[Valpal1]

Oh please, Rand didn’t have the intellectual capacity and was so historically illiterate as to be unable to see past the scope of her own era.

What cracks me up is how many posters on this thread don’t seem to recognize the name of Whittaker Chambers.

Her followers certainly follow the example she set.

[Lurker]

Mr. Chambers did a fine job with "Witness", but he's a far better writer than he ever was a book critic.

And, as history has shown, Rand was right and Mr. Chambers was wrong.

Atlas is beginning to shrug.

[r9etb]

Oh please, Rand didn’t have the intellectual capacity and was so historically illiterate as to be unable to see past the scope of her own era.

I've long suspected that Ayn Rand's entire philosophy was rooted in her atheism -- which itself seems to have been rather infantile.

Certainly her basic premises don't pass logical muster -- they're not even consistent among themselves.

To take just one: "Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself."

Only a person without children could possibly take that as a statement of objective fact.

[Pessimist]

“Oh please, Rand didn’t have the intellectual capacity and was so historically illiterate as to be unable to see past the scope of her own era.”

Did you forget the sarc tag?