Was Ayn Rand a Jewish Thinker?

[@edbonz2]

Excellent podcast and analysis. TGIF. THANK YOU ARI & DRS HB & EJ. $

[@edbonz2]

Dr Bins seems a MATT HELM type guy. PEACE FOR AMERICA AND ALLY ISRAEL AND ALL ALLIES. ALL THE BEST $

[@lucinda1949]

Really looking forward to the article on other biographies that Elan is writing.

[@BARRIE-Chgo]

Election year are too stressful with idiots!

[@lucinda1949]

@@BARRIE-Chgo ?

[@Storabrost]

47:10 The most important takeaway for me. Self assertion. Don't be afraid to say you are Jewish/atheist/married to an immigrant or whatever. Be proud of who and what you are.

[@TeaParty1776]

Pride is from personal achievement, not ancestors.

[@tomabdella113]

This was magnificent. Thank you gents.

[@TheCrzyman0]

Excellent talk!

[@prometheusr]

Truly!

[@TeaParty1776]

Brook says the medieval Aristotelian, Maimonides, is the basic cause of the unusually large, Jewish respect for learning. But, then, why didn't Aquinas have an equal effect on Christians?

[@apollocreed1000]

In Judaism it was thousands of Rabbis, not just Maimonides

[@TeaParty1776]

@@apollocreed1000 I said "basic" cause, implying non-basic causes, eg, thousands of rabbis influenced by the philosopher. Philosophy spreads thru a culture from philosophers, other intellectuals and artists, journalists, etc, to the man in the street. See Rands "For The New Intellectual" and Peikoffs DIM.

[@Kalahridudex]

Id say a bigger % of Jews know who Maimonedes is than Christians who know about Aquinas.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Kalahridudex Evidence?

[@TeaParty1776]

@@Kalahridudex evidence?

[@drstrangelove09]

I'm not following the part about "the contradiction of determinism starting at 10:47...?

[@economicfreedom8591]

HB is off his cake here. "Influences" are completely different from "determinism." The former has a strong element of volition; the latter does not. The attempts to segregate Rosenbaum from any cultural influences (including religious) is similar to attempts made by some Enlightenment thinkers to segregate Isaac Newton from his cultural influences (especially religious). Newton believed his physics were evidence of God's direct intervention in the physical universe to keep things orderly and therefore understandable by man. He was a serious student of the Bible and wrote more about it than he wrote about natural philosophy. Hist mystical writings were shunned by many anti-clerical Enlightenment things (e.g., Voltaire), who preferred to promote the image of a "pure intellect" unaffected by cultural influences such as religion. The exact opposite, however, happens to be the truth.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@economicfreedom8591 I'm not saying that I disagree with Harry, I'm saying that I did not understand what he was saying.

[@economicfreedom8591]

@@drstrangelove09 LOL! You don't disagree with something you admit you don't understand! That makes a lot of sense. You must be a "student of Objectivism." Why am I not surprised.

[@drstrangelove09]

@@economicfreedom8591 I neither agree nor do I disagree, which is the correct way for me to proceed so your laughing makes zero sense. I suspect based on your lack of a valid reason to laugh at me that you have some animosity towards me and maybe, based on your firext post about Harry, some animosity towards Harry...? If so, why?

[@economicfreedom8591]

@@drstrangelove09 Huh? You claim Binswanger doesn't make sense (which is why you don't understand what he's talking about) so you neither agree nor disagree with him. My "LOL!" doesn't make sense, and instead of applying the same objective standard as you do for Binswanger - i.e., "neither agree nor disagree" - you make the arbitrary assertion that I lack a "valid reason" for it. Observe: If I lack a "valid reason" for posting something you don't understand, then Binswanger lacks a "valid reason" for posting something you don't understand. Same cause, same effect. That said, I'll point out that I had no problem understanding what Binswanger was talking about, and I've already criticized his assertion. Binswanger conflates two different ideas: Idea #1 "determinism"; idea #2 "influences." He has a PhD in philosophy so I'll presume he's aware that he's intentionally conflating those two concepts. However, they are easily distinguished: "influences" (culture, family, religion, education, associates, etc.) are something a person can become aware of and avoid entirely, if so desired; i.e., there's a strong element of voluntarism involved in the concept. A person can choose to be influenced by something, or not to be influenced by something, to the extent he or she acknowledges the influences. Determinism has no element of voluntarism. The difference between "voluntary" and "not voluntary" is mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive; i.e., there is no third, middle choice. True, a person might be "unconsciously influenced" by one's culture, religion, education, etc., but that doesn't mean his thoughts and behavior are "determined" by those influences. Binswanger is dishonestly integrating two concepts that should be differentiated, for the sake of arbitrarily claiming there's a "contradiction" involved in Popoff's attempt to place Rand in the older tradition of "Jewish intellectuals." One can disagree with Popoff's thesis without making the rather silly claim that it involves a "logical contradiction."

