Delayed Retraction

Interesting to see that, in this Ayn Rand centenary piece, National Review Online contributing editor Andrew Stuttaford repudiates the infamous "to a gas chamber go" line from Whittaker Chambers' bilious National Review essay on Atlas Shrugged, just as the late novelist's officially sanctioned disciples are giving the charge a retroactive air of plausibility.

Comments

[dhex]

has anyone ever written a “what the fuck’s the deal with ayn rand?” type intro article, in some sort of lovely middle valley between “the objectivists are scary fukkaz” and “the objectivists are very objective” perhaps?

she was basically a non-entity by the time i got around to being sentient so i’m confused at what the deal was with her. talk show fodder? polemicisms?

[Gary Gunnels]

dhex,

Ayn Rand was a lot like Ann Coulter. She said and wrote controversial things that pissed people off while also causing some to worship her.

[Gary Gunnels]

dhex,

That’s likely it. Rand was an opposing voice to the dominant ideology of the time. That isn’t the case anymore.

I can’t stand her because she’s a hack philosopher.

[Gary Gunnels]

Anyway, Whittaker Chambers was a devout Christian so its surprising why he would dislike Rand.

[NoStar]

Whittaker Chambers was basically a non-entity by the time I got around to being sentient so I’m confused at what the deal was with him. (Was he a former commie spy or sympathizer who changed his ideology?)

How ironic that his name is mostly mentioned only as a footnote among the critisms of Ayn Rand’s writings.

“Who is Whittaker Chambers?”, Ayn Rand laughed.

Hmmm? Sound like the start of a great novel.

[no randroid]

I really liked this part of that article:

“Yet “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead,” at least, have a wild, lunatic verve that sweeps all before them. Like Busby Berkeley, the Chrysler Building, or a Caddy with fins, they are aesthetic disasters, very American aesthetic disasters, which somehow emerge as something rather grand.”

That’s the best defense of Rand’s prose style I could imagine.

Disclosure: I loved The Fountainhead, I think Atlas Shrugged is so-so, and I think her philosophy is interesting, which is a compliment. On a personal level, she sounds like a real bitch, but that doesn’t concern me much.

[Gary Gunnels]

NoStar,

Whittaker Chambers was a former student at Columbia, begger, communist, Soviet spy, Christian, editor at Time magazine (he worked in their foreign news section for a while and was slated to become chief editor before being ousted/leaving Time), editor/writer at the National Review, farmer and witness against Alger Hiss.

To a certain element of conservatives (the Buckley variety) Whittaker Chambers is lionized, worshipped, etc.

[joe]

I think Chambers got it right. Rand’s depiction of “looters” differs little from Goebbel’s Jews or Lenin’s kulaks. Whole classes of humanity that need to be done away with by the superior man of the future.

[wellfellow]

It’d be interesting to, for once, read a criticism of Rand that doesn’t boil down to either a gross misrepresentation of her philosophy or idiosyncratic critque of her style.

Joe, you might want to substantiate that.

[joe]

Well, fellow, let’s start with inventing a term for the purpose of defining all who fall into that category as criminal enemies of all that is good.

[Brett]

joe,

The difference b/w how Rand thought the “looters” should be done away with versus how Goebbels/Lenin thought their respective problems should be solved constitutes only a “little” difference?

Regardless of what you think of her ideas on individualism, reason, laissez faire capitalism, etc., I don’t see how you can draw that equivalency (assuming I’m understanding you correctly).

FWIW, I’ve read some of her books as well as the Branden autobiography, but do not consider myself a Randian. I did marry into a Randian family it seems, as can be shown by my recent Christmas present of a “Who is John Galt?” coffee mug from the mom-in-law. 😉

[dhex]

i’ve always wanted a “what is john guilt” bumper sticker, myself.

[wellfellow]

Joe,

I’d like to see exactly where she explained the need “do away” with these people. Without that, her resemblance is nothing more than the fact that she applied a word to a group of people she finds to be in error.

If it makes you feel better, we could substitute the word “sinners”.

[joe]

Brett, regardless of what you think about Rand’s policy prescriptions, no good can come of a politics that is based on distinguishing the ubermenchen from the worthless parasites.

[Brett]

Oops, that would be the Branden biography, not autobiography.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Rand has a great essay on two Pope Paul VI encyclicals, Humanae Vitae (which the right loved and the left hated) and Populorum Progressio (which the left loved and the right hated). Rand hated both, and proves that they both spring from the same life-hating mentality. Good stuff, with plenty of funny phrasing. Other than that you can have her. Like many writers of “ideas,” she turns one earsplitting phrase after another. Rand and Khalil Gibran are at this moment fighting over the best seat in big-idea-writer hell. There’s a reason Randoids tend to have crappy reading-comp skills.

Whittaker Chambers may be only a footnote, but he’s not a footnote in the Rand story. He’s a footnote in the long-settled but somehow neverending controversy over Alger Hiss.

[joe]

“I’d like to see exactly where she explained the need “do away” with these people.”

I’d like to see exactly where Alberto Gonzales explained the need to torture prisoners. No, after carefully and powerfully explaining why it’s right to torture them, why the President has the power to torture them, and why torturing them isn’t really torturing them, what he actually recommends is humane treatment, and certainly not torturing anyone.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Oh, I forgot Rand’s most terrible crime: serving as the first high priestess in the church of Frank Lloyd Wright (because only superior beings can exist in leaky, impenetrable buildings designed by a superman).

[joe]

From the linked article: “Fifty years ago, Truman and Eisenhower surrendered the West’s property rights in oil, although that oil rightfully belonged to those in the West whose science, technology, and capital made its discovery and use possible.”

Remember, Randroids, if you can make more profit off something somebody else owns than they can, you get to take it!

[Jesse Walker]

I forgot Rand’s most terrible crime

I like to think of Anthem as Rand’s most terrible crime. Since I haven’t read any of her other novels, though, I admit the possibility that one or more might be worse.

[wellfellow]

Joe,

I see what you are saying, however, I think there is a huge difference between calling for the extermination of people you don’t like and merely stating that you don’t like them. If anything, Rand would be an advocate of leaving said looters to their own devices. A rather hands off approach.

[Phil]

joe,

As a looter yourself, I can see why you might have a problem with her philosophy.

[joe]

In the real world, proles left to their own devices do quite a bit better than the mass agony Rand delights in imagining for them.

