The Journey of Superman

How to Predict the Future w/90% Accuracy

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Thu, 31 May 2012 20:39:00 +0000

I read this guy's book, The Dictator's Handbook. Epic read, book review coming soon.

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

How Bad Do You Want It (Part 2) #NoDaysOff

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Tue, 29 May 2012 19:18:00 +0000

#NoDaysOff

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

How the Bible Was Written (Will Blow Your Mind!)

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Mon, 28 May 2012 15:00:00 +0000

A speech by Dr. Bart Ehrman at Stanford about the story behind who changed the bible and why and the history of the bible and how they got tainted. He is a former Christian bible scholar who studied the bible and found the mistakes and became an atheist.

This speech is a must see for Christians who ask questions like:

Who wrote the gospels?

Is the bible the word of God?

Are there contradictions?

Does the bible contain errors?

Is there evidence or proof?

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Mr. Playboy - Hugh Hefner Biography Review

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Thu, 24 May 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Final Verdict: A must read if you're a Hugh Hefner fan

Book: Mr Playboy: Hugh Hefner and the American Dream

My Review

I was intrigued by Hugh Hefner and how he established Playboy and started the sexual revolution in the 1960s. After searching for numerous books about him, this book by Steven Watts is the most comprehensive book on Hefner and his empire. It encompasses details I would never have even thought to think about. He's childhood upbringing, literature influences in college like Alfred Kinsey and Ayn Rand. His staunch demeanor towards holding his own morals and values for happiness, irrespective of what society thinks. If you only read one book about Hugh Hefner and Playboy, this book should be it. Great read, two thumbs up!

Book Description

Gorgeous young women in revealing poses; extravagant mansion parties packed with celebrities; a hot-tub grotto, elegant smoking jackets, and round rotating beds; the hedonistic pursuit of uninhibited sex. Put these images together and a single name springs to mind-Hugh Hefner. From his spectacular launch of Playboy magazine and the dizzying expansion of his leisure empire to his recent television hit The Girls Next Door, the publisher has attracted public attention and controversy for decades. But how did a man who is at once socially astute and morally unconventional, part Bill Gates and part Casanova, also evolve into a figure at the forefront of cultural change?

In Mr. Playboy, historian and biographer Steven Watts argues that, in the process of becoming fabulously wealthy and famous, Hefner has profoundly altered American life and values. Granted unprecedented access to the man and his enterprise, Watts traces Hef's life and career from his midwestern, Methodist upbringing and the first publication of Playboy in 1953 through the turbulent sixties, self-indulgent seventies, reactionary eighties, and traditionalist nineties, up to the present. He reveals that Hefner, from the beginning, believed he could overturn social norms and take America with him.This fascinating portrait illustrates four ways in which Hefner and Playboy stood at the center of several cultural upheavals that remade the postwar United States.

The publisher played a crucial role in the sexual revolution that upended traditional notions of behavior and expectation regarding sex. He emerged as one of the most influential advocates of a rapidly developing consumer culture, flooding Playboy readers with images of material abundance and a leisurely lifestyle. He proved instrumental-with his influential magazine, syndicated television shows, fashionable nightclubs, swanky resorts, and movie and musical projects-in making popular culture into a dominant force in many people's lives.

Ironically, Hefner also became a controversial force in the movement for women's rights. Although advocating women's sexual freedom and their liberation from traditional family constraints, the publisher became a whipping boy for feminists who viewed him as a prophet for a new kind of male domination.

Throughout, Watts offers singular insights into the real man behind the flamboyant public persona. He shows Hefner's personal dichotomies-the pleasure seeker and the workaholic, the consort of countless Playmates and the genuine romantic, the family man and the Gatsby-like host of lavish parties at his Chicago and Los Angeles mansions who enjoys well-publicized affairs with numerous Playmates, the fan of life's simple pleasures who hobnobs with the Hollywood elite. Punctuated throughout with descriptions and anecdotes of life at the Playboy Mansions, Mr. Playboy tells the compelling and uniquely American story of how one person with a provocative idea, a finger on the pulse of popular opinion, and a passion for his work altered the course of modern history.

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Superman's Lifestyle Becomes A Gimmick!

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Mon, 21 May 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Alright, it's time for a brief update on how your boy is living.

I have been a free man for the last month or so. My mom and the rest of my younger siblings left for Africa to join my dad there, and left me and my brother alone in the house with my dad's credit card. Definitely one of the better parts of the year for me. My whole family came back for my graduation this week; for those who are curious, I just received my Masters of Science in Telecommunication Networks and Computers. All at the tender age of 23.

The awesome thing about my field is that regardless of the economy, engineers are in demand, especially me having a greencard. 95% of the graduates in engineering are international students, and they don't have the paperwork to legally work in the US without sponsorship. This makes me and American engineers in demand beyond belief. While other people are complaining about not being able to find jobs, jobs come and find me, and I just end up turning them down. It does feel good though, makes me appreciate the blood, sweat and tears I've put into being an engineer.

My earning potential just went up. I had a couple job offers, including a job to be an iPhone app developer that payed around $95K, but I turned it down...the plan right now is to pursue my Doctorate. Then maybe I'll start really working and join the real world. The money will wait for me.

Anyway, I wanted to take some time out to reflect on the path my journey has taken thus far since then.

PUA Social Circle

I dabbled in night game with my wings by going out on Friday nights. But in all honesty, I was not going out to "cold approach," I was going out to have fun and dance. Or as normal people say, I was going out "clubbing". If I met a sexy girl while clubbing then that would be cool, but that was not the goal for me while being out and I would be having fun regardless.

It just happens that all my closest friends happen to be PUAs, so I would spend most of my time out with them. As much as I have tried to distance myself from the pickup community, the people that are my ride and die homies, are in it. I felt like a soldier; some soldiers come back from war and are anti-war, but their best friends are still fellow soldiers who are still in service. The camaraderie they build during war builds friendships that last a lifetime. I feel the same way; some of the guys I've met while in the game like Vicious, Dave, Mr. Hurgle, John Panam, are my homies till the day I die.

So to sum up, what I basically learned was that my immediate social circle consisted of nothing but PUAs and I could not escape that reality. Sure I have millions of friends in real life and facebook; I have met numerous people in real life from class, school, business and through other people. But those people aren't real, they're just acquaintances. The people that I talk and hangout with on a daily and weekly basis are my close wings.

