Kantardjiev

This needs to be answered by science and not philosophers. A significant number of studies show that the "success" of one culture economically is not genetic. Jewish people don't have a significant advantage because of some gene the rest of us are missing. That is rediculous. What is feasible is the nurture aspect of it. You can't expect a child in the ghetto without any guidance from parents, who has never been held accountable by teachers, parents, friends or any other authority to turn around and expect that the answer to his life is in math, science and literature. That is a fairly mature concept that takes most people until they are in college to realize. They at that point have the opinion that it is too late for them, which is another immature conclusion - anyway. Don't take it as if I'm a believer in a welfare state, just the opposite, but what I am saying is that different races have unique cultures that develop within their communities. This culture changes throughout time. It is an ever evolving process. Some day lethargy might be a characteristic of the Jewish culture or an Asian culture and it will be blacks that will realize that they have opportunities that they have never taken and that they individually need to hold themselves accountable and responsible for the welfare of their children and the way they grow up. They can't wait for the state to save them and it DOES NOT TAKE A VILLAGE TO RAISE A CHILD. I happen to be an immigrant in a heavily black neighborhood. My house is essentially a fortress, but because of proper guidance and a focus on books I have achieved a lot. It is much more about nurture. What government can do is institute programs that instead of hand welfare over to people, reform the educational system and provide standards where people have a flat tax incentive to have their children achieve educational success (just an example, but you get the idea of having the standardized set of tests twice a year that lead to tax benefits, again just an example). The one thing that history has told us is that poor people will not stay poor forever. Cultures, societies always rise from the ashes of oppression and poverty and always do it through either revolution or generational improvements. Just ask every great American industrialist of the last two centuries that came from nothing. This country was built on these people and on changing ambition on a grand scale. Our governments job is to stay as much as possible out of it, but if they are able to foster improvement. As long as this country provides the opportunity to rise vertically you can only blame yourself for the life you have led. I would recommend being careful of racial/cultural biases. A hundred years ago the bias was against the Irish and the Italians. Clearly those two groups are not any less intelligent than other groups in this culture. The idea that Polish people are not as intelligent, or that blacks are not as intelligent does not make a whole lot of sense. The only way that can have come about is through a natural selection process that seperated less intelligent mates, but for that to be evident scientifically it would take thousands of years to be displayed. Regardless there has been so much genetic mixing in the history of humanity that no one can say they are pure blood. I'm Bulgarian and I may be from two Bulgarian parents, but I know that I have at least a dozen other blood lines. Now, what I'm curious about is characters like Eddie Willers. Many of you have said he is a slightly more average guy. He clearly was not concidered a love interest by Dagny because either he was not intelligent enough or maybe he wasn't confident enough etc. But if it is genetics that said that he wasn't brilliant enough to invent a new metal or create a brilliant symphonic composition, what does that say about his happiness. Does it have reproductive and thus genetic consequences? Most of the people in this forum are fairly intelligent ambitious (at one time or another) people, but are they concidered the leaders of the USA. Are the people who are our economic, political, social leaders more intelligent, have they worked harder? Do they have the pick of the opposite sex? The most intelligent man or woman as well as attractive and ambitious? Is it a formula of what one puts, one gets out? I'm going off on a bit of a tangent but it is a vital question that I must answer in my own life.

given, but i was thinking of a more modern remake. Something maybe that wasn't four hours long and in enlgish.

Most definitely an interesting quote, but for me personally I was most interested in the psychological problems and internal struggles that Communism forced rather than looking for precursors to her later books. The book was incredibly sad and emotional. My own escape from Communism (and the emotions that comes with those risks) was my reference point and probably why I was so moved by the book. However, this book is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. It has plot flaws (early on at least) that aren't plastered over by memorable quotes and theory, like some of Rand's later books. I often felt frustrated with Leo's character and as much as I despised Andrei and his position, his personality (which really showed in the second half of the book) and attitude towards the woman he loves was far more similar to me than anything Leo showed. If you remember Leo and Kira met in a street, while he was looking for a tramp. He ends the book calling her just that and rarely realizes the sacrifices she has made for him. Too often Leo is willing to accept himself as a victim. Another instance that really annoyed me was the purchase of the royal porcelain. Interesting metaphor, but in general his lack of care for money made me hate him more than any other character in the book outside of Victor. As the traitor, Victor is the psychological extreme, he has accepted rule by hunger and will do anything to succeed in the life he is given. He is perfectly malleable while the individualists are far more stiff (and to further the metaphor) with Leo being brittle. As a side note, Victor is not unique. One of the greatest psychological pressures people faced under Communism was paranoia about what is thought of you and who is looking over your shoulder. This manifests in hate for neighbors relatives and distances people from their community. I would love if there was someone that lived in Poland pre 1990 could touch on this subject. This mental metallurgical spectrum of mine, really leads the question to Rand’s own mind. She says that the book is essentially an autobiography of her inner emotions and personality in the form of Kira. From this I see Dagny as the epitome of Rand’s beliefs but as the final evolution of Rand from a flawed Kira in 1936. These are of course my reactions to the characters. I should mention that their imperfections are what I really enjoyed about the novel. Without their unique personalities the reader would miss the chance to glimpse into the mind of individualists in a Soviet state and see how their minds are affected by the state. Of all her books I've read, this one I think would make the best movie.