Herman Cain Does Howard Roark

I know why millions of Christians are so forgiving of Herman Cain – he is Ayn Randish! Evangelicals worship Ayn Rand even though she was an atheist. In Atlas Shrugged evangelicals get permission to not pay taxes to support the socialist safety net. It’severy man and woman for themselves, just like Howard Roark! If you don’t design and build a skyscraper, you are lowlife scum. Then, there is the Tea Bag dream to return to the good old days of Davey Crockett, whose wife made her own soap.

Evangelical leaders are Vietnam Vets who want to succeed in America, because they failed so badly in Vietnam to gift primitive people with the Randish Capitalist Dream. They didn’t want all that Madison Avenue crap hung on their ancient way of life, that did not need to be changed, especially by Peace Makers armed to the teeth. In the army all rugged individualism is highly discouraged, one told you have no identity, but are one with your warrior brothers. Thinking for oneself, is not allowed – along with women!

In the movie and book ‘Fountainhead’ the Domineering princess of old money comes upon Howard drilling away on a rock. Look at that size of that drill. What powerful arms that dude has. Dominique must have – what she wants – a good drilling. But, instead of going directly to what she wants, she uses feminine cunning and guile, just like her male counterparts who love to enslave their fellow man in red tape and socialist committees that suck precious bodily fluids out a real man, like Howard – who in self defence is forced to rape Dominique.

“This is what you want?”

Of course, weak, ass-kissing wimps like Keating are not allowed to rape beautiful women, because the woman is guranteed to come out on top, which is a no-no amongst folks who want to run the world according to the Bible, where one is told over and over there will be severe penalties for not doing exactly what God tells you to do. As strange as this might sound, ten of millions of evangelical sheep believe God is telling them to vote for Herman Cain, and thus, He can do not wrong!

Jon Presco

“GOP leaders and conservative pundits have brought upon themselves a crisis of values,” the network explains. “Many who for years have been the loudest voices invoking the language of faith and moral values are now praising the atheist philosopher Ayn Rand whose teachings stand in direct contradiction to the Bible.” The network complained that “GOP leaders want to argue that they are defending Christian principles” while also praising Rand.

Amy Sullivan, in the Swampland, wrote something quite striking.  George W. Bush declared that his favorite philosopher was Christ.  The far right, now, though appears to have rejected Christ, in favor of Rand.

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead. One of the greatest books of all time. Though Atlas Shrugged is, by far, the better book (considered the second-most influential book after the Bible), it’s all relative. The Fountainhead is, in my opinion, required reading before taking on Atlas Shrugged. Without reading The Fountainhead first, you miss important concepts in Atlas Shrugged. Atlas Shrugged is a highly complex book to read and is deep in philosophical tenets. Reading The Fountainhead first will help you enjoy and experience Atlas Shrugged so much more.

But putting aside these benefits, there are other reasons to read The Fountainhead, not the least of which is the sex. (Atlas Shrugged will also whet your sexual appetite.) Granted, most don’t associate Ayn Rand with eroticism. However, one of the reasons Ayn Rand is so successful at effectively communicating her philosophy, which later came to be known as Objectivism, is because she mixes philosophical proselytizing with drama. And, after all, what’s drama without sex?

Of course, neither The Fountainhead nor Atlas Shrugged compare to the eroticism and violent sexual images found in books such as Pauline Reage’s The Story of O or Marquis De Sade’s 120 Days of Sodom. But The Fountainhead attacks a sexual topic most wouldn’t consider very controversial: rape. Though arguably starting earlier (call it foreplay), pages 215-218 in The Fountainhead paperback represent the infamous “rape” scene.
…have you ever had sex where you’ve felt “owned” and/or you “surrendered?”
What is rape? Rape, also referred to as sexual assault, is an assault by a person involving sexual intercourse with or without sexual penetration of another person without that person’s consent. I’ve had many conversations over the years about this scene, especially with those who I would consider “surface-readers” – those who read without the curiosity to explore the implications. Was it rape or wasn’t it? The answer boils down to whether or not Dominique Francon gave her consent to Howard Roark.

I think Dominique did consent to the sex, wanted it, and even encouraged it through her actions. Within the scene, there are multiple facts to support my contentions. (There are even more if you include other passages surrounding the scene and overall character development.) For example, Ayn Rand writes, “She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help.” (bottom of p. 216). She goes on: “He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him – and she would have remained cold, untouched by the things done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted.” Later, when Dominique wants to take a bath, she writes: “She turned the light on in the bathroom. She saw herself in a tall mirror. She saw the purple bruises left on her body by his mouth. She heard a moan muffled in her throat, not very loud. It was not the sight, but the sudden flash of knowledge. She knew she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied.”

In fact, after Roark leaves, Ayn Rand writes (middle of p. 219): “She could accept, thought Dominique, and come to forget in time everything that had happened to her, save one memory: that she had found pleasure in the thing which had happened, that he had known it, and more: that he had known it before he came to her and that he would not have come but for that knowledge. She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion – she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted and she hated him for it.” When Dominique is reading a letter from Alvah Scarret: “She read it and smiled. She thought, if they knew… those people… the old life and that awed reverence before her person. I’ve been raped… I’ve been raped by some red-headed hoodlum from a stone quarry… I, Dominique Francon… Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms.” Additionally, when Dominique goes to the quarry looking for Howard Roark and doesn’t find him (bottom of p. 220), Ayn Rand writes: “She walked away. She would not ask for his name. It was her last chance of freedom.” Finally, she had multiple scenes where Dominique would consider something a “win” (i.e., against Roark) and would then proceed to dominate him by being the more sexually forceful.

