In my twenties (early 1980s) I became enlightened
that the Democratic Party had moved to a political place that placed its moral
make-up and stealth support of Socialist principles were antithetic to the
Founding Fathers’ vision of a Constitutional Republic.
And so, I abandoned supporting the political party my family
insured was the way of thinking that saved America from the poverty of the
Great Depression (circa
1929 through the 1930s decade). My Grandparents and mother lived
through that devastating economic period in America. (I have since learned
that Franklin Roosevelt’s policies may not have been as saving as my
Grandparents and Parents were led to believe. But that is another story.)
As a former Dem I didn’t exactly embrace Ronald Reagan in
the 1980 voting cycle. I fell for the line that Reagan was such a Hawk, he
would push the nuke buttons ushering in WWIII. And I was so disenchanted with
President Carter, there was no way I would vote for him. In 1980 I went Third
Party. I voted for Ed Clark of the
Libertarian Party.
In those days Ayn Rand writings were very influential among
Libertarians thus that was my introduction into Randian Philosophy. I was
addicted to all things Ayn Rand.
By 1980 I had been a Christian for two years. In case you
didn’t know it, Christian Morality and Randian ethics influencing moral
thinking do
not line up well. You can guess the longer I have been a Christian,
the more I gravitated away from an extreme affinity to Randian Objectivism
Philosophy. And yet I still like Rand’s economic principles.
As such you should be aware Rand was a staunch Capitalist
and very combative against Socialism and Communism. Ayn Rand was born into
Czarist Russia in 1905. She endured the travesty of the Bolshevik (Communist)
Revolution. She managed to complete her education and find a way to get out of
the USSR in 1925 one year of graduating from a college in St. Petersburg (then
Petrograd – later Leningrad then back to St. Petersburg). Rand passed away
in America 3/6/1982. (Ayn Rand Lexicon bio)
I stumbled onto a lecture provided by Ayn Rand herself on
Capitalism:
This 1967 lecture is Ayn Rand’s
flagship talk on capitalism. In it she explains in depth what capitalism is,
why it is often misunderstood and why it is the only social system consonant
with man’s nature. She discusses the philosophical and ethical roots of
capitalism, and contrasts them with the moral-philosophic doctrines that lead
to rule by force. She then discusses progress under capitalism and how it is
fundamentally different from the so-called progress of a statist society. Along
the way, Rand takes up such questions as:
• What is the essence of man’s nature?
• What is the fundamental basis
for the concept of individual rights?
• How is capitalism consonant with
man’s nature? Why are other social systems not consonant with it?
• Why is serving “the common good”
not a sound principle for governing a free society?
• What are the different
perspectives on “the good,” and how do they inform people’s views on what
constitutes a proper social system?
• What has been the ethical basis
of all tyrannies in history?
• Who prospers on a free market?
• How does a free market unleash
man’s creative abilities?
• What is so often misunderstood
about progress under capitalism?
This talk is excerpted from Rand’s
substantially longer and more comprehensive essay of the same name. Students
interested in mastering Rand’s views on capitalism are encouraged to study the
full essay, available here, in addition to enjoying this course.
ARI offers educational experiences,
based on Ayn Rand's books and ideas, to a variety of audiences, including
students, educators, policymakers and lifelong learners. ARI also engages in
research and advocacy efforts, applying Rand's ideas to current issues and
seeking to promote her philosophical principles of reason, rational
self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism. We invite you to explore how Ayn
Rand viewed the world — and to consider the distinctive insights offered by
ARI's experts today.
The book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand was one of my favorite novel reads of all time. I first read the book in the 1980s; however the book was written in 1957 nearly one year after my birth (just in case you were interested). Here we are in 2011 and someone finally made the classic Ayn Rand novel into a movie.
Atlas Shrugged opened to audiences last weekend on a limited showing basis. It opened up to a mere 299 screens. The movie did so well that this weekend the total screens is moving up to “423+” screens according to a Tea Party Expressemail I received recently. The Atlas Shrugged movie site has a movie locator as to where the movie is playing. At the movie locator you type which State you live in then shows which cities a theatre can be located. I am pleased that Atlas Shrugged Part 1 is being showed in the State I reside! If you reside in the Tulsa area that theatre is the AMC located roughly on 41st and Yale area.
