“If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as 'extremism,' then that smear is directed at any devotion to values, any loyalty  to principles, any profound conviction, any consistency, any steadfastness, any passion, any dedication to an unbreached, inviolate truth -- any man of integrity.”

Kinda depends on what that stand is, doesn't it? Some have taken uncompromising stands in favor of slavery, the death penalty, torture and pedophilia. Apparently, all extremism -- er, uncompromising stands -- are NOT equal.

In rushing, I forgot to deal with another major premise: "If an uncompromising stand is to be smeared as 'extremism,' then that smear is directed at ... any man of integrity." Here, Rand is qualifying virtually any uncompromising stand as an act of integrity -- and not only that, but any attack against that "uncompromising stand" is a "smear". In other words, Rand is saying not only that extremism is NOT negative, but is actually virtuous when/because it is based on an uncompromising stand (which, of course, is based on integrity). It's almost as tight a tautaology as I've seen since "God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived" and "All barking dogs bark," though falling short of the 'purity' of these..(more later?)

L. A. Chitty makes some good points. As a stand alone comment, this fragment or passage is too narrow for any real meaningful evaluation. Without context, this brief excerpt's scope of meaning gets lost in trying to purvey a probable truth.

Right Mike. I'm sure there is a story to go with this quote. Too out of context.

I agree. It is not a matter of whether you agree with a person's stand, but the fact that a person with strong convictions must from time to time stand for those convictions. 'Compromise' is ever the tool of evil, gradually eroding principles until there is nothing 'good' left to defend. Calling one's opposition's views 'extremist' is just a tool of the insurgent to weaken the resolve of those who will not compromise their integrity.