[@whalercumming9911]

"To understand Ayn Rand you have to look to her Jewish background" - ask yourself how Ayn Rand or any jewish person in that era would like that statement.

[@Gorboduc]

Under today's Victim Code™ the idea of overlooking said background ("erasure" in the current jargon) would equally be seen as hashtag problematic. Like Ad Hominem, Ad Misericordiam can be applied to almost any trait or behavior, and also to the opposite of that trait or behavior!

[@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr]

There are millions of Jews who are proud of their ancestry and for whom Judaism and Jewishness are core components of their identity.

[@JohnMcAfee-se9ms]

​@@AnacreonSchoolbagsJrYes, the tribe that pushes racial consciousness the most, definitely pushes racial consciousness.

[@MegaFount]

Non-Jews like to detach the Jew from their Jewish identity.

[@RogerFusselman]

​@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr identity is not in your ancestors. Identity is in your choices. One's accidental inheritance isn't really something to be proud of. Being a certain person by virtue of your choices and actions, though, is a strong point of pride.

[@JohnDavis-i6j]

Listeners should know that Popoff had complete access to the Ayn Rand Archives at the Ayn Rand Institute.

[@eviltiki13]

Is your point that Popoff had a treasure trove of info and failed to get to a reasonable conclusion, or that Popoff with her access uncovered a “secret Jewishness” that no associate or previous scholar has discussed?

[@JohnDavis-i6j]

@@eviltiki13 My point is that she had acess to the archives and so her book is quite good as a nuts-and-bolts biography. Some the interpetations I don't find persuasive.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Rand was secular anti-communist literary romanticist. Objectivism becomes an updated Aristotelean Philosophy filtered through Enlightenment themes.

[@micchaelsanders6286]

44:50 - 45:10 Right.

[@jeffersonianideal]

Ayn Rand found no evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension or mysticism. She may have been born into and raised within the Jewish faith, but Ayn Rand would, eventually, categorically dismiss any religious inclinations. She was also an outspokenly passionate anticommunist. Ayn Rand was a vital intellectual, combining the logic of atheism with the ethics of free market capitalism.

[@economicfreedom8591]

>>>Ayn Rand found no evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension That's only because she held a narrowly materialistic conception of "evidence." Obviously, you're not going to acknowledge the reality of a non-material realm by only acknowledging materialism. No surprise there.

[@economicfreedom8591]

>>>Ayn Rand found no evidence for the existence of a supernatural dimension or mysticism. Not surprising, given that her basic metaphysical position was naive materialism, which entails the usual binary assumptions of "randomness" and "determinism" as causes, with no third way (i.e., teleology). In any case, supernaturalism ("above physical nature" or "outside of physical nature") need not be mystical, or discerned by non-sensory, non-intellectual means. It's clear, for example, that the origin of life on Earth could not have arisen by chance combinations of chemicals over billions of years, nor could it have arisen by deterministic forces. Similarly, the fine-tuning of physical constants in the non-living, material universe strongly suggest intention and design. Since intention and design imply the prior existence of a "Designer" (prior to the existence of the material universe, prior to the existence of biological organisms, and prior to the existence of consciousness), that would be evidence of a supernatural realm that was not discovered through claims of having gazed inward and "intuited" or accessed somehow a "higher dimension" through non-sensory, non-intellectual means. While her dogmatic atheism was objectionable, we might forgive her for rejecting any form of supernatural causes since she was generally ignorant of science (or just uninterested in it), especially those sciences that deal with "origins"; i.e., origin of the universe (astrophysics) and origin of life (biochemistry).