If you have ever read the book or are an Ayn Rand fan you will want to catch this movie. The book is loaded with Ayn Rand political philosophy which has been termed Objectivism. Objectivist philosophy is the creed for life for a huge amount of Libertarians.
Ayn Rand Objectivism
A full system of philosophy advocating reason and egoism has been defined in our time by Ayn Rand. It is the philosophy of Objectivism, presented in detail in Atlas Shrugged, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, and The Virtue of Selfishness. It is the antidote to the present state of the world. (All further quotations, unless otherwise identified, are from the works of Ayn Rand.)
Most philosophers have left their starting points to unnamed implication. The base of Objectivism is explicit: "Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists."
Existence and consciousness are facts implicit in every perception. They are the base of all knowledge (and the precondition of proof): knowledge presupposes something to know and someone to know it. They are absolutes which cannot be questioned or escaped: every human utterance, including the denial of these axioms, implies their use and acceptance.
The third axiom at the base of knowledge—an axiom true, in Aristotle's words, of … (READ THE REST at Ayn Rand Institute)
My old Libertarian days are what led me to Ayn Rand and two of my favorite novels in “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”. These are also the days in which I found the life renewing power of Salvation in Christ Jesus. As much as I began to love Objectivist Libertarianism I came across a concept that I could not reconcile to my new faith. Ayn Rand and here philosophy were atheistic. As much as Rand hated Communism and its precursor of Socialism, she also felt that religion was an illusion that stifled creativity and a productive existence. In my view subject faith in God is the foundation for all that exists. It is Christ Jesus and His Redemptive act that has reconciled the fallen nature of man to at-one-ment (atonement) with God Almighty, i.e. Right Standing with God or in Biblical terms I possess the Righteousness of God in Christ Jesus. There is no observable objectivity that can measure subjective faith and thus there is no objective way to disprove the existence of the Creator of all that exists. The best objectivity can do is to measure what can be observed and utilize logical assumptions that evolves into a conclusion based on the conjecture of those logical assumptions.
There are natural laws that are observable and codified as they are discovered. The Objectivist Philosopher, Scientist or Mathematician cannot comprehend supernatural laws because even when seen the occurrence cannot be measured as to the “why” or the “how” of the occurrence and so is classified under unknown or known by the conjecture of probabilities to attempt to explain the occurrence seen in the natural but has a supernatural law reason.
In natural law lift explains how an object maintains a stable trajectory without gravity forcing the object to the ground. Thus lift overrules gravity. In a similar way supernatural law overrules natural law as far as I can conjecture. That drives any person wholly dedicated to some form of Objectivist thinking entirely nuts.
Anyway, my line of thinking is what led me away from Objectivist Libertarianism. As cool as the freedom of free will is in Objectivist Libertarianism it is a godless philosophy. I simply cannot embrace the atheistic nature of this kind of Libertarianism which essentially leads to Moral Relativity which goes on to validate certain social acts and social lifestyles as good relative to the times and yet denying the foundation of Biblical Morality which exists because the Creator is the base line for morality that humanity should walk in.
And yet Ayn Rand’s philosophy incorporated with a foundation of faith has amazing possibilities for leading a productive and creative life before Christ returns in which an eternal existence would override the need to overcome the urges of a fallen human nature.
As such the movie Atlas Shrugged Part 1 should be a movie everyone should to drawn to view. If the movie is true to Ayn Rand’s book it will show how a Socialistic Collective society stifles innovation which also stifles Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I pray President Barack Hussein Obama watches this movie to get an understanding of what his concept of “Change” will lead America toward.
Here is a good summary of Atlas Shrugged the novel that should not give away the mystery of the movie.
Atlas Shrugged was Ayn Rand's greatest achievement and last work of fiction. In this novel she dramatizes her unique philosophy of Objectivism in an intellectual mystery story that integrates ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, politics, economics and sex.