Plenty of Social Darwinists were perfectly happy at the thought of the “unfit” encompassing entire races and classes. “If you ignore the problem, it will go away” is a genocidal statement when “the problem” is the existance of certain types of people.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

I’ve actually read Anthem, and you’re right.

[Brett]

I like to think of Anthem as Rand’s most terrible crime.

But to deny the world a classic Rush tune?

[joe]

Phil,

As a bourgeois elite yourself, I can see why you might have a problem with Lenin’s philosophy.

[wellfellow]

Thanks, Joe, I wasn’t aware that Rand authored the article.

Tim, Wright’s buildings are hardly “impenetrable” and many a great building has it’s fair share of engineering issues. Cute description, though.

[Jason Ligon]

Rand had four or five absolutely critical observations that she wrote about with great clarity. She was fantastic at depicting The Problem.

She was a hack philosopher, was a pain in the ass, and her followers are mostly worse at philosophy than she was (David Kelly exluded); but for all that she was not wrong about the perversity of altruism, she was not wrong about the looting tendency and its destructive implications (she missed that there is a looter in all of us, though), and she was not wrong about human potential.

There are nuggets of gold in the mountain of pooh that is her body of writing, and that is more than you can say about most people. She just makes you not want to give her the credit she is due.

[NoStar]

Tim C,
You are right, of course. I should have said “as a writer, Whittaker Chambers is a footnote among criticism of Rand’s writings.” What other article of his gets quoted as much?

I can’t think it much better to be a footnote in the tale of Alger Hiss.

[The Wine Commonsewer]

I actually read Anthem some 35 years ago but IMO the best Rand book was the one nobody much talks about.

Hold on, I have CRS……….

Okay, back, ‘We The Living’ (thank you Google–quicker than looking through my own bookshelves).

Granted my opinion might change if I read it again today, it has been a long long time, but I found it so much more engaging than either of the ‘powerhouse’ novels of hers. Ditto for stuff like New Intellectual (more interesting than Atlas or Roark that is).

I promised myself I wouldn’t beat up on Piekoff today, so, I won’t.

I think she was a nutcase but as Paul Whatshisname (Johnson?) pointed out in ‘Intellectuals’ most of those guys ARE whacked. With that disclaimer I would also say that those of us of the libertarian persuasion owe her a debt of gratitude even though she hated us.

It always bothered me that everyone always acted like Rand was the whole enchilada while ignoring Rose Wilder Lane and Hayek.

My two cents worth (waiting for change) regards,

TWC

[The Wine Commonsewer]

Jason, right on all counts, including Kelley.

[NoStar]

Coming to the defense of Anthem: It brought up the idea of controlling human thought via controlling the language a decade before Orwell tackled the same theme in 1984. (Anthem was originally published in England.) Other similarities and parallels exist between those two books, the main difference is that Orwell does not underestimate the evil and the power of the State. Rand’s novella may have influenced Orwell as well as Rush.

[Podraza]

Whenever a story about Ayn Rand appears on this blog, it is always followed by a very long, very critical comment thread. I don’t understand this. Wasn’t Rand basically a libertarian? Why the hostility? I am young and haven’t been around libertarian circles too long, so somebody clue me in.

[Lord Duppy]

I was into Rand for the first 10 chapters of Atlas Shrugged. Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right’s Hitler and the Left’s Stalin.

Granted, she’s the least evil of the three (Stalin being the worst), but she’s still fucking scary.

[Isaac Bartram]

I can’t think it much better to be a footnote in the tale of Alger Hiss.

Chambers was a central character in the tale of Alger Hiss.

[Jennifer]

I read Atlas Shrugged about a month ago, and it wasn’t as bad as I’d expected. I thought Rand did a great job of fully explaining the ominous implications of the phrase “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” That bit about the factory that decided to run itself according to Communist principles was brilliant. So Rand was great at explaining why a particular philosophy was a problem.

I also got the feeling that the scenes of Wyatt, Danneskjold and others utterly destroying the industries the State wanted to confiscate was her way of taking revenge, on paper, against the Communists who’d confiscated her family’s property in the Russian Revolution. When she wrote those scenes I’m sure she imagined herself doing something similar to her Dad’s drugstore, and I don’t blame her a bit.

Unfortunately, while she was great at pointing out problems, she sucked when it came to solutions. Her plan for an ideal world would work fabulously if we were all Vulcans, ruled entirely by logic and rationality and surrounded by people who did the same, but not for real humans.

She also takes “mind over matter” to absurd extremes; not only can her heroes remain nonchalant while being tortured, but they could apparently use willpower to ignore into oblivion pain, hunger and the need to sleep.

On the other hand, you’d think that superior folks like Hank and Frisco would also have superior sperm, yet for all their non-contraceptive fucking Dagny never got pregnant., I think that’s because she used her incredible willpower to completely shut down the unnecessarily functional parts of her reproductive system. I remember an ex-Jesuit professor in grad school saying that some medieval theologians made entire careers out of debating the question, “Did the Virgin Mary menstruate?” I don’t know about Jesus’ mom but I’m damn sure Dagny didn’t; Rand just forgot to add that detail to the final draft of the novel.

Also Rand is a hypocrite who benefited from the very altruism she later condemned, but that’s another story.

[wellfellow]

“Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right’s Hitler and the Left’s Stalin. ”

I can see why, remember all the people she had exterminated?

Podraza,

I believe it’s because many libertarians get a kick out of being contrary for contrary’s sake. To be a good libertarian, find a generally abhorant or counterproductive activity and then glorify the crap out of it, while simultaneously cutting down any figure that might actually hold a moral standard, regardless of whethor or not that figure wishes to force that standard on anyone.

[Gilbert Martin]

“Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right’s Hitler and the Left’s Stalin.”

Except that she wasn’t actually responsible for killing millions of people like Hitler and Stalin were.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Chambers was a central character in the tale of Alger Hiss.

The tale of Alger Hiss is a footnote, or should be. As the big faces say in Superman, “GUILTY!”

[Isaac Bartram]

joe

I assume the new editions of Rand’s work contain her call to exterminate the looters. In the old books she more or less said they need to be told to go fuck themselves when they demand your shit.

[NoStar]

Tim C,
So, if Whittaker Chambers was a Commie Soviet spy, was he ever prosecuted by the Justice Dept. or persecuted by the House Un-American Activities Committee. If not, why not? Was it one of those plea-I’ll give you a bigger rat than me-deals?

