opera.

As I sat mulling this over, something dawned on me. Hasn't The Fountainhead been selling well year after year before Peikoff tried his hand at sales copy? And wasn't it doing so before Peikoff met Rand?

Well, here's a thought. If Peikoff imagines he is good enough at print sales persuasion to fudge Rand's story to better sell the book, he could use his skills and talents at some other ARI-promoted works in dire need of them, say PARC or something...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another thing on that podcast that I can't get out of my mind.

Someone questioned a line in the present-day sales-copy of The Fountainhead. Peikoff responded that he had been the one who wrote that line and he had done it that way to help with sales.

The line was about the dilemma of Roark having the woman he loved marry his worst enemy (I don't remember the exact quote). The question from the listener was why Peter Keating was considered Roark's his worst enemy in the sales copy and not Ellsworth Toohey.

Michael

Well, Michael, you may not admit it, but I can tell how enamored you are of the Peikoff podcast, so I thought I would brighten your day with a few more samples of the kind of ground-breaking Q & A that Scrooge McDuck typically offers to his little ducklings. The first thing you will ask yourself is, of course, 'how did I ever get through life without answers to these questions?' The second question will be: WTF?!

"'Women generally wear make-up, and men don't. Is this just an arbitrary social convention, or does it have an objective basis?” [Asked by a gentleman in a sleeveless dress with exceptionally well-defined eyes.]

“'When I checked into a hotel in California, I was starving, so I ate the six dollar box of Oreos from the mini bar. Later that day, I replenished the mini bar with an identical box of Oreos before the hotel had a chance to restock it. Was this proper? My view is, no harm, no foul. In fact, my box was fresher -- the Oreos I ate were going to expire three months before the box that replaced them.'"

"'What is wrong with "swinging" at parties? Isn't this only an expansion, an augmentation of sexual activities and the pursuit of the pleasure that sex brings?'" [Absolutely untrue that Peikoff told the guy to leave his address and phone number.]

"'Is professional comedy a rational undertaking that would be proper in a society composed of reverent, serious men such as Objectivists?'"

“Would it be immoral to wear an Ayn Rand tee-shirt?” [Follow-up question: "Well, then, what about a tank-top?"]

Hmmmm… Isn't this the same dude who said he was much too busy to ever read David Kelley’s response to “Fact and Value”?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roark's worst enemy was Dominique. The worst of his enemies was Toohey.

--Brant

could Peikoff be an existential threat?

too busy to read Kelley?--obviously, and I think he intends to stay too busy

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re #25:

What Peikoff's statement and the others I mentioned have in common is that they could be the right thing to say before the speaker has been shown wrong but not after. The resemblance may well stop there. Another example is the person who argues that his position is true as a matter of fact, loses the argument and then goes all loosey-goosey relativistic. The motive is transparent in that case, whereas his relativism might have been a respectable position - in some cases even a correct one - if he'd said so in the first place and not tried to argue otherwise.

Wills are public record once in probate; anybody can look them up. Maybe Heller gives a citation. If not, figure she got it from the court. Years ago someone wrote a book about famous people's wills and said that Rand left an estate of $800K including a mink coat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wills are public record once in probate; anybody can look them up. Maybe Heller gives a citation. If not, figure she got it from the court. Years ago someone wrote a book about famous people's wills and said that Rand left an estate of $800K including a mink coat.

On the other hand, a will isn’t the place to appoint an “intellectual heir”. I suppose she could have put something in there to that effect, symbolically, but it’s not like property requiring a specific bequest, and besides, if he got the residual estate what would be the difference?

Also, in the podcast he does say that “all that meant was Ayn Rand’s way of saying Peikoff knows my ideas better than anyone else”. So he’s asserting that she did say or write this. When? Where? He doesn’t say. I bet it's in the codicil stuffed inside Russell's teapot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The basic point, if you look at it from an orchestration level, even, is this:

OK, lemme get this straight. All this conjecture, what-if sits, etc. vis-a-vis WWPD? (What Would Peikoff Do?<tm>, don't steal my stuff, it's bad enough that I probably invented the O-ist thing and don't get credit). Of all the things to do, all the infernal, potentially globe-shattering, threatening issues, The Leonard<tm> fields a question involving someone who is upset because they are being harassed about their food tastes.