At first I thought about it and thought I need to "balance" myself and make close friends with people outside of pickup. But after thinking about it, I realized that although I am not a PUA anymore, becoming good with women is a deeply engrained value that will not go away anytime soon. Even if I did become close friends with people who aren't into pickup, I would still end up bringing them into the whole becoming better with women thing. It's like a virus, and I have become an evangelist for it till the day I die.

Dancing is the Key

The most fun I had was hanging out with my fellow Black wing, John Panam. This is not a knock on any of my other non-Black wings, but it feels good to hang out with a fellow Black wing my age. He's African so he get's the African mindset, but also understands the American Black guy swag! Without a doubt the best times out where when I was with him.

We drove to the bars and clubs with the windows down, blasting Wiz Khalifa Taylor Gang, and as soon as we enter, we're both wilding out on the dance floors and shutting shit down. Meeting girls was easy and almost second nature when we were dancing.

In RSD terms, when me and him are on the dance floor we're in cloud nimbus and are permanently in state. Regardless of what happens during the night "girl wise" we still have one hell of a night from the dance floor. It's like a vicious cycle, where I feed off his energy, and he feeds off mine. This just keeps on looping until we're wilding out and feeling like Gods.

The nights I went out without John Panam I wasn't able to shut down the dance floor, since my other wings don't "dance". Those nights weren't as fun, it felt more like I was there "solely" to pickup girls which ironically makes the task even harder.

One of the things I am firm on right now is my dislike for bars. Unless the drink is free, I don't drink when I'm out, and I couldn't care less for talking. I have always favored clubs and dance floors over bars, and merely tolerated them for gaming during happy hour. But enough of that, onto swimsuit models.

Swimsuit Models

Ukrainian Broad

When I wasn't out at night, I was busy working on my magazine and modeling agency. I met this Asian dude at a meetup in Chinatown. When I told him about my magazine and modeling agency, he told me he used to have casting calls with his brother back in Asia, and he even fucked Miss Vietnam from it. This guy spoke my language of rational self-interest so we got along great. In less than 5 minutes of talking, we're walking out of the bar to go check out his place nearby to see if we can use it for a photo shoot.

Cleaning and setting up for the interview and shoots

We had interviews and photo shoots at his apartment every day for an entire week and wrapped the week up with a party. A lot of things happened, some good some just straight up funny. Here's a brief rundown of some of the shenanigans.

I Love Russian Girls

We started off with a hot Ukranian swimsuit model that barely spoke English...just the way I like them. She showed up at his apartment, we did the interview and took some profile shots. Then told her to change into her bikini and take some shots.

If a pose is in here, a model is more likely do it

We learned as we went along, and had a digital copy of Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit Issue on display on my iPad. We had her go through and replicate every pose in the magazine for us as we took photos. That was two hours of pure fun.

Changing into Bikini

She was hot, but definitely not ready to be a swimsuit model. We told her we couldn't take her for the casting, but we would "coach her up" haha. At the time we were saying it, it sounded like sheer genius. The idea was to start a model training program for models that aren't yet ready, which would entail them hanging out with us over the course of months as we "coach" and "teach" them on how to become better models. While in the process, we bang and date them. It never worked out as expected, but I still think it's the right approach to keeping these models around for the long term; that's what the professional agencies do, minus the seducing part.

This model was a team player

If you've been following my blog for a while, you know I love Russian girls, and as far as I'm concerned, Ukrainian girls are the same as Russian girls to me. I really wanted to smash this broad, she seamed like such as easy lay. But the Asian guy wanted to smash her as well for those same reasons. We discussed amongst each other about which one would be her mentor and coach her up over the next few months.

Asian guy giving the model some tips lol

I mentally did the Game Theory Math and figured it would be better to keep him happy since he was letting me use his place for the interviews, photo shoots and parties. I had lots of other models, so I was in abundance mentality.

Model Walks Off

I had a funny interview with a Half Korean, Half Black model. She was hot as fuck, and I was excited at the thought of potentially fucking her. I had the Asian guy's apartment all to myself for the interview. Let's just say she was not down for the cause. I barely took any photos, she ends up walking off after she found a condom under the coffee table. She didn't seem like she knew what she was getting into in this industry anyway.

She asks me to delete the photos I took of her. I'm pissed off as well, cause she seemed like she was down for the cause from communicating with her via email and phone! At this point I have done the Game Theory Math, and realize she's defecting, and there's no point in me cooperating and pretending to be nice when that's not how I feel. I stop being nice and play Tit for Tat.

She had picked up the camera to delete the photos herself, so I yank it from her! She tries to yank it back, and I tell the bitch I got it! I delete the photos and walk her out. She says she's very disappointed, and I tell her so am I. When she gets out the door, she turns around and asks which way is out. I just slam the door in her face! Fuck you! Why in the fuck would I help her find her way out the building after pulling that shit!

On a good note, that wasn't that bad. You can't get them all. My wing Dave says "you have to lose girls to get girls." Well I told myself, "you have to lose models to get models" haha. The rest of the week went great.

Topless Models

After that debacle, we experimented trying out different things for the next interviews. Interviewing models alone in the apartment wasn't the best idea we figured. We interviewed a bunch of other models, including a Black Hooters girl and another Ukrainian model. We took them to the bedroom to continue taking photos and would tell them to take their tops off. We grounded it by telling them to replicate the topless model poses in the SI magazine. Cause every model knows that if it's in SI magazine, then it must be legit haha!

Having this magazine is such a game changer. Things we normally would tell models to do and they would be uneasy about it, all of a sudden they are doing no questions asked, since other models are doing them in the SI magazine. I have a theory...if I showed some models a photo of a model in SI sucking a photographers dick, they would be down to do it...once again, this is just a theory...needs real world testing haha.

I ended up giving the Asian guy isolation with the topless Ukrainian model on his bed. I pulled some excuse about having to go meet with a client. I ended up just going down stairs in the lounge and playing NBA 2K12 while I waited. I had a monster game in My Player mode. My best game to date, my player dropped 23 points in the 1st quarter!! I completely forgot about the two of them and was gunning for Wilt Chamberlain's 100 points in a game record...till the game CRASHED on me! Then I wanted to kill my laptop!

