Ayn Rand, sociopathic politics
She always put strength above morality; and she despised the average man. In a letter unearthed by Jeff Walker, she wrote, ”I am becoming more antisocial.”
Walker, her biographer, researched her personal journals and found an entry written when she was 30: “One puts oneself above all and crushes everything in one’s way to get the best for oneself. Fine!” (All this in the pursuit of happiness.)
This is belligerent contempt for your fellow man. Aggressively pushing your impulses at the expense your group is not normal behavior. It destroys human bonds. It corrupts community.
It destroys trust. It is sociopathic.
Sound familiar? Yes, because Ayn Rand’s ideology still saturates today’s conservative thinking. Many in Reagan’s cabinet were Randians. Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the Fed, was a student and contributed essays to her nonfiction book ‘Capitalism.’ Today’s business tycoons breathe Rand’s incendiary ideals (for philosophers: Rand’s values are neo-Nietzsche who was originator of the war-like superman).
Selfishly putting yourself ahead of the needs of other people, of your group, or the community or society you live in, is anti-society? Well, at one point Rand flatly states, there is no society.
Rand’s books have influenced the minds and faith of untold millions; today her books are studied by children in schools.
So, now, you think you’re a liberal? And you fondly keep that dog-eared copy of ‘Atlas Shrugged’ and ‘The Fountainhead’ on your bookshelf, promising yourself to enjoy them again some day?
Regrets, but that does not compute.
For further insight into Rand’s world in which altruism is the enemy of advancing civilization, see Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult.
(Jeff Walker also explains why Ayn Rand loathed libertarians, who claim her as their leading light. Part of the problem is that libertarians are not forceful enough. The other part seems to be Ayn Rand’s mountainous ego towards a competing ideology.)
———–
(Sequel Ayn Rand critique here.)
Ayn Rand was human, her books were radical, and I do not doubt that just as many great authors, she had psychological issues. This being said the above would not be written if it wasn’t true that she makes very powerful argument for capitalism and against socialism. While I quite strongly disagree with Rands promotion of atheism and Darwinian thinking, I also strongly agree with her views on capitalism. Everyone, no mater liberal or conservative should read
Atlas Shrugged, even if you come away disagreeing with it, you will at the least truly understand why so many of us choose capitalism over socialism.
I personally just look at the world, both capitalist and capitalistic countries for one give much more to charity than socialist. Although they are liberals, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, the Google founders and the list goes on, are all capitalist, but also use their wealth to help others. The USA is considered by many to be a capitalistic country, yet we give of our wealth from individuals and through the government both to the poor in Africa and other poor parts of the world.
Look at one of the largest socialist countries of modern times, the United Soviet Socialist Republic, they starved their own people while trying to spread the starvation to other parts of the world via force, before failing. Sure many will argue with me that Communism and Socialism are opposites, and that the USSR was Communist and not Socialist. I will agree with you to a point, but will argue that voluntary socialism can and does work. When it is forced on the people by the government it becomes closer to communism and begins to fail. This is why I am against most government enforced social programs and for free enterprise when it is practiced within the constraints of law and morality. Ayn Rand had some thing right and other wrong, this still does not make here argument for Capitalism null and void.
Unregulated Capitalism, or Socialism without incentive other than helping your fellow man are not workable in a real society. On one hand unbridled greed and power will eventually enslave the masses, on the other, there is no real reward for individual effort. I would subscribe to a kind of social-capitalistic society, where the common good is protected but individual merit is rewarded, both regulated by a true government of the people, by the people, and for the people; no resemblance to what we have now.
Here Here.
Really! I agree whole heartedly. Anyone who agrees with David might find it interesting to check out the Venus Project. Co-founder Jacque Fresco provides a unique pamphlet entitled “The Zeitgeist Movement, Observations and Responses, An Activist Orientation Guide.” I also found the following of useful: “Shattering the Sacred Myths: The Metaphysics of Evolution” by Robert Charles Stewart. Thanks again David for your succinct comment. Now how the heck to we get there?
you fawn over your your rulers like a slave loves his masters. statist capitalism is corporatism is fascism is tyranny. stop watching msnbc and cnn, zombie dave. you make the rest of us look bad.
capitalism is fine, and ayn rand did have great things to say, but in her world the government isnt in bed with the corporations and the media doesnt control the minds of the ignorant masses in America unless we are socialist. In reality America has been controlled by a few powerful combines (ziabatsu) since its inception and will continue to be controlled by them as we make the switch into National Socialism.
if Atlas Shrugged came with a summary it would look like this:
GO BACK TO SLEEP. THE CURRENT ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS GREAT. DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
DAVE REVOLUTION! (but not this guy)
Where do I begin to answer the above post that not a fking clue as to what is going on in socialist countries… Denmark and Norway are small countries, with Northern Europeans in them…whose culture are very old, and for the most part they DO NOT HAVE ANY illegal alien problems, they are not overwhelmed by transients and people who do not have a genetic anti-work ethic, and their experiment with socialism is ending. Why? Because under socialism these countries are now experiencing the same kinds of crime and problems that the socialist United States has experienced over the past 60 years…when the US began “paying” stupid women, who were not married to have children.
Democratic Senator Patrick Moynihan wrote many books on the subject of the consequences of “welfare” ..in which he not only predicted that crime and many social problems would rise and become out of control, but history has shown that he was right. The Swedes, Norwegians, and the Danish have learned first hand, that when the control of one’s rights, money, property, HEALTH CARE, free will, etc…are taken away and regulated by the STATE…then people no longer exercise any self control or self respect for anyone. We all just become “disposable tools of the state.”
Ergo..European socialism has not only destroyed Europe, but as a result of 50 years of degradation, these socialist countries are dismantling socialism …because it has FAILED on every level and created a fking mess.
My next door neighbors are from Denmark…and because abortion is free and legal…and (pay attention Lefties)…men are required BY LAW to take care of their children or they go to jail, the Danes do not have father-less children. It is not allowed…IF a father does not pay for his children, his income is taxed, or he is put in jail. If a mother claims she doesn’t know who the daddy is…she gets no welfare. Duh..
Whereas, the US creates “welfare” children as a national past time, all paid for and promoted by the Left Wing Fascist Democrat Party to create more Democrat/socialist voters who are all dependent on the socialist US government. The result of this Left Wing Democrat socialist welfare breeding program…has been a rise in crime by 3000% over the past 60 years in the US. How nice.
Both countries are racially similiar, there are NO black people or Hispanics, and Moslems represent only .07 of the population. And pay attention: In the last 10 years…98% of all crime in both Denmark and Norway, including rape, robbery and murder…are caused by MOSLEMS. IE the very Moslems the Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians “took in” in order to achieve some kind of racial “diversity.” What a joke…boy are they unhappy that they took in these fools. Just because someone steps across a border, it does not mean that they immediately drop their failed personalities..and become good little Danes or Norwegians. As a result, the borders are for the most part closed…and the rest of this Moslem scum is being booted out the first time they sneeze. And the worst kind of racism, based on state socialism (Aloors! Shades of Hitler’s socialism…) is on the rise (see below article).
Oh yes…both countries attempted to give them free language lessons, free housing, free welfare checks, employment, sent their kids to school, blah, blah, blah…and in return, the Moslems claimed that they emigrated to Europe…to create an Islamic one-world government and they didn’t give a flying fk about being a good little Swede, a nice Dane, or a Happy Norwegian. How nice.
If the US…was to emulate these two countries, they would have to get rid of all but .07 Black people, Hispanics, illegal aliens, and the Moslems…and raise the educational level of those who are left.
It is always the LEFT WING ZOMBIES…who make such ridiculous and stupid neoreligious statements about such things they “dream” about, but have not a fking clue as to what they are talking about. It just must be horrible for those on the Left to walk around with their heads up their anus…they can’t see or hear a damn thing. All they can do is smell the caca and dream of a utopian socialist world.
By the way…because so many people in Denmark and Norway have become unhappy with this socialists system, that became increasingly dominated by bureaucrats…over regulation, too many laws, and over taxation, so that no one could accumulate any wealth…to create their own companies, or pursue other tracts of interest…the VERY BEST AND BRIGHTEST OF THESE COUNTRIES CITIZENS ARE EMIGRATING TO THE US. DUH…can you guess what the reaction then is to this “brain drain?”
If the Left could get your head out of your anal orifice so you can spend some time researching both countries, you will find they are dismantling some of the most egregious aspects of their socialist economies. Here, I’ll help you do something besides “parrot” such blathering horse crap as you are told to repeat…without a clue as to the veracitity of what you are stating:
“By Jorn K. Baltzersen
web posted February 11, 2002
It was the morning of September 11, 2001 (Central European Daylight Time). In Norway Election Night was just over. On the day before the Norwegian electorate had kicked out the socialist majority in Parliament. The Labor Party had just had its worst election since 1927…..
Denmark is also an example of failed socialism (Don’t you people on the Left read anything but the Huffer’s Post or the Daily Kossack? to wit: Denmark: A Case Study in Social Democracy
By Per Henrik Hansen
[Posted July 22, 2003]
In a previous article—”Denmark: Potemkin Village”—I documented the downside to Denmark. Despite its reputation as a showcase of political utopia, 40 percent of its adult population live on government transfer income, full-time, all-year. A little more than a third of these people are pensioners and the rest are working age. About one third of the people who actually hold a job work for the government or government-owned companies. The effective tax level is around 70 percent, not the 50 percent that is usually reported (the lower figure comes about by disregarding the effects of the sales tax and excise taxes). …Practically all people are eligible for one program or another. But the system is unsustainable in the longer run. In the early 1970s only about 300,000 people of working age lived full-time all year on government welfare. Today it is about 900,000. The population size has remained unchanged at around 5 million. In the not too distant future, more people are going to be pensioners and fewer people will be working age. At some point, the trough will be empty.
The welfare state has also nationalized many of the formerly family support functions. In 1960, 91 percent of all women 30 years of age were married. Today, fewer than 50 percent are. Partly this is because people are marrying later in life, and yet a considerable part of the explanation is that many people do not marry at all.
Of the people who do get married, more people get a divorce today. In 1975, 18 per cent of all the marriages from 1950 had ended in a divorce during the preceding 25 years. In 1995, 36 per cent of the marriages from 1970 had ended in a divorce. Of marriages in 1985, 20 per cent ended in a divorce after only 7 years. As a result of the above, many more people live in single households today than did in 1960. In 2000, one third of all adults in Denmark were living alone.
If we next look at the crime level, the Danish Statistical Yearbook 2002 shows reported crimes from 1935 to 1960 to be stable: about 100,000 crimes per year. But from 1960 until today, the number of crime reports has increased by 500 percent, to more than 500,000 per year. And if we look at violent crime, the picture is even grimmer. The number of violent crimes in 1960 was approximately 2,000; it is approximately 15,000 today. This is an increase of more than 700 percent, and it is still rising steeply.
This is a very surprising development. Welfare state advocates often say that crime is caused by poverty. Well, Denmark has become about twice as rich per citizen during this period of rising crime.
Another argument is that poverty is caused by economic inequality. Well, Denmark has engaged in the most comprehensive income redistribution program of any nation. Denmark is the most egalitarian country in the world today.
So, a rising crime level is the last thing the welfare statists might have predicted using their own theory. Maybe there is some other independent factor causing the development? Denmark has taken in a great number of immigrants and refugees from third-world countries. These immigrants unfortunately are greatly overrepresented in the crime statistics—something like 5 to 1—but they only account for less than 10 percent of the population, and hence cannot account for the entire increase in crime….
Now let us talk about David’s comments about Sweden which he also has not a clue as to what he’s parroting, or why…to wit:
Sweden is not only dismantling its pure socialist state, but under Swedish socialism, they are now being accused of becoming “NEO-NAZIs.” Why? Because “socialism” is nothing more than FASCISM…and creates an arrogant “belief” that socialist can COERCE all people into living in not just a regulated “economic” state…but a nationalist state based on racism or ideology.
Bet you stupid Left Wing Goons…didn’t see that one coming…even though Hitler’s SOCIALISM…wrote the book on racial, ethnic, and elitist domination of all human beings, in which there are NO individual rights…all such “rights” are then seceded to the socialist police state.