Talk about a dodge. Geezus and Jee-hose-a-phat. You wanna waste bandwidth? Go to the King, and learn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual heirs can prove tricky.

Herbert Spencer was a good friend of the Potter family, who often invited him to dinner. Spencer was impressed by their beautiful and intelligent daughter, Beatrice Potter (not to be confused with Beatrix Potter of Peter Rabbit fame), and he became her intellectual mentor.

Things went so well that Spencer groomed Beatrice to become his intellectual heir. Spencer didn't use this term, obviously, but he appointed Beatrice his literary executor and educated her to carry on his work after he was gone.

Things didn't work out as Spencer had planned. Beatrice Potter met and married Sidney Webb, and as Beatrice Webb she wrote and co-wrote (with her husband) many influential books promoting Fabian socialism. :angry:

Spencer and Beatrice remained friends, however. She even remained Spencer's literary executor and visited him while he lay dying. I don't recall that Spencer ever wrote a negative word about Beatrice, either in print or in his letters. But, my God, he must have been disappointed.

That's quite a story, is it not?

Spencer's intended intellectual heir was a lot better looking than Peikoff, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

webbb.jpg

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this has been asked before, but exactly what does being appointed an author's "intellectual heir" actually mean? And what kind of authority is vested in this title? Rand clearly wanted her readers to know by that term that Branden was authorized to speak for Objectivism. And by doing so, give Branden a boost in his career.

But before Rand designated Branden as such (and later revoked it), was there any precedent for the use of this title? Did Marx appoint Engels? Did they, or any other figure in the history of philosphy, use that term?

I do remember that some of the earlier (and highly derisive) reviewers of Atlas Shrugged would point-out that designation of Branden in their articles. It would usually be mentioned in the course of their attempting to ridicule Rand and point-out that she could not be taken seriously as a philosopher.

And if Rand later did not explicitly designate Peikoff as her intellectual heir, it could be that she had realized that that term gave away too much of her intellectual authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intellectual heirs can prove tricky.

Herbert Spencer was a good friend of the Potter family, who often invited him to dinner. Spencer was impressed by their beautiful and intelligent daughter, Beatrice Potter (not to be confused with Beatrix Potter of Peter Rabbit fame), and he became her intellectual mentor.

Things went so well that Spencer groomed Beatrice to become his intellectual heir. Spencer didn't use this term, obviously, but he appointed Beatrice his literary executor and educated her to carry on his work after he was gone.

Things didn't work out as Spencer had planned. Beatrice Potter met and married Sidney Webb, and as Beatrice Webb she wrote and co-wrote (with her husband) many influential books promoting Fabian socialism. :angry:

Spencer and Beatrice remained friends, however. She even remained Spencer's literary executor and visited him while he lay dying. I don't recall that Spencer ever wrote a negative word about Beatrice, either in print or in his letters. But, my God, he must have been disappointed.

That's quite a story, is it not?

Spencer's intended intellectual heir was a lot better looking than Peikoff, that's for sure. :rolleyes:

webbb.jpg

Ghs

George, It looks like you anticipated my question!

Three really excellent books by Michael W. Taylor (who appears to be the preeminent scholar on Spencer) discuss Spencer and the group of English writers who were his contemporaries and who attempted to expand on his philosophy:

Men Versus The State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism (Oxford, 1992).

Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the State: the Late Nineteenth Century Debate between Individualism and Collectivism (Thoemmes Press, 1996).

The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer (London: Continuum, 2007).

Note: These are expensive books, but sometimes they show up on Amazon or eBay at heavily discounted prices.