They finished up and I went back to find out what happened. The Asian guy told me he tried to sleep with her, but she wouldn't put out. At one point he straight up told her if she fucked him, he would put in a good word for her to me. I was speechless, this guy definitely doesn't beat around the bush and he's pretty ballsy from doing some cold approaching with him in Georgetown.

More Models and Cheerleaders

Washington DC Redskins well represented at our shoot lol

After the Ukrainian model, we decide to slow things down and stop trying to bed every model. We have interviews and photo shoots with a bunch of other models, including an Italian model, a Black model, and a Redskins Cheerleader!! Yes those Redskins, I was speechless, she had a banging ass body and came with the Redskin's swimsuit calendar to show us.

For the first time all week, I played the photographer. The Italian model was smokin hot, and she had been hitting me up via Facebook and email before her interview.

Italian model...amazing body!

As soon as she took off her outfit and appeared in her swimsuit the whole room's jaw just dropped. Her body was incredible, no ounce of fat. She's a professional dancer, has toured the world for musicians. I think she's a J. Cole groupie...maybe he smashed her. While we were talking she said he was one of her favorite rappers, but she couldn't name one of his songs smh!

Ofcourse I had to take her to the bed

I took photos of the Italian model and milked it for all it's worth. I had a boner the entire time, which was the first time a model did that to me all week, I guess it really meant something.

After the swimsuit shoots, me and Asian guy went out to grab dinner with the Italian model and her friend, the Black model. This was the best move we made all week. Both models ended up coming to our party at the end of the week. Seems like not trying to bed them so fast, and just inviting them out for food after the shoot works better. That way you just leverage the comfort and investment to invite them to a party at the end of the week.

End of Week Party

I figured that it's a good idea to throw a weekly photo shoot party for our magazine, just like Hugh Hefner. Hefner doesn't get Playmates from the photo shoots. He invites them to his weekly parties and that's where he gets them. So I figured I should try that approach. I invited the rest of the models we hadn't shot yet and some other models I knew, including the two we went out for dinner with.

We were disorganized at the end of the party. After the photo shoot we didn't really have much to keep the models entertained. The models who came just for the interviews and photo shoot left, and the two Italian and Black models stayed with us for a bit. We didn't have enough drinks or food left to keep them there. We thought about going to a club with them, but I was exhausted and the last thing I wanted to do was go to a club at midnight with two girls. As they say, you don't bring sand to the beach.

The Black model wanted to go to some club 30 minutes away in Maryland with the Italian model. That's where I live, but the last thing I wanted to do was relinquish leadership to the girls. Heading there was no guarantee.

We told them that was too far. After fumbling around for a good place to go to, we mentioned Grand Central in Adams Morgan. The Italian girl seemed okay with it, but the Black girl kept on cock blocking. She mentioned that it was too far, and we didn't even look like we wanted to go to a club. The being too far part was BS, it was closer than the club she wanted to go to in MD. But I couldn't argue with the latter part, we all looked exhausted. I barely had energy to dance, and John Panam, who also was at the party, was already asleep in a chair.

We ended up just letting them go to their club in MD, and we stayed inside and chilled out going over shit that happened that week and how it could have been better.

In hindsight that was a bad move. The Game Theory Math says it was better for me to have just gone with them back to MD, since that's where I live. I guess I was too afraid of success. I didn't want these models to know where I live; it makes it easier when cutting them off. I didn't feel like wasting energy going with them to that club in MD and just wasting my time and ending up with nothing. I thought it would be better to just meetup with the Italian model next week to talk about a profile I want to do on her.

Regardless, my party entertaining skills definitely need some work. I think next time we have to utilize the rooftop, isolate models from each other, and have more party entertaining things planned, besides just taking photos.

Cold Approach Hypocrite

After what happened that week, I went out every single day the following week and cold approached with my wings Dave or Guy Rock. I figured that the old PUA me, would have handled the party scenario a lot better.

The old Superman the PUA

I remembered the old me going to a club and talking to the three hottest women in there, rounding them up and isolating them all to myself in the corner of a club, and walking out with one of them.

The old me. Solo Dolo Day Game + Night Game Like a BOSS!

I remembered going to a club, marking my territory in the corner of the lounge, and going around the club and bringing 7 women back to it and getting 4 phone numbers. I remembered how I was able to leave my territory to go bring more girls and still keep other guys from pouncing on my girls. I remembered that very same night, how I was standing by a group of 3 good looking guys. They were talking about how to open a group of 4 cute girls. One of the guys goes in and talks to one of the girls. I told them it was easy. I open one of the blonde girls, and within minutes have 3 of the girls attention. The Latina girl the guy was talking to turns to see who is engaging all of her friends. As soon as she turns I bring her in and the guy just stands there not knowing what to do. Within minutes I have all 4 girls following me back in a single file line while dancing to go back to my corner in the club. The 3 good looking guys just stare at me dancing away with the 4 girls wondering what the hell this Black guy is on!

Old Superman PUA Swag

As soon as the girls enter my corner, one of the girls asks how everyone in my corner seems to know me and how long I've known them for. I casually tell her I just met all of them that night. She was speechless, and for a second so was I. I remember at that time it finally hit me how powerful game can be.

The Realization

I thought about it deeply. That old me...what would he have done at my magazine's party. The old me's ability to socially manipulate and control new environments to his command.

I realized that I have shifted to the opposite way of the spectrum, and need to balance myself back in the middle. The PUA me had game, but no consistent access to hot girls. The Playboy me has consistent access to hot girls, but no game. This is a huge paradox!

I went to the RSD Freetour a few weeks ago, and something Tyler said hit home for me. I felt so called out! He said this:

"Yesterday's revelation, is today's gimmick" - Tyler

The context is that something may work amazingly well for you. It works so well that you stop doing everything else and solely rely on it, to a point that it becomes a gimmick and crutch. An example could be peacocking. A PUA could peacock and get girls to open him. It works so amazingly well that he drops his shit and just peacocks and gets girls to open him. But then one day he finds a girl he wants to get, but he doesn't have his "peacock" item on. He can't approach her, he's utilized the peacock gimmick for so long that he no longer can, or if he does, he can't do it as well as he previously could before he started to peacock.

That shit hit home hard for me. One thing I've noticed is my social and pickup skills have deteriorated ever since diving down this Playboy path. I'm not as ballsy, verbally smooth and socially calibrated as I used to be. I can't consistently keep an interesting conversation going with girls who aren't in the fashion industry or models.