Even in the monthly journal of the Socialist Party “Socialism Today,” Issue 45, Feb 2000…the socialists are shocked that the Swedes are evolving into NeoNazis….
And you neoreligion Socialist twits…just don’t get it…once you create a “police” state to impose your Obama World on the USA…then in this “police state” you have no idea who will become the NAZIs…now do you? Or is your Brown Shirt and your Hob Nail Boots hidden in the closet…for now. All anyone has to do is go to YouTube.com and see the video Obama’s paramilitary police in action, young black kids, all goose stepping and rapping to Obama…Their Uber Leader. You Left Wing Loons disgust me.
So…why don’t you learn something from your Swedish socialist brothers…and head off socialism, so we don’t have to go through the same crap as the Europeans..read below:
—Issue 45, September 1999
Sweden’s Neo-Nazis
REPRESENTATIVES OF 45 countries, including Britain’s New Labour government, the German Social Democrats, and Lionel Jospin’s French Socialist Party, met in Stockholm at the end of January for a conference on the Nazi Holocaust. Almost 55 years since the end of the second world war, these politicians have created this opportunity for themselves to play the ‘good guys’, condemning racism and fascism. Unfortunately for them, they met in a country hosting Europe’s most violent fascists.
In 1999, Sweden witnessed several brutal killings, including the deaths of two policemen executed with their own guns by three Nazi robbers and the premeditated murder of trade union activist, Björn Söderberg. On New Year’s Eve, 19-year old Salih Uzel was killed by Nazis in a working-class suburb of Stockholm. A gang of Nazi youth attacked his brother’s family and Salih and other Turks came to help. Salih was stabbed and then kicked while he was lying on the ground dying. Later, in the police cell, the murderer daubed a swastika on the wall with his own blood.
A Berlin newspaper reported in the autumn that German Nazis look to Sweden for guidance. Swedish Nazis have established a leading role in White Power music, releasing 342 CDs last year. They also have a computerised intelligence network covering all their ‘enemies’, including address lists, details of relatives, car registration numbers, etc. In June, journalist Peter Karlsson and his eleven-year-old son escaped near death from a car bomb. They were saved by the fact that they had not closed the car doors. The journalist was living undercover with a new identity after exposing Nazis in the army. He had also written articles on the White Power music industry which resulted in CD producers in Italy, Taiwan and the US ending their contracts with the Swedish Nazis.
The Nazi parties and networks are dangerous but relatively small – at most a couple of hundred organiZed members. They have attracted a couple of thousand people around them, consisting mainly of young White Power music followers. The fascist groups are constantly experiencing splits and crises. They are unable to establish a firm base because of the lack of support for their ideas and, just as importantly, the active resistance of anti-fascists, in which Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (RS – Socialist Justice Party, the Swedish section of the Committee for a Workers’ International) has played a key role.
In 1999, the establishment parties suddenly started condemning Nazi terrorism. They had spent the previous decade proclaiming that maybe the fascists were not really fascists at all and should, as a rule, be ignored. But the Left Party and Conservative Party leaders stood alongside each other at the big demonstration in Stockholm after the murder of Söderberg in October. For the first time, the LO (Swedish trade union federation) leader was forced to speak on an anti-fascist platform alongside other union leaders. In November, four daily newspapers published the photos and names of 60 leading Nazis.
All of the politicians, union leaders and media, however, avoid the key question: Why is fascism coming back? Leaders of the establishment want to hide the fact that the return of Nazism has taken place alongside the return of mass unemployment and the implementation of ‘austerity packages’ in the 1990s – policies dictated by the capitalist market. From 1991 to 1994, unemployment in Sweden exploded from 2% to 15%. Between 1994 and 1998 the state budget deficit was cut from 15% of GDP to less than 3%. This has created a new sense of uncertainty: ‘Is this really Sweden?’ The fascists try to exploit this feeling of insecurity.
While speaking against fascism, the politicians are deepening and developing pro-market and pro-EU policies, thereby continuing to feed the fascists and racists. The state itself is a leading racist force, treating refugees as criminals. On average, 10,000 refugees have been thrown out of Sweden every year in the last decade! This in a country renowned for its warm welcome, especially for the tens of thousands of Latin American refugees who came over in the 1970s. Combined with earlier migrations of workers, mainly from Finland, Turkey and Yugoslavia, the arrival of refugees in the 1970s and 1980s has meant that 20% of people living in Sweden now have a foreign background.
Last year, the Social Democratic prime minister, Göran Persson, launched a campaign to ‘educate and inform’ people about the Nazi Holocaust. But in the month leading up to his beloved international conference new scandals emerged. A new book and TV series showed that between 300 and 500 Swedes who volunteered for Hitler’s Waffen SS have never been prosecuted. The Social Democratic-led coalition government during the second world war was officially neutral but was, in reality, extremely cooperative with Nazi Germany. Hundreds of Communists were put in camps, while pro-German newspapers were left untouched. Business with Germany flourished. Under pressure from the Simon Wiesentahl Centre in Israel, Persson has now promised an investigation. In German courts, Ukrainian workers who were used as slave labour during the war by the Swedish multinational, SKF, are suing for damages.
Workers and youth can’t trust anything in the politicians’ speeches against racism or fascism. Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna, and the Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna youth in the leadership of Elevkampanjen – the school students’ campaign – are part of the movement which demonstrated outside the politicians’ conference. We are campaigning for action against Nazi terror. This means school student strikes and pressure on the trade unions to organise a one-hour political strike and anti-fascist rallies, with the aim of establishing Nazi-free zones in schools and workplaces. We are demanding the restoration of the right of asylum and are fighting against deportations and the EU’s barriers against refugees. And, alongside organising with anyone who wants to take action, we are stressing the need for an internationalist, socialist society, to really undermine fascism and racism.
Per-Åke Westerlund,
Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna
Now..in consideration of all of the above…how can you Left Wing Socialists…then hate Ayn Rand, and Conservatives…who state that there is only one human right…and that is to be respected as an individual, whereby the “state” cannot take away those rights…for any reason.
I will state emphatically, that if you take the time to read Ayn Rand…you will see that Objectivism, and the laws of Objectivism, i.e. individual rights…is the only progressive, intelligent, right, and humane form of government in the future. All the socialism that the Left and Dems seek…is nothing more than tribalism, and will result in a bunch of neoNazis…goose stepping and stamping out the rights of others.
Wake up America…all the socialist, Democrat, Left Wing Obama “demands” for state control…will lead to nothing but a degrading, arrogant, FASCIST utopian world…
The 20th Century was and REMAINS the American Century…and the US is NOT passe, but the People of the United States…are showing that in 50 years…this seduction by the failed, Fascist Left and the Democrats will be just a background note in the history books. And…
I expect, that the leading countries will be those who have emulated the United States Capitalist system, which creates wealth for the most number of people…if the Europeans can rid themselves of socialism…using the forward and the now evolving thinking of the Chinese, India and possibly BrazilIAN CAPITALISM as a bench march of success and respect for the power of Individual RIGHTS.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
DO NOT BE SEDUCED BY THE BELIEFS, AND ANAL UTOPIAN DREAMS OF THE LEFT.
Brilliant. You’ve captured the socio-economic mess that we now face as a nation, thanks to 50 years of socialist and statist policies foisted on us by the Left. Where are Ronald and Ayn when we need them, where is our Superman?
I’m with you, David. All the investigations into countries with the happiest people find places like Denmark, Norway, etc., win out. Those are heavily taxed places with socialist-capitalist mixed economies. Norway has a lot of oil, but Denmark has a minimum of natural resources. So, how did that country get to be happy, healthy, and economically viable?
Look at the Swedish method of dealing with failing banks: nationalize them, cure their problems, and then finally put them back into private hands but with heavy regulation. That worked; the US “save capitalism” method may work but at a lot heavier cost.
The US still cannot accept the notion that a “single-pay” health care system is fair and works well. It’s the only major industrialized country which doesn’t have such a system.
The 20th Century was the American century, but the US is becoming rapidly passe. In 50 years, I expect that the leading countries will be the European Union, China, India, and possibly Brazil.
Wake up America!
“All the investigations into countries with the happiest people find places like Denmark, Norway, etc., win out.”
Yep, sure thing, Mike.
What utter, low brow, nonsense. Do you believe everything you read if it happens to agree with your a priori perspectives??
Such surveys are always conducted by Leftists, usually ‘academics’ and ‘think’ tanks. Their polls are biased from the start. They ask questions that limit the respondent to forms of answer that support the pollsters viewpoint in one form another.
Did you ever wonder how they define “happiness”? Is it enough cash to get drugs? …enough inactivity and socializing to think so shallow a life is good? Is it the happiness of a peasant farmer? Is it the happiness of going to the factory, returning home, and having a beer?
Or, is it the happiness of seeing a novel you have worked on, for 60 hrs a week for ten years, become one of few massive successes of centuries! Not only does it bring you enormous respect, but it brings you the wealth you need
to see the World,
to live in several homes of special architecture, which you love,
to help friends and family succeed if they deserve it,
and more, without having others take & spend 50% of what you earned on people and causes you oppose.
The people polled cannot really indicate what they hate, because the questions are not posed so as to allow it.
I know this, because I have answered MANY telephone polls about our Canadian Federal and Provincial Liberal (socialist) and Conservative (quasi religious) governments’ policies. Time and again, I have been asked questions of the above type. I have ended up questioning the pollsters sanity, and the poor sap on the phone ends up agreeing. They see how biased their questions can be.
No doubt the Vodkha swilling Russians believed their society was superior to those of the West. You would have believed it, Ayn Rand did not. She saw the little details that said otherwise: tourists with nice jeans is perhaps the best known detail. The Russian youth were willing to pay much of a month’s gov’t check to get them!
The same bias of these polls is characteristic of the Swedish Nobel Prizes. Al Gore??? Yasser Arafat??? Come on. When the intellectual ‘elite’ are THAT depraved, surely you should pause to consider that something larger is wrong. Rand identified it, though her corrections are not popular, they are unpopular because Western culture has so thoroughly accepted idiotic premises that they cannot grasp the good when their face is rubbed in it.
DENMARK, NORWAYAY AND SWEDEN THE HAPPIEST PLACES ON EARTH?
You have to be kidding me…have any of you ever been there? It is cold as hell and dark 9 months out of the year…They do nothing but drink and smoke pot…and live on welfare…the are bored out of their skulls.
And when they get a chance, they immigrate to the US…where they can work at what they want to do, travel, and make money $$$$$$$$$$$$$….save for the future, or buy that Cadillac if they want.
Have any of you “NUMB NUTS” Left Wingers been in jail…or had a social worker or the “thought police” trail around after you…making sure you comply with the Left Wing dogma de jure?…well, that’s what its going to be like if O. Hussein Obama gets his way…Obama’s world would be like having a Nagging Mammy on your ass 24-hours a day…only Obama’s Nagging Mammy…might just put you in jail for not being PC….Hmmmm?
Call your Congress people and tell them to IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! AND, YOU WILL NOT ONLY NOT VOTE FOR HIM/HER…BUT YOU WILL ACTIVELY WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE NOT ELECTED IN 2010 IF THEY SUPPORT O. HUSSEIN OBAMA’S COMMUNIST POLICIES.
I cannot imagine anyone claiming that they are the happiest people in the world in a socialist state where they have no choices, no say, no vote, no individualism, no rights, and are over taxed, over regulated…and disrespected as a person.
You know…you can sell that shit to HUSSEIN Obama’s little pack of Marxist goons…but in the real world, all that crap about socialism making us all happy…is just another idiotic Left Wing propaganda trick attempting to make us happy while we sit in our jail cell of a country. Sorry…but you poor little Left Wing numb nuts twits don’t realize it…but, we have had 300 years of Freedom…and the gene pool of this country are some of the most individualist people in the world. And you Left Wing Goons think you can tame us? Hahahahaha….dream on fools.
It is not working…watch all the FORMER Obama voters, who feel betrayed…ambushing all the Democrats and just flaying them alive every time some of these Dems and Hussein’s Czars show up in public. I love it and its Revolution Time…
See you in the streets…homies.
Judy Weismonger PhD
I read Jeff Walker’s book and he describes Rand and her followers as “atheistic jews.” Doesn’t that sound just a little intolerant, especially on this blog? In fact, it sounds like he is classifying them by their race/religion. OMG!