Of course, if you're really interested in Spencer (and have very deep pockets) a new re-issue of Spencer's complete "System of Synthetic Philosophy" is being published. Sixteen-plus volumes with intros by Michael Taylor. No, you don't really want to know the price!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, It looks like you anticipated my question!

Three really excellent books by Michael W. Taylor (who appears to be the preeminent scholar on Spencer) discuss Spencer and the group of English writers who were his contemporaries and who attempted to expand on his philosophy:

Men Versus The State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism (Oxford, 1992).

Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the State: the Late Nineteenth Century Debate between Individualism and Collectivism (Thoemmes Press, 1996).

The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer (London: Continuum, 2007).

Note: These are expensive books, but sometimes they show up on Amazon or eBay at heavily discounted prices.

Of course, if you're really interested in Spencer (and have very deep pockets) a new re-issue of Spencer's complete "System of Synthetic Philosophy" is being published. Sixteen-plus volumes with intros by Michael Taylor. No, you don't really want to know the price!

Many books by and about Spencer can be downloaded for free at Google Books..

I used to own copies of virtually everything Spencer ever published, but I haven't done any substantial work on him since I published "Herbert Spencer's Theory of Causation" in 1981.

I am probably one of the few people alive who has read every page of every volume of Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. That shows a lot of patience and dedication, if nothing else. <_<

I have heard of Taylor's work, but I have not read his books. I hope he does Spencer justice; few modern scholars have.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to own copies of virtually everything Spencer ever published, but I haven't done any substantial work on him since I published "Herbert Spencer's Theory of Causation" in 1981.

Ghs

While surfing the Net for books on Spencer, I made an interesting discovery. My JLS article on Spencer, linked above, was reprinted in Herbert Spencer: Critical Assessments of Leading Sociologists , edited by John Offer(Routledge, 1999). (This ad doesn't actually list the article titles and authors. I made the discovery while looking through some sample pages of the anthology at Google Books.)

This is news to me. You would think someone would have had the courtesy to notify me of the reprint. The book sells for a mere $1600 -- nope, that's not a typo; can anyone say "university library ripoff?" -- so a free copy would have been nice. I could have sold it and paid for a vacation. :rolleyes:

Well, given the title of the anthology, at least I can now call myself "a leading sociologist" and cite the book as proof. :lol:

Academe can be a lunatic asylum at times. It is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this has been asked before, but exactly what does being appointed an author's "intellectual heir" actually mean? And what kind of authority is vested in this title? Rand clearly wanted her readers to know by that term that Branden was authorized to speak for Objectivism. And by doing so, give Branden a boost in his career.

And if Rand later did not explicitly designate Peikoff as her intellectual heir, it could be that she had realized that that term gave away too much of her intellectual authority.

Peikoff was clearly relying on his claim to the status of "intellectual heir" when he declared, in "Fact and Value," that Objectivism was now a closed system. I can't see how anyone would have taken such a ridiculous pronouncement seriously unless the person making it had some special authority to speak for Ayn Rand. If Binswanger or Schwartz had said this, it would have been regarded as simply their opinion and little else would have been made of it. Because it came from Rand's supposed "intellectual heir," it became a cause celebre and a phony test of Randian fidelity.

If, because of Heller, Peikoff loses all legitimate claim to this status, the "closed Objectivism" school loses any waning legitimacy as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this has been asked before, but exactly what does being appointed an author's "intellectual heir" actually mean? And what kind of authority is vested in this title? Rand clearly wanted her readers to know by that term that Branden was authorized to speak for Objectivism. And by doing so, give Branden a boost in his career.

And if Rand later did not explicitly designate Peikoff as her intellectual heir, it could be that she had realized that that term gave away too much of her intellectual authority.

Peikoff was clearly relying on his claim to the status of "intellectual heir" when he declared, in "Fact and Value," that Objectivism was now a closed system. I can't see how anyone would have taken such a ridiculous pronouncement seriously unless the person making it had some special authority to speak for Ayn Rand. If Binswanger or Schwartz had said this, it would have been regarded as simply their opinion and little else would have been made of it. Because it came from Rand's supposed "intellectual heir," it became a cause celebre and a phony test of Randian fidelity.