[@zipjok8850]

Is there any relationship between Harry Binswanger and Ludwig Binswanger the founder of Daseinsanalysis?

[@economicfreedom8591]

HB was born into a wealthy family that owned a glazier business, manufacturing windows for commercial buildings.

[@LethalBubbles]

I'd consider her more Greek considering the influence of Aristotle.

[@jeffreyscott4997]

One has to wonder, how would a similar attempt to explain the words of Spinoza or Maimonides would be received.

[@ivanyaroslavskiy]

Actlly there've been several such attempts. and it's a very common idea among Jewish scholars: that the fact that you're Jewish puts your thought in a certain "Jewish" frame. That there's a common history of Jewish ideas. You can look at "Spinoza and Medieval Jewish Philosophy", by Steven Nadler, for ex, who studies and teaches (up to this day) Jewish philosophy. This goes to a larger trend focusing on individuals' works as results of a given culture, rather than ingredients that made the said culture the way it is today In the 19th century, Germans were considered rude, physically powerful and authoritarian. Today, 19th century Germany is regarded as a beautiful nation of poets and philosophers (most of whom advocated authoritarianism, btw) Goethe made Germany romantic, not the other way around. In fact, nothing before Goethe would even slightly predispose German culture to romanticism, and nothing in the following 150 years has

[@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr]

@@ivanyaroslavskiy It is an exercise in denialism and willful blindness to, when taking historical stock of a thinker, divorce that thinker from their biography such that their ethnic context and the intellectual milieu of their upbringing are construed as totally irrelevant. Another Jewish thinker Sigmund Freud characterized this tendency to suppress or conceal emotions, desires and impulses that are unacceptable to the ego by exaggeration of the directly opposing tendency, calling it "reaction formation."

[@ivanyaroslavskiy]

@OdiousCoprophagus Obviously Ayn Rand didn t make English or grammar up herself, but this isn't what I nor the book are talking about. Ayn Rand comes from a Jewish non-religious family. The author argues its position (which is basically the idea that Ayn Rand s themes are 100% inspired from the bible) based on things like "Roark fell in love with Dominique, just as 2 random Bible characters fell in love in the Bible - therefore Roark s romamce has been drawn from the bible", which isn't exactly a convincing position Most of the book s arguments are like that

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr With Rand her influence was mainly in the heady days of communist revolution in St. Petersburgh, the the capital of Russia. It's a real contortion to force fit a non-observant secular Jewishness into that.

[@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr]

@@donaldclifford5763 There were many Secular Jew Bolsheviks and one might argue that they comprised the intellectual elite and primary agents of the movement. This group includes Lenin himself, Leon Trotsky, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Moisei Uritsky, Yakov Sverdlov, Genrikh Yagoda, Lazar Kagonovich, Maxim Litvinov, Karl Radek, etc, etc, etc. Even today, but certainly then, there was such a thing as a strongly "Jewish" (ethnic) secular culture. We are well past the point in the discourse on Jewishness where one can avoid being viewed with suspicion when espousing confusion over the distinction between Judaism and the Jewish ethnicity. No one who can string two sentences together is dumb enough not to understand the difference between those two categories. In my view, a "thinker" is free to repudiate their roots or to disagree with people who have a similar background to themselves, which Ayn Rand seems to have done in a variety of ways. But having done so does not change the fact that she was a Jew and is thereby categorically a(n) (ethnic) Jewish thinker. Again, if we agree that she attempted to disavow herself of obligations, duties, connections, and pieties toward the group of her own extraction through her own emphasis on free thought, irreligiousness, individuality, etc, it still doesn't amount to her or her work being free from factual, historical philological categorization. If she's a Jew, she's a Jewish thinker, whether or not she had (petulantly) bristled against such categorization. I don't know if she did or didn't, but from what I've gleaned of her personality type I would wager that she would have.

[@anjinsanx44]

To quote archie bunker... I know that tribe!😂

[@donaldclifford5763]

Relevance?

[@donnasherwood283]

well yes she was afflicted with an unusual variant of "tikkum olam" she was going to fix the world I happen to agree with her thinking as landing in the 21 century I see quite clearly the results of a society who thinks the "other way"

[@RashadSaleh92]

Imagine the “scientist” who would make the same “argument” about Einstein and relativity… If the same exact logic would destroy their career in physics or chemistry or law or engineering… then that should give you a clue about the kind of “careers” these people have.