It is what they call themselves numb nuts….
I know a bunch of “atheist” Jews….when they state they are Jews…it means they consider themselves cultural Jews…not religious Jews.
A poll of Jews has found that fully 50% of the Jews are either atheist, agnostic, nontheist, or not religious.
You need also to read the book “How Jews Saved the World,”…why, did they save the world? Because Jews as a culture, a genetic group, a tradition…etc. think and they analyze…and are by far the most individualistic people in the world. Have you ever seen three Jews in a room? They argue and argue and argue and pick the topic to death.
Marx…was a Jew, but an idiot. He never worked a day in his life, he married into rich Prussian aristocracy, who because of his babbling bull shit thought he was a genius, simple because he had something new to say.
Most Jews I know today…many of whom are recent immigrants from the USSR…hate anything that has to do with Marx or communism, or socialism…or fascism.
Now why would it NOT make sense…for many of Rand’s devotees to not be Jewish and Atheists?
You poor left Wing twits don’t get it…Socialism stands for human slavery, its just communism-lite…and yet, you “believe” in socialism/fascism just like some bible-thumping numb nuts twit, and promote it like some xian greasy-haired preachers jumping around on the stage…promoting some mythical jebus.
If you left wingers knew how stupid you sound and look…you would be embarrassed being such Left Wing cowards and babies. And all of Hussein’s butt boys getting all the tax payers’ money…laugh at you. You are the kind of idiots who hold the door open for bank robbers…then you say….”Oh Thank you for robbing us…we didn’t need all that nasty money anyway.”
If you can’t look at society today and see alarming paralells with Atlas Shrugged then you are truly viewing the world through shit colored glasses, as Jon Stewart is wont to say. If Obama is our Saviour in Chief, why hasn’t the economy turned around? Why has he promoted and authorized more spending in 6 short months than in the 200+ years prior? If you understand the concept of fiat money, then you understand that it is only viable when kept in a reasonably short supply. If we just keep throwing wood in the stove, eventually it will melt and the house will burn down. While he is overseas apologizing for our nation, hopefully a stray thought will enter his mind; something along the lines of “Why do I hate America so much? It’s given me so many things that I should be thankful for. Maybe a ‘white man’s greed’ doesn’t keep the world in need. Maybe good old fashioned white men work their asses off and are tired of being excoriated by every non white male politician and society member. Maybe they provide the lion’s share of benefits to this nation. Maybe I should stop fucking the country royally.” We can only hope.
And for all who will come after this and attempt to unravel what I have said, fuck you. Conservatism causes this nation to prosper. Liberalism is the political equivalent of Zyklon-B. Hope your pill tastes better than mine did…
Why hasn’t the economy turned around?
Because the use of spending bills is based on the fact that money introduced to the economy gains force and increases a nations aggregate demand by being spent over and over and over again. Sorry but that just can’t happen in the space of 6 months.
Thats what pisses me off about people blaming Obama or any President in power for the current economic situation. However, it is not your fault, I blame our education system for not providing adequate information to EVERYONE. So understand this: economic policies take at least a year and often longer to take effect.
Great Depression is always a good example. The economy both Hoover and FDR inherited was shit, (FDR more so). Hoover’s policies of letting the economy do its own thing did little to help (and thats what he was advised to do by the prevailing school of classical economists of the time) although again, the President is often blamed for a current economic situation that he had nothing to shape, save if he has been president for more than one term. Moving on, the Great Depression didn’t end after FDRs first year in office, let alone his 2nd, and much of his 3rd. 12 years people! And this crises is becoming astronomically worse than that of the Great Depression. I wouldnt pass judgement so soon in terms of economics. Were going to be in this for the long haul if you expect a full recovery.
The current economic state is the result of Bush’s policies, period. Obama hasnt had time to acutally have his policies take effect.
That being said, the current economic crises will take several years to be righted. Thats how deep a hole Bush dug us in with immense spending on wars (Afghanistan, Iraq, “Drugs”, “Terror”, and a whole new executive department (Homeland Security). Which on of those is not like the other? I find the need for a Department of Homeland Security very justified. Whether the wars are justified or not, they are still very very very expensive.
As a side note, comparisons to Rand may be valid but in her own words she despised Nietzsche.
Note: This is what i just learned this year in AP Economics. If i completely missed the point while getting an A and scoring a 5/5 on the AP, go ahead, blast me.
I find it amusing that you ridicule someone for lack of education, and then attempt to claim that Hoover took a hands off approach to the economy.
If Hoover was hands off, why did FDR attack him as Socialist when campaigning?
Ever heard of Smoot Hawley Tariff acts? The Revenue Act of 1932? These items exaccerbated the Depression.
But the Great Depression was created by unsound monetary policy. The Fed usurped the role of bank clearing houses, and then did nothing to prevent a banking collapse, essentially reducing the money supply by 1/3.
Didn’t you learn any of that while gaining your condescending expertise in economics in AP HIGH SCHOOL economics?
OBAMA’S CIVILIAN SECURITY (NEONAZI FASCIST BROWN SHIRTS)
Good point Robert….the Left hates themselves, and hates others…why? Because the Left has a difficult time dealing with reality and childhood disappointments and failures, and sound almost the same as the religious freaks. Worse…the Left are cowards and have no self esteem or self confidence to solve any of their problems…ergo, the Left has to ultimately turn into a “gang” of neoNazis…it is inevitable. This will be part of Obama’s “change”…when he inaugerates (sic) a National Civilian Security Force.
The mark of a grown up..is a human being who recognizes, that “Yes, he or she did have a difficult childhood, etc,, but as an adult they are responsible for their own behavior and economics.” And, as an adult…they don’t have to engage in self serving group identity with a pack, a herd, an insect hive, or a “gang” to function. Nor as an adult… do they have to “rob” other people of their money and rights.
The Professional Blamers and Perpetual Victims on the Left, however……exists as 12 year old children, who are pissed off at their daddy and mommy who can’t give them everything they want, ergo, they want a new SUPER DADDY-GOD, WHO PROMISES THEM EVERYTHING THEY HAVE EVER DESIRED…and the best part is, that the Left believes that mommy and daddy can be replaced by the Messiah Daddy Obama and his Chicago band of Thugs…Hey, let’s hear some of that Chicago Gangsta Rap!
The Left think and function emotionally like little children…to wit: Why there is really a Santa Claus…(the American tax payer who they intend on robbing)…and Magic really exists (Yeppers…Obama can snap his fingers, and all the problems of the entire world will just disappear if the “mean old” Conservatives, the GOP, and those white people, and those nasty, arrogant Ayn Randites will just get out of the way).
And…the Left Wing Fascist Loonies…like little kids, hate to do their homework. They hate having to look something up, its all so much more FUN and easier, to just parrot what someone body else says, who hates their daddy too….
I will never, ever forget the day after the election when individuals on the street were being interviewed as to their reaction regarding Obama being elected. In my city, the reporters went to the “negro” part of town…and one Obama voter after another said…:
Horray! We won…we will never have to pay our mortgages again, I’ll get a check for the rent, I’ll get free groceries, my utilities, car note and insurance will be paid for…I’ll get a great job if I want one…Obama’s going to give me everything, and he’s going to put all those white folks and those Republicans in jail.”
Right on Brother…show us your Left Wing Fascist neo religious bull shit beliefs…shine up those hob nailed boots, get that Sam Brown belt out, and that those Brown Shirts pressed and ready to wear. While you are at it…learn how to goose step, it looks sooooo koool! Seig Heil Obama…Seig Heil Obama…Seig Heil Obama!!!!!!!!!!!
In July 2008, Obama spoke in Colorado and stated that when he became president, he was going to “create a citizens’ national police force…to keep tabs on the police, the military, the polluters, and those who are against “progress.” Obama’s citizen army will have powers of arrest and prosecution.” See YouTube.com…”Obama’s Civilian Security” Video…http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt2yGzHfy7s
Now is there any doubt in your mind as to Why? Professor Gates thought he could get away with insulting a police offer’s mother?
What the most educated, erudite, and superior, most moral, reverand, and elegant professor Gates said to the police officer was:
YO–MAMA!
You can take a man out of the ghetto, but you can’t take the ghetto out of the man.
Who decides what is the common good? What gives anyone the right to decide what is good for another person? How do unbridled greed and power enslave the masses? You can’t have socialism and capitalism, they are mutually exclusive philosophies.
why obama and his goose stepping youth…get to determine what is the common good TIM…and they think they are going to get to enforce it too…see for yourself. Youtube: com
Watch as all these kids stamp their feet in unison, march up and down….sing praises to Obama…and declare themselves as the Vanguard for Obama’s CHANGE.
NOT ONE OF THESE LITTLE WANNABE GOOSE STEPPING, NEO NAZI OBAMA NAZIS….OR ANYONE ON THE LEFT…EVER ASKED:
CHANGE TO WHAT?
In the original article above…it was stated that Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is bad because …”It destroys trust. It is sociopathic.”
Trust of whom, by whom? What can we exactly “trust” the poor to do? What is the history of the poor? What exactly has the “poor” contributed to progress or individual rights? Please, oh please let me know.
Does the originator of the first article…truly believe like the religious…that to be poor is so wonderful, and that the poor are simply saints to the point that all problems can be solved if every is POOR.
The author of the above article states that “voluntary socialism can and does work…”…because if we are all POOR then we too can become saints. If this is true…why is it that the “poor” have the highest crime rates per capita…and the “richer” a country and its population is…the less crime there is…
What incredible garbage is socialism…invented by those with the minds of Insects…driven by jealousy, hate, and revenge in the name of class warfare and socialist theft…to punish the rest of us who refuse to function like an insect.
Judy
TRUST: I don’t get it. Why am I obligated to trust you…especially when you FAscist/Socialist Assholes want to take my money and give to the “poor” of your choice…meaning anyone you want to…meaning what ever Rich CEO’s are Friends of Obama. You have to be kidding!
If there ever was a reason to NOT trust you Left Wing Chicago Thugs and Liars…all I have to do is read the daily newspaper and see what NEW scheme the Obama Chicago Thugs are dreaming up to destroy not just my country anymore…but my fucking HEALTH!
Fuck you…and the socialist horse you road to town on.
Trust my ass?!
You don’t deserve to be trusted…you should be put in jail for attempted robbery.
David…in reading your apologetics, you have been duped and shepherded into being a tool of the Left…Below is the tactics of the Left and how the “Right” and individuals fall into their trap by being “nice” or tolerant, or making excuses, etc.
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
***Until recently, the Left was a minority, and to some extent remain a minority position. The reason Obama won, is because he camouflaged himself as a “moderate”…and appealed to the large middle class moderates. Another tactic was to be “loud”…scream and yell, show up with bullies, throw pies in the face of speakers they didn’t like…intimidate everyone by making all kinds of threats. Jesse “The Extortionist” Jackson…blackmailed hundreds of companies, from Denny’s to Ford Motor Company, that if they did not “hire” blacks, and hand over $1 million in donations…Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition would go to the press and scream racism…and demand a boycott. James Dobson of the Christian right is now using the same tactics…demanding that large retail advertisers put the word “Christmas” in tneir advertising. The Secular Right can do the same thing, i.e. boycott TV and Radio advertisers who support the Liars on the Left. Already NBC and CBS are suffering from a decline in the advertising dollar because of such tactics.
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
***The Secular Right makes many mistakes, i.e. trying to be “nice” …have a “teachable moment,” take the emotion out of the argument…and become highly intellectualized to the point that it destroys the movement driven by anger. The Town Hall ACtivists…should be ENCOURAGED to get mad and scream and yell at the Left Wing Liars…for NOT reading the bill, and for passing a trillion dollar budget in the middle of the night…Shear gut feelings are important in defeating the Left. This is NOT about PR or business, or asking someone to join your church…this is war.
