 Ms. Ein Raen, ladies and gentlemen, since the subject of the seminars is investment, I must start by stating that I am not an economist and have no purely economic advice to give you. But what I am anxious to discuss with you are the preconditions that make it possible for you to gain and to keep the money which you can then invest. I shall start by asking you a question on a borrowed premise. What human occupation is the most useful socially? The borrowed premise is the concept of social usefulness. It is not part of my philosophy to evaluate things by a social standard. But this is the predominant standard of value today. And sometimes it can be very enlightening to adopt the enemy's standard. So let us borrow the notion of social concern for just a little while, just long enough to answer the question, what human occupation is the most useful socially? Since man's basic tool of survival is mind, the crucially important occupation is the discovery of knowledge that is the occupation of scientists. But scientists are not concerned with society, with social issues or with other men. Scientists are essentially loners. They pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. The great many scientific discoveries and technological discoveries were known before the Industrial Revolution and did not affect human existence. The steam engine, for instance, was known in ancient Greece, but knowledge of that sort remained an exclusive concern that lived and died with the scientists. And for century after century had no connection to the lives of the rest of mankind. Now suppose that the group of men decided to make it their job to bring the results of the achievements of science within the reach of men, to apply scientific knowledge to the improvement of man's life on Earth. Wouldn't such men be the greatest social benefactors as they have been since the Industrial Revolution? Will you excuse me, please? I don't want any pictures taken of me. Please, gentlemen, don't bother with me. I am much too old for that. Just leave me as I am. Wouldn't such men be the greatest social benefactors as they have been since the Industrial Revolution? Shouldn't the socially concerned humanitarians, those who hold social usefulness as their highest value, regard such men as heroes? If I say no, such men are not regarded as heroes today. They are the most hated, blamed, denounced men in the humanitarian society. Would you believe me? Or would you think that I'm inventing some sort of irrational fiction? And would you say that something is wrong, terribly wrong in such a society? But this isn't all. There is something much worse. It isn't merely the fact that these heroic men are the victims of an unspeakable injustice. It is the fact that they are first to perpetuate the injustice against themselves. That they adopt a public stance of perpetual apology and universal appeasement, proclaiming themselves guilty of an unspecified evil, begging the forgiveness of every two-bit intellectual, every unskilled laborer, every unemployed politician. No, this is not fiction. That country is the United States of America today. That self-destroying group of men is you, the American businessman. When I say you, I mean the group as a whole. I accept the tenet that present company is accepted. However, if any of you find a shoe that fits, wear it with my compliments. Karl Marx predicted that capitalism would commit suicide. The American businessmen are carrying out that prediction. In destroying themselves, they are destroying capitalism, of which they are the symbol and product. And America, which is the greatest and prized example of capitalism men has ever reached. There is no outside power that can destroy such men in such a country. Only an inner power can do it, the power of morality. More specifically, the power of a contemptibly evil idea accepted as a moral principle, altruism. Remember that altruism does not mean benevolence or consideration for other men. Altruism is a moral theory which preaches that men must sacrifice himself for others, that he must place the interests of others above his own, that he must live for the sake of others. Altruism is a monstrous notion. It is the morality of cannibals devouring one another. It is a theory of profound hatred for men. I seem to have competition here. I'll let you go first. It is a theory of profound hatred for men, for reason, for achievement, for any form of human success or happiness on earth. Altruism is incompatible with capitalism and with businessmen. Businessmen are a cheerful, benevolent, optimistic, predominantly American phenomenon. The essence of their job is the constant struggle to improve human life, to satisfy human needs and desires, not to practice resignation, surrender and worship of suffering. And here is the profound gulf between businessmen and altruism. Businessmen do not sacrifice themselves to others. If they did, they will be out of business in a few months or days. They profit, they grow rich, they are rewarded as they should be. This is what the altruists, the collectives and other sundry humanitarians hate the businessmen for, that they pursue a personal goal and succeeded it. Do not fool yourself by thinking that altruists are motivated by compassion