Understanding Ayn Rand through the music of Rush

Modern rock pioneers Rush not only produce some of the hardest rocking tunes ever recorded, they also are pioneers when it comes to infusing rock music with deep insight into the natures of human behavior. The band consists of guitarist Alex Lifeson, deeply crooning singer/bass & keyboard player Geddy Lee, and drummer/lyricist Neil Peart. Peart is mostly known for his wildly improvisational, jazz-inspired drumming technique, but he plays an even greater role as the person who has single handedly brought the power of Ayn Rand's Objectivism to a level that can be understood by even the most stereotypically ignorant, drug-addled teen.

Ayn Rand's highly influential Objectivism is a deep topic, and her purely philosophical writings on it are quite dense. Realizing this, she took on the task of translating her thoughts into the realm of fiction in order to make it more accessible to the general public. Unfortunately, the task still proved formidable, and two of her resulting books totaled over 1,000 pages each. The complex nature of what she advocates even dictated that she spend the final 50 some-odd pages of Atlas Shrugged reiterating everything she had spent the previous 1,000 pages explaining. Thankfully, Neil Pert was up to the task of reinterpreting her work for her in layman's language.

Live for yourself, there's no one else
More worth living for
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will
Only cry out for more
Rush - Anthem

With that one verse Peart has reached deep into the very core of what is important in Objectivism. Utilizing the power and reach of rock music, he and his bandmates have taught us much of what being an Objectivist is really all about. But how is it that a humble drummer was capable of such a feat? Quite simply, it was due to his environment. You see, Rush is a Canadian band, and as such they know first hand how the forces of socialism can destroy all that is important in man. Why this skill developed solely in Peart and not Lifeson or Lee is due to Peart's journey to England when he was eighteen. It was there that he first came to truly understand how important Objectivism is, utilizing the excessive governmental involvement in daily life prevalent in England as a catalyst for his enlightenment.

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their pleas.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade?

There is trouble in the Forest
And the creatures all have fled
As the Maples scream 'Oppression!'
And the Oaks, just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
'These oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light.'
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet,
Ax,
And saw.
Rush - The Trees

Indeed, we are kept down with hatchet, ax and saw. This parable clearly underscores how the small people continue to force those graced with power and influence to bend to the will of those who are not worthy, resorting to violence rather than reason to have their way. The music of Rush asks: Which are you? A noble oak, rising towards the sun, or a weak maple, whining about the unfairness of it all rather than bettering yourself through improved photosynthesis and nutrient gathering? The implied inferiority of the maple, national tree of Canada, is clearly intentional and represents Peart's dissatisfaction his socialist homeland.

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still haven't made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.
Rush - Free Will

Lyrics such as these are the basic essence of Objectivism. Free will. The power to change your destiny should you so choose. Total rejection of the idea that some people are born into situations from which they cannot rise out of without help. Another line from the above song goes, "Blame is better to give than receive". No greater sarcastic truism has ever been uttered. The simple truth of the world is that absolutely each and every person who finds themselves in difficult circumstances is there as a result of their own actions. This is what Objectivism teaches us, that those who have problems deserve no help because it is all their fault anyway.

Of course those who are the little people among us are not content taking responsibility for their own failings, choosing instead to blame their problems on "phantom fears" like global economics, abuse of power, and the inherent inequality of capitalism due to its rewarding of greed above all else. This would be fine if there weren't so many of them, but that is not the case. Those who are accepting of their inherent inferiority outnumber us in such great numbers that they actually are able to influence world events. As a result, our politicians are forced to enact destructive socialist programs like retirement benefits, public transportation and health care for the indigent.

However, we now have hope. In addition to Ayn Rand's scholarly and deeply thoughtful writings, we also have a means of making the truth understood to the masses. The music of Rush can be a highly effective tool for spreading the word of Rand. By combining high level philosophy with the power of primitive rhythm and repetitious melody, we finally have an effective tool for convincing the less perceptive among us that our cause is right and that getting in our way is extremely counterproductive. By further simplifying our message we will finally succeed in teaching the meek that the earth is not theirs to inherit, but should either be seized with force or surrendered to those who are stronger.