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
***Heretofore…Left Wing Journalists have been sacrosanct…and untouchable. Not so…they should be followed home, find out where THEY LIVE…use the same tactics as the Dirty Left Wing Unions…and camp out in front of THEIR homes…with signs and fog horns…calling them “COMMUNISTS–TRAITORS—THIEVES—LIARS—NAZIS—SOCIALISTS”…TURN THE TABLES ON THE LEFT WING JOURNALISTS…and use their tactics against them. Make the Left prove they are none of these things…that they do not beat their wives The Left Wing bloggers are continually using these tactics…such as planting lies that Sarah Palin and her husband are getting a divorce because of infidelity. OK then…it should be planted that Obama is a closet GAY>>>Obama BEATS HIS WIFE>>>>MIchelle is divorcing Obama for screwing around…(Do unto others…as they screw you.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
****Write letters, commit to 5 letters a day, to all the Left Wing Congresspeople…send them faxes, have their phones and fax numbers of Quick Dial…Scream and yell at them through your letters, call them every name in the book…tell them that they claim to stand for truth and the poor…then why are they robbing you, you are poor you don’t deserve to be taxed anymore…you are starving to death your kids can’t eat…etc.
If and when your Left Wing Congress people come home for the holidays…organize “office sit ins,”…bring signs, look hostile and mean…call them NAZIS…that is certainly scaring the hell out of Princess Pelosi and Dingy Hairy Reid.
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
***In the mind of the Left…as in the religious, they “believe” they are the elite, more intelligent, cool, and right…they must be disabused of this arrogant pack of bull shit lies and the only way to do so…since they are not people of reason, but uncontrolled, base and idiotic emotions…is to go at them with crude, rude, mean, and hateful ridicule. That will get their attention and for some…they will become fearful, which is exactly where we want them to be…fearful, so that they stay not only stay home, but the Left Wing Congress…knows that if they vote to destroy our country, there will be consequences. To date, the Left has not suffered ANY consequences for anything they’ve done, or for any lie and smear they’ve told. That has to change NOw.
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
***Oh yeah, have fun with this…before a meeting…get a little loose and liquored up. Or wait till the “confrontation” is over…meet for pizza, laugh at the Left and the look on their face when you all began calling them NAZIs….What fun! Give out prizes for the person with the very best Chant….I love “Read the Bill…Read the Bill…” I want to see this chant…..NO MORE TAX WHORES, NO MORE TAX WHORES…LEAVE OUR MONEY AND HEALTH ALONE!
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
***Fortunately, the Left has been radical far too long, they have shot their wad, while we are just getting started. Most of the Left Wing Rads of the 1960s who were the most vocal are now either dead from cocaine overdoses, or HIV/AIDs…or just too worn out to do much but sit in front of the TV and smoke pot. Every Left Wing radical I ever met…was a dumb pot head…and long term pot use makes them paranoid and they lose about 30 IQ points…so now is the time to strike. Regardless of Obama’s win…the truth is that he won not because the Left was so huge in number, but because the Left fooled the Independents and some in the middle class, that he was just like them. NOT…
The very best part of this exercise, is that many who supported Obama who now see they have been duped and lied to…hate his guts and are mad as hell. There is a small war in the Democrat Party, because the Dems know that their continued support of Obama…may result in their dis-election.
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
***Oh yeah…do not heed even those on the Secular Right…who are now telling us to be “nice.” Being “nice” is exactly what the Left wants us to do…and proves once again that the Secular Right does not have the balls, the spine, or the brains to defeat them. GET MAD AND STAY MAD! THEN ACT. Being “nice” has gotten us exactly into the mess we are now in.
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
***Yes…The Left has made themselves vulnerable through believing they were the dominant force, and that they had won…and it was going to be a clear path toward socialism. It must be a shock to the Left to see all those fat, old gray haired ladies and gentlemen, some carrying canes and in wheel chairs…mad as hell. Old people can be formidable, because they have nothing left to lose, but a little peace and quiet and respect for the last of their days. The old and retired…have also watched the Left rob them of their savings, threaten to tax their health care insurance, raise taxes on their fuel through Cap and Trade…and so many other areas that those on a fixed retirement income just cannot afford, unless they live in a hovel or a shit hole for the rest of their lives. Worse…the Left has indicated that it does not give a flying good god damn about old people…because Obama represents the “young” and radical.
Along comes the “youngsters” on the Left…who are telling grandma and grandpa that everything they stood for, such as independence, saving, being good, and worse…being old…is just shit, and that somehow illegal aliens and the parasitic poor will have more rights…and be paid out of the retirement incomes of the old.
And by the Left calling these old people ASTRO TURF…AND NAZIS…OR PART OF A CONSPIRACY…is just fuel on the fire. At the next protest I’m going to…you will know me because I’m going to be wearing a hat made out of Green Astro Turf.
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
***Oh yeah…I want Pelosi and her Union Thugs…to start hitting and beating up old people…yeah, do it…and just see how outraged those who are not committed as yet…will jump into help the Secular Right. That cunt Pelosi sent in big, fat men from the Pipefitters Union..to shut the door on those attending a town hall meeting. Union thugs also beat up a “black man” who was protesting changes in his health care….OH yeah…go ahead, those on the Left…I want you to especially beat up on black people and hispanics, call them names and see what happens. The Left is predictable, they do not think, they are emotional…and will make mistakes.
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
***So far…the Left has no answers, and no solutions, and worse have NOT READ what they are demanding they vote Yes on. It has been wonderful…to see the Left go “humma humma humma, I don’t know”…and become part of the problem. That won’t last long because that idiot Bill O’Reilly will have them on his programs and allow them to “make their case,” without vetting their answers. O’Reilly makes the same mistakes…that got us into this mess, by being “nice” to the enemy. Unfortunately, Hannity and O’REilly are part of the problem also, because they will cave…because they believe that being “nice” or compromising is going to change things. No it won’t.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
***So far, the only “targets” in the cross-hairs of the Secular Right are Pelosi and very few others. This won’t win the war…the Left wing Media such as Rachel Madoff, Oberman, CBS, MSNBC, and every Left Wing Congress Liar in every state and district has to be targeted every day and in every way. Journalists especially have to be “personalized” –targeted—and frozen—in this fight…Were you all aware, that that Old Queen Dan Rather is now asking Obama to “investigate” the media (meaning go after Rush Limbaugh etc.)? s it not enough…that Obama’s Chicago Thugs now want you to “inform” on your neighbors? Go ahead…tell Obama and his thugs what you think of the right or the left, flag@whitehouse.gov. I email them once a day…hahahah.
Rather was the leader and the god-father of the Left Wing Liar Media…who called themselves journalists who were in fact…the lackeys, butt lickers, and lobbiests for the Democrat Left.
While Dan Rather “claimed” to be a nightly news anchor and a journalist…he openly campaigned and raised money for the Democrats for 30 years. What did the Right do? Nothing….Its time to go after them all…and win.
Wow! Ignorance must be bliss. It is because of our free market system that the world is a better place. Why else do you think that de Tocqueville was sent to the republic to study America’s formula for prosperity and greatness? He discovered that, among other factors, we were practitioners of a fee market system, which provided an incentive and resulted in growth, invention and overall prosperity. Read a book once in a while and put down the cool-aid.
If you want socialism leave…no one is holding you here.
One has to remember that Rand’s work was influenced by her experiences as a very small child in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution when a bunch of communist thugs nationalized her father’s pharmacy. This traumatic experience undoubtedly was an influence in much of her work.
Rand was very strongly in support of offering justice and fairness to those who deserved it. In “Atlas Shrugged”, Cheryl (the waitress James Taggart married) eventually grasped the depravity and evil of her husband. In abject grief that such evil could so ruin her life, she sought suicide. Dagny learned that Cheryl had seen through James, and immediately grasped that Cheryl would choose suicide. Dagny rushed to save Cheryl, but was too late. From the POV of Plot, Cheryl had to die, to convey the psychological effect such evil (as James) can have on the innocent.
If it were not for Objectivism, given the evil I have been subjected to in the last five years, I would be dead too.
I had a brief Rand enthusiasm (along with one for James Bond) when I was 12. That older people take this pap seriously says a lot about our idiocracy.
Brilliant!!!
Johnathan, your comment is a common argument, but it is nothing short of psychologizing (just as rationalizing is an abuse of reason, psychologizing is an abuse of psychology to evade reason). It is a complete disregard of the possibility that Rand actually thought through her ideas. Read enough of her non-fiction, and you may come to a different conclusion… provided you think!
You are going on the assumption that Ayn Rand actually thought through her ideas.
And even if she did, where does that leave us? Idealism?
You claim to be a reasoned man yet you blindingly follow another’s ideas based out of blind assumptions.
Empirical evidence supports the scientific theory that we, human beings, are both Altruistic and Selfish. We are, in essence, Altruistically Individualists. We are a species which has survived by forming societal bonds (tribal societies) for selfish interests (survival). As such, Ayn Rands entire “ideas” are not in line with human behavior and must then be considered unattainable. Her ideas cause widespread corruption, and with corruptions comes greed, envy, hatred, war and almost certain death.
PET, altruism is, fundamentally, self sacrifice. Whenever someone is prepared to sacrifice something, there are others prepared to receive. Those recipients are either the unproductive, or the power seekers. History has shown that to be so, for 10,000 years. That is the empirical evidence. Even tribal societies demonstrate The Selfish Gene notion. A father who dies in defending his children or his tribe as a whole is acting selfishly, not altruistically. He is protecting his values.
Rational selfishness respecting Individual Rights is the only civilized way for Men to interact.
Rand did think her ideas through, whereas you and many others here, did not.
Those who “believe”…i.e. “believe” in socialism, or believe in jesus crispy, or believe in god, or “believe” in humanism…all have the magical idea that something “else”…i.e. the state, Obama, the church, or some “ideology” of altruism will come to their aid to save them.
Those who are objective thinkers…don’t wait for something or someone else to “save” them…or tell them what to do. Objectivists think..take in information, pre-empt, do the research, think, and then react…to save themselves.
Everytime…a mass of nonthinkers…believe that something or someone (especially like Hitler and socialism/fascism) is going to save them en mass…millions seem to die.
It is the intelligent, and life-sustaining function of the individual, human mind…to NOT rely on the commune, the collective or the state, but think for themselves…and save their own lives.
One of the reasons the “poor” are poor…is because they do not think for themselves, the poor rely on others to think and provide for them. The brain and one’s abilities DO NOT evolve or succeed if it is not used.
To wit: Look at hives and ant hills (the collective). both are billions of years old…but have never really evolved beyond being insects. And…as a human counter part…welfare agencies and the current Obama the Messiah and Savior government, want you to become a part of his ant hill…to be an unthinking, dependent slave of the socialist state.
Hmmm, didn’t humanity already do that…for close to 1000 years when the collective of the “church” dominated and all science, medicine, human rights, etc..came to a stand still?
The founders of the US…removed the dominance of the collective of both the church and the Royals…from making decisions and enforcing its ideology on the individual. And now…Obama and his socialist collective ant hill wants us to return to this primitive mind state? What the hell?
From the latest polls…it appears that there is an increasing majority who don’t want to become part of Obama’s collective socialist ant hill…and want to think and do for themselves.
Those who “hate” Ayn Rand…don’t Think…they “believe” and they feel…
Reason, logic, and doing their homework, or doing anything other than playing video games and being amateur psychologists…is beyond their capabilities.
Randites THINK….
The Left Wing Fascists BELIEVE…just like the holy rollers “believe” in jesus crispy. (To believe…is to make statements that something is “true” without any proof. The religious “believe,”…ergo, the Left are believers, just like the silly religious twits.)
And if the Left would stop poking so much shit up their nose, stop smoking so much pot, get their hands off their genitals and stop playing video games and THINK…they might grow up and understand why Objectivism is the fastest growing political movement in the world.
If you Left Wing Loons think that “Sex, Drugs, and Rap” are the only things worth living for besides robbing other people of their rights and property…then go ahead, but do not vote…and please, please do not have any more genetically and logic-deficient kids.
Planned Parenthood hands out free condoms and birth control pills and will even teach you how to use them.
Rand was a philosopher and not the head of a political party or PAC. Oddly you make this point by comparing her to Nietzsche. Both are appropriately taught in schools today as thought and debate provoking perspectives. If you don’t understand the self deception that exists in altruism, you have not looked deeply enough into yourself.
Sadly you are only scratching the surface on Rand’s ideas allowing them to be distorted in the half telling. I understand, it’s all for the “common good”, right?.
BTW, who gets to decide what the ‘common good’ is? Oh yea, liberal ideologues do, and once defined they can get on with the business of force feeding everyone their own vision of ‘good’. Thanks but no thanks.