Atlas Shrugged is a mystery story, Ayn Rand once commented, "not about the murder of man's body, but about the murder—and rebirth—of man's spirit." It is the story of a man—the novel's hero—who says that he will stop the motor of the world, and does. The deterioration of the U.S. accelerates as the story progresses. Factories, farms, and shops shut down or go bankrupt in ever larger numbers. Riots break out as food supplies become scarce. Is he, then, a destroyer or the greatest of liberators? Why does he have to fight his battle, not against his enemies but against those who need him most, including the woman, Dagny Taggart, a top railroad executive, whom he passionately loves? What is the world's motor—and the motive power of every man?
Peopled by larger-than-life heroes and villains, and charged with awesome questions of good and evil, Atlas Shrugged is a novel of tremendous scope. It presents an astounding panorama of human life—from the productive genius who becomes a worthless playboy (Francisco d'Anconia)—to the great steel industrialist who does not know that he is working for his own destruction (Hank Rearden)—to the philosopher who becomes a pirate (Ragnar Danneskjold)—to the composer who gives up his career on the night of his triumph (Richard Halley). Dramatizing Ayn Rand's complete philosophy, Atlas Shrugged is an intellectual revolution told in the form of an action thriller of violent events—and with a ruthlessly brilliant plot and irresistible suspense.
We do not want to spoil the plot by giving away its secret or its deeper meaning, so as a hint only we will quote here one brief exchange from the novel:
"If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater the effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders--what would you tell him to do?"
"I … don't know. What … could he do? What would you tell him?"
For those of you who have not read the book as yet but are considering to view Part One of the movie before you tackle the rather large Ayn Rand novel I leave you this teaser.
Normally we're not too focused on what movies are playing in local cinemas, but the release of Atlas Shrugged The Movie (based on Ayn Rand's monumental book) has become a seminal event in the tea party movement.
And we've got some good news to report to you on the success of this movie that has liberal film critics up in arms.
In its debut weekend, Atlas Shrugged surprised everyone, grossing more in ticket sales per movie screen than any other movie save the hit family movie, "Rio."
And this week, Atlas Shrugged expands - from 299 screens last weekend to 423+ screens this weekend. You can find the closest movie theater showing the film near you - FIND MOVIE THEATER HERE
The movie, like the book, serves as a wake up call to the dangers posed when governments take on too much power and subvert the will and freedom of the individual. Specifically, it showcases what happens when entrepreneurship and free market principles are deemed to be unseemly and unacceptable to Big Government.
When you watch the movie you'll feel like you could be watching the real-live events of today, not a fictionalized account written by Ayn Rand some 60+ years ago.
And the fact that this movie touches on many of the problems we face today, and that we in the tea party movement are fighting, explains why so many liberal movie critics have slammed this movie and urged people not to see it. They don't want you to see this movie, because they don't want you to see the truth about what is happening in America today.
·Michael Phillips, writing in the Los Angeles Times, complained about the film's "tea-stained politics."
·Peter Travers in RollingStones vented, "Who's the idiot responsible for this fiasco?"
·Roger Ebert gave the film just 1-star and whined: "And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault."
·Peter Debruge incorporated a swipe at Fox News Channel in his review for Variety, writing that: "...Atlas Shrugged" becomes a series of polite policy conversations interrupted by Fox News-style updates whenever exposition is called for..."
Yes, we get it, liberal film critics. You all can't stand free markets, and you can't stand that there is a film out there that echoes many of the same evils that the tea party movement here in America is fighting against.
You can see the movie for yourself this weekend, and in the process angry a Big Government, autocratic, liberal. Watch it again, even if you've already seen it once. Oh, and be sure to take a friend with you too.
To find the nearest cinema showing "Atlas Shrugged" - JUST CLICK HERE.
Paid for and authorized by the Our Country Deserves Better PAC/TeaPartyExpress.org, a federal political action committee, which is responsible for the content of this message. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee. Contributions are not tax detectable for tax purposes.
Ayn Rand’s demise had come and gone before her writings became part of my transformation from a lackadaisical Liberal to a Christian Right Conservative (indeed an evolving NeoConservative).
