Reidy

Rand was onto this back in 1968. After Robert Kennedy was killed, a lot of his voters went over to Wallace, the lowbrow populist, and she observed that this should not surprise anybody: It is enormously significant that in many sections of the country (as indicated by a number of polls) former followers of the late Senator Robert F. Kennedy are switching their support to George Wallace. At a superficial glance, this may appear to be a contradiction, since these two figures seem to represent exact opposites in their political views. But, in fact, it is not a contradiction: in terms of fundamentals, both Robert Kennedy and George Wallace are "activists" - i.e., men who proposed (and clearly project the intention) to take direct action, action by the use of physical force, to solve problems or to achieve (unspecified) goals. In this sense, both of these leaders are symptomatic of a country's intellectual and cultural disintegration, of the ugly despair which seizes people when - disillusioned in the power of ideas, abandoning reason - they seek physical force as their last resort. Most of the voters who liked Wallace eventually came home and voted for Humphrey. If the parallels hold, this predicts that most Kennedy supporters and a fair number of Trump supporters will come home to Biden.

(At the risk of rousing sleeping dogs) What ever happened to EC? Did his numerous enemies finally get to him?

Branden said, far more credibly, that the word he used was "absolutist" and that Ellis misheard him. He cited the misunderstanding as evidence that Ellis was philosophically illiterate, since anyone with an elementary knowledge of philosophy would know that Branden would never say that.

Lots of material about the debate or, more broadly, about the issues between them: albert ellis nathaniel branden debate - Search (bing.com) albert ellis nathaniel branden debate - Google Search

Probably not. They had a contract whereby either one could veto written or recorded dissemination of the contents, and Branden chose to invoke his veto, explaining his reasons in The Objectivist. Branden also said that Is Objectivism a Religion was the material Ellis prepared for the debate, so it should give a good idea of his thinking on the topic.

#3, The gentle push, is a technique Peter Keating used in order to get rid of a rival. He even lined up a client for his rival.

This is easy to test. See if rates in the US are lower a year from now.

Yaron Brook took this up on his show, expanding on Necrovore's point that real estate agents are a cartel, held in place by licensing laws. Market failure had nothing to do with it. He predicts that commissions will go way down in the short run, because there are too many agents, then go up to 4% or 5%.

Did Rand inspire you to put a portrait of Kant on the wall?

She lived her first 8 years in the US in LA and another 8-year stretch (way out in the country) several years later. Manhattan is not what stopped her from driving.

You might be able to find The Objectivist in a library, perhaps through interlibrary loan. The link at online in my previous post leads to some other sources for the article. CORRECTION: Turns out you can buy it: The Objectivist (1966-1971) (Hardcover) – The Ayn Rand Institute eStore

The Objectivist ran a 4-part article "Biology Without Consciousness - and its Consequences" by Robert Efron, a physician / neuroscientist, in 1968. (He's apparently still in practice.) It's available, paywalled, online, presumably the text that ran in The Objectivist. I gather that an Objectivist would say consciousness is an activity of a person and that a functioning nervous system is a necessary condition of this activity.

Shirts on the left, sorted left to right from least to most recently washed. Pants on the right, sorted in the same sequence. Continuing to the right, around the corner: washed but not ironed, then worn but not yet ready for the laundry, neither in any special order.

Ann Coulter came up with a great line: "'Pro-life' is the 'defund the police' of the GOP".

The recent moves by big donors away from donating to universities (e.g.) is interesting, for one reason, because it's just what Rand was advising decades ago. She said it as far back as the 60s. Here's an example from 1982.