[Isaac Bartram]

NoStar

By the time the Hiss/Chambers case came up the statute of limitations had run out. Hiss was convicted of perjury because he lied to HUAC about having been a spy.

If you want to know mre read “Perjury: The Hiss-Chambers Case” by Allen Weinstein

http://www.nrbookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=C4643

[Isaac Bartram]

mre should be more

[Eryk Boston]

Let’s sum up Atlas Shrugged thusly:
It was about 200 pages of absolute genius. Pity the book had 1069 pages.

[gaius marius]

Unfortunately, while she was great at pointing out problems, she sucked when it came to solutions.

agreed, ms jennifer, but i think rand had a more fundamental flaw. i can reject marxism without rejecting the basis of british utilitarian philosophy; rand couldn’t. her answer to marx was nietzschean psychosis.

i’ve always thought of her as something of an idiot savant.

[Super Prole]

Joe,

As you noticed, we proles can take care of ourselves, thank you very much.

As for your ilk, if you and your buddies would stop destroying our stock of inexpensive housing, we’d be very grateful.

Also, we’d like some compensation for the damage you did to our initiative and self respect by destroying our friendly societies with your welfare state.

Just kidding about the last, we’ll settle for our taxes back. Now I’m off for a beer.

SP

[kevrob]

Stop all this bibble-babble. You are all late for tap dancing lessons!

Kevin
(Recommended: It Usually Starts With Ayn Rand by Jerome Tucille.)

[Czar]

I love how any conversation about Rand either devolves into a mass of personal attacks or a bunch of ass-kissing instead of actually discussing her ideas. Lovely.

[Jennifer]

Czar-
What do you think of Rand’s ideas?

[thoreau]

Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right’s Hitler and the Left’s Stalin.

Rand was exactly like Hitler, except for the mass murder part.

My father is exactly like the Iron Chefs, except for the culinary talent.

Ashley Simpson is exactly like Beethoven, except the musical talent part.

OJ Simpson is exactly like Mother Teresa, except that he killed two people and hasn’t devoted his life to charity.

George Bush is exactly like Einstein, except for the intelligence part.

[pococurante]

Podraza, I don’t think your Q’s been answered adequately, so I’ll try inadequately, out of my failing memory. Despite being essentially the founder of libertarianism (at least 20C libtnism, the contributions of Locke et al notwithstanding) she hated the natural consequence of being a “moral innovator” (was that the term she used?) — people expanding on or even slightly disagreeing with any of her notions. I can’t remember the exact nature of the schisms or its participants, besides her famous disavowal of her much-younger partner in adultery when he tired of her. Basically it was the narcissism of minor differences. She hated slight disagreers as much as her evil collectivist “looters”. She liked only herself (or what she pretended was herself) and those who fully agreed with her — an impossible demand, of course. Perhaps Rand bios (Passion of AR?) would have more info for you, depending on their biases.

I find psychology a much better basis for political philosophy (true human nature, etc.) than her wishful thinking, and boy, was she a psychological study — of narcissism, rage, weak ego integrity, and the false self, especially. For me, reading her stuff (in late HS, early college) was like what many women complain about re fashion magazines: initially inspiring, then self-esteem-deflating when one can’t live up to the ideal. I like the Ann Coulter comparison, but the most famous personage she reminds me most of is Martha Stewart.

[droogy]

There are nuggets of gold in the mountain of pooh that is her body of writing, and that is more than you can say about most people.

I donno – even a stopped clock…

I can’t believe anyone takes her seriously anymore – her stuff just seems like childish ranting to me.
And, yes, I have read several of her books…and even liked them – when I was in high school.

[pragmatist]

Podraza, pococurante gives a pretty good answer that I’ll try and add a little too. Rand was unable to admit that her philosophy was not the philosophical equivalent of The Universal Theory of Physics. Piekoff to this day (far as I know) still instists that’s what Rand’s Objectivism is.

Suffice it to say, Rand earned herself a rotten tomatoe or two (or a lot more).

But Rand raises the hackles of libertarians because she hits soooo close to our home turf. You know, Darwin said “your worst enemy is that which is most like you”.

Fact is, Rand was wrong about a lot of things. But the things she was wrong about — libertarians to this day do not agree as to what the right answers really are. We all got our own thing going on The Right Answers.

In an odd sort of way, we treat Rand just like she’s one of us…..we just throw bigger stones at her than each other, because of who and what she was.

[Steven Crane]

There’s also Rand’s contempt-to-the-point-of-hatred for the mainstream Libertarian political movement because of its supposed lack of a moral ideal.

[Gary Gunnels]

Rand’s most terrible crime was her butchering of the problem of universals.

wellfellow, etc.,

Rand hated libertarians. Rand believed in moral absolutes just as Christians do – moral absolutes regarding sexuality, gender relations, etc. For all her praise of liberty, she didn’t believe people should exercise except in the ways she prescribed – she was a paternalist in other words, and that’s why she such a tyrant in her personal life.

pococurante,

Rand is not the founder of 20th century libertarianism. Why you think it disappeared during the 18th and 19th centuries I cannot say. Read some Proudhon. 🙂

pragmatist,

Rand was largely a plagiarist of the idea’s of others. Its best to skip Rand’s crappy literary efforts and get to the folks whose works she is mining.

[pragmatist]

Yes, there was also Rand’s contempt for the libertarian political movement. Was there a difference between contempt and hatred for Rand? I seem to have lost that Randian distinction.

You could say Rand had a point. In the libertarian party we’ve got people who lean towards anarchism, others who lean towards the liberal left, yet others who lean towards the conservative right, and so on. The libertarian party has never philosophically been a single minded freight train headed for Galt’s Gulch. If there’s a core “moral” among us it’s that we agree to disagree (and that we have the right to this), perhaps more often than not.

One of the things that Rand didn’t quite get her arms around is the fact that freedom obtains when no single IN GROUP gets all-out, absolute power. Pure, authorized Objectivism would institute its own Inquisitions as readily as any religion. Oh, er, I guess that already happened.

OTOH, the lack of a clear, single themed message has made it harder for the libertarian party to gain ground (my opinion). There is a fine balance point on the agree-disagree spectrum where things would actually work ideally and libertarianism would take over the WHOLE POLITICAL UNIVERSE (and gosh, I can’t wait :)))) But we don’t seem to have found the balance point just yet.

[pragmatist]

Gary,

Sort of, yes. I mean, it would be fairly easy to argue that everybody after the ancient Greeks just plagarized their ancestors. The Greeks originated pretty much the foundation of western civilization.

