Fore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com

More oxford books @ www.OxfordeBook.comFore more urdu books visit www.4Urdu.com174WHO IS JOHN GALT? 1957–1968demanded to be taken on its own merits, and most book reviewersfound little to like.Politics undoubtedly played a role, too. Rand’s book was a full frontalassault on liberal pieties. She liked nothing more than to needle herantagonists and was often deliberately provocative, even inflammatory.One character declares Robin Hood the “most immoral and the mostcontemptible” of all human symbols and makes a practice of seizinghumanitarian aid intended for poor countries, giving it instead to theproductive rich. Another hero proudly assumes the nickname “Midas”Mulligan, while the discourse upon “money, the root of all good” continuesfor several pages (387–91). Then there were the hopelessly hokeyparts of Atlas Shrugged, which even Rand called “those gimmicks”: mysteriousdollar-sign cigarettes smoked by the cognoscenti, a death raymachine operated by the government, the gold dollar-sign totem thatmarks Galt’s Gulch, the repetition of the question, “Who is John Galt?” 12Criticized for her lack of humor, Rand was actually having plenty of funwith Atlas Shrugged. But liberals did not get the joke.Conservatives were no less offended. The most notorious review ofAtlas Shrugged was written by Whittaker Chambers and published inNational Review, the most influential conservative magazine of the time.Chambers had become a household name through his testimony againstAlger Hiss in a Soviet espionage case and his subsequent best-sellingmemoir, Witness. Once a dedicated Communist, Chambers had shiftedfar to the right, becoming a mentor to William F. Buckley Jr., who askedhim to review Atlas Shrugged as his first assignment for National Review.Buckley, who disliked Rand, surely knew what the outcome of such anassignment would be. In Witness Chambers had written movingly abouthis religious conversion and his belief that only God could rescue mankindfrom the evils of Communism. It was not hard to predict how hewould react to Rand, an avowed atheist. Chambers was uninterested inthe book and reluctant to write such a negative review, yet at Buckley’srequest he plunged into battle with an article entitled “Big Sister IsWatching You.” 13In his vitriolic review Chambers noted Rand’s popularity and herpromotion of conservative ideals such as anti-Communism and limitedgovernment, but argued that because she was an atheist her underlyingmessage was faulty and dangerous. According to Chambers, Rand’s