Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” – The Collective Against The Individual

Thoughts on Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”. If you’ve read 1984 and Brave New World, then you should read this as well.


“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with
nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step
was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received–hatred. The
great creators–the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors–stood alone against the
men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was
denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible.
The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of
unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.
“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift
he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only
motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an
engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building–that was his goal and his life. Not those who
heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not
its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form
to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.
“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is his
self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of
the ego.
“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power–that it was self-sufficient,
self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover.
The creator served nothing and no one. He had lived for himself.
“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of
mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his
only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great
strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought.
To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons–a process of thought. From this simplest
necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we
are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man–the function of his
reasoning mind.
“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain.
There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is
only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary
consequence. The primary act–the process of reason–must be performed by each man
alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach.
No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for
another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart.
The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the
process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking.

— from The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand


Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncRk4nDmk70

The “Muhammad Was A Paedophile” Meme Rejected By The Qur’an

Nowhere in the Qur’an is there support for marrying women who are not legally competent despite all of Brand Islam’s extraneous inventions.


And if you fear that you cannot do justice by the fatherless:
Marry what pleases you of the women
Or three
Or four
But if you fear that you cannot do justice, then one
Or what your right hands possess.
That is more likely that you will do no injustice.
And give the women their dowries as a free gift.
But if they remit to you anything of it voluntarily
Then consume it with ease and pleasure. (4:3-4)

And they ask thee for a ruling concerning women.
Say thou: God gives you the ruling concerning them
And what is recited upon you in the law concerning the fatherless women
(To whom you give not what is ordained for them when you desire to marry them)
And concerning the oppressed among the children
And that you uphold equity with the fatherless.
And whatever good you do:
God knows it. (4:127)

At 33:51 provision for the prophet himself followed by:

Not lawful for thee are women thereafter
Nor that thou exchange them for any wives though their beauty impress thee
Save what thy right hand possesses.
And God is watchful over all things. (33:52)

The Traditionalist forwards a number of calumnious claims against the prophet, including that of marriage to a child as well as taking more wives than the number allowed by the Qur’an. None of these claims find any support in the Qur’an. Supporters of the idea that Muḥammad took many wives must ignore the fact that the operative word at 33:52 is exchange; if the prophet were not bound by the Qur’anic limit of four wives any exchange would be redundant. The fact is this that the wording here suggests exactly how many wives the prophet had: four.

The Traditionalist claims – against the Qur’an – that Muhammad had more than four wives at one time;

The Traditionalist makes claims for a child bride for Muhammad.

This is not only NOT found in the Qur’an, it is a calumny against it and against Muhammad. But with friends like that, you are not in much need of enemies.

And for such of your women as despair of menstruation – if you doubt – their waiting period shall be three moons
As well as for those who have not menstruated.
And for those who are bearing, their waiting period shall be till they lay down their burden.
And whoso is in prudent fear of God, he makes for him of his command ease. (65:4)

Often said by the Traditionalist – on the basis of his library of dubious fiction – to mean female children who have not started menstruation. To those who claim that the mood is perfect under the influence of lam (i.e. who have not yet[…]) I would point out that the relative pronoun and the verb are in the feminine plural and refer to (in fact, can only refer to) women (Arabic: nisā’) in the preceding clause. The Qur’an speaks of women as legally competent females (who can own property, take oaths, bear witness, swear fealty, incur punishment for their crimes). Minors can do none of those things. Cases of women not menstruating while not pregnant are not unusual and it is this which is referenced here. Rather than allowing the Traditionalist to open the door to child-sex unchallenged – and ascribe such actions to a messenger of God – it is time the Qur’an was allowed a voice through the consistent application of its proven values, and the later foolish and evil insinuations exposed on that basis.


Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXH6Huiqkas

The “Allah Is A Moon God” Meme: What The Qur’an Itself Says

Christian apologists as well as New Agers routinely make (and repeat) the claim that “allah” (Arabic for God) means a moon god.

In this talk, I briefly show how this cannot be the case from the Qur’an itself.


• Christians hysterical assessment of Qur’an based on nothing
• Not here to represent or defend brand Islam
• Get this on many subject, particularly about fighting, where the Christian has heard half a thought out of context or told about “killing Jews” etc by his mullah
• What the Qur’an actually says

• Allah – the moon god
o pseudo grammar about the sun (female), moon (male) gender
o conflated with supposed pre-Islamic “history”

And we gave them not any decrees which they study
And we sent not to them before thee any warner.
And those before them rejected.
And they attained not to one tenth of what we gave them
But they rejected my messengers.
And how was my rejection? (34:44-45)

And when Ibrāhīm said to his father Āzar: Hast thou taken things fashioned as gods?
I see thee and thy people in obvious error.
And thus we showed Ibrāhīm the kingdom of the heavens and the earth
And that he might be of those who are certain.
Then when the night covered him he saw a star.
He said: This is my lord.
Then when it passed he said: I love not those that pass.
Then when he saw the moon emerge he said: This is my lord.
Then when it passed he said: If my lord guide me not I will be of the people who stray.
Then when he saw the sun emerge he said: This is my lord, this is greater!
Then when it passed he said: O my people: I am innocent of that to which you ascribe a partnership.
I set my face towards him who made the heavens and the earth
Inclining to truth
And I am not of the idolaters. (6:74-79)

Is it likely then that if Allah is a “moon god” that his book tells us that the moon is not God?

Christians: crescent moon equals the moon god; but then you have the Christian cross (sun) and star of David. Ibrahim worshipped none of these.


Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi5w951Opiw