for the suffering. They are motivated by hatred for the successful. The evidence is all around us, the evidence is all around us, but one small example sticks my mind as extremely eloquent. In the early 19th century, an assistant of Jane Adams, the famous social worker, went on a visit to Soviet Russia and wrote a book about her experience. The sentence I remember is, quote, how wonderful it was to see everybody equally shabby, close quote. If you think that you should try to appease the altruists, this is what you are appeasing. The great tragedy of capitalism and of America is the fact that most businessmen have accepted the morality of altruism and are trying to live up to it, which means that they are doomed before they start. Another contributory evil is the philosophical root of altruism, which is mysticism, the belief in the supernatural, which bridges contempt for matter, for wealth, well-being, or happiness on earth. The mystics are constantly crying appeals for your pity, your compassion, your help to the less fortunate, and they are condemning you for all the qualities of character that make you able to help them. Evil theories have to rely on evil means in order to hold their victims. Altruism and collectivism cannot appeal to human virtues. They have to appeal to human weaknesses. And where there are not enough weaknesses, they have to manufacture them. It is in the nature of altruism and collectivism that the more they need a person or a group, the more they denounce their victims, induce guilt and struggle never to let the victims discover their own importance and acquire self-esteem. The businessmen are needed most by the so-called humanitarians because the businessmen produce the sustenance the humanitarians are unable to produce. Doctors come next in the hierarchy of being needed and observe the hostility, the denunciations, and the attempts to enslave the doctors in today's society. Most businessmen today have accepted the feeling of guilt induced in them by the altruists. They are accused of anything and everything. For instance, ecologists denounce the businessmen for their refusal to sacrifice themselves to the snail doctor and the prohibish louse ward. But the businessmen's actual guilt is their treason against themselves, which is also their treason against their country. The statement that aroused such fury among the collectives, quote, was good for general notices, good for the country, was true. And the reverse is also true. What's bad for industry is bad for this country. I am here to ask you a question on my own, not on borrowed premises. What are you doing to the advocates of capitalism, particularly the young? Appeasement is a betrayal not only of one's own values, but of all those who share one's values. If, for whatever misguided reason, businessmen are indifferent to an ignorant of philosophy, particularly moral and political philosophy. It would be better if they kept silent rather than spread the horrible advertisements that make us green juice embarrassment. By us, I mean advocates of capitalism. Mobile oil ran ads in the New York Times, which stated the following. I quote from memory, quote, of the expression free, private, responsible enterprise which strike out free and private as non-essential. Close quote. One of the big industries advertises on television that they are full of quote, people working for people. Close quote. And some other big company announces on television that its goal is quote, ideas that help people. Close quote. I do not know what the ghastly PR man who came up with the slogans wanted us to think that the companies worked for free or that they traded with people rather than with animals. Actually, their purpose was to suggest populism in some indirect kind. It was actually the desire to give the impression that businessmen worked for nothing but others, for the people, that they are in fact no better than the politicians. The worst of the bunch is some new group in Washington D.C. called something like Committee for the American Way, which puts out a television commercial showing some ugly, commonplace people of all kinds, each proclaiming that he likes a different kind of music. I like rock and roll, and I like jazz, and I like Beethoven, et cetera. Ending on a voice declaring this is the American way with every man entitled to have and express his own opinion. I, who come from Soviet Russia, can assure you that debates and differences of that kind were and are permitted in Soviet Russia. What about political or philosophical issues? Why didn't they show people disagreeing about nuclear weapons or about abortion or about affirmative action if that committee stands for the American way, there is no such way any longer? Observe also that in today's proliferation of pressure groups, the law sort of unskilled labor is regarded as the public and presents claims to society in the name of the public interest and is encouraged to assert his right to a livelihood. But the businessmen, the intelligent, the creative, the successful men who make the laborers' livelihood possible have no rights and no legitimate interests, are not entitled to their livelihood, their profits, and are not part of the public. Every kind of ethnic group is