[@geirstella10]

Don't know if this is an interview or not, but I find it boring because it shows typical interview style of our day with the questions being way longer than answers. So tired of long questions!!:)

[@DinkSmalwood]

I'd say that this is a discussion, not an interview.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Why cry out loud when there are limitless other vids on YT? I only watch the ones that interest me. Even then I can watch them all.

[@BARRIE-Chgo]

I remember well the Atlas Society that had on Jonah Goldberg believes in open objectivistism that objectivist are too strict - I prefer a conservative who keep their word - unlike R's who funded obamacare! Objectivist is new to me didn't know about OCON until 2023 - first one was awesome!

[@Chris67-p9v]

There was a video about Jonah Goldberg on Ayn Rand on this channel a few years back. It's an interesting one especially considering he reflects some of the better elements within the current right-wing/conservative political movement

[@rayschram3399]

what

[@johndavis5654]

Just started listening to

[@amitshogun]

The questions are SO long. I almost fell asleep

[@exnihilonihilfit6316]

Just go to sleep, sleepyhead.

[@apollocreed1000]

If you believe that God created the world, directs it, and we are his servants, then you must accept that no human being can take credit for the wealth that they have seemingly "produced." All that we have is a blessing from God and is only on loan to us to use in accordance with his wishes. God obliges us to give charity and support society, so reasonable taxes are therefore justified. Ayn Rand's views are totally contrary to Judaism.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Actually her views are irrelevant to Judaism, or religion generally. No need to conflate.

[@TB-sz9nt]

HB, why do you use sexist language?

[@LindaGrey-wm9uc]

Leave her alone. She is defined by her writing. Stop the stolen valour

[@donaldclifford5763]

Uniquely individualistic thinker.

[@economicfreedom8591]

>>>She is defined by her writing. But her writing is defined by many other things, including her experiences with family and culture.

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@economicfreedom8591 How so?

[@economicfreedom8591]

@@donaldclifford5763 >>>How so? At first, I thought you were joking. Apparently not. >>>She is defined by her writing. >>>But her writing is defined by many other things, including her experiences with family and culture . . . JUST LIKE ANY OTHER NOVELIST AND PHILOSOPHER. The notion that nothing at from her family, education, culture, friendships, etc., influenced her in any way, is simply BS. I'm shocked I have to explain this to you. It's as if you had no knowledge of "the birds and the bees." She knew nothing about economics until her friend and mentor, Isabel Paterson, taught her (as well as introducing her to the Austrian School helmed by Mises, as well as the more popular writings of business writer, Henry Hazlitt). Those were major influences. She was influenced by Aristotle and St. Thomas in her philosophy. She was influenced by Victor Hugo and O'Henry in her fiction writing (she was an admirer of Hugo for his high drama; she admired O'Henry for the terseness of his writing as well as the famous "unexpected plot twists" in his short stories). After a young girl (a relative of hers) unexpectedly made an antisemitic remark at the dinner table, Rosenbaum gently said to her, "You know, I'm Jewish." Don't remember where I read that but you can certainly look it up.

[@toolboxnj]

Before I watch the interview, there is something about the Jewish ethic that would certainly predispose her to individualism, radical ideas. Culturally, Jews are more intellectual and generally have higher average intelligence.

[@TeaParty1776]

Brook left Israel because of Jewish collectivism. What individualism was in Judiasm prior to Western civ?

[@toolboxnj]

@@TeaParty1776 it predisposes her to individualism, not makes her one

[@donaldclifford5763]

You mean like Marx?

[@TeaParty1776]

@@toolboxnj Introduces, not predisposes.

[@TeaParty1776]

@@donaldclifford5763 Marx?

[@maryankersen8589]

She didn’t reinvent a code for ethical living. Moses was given a code too which would have satisfied a lot of the ills she railed against.

[@eviltiki13]

False on all points.

[@JohnMcAfee-se9ms]

You don't even know if an actual Moses existed

[@johnnynick3621]

@maryankersen8589 You don't even know what Rand's code for ethical living was. How can you possibly claim that she didn't reinvent it? Try to think about what you said. Can you actually make such a claim without knowing what her moral code was? Most people just can't think anymore. Try harder Mary.