You object to the philpsophy of Ayn Rand. That is of course your right. People on the right object to the pop culture effects of the Hollywood left people such as Madonna in the eighties and nineties, Brittany Spears a few years ago. For that belief we get called Nazi’s. Who is more to fear. Conservatives seek to pursuade, lefties seek to regulate. Who should we fear? What power does Bill O’Reilly have to affect others lives? You can turn off the TV. Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama with one bill have to right to wipe out businesses. Who should we fear more?
You are called Nazis because of your actions and proposed actions, not your beliefs. We can turn off the TV, but we can’t stop Loofah O’Reilly from lying about us or his producer from stalking anyone who complains. You’re just lying about Nancy Pelosi and Barack (note the correct spelling) Obama; they don’t have anywhere near that power. By the way, have you genuflected to Rush Lardball today?
Tom, whilst brian has no good reason to defend the Right, you seem to have missed the fact that the Nazis were SOCIALISTS! (caps are just for easy emphasis) And yes, they though in the same manner as those who oppose Rand’s ideas today.
Please also note that Rand was every much as opposed to the religious Right as she was to the Left, since BOTH are statist.
LEFT WING BAG HEADS!
Brian…when those claim that they don’t like Ayn Rand, or Conservatives because of their “beliefs” and what they do or are going to do….I always ask:
What are you talking about….state sentence by sentence, line by line and give the quotes and authors…of what you on the left object to.
Not once has anyone on the LEFT ever…cited accurately, or given a direct quote of anything said by Ayn Rand or Conservatives…to illustrate why they “don’t like” us.
Why? Because…the Left do not think…they dream stuff up, they listen to the Huffer’s Post, they read the Daily Kossack Communists..who also never, ever quote anyone correctly or directly. (pssssst…A “HUFFER” is a glue sniffer.)
Being a Leftist or a Democrat is like having a bag over their heads…in which they simply bump into walls and then ask each other where they are. Anyone can tell these Left Wing Bag Heads anything and they will believe it.
And to Tom…state exactly what are the ACTIONS and Proposed Actions…you are speaking about that make you think we are NAZIs?
…let’s hear it. Show some proof that Randites or Conservatives have anything to do with Nazi Fascism or socialism…
Tom…do you have a clue what Fascism is or what NAZI’s are?
Did you know TOM…that NAZI, stands for the National Socialist Workers’ Party in German…now I do not know of a single Randite, or any statement by Ayn Rand, or any Conservative…who likes, prefers, acts like, or recommends Fascist socialism. where did you get such an idea Tom?
Now, Tom…if you have any proof of any thing Rand said, or what Conservatives have done…etc…that prove they are NAZIS…then prove it. If you can prove what you state..other than just name calling by you…you will become rich and famous and make history.
Ayn Rand was disgusted by anyone stooping so low, or being so mindless, to simply parrot or genuflect, or bow, or “worship” or stalk anyone…in her name, or anyone else’s name.
And by the way…you, as well as O’Reilly and Limbaugh…HAVE A RIGHT TO ASK ANY PUBLIC PERSON ANY QUESTION…or TOM…is it REALLY YOU WHO IS THE NAZI AND WANTS PRESS CENSORSHIP?! Let us know Tom…how you “FEEL” about censorship of the GOP or those who like Ayn Rand’s philosophy.
AND WHAT LIES HAS O’REILLY OR LIMBAUGH STATED? GET US THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS, DATES AND TIMES AND CITATIONS…I’D LIKE TO SEE THOSE LIES. Anytime Tom…just Any time…prove what you “believe.”
Tom..calling people Nazis..does not make them Nazis..it makes you sound like a goose stepping, maligning, idiotic fool…who merely heard these words and then repeats them, but does not have the intelligence or the ethics and morals…to see if they are true or not.
And Tom…this is what Ayn Rand said about hero worship, which is exactly what you are doing when you demand that O’Reilly, Limbaugh, or anyone else “leave Peolosi or Reid alone, and allow them to do what they want, make any statements without verification or demanding the truth.
You TOM…are a state-Worshipper…which is exactly what you are accusing those who like Ayn Rand’s philosophy of doing. Ayn Rand found state-Worship disgusting, and would become most upset when someone stated that they “worshipped” or adored her personally, simply because of her personality…to wit:
Man-Worship
Just as religion has pre-empted the field of ethics, turning morality (mob rule) against man, so it has usurped the highest moral concepts of our language, placing them outside this earth and beyond man’s reach. (Tom…you have indicated that somehow Pelosi, Reid, and Obama..have supernatural powers and rights especially because they stand for the power of the “state”…and should be worshiped, because they are “beyond man’s reach.”)
“Exaltation” is usually taken to mean an emotional state evoked by contemplating the supernatural. “Worship” means the emotional experience of loyalty and dedication to something higher than man.
“Reverence” means the emotion of a sacred respect, to be experienced on one’s knees. “Sacred” means superior to and not-to-be-touched-by any concerns of man or of this earth. Etc. (You Tom…appear to have given Obama and his lackeys both reverence, and exaltation…in which you state to paraphrase…they are now untouchable…saints, and your new gods.)
But such concepts do name actual emotions, even though no supernatural dimension exists; and these emotions are experienced as uplifting or ennobling, without the self-abasement required by religious definitions.
What, then, is their source or referent in reality? It is the entire emotional realm of man’s dedication to a moral ideal. Yet apart from the man-degrading aspects introduced by religion, that emotional realm is left unidentified, without concepts, words or recognition.
(Tom..do you realize that you are worshipping Obama, Reid and ’s socialist/fascist state ideologies…and being religious in every sense of the word?)
It is this highest level of man’s emotions that has to be redeemed from the murk of mysticism and redirected at its proper object: man.
It is in this sense, with this meaning and intention, that I would identify the sense of life dramatized in The Fountainhead as man worship.
It is an emotion that a few—a very few—men experience consistently; some men experience it in rare, single sparks that flash and die without consequences; some do not know what I am talking about; some do and spend their lives as frantically virulent spark-extinguishers.
(Tom…you have to make up your mind before the next election…are you going to worship the rights of individuals…or are you gong to worship the State who demands that you have no rights…as created by Pelosi, Reid, and Obama?)
Do not confuse “man worship” with the many attempts, not to emancipate morality from religion and bring it into the realm of reason, but to substitute a secular meaning for the worst, the most profoundly irrational elements of religion.
For instance, there are all the variants of modern collectivism (communist, fascist, Nazi, etc.), which preserve the religious-altruist ethics in full and merely substitute “society” for God as the beneficiary of man’s self-immolation.
There are the various schools of modern philosophy which, rejecting the law of identity, proclaim that reality is an indeterminate flux ruled by miracles and shaped by whims—not God’s whims, but man’s or “society’s.” These neomystics are not man-worshipers; they are merely the secularizers of as profound a hatred for man as that of their avowedly mystic predecessors.
A cruder variant of the same hatred is represented by those concrete-bound, “statistical” mentalities who—unable to grasp the meaning of man’s volition—declare that man cannot be an object of worship, since they have never encountered any specimens of humanity who deserved it.
The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth.
The Objectivist “Introduction to The Fountainhead,”
The Objectivist, March 1968, 4.
This view of man has rarely been expressed in human history. Today, it is virtually non-existent. Yet this is the view with which—in various degrees of longing, wistfulness, passion and agonized confusion—the best of mankind’s youth start out in life. It is not even a view, for most of them, but a foggy, groping, undefined sense made of raw pain and incommunicable happiness. It is a sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one’s life is important, that great achievements are within one’s capacity, and that great things lie ahead.
It is not in the nature of man—nor of any living entity—to start out by giving up, by spitting in one’s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption, whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential.
Tom, Obama does not like the US Constitution and has said so, many times.
Judy wrote,
“Tom…is it REALLY YOU WHO IS THE NAZI AND WANTS PRESS CENSORSHIP?!” [caps are her's]
Obama, and the Left, dislike conservative radio. They want to bring back The Fairness Doctrine, that requires that they have the power to intervene and obtain radio time on conservative radio, tv, newspapers etc.
Of course, that slants the entire media in favor of the Left. It is a complete violation of Freedom of Speech, and is the adoption of practices found in China Russia Cuba Venezuela etc.
If the Left’s ideas were rational, then they should be able to obtain such media exposure solely by the strength of their arguments. Lacking intellectual strength, they must resort to the ’strength’ of physical force.
Unfortunately, True Conservatism was co-opted by the Religious Right (Fascists), who are no different than the Left Wing socialists’ religion…have both the same ideology which is the domination and control of human life.
A True Conservative…does not promote religion , or any kind of ideology, but seeks to “conserve” (Save)…individual rights.
The Leftist Propagandists, i.e. the Media…have successfully buried what True Conservatism is…and the Religious Right helped them.
When the idiots, such as Terry Randall and the ProLife/Catholic Church/religious fascists attempt to take over the US court system, and “demand” that US tax payers take care of Terry Schiavo whose brain was filled with water…it was a Conservative judge, who told Randall and his religious freaks, No…the US will not submit to your religion. It was also a Conservative Judge who stopped the IDers and Creationists from forcing American school children to be taught that god created the world. And, it was a Conservative Judge who led the charge against the ProLifer Perverts who sought to dismantle the right to an abortion. For their efforts, these Conservative Judges were often kicked out of their churches.
Did the Left pay attention to how much Conservatives promote individual rights? Of course not. The Left and the Dems have their own religious agenda.
I haven’t read Ayn Rand, but, I have to wonder at your criticism. She writes in a letter she is “anti-social” – is this your basis for her being undemocratic? Of course, I’m not her biographer, so I suppose I can’t suggest that she was, say, commenting on her behavior at cocktail parties. This post hasn’t provided evidence to the contrary, however.
Again, I haven’t read her or Walker. But such atomistic and acontextual quoting is a far cry from academic or rigorous criticism.
John…to be called “anti social” by the Left and those who hate Ayn Rand….really means to be “anti socialism”…and anti collective.
The Left does not like people who think for themselves and want to live their own lives, make money, find happiness at their own discretion….
The Left simply hates Objectivist thinking…that states that only through the individual mind, that has the power and education to take in information and not live in a magical world of either religion or politics…is the only true, and moral function of the individual.
Anyone who thinks for themselves…and will NOT live for the altruistic collective, suicidal politics …is called “anti social” and sociopathic by the Left.
Judy
“If it were not for Objectivism, given the evil I have been subjected to in the last five years, I would be dead too.”
My experience with Objectivists, and reading a lot of Rand and many Objectivist forums, is they are trying to understand the world through an amateurish, fake “Grand Unified Theory” of “Life, the Universe and Everything”. Yet, they can’t even agree amongst themselves what it is.
Perhaps the evils you face RnBram are the consequences of just not getting it. My suggestion? Grow up!
Unfortunately, having steeped yourself for years probably in seeing only what Objectivism defines as real you’ve lost all chance of perceiving the rest of reality.
–
“Not only is her whole program diametrically opposed to liberal values; Ayn Rand’s ideals are profoundly undemocratic.”
Yeah. Great, isn’t it? “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” (Robert A. Heinlein)
And there *IS* “no society.” Not as the sort of concrete entity capable of decision, valuation, or some sort of psychotic, mythic self-determination, as socialists (sorry; are you calling yourselves “Liberals” or “progressives” this week?) would have it.
Society – said Rand – is an abstract process by which people live in each other’s company. Though I don’t think she ever quoted him on this, Thomas Paine had some *Common Sense* you might like to consider:
“Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.”
Y’see, the fatal flaw in the socialist (darn! you *are* calling yourselves “Liberals” this week, right?) line of predatory viciousness is that when you say “society” (which is a warm-’n-fuzzy term), what you mean is “government” (which is goons with guns).
“Be nice and communitarian,” says the socialist, “or Officer Friendly is going to kill you.”
Ain’t that nice?
Ain’t it absolutely true?
Nope, it’s not nice. Thankfully, neither is it true. It may be pointless to address all the flaws in your argument, but I will at least try to deal with the strawman you set up.
Liberals and progressives (there are minor shades of distinction between the two, but both are utterly distinct from ’socialists’ the way you mean it; just as social-democrats, like the governments of Sweden and Norway, for example, are distinct from ’socialists’) absolutely get the difference between society and government.