enormously sensitive to any slight. If one made a derogatory remark about the Kurds of Iran, dozens of voices would leap to their defense but no one speaks out for businessmen when they are attacked and insulted by everyone as a matter of routine. What causes this overwhelming injustice? The businessmen's own policies, their betrayal of their own values, their appeasement of enemies, their compromise all of which add up to an era of moral cowardice. Add to it the fact that businessmen are creating and supporting their own destroyers. The sources and centers of today's philosophical corruption are the universities. Businessmen are both content, thank you, that is the most important point. Businessmen are both contentious and superstitiously frightened by the subject of philosophy. There is a vicious circle involved here. Businessmen have good ground to despise philosophy as it is taught today but it is taught that way because businessmen have abandoned the intellect to the lowest rung of the unemployables. All the conditions and ideas necessary to turn men into abjectly helpless serves of dictatorship rule the institutes of today's higher education as a tight monopoly with very few and rare exceptions. Hatred of reason and worship of blind emotions. Hatred of the success and worship of self-sacrifice. Hatred of the individual and worship of the collective. These are the fundamental notions that dominate today's universities. This notion conditioned and paralyzed the minds of the young. If you want to discover how a country's philosophy determines its history, I urge you to read the ominous parallels by Leonard Peacoff to be published this coming spring by Stein and Day. This brilliant book presents the philosophical similarities between the state of America's culture today and the state of Germany's culture in the Weimar Republic in the years preceding the rise of Nazism. After you read this book you will know the power of philosophy and you will know that one cannot play with it as irresponsibly as people do today, nor can one ignore it. It is the businessman's money that supports American universities, not merely in the form of taxes and government handouts, but much worse, in the form of voluntary, private contributions, donations, endowments, etc. In preparation for this lecture, I tried to do some research on the nature and amounts of such contributions. I had to give it up. It is too complex and too vast a field for the efforts of one person. To untangle it now would require a major research project and probably years of work. All I can say is only that millions and millions and millions of dollars are being donated to universities by big business enterprises every year and that the donors have no idea what their money is being spent on or whom it is supporting. What is certain is only the fact that some of the worst anti-business, anti-capitalism propaganda has been financed by businessmen in such projects. Money is a great power because in a free or even a semi-free society it is a frozen form of energy, productive energy. And therefore the spending of money is a grave responsibility. Contrary to the altruists and the advocates of the so-called academic freedom, it is a moral crime to give money to support ideas with which you disagree. It means ideas which you consider wrong, false and evil. It is a moral crime to give money to support your own destroyers. Yet that is what businessmen are doing with such reckless irresponsibility. On the faculties of most colleges and universities the advocates of reason, individualism and capitalism are a very small minority often represented by feeble specimen or window dressing. But the valiant minority of authentic fighters is struggling against overwhelming odds and growing very slowly. Hardships, injustices and persecutions suffered by these young advocates of reason and capitalism are too terrible a story to be told briefly. These are the young people whom businessmen should support. Or if businessmen are too ignorant of academic issues they should leave academic matters alone. But to support irrationalists, nihilists, socialists and communists who form an impenetrable barrier against the young advocates of capitalism denying them jobs, recognition or a mere healing is an unforgivable outrage on the part of irresponsible businessmen who imagine that it is morally safe to give money to institutions of higher learning. The lasting influence of the universities is caused by the fact that most people question the truth or falsehood of philosophical ideas only in their use and whatever they learn in college marks them for life. If they are given intellectual poison as they are today they carry it into their professions particularly in the humanities. Observe the lifeless greatness, the boring mediocrity of today's culture. Observe the empty pretentiousness and mortgage sentimentality of today's stage screen and television writing. There are no serious dramas any longer and such few as attempt to be serious are of a leftist collectivist persuasion. On this subject I can speak from personal experience. For several years a distinguished producer in Hollywood has been attempting to make a television miniseries or a movie of my novel Atlas Shrugged. He was