It didn't take me long to figure out the easy solution to this problem. MOMENTUM. That was the solution to every problem when I was doing pickup. It's the same thing with this Playboy lifestyle. Doing my magazine and agency has lead me to lose social momentum. I rarely talk to people outside of the fashion industry and models. I don't talk to as many people as I used to.

I realize what I need to do is maintain the social momentum I used to have while doing pickup. This means talking to people everywhere, all the time. As a result, I went out with my wings every day of the week like I used to, this was the first time this year I've done that. Don't get me wrong though, I am not going to stop building my lifestyle to go back to being a PUA. I am simply going to combine the two, and utilize the PUA mindset of working on social skills to help me with my Playboy Lifestyle, so that I can take it to a whole new level.

It all goes back to something Brad P said:

"Your lifestyle determines the quality of women you get; your game determines the quantity" - Brad P

The PUA lifestyle helped me with quantity, but was lacking in quality. The Playboy lifestyle is helping with quality, but lacks in quantity. I will work on leveraging game and it's ability to increase quantity, to increase the quantity of the Playboy lifestyle.

One of the main things I have realized that helped me with pickup, was using my blog to write reports and journal my experiences. The beautiful thing about doing this, is that it made me focus on the process rather than the outcome. When I stopped doing this, and just focused on building a lifestyle, I was just focused on the outcome when it came to doing pickup.

So I realize that if I want to maximize my learning while pursuing my lifestyle aspirations, I need to write reports and journal my experiences as I am coming up. I have been relatively lacking in writing reports this year, so I want to improve on that hereafter. I am out of school for now, and might be away for the summer, but I will try to update the blog more often with my reports.

I thought about it, and rather than calling them field reports, since my focus is different, I will call them lifestyle reports. Haha some one give me a nobel prize for that.

With that being said, look for more lifestyle reports from me soon. These reports will be more process orientated and strategic as fuck! Just like my old field reports, but these will be focused on building my lifestyle, with some pickup in there as well. For now, I'll end with a break down of what I think I did well and what I could improve upon.

Good

Taking models to bedroom and on bed
Telling models to take off their tops
Grabbing food with models after photo shoot
Inviting models to end of week party

Bad

One-on-One model interviews not necessarily best idea
No isolation with models at party
Models leave after photo shoot and casting
No plan of what to do after the shoot

Goals for Next Time

Try out one-on-one model interviews and photo shoots some more before saying they don't work
Isolate models, split them apart. Take some up to the rooftop for photos, and split up by going to different sides of rooftop. Leave wing with model in apartment.
Require all models to attend after party after photo shoot. Tell them attending is vital and will help with model selection process, and not attending will hurt their chances.
Research some party games and entertainment ideas for next party

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

The 12 Original Playboys of the 60s

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Porfirio Rubirosa — considered the granddaddy of all Playboys

“The golden age when an elite breed of professional pleasure seekers fascinated the world is over. We were charming and spoke languages and behaved well with women. To go with a girl to Tahiti was incredible. Now everybody goes to Tahiti.”

The 12 Original Playboys were a self-proclaimed ‘elite breed of professional pleasure seekers’ who fascinated the world in the 1950’s and ‘60s. They did so with exceptional genes, unparalleled wealth and, as we learn from today’s batch, exquisite style and grace.

“Die young and you will always be handsome"

The Original Playboys seemed to have little interest in living past the age of 60. “Die young and you will always be handsome,” said Oscar Wilde.

"It’s not important what you really are? The only important thing is what people think you are."

“I said [to my father] that I’d fallen in love with you, and I didn’t think I could go on the way things are now, that I wanted to end my marriage so that I could be with you. He yelled, ‘You’re out of your mind. You’re going to be president someday. This would ruin everything. Divorce is impossible.’ Then he repeated something he’s been telling us all our lives: ‘Can’t you get it into your head that it’s not important what you really are? The only important thing is what people think you are.’”

Read the Full Article here: The 12 Original Playboys of the Jetset Sixties

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Tony Montana Teaches How to Get Women

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:47:00 +0000

"In this country, you gotta make the money first. Then when you get the money, you get the power. Then when you get the power, then you get the women." - Tony Montana

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Ayn Rand Playboy Interview

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Tue, 15 May 2012 15:00:00 +0000

Playboy Interview, 1964

PLAYBOY: Miss Rand, your novels and essays, especially your controversial best seller, Atlas Shrugged, present a carefully engineered, internally consistent world view. They are, in effect, the expression of an all-encompassing philosophical system. What do you seek to accomplish with this new philosophy?

RAND: I seek to provide men -- or those who care to think -- with an integrated, consistent and rational view of life.

PLAYBOY: What are the basic premises of Objectivism? Where does it begin?

RAND: It begins with the axiom that existence exists, which means that an objective reality exists independent of any perceiver or of the perceiver's emotions, feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. Objectivism holds that reason is man's only means of perceiving reality and his only guide to action. By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged your hero, John Galt, declares, "I swear -- by my life and my love of it -- that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." How is this related to your basic principles?

RAND: Galt's statement is a dramatized summation of the Objectivist ethics. Any system of ethics is based on and derived, implicitly or explicitly, from a metaphysics. The ethic derived from the metaphysical base of Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and to act accordingly, is man's moral imperative. The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics is: man's life -- man's survival qua man -- or that which the nature of a rational being requires for his proper survival. The Objectivist ethics, in essence, hold that man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself. It is this last that Galt's statement summarizes.

PLAYBOY: What kind of morality derives from this, in terms of the individual's behavior?

RAND: This is presented in detail in Atlas Shrugged.

PLAYBOY: The heroine of Atlas Shrugged was, in your words, "completely incapable of experiencing a feeling of fundamental guilt." Is any system of morality possible without guilt?

RAND: The important word in the statement you quoted is "fundamental." Fundamental guilt does not mean the ability to judge one's own actions and regret a wrong action, if one commits it. Fundamental guilt means that man is evil and guilty by nature.

PLAYBOY: You mean original sin?