We want to use government to deal with certain classes of social problems as, at it’s best, government is a vehicle to channel the common will and ingenuity of the populace for its own betterment; we want to regulate industry for the protection of the citizenry (and this includes environmental concerns–kinda hard to have a citizenry if there’s no environment to support human life) but not control it, or own it.
Neither do we want to step on people’s rights as outlined in the Constitution; in fact, we’d prefer to expand individual rights in many areas. Some of this may happen at the expense of ‘corporate’ rights but frankly, unregulated corporations have done gross economic and environmental harm to this country.
I trust people. I don’t trust entities whose sole aim is gain as much short-term profit for itself as possible, and which view all else as obstacles, including the law. If I had to sum up the progressive ideal, I would say this: Progressives seek to do the greatest good for the greatest number while doing the least harm possible to the least number of people, using any and all tools that do not contradict the first part and do not abridge individual rights. Government is a tool. Wielded properly, it is amazingly effective for tasks that cannot and should not be done for profit.
Conservatives want to “make government small enough to drown in a bathtub” to paraphrase Norquist–except of course for the military, corporate welfare, and such portions as regulate society and private behavior–sex, reproduction, contraception, to name a few. These days, even this might be too much credit; more and more, Republicans (and yes, I know they’re not utterly synonymous with conservatives…just largely) want power and wealth, and will do and say whatever they deem they can get away with to acquire and retain it.
Also, just because you claim something is abstract does not make it so; just because something is abstract does not make it unreal or lacking in power.
Sorry for the length, but I had a lot I wanted to say.
P.S. Heinlein was an okay, if limited writer, and that’s got to be the lamest use of a quote I’ve ever seen. Because of course the answer is a resounding yes; the majority has been right (however you care to define either of those terms) plenty of times on plenty of issues in plenty of places. Also, it’s so vague as to be barely relevant here.
——
I already wrote a ton just up the page, so I’m only going to address your point 1: about common good generally, using universal health care specifically to address this idea.
First of all, you argue from an excluded middle: there are many more options than the status quo or moving to a mandatory universal single payer. In fact, the option that Pres. Obama is championing (basing this on an interview with Howard Dean,) you wouldn’t have to opt in. You’d be free to make whatever arrangements you care to, but a government system will be available to all, providing competition for our current system of insurance co.s and HMOs. Isn’t competition good? Besides, the countries with the deepest penetration of public health insurance–Britain, I believe–still has around 15% of their care provided through private insurance. And that’s the lowest percentage among nations with universal single payer (which is more radical than what is being proposed here.)
Second, you and I already pay for the healthcare of people who are uninsured. When, for example, someone without insurance goes to the ER and cannot afford $1,000 to fix their broken ankle, the hospital gets tax money to offset the costs. We partially pay for a number of hospitals through public funds (in most states, anyway, possibly all.) If we didn’t do so, hospitals go bankrupt, and then the next time your or a loved one needs emergency care, it had damn well not require experts, extensive facilities or access outside business hours. After all, they are required by law to admit patients regardless of ability to pay.
Having a rational, efficient government-run (no oxymoron jokes, please–4 cents on the dollar admin costs vs 20 sounds pretty efficient, as well as 1/10th the marketing and sales, if that) health system will lower total costs, especially over time. Prevention is always cheaper.
We also pay in ways that are harder to calculate–lost productivity, inefficiency, etc. The sharper point, however, is that it is absolutely terrible for the common good to have a large pool of unhealthy people who only seek medical care when it’s an emergency, work when they are sick with god-knows-what, etc., get no follow-up care. This creates a standing reservoir of disease–how would you like to see TB come back? It also creates an easy vector for some god-awful strain of the flu, or any other bug, to rip through this country.
A healthy society will always benefit society at large in all these ways and more, and the minority groups who may not derive benefit from this fact are, if legitimate, vanishingly small–or they have ulterior motives that are manifestly counter to the common weal.
Last, we haven’t worked out how we’re going to pay for this. So, you may not pay for other people’s health-care the way you claim–indeed, real costs to you may go down (see above.) On the other hand, we already pay for a number of things for the common good. You help pay for schools–got kids? I’m sure you get an illiterate, poorly-socialized mob of kids who can’t get jobs is bad for you specifically, as well as the country at large (not to mention horrible for the kids.) You help pay for police and fire service–ever needed to be rescued by a fire-fighter? Your actual chances of having life or property saved by these services is pretty damn small, yet even more conservatives don’t object to this. Military, too–we spend more on our military than the rest of the planet combined. Yet the last time we were invaded was 1812–World War 2 saw exactly one attack on the soil of the Lower 48 (a shelling of an oil refinery near Santa Barbara, CA–Go Gauchos!) and your chances of ever having your life saved through the direct presence of US Armed Forces is microscopic (unless you happen to be in the Armed Forces, of course.)
And characterizing the people who can’t afford health care as ‘lazy’ is the worst kind of derogatory nonsense. I’m young, healthy, no kids, don’t smoke or drink; I got laid off from a job that provided benefits. I spend 60+ hours per week now either looking for a job or trying to find freelance/temp work–I can, in no wise, afford health care. At all. Millions of people in this country work jobs that provide no benefits, and unfortunately, these same jobs also rarely pay enough for the people who work them to afford health insurance because the jobs do not pay very well. A family of five, both parents working–they may simply be unable to afford $1,600/month in premiums, let alone costs for visits, referrals, tests, prescriptions and procedures. Laziness has nothing to do with it for the overwhelming majority of un- or under-insured people in this country. You either know this or have contempt for people who do necessary jobs that simply don’t pay enough, or you are truly ignorant of this state of affairs, in which case I urge you to read widely, challenge your assumptions, go outside your comfort zone, meet people outside your socio-economic niche, travel, etc. Thankfully, except for the last item, and possibly the second-to-last, all these things can be done easily and cheaply online.
And common good is always tricky, it’s always a dynamically-maintained balance that will change over time. There will always be disagreements, abuses, people who are harmed by measures we take to implement this common good. The trick is to (as I said above) do the most good for the most people, while keeping the harm we do to the least possible, done to the least possible number of people–while not trampling on their rights. Personally, I hope we raise taxes, as I think we can all afford, say, another 1% income and .25% sales, to pay for health care for all…and because, jesus, we’re broke and just cannot be borrowing any more money.
But that’s a different letter.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy at worst encourage a view as man as an island. All said, there is nothing violent or war-like in her entire repetoire- she simply advocated non-participation, or giving “moral sanction” to those you oppose.
Your article sets up an objectivist straw man.
Sadly, I know less about Ayn Rand’s politics than I do about her character. She was an egotistical, controlling bi+ch from all I’ve heard. She probably envisioned a world of people like herself and wondered how it would work. That’s who you want designing your society; not some bleeding heart who would make generosity into a necessary virtue and greediness into a menacing vice.
Ayn Rand wrote bodice-rippers for greedy men and provided a terrible role model for women. No woman should sit around and wait for a psycho like Howard Ruark for 5 years.
I will admit that Rand can be motivating. However, her views have led to a crisis in the USA because people have been led to worship mentally ill people. Just think about it for a minute. Do you think that Jack Welch is quite right in the head?
The lefties on this thread are reduced to ad-hominem attacks, while Rand’s defenders use logic and facts to persuade. I’m voting with for logic over emotion.
As hominem attacks? Logic?
That’s a joke, right?
Or maybe you are just one of those stereotypical Rand cultists?
Rand’s arguments are very compelling and well reasoned. In my opinion, her novels, “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead” are not nearly as interesting as her nonfiction treatises on capitalism and philosophy. Behind those novels is a well constructed argument for capitalism and individual rights: Man, as an organism who must observe reality and then rely on reason to produce the values which he needs in order to survive, must have the freedom to use his mind. To the extent that physical force is employed against him, he will not be free to use reason to improve his life. For Rand, there’s no ethical distinction between a common criminal and a politician who forces my neighbor and I to obey his laws ‘for the good of society.’ The societal ideal which she proposes is nowhere near as dark as most of her opponents describe it as: it is a society in which physical force and fraud are banned between individuals, and those who initiate it are prosecuted and punished for it by the government. It’s a society based on voluntary association and free trade: mutual trade to mutual benefit. Rand state that it is that ‘initiation of physical force’ which is the ethical boundary which we must not cross. This sets the stage for her theory on government: to the greatest degree possible, government must protect an individual’s right to liberty because without liberty, individuals will suffer. ‘Man’s life’ is her standard of value, and physical coercion only harms the life of individuals.
The empirical historical evidence is hard to deny: to the extent that individual rights are protected in a country, its citizens will prosper. This blog post is unfortunate; I was hoping to see some thoughtful criticism of her ideas. I’ve grown weary of finding nothing but vitriolic and irrational denunciation of her ideas, while the critic has little or no understanding of them in the first place. I’ll have to look elsewhere for a thoughtful analysis of what she has proposed. I did not find it here, it’s more of the same ad-hominem attacks.
Tragically, Rand predicted much of the fascist hooliganism which we are now seeing in America currently. Policy in America today is crafted with a mentality which has reified the concept of ’society’ and granted it rights which supercede the rights of the individual. You don’t have to scratch very deep to see that policy crafted with ‘the good of society’ in mind ends up being extremely absurd. Who is to determine what is ‘good for society?’ The practical political answer is: either a majority–which rides roughshod over the minority to get whatever it wants–or a dictator who claims to know ‘what is good for the people’ (similar roughshodiness for those who dissent against the dictatorial decrees).
To take the most recent example–”Bailout ‘n Stimulus Bonanza U.S.A”–our money is being taxed and spent away on whatever projects our elected officials deem “good ‘n stimulatin’ fur the economy.”
“politicians are criminals”, “fascist hooliganism”, “good ‘n stimulatin’ fur the economy”, intended to make ‘our elected officials’ sound like country bumpkins. And you criticize other people for ad hominem attacks? The choice is not just between rule by a dictatorial majority or by a dictator, as you seem to believe. That’s the whole idea behind the US constitution–trying to find a balance that controls the greed of the few (Randites) while allowing the most freedom possible to everyone.
If the press is not free…and all choices are controlled by the state-run media…then Obama and his thugs are political criminals, engaged in “fascist hooliganism”…whose simplistic “hate” of the individual…and disrespect for the rights and property of others…are being promoted by a bunch of simplistic country bumpkins, who function as “mob”…or better yet a mob of Insects, all demanding that we be apart of the Obama Ant Hill.
Randits are the ONLY growing political force that respects individual rights…and knows what the fk…the Left is doing and intends on doing….The Left led by Obama and his Chicago Thugs…are creating a socialist/fascist police state…
Now if any anti-Rand hater in here wants to be just an Insect in the Obama hive…please, oh please state your justifications for why you hate yourself so much.
There are a few issues with the article that need to be addressed.
1) Define “common good”. Seems to me that this is a term that is different for everyone. What is good for some is not necessarily good for others. Sure, universal healthcare sounds good for those who can’t afford health insurance right now… but it isn’t all that good for those of us who can afford our own insurance, want to make our own choices, and will be forced into a system we didn’t choose. Not to mention that I don’t feel like paying for insurance for people who are too lazy to work for it for themselves. Where is the “common good” in that scenario?
2) The world IS Darwinian. It doesn’t matter what political system you live in, that is a simple fact. In Communist and socialist regimes, the strongest rose to the top of the party over the dead bodies of those who were too weak to defend themselves. Under barbarism, the strong killed the weak and took their posesions. It was called “pillage, rape and plunder” and it was a fact of life through most of our history. Under monarchism and similar systems, the knights and kings retained power by enslaving the peons and conscripting them into the military. In the times of the Samurai in Japan, only the Samurai were permitted the use of swords, and they retained power through force of arms. Today, throughout Africa, Asia, South America, and large parts of Europe, there are vast tracts of lawlessness, where the strong survive on the dead bodies of the weak. In the Arab world of Theocracy, the Mullahs retain power through force, and if you are from the wrong sub-group, your days are numbered.
The only difference between our Capitalist system and these other systems is that Capitalism defines “strength” through the accumulation of wealth and/or political power. Which is advantagous for the weak, because it means that the weak still get to live… they just aren’t as rich as those who exhibit “strength”. Furthermore, we have a greater number of people who manage to become “strong” in our system after starting out “weak” than in any other system. More millionaires were created during the 80s and 90s than in any system in history. And of course, more people who had millions have become poor than in any system in history. Our system allows greater entery between the classes than any other system ever invented. That is Capitalism.
