Thank you for your consideration. As time proves all things, we'll see where things go from here!

I think you're still equivocating between a philosophy and its presumptive "leaders."

Equivocating means trying to play both sides or waffling between them. I have clearly delineated that there is the philosophy 1 but that without leadership, the philosophy dies off, 2. I would ask you to explain where you see in this any measure of equivocation or why this was worthy of a downvote. Part of debate is hearing things you don't necessarily agree with.

I still believe that authority is key, however, to the perpetuation of any philosophy. The fact that I had never heard of most of those individuals you mention is evidence to me that there is little or no real leadership among Objectivists. Now I fully agree that part of the Objectivist creed in many ways belies strong leadership (which is why I bring up John Galt) but the question is how does Objectivism expand. The answer is that there must be a concerted effort, and concerted effort always requires leadership to get that done. It isn't a philosophical issue with Objectivism to me nearly as much as just a structural/organizational issue.

Please note also that I do not equate leadership with homage or payment of fees necessarily. I do equate leadership with vision, organization, and motivation. However much I despise the ethics of people like Bill Clinton or Barack Obama, they are effective leaders. I can't think of many on the Republican side that exude the same kind of charisma, which may account for their seeming lack of uniformity.

That's funny, I thought The Dispossessed did a wonderful job of disproving the ideas it sought to champion.

Yes, there were a plethora of people involved in the Renaissance. I hesitate to categorize it as an idea or movement, however, as it is more properly a time period. The Protestant Reformation was an actual movement which took place within the Renaissance period. During the Protestant Reformation there were various individual leaders such as Calvin, Luther, Wesley, et al who all put out different ideas. It was hardly a joint effort, however: their primary commonality was their disgust for the Catholic Church - not their doctrine. That's why there are dozens+ of Protestant versions of Christianity running around now - offshoots or derivatives of those original leaders - many of which (with a few notable exceptions) have disintegrated over time.

What is interesting to note is that despite the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church remains the single largest Christian sect. I don't think that would have happened without the leadership position of Pope. Even the Orthodox Churches (Greek and Russian) went to a single leader with the title of "Archbishop" because the council of bishops which formed their original leadership structures proved too divisive and unwieldy. We could look at a host of other similar leadership-driven organizations from Red China to North Korea to Stalinist Russia to Hitler's Germany to see other examples where leadership is (or was) everything.

If we look at Atlas Shrugged, I think that Rand portrayed Galt as the leader intentionally. Indeed, Galt served as the rallying cry when imprisoned and galvanized the rest to action, and was the original impetus behind the formation and population of Atlantis in the first place. Where the phrase "who is John Galt?" is more typically used to indicate a kind of tongue-in-cheek recognition that bad policy leads to bad results, it could also be a rallying cry to the Objectivist to find a John Galt-type character to organize and lead the Objectivist movement.

I remember looking at an old copy of MAD maga-
zine and someone(at_ PLAYBOY_) talking to Hugh Hefner and say-
ing something about his proposing to carry more intellectual ideas; and then (this is a memory quote) "Do you really think our audience will dig a full-color layout of Ayn Rand?" When I first read it, I simply did not understand it, as I had no idea of who Ayn Rand was, I didn't even know whether it was a man's or a woman's name, and I didn't see the point of the joke. When I looked it over again later, I understood. Of course, there was an inter-
view, and I don't think she would have posed for a centerfold. But then people did like to throw mud at her, especially now that she's dead and can't come back to defend herself. (I mean that this joke appeared in MAD, I don't buy PLAYBOY).

I remember looking at an old copy of

Well, there were different people involved in the Renaissance. And it progressed. And I think it was what led to the Protestant Reformation. And then there was a lot of splitting off, but still the Enlighten-
ment occurred.

Agreed!

Perhaps she would have not accepted the characterization.

The fact remains that she predicted the future in a most remarlable way.

No one else could have put forth the philosophy of "Objectivism" other than Ayn Rand. It seems that being a woman made it even harder for most people to understand her books and philosophy.

