He is too impatient to toil slowly through the years for the things he wants. Too uncompromising to succeed in the way of the popular men who know how to get along with those in power. Too intolerant to “get along” with anybody. Too passionate not to burn with disgust for life as he sees it and with humiliation at not being above the mob, crushing it under his feet, giving it orders instead of trying to satisfy it, of crawling before it for its good graces. He is unable to understand how he can act and live as an equal with those he knows to be inferior to him, those he despises and had a right to despise.

For the record, that was Ayn Rand talking about (one of?) her favorite serial killers, who became the basis for a character in an unfinished novel, about whom she wrote: "[he] is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

You are taking this completely out of context, and it is a dishonest slander of the lowest kind.

As evidence (to anyone else reading---no point in dealing with dishonesty), I present Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, and Objectivism.

Ayn Rand is the only modern philosopher who can even present a reality-oriented reason not to partake in a life of crime. i.e., a reason not based on religion or appleal to emotion or simple common sense (though common sense is also correct on this issue and worth having).

I'm not sure what sort of context can explain away this real-life Randian superman. (and it's interesting that you mention Rand and crime and the Fountainhead, given that Howard Roark blew up Courtlandt Homes with dynamite)

This is some interesting reading that goes deeper into Rand's writing: http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-c... All these are Rand's own words: "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."

And in regards to Hickman's jury: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

"Other people have no right, no hold, no interest or influence on him. And this is not affected or chosen -- it's inborn, absolute, it can't be changed, he has 'no organ' to be otherwise. In this respect, he has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel'other people.' "

"He shows how impossible it is for a genuinely beautiful soul to succeed at present, for in all [aspects of] modern life, one has to be a hypocrite, to bend and tolerate. This boy wanted to command and smash away things and people he didn't approve of."

> I'm not sure what sort of context can explain away this real-life Randian superman. (and it's interesting that you mention Rand and crime and the Fountainhead, given that Howard Roark blew up Courtlandt Homes with dynamite)

Well, if you want to be sure, read The Fountainhead and Atlash Shrugged.

The Fountainhead is actually an explicit repudiation of Neitzche (though it is more than that).

There is a Nietzschean hero in the book---and he is driven almost to suicide, and is completely destroyed.

Rand greatly admired one aspect of Hickman: that he wasn't influenced by other people; he was fully himself. The actual hero of The Fountainhead is like that, but rather than being a destructive parasite (of self and others), he uses his independence to achieve real goals and values in life in a way that does not vicitimize anyone.

He did blow up Cortlandt Homes; importantly, nobody was in the building and nobody was harmed, and he did it because the plans for the building were essentially stolen from him. He does it to make a point, which he does make.