3) How do you define “sefishness”? If I am in need of medical care and can afford it on my own, am I being selfish if I get that care? Is that considered “putting myself above the rest of society”?
It seems to me that a system that promotes people who do not work to get the same as those who do is one that promotes selfishness. Here I am working my butt off 50-60 hours a week to make ends meet, but you are going to give the same “rewards” to the guy who hasn’t worked in five years, because we have universal healthcare, retirement, etc.? That seems very selfish to me.
4) You complain about the “polution” of young minds by Ayn Rand’s books being taught in our schools? I feel the same way about Carl Marx being taught in our schools. I feel the same way about sex-ed being taught in our schools. I could go on and on listing all the things that are taught in the public school system that I object to.
The solution to that is school privatization. That way, you get to choose what philosophy your kids learn in school. Of course, that would mean that you’d have to give up the liberal idea of government-run education and allow privatization and the competition of capitalism to work for education.
Otherwise, you’ll just have to take what the government feeds you and suck it up.
“Rand’s books have influenced the minds and faith of untold millions; today her books are studied by children in schools.”
That is really all we need to know. There really is hope Ayn Rand was the first of the return of the advocates of reason.
I will cede the word to you after I make the point that, contrary to Mr. Chomsky’s assessment, the original Liberals were the 9 businessmen dissatisfied that the government granted a monopoly to the 10th, in return for collecting taxes for the enrichment of the king or state militarism, and enforced it at the point of a gun. Now, it seems, New Liberals want the government to create as many monopolies as possible – AMA, Bar, Taxis in NYC, etc. New Toy manufacturing regulations require a $3000 toxicity test per model. I’m sure Hasbro can afford that, but the local shop will be hit hard. Who’s defending corporatism now? Big corporations are in favor of regulation and protection, by government (and its guns) from competition. Liberals ought to be anti-power, anti-tyranny. Instead, they seem watered down to simply anti-business.
Similarly, Capitalism is now an intellectually lazy term that encompasses all manner of Corporatism, Mercantilism (as above), Ethnocentrism, Militarism, etc. It is none of thses, but people are conditioned to hear all of these things when the word is spoken. Is it too much to ask Leftist intellectuals to be specific? Taking advantage of semantic ambiguity is only useful when preaching to the choir.
Tenure was designed to protect thinkers from pressures that would bias them. The loophole is that today’s university thinkers get government grants for research, work for government subsidized universities, and teach students who pay their tuition using government grants and loans. It must be admitted that this is at least a potential source of a pro-government-spending intellectual bias. Compound upon this that a government pro-state curriculum is taught by grade-school teachers whose wages are paid with tax dollars and who, in my experience, know next to nothing about personal finance. Further, these educators wages, thus, the value of their labor, is not subject to market consideration. Capitalism is used lazily as I describe above, portrayed to children as essentially a necessary evil. The results (graduates) go through life skimming what they can get away with, and lying when it’s practical. Key word: practical.
In capitalism, dishonesty is a choice. In politics, it is mandatory.
I like the concept of Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead – I disagree with Rand on copyright, patent, and her militant atheism. I am an atheist, but in the “without” sense – not the shove non-existence down your throat sense. The intellectual property rights issue comes from, first, that property rights are justified due to scarcity – ideas can be copied for free and thus, are not scarce. Second, Dr. Stephen Kinsella and others describe many examples of innovation accelerating after the expiration of a patent. Intellectual “property”, unlike capital such as a machine that when borrowed, wears out, is not diminished through duplication. Imagine a primitive who sees another roll a heavy object on logs – inventing the wheel. One cannot seriously say that he has the right to destroy the observer’s attempts at rolling things on logs.
I liked your article, and I believe that Ayn Rand needs to be spoken against. However, if your argument has any holes – of which it had many-, the Rand followers will attack those flaws and claim your argument has no validity. I have read Rand myself, and am repulsed in a deep way by what she says (particularly by the flimsiness of her ideas), but I also realize that, like other hugely influential flawed (nasty) ideas (belief systems), there is a primal cord that is struck in people. They will use whatever tools at their disposal to defend a philosophy that conceptually, intellectually , and ultimately socially and politically justifies actions that are otherwise clearly wrong headed and harmful. Any idea can be defended, especially the abhorrent ones.
You have not…stated what are the:
1) Holes in Rand’s logic
2) What are the flaws
3) You do not state exactly what you are “repulsed” by
4) You do not state why or in what specifics Rand’s firmness in her ideas bothers you
5) You do not state exactly what are Rand’s “flawed and nasty” ideas are
6) You do not state exactly what are those “tools” Objectivists use at their disposal that you dislike (Like what? Free speech!?)
7) You did not state or give a single sentence to support what social and political ideals justify….
8) What are Rand’s “clearly wrong headed and harmful” idea?
You…are an example of an insect-brained twit, who has not a clue what you think or should think…and have never read Rand in your entire life…but merely parrot “feelings” of others…so that you can remain as part of the collective herd of sheep.
In your entire paragraph…there is not one single specific statement…of fact re: Rand…you merely “feel.” And what you feel proves nothing….but that you are instinctive and driven by chemical-driven feelings.
Please do not vote, and do not have any children…we have quite enough two-legged insect and mindless feelers on this planet…what we need are thinkers. And you do not qualify.
You fool,
Ayn Rand never advocated the use of the state to benefit anyone, the Rich, OR the people… because like all labor movements the leadership can be compromised and turned around to enslave the people.
You know nothing about AYN RAND… Alan Greenspan is a lying b@ST–RD… He faked liked he supported Ayn Rand so he and his cronies could repeal the Glass-Stegall and bring back derivatives… well now that their ponzi scheme is coming crashing down in the free market, the market is punishing them… so NOW they like the idea of a BIG BROTHER GOVERNMENT TO SAVE THEM
AYN RAND WOULD LITERALLY SH!..T a BRICK IF SHE SAW WHAT WE AMERIKANS ARE LETTING THOSE CRIMINALS GET AWAY WITH, DONT YOU DARE BLAME AYN RAND OR HER PHILOSOPHY FOR THEIR CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR…
THE MARKET IS TRYING TO PUNISH THEM AND THEY ARE USING CORPORATE WELFARE TO ROB US BLIND…
IM AGAINST SOCIALISM BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE IT THEN LETS GIVE THE MONEY TO THE PEOPLe… LIKE CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL, An AYN RAND FOLLOWER LIKE MYSELF (HE NAMED ONE OF HIS SON’S RAND PAUL) HAS CALLED FOR:
THOSE BANKSTERS WHO CAUSED THE FINANCIAL COLLAPSE SHOULD BE ARRESTED, INSTEAD THEY WILL LIE TO YOU AND SAY WE NEED MORE REGULATION, THEN YOU LEFTIST FOOLS WILL ALL FOLLOW OBAMA AND HIS WALL STREET CRONIES, AND MARCH THE WHOLE WORLD INTO GLOBAL SLAVERY IN THE GUISE OF REGULATION TOWARDS A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT RUN BY THESE SAME CRIMINALS…
MAKES ME SICK.
Ron Paul is a horror whom Rand would angrily reject for his hypocritical policies (anti-abortion) etc. Worse, Ron Paul has probably read more of Rand than any of the detractors commenting here (not to mention the author of the original post), yet he does not grasp what she is talking about.
ok…YOU ARE BEING CALLED TO STATE EXACTLY WHAT AN “AD HOMINEM” ATTACK WAS MADE….and you cannot do it.
Every time…anyone makes a good point…the Lefties all scream “ad hominem attack! Racism! Homophobia! Selfish! Greedy! Nazi! blah, blah, and blah….
What it all comes down to…is that the Left cannot launch any kind of reasoned argument against…Reason!
Isn’t that bizarre…the Left has no reason or logic…to dispute reason or Logic.
The Left has nothing but “feelings” and trite little practiced parroted statements…that make absolutely no sense what so ever.
I’ve worked with back wards mental patients who make more sense than the Left…
Trying to talk or have a conversation, let alone an “argument” with someone on the Left…is like talking to a brick wall. For example…from the above comments, we note that the Left does not like Ayn Rand, but can’t tell you why.
OK…why do you not like Ayn Rand’s philosophy of logic, reason, and objectivism?
Lefty: I don’t like her that’s why?
Can you give an example as to “why” you don’t like Objectivism?
Lefty: Sure I can…I don’t like her.
Let’s try this…what is it that you don’t like about living for one’ self?
Lefty: Its being selfish and greedy.
OK..what’s wrong with being selfish, such as living for one’s self…and greedy, i.e. keeping one’s own money?
Lefty: Its selfish and being greedy.
At this point…I wonder where the Lefties went to school and who taught them in 12 years how to NOT think! Of course, simply making “hate” statements…about something they know nothing about …is exactly the kind of mindless, astro turf kind of brain…the Left likes.
Randites “think” and the Lefties “parrot.”
No contest.
It is amusing to see small children, such as Iconoclast and others here, use an ad hominem attack to attack people who critize his cult leader’s ideas and philosophy. While Rand’s philosophy may be internally consistent and unified, it bears no relationship to reality. It is founded on an erroneous concept of human behavior, a ridiculous notion of property rights, and the mistaken application of “Darwinian” biological principles to society. I could go on, but these people are, like Manson’s cult or the Jonestown or Waco victims, being led down a path that promises them riches and power in this world. Nowhere, at any place or time, has Rand’s economic or social model been successful, and it never can be because it starts with fatal flaws. Hence, its adherents resort to personal and ad hominem attacks on their critics. Too bad. So sad.
Polistes, you know there is a clever, but self-defeating tactic that people use in debates sometimes when the actual reasoning of their position is weak. It’s called “slanting,” or “loading” and consists of using rhetoric to give the reader false assumptions and premises on what is being said. Like you have used shamelessly here.
“Small children” — argument from ridicule/derision
“cult leader” — loaded statement/dysphemism
“ridiculous notion” — another argument from derision, no example/definitions or explanation given
“Manson’s Cult” — argument from association/scare tactic
“promises them riches and power” — demonizing statement
I’d rather listen to a child than a grownup any day. This sort of dishonest speech is just one reason. You must know that if your reasoning were sound, you wouldn’t need to make hyperbolic and slanting statements to convince people. Take the following two statements:
“Murder is bad because it is wrong for one human being to take the life of another without unimpeachable moral reason & lack of other recourse.”
“Murder is pathetic because it’s lame for one evil ugly pimpled white corporate black jewish lefthanded scuzzball pedophile guy to slip up behind our sleeping wonderful hero cartoon handsome neat cool charity leader, and stab a dastardly devilish knife so violently into our hero’s pure and virgin heart, robbing the universe of a great man of our age in farting fashion.”
Why does the second one read so silly and pointless? Because those rhetorical slanters are not needed to prove my point. I did it without any loaded language or obnoxious mud slinging. Can you?
Could these Randians PLEASE go Galt already? It’s annoying that they keep threatening to leave society and NEVER DO. Go buy an island or something with your unmooched, sweat-of-your-brow, achievement dollars. GO, already! Sheesh.
The worst part about this Rand religion is it isn’t even based on the slightest iota of reality. All religions have some fact in the middle, through the mythical elements and water-walking and commandment-delivering. Like, Jesus and Moses and Mohammed and Buddha were REAL people in the REAL world. This one starts and ends with a fictional TERRORIST in the form of Roark and another fictiional dude name John Galt. None of it applies to the real world at all.
It even comes pre-equipped with its own conspiracy theory (mediocre moochers taking our product by tears blahblahblah.) It’s easy to believe and simplistic, perfect for the permanently adolescent minds of its followers. They would have us believe people spring forth from the ground, with their achievement goals already in mind, having owed nothing to nobody. What a crock.
Someone either doesn’t know a lot about Ayn Rand or is out to totally misrepresent her ideas:
“Rand’s values are neo-Nietzsche who was originator of the war-like superman” While Rand was influenced by Nietzsche early on, she ultimately rejected his ideas because he condoned the use of force by the “superman” against others. By contrast, Rand herself consistently rejected initiation of physical force. She had nothing to do with “war-like superman.”