	Well said! (3.00 / 2) (#2)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 06:35:35 AM PST

	It must be the biggest problem in the world today - most people's inability to take responsibility for their situation. We live in a world of unparalleled oppertunity, but most people are content to whine about their problems and try and drag down the people who've worked hard for their success. Starting circumstance means nothing these days - my family wasn't what you'd call rich, but I've worked hard and now I've got a good job and a future. If the whiners spent more time working and less time complaining they'd have a future too. I was just about to give up on adequacy after that AOL article. You've convinced me to give it another chance! Keep looking for John Galt! David Jatt

	Red Barchetta has always spoken to me (3.00 / 2) (#3)
	by typical geek on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 06:48:21 AM PST

	about the insane, tightly controlled society we would live in if certain left leaning politicians had their way. Indeed, "The motor laws" indeed are something I would fight tooth and nail against, knowing that I have my car and my freedom to drive anywhere gives me great comfort as an American. gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

	How can we forget the Temples of Syrinx? (3.66 / 3) (#4)
	by bc on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 07:12:55 AM PST

	Easily one of my favourite Rush songs, it is a blast against Soviet style abdication of personal responsibility for one's own life. Lets have a wee look at the lyrics: And the meek shall inherit the earth... This may seem like an uncharacteristic opening, but it is actually sung with a whiny sarcasm, so the opposite is clearly intended. We've taken care of everything The words you hear, the songs you sing The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes It's one for all, all for one We work together, common sons Never need to wonder how or why Brilliant. Here they rail against the choices that are enforced in a socilaist style of government - everyone is forced to listen to the same songs, words, everything is decided by central government and Rush expose the pathos of this. Onto the rocking main chorus, which is repeated many times: We are the priests Of the Temples of Syrinx Our great computers Fill the hollowed halls We are the priests Of the Temples of Syrinx All the gifts of life Are held within our walls Stunning prescience! They forsee the entire GNU movement, and have correctly recognised that computers are used by 'priests' (the only people who can understand them) to further leftivist social agendas. Rush should be praised for all time for their ability to fortell the future like this. Look around this world we made Equality our stock in trade Come and join the brotherhood of man Oh what a wide contented world Let the banners be unfurled Hold the red star proudly high in hand An amazing parody of socialist propaganda. To hear them attack and parodise the socialist's attempt's to rewrite history is an emotional moment. But now to the emotional epiphany, the point of catharsis, the chorus once more: We are the priests Of the Temples of Syrinx Our great computers Fill the hollowed halls We are the priests Of the Temples of Syrinx All the gifts of life Are held within our walls I'd really like to put the lyrics to this song on a T-Shirt. They encapsulate what the GNU Software 'freedom' movement is really all about. ♥, bc.

	Ah yes, 2112 (5.00 / 1) (#7)
	by zikzak on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:14:11 AM PST

	And the conclusion, where a powerful, computerish sounding voice booms with, "Attention all planets of the Solar Federation! We have assumed control!" Absolutely chilling! Moments such as these are what makes Rush such profound and highly original artists. Sure, the whole concept may come off like a simplistic, tired rehashing of topics already beaten to death by people like Orwell, Huxley, Ira Levin, etc., but Rush put it to music! Wow!

	Heh, that's right (5.00 / 1) (#9)
	by bc on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:21:23 AM PST

	I forgot about the computer voice at the end, I haven't heard that album in an age. But yes. it is chilling. It depicts how a closed group of socialists with an elitist and exclusive grasp of certain knowledge (computing) can assume control of an entire society (similar to how a certain class of middle class beaureucrats siezed Russia in 1917). Top stuff, if scary. ♥, bc.

	Please do not compare software with politics. (none / 0) (#12)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 10:20:46 AM PST

	I have seen you do this before, and it makes no sense whatsoever. The so-called "free software movement" is not "socialist" by any means, becuase nobody is holding a gun to your head to adopt free software. The government, on the other hand, is authorized to use deadly force to sell its product, and of course this is the #1 requirement of true socialist institutions, i.e. welfare, public education, social security, etc.