But I am not aware of anyone who put ideas together in just the way Rand did, with the particular weights distributed in just the same way.

I know, Rand borrowed much from her ancestors and never admitted it. But to her credit, she also did demonstrate a number of things (like the nature of altruism) in a powerful and, I’d argue, original way (at least as original as her ancestors could claim to have been).

To Rand’s credit, at her best she did convey some core libertarian ideas to a wide audience. That’s worth something. Unfortunately, she also left us to sort through the pooh of her personality. And in that, she did perhaps as much damage as good. That’s hotly debatable.

Whatever we wish to say about her, Rand accomplished enough that we don’t get to just ignore her now, though some people try.

[thoreau]

The libertarian party has never philosophically been a single minded freight train headed for Galt’s Gulch. If there’s a core “moral” among us it’s that we agree to disagree (and that we have the right to this), perhaps more often than not.

Well, would one really expect perfect conformity in a movement dedicated to the freedom to do whatever you want?

Besides, successful political parties are coalitions, not single-minded hives. The LP is certainly not successful yet, but to the extent that left-leaning types and right-leaning types can co-exist, at least there is the beginning of the concept of a coalition.

OTOH, the lack of a clear, single themed message has made it harder for the libertarian party to gain ground (my opinion).

I think it’s safe to say that, while the LP has many flaws, lack of ideological unity is not one of them. The differences may seem large to us, but to the rest of the world they are quite small.

[pragmatist]

thoreau, I don’t expect perfect conformity. You missed my tone.

I don’t think it’s safe to say that our differences are small to outsiders. I, for instance, am not an anarchist, and yet many outsiders (if I can use that phrase) have immediately thought I must be an anarchist when I said I’m a card carrying libertarian.

Political parties *are* coalitions. That was my point above. I agree, the libertarian coalition is good precisely because it brings so many diverse viewpoints together. But I think you misperceive how varied people’s ideas are about what it means to be libertarian. And I really do think that’s a weakness.

We libertarians can be diverse. Diversity is a strength in its own right. But we need a stronger core of shared ideals, that cut across our differences. Otherwise we appear from the outside to be Anarchy Incarnate.

[thoreau]

OK, I see your point. We need to be seen as a diverse group that works together on core issues, instead of being seen as collection of bickering cliques.

On that I agree 100%! Ironically, the best way to achieve unity may be to stop demanding purity. Tolerating a few differences and focusing on core issues would simultaneously make the movement more coherent and more inclusive.

Of course, it’s easy to say that. Good luck on getting anybody to agree on what core issues are. “The most important right is the right to defend yourself!” “No, property rights are the fundamental core of freedom!” “I think controlling my own body comes first and foremost.” “Well, you’re full of it. The right to keep the fruits of your labor is the most fundamental right of all!”

And then they finally calm down and agree to focus on aspects of all of those issues, but to keep it moderate and concentrate on intermediate steps rather than immediate and drastic change. So whom will they reach out to? “The left is fundamentally hostile to our cause, we need to reach out to conservatives!” “No, we need to build a broader coalition and go after the center and sympathetic liberals.” “The Bible-beaters are fundamentally incompatible. Stick to the secularists!” “You’re all wrong! The greatest reservoir of libertarian sympathy is among the non-voters. Go after them!” “Well, first we need to energize our base, so let’s get the druids on board!”

[pragmatist]

Geez, I forgot all about the druids. What’s wrong with me????? Man, we’re gonna win now!

[Douglas Fletcher]

Two books I’ve avoided reading my whole life: The Fountainhead and The Hobbit.

Have I missed anything?

[Jadagul]

Brothers and sisters, allow me to testify to the transforming power of Ayn Rand, Who will change your life forever if only you accept Her into your heart…

Seriously, though, I think Rand had several good points (and plenty of bad ones, of course). I read Anthem and Fountainhead in tenth grade, at the urging (ironically enough) of my English teacher at a Catholic high school who professed belief in theocracy (he wanted me to enter the ARI essay contest). I liked Anthem, but didn’t really get Fountainhead. I reread Fountainhead a year later and sort of ‘got it,’ I suppose…became a fairly devout Randian. Helped me with personal issues, actually–it’s probably the main reason I’m no longer seriously depressive.

Anyway, because I have a tendency to actually think about what I read, I started considering the work over the past couple years (since I read the books–I’m currently a Freshman in college). I see her as having a couple critical, central points that I adhere to. First, the idea that you should live your life in an attempt to be happy. This point was really crystallized for me by an Adler essay I read–basically, he asked why there could be any objective code of ethics at all, and concluded that the statement “You shouldn’t do things that are bad for you” is self-evident. From there you can work out a moral code by trying to figure out what’s bad for you. This obviously leaves most of the interesting questions left to ask; but it makes Rand’s key point, that you can’t have a moral obligation to sacrifice or make yourself miserable. On the other hand, I think she really screwed up by extending this to argue against helping other people–there’s nothing wrong with that. The problem comes in when you feel you have an obligation to help other people, even at huge personal cost–if I’m starving, do I have to give what food I have to anyone who asks? Do I have to live my life in service to others? Even if these ideas aren’t originally hers–and I think she would give Aristotle at least partial credit–she’s important as a popularizer and concretizer of them.

She threw in a lot of crap that reflected her own personal prejudices (a good article on where she went wrong is http://nathanielbranden.com/ayn/ayn03.html by the man she had an affair with, and who helped her construct the details of the philosophy after she’d published Atlas Shrugged). And most people who adopt the philosophy are mindless zombies–probably because she’s so adamant that you can’t reject any of her philosophy without rejecting all of it. For me, though, that was the first part of her philosophy that I rejected…leaving me free to decide that some of it, like the condemnation of altruism, was good, and other parts, like the condemnation of swing music, were crap.

Her other big flaw, I think, is that her philosophy left no room for casual adherents to the philosophy–that is, people who accept the basic idea, “I’m not obligated to live for others,” but don’t accept the second conclusion that “I am obligated to live for the sake of memorizing all Rand’s arguments and getting an effective degree in philosophy.” No room for people who accept the basic premise, but don’t focus their lives on the fact that they accept that premise. Any philosophy that has a reasonably diffused adherence has to have room for casual followers.

For what it’s worth, my uncle, the head of the Philosophy department at Pomona College, says that he thinks Rand is “wrong, but interesting.” He doesn’t agree with her, but thinks the philosophy is worth discussing and not dismissable out of hand (also that it’s important to remember that she’s a popularizer, and not a deep thinker. But popularizers are still important).