RAND: Exactly. It is the concept of original sin that my heroine, or I, or any Objectivist, is incapable of accepting or of ever experiencing emotionally. It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it. If he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality. Morality pertains only to the sphere of man's free will -- only to those actions which are open to his choice. To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms. My heroine would be capable of experiencing guilt about a specific action. Only, being a woman of high moral stature and self-esteem, she would see to it that she never earned any guilt by her actions. She would act in a totally moral manner and, therefore, would not accept an unearned guilt.

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?

RAND: Yes, to a certain extent.

PLAYBOY: Why?

RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man's evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose -- a productive purpose.

PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?

RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.

PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn't he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons?

RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.

PLAYBOY: Couldn't the attempt to rule whim out of life, to act in a totally rational fashion, be viewed as conducive to a juiceless, joyless kind of existence?

RAND: I truly must say that I don't know what you are talking about. Let's define our terms. Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombi, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.

PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?

RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions -- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows -- or makes it a point to discover -- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow -- then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction -- his own and that of others.

PLAYBOY: According to your philosophy, work and achievement are the highest goals of life. Do you regard as immoral those who find greater fulfillment in the warmth of friendship and family ties?

RAND: If they place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man's life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.

PLAYBOY: Do you believe that women as well as men should organize their lives around work -- and if so, what kind of work?

RAND: Of course. I believe that women are human beings. What is proper for a man is proper for a woman. The basic principles are the same. I would not attempt to prescribe what kind of work a man should do, and I would not attempt it in regard to women. There is no particular work which is specifically feminine. Women can choose their work according to their own purpose and premises in the same manner as men do.

PLAYBOY: In your opinion, is a woman immoral who chooses to devote herself to home and family instead of a career?

RAND: Not immoral -- I would say she is impractical, because a home cannot be a full-time occupation, except when her children are young. However, if she wants a family and wants to make that her career, at least for a while, it would be proper -- if she approaches it as a career, that is, if she studies the subject, if she defines the rules and principles by which she wants to bring up her children, if she approaches her task in an intellectual manner. It is a very responsible task and a very important one, but only when treated as a science, not as a mere emotional indulgence. PLAYBOY: Where, would you say, should romantic love fit into the life of a rational person whose single driving passion is work?

RAND: It is his greatest reward. The only man capable of experiencing a profound romantic love is the man driven by passion for his work -- because love is an expression of self-esteem, of the deepest values in a man's or a woman's character. One falls in love with the person who shares these values. If a man has no clearly defined values, and no moral character, he is not able to appreciate another person. In this respect, I would like to quote from The Fountainhead, in which the hero utters a line that has often been quoted by readers: "To say 'I love you' one must know first how to say the 'I.'"

PLAYBOY: You hold that one's own happiness is the highest end, and that self-sacrifice is immoral. Does this apply to love as well as work?

RAND: To love more than to anything else. When you are in love, it means that the person you love is of great personal, selfish importance to you and to your life. If you were selfless, it would have to mean that you derive no personal pleasure or happiness from the company and the existence of the person you love, and that you are motivated only by self-sacrificial pity for that person's need of you. I don't have to point out to you that no one would be flattered by, nor would accept, a concept of that kind. Love is not self-sacrifice, but the most profound assertion of your own needs and values. It is for your own happiness that you need the person you love, and that is the greatest compliment, the greatest tribute you can pay to that person.

PLAYBOY: You have denounced the puritan notion that physical love is ugly or evil; yet you have written that "Indiscriminate desire and unselective indulgence are possible only to those who regard sex and themselves as evil." Would you say that discriminate and selective indulgence in sex is moral?

RAND: I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.

PLAYBOY: Does this mean, in your view, that sex should involve only married partners?

RAND: Not necessarily. What sex should involve is a very serious relationship. Whether that relationship should or should not become a marriage is a question which depends on the circumstances and the context of the two persons' lives. I consider marriage a very important institution, but it is important when and if two people have found the person with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives -- a question of which no man or woman can be automatically certain. When one is certain that one's choice is final, then marriage is, of course, a desirable state. But this does not mean that any relationship based on less than total certainty is improper. I think the question of an affair or a marriage depends on the knowledge and the position of the two persons involved and should be left up to them. Either is moral, provided only that both parties take the relationship seriously and that it is based on values.

PLAYBOY: As one who champions the cause of enlightened self-interest, how do you feel about dedicating one's life to hedonistic self-gratification?

RAND: I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue.

PLAYBOY: You have said that the kind of man who spends his time running after women is a man who "despises himself." Would you elaborate?

RAND: This type of man is reversing cause and effect in regard to sex. Sex is an expression of a man's self-esteem, of his own self-value. But the man who does not value himself tries to reverse this process. He tries to derive his self-esteem from his sexual conquests, which cannot be done. He cannot acquire his own value from the number of women who regard him as valuable. Yet that is the hopeless thing which he attempts.

PLAYBOY: You attack the idea that sex is "impervious to reason." But isn't sex a nonrational biological instinct?

RAND: No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts. Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life.

PLAYBOY: Isn't the individual equipped with powerful, nonrational biological drives?

RAND: He is not. A man is equipped with a certain kind of physical mechanism and certain needs, but without any knowledge of how to fulfill them. For instance, man needs food. He experiences hunger. But, unless he learns first to identify this hunger, then to know that he needs food and how to obtain it, he will starve. The need, the hunger, will not tell him how to satisfy it. Man is born with certain physical and psychological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do.

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, "There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Isn't this a rather black-and-white set of values?

RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression "black and white"? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.

PLAYBOY: Then you believe in absolutes?

RAND: I do.

PLAYBOY: Can't Objectivism, then, be called a dogma?

RAND: No. A dogma is a set of beliefs accepted on faith; that is, without rational justification or against rational evidence. A dogma is a matter of blind faith. Objectivism is the exact opposite. Objectivism tells you that you must not accept any idea or conviction unless you can demonstrate its truth by means of reason.

PLAYBOY: If widely accepted, couldn't Objectivism harden into a dogma?

RAND: No. I have found that Objectivism is its own protection against people who might attempt to use it as a dogma. Since Objectivism requires the use of one's mind, those who attempt to take broad principles and apply them unthinkingly and indiscriminately to the concretes of their own existence find that it cannot be done. They are then compelled either to reject Objectivism or to apply it. When I say apply, I mean that they have to use their own mind, their own thinking, in order to know how to apply Objectivist principles to the specific problems of their own lives. PLAYBOY: You have said you are opposed to faith. Do you believe in God?