stopped on two counts. One he could not find a writer able to write a romantic drama even though there are many good writers in Hollywood. Romanticism is completely unknown to them and two he could not raise the money for his project. Allow me to say even though I do not like to say that if there existed an hour of the same value and popularity as Atlas Shrugged but written to glorify collectivism which would be a contradiction in terms it would have been produced on the screen long ago. You're not I hope, applauding that fact that there are too many supporters of left kind of writers. Well I do not believe in giving up and so in answer to many questions I chose this occasion to make a very special announcement. I am writing a nine hour teleplay for Atlas Shrugged. Thank you very much. I intend to produce the miniseries myself. There is a strong possibility I will be looking for outside financing to produce the Atlas Shrugged series. I'm not afraid of that. In conclusion let me touch briefly on another question often asked of me. What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be but I don't think of him and the more I see the less I think. I did not vote for him nor for anyone else and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called moral majority and sundry other TV religionists. Thank you. Who are struggling apparently with his approval to take us back to the Middle Ages by the unconstitutional union of religion and politics. The threat to the future of capitalism is the fact that Reagan might fail so badly that he will become another ghost like Herbert Hoover to be involved as an example of capitalism's failure for the next 50 years. Observe Reagan's future attempts to arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element but he will not find it in the God family tradition swamp. The greatest inspirational leadership this country could ever find rests in the hands of the most typically American group, the businessmen. But they could provide it only if they acquired philosophical self-defense and self-esteem. Here is what young Americans have to say about it. A quote from the May 15, 1980 issue of The Intellectual Activist, a newsletter published by Peter Schwartz. Quote, feminists threaten to publicize the names of psychologists who hold their convention in a state which has not yet endorsed the Equal Rights Amendment. Women is protest political functions that serve lettuce not approved by Caesar Chavez. Yet businessmen are willing not simply to tolerate denunciations of free enterprise but to financially sponsor them. Close quote. And I quote from an article by M. Norstrup Wigner, the root of terrorism in the October 1981 issue of the Objectives Forum published by Harry Binswanger. Quote, imagine the effect if some prominent businessmen were to defend publicly their right to their own lives. Imagine the earth shaking social reverberations if they were to assert their moral, excuse me, if they were to assert their moral right to their own profits. Not because those profits are necessary for economic progress or the elimination of poverty, which are purely collectivist justifications, but because a living being has the right to live and progress and do the best he can for his life for the time he has on this earth. Close quote. I recommend both these publications very highly. You may write to the intellectual activist at 131 Peeps Avenue, New York, New York, 1003 and to the Objectives Forum at Box 5311, New York, New York, 10150. As for me, I will close with a quotation which is probably familiar to you and I will say that the battle for capitalism will be won when we find a president capable of saying it. Quote, the world you desire can be won. It exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth. Close quote. Thank you. What are your feelings about the media? Well, I think I've indicated the media, as they stand today, are practically non-existent as art or even as information. They're in a terrible state. They're leaning very heavily to the left, but it is not anyone's conspiracy and it is not the fault of the individual reporters. They are practicing the only kind of philosophies they've been taught. They know of nothing better. They are the conditioned robots of their college professors. But the media as such, particularly television, is the greatest invention in centuries and it has the greatest potential. I prefer television to the large screen or any other medium of communication and if we remain free, we will see some great things on television. The next question is, do you think that the United States should continue to sell grains, computers and technology to the Russians? No, I don't think so. I don't think we should have diplomatic relations with Russia and if we work with them, you will be surprised with a horribly appeasing performance they would put up because they have done that every time they knew that the West was antagonistic. They are like bullies and you have to deal with them very, very strongly or not at all, which incidentally Reagan is not able to do. The next question is related, is Russia a real threat today? Russia as such was never a threat to anyone even to little Finns that beat Russia twice during World War II. Russia is the