Ayn Rand First Interview 1959 (Full)

In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when "the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear."

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati's plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.

Thank you for watching.

• Category

  Education

[Johnnie Johnson]

Mike Wallace comes off like a petulant child. He also lacks the profound respect that is due this amazing woman.

[pleeeeep]

This lady is clearly a genious. Her ideology may have flaws, but logically its water-tight

[Sean Oops]

I agree with the economic part of her ideology, not the Social "religion is bad"

[blasphemer9]

I plan on buying 2 of her books in the next month. Damn she is a genius. She practically predicted the economic collapse here in the US that started when Bush 2 came into office.

[Bruno Turner Oggioni]

she is a genius. and she has such a great will to live. unfortunately in the latter I am not as good.

[bma051000]

The whole point of AS is that the heroes are all RATIONAL. The villains are all IRRATIONAL. Since irrationality is impotent to deal with reality, the irrational must necessarily live parasitically off of the rational. Funny how you never mentioned Hugh Akston, the philosopher, or Mr. Halley, the conductor. Are you rational? I doubt it.

[Tony Starks]

Not at all. The only thing vague is your response. Every vote cannot count if every vote is for a different item on a list with large choices and limited options. You are voting for nothing then.

The points stands that you cannot separate the government from the people. You cannot disprove that.

English standard has no value on non-English lands. The right of the Native Americans is not dependent upon arbitrary standards of England. That is a total fallacy. And England lead by a king? You lose.

[Degaribay]

No the final statement was a rebuttal to the vague query "anyone who is running the government". No one has a "Greater right" to anything, they did nothing with the land, did not lay claim to it, they sat on it and even moved around from time to time. Also the state is limited in its function to protecting individual rights, had a Native American individual actually "owned" the land in an English common law sense they it would've been their own.