RAND: Certainly not.

PLAYBOY: You've been quoted as saying "The cross is the symbol of torture, of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. I prefer the dollar sign." Do you truly feel that two thousand years of Christianity can be summed up with the word "torture"?

RAND: To begin with, I never said that. It's not my style. Neither literarily nor intellectually. I don't say I prefer the dollar sign -- that is cheap nonsense, and please leave this in your copy. I don't know the origin of that particular quote, but the meaning of the dollar sign is made clear in Atlas Shrugged. It is the symbol, clearly explained in the story, of free trade and, therefore, of a free mind. A free mind and a free economy are corollaries. One can't exist without the other. The dollar sign, as the symbol of the currency of a free country, is the symbol of the free mind. More than that, as to the historical origin of the dollar sign, although it has never been proved, one very likely hypothesis is that it stands for the initials of the United States. So much for the dollar sign.
Now you want me to speak about the cross. What is correct is that I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn't that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the non-ideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.

PLAYBOY: Has no religion, in your estimation, ever offered anything of constructive value to human life?

RAND: Qua religion, no -- in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason. Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. But you must remember that religion is an early form of philosophy, that the first attempts to explain the universe, to give a coherent frame of reference to man's life and a code of moral values, were made by religion, before men graduated or developed enough to have philosophy. And, as philosophies, some religions have very valuable moral points. They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very -- how should I say it? -- dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.

PLAYBOY: Then you would say that if you had to choose between the symbol of the cross and the symbol of the dollar, you would choose the dollar?

RAND: I wouldn't accept such a choice. Put it another way: If I had to choose between faith and reason, I wouldn't consider the choice even conceivable. As a human being, one chooses reason. PLAYBOY: Do you consider wealthy businessmen like the Fords and the Rockefellers immoral because they use their wealth to support charity?

RAND: No. That is their privilege, if they want to. My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

PLAYBOY: What is the place of compassion in your philosophical system?

RAND: I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.

PLAYBOY: Would it be against the principles of Objectivism for anyone to sacrifice himself by stepping in front of a bullet to protect another person?

RAND: No. It depends on the circumstances. I would step in the way of a bullet if it were aimed at my husband. It is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value: If the value is great enough, you do not care to exist without it. This applies to any alleged sacrifice for those one loves.

PLAYBOY: Would you be willing to die for your cause, and should your followers be willing to die for it? And for the truly nonsacrificial Objectivist, is any cause worth dying for?

RAND: The answer to this is made plain in my book. In Atlas Shrugged I explain that a man has to live for, and when necessary, fight for, his values -- because the whole process of living consists of the achievement of values. Man does not survive automatically. He must live like a rational being and accept nothing less. He cannot survive as a brute. Even the simplest value, such as food, has to be created by man, has to be planted, has to be produced. The same is true of his more interesting, more important achievements. All values have to be gained and kept by man, and, if they are threatened, he has to be willing to fight and die, if necessary, for his right to live like a rational being. You ask me, would I be willing to die for Objectivism? I would. But what is more important, I am willing to live for it -- which is much more difficult.

PLAYBOY: In your emphasis on reason, you are in philosophical conflict with contemporary writers, novelists and poets -- many of whom are self-admitted mystics, or irrationalists, as they have been called. Why is this so?

RAND: Because art has a philosophical base, and the dominant philosophical trends of today are a form of neomysticism. Art is a projection of the artist's fundamental view of man and of existence. Since most artists do not develop an independent philosophy of their own, they absorb, consciously or subconsciously, the dominant philosophical influences of their time. Most of today's literature is a faithful reflection of today's philosophy -- and look at it!

PLAYBOY: But shouldn't a writer reflect his time?

RAND: No. A writer should be an active intellectual leader of his time, not a passive follower riding any current. A writer should shape the values of his culture, he should project and concretize the value goals of man's life. This is the essence of the Romantic school of literature, which has all but vanished from today's scene.

PLAYBOY: Leaving us where, literarily speaking?

RAND: At the dead end of Naturalism. Naturalism holds that a writer must be a passive photographer or reporter who must transcribe uncritically whatever he happens to observe around him. Romanticism holds that a writer must present things, not as they are at any given moment, but, to quote Aristotle, "as they might be and ought to be."

PLAYBOY: Would you say that you are the last of the Romanticists?

RAND: Or the first of their return -- to quote one of my own characters in Atlas Shrugged.

PLAYBOY: What is your appraisal of contemporary literature in general?

RAND: Philosophically, immoral. Aesthetically, it bores me to death. It is degenerating into a sewer, devoted exclusively to studies of depravity. And there's nothing as boring as depravity.

PLAYBOY: Are there any novelists whom you admire?

RAND: Yes. Victor Hugo.

PLAYBOY: What about modern novelists?

RAND: No, there is no one that I could say I admire among the so-called serious writers. I prefer the popular literature of today, which is today's remnant of Romanticism. My favorite is Mickey Spillane.

PLAYBOY: Why do you like him?

RAND: Because he is primarily a moralist. In a primitive form, the form of a detective novel, he presents the conflict of good and evil, in terms of black and white. He does not present a nasty gray mixture of indistinguishable scoundrels on both sides. He presents an uncompromising conflict. As a writer, he is brilliantly expert at the aspect of literature which I consider most important: plot structure.

PLAYBOY: What do you think of Faulkner?

RAND: Not very much. He is a good stylist, but practically unreadable in content -- so I've read very little of him.

PLAYBOY: What about Nabokov?

RAND: I have read only one book of his and a half -- the half was Lolita, which I couldn't finish. He is a brilliant stylist, he writes beautifully, but his subjects, his sense of life, his view of man, are so evil that no amount of artistic skill can justify them.

PLAYBOY: As a novelist, do you regard philosophy as the primary purpose of your writing?

RAND: No. My primary purpose is the projection of an ideal man, of man "as he might be and ought to be." Philosophy is the necessary means to that end.

PLAYBOY: In your early novel, Anthem, your protagonist declares, "It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the only edict I respect." Isn't this anarchism? Is one's own desire or will the only law one must respect?