weakest and most impotent country on earth. If they were in a war, most of the miserable Russians would defect. Russia has one weapon by default, which we have surrendered and that is the morality of altruism. So long as people believe that Russia represents a moral ideal, they will win over us in every encounter. That is one of the reasons for dropping altruism totally, consciously as the kind of evil which it really is. Next question is, at this point in time, would you please tell me what form the strike by the men of the mind should take? The form is learn philosophy and preach it and spread it around by every means open to you. We are not yet in the stage where we should give up the country. We are still free and the way to fight for capitalism is to take very good care of understanding philosophy solely and then spreading the right ideas as much as you can. It is only when and if a country establishes a censorship that the men of the mind should retire, but we are not in that stage and I don't think we will reach it. The next question is of a more pragmatic business nature. Where do we sign up to invest in the production company for Atlas Shrug? Thank you very much. Please communicate with Mr. Blanchard, the officer. He has creches agreed to send all such communications to me. I might add that question with some Mr. Jerome Smith and Mr. Mark Thierre, two familiar names here. Would you please comment on Poland and Solidarity? Oh, they have all my sympathy, but I don't see them winning anything. It is a hopeless undertaking to try and defy Soviet Russia, particularly when they are advocating socialism. You don't find communism with socialism. They are doomed to lose. The next question is, please clarify your comment on the moral majority. I do not understand your position. I do not understand your question. If you are here at all, you must have come because you know something about me. And if you know something about me, you know that I am an advocate of reason, that I am not a supporter of religion and that I despise anyone who tries to impose his religious ideas by force on other people. That is what the moral majority is trying. The next question is, why do you think Reagan is a failure? Because I read the newspapers. His economic plan barely puts through Congress, is immediately pulled to be a failure, and he has to try and beg for some more cuts. And the statement of his protege, Mr. Stockman, which is disgraceful, I never trusted that young man, that proves it. His statements show that it is a gang of men who enjoy parading around as powerful but who have no idea what to use their power on. And Mr. Reagan in particular is not an advocate of capitalism. He is an advocate of a mixed economy with a different kind of mixture. So he'll fail like all of them. In your opinion, where and how would you educate our young people? I have been telling you that for half an hour or more. I have written millions of words about it. If you want to know how I would educate them, read my books. As to where I can't answer you at present, inquire in which colleges have some objective professors, some of them have. Not many, but there are some and very good ones, follow those courses. Next question is, when and what events led to the development of your ideas? Yes. When and what events led to the development of your ideas? Thank you. That's a very good question. In one respect, I don't develop my ideas from events. I develop them from observation. I held the same ideas essentially from the age of about two and a half, which is the earliest I remember myself. I have learned a great deal in the years since, but the essence of the ideas have not changed. It's true that some people have to be hit over the head with events before they will connect to souls. But I showed you a natural shug that I can predict events. I can do it because I see the essential basic premises that dominate certain movements and I know what the results would be. The next question is, please differentiate between man's happiness and man's life as a standard of value? I don't regard this as a legitimate question. I know what kind of movement is behind that sort of junk. If you really don't understand great gold speech in Atlas Shug, which will explain it to you very clearly, and I do not grant anyone the premise that that speech is unclear. Next question is, how can we teach our children not to be ashamed of success? That's a good question. Read Atlas Shug, read the work of other objectivists, read the proper ideas, and then learn how to communicate it to a child at the appropriate time. Don't make him recite ideas which are beyond his understanding. And above all, do not teach him to be humble. Praise him when he deserves it. Permit him to be proud of his success and that will establish the right foundation. Where will we find a president such as you describe among today's politicians? I wish I knew. That's why I say it's much too early for philosophical politics. Amongst us in power today I may mention one or two young ones who have not yet proved themselves and it's much too early to recommend anyone. Next question is, what actors would you cast in Atlas Shug? Do I answer that? No. My advisors say, no, it is actually improper to begin