Ayn Rand was very big on the concept of one individual “surrendering” to another (in her books, it is always depicted as the woman surrendering to the man, as Ayn Rand typically depicts men as superior – feminists be damned). Ergo, I believe it was consensual, even though it is called rape. (Rand herself even referred to the scene as “if it was rape, it was rape by engraved invitation.”) I do not deny and, rather, assert that anytime someone does something to another with force that they don’t want, it is a crime against the victim. However, clearly, that cannot be considered the case here. Ayn Rand put the rape on a pedestal, esteeming the ownership and associated “surrender” with high self-esteem. Dominique wanted the sex, she wanted the sex violent, and she wanted the sexual fantasy exactly the way Roark delivered it.

Over the years, I’ve heard many false claims about the implications of this scene (and her books in general). “Rand has a cavalier attitude toward love.” “Rand’s conception of love would make love impossible.” “Rand is unfeeling.” “Rand minimizes rape.” To understand her philosophy better, it helps to get to the base motivations of each character’s thoughts and actions. So, in this case, why is it that Dominique surrendered? What was her motivation? What did she learn as a result of the experience? What were her subsequent actions? If you can figure that out, you will learn the moral implications and philosophical tenets of love, feelings, and sex.

Ayn Rand was anything but cavalier toward love. Unlike what many believe, her concept of love is logical and rational. In fact, I’d suggest that one of the reasons so many relationships typically seem to end poorly is because we have forgotten (or, more likely, never learned) that all successful relationships are based on an exchange of value-for-value. Additionally, she, in no way, discounted feelings, which is obvious with even a cursory look at character development. I’m actually struck that I am so flushed with emotion (and sexual desire) every time I re-read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Feelings can be controlled, and they are controlled by the mind. Feelings are also rational (as they are part of human nature). I think Rand’s point is that using feelings instead of (or as a higher priority than) thought is always likely to lead to poor decisions and, thus, improper/irrational actions.

Let me conclude with a somewhat provocative question: if, dear reader, you’ll excuse my crudeness and brashness, have you ever had sex where you’ve felt “owned” and/or you “surrendered?” If not, maybe you shouldn’t knock it until you’ve tried it? Granted, it’s not for those with a weak mind or a weak heart. But, then again, I’m not looking for those with either.

“…A “silly” and “bumptious” novel can have destructive and lasting power…and then it finds new life as a movie. Viewers beware because the new movie Atlas Shrugged is an adaptation of Ayn Rand’s novel, which peddles a starkly anti-Christian philosophy…”  Chuck Colson on Atlas Shrugged.
The Pink Flamingo has been writing about Ayn Rand and the factthat she was terribly against Christians.  I’ve reached the point where I do not think a person can be a practicing libertarian and a Christian.  They two are incompatible.
Is Alan Greenspan’s libertarian philosophy responsible for our economic woes?
About the time Fortunewas extolling Greenspan, I was putting the finishing touches on a book about finances for a major evangelical publisher. I included a chapter on Rand’s quasi-religious philosophies, and another that encouraged Wall Street to embrace a traditional Judeo-Christian ethic. I wrote, “Ayn Rand, like Karl Marx, was one more self-proclaimed prophet who denied the existence of a loving God.” I added this comment from a leading political commentator:
Libertarians have replaced Marxists as the world’s leading utopia builders.” I concluded that we would one day apologize to our children for what Rand had done to our souls, as well as to the political economy.
My junior editor removed the chapter on Rand. “No one has heard of Ayn Rand,” she said. But my senior editor reinserted it. He said he had never understood his family until reading it. It made him realize that they had mixed Rand’s strongly anti-government, unquestioningly pro-business, and individualistic worldview with biblical Christianity. Theologians call this “syncretism”—which George Barna calls America’s favorite religion. It’s a religion too many Christians have bent the knee to.
By the end of 2008, “Maestro” Greenspan was booed off the stage. Yet there are at least three reasons we should stay aware of Rand and her remaining disciples…
Second, Rand still has influential financial disciples like junk-bond king Michael Milken, Chris Cox, head of the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Bush administration leading up to the crash, as well as cultural influencers like Playboy founder Hugh Hefner, media mogul Ted Turner, and pundits John Stossel, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, who recently advised Christians to leave any church that speaks of social justice….”
The Pink Flamingo has been wondering why Christians are not speaking out against Ayn Rand and her disciples.  A few Christians are finally doing just that – and it is about time.
“…Our financial guruscontinue to sing in Rand’s temple, using quasi-biblical principles to obtain wealth but disposing of God’s principles if the investment doesn’t lead to “productive achievement.” I’ve long believed that leaders of the Religious Right and our more popular financial advisers, who have attempted to harmonize their philosophies with economic libertarianism the past three decades, have been na•ve. Libertarians usually despise Christian social values, advocating the legalization of abortion, illicit drugs, and pornography while worshiping wealth. The biblical discouragement of unholy alliances should have named that tune as syncretism. But the angry white man of 1994 sings on at today’s tea parties. And his anger is still primarily over economic issues….”