	If they arrest you at the behest of a corporation, (none / 0) (#13)
	by elenchos on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 10:50:31 AM PST

	what's the difference? And since the government sub-contracts police, prison, military and covert functions, what sense is there in even bothering with the find distinction between public and private? It's either governement serving corporations or corporations serving government. And all working towards the same goals, i.e. not the good of the people. And why use force when you can embrace and extend? It works for Microsoft, and so why shouldn't it work for the GPL? I think you are mistaking MS for an individualist enterprise. They're not. The whole Microsoft strategy is essentially collectivist and ultimately leads to a stricly Soviet-style outcome of one monolithic public-private company that controls an entire sector of the economy. The GPL is the same, but works from the bottom up rather than the top down. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Clarification (none / 0) (#14)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 12:11:38 PM PST

	what's the difference? I already said it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head to use free software, just as nobody is holding a gun to your head to use commercial software, or to use a computer at all. This is what defines the free market -- the absence of force. Government institutions, on the other hand, require the use of force. The legal contract, as you pointed out, may be enforced by government agencies. Still, nobody can legally force you to sign a contract, and this is why comparing software licenses to socialism makes no sense whatsoever. Note that I'm not debating free software vs commercial software here; I'm merely stating that comparing a software license to a political agenda is a ridiculous proposition.

	I'm not free to write and sell cracking tools. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
	by elenchos on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 12:30:42 PM PST

	The corporations don't like it if I do that. They use money to hire lobbyists and fund political campaigns to get congress to write the laws that favor them in the marketplace. These are not just little bureaucratic traffic-cop laws. These are criminal laws where the FBI kicks in your door with guns drawn and will blow your head off if the think for a second you will resist. How can you call that an absence of force? Obviously the natural consequence of a free market is the creation of corporations rich enough to manipulate the government into using deadly force to protect their established market position. And what if there is no government around to do their dirty work? Then they just hire their own private cops and mercenaries, as in colonialist times, or in many parts of the third world today (Indonesia, Africa, etc.). It seems to me my best hope is to take control of the government back from the corporations and use it against them. Or would you suggest I try to take over AOL? I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	RE: No default RE? (none / 0) (#19)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 04:22:37 PM PST

	Please refer to my post above, "another point".

	Three cheers (none / 0) (#28)
	by deinosLJ on Tue Aug 28th, 2001 at 06:38:21 PM PST

	Free Skylarov!!!!! seriously, the issues brought to bear by the DMCA make plain exactly the circumstances we are talking about: a large multi-national conglomerate acts legally as a person, and pursues goals relevant to it's own self interest. Libertarian ideals, while lofty, place the power taken from corrupt goverments and place it directly into the hands of corrupt, well understood publicly traded companies.

	Other neo-Fascist tree symbolism crap... (4.66 / 3) (#8)
	by elenchos on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:15:20 AM PST

	...Can be found in Ken Kesey's Sometimes A Great Notion. You know, the same above the lowlies stuff with a proud pine reaching for the heavens, fighting off the simpering collectivist Wobblies. The cool thing about Kesey, in contrast to a self-indulgent, one-dimensional writer of bodice-rippers like Rand, is that he realized there is this Freudian inner conflict between the little Nazi in our heads and the human being. The rugged individualist Hank Stamper and his liberal weenie half-brother Leland, in Great Notion, are drawn directly from the two directions that Kesey's own life moves in. Unlike Rand, who just wanted to get boned by a Real Man, Kesey is trying to reconcile what are two genuinely valid inner experiences. He also recognizes that much of this boyish macho posturing comes from a need for validation in the eyes of a mythic father figure. More generally, it shows that for a libertarian (or libertarian-leaner) to not come off looking like a wanker, the crucial ingredient is LSD (or perhaps heroin). Compare Kesey, Hunter S. Thompson, Mojo Nixon, and Ted Nugent with sexually naught figures like Camille Paglia, Rand and her cuckolded lovers, or the supremely frustrated and envious (and ambiguous) young men who gravitate to her novels of female fantasy today. Clearly, this unexpressed need to measure up to the standards of a dominant male can be brought out and accepted in a healthy way with the aid of psychoactives, but turning to fiction that asks the reader to identify with a horny and unsatisfied Catherine the Great archetype is asking for nothing but trouble. I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	Another point... (none / 0) (#15)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 12:20:11 PM PST

	Microsoft would not have been able to abuse its position in the first place if not for an overly complex and biased legal system. In other words, government is the problem, not the solution.