[Solitudinarian]

Also Rand is a hypocrite who benefited from the very altruism she later condemned, but that’s another story.

I don’t know that story, Jennifer – do you mind telling it?

[clarityiniowa]

Gary Gunnels – I can’t stand her because she’s a hack philosopher.

In what way, exactly? So, what, only philosophy majors are allowed to do philosophy? If so, there are a LOT of hack philosophers on H&R.

[clarityiniowa]

Jadagul – (also that it’s important to remember that she’s a popularizer, and not a deep thinker. This is an interesting take, and not at all surprising coming from an academic. Again, Rand gets knocked for daring to do philosophy without the proper “credentials.” This is exactly the kind of intellectual snobbery she railed against. Properly, I think.

Personally, I admire her for making philosophy in general both accessable and attractive to those not making it their life’s work. And I admire Objectivism specifically for demonstrating that it is possible to live according to a set of moral and ethical principles without cowtowing to authorities in white collars, purple robes and pistachio-shaped hats.

As to her fiction ? her characters, plots, and scenarios are no more broadly drawn than those in, say, the Illiad or the Odyssey. Her novels serve the same purpose? the presentation of ideal human archetypes. You can certainly argue the literary merits, but you can’t argue much about the continued popularity and incredible sales of her work.

[Jennifer]

Solitudinarian-
Well, the main thing is that her husband, Frank O’Connor, married her not out of love, but to save her from being sent back to Soviet Russia. As she herself joked, “It was a shotgun wedding, with Uncle Sam holding the shotgun.”

Also when she first got to the US she didn’t support her own self; some relatives gave her a place to stay. Not only did she not pay them, she didn’t even behave like a good guest–she ran up their water bills, pounded on her typewriter all night while others tried to sleep, etc. Her first job in Hollywood wasn’t something she earned through her own merit; she got it thanks to a letter of introduction written by a family member who knew some high Hollywood mucky-muck. And then, in her one-page bio at the end of Atlas Shrugged, she bragged about how she succeeded entirely by herself.

As I’ve said before, a Randian who’s opposed to altruism is like a member of the Church of England opposing divorce; without various acts of altruism Alice Rosenbaum, a.k.a. Ayn Rand, would’ve returned to Russia and died in obscurity, just as without divorce, there would be no C of E.

[clarityiniowa]

Jennifer – Just curious, what’s your source?

[Jennifer]

Clarity-
The first bio of Rand I read was in Florence King’s book “With Charity Toward None: A Fond Look at Misanthropy.” There were a couple of other books I read; I can actually see the pages in my mind, but can’t remember who wrote them or what the titles were. Sorry.

[clarityiniowa]

LOL – Nice title. No bias there. 😉

[clarityiniowa]

It is interesting to me that Objectivism, unlike any other system or school of philosophy, gets critcized at least as often for the supposed personal attributes of its proponents and adherents as it does for any other reason or purpose. I have yet to see a refutation of Objectivism’s main points that doesn’t take personality into account.

The basic argument goes: “Well, Rand was a nasty-ass bitch who couldn’t even adhere to her own system perfectly, and her cultists are just weirdos, therefore…”

Almost nobody disputes empiricism or scepticism on the grounds that David Hume was a hypocrite, an adulterer, a dirty old man, or some such. There don’t appear to be any Hume cultists lurking around. Rand would have been amused by this, I think.

Attention Libertarian purists – Try living according to your “system,” or lack of one, in every way without fail for twenty-four hours. Go ahead, I double-dog dare ya.

That goes for Liberals, Neocons, etc. too. I’ll expect your reports on my desk in the morning.

[clarityiniowa]

pragmatist – If there’s a core “moral” among us it’s that we agree to disagree (and that we have the right to this), perhaps more often than not.

Prag, I think you hit it exactly right here in terms of Rand’s antipathy toward Libertarianism. She held that the Libertarian tendency to hold the oft-undefined concept of “freedom” ? or “liberty,” if you like that term better ? as an end in itself rather than a means to an end, was mistaken. The final result of that error, according to Rand, is a lawless, principle-less, and therefore inherently self-destructive society. There is a lot to sympathize with in that point of view, it seems to me.

What you have is a simple disagreement ? A political movement, Libertarianism, with a single principle “freedom,” and a comprehensive philosophy, Objectivism, which sees that principle not as fundamental in itself, but as a conduit between its basic principles and its basic end, which is human happiness on Earth.

Really, Objectivism and Libertarianism have very little to talk to each other about. It is an apples-and-oranges comparison.

[Isaac Bartram]

On the other hand, I think she really screwed up by extending this to argue against helping other people–there’s nothing wrong with that.

Rand never argued against helping other people, she said that you had to do it as consistent choice of your own, consistent with your own values, not as some mandate fron outside. She condemned altruism not compassion. I can’t remember where but in one of her books she tries to make the distinction.

As you said in your next sentence “The problem comes in when you feel you have an obligation to help other people,….”

IMO where she screwed up was her dogmatic insistence that her values were right, as GG and others point out in this she was just like a fundie Xian or the looters she condemned.

[clarityiniowa]

Isaac Bertram – I think that distinction is made in “The Virtue of Selfishness.”

[clarityiniowa]

Isaac Bartram IMO where she screwed up was her dogmatic insistence that her values were right, as GG and others point out in this she was just like a fundie Xian or the looters she condemned.

Would you expect a proponent of ANY philosophy NOT to insist their values were correct? Except Libertarianism, of course, whose primary value appears to be something along the lines of “Eh, whatever….”

[joe]

‘”Now she strikes me as the llibertarian (or psuedo-libertarian) equivalent of the Right’s Hitler and the Left’s Stalin.”

Except that she wasn’t actually responsible for killing millions of people like Hitler and Stalin were.’

Well Gil, Naziism and Marxist-Lenninism actually achieved a level of prominance.

Super Prole, on the housing, we’ve launched an offensive on the parasites’ snob zoning, but we keep taking friendly fire and can’t consolidate our position.

[Isaac Bartram]

I was amused in a thread the other day where one or more randroids condemned giving to the tsunami victims in the name of St Rand.

I suppose she is not the only writer whose devotees misinterpret her as badly as her detractors do.

To: clarityiniowa at January 28, 2005 09:35 AM:

Point taken.