Now I say “lackadaisical Liberal” for I was never really virulent in spreading slanted Left Liberalism. What I felt was a combination of my parents and grandparents love of the Democratic Party due to action that appeared to end The Great Depression and a slight rebellious Baby Boomer affinity for anything anti-establishment. Clearly though I was never a radical believer of Leftist Liberalism. I guess I can compare my political affiliation to a great majority of Muslims that are devoted to Islam but are either ignorant or refuse to follow the violent tenets that are central to the Islamic Quran, Hadith and Sira. Those that the West would call or term “radical” Muslims are the ones that embrace the entire core of the Islamic Theo-Political ideology whether it is peaceful or violent depending of the need to spread Islam to a willing or unwilling people.
Jimmy Carter began my wake-up call concerning the Democrats and hence via progression Leftist Liberalism. In 1980 I was not completely sold on the Conservative Republican Ronald Reagan because of my background in anti-establishment Baby Boomerism. Hence my political votes were more of a protest against Democrats and Republicans. I voted Libertarian Party in the great State of Washington. In my mind in 1980 President Reagan was a nuke button pushing enthusiast willing to blow up the world to stop Communism. Take note that the craziness of Islam had not yet entered my mind even though American Embassy workers had been interned under the brutal conditions of the threat of death by Islamic Shi’ite Iranian Revolutionaries that for all intents and purposes gained control of Iran because of President Carter’s abandonment of American ally Shah Reza Pahlavi.
In my state of political flux, all things Libertarian in those days placed Ayn Rand on a pedestal. After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead I became a devoted fan of Rand. Rand’s Individualism and Objectivist philosophy (ARI explanation) ringed in my mind like a revelatory epiphany. It was like: “Eureka” I have found the gold to sustain me in this life.
The thing is Rand did me a favor by allowing my mind to examine myself introspectively. This introspectiveness led me to the true epiphany of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the dark world to bring all who believe into the Light of His Glorious Kingdom. First in the inner man followed by full redemption (spirit, soul and body) when the Christ Returns to establish His Kingdom on Earth. This will be the moment that a new Earth and a new Heaven will become one as Christ is one with all who believe and as Christ is One in the Godhead of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
The thing also is Rand’s philosophy is totally antagonistic toward religious faith. Randian Objectivism is Humanistic at its core. Hence I admire Randian philosophy especially in individualism yet I definitely do not embrace the Objectivist anti-faith portions. It is one reason today’s Libertarians can be fiscally Conservative yet socially and morally Leftist.
The inspiration for this walk down memory lane comes from Michael Huemer writing for CATO Unbound. Huemer posits both admiration and philosophical criticism for Ayn Rand’s thoughts which are totally different from my criticism. The one thing that caught my eye with Huemer’s essay is the observation that Ayn Rand’s writings seem to have a continuing cyclical peek of interest. I surmise the reason for this is that young people begin to have a political awakening about the political environment they coexist in. The emerging political mind which hopes to influence and to make a mark on that environment is drawn to Ayn Rand. This experience if political disaffection is what drew me to Rand.
Huemer believes people are continually drawn to Rand because she is remarkably readable as compare to other writers that espouse similar political philosophical thoughts in writing.
Regardless if you are a fan, critic or a bit of both of Ayn Rand, Michael Huemer’s essay will be of interest to you.
JRH 1/24/10 ********************************** Why Ayn Rand? Some Alternate Answers
What accounts for the continuing and increasing interest in the work of Ayn Rand? Clearly, the attraction of her ideas has much to do with it. This is true despite the fact that most people, even in America, are probably hostile to most of her philosophy. In a capitalist society, one need not please a majority in order to be successful; one need only find a market niche. There are enough individualists and libertarians in America to provide a strong market for Rand’s message.
Recent political developments have clearly contributed to interest in her political philosophy. But recent events do not change the actual relevance of Rand’s ideas, political or otherwise. The election of Barack Obama, for instance, changes little. There have been left-wing democrats for a long time, and there have been calls to socialize medicine for decades. The principles of individual rights are exactly as true as they have been throughout human history, and the nature of the opposition to those principles has changed little in the past few decades.