	Corporatism and collectivism (5.00 / 1) (#18)
	by etm on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 03:15:11 PM PST

	I think you are mistaking MS for an individualist enterprise. They're not. The whole Microsoft strategy is essentially collectivist and ultimately leads to a stricly Soviet-style outcome of one monolithic public-private company that controls an entire sector of the economy. An excellent point. Randites bray and bray about capitalistic individualism, completely overlooking the fact that the modern multinational corporation they often find themselves defending is about as collectivist a form of organization as exists in the modern world. On a multinational scale each one might as well be it's own Internationale, and has all the same conspiratorial trappings - although note that Marx's International was open and made almost all documents, from financial to the minutes of their meetings, public. All members of a corporation are insignificant and expendable, and their own drives must be realigned or consumed by the collective drive of the company to raise profits and please shareholders, no matter the cost. At the top sits a Great Leader and his Party elite, whom, if too many of the Five Year Plans fall through, are equally as expendable. Of the affinity between the internal economy of a diversified multinational and the Soviets' central planning, Alec Nove has this to say in his excellent book The Soviet Economic System: .. before jumping to the conclusion that the 'market' solution is all that is needed, one must remember the existence of large Western corporations, whose internal interlinks are administered. This suggests that the problem is more complicated. Let us take as an example the American chemicals corporation, DuPont. Its turnover is analagous to that of the Soviet Ministry of Chemical Industry, and they make many of the same things. What is the decision-making power of a manager of a plant within DuPont, or of the top man in one of DuPont's divisions in charge of particular groups of products or activities (glavki? all-union obyedineniya? These are possible analogies). Is the manager within DuPont the possessor of greater powers over output, investment and price decisions than his Russian opposite number? Very little empirical research has been done on this, but I suspect from admittedly inadequate evidence that the answer is: there is not much difference in the two situations. If DuPont is more efficient, if it is able to ensure that its component parts perform in line with the intentions of its top management, this is not achieved by market-decentralization within the organization.

	My experience under the great red boot (none / 0) (#17)
	by etm on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 02:51:11 PM PST

	Brilliant. Here they rail against the choices that are enforced in a socilaist style of government - everyone is forced to listen to the same songs, words, everything is decided by central government No kidding. The transparently Communist-inspired CRTC has long mandated that radio and television must have a fixed percentage of so-called "Canadian Content", or risk being delicensed. As a result I was forced to endure innumerable shitty Rush tunes and videos by the state in my youth.

	The Trees (4.20 / 5) (#5)
	by finn on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 07:52:41 AM PST

	I'm going to go out on a limb (PNI) and suggest that "The Trees" is more about Canadian ("the maples") desires for a more influential position in global politics ("more sunlight"). It's obviously a rant against the dominance of Britain ("the oaks") in global politics. The descriptions of the "oaks" is obviously simply the stereotypes of British culture ("They say the oaks are just too lofty And they grab up all the light. But the oaks can't help their feelings If they like the way they're made.") The fact that they are written in terms of trees is obviously an indication of the tree-hugging tendencies of Canadians (also evidenced by the creation of Greenpeace). The last verse is obviously a thinly veiled threat against the integrity of Britain ("And the trees are all kept equal By hatchet, Ax, And saw.") Also note the use of "noble law" - obviously a slur based on the stereotypical view of the British being more aristocratic ("noble") than the rest of the world. Honestly, I had no idea that Canadians felt jealous of the British stature in International Politics. ----------

	Sp the Randite link explains Greenspan? (none / 0) (#10)
	by typical geek on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:44:32 AM PST

	This explains an awful lot about noted Randite and Fed comptroller Alan Greenspan, and his fear of irrational exuberance. Obviously, being under Rand's wing he learned his role is to be the cuckhold, and not the one to come to orgasm. Fine and dandy in the bedroom, but when your actions nip the internet boom in the bud, well, don't count me as a consenting adult. gcc is to software freedom as guns are to personal freedom.

