As my Dad used to say, "it ain't braggin' if you can do it." (That and "sometimes even I don't believe how good I am.")

There's business, then there is politics. Rockefellers have been one worlders in politics. In the recent election, the Rothschilds were not behind Trump, at least not openly. Rockefeller and Kissinger worked toward one world government back in 1976. Obama's children are supposedly on loan from Illuminati parents. These people all make money thogether, but not always politically. Look at Sinatra and and the Mafia. Who do you think groomed and invented Barrack Obama, out of Barry? It almost had to involve the inner workings of a White House then Republican.

The Rockefeller and Rothschild families helped Trump since at least the 1980s, and there's a plausible argument that they began grooming him for the presidency even then. See http://philosophyofmetrics.com/how-ro... "In 1987 Donald Trump purchased his first casino interests when he acquired 93% of the shares in Resorts International... On October 30, 1978, The Spotlight newspaper reported that the principle investors of Resorts International were Meyer Lansky, Tibor Rosenbaum, William Mellon Hitchcock, David Rockefeller, and one Baron Edmond de Rothschild."

The only way I would even mention Trump and Howard Roark in the same sentence is to contrast them as proof that having a large ego does not necessarily imply having principles.

I would like to believe that. But it's one of him vs. several million senior career bureaucrats who have experience outlasting presidents of all stripes.

The Rockefellers are a bunch of manipulators, keeping the money completely within the family.The finances are so convoluted one accountant has no idea what the others are doing - by design. Have you read "The Rockefeller Files"?
Trump is old school, not polished, not a good speaker, but a master of the deal. He works one on one.
Today we have a bunch of smooth talkers, who fell for TQM like it was the answer. Some eventually found that thinking on their feed at reacting was actually more important than endless meetings.We reached an era when if a guy could deliver a smooth talk, they were promoted, even though they did not understand their product. Gee, did I just describe Obama?

Thanks for the suggestion. Actually, I fail to see any significant difference between us. You clarified your position nicely and it only goes to show that humans are not pasteboard cut-outs who can be easily categorized. If black equals evil and white equals good, where in the shades in between does one become purely one or the other? Easy to see in archetypes such as Hitler and Washington but the majority are tilting one way or another and can often surprise by crossing over. I'm sure that you have met or know of a George Soros type who for whatever reason does a very good thing or an Objectivist that you wouldn't invite to dinner.

By the way, while I'll put your suggestions on my reading list, I was pretty close to some original Objectivist shrinks. I was friends with Lee Shulman who was a psychologist who was pals with Nathaniel Branden. His break-up with Rand can only be described as a stupid event on both sides

I agree that, finally, we cannot know for certain. However, based on her life as it was recorded by herself and others, it seems unlikely that Donald Trump would be in her social circle. For someone that she did enjoy talking to even though she did not agree with him, I point to her Random House editior Bennett Cerf. For a successful business creator in her social circle, many here know Ed Snider of Comcast Spectacor, the Philadelphia Flyers, and other enterprises.

Neither Cerf nor Snider bears any resemblance to Donald Trump.

wmiranda wrote: "I believe Trump would be someone Ayn Rand would talk about and enjoy talking to, not necessarily agree with always, but maybe even be friends, if she were alive. However, since they're not contemporaries, we'll never know."

As for the (limited) use of reason to attain some purpose, allow me to suggest Ayn Rand's "Open Letter to Boris Spassky." (For instance on Chess.com here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/gene... )

For Donald Trump to "use reason in order to attain his objectives" leaves many questions unanswered about the man and his motives.

If you have read The Fountainhead you know the differences between Peter Keating and Howard Roark. I believe that Donald Trump is successful in the way that Peter Keating was. Altruism does not mean being nice or giving a lot to other people. Just the opposite. Altruists are people haters. Benevolence toward others comes from selfishness within. Donald Trump is not benevolent.

I agree that to an outside observer a person's motives may not be as clear as their actions. But other people are not mysterious beings of unknowable attributes. On point here, I suggest The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism by Max Weber. Pride was punished, but worthiness changed from unobtainable to demonstrable.

I just point out that here in Galt's Gulch Online, we tend to look to Objectivism for an over-arching explanation of the world and worldly events. Donald Trump does not display the actions of a man of strong self-esteem. More to the point, he is not in a position of weakness and never has been. He is free to be himself, whatever that might be... I think that he shows his true self quite clearly, and while he might have "a big ego" in the common vernacular - which daily talk condemns "selfishness" - he does not appear to have a strong ego in the Objectivist sense of the phrase.

I suggest that you look into the available works on Objectivist psychology.

I hope so too. It's a swamp for sure. If his kids are any indication of how he will govern, I am excited and inspired

It's going to be hard to determine that since he is now elected president. He will be surrounded by people nearly all the time from now on

True, this question is not meant to suggest that a big ego is a bad thing. The bigger the ego, the more rational control required, but for sure it can be done.

He was coached to aggrandize himself and his bullish behavior on The Apprentice to become the stereotypically harsh boss that people fear. And we, the audience, are invited to scorn and mock the failure of others to make ourselves feel better about our own shortcomings... or so it was for the second-handers...

I wouldn't go so far as this... just yet. However, if I am correct that he is a bullshitter, then he will -- of course -- be subjected and vulnerable to flattery.

I think Donald is the kind of person who bullshits in an effective manner because he is so committed to it. I don't think that is Objectivist. To be successful he will need not to rationalize, but to use reason in order to attain his objectives. Because a bullshitter has one major weakness: bullshit.

Hahahaha

I like this distinction. Egoist versus Egotist. Self-esteem is rational and egoist.

I dunno, I'm hoping he has great self-esteem in order to make great decisions.

Like a leaf is blow through the air?

Excuse my simple sentences from before. I do believe Trump has a yuuge ego. I believe his selfishness in an objectivist sense, is what has made him successful. I don't think he has a single altruistic bone in his body. The events you've heard about in which he has engaged in acts of kindness towards someone, where not by altruistic motivation, rather, simply and because he could. I believe Trump would be someone Ayn Rand would talk about and enjoy talking to, not necessarily agree with always, but maybe even be friends, if she were alive. However, since they're not contemporaries, we'll never know. I don't think he's John Galt. But I hope he's Hank Rearden, at least. Just saying. Afterall, I'm not an Objectivism scholar

No one knows what goes on insude a person's head. If you had a strong opinion of your self worth and was given the opportunity to create - doing what you love to do, but a demonstration of your ego would cause you to lose everything, would you go to work in a quarry?

If they had strong egos they would not have cared if they were "condemned" in the opinions of other people.

I agree that the creators and achievers of the past whether in 19th century America or 2nd century China deserve respect and praise from us today. However, it is an error to read into them and their lives what we understand here and now.

I'd be surprised if their apparent lack of ego was what they put forth so as to not me condemned for being just the opposite.