Contrary to the impression one might get from listening to “tea party” enthusiasts, things are probably getting better, from an individualist’s standpoint, in the medium to long term (on the scale of decades and centuries). A few centuries ago, “the divine right of kings” was taken seriously as a theory of political authority, and slavery was widely practiced. A century ago, half of the adult population of the United States could not vote. Half a century ago, that same half of the population was effectively barred, by collectivist cultural biases, from most professions, while individuals of African ancestry were segregated, both by law and by custom, from the white population. Ayn Rand characterized racism as “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.”[1] This crudest form of collectivism was not long ago embraced, explicitly and shamelessly, throughout American society. Of course, it is hardly gone today (new forms have arisen lately, such as that of ascribing collective guilt to light-skinned individuals), but who could deny that racism has passed its peak? And just a quarter century ago, the human race was still threatened by the Soviet Union, which sought to spread Marxist communism across the globe. Like racism, communism has not disappeared from the Earth entirely, but it has certainly had its time. All of this suggests to me that the perennial interest in Ayn Rand’s work has more to do with a trend toward individualism than with a reaction to collectivist trends.
This does not answer the question, which Professor Rasmussen has raised, of why Rand attracts more attention than other defenders of liberty, such as Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, or Frederic Bastiat. Here I must differ with Rasmussen. I don’t believe Bastiat, or any other of the well-known defenders of liberty, is nearly as accessible to a modern reader as Rand. Rand, I believe, is the most compelling writer of the group. More importantly, Rand was not only a philosopher, but a compelling novelist.
Some followers of Rand may scoff at this explanation. “No, it is all down to her philosophical ideas,” they may say. “Rand’s works outsell those of von Mises because she has a coherent, comprehensive philosophy!” I think Rasmussen’s suggestion is somewhere in this region as well—that Rand’s greater popularity is due to her connecting libertarian political philosophy with comprehensive ethical and meta-ethical theories. Let us consider the evidence. Atlas Shrugged outsells Human Action by a wide margin. As of this writing, the Amazon sales ranks are 101 and 16,331, respectively.[2] (Admittedly a limited measure, but still interesting.) But Atlas also outsells Rand’s own non-fiction books, by similarly wide margins. The Virtue of Selfishness trails at 11,993, with Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology all the way down at 120,117.[3] If the greater market success of Rand as compared with von Mises were due to Rand’s broader philosophy, wouldn’t we see this reflected in sales of Rand’s non-fiction works, in which she explicitly develops that philosophy?
The data fit another hypothesis: that the novel is a far more accessible and popular vehicle for communicating ideas than the monograph. The lesson for defenders of freedom seems clear. We need more novelists, screenwriters, and other artists.
But let us leave aside the matter of Rand’s literary success. What is the best way to defend freedom intellectually? Is it, as Rand believed, to connect the philosophy of individual rights to a version of ethical egoism, which in turn derives from the metaethical theory presented by Rand in “The Objectivist Ethics”?[4] I don’t think so. Objectivists seem to find that essay completely convincing. But hardly anyone else finds it at all convincing.
This is not a trivial observation—one often finds that people who do not accept a whole philosophical system nevertheless find certain parts of it plausible. And one often finds that people who are not ultimately persuaded by an argument nevertheless see some plausibility in it. But neither of these things is true of the argument of “The Objectivist Ethics”—hardly anyone finds that argument even slightly plausible, unless they also buy into virtually all of Ayn Rand’s views. This is not true of most of her other views: one would not be surprised to find a non-Objectivist who nevertheless thinks Rand’s political views are reasonable, or her epistemological views, or her aesthetic theories. The explanation is simple: the theory of “The Objectivist Ethics” is simultaneously the most distinctive and the least plausible, worst defended of all of Rand’s major ideas. (Here is a nicer way to say that: all of Rand’s other major theories are more plausible and better defended than that one.) I do not have space to detail the flaws in the article here; they require more lengthy discussion.[5] For now, just take as a sociological observation that few find the theory of that article plausible, even after reading the article.
There are two major reasons why the best hope for political freedom is not to connect it ideologically with Rand’s ethical and metaethical theories. The first is that those theories are utterly unconvincing to almost everyone—even less convincing than libertarianism. Connecting the two together serves only to discredit the cause of freedom and individual rights. It plays into the hands of those who say that the only opposition to socialism derives from greed and selfishness.