	Woo hoo! (none / 0) (#11)
	by elenchos on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 09:58:36 AM PST

	He knows no seed of his will ever come to fruition, and he wants everyone else to take the same cold showers he does. Get that Federal Reserve Chairman a little blonde honey and some Viagra! I do, I do, I do --Bikini Kill

	This is the best article I've seen here (none / 0) (#20)
	by motherfuckin spork on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 04:49:59 PM PST

	As a long-time Rush fan, I've used them, and in particular Neil's lyrics, to make various points, or as the subject of entire reports I've been required to write while in both high school and later in college. The combination of deep, thought-provoking lyrics with virtuoso-class musicianship was always very appealing to me. thank you for both writing and posting such a thought-provoking article to match the style of the band itself. -MFS I am not who you think I am.

	Free Will (none / 0) (#21)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 07:18:56 PM PST

	In Free Will it's "If you choose not to decide, you still HAVE made a choice.

	What about Quebec? (none / 0) (#22)
	by em on Wed Aug 22nd, 2001 at 07:44:53 PM PST

	The implied inferiority of the maple, national tree of Canada, is clearly intentional and represents Peart's dissatisfaction his socialist homeland. The greatest maple producing region in the world is Quebec. So-called "Canada" has a tradition of stealing from the brave Qu�becois; "Canada" was the original name for Quebec, which the Anglos appropriated; maple was originally a symbol of Quebec too, and again ,the Anglos appropriated this. The Qu�becois were the first to bring Westernn civilization to the northen reaches of North America; the Anglos then came over and claimed the fruits of their efforts for themselves. Thus, the meaning of this battle between the oaks and the maples is clearly the events that took place in 1979, when the Parti Qu�becois came to power and started the modern Quebec independence movement. These spoiled little boys from Toronto simply can't accept the idea that the Qu�becois are a separate society, and the song is little more than a whine about Quebec independence. Vive le Quebec livre, 'sti! --em Associate Editor, Adequacy.org

	you're kidding, right? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 10:55:25 AM PST

	Ayn Rand, the greatest philosopher* of the 20th century. Most philosophers wouldn't give Ayn Rand the time of day. Rand pretty much fits outside serious philosophical study. If you want to argue greatest* philosopher of the 20th century, at least give us Heidigger, Wittgenstein, Foucault, or Derrida. Heck, even Deleuze wouldn't be a bad choice.

	Have you actually read any real philosophers? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 12:30:50 PM PST

	Most philosophers wouldn't give Ayn Rand the time of day. Rand pretty much fits outside serious philosophical study. If you want to argue greatest philosopher of the 20th century, at least give us Heidigger, Wittgenstein, Foucault, or Derrida. Heck, even Deleuze wouldn't be a bad choice. Heh. Most serious philosophers would rate Rand rather higher than they would Derrida or Foucalt. While Rand certainly had her problems (you would have to be an idiot not to see them), she was at least committed to logic and reason. Derrida and Foucalt, and their vast army of diciples and yes-men, seemed on the other hand only committed to accruing vast quantities of funding and support, patting each other on the back, and (eventually) to vanishing up their solipsistic relativist backsides. David Jatt

	amen brother (none / 0) (#26)
	by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 11:45:43 PM PST

	Somebody had to point it out. I weep for the poor children getting spoonfed these pomo charlatans by the tenured ghouls of academia. They're going to make life very difficult for the rest of us when the shit hits the fan. Rand's still a fuckin hack though.