casting before you have finished the script and formed the company. I have some very good ideas on that subject but it's too early to mention them publicly. Next question is, Ms. Rand, you are a woman and we have been downtrodden. Do you approve of the R.A.? And if so, why? And you are downtrodden? Yes. I just read the questions. Please. No, I don't approve the R.A. because it's a totally unnecessary, repetitive document which will achieve nothing but give a lot of bad female politicians at all to work with and impose on the rest of us. As far as the feminist movement is concerned, I am a male chauvinist, proudly. Next question is, how would you define love? I define it as your response to your own values in the person of another human being and I do not care to buzzer with it too much. I mean with definitions because actually my best definition of love is the love stories in my novels. That is not a primary, it would take away complex identification and analysis but it's not for me. I don't like to argue about that subject. Next question is, is there still hope for salvaging our free system? Is there still hope for salvaging our free system? Yes, there is hope so long as there is one man left living on Earth. There is hope but it will not be saved automatically. It depends on the free will and choice of every man who is able to think. Those who don't want to think don't matter in this issue. They are merely social balance but it depends on the thinking of every human being in this country. Next question is, what do you reply when someone says to you you hate the poor and disadvantage, don't you? Nobody has ever come close enough to me to say such a thing. I don't hate the poor, I just don't think that they are the best thing in life and that one should tailor everything for their convenience. And here I'd like to quote a very interesting person, if you've heard of him, the Reverend Eich. He is a black evangelist and a remarkable one because he preaches not suffering in submission but success and he tells his congregations that every man can succeed in what he understands, what he can do. Reverend Eich's statement about the poor is as follows. The best way to help the poor is not to be one of them. Next question is, I am a student of business in a university. What will become of me if there is no more money in the universities? Help them to earn their money honestly and if the left gives their money, don't go into those universities but help the right kind of businessmen provide financial help for the right kind of universities. Next question is, is there any hope for Russia? No. Next question, since Congress has collectivized us through the Internal Revenue Service, what can be done to stop them? Is it time for another tea party? It's been time long ago but the only thing one can do is a matter of ideas. It is ideas that have brought the Internal Revenue Service on us. The public, particularly the non-intellectual public, is very much with you and it's only ideas that can produce a reform in government and in that kind of aspects of government. The next question is, what is the moral justification for a gold standard? The fact that those who earn their money keep it and that there is no way for the parasites to get their hands on it. Next question is, who are some of your favorite writers of novels? My favorite writers, Viktor Higur, Dostoevsky, or Henry? That I think is enough. Next question, was Reagan the best choice available? No. I would have voted for Ford. He had his flaws but he was infinitely superior to Reagan. Somebody just asked you to kindly repeat some of the names and I think addresses you mentioned in your talk and specifically here the question is what was the name of the book that you suggested we read that will be published in the spring and who was the author? The book title is The Aminus Parallels. The author's name is Leonard Pekov, P-E-I-K-O-W-F. He is a brilliant professor of philosophy and it is the best book or meeting present company that is coming out today. If you like my books, you will like this one. Next question is, how specifically is Reagan's conservative pro-capitalist government hoping to destroy capitalism to try to stay in power? For one thing, you cannot stand in power today nor do anything politically without a well formulated, consistent political philosophy because it is by philosophical means that the collectives have come to power and you can't defeat them except by philosophical means and if you listen to just one of Reagan's religion, you can forget the word philosophy. A man who claims to defend rights and objects to the right to have abortion, who wants to dictate to a woman in the most intimate, crucial and tragic issue of that kind and he wants to forbid it, that's no defender of rights and no defender of capitalism. I think this would now have to be the final question. Are there any new books forthcoming? We would love to know. New books by objectorists? By you, Ms. Rand. By me? No, not until after. I finish with a mini-series of Atlas Shogged. That's my project at present. After that, I have several projects in mind but it's too early to talk about them. Thank you for your interest. Thank you all very much. I certainly appreciate it. Goodbye.