[Isaac Bartram]

Actually, clarityiniowa, I think that she dogmatically incorporated things into her belief system that other reasonable people might conclude had nothing to do with her philosophy.

[Brett]

clarityiniowa – Everything Jennifer states above is also in Barbara Branden’s biography, with many quotes from Rand herself lending credibility to these claims.

[clarityiniowa]

Brett – Thanks, I appreciate the citation.

[joe]

“It is interesting to me that Objectivism, unlike any other system or school of philosophy, gets critcized at least as often for the supposed personal attributes of its proponents and adherents as it does for any other reason or purpose.”

That must explain why the words “Chappaquidick” and “KKK” never appear when Senators Kennedy or Byrd speak out on behalf of some Democratic position.

[Gary Gunnels]

pragmatist,

…everybody after the ancient Greeks just plagarized their ancestors.

No. You are quite incorrect. Indeed, you are flatly and categorically incorrect. There’s been reams and piles and heaping spoonfuls of new, non-plagiarized philosophical thought since the Greeks.

This is the problem with Randroids. They think they known something about philosophy when they in fact know very little – just like Rand herself. The most obvious example of this is – again – her misunderstanding of the problem of universals. She thought that she had solved it but was too dense to understand that she hadn’t even appreciated its true nature.

But I am not aware of anyone who put ideas together in just the way Rand did, with the particular weights distributed in just the same way.

Probably because you haven’t done much reading.

clarityiniowa,

In what way, exactly?

Again, I direct you to her discussion of the problem of universals. Its typical of her rather ignorant undertakings in the field.

So, what, only philosophy majors are allowed to do philosophy?

Where did I write anything like this? Quit jumping to stupid conclusions. I am quite obviously discussing the issue of merit and not “qualification.” And Rand had little to no merit in the field of philosophy.

___________________________________________

What makes Rand interesting to her followers is the cult of personality created around her in life and death and not “her” ideas, which could be found in any number of authors.

Yes, its great that she was devoted to capitalism, but I can read Hayek and get that without her crimped and silly metaphysics, epistomology, ethics and aesthetics.

[clarityiniowa]

Gary – basically calling me, and by extension others, stupid and poorly read is neither valid argumentation, nor is it based on anything other than your own biases. Try arguing the ideas, not the personalities.

How about a few citations as to Rand’s solution to “the problem of universals,” and their refutations in the works of other authors? Let’s see exactly how widely read YOU are before you start denigrating other peoples’ education.

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

A few citations? Try Scott Ryan’s Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality: A Critique of Ayn Rand’s Epistemology.

BTW, I wrote that your conclusion was stupid, not you. And it was a rather stupid and unwarranted conclusion.

[Podraza]

Thanks to the people who offered their explanations to my question. I have noticed what clarityiniowa is talking about when she says that attacks on Objectivism are almost always personal. Even if Rand, Peikoff and the rest of them are total nutcases, don’t we all agree on capitalism and individualism? Aren’t Rand’s substantive arguments in those areas pretty strong? What part of Objectivism constitutes “hack philosophy”? Objective reality? Reason? Individualism or capitalism?

Why can’t more libertarians seperate in their minds the substance of objectivism from the style?

[Gary Gunnels]

Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a complete guide to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should give one the first clue that she was selling snake oil.

[Johnathan Pearce]

Gary Gunnels writes that Rand was a “hack philosopher”. Define “hack”, please. Also, the sneering at Rand is a bit off-base given that her contribution to an understanding of philosophy is miles greater than most of the inpenetrable crud produced by most modern university departments, IMHO. Yes, she certainly was not as original as her acolytes like the wretched Peikoff claim, but she did a lot to reignite interest in thinkers like Acquinas, for example.

Rand had her flaws – she could not write decent dialogue to save her life and was probably a right bitch to deal with at times – but her role in spreading the case for individualism and capitalism was a big deal. Reason magazine might not even exist without the likes of her.

In terms of her importance as a thinker, I rate her up there with Hayek, Nozick and Murray Rothbard as a spreader of free market ideas. She was a force for good. I suspect there is an element of envy in much of the bitching about her.

The guy who compared her to Hitler is, I humbly submit, a f**king idiot.

[Gary Gunnels]

Podraza,

My attacks on Objectivism have not been personal. Indeed, I’ve willingly given examples of the flaws in her philosophical system. If either of you want to read Ryan’s book and then start a discussion on the matter I am more than willing to do so.

[Gary Gunnels]

Johnathan Pearce,

Define “hack”, please.

Look it up yourself. Try dictionary.com

Also, the sneering at Rand is a bit off-base given that her contribution to an understanding of philosophy is miles greater than most of the inpenetrable crud produced by most modern university departments, IMHO.

Can you detail these “contributions” please?

What most people understand is that Rand was a capitalist; to which I would retort, big deal.

[clarityiniowa]

Gary G. – Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a complete guide to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should give one the first clue that she was selling snake oil. But, Gary, that is exactly what philosophy is FOR, to discover means, methods and principles of life, or didn’t they teach you that during your tenure as a philosphy major as they did in mine?

BTW: I dropped that major my junior year, as I’m afraid the entire academic discussion has devolved into ad hom attacks and semantic nonsense. I’ve explained why I admire Rand, and her philosophy. That does not make me a “Randroid” any more than talking out of my ass and waving the “ignorance” card every time someone disagrees with me would make me a “Gunnelsoid.”

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

Discovering “eternal” truths and the like may be what philosophy is for, but claiming that one has done so is another matter entirely. I was never a philosophy major. You’re the only one who seems to think that issue is important.

I suggest you read Ryan’s book; it rather meticulously illustrates the flawed nature of Rand’s philosophy and what a monstrosity of a society it would engender if it were put into practice.

[Gary Gunnels]

For the nutshell version of Ryan’s work, see: http://home.neo.rr.com/jsryan/writings/creativity.html

[pragmatist]

Gary,

“Probably because you haven’t done much reading.”

Not so. Not even CLOSE…..

“Rand essentially argued that her philosophy was a complete guide to life; that it was perfect and whole. That should give one the first clue that she was selling snake oil.”

Your litmus test has something to recommend it but, I say Podraza is also right.

“Why can’t more libertarians seperate in their minds the substance of objectivism from the style?”

One of the big things Rand did was tie ethics to economics. I don’t mean in the abstract way that people like Hayek and those did. She made it personal in a way that none of the other players on the field did. That was her “virtue”, if you will.