RAND: Not one's own will. This is, more or less, a poetic expression made clear by the total context of the story in Anthem. One's own rational judgment. You see, I use the term free will in a totally different sense from the one usually attached to it. Free will consists of man's ability to think or not to think. The act of thinking is man's primary act of choice. A rational man will never be guided by desires or whims, only by values based on his rational judgment. That is the only authority he can recognize. This does not mean anarchy, because, if a man wants to live in a free, civilized society, he would, in reason, have to choose to observe the laws, when those laws are objective, rational and valid. I have written an article on this subject for The Objectivist Newsletter -- on the need and proper function of a government.

PLAYBOY: What, in your view, is the proper function of a government?

RAND: Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force.

PLAYBOY: If force may be used only in retaliation against force, does the government have the right to use force to collect taxes, for example, or to draft soldiers?

RAND: In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate. As to the draft, it is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man's right to his own life. No man has the right to send another man to fight and die for his, the sender's, cause. A country has no right to force men into involuntary servitude. Armies should be strictly voluntary; and, as military authorities will tell you, volunteer armies are the best armies.

PLAYBOY: What about other public needs? Do you consider the post office, for example, a legitimate function of government?

RAND: Now let's get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run.

PLAYBOY: Would you create any new government departments or agencies?

RAND: No, and I truly cannot discuss things that way. I am not a government planner nor do I spend my time inventing Utopias. I'm talking about principles whose practical applications are clear. If I have said that I am opposed to the initiation of force, what else has to be discussed?

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II . . .

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

PLAYBOY: Would you actively advocate that the United States invade Cuba or the Soviet Union?

RAND: Not at present. I don't think it's necessary. I would advocate that which the Soviet Union fears above all else: economic boycott. I would advocate a blockade of Cuba and an economic boycott of Soviet Russia; and you would see both those regimes collapse without the loss of a single American life.

PLAYBOY: Would you favor U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations?

RAND: Yes. I do not sanction the grotesque pretense of an organization allegedly devoted to world peace and human rights, which includes Soviet Russia, the worst aggressor and bloodiest butcher in history, as one of its members. The notion of protecting rights, with Soviet Russia among the protectors, is an insult to the concept of rights and to the intelligence of any man who is asked to endorse or sanction such an organization. I do not believe that an individual should cooperate with criminals, and, for all the same reasons, I do not believe that free countries should cooperate with dictatorships.

PLAYBOY: Would you advocate severing diplomatic relations with Russia?

RAND: Yes.

PLAYBOY: How do you feel about the test-ban treaty which was recently signed?

RAND: I agree with Barry Goldwater's speech on this subject on the Senate floor. The best military authorities, and above all, the best scientific authority, Dr. Teller, the author of the hydrogen bomb, have stated that this treaty is not merely meaningless but positively dangerous to America's defense.

PLAYBOY: If Senator Goldwater is nominated as the Republican presidential candidate this July, would you vote for him?

RAND: At present, yes. When I say "at present," I mean the date when this interview is being recorded. I disagree with him on a great many things, but I do agree, predominantly, with his foreign policy. Of any candidates available today, I regard Barry Goldwater as the best. I would vote for him, if he offers us a plausible, or at least semiconsistent, platform.

PLAYBOY: How about Richard Nixon?

RAND: I'm opposed to him. I'm opposed to any compromiser or me-tooer, and Mr. Nixon is probably the champion in this regard.

PLAYBOY: What about President Johnson?

RAND: I have no particular opinion about him.

PLAYBOY: You are a declared anticommunist, antisocialist and antiliberal. Yet you reject the notion that you are a conservative. In fact, you have reserved some of your angriest criticism for conservatives. Where do you stand politically?

RAND: Correction. I never describe my position in terms of negatives. I am an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, of individual rights -- there are no others -- of individual freedom. It is on this ground that I oppose any doctrine which proposes the sacrifice of the individual to the collective, such as communism, socialism, the welfare state. fascism, Nazism and modern liberalism. I oppose the conservatives on the same ground. The conservatives are advocates of a mixed economy and of a welfare state. Their difference from the liberals is only one of degree, not of principle.

PLAYBOY: You have charged that America suffers from intellectual bankruptcy. Do you include in this condemnation such right-wing publications as the National Review? Isn't that magazine a powerful voice against all the things you regard as "statism"?

RAND: I consider National Review the worst and most dangerous magazine in America. The kind of defense that it offers to capitalism results in nothing except the discrediting and destruction of capitalism. Do you want me to tell you why?

PLAYBOY: Yes, please.

RAND: Because it ties capitalism to religion. The ideological position of National Review amounts, in effect, to the following: In order to accept freedom and capitalism, one has to believe in God or in some form of religion, some form of supernatural mysticism. Which means that there are no rational grounds on which one can defend capitalism. Which amounts to an admission that reason is on the side of capitalism's enemies, that a slave society or a dictatorship is a rational system, and that only on the ground of mystic faith can one believe in freedom. Nothing more derogatory to capitalism could ever be alleged, and the exact opposite is true. Capitalism is the only system that can be defended and validated by reason.

PLAYBOY: You have attacked Governor Nelson Rockefeller for "lumping all opponents of the welfare state with actual crackpots." It was clear from his remarks that among others, he was aiming his criticism at the John Birch Society. Do you resent being lumped with the John Birchers? Do you consider them "crackpots" or a force for good?

RAND: I resent being lumped with anyone. I resent the modern method of never defining ideas, and lumping totally different people into a collective by means of smears and derogatory terms. I resent Governor Rockefeller's smear tactics: his refusal to identify specifically whom and what he meant. As far as I'm concerned, I repeat, I don't want to be lumped with anyone, and certainly not with the John Birch Society. Do I consider them crackpots? No, not necessarily. What is wrong with them is that they don't seem to have any specific, clearly defined political philosophy. Therefore, some of them may be crackpots, others may be very well-meaning citizens. I consider the Birch Society futile, because they are not for capitalism, but merely against communism. I gather they believe that the disastrous state of today's world is caused by a communist conspiracy. This is childishly naive and superficial. No country can be destroyed by a mere conspiracy, it can be destroyed only by ideas. The Birchers seem to be either nonintellectual or anti-intellectual. They do not attach importance to ideas. They do not realize that the great battle in the world today is a philosophical, ideological conflict.

PLAYBOY: Are there any political groups in the United States today of which you approve?

RAND: Political groups, as such -- no. Is there any political group today which is fully consistent? Such groups today are guided by or advocate blatant contradictions.