If, because of Heller, Peikoff loses all legitimate claim to this status, the "closed Objectivism" school loses any waning legitimacy as well.

I am reminded of the doctrine of papal infallibility.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, It looks like you anticipated my question!

Three really excellent books by Michael W. Taylor (who appears to be the preeminent scholar on Spencer) discuss Spencer and the group of English writers who were his contemporaries and who attempted to expand on his philosophy:

Men Versus The State: Herbert Spencer and Late Victorian Individualism (Oxford, 1992).

Herbert Spencer and the Limits of the State: the Late Nineteenth Century Debate between Individualism and Collectivism (Thoemmes Press, 1996).

The Philosophy of Herbert Spencer (London: Continuum, 2007).

Note: These are expensive books, but sometimes they show up on Amazon or eBay at heavily discounted prices.

Of course, if you're really interested in Spencer (and have very deep pockets) a new re-issue of Spencer's complete "System of Synthetic Philosophy" is being published. Sixteen-plus volumes with intros by Michael Taylor. No, you don't really want to know the price!

Many books by and about Spencer can be downloaded for free at Google Books..

I used to own copies of virtually everything Spencer ever published, but I haven't done any substantial work on him since I published "Herbert Spencer's Theory of Causation" in 1981.

I am probably one of the few people alive who has read every page of every volume of Spencer's Synthetic Philosophy. That shows a lot of patience and dedication, if nothing else. <_<

I have heard of Taylor's work, but I have not read his books. I hope he does Spencer justice; few modern scholars have.

Ghs

George,

In case you (or anyone else!) want to update your Spencer collection, a relatively (1996) new set of his "Complete Works" is available on Amazon for the cool price of "only" $4,360. (Maybe I better spell that out: "Four thousand, three-hundred sixty DOLLARS").

http://www.amazon.com/Herbert-Spencer-Collected-Writings-Works/dp/0415122112/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1277699620&sr=1-1

Those anxious should get there orders in quickly, as only one set is currently available (although "more are on the way"). I wonder who would pay that much? Libraries? They seem to be trying to discard their Spencer collections, judging by the much cheaper offerings on eBay. I recently purchased a set (16 volumes, I think) for under $50.

Thanks for the link to your article on Spencer's Theory of Causation. An excellant article. Your position is quite similar to Michael Taylor's in his books that I listed earlier in this thread. By the way, he cites your essay, "Will the Real Herbert Spencer Please Stand Up?" in your book, Atheism, Ayn Rand and Other Heresies as an example of recent efforts to challenge some of the currently held misconceptions about Spencer. He doesn't list your article on Causation, but probably would have if he had been aware of it.

Edited by Jerry Biggers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose this has been asked before, but exactly what does being appointed an author's "intellectual heir" actually mean? And what kind of authority is vested in this title? Rand clearly wanted her readers to know by that term that Branden was authorized to speak for Objectivism. And by doing so, give Branden a boost in his career.

An historic point: Rand called NB her "intellectual heir" in the "About the Author" at the end of Atlas Shrugged, which was published in 1957. "Objectivism" as such hadn't been systematized then, except to whatever extent Rand systematized her philosophy preparing for writing the book, especially for writing Galt's Speech, and her philosophy hadn't yet been named (she only speaks of "my philosophy" in the "About the Author" blurb). So I'm not sure what boost exactly the designation would have given Branden's career at that point except maybe to encourage people to consult him as a therapist.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But before Rand designated Branden as such (and later revoked it), was there any precedent for the use of this title? Did Marx appoint Engels? Did they, or any other figure in the history of philosphy, use that term?

Here's a more recent case:

hitchens.jpg

The crossing out was done by the author. His most recent book has this blurb on the back crossed out in the same manner.

I bet if anyone had a signed copy of Atlas Shrugged with the original dedication crossed out by hand it would be worth a lot of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now