Now, in the process of doing so, she also mixed in a bunch of her own personal brand of garbage, which one is left to sort out alone. But connecting capitalism with ethics is a big deal. And you don’t have to accept all her garbage to retain some of her essential links between ethics and capitalism.

I don’t know how and where you grew up, but many, many of us in this country grew up with a great big altruist cloud over our heads. Rand did much to help us help ourselves, and cut through that cloud to the sunshine.

Now, with that said, if you want to go off on a tirade about all the other things Rand said that would make society a monster, I probably wouldn’t reject many (if any) whole sale. And if you read very much history at all, you quickly see that her “system” for politics is naive at best.

But I still have to side with Podraza. Rand did some good things, made some vitally important ideas accessable to a lot of people.

“I have a right to live for myself.” Rand said that, and she made a big attempt at explaining why. If she wasn’t always right, neither has anyone else ever been.

Sorry Gary, but you simply DO NOT get all the same things out of Rand’s contemporaries (or her predecessors) that you get from Rand.

Is there a libertarain on here that would dare reject this statement? If so, they’re cutting the tree branch they’re sitting on.

[clarityiniowa]

GG – Thanks for the link, but I had already Googled the gentleman’s website.

Oh, my… this is precious. Friend of yours, is he?

I just don’t know where to start, except to say I knew before I got there that he had to be some sort of way-off-in-left field religious nutcase that was way to into himself. Pantheist? Universal Mind? Spinozaic?

Fine and dandy. Perhaps I’ll try to find a copy of his book anyhow and see exactly how a Pantheist regards concrete existence. I’m suddenly dying to know.

[Gary Gunnels]

pragmatist,

Obviously you haven’t read Proudhon then (or Smith). 🙂

One of the big things Rand did was tie ethics to economics.

Read Adam Smith’s The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Ethics as a component of economic theory is quite old.

But connecting capitalism with ethics is a big deal.

No it isn’t. Adam Smith did it two hundred years before she did.

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

For someone who rants about personal attacks against Rand, you are certainly willing to make them against others.

Ryan is not a friend of mine. I’ve never met him.

I just don’t know where to start…

I would supposed that’s largely due to ignorance

[pragmatist]

I said:

“I have a right to live for myself.”

I meant to immediately say after that:

“Is there a libertarain on here that would dare reject this statement? If so, they’re cutting the tree branch they’re sitting on.”

Every time I don’t preview I regret it…

[Gary Gunnels]

clarityiniowa,

I don’t believe his religious beliefs undermine his arguments. I’m an atheist, BTW.

[Johnathan Pearce]

Gary, I know how to look up a dictionary. I was asking what you meant in your use of the word “hack”, which is normally just a term of abuse delivered by persons imagining that philosophy should be confined to tenured university professors. I guess many thinkers could be so branded on that sort of basis. It smacks of arrogance.

For me, Rand drew out the importance of understanding how people build and develop concepts, and challenged mind-body dualism. Not all of this was original, of course, but she did a lot to push certain ideas forward, which cannot be just termed as “hackery”. I also find her description of romanticism in art quite useful and original, if in need of development.

There is also plenty to criticise, of course. One of the things that bugs me is how she hardly ever credited other major contemporary thinkers, as if she was all alone. This was dumb strategy and limited her ability to spread her ideas. She was also often awful in her choice of friends and so-called intellectual “heirs”, which I think temporarily messed up the spread of her views. Fortunately this is beginning to improve as a younger generation comes to the fore, like David Kelley.

I can recommend Sciabarra’s “The Russian
Radical for an original and fair analysis of her ideas, which is sympathetic but without being fawning.

[pragmatist]

Gary, I’m clear on the fact that you find nothing of value in Rand, and you think that if we all only knew better we’d agree with you.

I for one just don’t agree with you.

[Gary Gunnels]

Johnathan,

“Hack” as in mediocre. I’m never going to claim that only university professors in Philosophy departments are the proper practitioners of philosophy deparments.

I read Sciabarra’s work and found it nauseatingly fawning.

pragmatist,

I find it humorous that you try to make fun of Ryan, when Rand believed that the universe was “benevolent” and that this benevolence was where the destiny of humans (especially her vulgar Nietschzean heroes) derived. This was why she despised evolution so much; since there was no “designer” (her benevolent universe) behind it. That she could slip into this sort of quasi-mysticism should tell you heck of a lot about Rand’s reasoning skills.

_________________________________________

Its rather bizarre that so many here are claiming that Rand was their inspiration for turning to capitalism. For me, Rand’s bizarre epistomology, etc., would have been a hindrance if she were the first thing I had ever read that advocated capitalism.

[smacky]

Stop all this bibble-babble. You are all late for tap dancing lessons! – kevrob

How did you know I’ve been searching for tap dancing lessons?!

[Gary Gunnels]

The basic approach of many of Rand’s less-deluded apologists is to argue that there some core value to her work and that if only this could be seized upon, everything would be fine. But that indeed is not the case.

Rand’s ouevre is suitable for just one thing: to use as an attack dummy whilst honing your philosophical skills.

[Johnathan]

The Russian Radical was “nauseatingly fawning”? Hardly. Sympathetic, certainly, and I thought quite interesting, though I don’t entirely buy Sciabarra’s analysis.

I must say that Rand’s tone is off-putting, and people like Hayek are more likely to persuade those not already of a similar viewpoint. That said, she had a lot of influence in spreading ideas, which can hardly be a matter of dispute.

[Johnathan]

Gary, I am not aware that Rand despised evolution. What is the source for that view? I have not read of her dissing Charles Darwin, but maybe she did. I would be frankly very surprised, actually.

I totally disagree with you that there is no core of decent ideas in her philosophy. Of course, some of the best stuff is reheated Aristotle, and nothing wrong with that.

Fascinating thread. I mean, for a champion of classical liberalism, the lil’ lady sure gets a lot of heat from libertarians!!

Gary, are you the same Gary Gunnels who praised Firefly over at Samizdata? If so, we are on the same page on that issue. Fab series.

[clarityiniowa]

GG – For someone who rants about personal attacks against Rand, you are certainly willing to make them against others.

No,no no, my friend, you misunderstand. Having read Ryan’s site, I admire him greatly. At least he has the gumption to explicate his ideas, and hang his philosophical ass out into the wind, something I haven’t done, except in a hit or miss way here on Hit and Run. I also admire his clearly shameless self-promotion, and squeaky-clean haircut and wifebeater shirt. You just don’t see that in an intellectual property lawyer/philosopher these days. Makes for a lot of good Latin in his rhetoric, too – ex nihilio, I like that.