[@Triple_J.1]

Moses was a deranged, unhinged narcissist. You can literally diagnose him from the writings and legalistic barbaric culture he created. Contrast the Hebrew law with Egyptian proverbs and laws and you can see why Egypt became the pinnacle of ancient civilization when Moses' clan was a murdering gang of irrational, homeless thieves and robbers. They killed their entire flock of sheep as a sacrifice before venturing into the wilderness and later starved without food.

[@TeaParty1776]

She invented a code. You evade identifying Moses' code. You evade the fundamental reason/faith difference.

[@adrianainespena5654]

As they say about Catholicism "YOu can take the boy out of the Catholic Church, but not the Catholic Church out of the boy" I think it was the same thing with her and Jewishness.

[@lucinda1949]

Not at all. I was raised Catholic and will officially leave the Catholic Church soon, and I haven't gotten the slightest bit of Catholicism in me. People struggle with changing their views and emotions about existence when it comes to religion and culture mainly because those people for a long time viewed themselves and existence exclusively through a religious or cultural identity and I haven't seen any evidence that at any point in her life Rand saw herself primarily through her Jewish identity. I wouldn't be surprised if she got some of her mannerism from Jewish culture but when it comes to her ideas and sense of life I see no other source than her own thinking and her recognition of herself as an individual.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@lucinda1949 I do not mean that you have the same beliefs, but you have the reflexes that were put in your as a child, and which you never examined because you were a child.

[@lucinda1949]

​@@adrianainespena5654 I get that and that does happen, but personally I examined those things as a child and never got any "reflexes" like that, and from what I know about Rand's childhood she actively examined everything that parents or school or whatever were trying to put on her. I also don't think that people in general can't get certain "reflexes" or automatized reactions or ways of being out of themselves, I just think that when you don't examine it as a child it's gonna get harder and harder to change that the older and older you get. And when it comes to things that I generally don't see changing very often, I have to say again that that's mainly mannerisms or similar things. What we're talking about here, to my understanding, is mainly emotional conditioning in early childhood and that's certainly real, but people, including children, have a choice to let themselves be conditioned or not. Here is where I'd like to note that Catholic religious pressures can be a lot more difficult to resist as child, especially when threatened with punishment by parents or school, than the kind of emotional conditioning that happens when you just soak in the norms of your culture. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but it seems to me that you're arguing that Rand was conditioned emotionally by soaking in the jewish culture around her and that that stuck with her the rest of her life, since I doubt you'd argue that her parents pressured her into traditional jewish beliefs since I wouldn't know of any evidence that would suggest that. I'd say that when it comes to soaking in a cultures norm that that comes about through a lack of critical thinking similarly to how Rand describes it in Philosophy Who Needs It, and from what I know Rand critically examined basically everything the culture or her parents confronted her with from the earliest moments of her childhood. And when it comes to the way she is in her later years and everything about her, there's nothing that I couldn't explain by choices she herself made about how to evaluate the world, and I can't think of anything that screams out "this can only be explained by the jewishness that was inprinted in her as a child" or anything of the sorts. If you're still not convinced by what I'm saying here I'd be interested to hear an example or two of the kind of jewish "reflexes" you argue she got from childhood. If you think I misinterpreted any part of what you've said I'd also love to hear where you think I got you wrong.

[@AnacreonSchoolbagsJr]

@@lucinda1949 It's impossible to erase your history. You may not feel any affinity for your Catholic upbringing, but your decisions in adulthood do not alter history such that you weren't raised in the circumstance in which you were raised. Some people who were raised Catholic may even feel such a revulsion toward Catholicism that they feel compelled to live a life in defiance of everything they take Catholicism to mean, but that still doesn't change that they were raised Catholic. In fact, an anti-Catholic former Catholic would arguably be more behaviorally constrained by Catholicism than someone who wasn't raised Catholic and who has never heard of Catholicism. You can never be someone who wasn't raised Catholic. There are plenty of people in the world who weren't raised Catholic, but you're not one of them. This logic applies to every contingent factor of human existence. There's also the question of the importance of one's "formative years," especially early childhood, in affixing that person to a certain psychological type, which any pediatric psychologist would affirm.

[@adrianainespena5654]

@@lucinda1949 They you are a rare exception.