The second major reason is that ethical egoism does not support the philosophy of individual rights in the first place. Quite the opposite. Take Rasmussen’s statement of the basic individualist premise: “Each individual human being is an end in him or herself … not merely a means to the ends of others.” This is a very common idea in classical liberal writings. Nearly identical statements appear in Rand, in Nozick, and of course in Kant.[6] It is also, pace Rand, directly and obviously contrary to ethical egoism. For ethical egoism posits that the only thing that ought to matter intrinsically to me is my own welfare—for me, my own welfare or happiness is the only end in itself. It follows from this that I ought not to regard other individuals as ends in themselves; rather, I should see them only as means to my happiness—just as I see everything else in the world. This is a very simple and straightforward implication of the theory. I cannot hold my own well-being as the only end in itself, and simultaneously say that I recognize other persons as ends in themselves too.
One might say that each person is an end in himself only for himself—maybe the statement “Every individual is an end in himself, not a mere means to the ends of others” means only that each person should treat himself (but not anyone else) as an end in himself, and that no one should see himself as a means to the ends of others (but one should see everyone else as a means to one’s own ends). But this bizarre interpretation of the principle not only robs it of any intuitive plausibility; it also renders obscure its use in defending individual rights. The more straightforward interpretation of the individualist premise is that I must recognize other individuals as ends in themselves, not mere means to my ends. The straightforward argument for respecting individual rights is that when one violates another person’s rights, one uses that person without his consent, and one thus treats that person as if he were a mere means to one’s own ends. That argument, of course, could not be advanced by a true egoist, who must hold that it is obligatory to treat other persons (and everything else) as mere means to one’s own welfare.
At this point, most Objectivists fall back on the contention that, luckily, it is impossible for rational people’s interests to conflict. More particularly, that although it would be praiseworthy to use others for one’s own advantage if one should get the chance, opportunities are peculiarly scarce, so much so that there has never (or almost never) been a case in which anyone would have benefited by violating another person’s rights (for instance, by initiating the use of force against another). It would be truly wonderful if this could be proven. But actual arguments for this claim are unsurprisingly hard to come by, and it remains unclear why anyone would accept the claim, apart from a drive to reconcile Rand’s ethics with her politics. This issue has, of course, been discussed at great length among supporters and critics of Rand, and I have nothing especially new to add. I shall simply record my judgment that defenders of liberty are far more likely to convince others of the need to respect individual rights through the straightforward “persons are ends in themselves” argument mentioned above, than through an argument that relies upon (a) first convincing the audience that the right action is always the most selfish action, and (b) then convincing the audience that it is impossible to benefit from violating someone else’s rights.
It should be clear from this what I think remains alive in Rand’s political and moral thought, and what I think must be discarded. Her key insight is the principle of individual rights, that persons exist as ends in themselves, not mere resources for others to use, and that because of this, individuals may not initiate the use of force or fraud against one another. Rand saw clearly that this entails that capitalism is the only just economic system. Where she went wrong was in thinking that these crucial insights rested on an egoistic foundation. _______________________________ NOTES:
[1] The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), paperback ed., p. 126.
2] Source: www.amazon.com, January 14, 2010. Statistics are for the paperback edition of Atlas Shrugged (Plume, 1999), and the paperback edition of Human Action (Liberty Fund, 2010)—the most popular editions of each book. Amazon sales rank statistics vary widely from day to day. Nevertheless, the qualitative points here are fairly stable.
[3] From www.amazon.com, January 14, 2010. Statistics are for the Signet 1964 paperback edition of Virtue of Selfishness and the Plume 1990 paperback edition of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (again, the most popular editions of these books).
[4] pp. 13-35 in The Virtue of Selfishness, op. cit.
[5] See my “Is Benevolent Egoism Coherent?”, Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 3 (2002): 259-88; “Why I Am Not an Objectivist,” especially section 5 ; and especially “Critique of ‘The Objectivist Ethics’”, . One caveat: based on my experience, committed Objectivists will not find any of this at all convincing. But just about everyone else will.
