Critiques of Atlas Shrugged are like a Roschach test in that it mostly reveals the inner self of the one offering the opinion.

"Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing" MacBeth

He says we're not supposed to take it as an allegory but as reality. He does not say why.

He doesn't like the protagonists being all attractive. He would have a hard time with most movies and TV shows then.

He says looters "believe in Robin Hood," but I thought Ragnar actually likend himself to Robin Hood; I can't recall for sure.

He the dollar sign in the book means humankind must submit to an elite. It actually means the opposite of that.

Then he says without God, humankind becomes decadent unless it's "heroic". If this is an argument for God, it's the fallacy of appealing to consequences. If it's just a claim about humankind, it's just a way of naming all people who godless and not decadent "heroic". So by Whittaker's definition, I try to be heroic.

He talks about the arrogant tone. That may be true, but his comment that it sounds like someone ordering you to a gas chamber is beyond bizarre.

One very positive thing about this is it feels dated when the Whittaker assumes the reader accepts the premise that humankind with science and no God becomes decadent. A modern reader recognizes this as a 50s mentality.