[@c.k.8412]

I'm of the opinion that Rand was not a thinker, Jewish or otherwise.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

Abot the "power-luster": Power is the ability to work one's ideasl in the world. The slaver is slave to the slave The hippies used the word "triba'". IIRC, either the tital contained, or the subtitle of HAIR was "A Tribal Rock". We have used "tribal" to mean referring to making mountains out of minor disagrements along group lines. I think what she introduced was "tribalism" The biggest intellectual mistake whas using "anti-semitic" to mean anti-Jew. It is coming home to root. There are different kinds of Jews from different parts of the world. Many Israelis came from Eastern and Southern Europe,. These are not Semitic. On the other hand, the "Palestinians" in Gaza are at least 95% Arabic."Arabic" is totally Semitic. So the "Palestininas" are more Semitic than the Israelis. So being pro-"Palestinian [pro-Hamas]" is far from being anti-Semitic"

[@artofthepossible7329]

By that same token (if greatly smaller in degree) Rudyard Kipling should be remembered by history as an Indian?

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@artofthepossible7329 How so?

[@artofthepossible7329]

@@SpacePatrollerLaser He was born there. Like I said, Kipling's situation is greatly smaller in degees compared to Jews that had spent centuries living in (for example) Poland and then became Israelis. But the principle is the same.

[@SpacePatrollerLaser]

@@artofthepossible7329 It's not even close "Semitic" is a PHYSICAL set of characteristics, similar to Race. A lowere percentage of Israelis are Semitic than Gazan Arabs since Man Jews who came to Israel were or Eastern European stock, probably Slavic and Germanic due to intermanrriage and conversion between Jews who immigrated to that area and those already there. So the Arabs can claim to be more Semitic than the Israelis, so supporters of Hamas cannot be described as "anti-Semitic". I was concerned about this since I was in my laate teens. I take it that Jews are more correctly identified by religion (Judaism) and the related culture, mores and folkways. So it is wrong to identify them by the original physical stock."Semite" refers to a "stock", "Indian" would refer to a nation or geographic place of birth. Kipling would be "European Caucasion" or maybe enve "Indo-European" by physical makeup

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@artofthepossible7329 How long did India exist? And then became the modern state of India?

[@gfy2979]

"Thinker" is a bit of an exaggeration I would say!

[@johnwayne6646]

under exaggeration

[@hyperreal]

Trite comment

[@donaldclifford5763]

Rand epitome of a thinker.

[@frank-rk5sq]

You should rethink and reissue this with more illustrations--to wit Ayn Rand describing herself as a "Jewish intellectual" when Isabel Paterson, a defender of capitalism, made critical remarks about "Jewish intellectuals." Why don't you examine more closely the possibility that Ayn Rand DID have a stratum of Jewish identity, based on what is non-volitional: inheritance! NOTE: Also, Ayn Rand strenuously defended Israel ca. 1967, and seemed to be emotionally blind to any rational grievances that Palestinians might have. Look at the Libertarians today, many if not most, are much more sympathetic to Palestinians.

[@johnwayne6646]

Ayn Rand didn't defend Israel because, as you imply, she was Jewish. Rand described herself to Isabel Paterson as a "Jewish intellectual" in a specific context where Isabel was being anti-semitic as to make a point. What does inheritance have to do with "Jewish identity"?

[@frank-rk5sq]

I don't propose any firm view, but just a possibility; she seemed totally unfamiliar with any of the historical issues involved, so that her emotions did not seem in tune with reason--just an outpouring. She may have changed somewhat in the post WWII era. Apparently, she was pro-America First in the early 1940s. While the book under discussion appears to be foolish or very superficial, I don't think that backers of ARI are particularly candid about heredity, physical appearance, and other unchosen but important aspects of personality.

[@TeaParty1776]

> rational grievances that Palestinians might have Might in your unfocused leftist mind or in man's focused mind? Objectivism is fundamentally, consistently anti-faith, anti-religion, anti-ethnicity,, and anti-traditionailsm. But maybe Rand likes bagels and cream cheese. Youre absurd. Your rationalization of your evasion of free will fails. Rand is a moral reproach to you. She made the choices that you should have and could havee made. But didnt. She should be an inspiration, not a rationalization.

[@donaldclifford5763]

@@frank-rk5sq Being an atheist puts Rand in a very secular realm of intellectual.