What I find precious is you regarding Rand as a “hack philosopher” and this guy as somehow both credible and authoritative because he has a website and a book published by IUniverse.

Hell, Ihave a book published by IUniverse. If he had $500 and ten chapters on expressive tail-wagging, my dog could have a book published by IUniverse. In fact, he does, and he will.

Gary, you remind me why my favorite character on “Friends” was Phoebe. C’mere, ya li’l knucklehead, lemme give ya a hug. 😉

[rob]

Ah, but you see unless the philosophical system or the ideas surrounding it form a totally coherent, seamless, and perfect whole, all of it is subject to complete dismissal by folks like Gary Gunnels. (Not that such a system has EVER existed.)

He’s the sort of fellow who has figured out a few of the “tricks of the trade” taught in the average Logic 101 and Intro to Philosophy courses and mistakenly believe them to be the debate team equivalent of the atom bomb.

I’ve known folks so enamored with these ideas/debating tactics that they can’t wait to unleash them on others no matter the time, date, location or topic. Up to and including the eternally debated question of human existence “What should we have for lunch?”

Of course, if immediate concessions aren’t made to their superfluous use of Latin they immediately regress to personal attacks while denouncing others for “ad hominem” attacks.

I usually get wound up by this sort of tactic, but today it just seems mildly amusing and irritating, tho not necessarily in that order.

Bottom line: Ayn Rand, not someone you’d want to hang out with or whose philosophy you’d want to base the conduct your personal affairs upon, but who had some interesting ideas that she put forth in the form of fictional novels. Some of those ideas are worthwhile, some are dubious, some are crap. None of them are worth calling each other names over.

[Isaac Bartram]

This has been an interesting thread.

Everybody has had their say and made generally thoughtful comments, whether for or against Rand.

Except joe who seemed to be talking about some completely different author.

[Stevo Darkly]

Just as the “Making Fun of Objectivism Page” at http://walkingfish.com/objectivism/ has both some funny stuff on it and a lot of broken links, Ayn Rand had both good and bad aspects.

Overall, I think she was a frickin’ genius. She popularized some pro-liberty, pro-individualist, pro-capitalist ideas in a way that made them vivid, persuasive and accessible in a way that other, more scholarly writers could not.

Still, she had her weak points:

– I’m told that because her background in the history of philosophy was weak, she thought she independently came up with some ideas when she was really reinventing the wheel.

– Sharply and crabbily intolerate of those who disagreed with her. Was convinced that a failure to see eye-to-eye on how reality works was a moral failing. I believe that political and philosophical disagreements are usually due to honest errors in seeing how the world works, because reality is complex and no one can see it all.

– Corollary to above point: Tended to attract sycophants as members of her personal circle, and chase away those who might have challenged, improved and broadened her thinking.

– Too dismissive of possible truths that were not reached by articulated reason. Failed to see that articulated reason has its limits, too. See: Hayek. See: A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. Did not appreciate the possiblity of accumulated truth via tradition and trial and error, not by explicitly reasoned-out logic. Like Edmund Burke’s “storehouse of the common wisdom of the ages” or whatever the hell he called it.

– Related to the above: More hostile than necessary to religion. Said Murray Rothbard in his article/essay/memoir, “My Expulsion from the Ayn Rand Cult”: “Ayn hated the State, but she hated God more.” Or WTTE. Rothbard relates that when he hung out in the Randian circle, they discovered that his wife believed in God and therefore delivered unto him an ultimatum: Either convert his wife to atheism, or divorce her. His refusal was in large part responsible for the rift between him and Rand’s circle. Although as I recall it, it was Rand’s hangers-on rather than Rand herself who were most active in attempting to reform, then expel, Rothbard.

Best one-sentence summary of Ayn Rand is from Tucille’s It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand: “Ayn, Ayn, you magnificent crazy bitch.”

By the way, here are some Objectivist pick-up lines, collected at a Web site whose URL I forgot to note:

Ones that work for either men or women:

“Did you know that nakedness is the highest form of psychological visibility?”

“You and I could create a whole other benevolent universe…”

“Wow…when they made you they sure didn’t omit any measurements!”

“If you turn me down, you’re anti-man!”

“Say, there should have been a chapter in the Romantic Manifesto about your ass!”

“What isn’t your sign?”

“Let me show you what sex qua sex can be.”

“Why don’t you get undressed so I can check your premises?”

“Wanna come over to my place and see my Ilona etchings?”
———————————————

Girl to guy:

“Brother, you’re asking for it!”
——————————————
Guy to girl

“Wanna let me come over and break your fireplace?”

(Guy is naked) “What do you mean it’s not big enough? It’s not called the Taggart Transcontinental for nothing!”

“Okay, enough epistemology. How’d you like to grasp something a bit more physical?”

“Yeah baby. It is made of Rearden Metal.”

“You’re certainly practicing the Virtue Of Sexiness tonight.”
——————————————

Must see! Also, a pretty damn funny, and also very brief, retelling of The Fountainhead here:

http://jeffcomp.com/faq/parody/

[pandora]

pandora jewelry blog Symbol Of Fashion pandora are prominent oecumenical for its stylish and formal baubles goodnesses.
Manner is pandora jewelry blog which bears brandished inward the twentieth 100 and it has caused belong dwell balls around it. Everyone inch the world appears to follow popular with in the most only fashion and over here pandora jewelry blog bands assistants you core that as bejewels constitutes unmatched of the core comes to close to chassis.pandora jewelry blog costs Earth deviated salient now a domiciliating because it caters uncommon conceptions of earrings to their customers. They make that kind of earrings which cost not usable earlier. These constitutes the causa pandora jewelry blog charms gained agile achiever and accepted no competitor in the betimes time of its star. pandora jewelry blog companion directly comprises voguish amid everyone.
The earrings costs cleared with specific intentions for the unformed and graceful domiciliate. pandora jewelry blog cut pandora bracelets rate sale bears besides constituted ordered gamey on the charts in a lot of bod cartridge holder pandora jewelry blog .Pandora couturiers eremitical and Lisbeth bent on this lonesome bewitch of necklaces which brought in alteration in the earrings world. They produced the charms which dismissed consorting to their likings with the assistance of pandora jewelry blog or beads. The 2 affairs that are the Congress of Racial Equality sway for huge victory of pandora jewelry blog are the Pandora trinkets and Pandora charms.