Thanks Herb -- I have my own copy of Elvis Shrugged.

One can't have a movement without a philosophical backing neither can one act without philosophical value judgments to base those actions on. They are two sides of the same coin. If a philosophy fractures, it is because of differences in the philosophy - which is precisely what happened with Brandon and Piekoff.

That's why leadership is important: you have to have someone to assume the role of the founder and prevent fractures. That was Peter's role after Christ died - until he was martyred and Christianity fragmented. Islam split because two sons claimed right of authority and split into Sunni and Shia (and later added Wahab and Baathism). Judaism fractured when the Jews were taken captive by other civilizations and now you have several sub-sects of the Jewish religion. You can argue that fascism, socialism, and communism are all facets or fractures of the same ideology as well - an ideology of elitism and control.

"I think thay words are often given religious meaning when they aren't religious at all."

Actually, given that atheism is a very recent development in human history, I would argue that you have that backwards: most words were religious before modern atheism attempted to secularize them. The Oracle at Delphi was called a "prophetess" because her duty was to speak the will of the Gods to the people. In Hebrew the word prophet always meant someone who communicated with God on behalf of the people - Moses being the prime example. The key was that their knowledge of the future - and thus their "forthtelling" was a divine gift - not mortal prescience. That's why were Rand here herself, I believe she would object strongly to being characterized as such.

You are correct, and that’s why I said it was an interesting question. I entered a male dominated profession (99.9%) in the mid-seventies, and my observations have been that gender makes a significant difference to the majority of people. I still observe that to be true, although to a lesser extent at this time. The reality is that Objectivists are and always will be a small percentage of the population.

Well put, and so true. Unfortunately, the world is now controlled by people whose goal has been to convince others they need to be defined by their denotations, not by their own sense of who they should be and their own reason.From grad school on, children are remade to be less in touch with who they are inside, and more in compliance with the liberal agenda.More and more, men are denigrated and we females are given some false victimhood and sense of entitlement. Colleges no longer act as if ideas matter, but if a feminist prestnted them. This female is really sick of the whole state of affairs.

Yeah, I don't think Ayn Rand's sex had anything to do with it either but in today's climate gender is the best way to get a discussion going.

My experience with Objectivists is that they are absolutists in that if something has been proven by empirical evidence, by observation, by reason then any fool should see it, agree and proceed accordingly without guidance. Only a few people are wired to do this naturally and due to the mental effort required, many would rather accept what others have concluded on faith. The problem is that we have to occupy this planet with everyone else and we are too few. Past civilizations have controlled the lazy, the uninformed and the stupid by coercion, either by scaring them or brute force.

Ayn Rand saw America with the principles of Representative Democracy and Capitalism as a beacon of reason and individual liberty. America seemed to be the hope for mankind and she provided a clear means to realizing that potential instead of falling into the abyss of altruism like most of the world. Unfortunately, she came to this conclusion on her own, by her own will and viewed anyone that could not accept her philosophy instantly in its entirety as a dolt and told them so.

The spokesmen for Objectivism that I follow are cut from the same cloth as Rand and are against anything that is not Objectivist purity. Incremental progress is hateful to them and they reject any notion of it. The enemy however thrives on every chip they can take no matter how small. Progressives want the state to regulate toothpicks as much as they want to regulate energy. It is all the same. Chip away freedom where ever it is found, no matter how big or small and it will all add up to complete control. Objectivists think big but are being killed by a thousand tiny cuts. Collectivism is a regression in human organization and was only able to coexist with individual freedom in hunter-gather societies. It takes external force to move anything into an unnatural state and to make modern society work under collectivism, the state must have total power and has to murder those it cannot control.

My premise is that we are in a life of death struggle and unless a movement emerges that can incrementally change the path we are on, all of the progress in the history of the modern world is in jeopardy. A movement requires a leader, a prophet, a teacher, communicator, a charismatic figure to inform and inspire the majority not just a few hard heads demanding overnight change.