	My favorite... (none / 0) (#31)
	by Rand Race on Thu Aug 30th, 2001 at 02:46:08 PM PST

	... description of Foucalt: The velvet hand in an iron glove; asks all the hard questions but doesn't stick around to answer any of them. No mo pomo! And shouldn't Whitehead and Russell make that list?

	no wonder. (none / 0) (#29)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 29th, 2001 at 04:47:05 AM PST

	<p>Rand admits only Aristotle as an intellectual predecessor. Essentially, she's saying, "Hey, you philosophers. Everything after Aristotle is crap, I will get Philosophy back on the right track!" <p>Regardless if you're right or wrong, that ain't going to make the philosophers like you. Unfortunately, since Objectivists feel that they're sanctioning everyone they haven't directly insulted, they insult a lot of people.

	Better look up pretentious... (none / 0) (#32)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Oct 5th, 2001 at 02:42:41 PM PST

	You cite Rush as pretentious then move on to ELP and Yes as sterling examples of the genre. Talk about pretentious. Musicians the world over lay at the feet of Alex Lifeson, Neil Peart, and Geddy Lee. Combined they've been awarded the top in polls for every major music magazine out there (Guitar Player, Modern Drummer, Bass Player, etc.), more than any other band. If you're interested in shite, try the stuff spewing from your mouth.

	Cool, a Rush thread. (3.66 / 3) (#25)
	by Josh Everist on Thu Aug 23rd, 2001 at 02:55:02 PM PST

	Just for that, I'll create an account here and post something. Rush has been my favorite band since I was 15 - the year Signals came out. If you don't own that one get it - Subdivisions should be the Official Geek Anthem. I partially disagree with the authors assertion - that Rush only advocated personal responsibility and a Rand-style philosophy. They also advocated over and over in their music that we each pitch in and build an ideal society. They were Randians, true, but they were also very much Utopians. Check out Closer to the Heart, which calls people from all walks of life(philosophers and plowmen) to build a dream society. Check out the entire side one of Hemispheres - it advocates a society based on the balance of love and reason. They stick up for the little guy in Subdivisions, and rail against corporatism in Big Money. So in fairness, Rush didn't just write Darwinian, every-man-for-himself music based on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. They did strongly advocate personal freedom and responsibility and thinking for oneself. However they also urged all us individuals to pitch in and create a great society.

	Oh, come on! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
	by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 24th, 2001 at 11:22:49 PM PST

	Rush is utter, utter shit. Unimaginative, derivative second-generation prog-rock hogwash. People nowadays have enough sense to throw Styx in the wastebin where they belong; why can't you idiots do the same for these equally pretentious, talentless ignoramuses? They merely try to carbon-copy the overindulgent stylings of early 70's prog-rock like Yes or ELP, except unlike either of those bands, Rush utterly lack anything near the instrumental prowess of Steve Howe or Keith Emerson to make the music anything approaching enjoyable. Get some taste in music.

	hey! (none / 0) (#30)
	by Anonymous Reader on Wed Aug 29th, 2001 at 04:57:51 AM PST

	I think the movie "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" is about you! Were you an extra?

	John Galt is my bitch. (none / 0) (#33)
	by StAnthonysKidnapper on Sun Jul 21st, 2002 at 06:30:04 PM PST

	It was previously my impression that the only known Rush fans remaining were the same freaks who still listen to Journey, or the same weirdos who only come to the surface once or twice a year for Objectivist seminars. this article only demonstrates that assumption. The music of Rush can be a highly effective tool for spreading the word of Rand. By combining high level philosophy with the power of primitive rhythm and repetitious melody, we finally have an effective tool for convincing the less perceptive among us that our cause is right and that getting in our way is extremely counterproductive. the music of Rush has hardly an impact on anything because not only is it awful, but it hasn't been popular in at least a decade (given this article is a year old). and when it was popular, you had to be white, and heavily endeared to middle-class ideals in order to identify with the lyrics at all, thus emasculating whatever outreach power the music might have. and then the article itself proves these lyrics to be nothing but garbage anyhow. Rand's work conversely still has a legitimate place in any overview of 20th century philosophy, although most scholars in philosophy either read her and her ilk exclusively or they ignore her altogether. personally I long ago grew weary of the repetitive drivel that her work contains and that Randians (i.e. "Objectivists") regularly spew, as evidenced in previous comments. Nonetheless I think she made an important contribution to the literature of individualism, anti-fascism and -collectivism, best expressed in the novel The Fountainhead.