PLAYBOY: Do you have any personal political aspirations yourself? Have you ever considered running for office?

RAND: Certainly not. And I trust that you don't hate me enough to wish such a thing on me.

PLAYBOY: But you are interested in politics, or at least in political theory, aren't you?

RAND: Let me answer you this way: When I came here from Soviet Russia, I was interested in politics for only one reason -- to reach the day when I would not have to be interested in politics. I wanted to secure a society in which I would be free to pursue my own concerns and goals, knowing that the government would not interfere to wreck them, knowing that my life, my work, my future were not at the mercy of the state or of a dictator's whim. This is still my attitude today. Only today I know that such a society is an ideal not yet achieved, that I cannot expect others to achieve it for me, and that I, like every other responsible citizen, must do everything possible to achieve it. In other words, I am interested in politics only in order to secure and protect freedom.

PLAYBOY: Throughout your work you argue that the way in which the contemporary world is organized, even in the capitalist countries, submerges the individual and stifles initiative. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt leads a strike of the men of the mind -- which results in the collapse of the collectivist society around them. Do you think the time has come for the artists, intellectuals and creative businessmen of today to withdraw their talents from society in this way?

RAND: No, not yet. But before I explain, I must correct one part of your question. What we have today is not a capitalist society, but a mixed economy -- that is, a mixture of freedom and controls, which, by the presently dominant trend, is moving toward dictatorship. The action in Atlas Shrugged takes place at a time when society has reached the stage of dictatorship. When and if this happens, that will be the time to go on strike, but not until then.

PLAYBOY: What do you mean by dictatorship? How would you define it?

RAND: A dictatorship is a country that does not recognize individual rights, whose government holds total, unlimited power over men.

PLAYBOY: What is the dividing line, by your definition, between a mixed economy and a dictatorship?

RAND: A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strike intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever.

PLAYBOY: Short of such a strike, what do you believe ought to be done to bring about the societal changes you deem desirable?

RAND: It is ideas that determine social trends, that create or destroy social systems. Therefore, the right ideas, the right philosophy, should be advocated and spread. The disasters of the modern world, including the destruction of capitalism, were caused by the altruist-collectivist philosophy. It is altruism that men should reject.

PLAYBOY: And how would you define altruism?

RAND: It is a moral system which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the sole justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, value and virtue. This is the moral base of collectivism, of all dictatorships. In order to seek freedom and capitalism, men need a nonmystical, nonaltruistic, rational code of ethics -- a morality which holds that man is not a sacrificial animal, that he has the right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others, nor others to himself. In other words, what is desperately needed today is the ethics of Objectivism.

PLAYBOY: Then what you are saying is that to achieve these changes one must use essentially educational or propagandistic methods?

RAND: Yes, of course.

PLAYBOY: What do you think of your antagonists' contention that the moral and political principles of Objectivism place you outside the mainstream of American thought?

RAND: I don't acknowledge or recognize such a concept as a "mainstream of thought." That might be appropriate to a dictatorship, to a collectivist society in which thought is controlled and in which there exists a collective mainstream -- of slogans, not of thought. There is no such thing in America. There never was. However, I have heard that expression used for the purpose of barring from public communication any innovator, any non-conformist, anyone who has anything original to offer. I am an innovator. This is a term of distinction, a term of honor, rather than something to hide or apologize for. Anyone who has new or valuable ideas to offer stands outside the intellectual status quo. But the status quo is not a stream, let alone a "mainstream." It is a stagnant swamp. It is the innovators who carry mankind forward.

PLAYBOY: Do you believe that Objectivism as a philosophy will eventually sweep the world?

RAND: Nobody can answer a question of that kind. Men have free will. There is no guarantee that they will choose to be rational, at any one time or in any one generation. Nor is it necessary for a philosophy to "sweep the world." If you ask the question in a somewhat different form, if you say, do I think that Objectivism will be the philosophy of the future, I would say yes, but with this qualification: If men turn to reason, if they are not destroyed by dictatorship and precipitated into another Dark Ages, if men remain free long enough to have time to think, then Objectivism is the philosophy they will accept.

PLAYBOY: Why?

RAND: In any historical period when men were free, it has always been the most rational philosophy that won. It is from this perspective that I would say, yes, Objectivism will win. But there is no guarantee, no predetermined necessity about it.

PLAYBOY: You are sharply critical of the world as you see it today, and your books offer radical proposals for changing not merely the shape of society, but the very way in which most men work, think and love. Are you optimistic about man's future?

RAND: Yes, I am optimistic. Collectivism, as an intellectual power and a moral ideal, is dead. But freedom and individualism, and their political expression, capitalism, have not yet been discovered. I think men will have time to discover them. It is significant that the dying collectivist philosophy of today has produced nothing but a cult of depravity, impotence and despair. Look at modern art and literature with their image of man as a helpless, mindless creature doomed to failure, frustration and destruction. This may be the collectivists' psychological confession, but it is not an image of man. If it were, we would never have risen from the cave. But we did. Look around you and look at history. You will see the achievements of man's mind. You will see man's unlimited potentiality for greatness, and the faculty that makes it possible. You will see that man is not a helpless monster by nature, but he becomes one when he discards that faculty: his mind. And if you ask me, what is greatness? -- I will answer, it is the capacity to live by the three fundamental values of John Galt: reason, purpose, self esteem.

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Fame Equates To Pussy

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Mon, 14 May 2012 20:03:00 +0000

From Fearleass of Exceed and Lead

This guy faked being a celebrity at a mall in Virginia...the video speaks for itself. Notice the girl that slips him her number and wants to meet him for drinks in the evening.

When it comes to pussy, Fame is superior to Money, but at the end of the day I would still choose Money. Why? Money equates to Power, and Power is the rule of life! With Power, you can purchase Fame in the end at a more economical cost, but with fame, you will have a ceiling when it comes to Money.

Mark Cuban, Owner of Dallas Mavericks

You can become a Billionaire, then get famous of off it (i.e. Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, etc.), but you will not become famous, and then become a Billionaire off of that fame.

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!

Tyler On Hard Case Newbies

noreply@blogger.com (Superman) — Sat, 12 May 2012 18:43:00 +0000

I'm Killing It On Twitter
Check Out My Sexy Videos on YouTube
You like this post? Then donate to a brotha...I'm giving away game nuggets for free. Word!