“Alan Greenspan, ex-chairman of the Fed, was a student and contributed essays to her nonfiction book ‘Capitalism.’” His essay was a scathing critique of central banking and he advocated the abolishment of the Fed. Later, as the Fed Chairman, he was viewed by Objectivists as abandoning the principles of free markets and individualism. And the economy paid a dear price as Greenspan’s government-enforced low interest rates contributed to the 2002-2006 hosuing bubble. Greenspan may call himself an Objectivist, but everyone knows you can’t be Chairman of the Federal Reserve and an Objectivist at the same time.
“Well, at one point Rand flatly states, there is no society” That is true. But she said “There is no such thing as society. Society is merely a collection of individuals” because she championed the individual’s right to be free. The “demands of society” have always been used as justification for sacrificing the rights of the individual (be it the USSR or Nazi Germany or socialized medicine), but she pointed out that that really means sacrificing one individual for the sake of other individuals.
“For further insight into Rand’s world in which altruism is the enemy of advancing civilization, see Jeff Walker’s book The Ayn Rand Cult.” Rand repeatedly defined altruism “not as kindness or helping others” but as the morality that a man’s life is not his own and he can be sacrificed to the will of others like an animal, usually by force. I can’t say I blame her for being against THAT version of altruism. And I’ve read Walker’s book. He’s not “Rand’s biographer,” he’s clearly a guy with an axe to grind. But anyone who reads “The Ayn Rand Cult” will see it for themselves pretty easily.
Good words, my friend!
It is nice to see someone with a good sense of philosophy and history to defend the much-maligned Ms. Rand.
I am, myself, a Libertarian and NOT an Objectivist, but I do think it funny that the Left chooses to criticize any and all who disagree with them by lumping them all together by thin philosophic connections.
It IS easier to hit a straw-bale than a straw-pile, though.
Good Job, Chris.
Your points are excellent, succinct, and compelling. Unfortunately the Rand detractors here (including the post author) so fully enjoy smearing and mischaracterization that they simply will never think through what you have presented.
Excellent discussion on Rand, who was anti cult, anti superman, and anti collective. However, I want to take a little different tact here…and discuss the so-called “Right” and its history of nonthinking, nonreasoned, and nonactivism in the last 50 years:
For years, since the 1970s I warned the Republicans and the Conservatives to “protest,”….and do it loudly, be indignant and take action against the lies, smears, and name calling….by the Left.
I was told to be “ladylike” and “keep MY mouth shut.” Instead, the GOP and the Cons…went back to their country clubs and martinis…and just talked about “how awful” the Left was behaving… but did nothing.
When the Left Wing Media…acted like Communist Apparatchiks for the Democrat Party…I joined Accuracy in Media and strongly recommended that we boycott ALL advertisers who supported the Left Wing Media….
Again…I was told by Mr. Arneaud de Borchgrave et al…to “stand back” and don’t make them “mad” or the Left might get upset. At every turn…when the Left turned up the heat…”our side” turned into cowards and fled the battlefield.
I began reading Left Wing textbooks to understand how and “why” the Left was motivated to commit mindless national “suicide” and engage in nonthinking and reactive destructive “hate” of this country.
I read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” I followed the ongoing “Cloward-Pivens” strategies, in which the LEFT demanded more and more of your tax dollars using American “white” guilt to manipulate all you nice voters into handing over more of the tax payers’ income and rights. I was outraged as such simpering cowardice.The proof of how and why the Left was successful was not a secret…but yet, the Right refused to learn anything about the growing “enemy” in our midst.
(The Cloward-Pivens strategy has been around for a long time…in which it is designed to use the “Christian values” of guilt, tolerance, and the forgiveness of sins…through legislative fiat that also includes spending this country into bankruptcy supporting ideological Left Wing goals masquerading as “social justice,” and entitlements. Mr. Cloward and Ms Pivens…stated that once this country was “bankrupt” on every level by all the “entitlement programs for the poor, or those with dark skin”…then by default the US would become a socialist state. They were right…and what did the Right do while this was happening? Nothing…they continued to read the Wall Street Journal, Barons, and their Bible.)
In order to “combat” the left in their own territory, I went to Journalism school…and was appalled at how many “J” schools across the US were teaching future reporters to “be involved in social justice” meaning–follow the exact menu and agenda of the Socialists and the Democrat Party. In “J” school all of the instructors, professors, and their publications were biased as far back as the 1980s and stated in every way possible…that the GOP and the Conservatives were “against poor people and worse…homophobic racists.” What did “our side” do? Nothing…they mostly gave speeches to each other, but did not go into the lair of the Left Wing Liars… confront editors or journalists, or keep track of who their associates were.
One small group, funded by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI)…gave out summer internships and stipends…but “controlled” Right Wing journalists to the point, that no one was allowed to engage in exploratory journalism of the Left. Instead, the AEI lectured to the choir, and concentrated its focus on “making money.” During this experience…I thought “Fine, as long as we have some money to invest.” The group I hated the most during this period, were the “wannabe” journalists who were in reality arrogant little Right Wing Snots…who were absolutely assured that they would never have to do much but “look good”…and that they would always be “free” to make money and be at the top of the “heap.”
The Country Club elitist Republicans failed us…and their parents failed us, and other Conservative/GOP organizations failed…to explore who and what the enemy was doing on every level…and confront it. IF we are to not just survive, but win back our rights…these arrogant Country Club types are going to have to fight in the streets along with the rest of us…or get the hell out of the way in this war for our Independence and Freedom Part II.
The GOP has always had the power to acquire excess campaign funding…but never used such funding or journalists to save this country. Until Dan Rather was “caught forging documents” against George Bush…Rather had been a major fund raiser for the Democrat Party for 30 years. Not once did I hear a “peep” out of the so called “Right” regarding this outrage, nor did the Right use the same successful tactics of the Left. We we all told, that “ladies and gentlemen” did not engage in such “low” tactics. What does the GOP think now?
The past 50 years have been very painful for me…as I watched as the Left forced the US out of Vietnam. What followed was a bloody massacre of 3 million people by the Viet Cong and the Communists. Not once did I hear or see any finger pointing at the DNC by the Republican Party orConservatives “who” were responsible for this genocide. If I had been in charge of the RNC…every time the DNC had a major meeting, I would have beenthere holding up signs…stating…”The Democrats Murdered 3 million people!”
I was in the Contra camps…watching children die of starvation, while the Left “organized” the most massive public relations’ campaign in American history…using money smuggled into them by the Soviet Communists and the International Socialists to fund them. Time and time again, the Democrats have been caught…and not once did the Right take advantage of it. Instead, they stayed home watching football, and took their kids to “soccer” practice.
In the early 1980s, I was a hired “mole” at a Marxists’ Scholar’s Conference at the University of Louisville, when Jesse “The Extortionist” Jackson was caught red-handed taking money from the Communist Party USA’s “bag man.” Did the Right become outraged at this? No…because Jackson was “black” and somehow being “black” excused every one of his hundreds of blackmail and extortion schemes. When Jackson and the Rainbow Coalition was caught cheating on their taxes…what did the Right do? Nothing.
Year after year…when ACORN and at least 1000 other associated “scams” funded by the US tax payers…were used to “organized” the Left…what did the Right do? Nothing…it barely noticed.
During the 1980s…the Right didn’t even whimper when the Left “booked” every single library, student union, community center, local public TV and radio stations to “organize.” The Right said nothing when the Left began a massive PR war against the US “saving” the Nicaraguans (i.e. Five groups of Contras) from the Marxist Sandinistas. I was only 1 of 2 journalists in the US…that reported on the Contras and the first journalist to document the Marxist Sandinista genocidal atrocities against the Moskito, Suma, and Rama Indians, which was entered into the US Congressional Record in July 1985.
What did the GOP do…when the Left Wing pro-Marxist Congress refused to allow the Contras to use public relations to state their side of the conflict. Nothing…But, yet, the American Left Wing journalists…were allowed to print documented “lies” about the Contras day in and day out? I was one of a group of people involved with the International Red Cross who investigated alleged Contra “atroicities.” Not once in 124 cases we investigated, by interviewing witnesses, and doing field world…did we find any organized, or orchestrated atrocities by the Contras. And yet…the Left continues to make up massive lies and smears today….without so much as a peep.
Recently…a Left Wing bogging booger eater, made up a lie about the Palin’s divorcing. Palin is now considering filing a law suit against him….Well, duh, its about god damn time…there should be about 1000 lawsuits filed against the Lying Left Wing booger eaters going back 30 years.
In the 1980s, I begged, wrote articles, visited the offices of Congress…I was outraged and indignant…and stated that there should be a public law to require that all such “advocate” journalists to have to “register as lobbiests for the Democrat Party…because when they printed their lies and slants…they were NOT journalists..and had a clear, practiced, and definite political agenda.
I was again told…that they had the right of “Free Speech,” and that somehow God or Jesus would find a way to “overcome” the evil Left. While, the “Right” prayed…the Left worked over time at a grass-roots level…and took over this country lock, stock, and barrel.
I again protested when the Religious Right had one single issue…abortion….which was the equivalent of “Nero fiddling while Rome burned” in the distance…If ProLifers do not want an abortion, then they have a right to not have one. But…the Right…became “religious” and demanded that “pregnancy be turned into a 9-month jail sentence…and that while pregnant, the Right…inferred that women no longer had a right to control, own, or determine the fate of their own bodies.”
And so here we are…nearly 100% of all universities, colleges, and the media is controlled by the Left. The Left now dominates the Congress, the White House, and all government agencies, including the US Military, IRS, FBI, CIA etc is at the beck and call of Hussein Obama and his Chicago Thugs…
For more than 40 years, the American school system…has de-evolved into a pro-Marxist union that promotes every Left Wing, socialist, anti-American individual rights issue. Reviewing a middle-grades English curriculum, I did not find a single “lesson plan” that involved grammar, writing skills, or vocabulary…but “social justice and diversity” themes.
Millions of students now have to become trained to become “unthinking” and involuntary slaves of the state”…for whom it is mandated that they “volunteer” for community service before they can graduate from high school…or enter college. What did the Right do? The Right whined a little, but complied like good little boys and girls…trying to make the “daddy-state” happy.
So now …when the Left Wing wolf is not only at our door, but is eating our future, taking our money, and our property…and making state-slaves out of our children well into the 22nd Century…and is well on its way to turning the US into the Socialist States of America…. now… you protest.
Again…I am going to warn you to “prepare” because the worst is yet to come.
The Left has a vicious, jealous, mean streak, and they are not going to go willingly into the “night” like “ladies and Gentlemen.” The Left smells the “blood” of our demise and self-induced helplessness.
Many of today’s Left Wing leaders…are not only on the payroll of George Soros and can “afford” to “organize” 14 hours a day, 7 days a week…and have fun while ripping away your rights and will to protest….they have been training thousands of “professional protesters” to beat your heads in. The fun has just begun. Don’t even bet that this war for your rights is going to be “won” by waving a few signs around, attending a few “tea parties” and yelling at Town Hall meetings.
What exactly is the “Right” going to have to do? Begin impeachment movements against every single Left Wing, stand on street corners, take over community centers, set up booths at university campuses, man the phones…and yes “mob” the streets in protest. Make “them” afraid…to deny you your Constitutional Rights and property. Make the Left and the elitist politicians you even voted for…know that its not business as usual.
When the votes were counted for SotoMayor…the most outrageous “racist” to ever become a Supreme Court judge…100% of the GOP should have voted against her. SotoMayor by the way…was the legal representative for the Latinos’ “La Raza” party. Now how many of the GOP know that “La Raza” means “the race.” La Raza is the most racist group in the US, and the equivalent of the racist Black Panthers. By the way…what La Raza wants besides revenge against “whitey” is open American borders… Already 1/6th of the entire Mexican population now lives in the US. La Raza wants to make it 100%.
Many of today’s Left Wing Leaders…many of whom are Obama’s good friends, fought bloody street battles in the 1960s and 1970s and are not afraid to go to war, and if necessary…murder. The leaders of the violent Anti-Vietnam war protesters are still here, with many of them holding powerful professorships in American universities, who are…organizing future battles against the Right.
Knowing this…I wonder what the Right is going to do? Hide out behind gated communities, enclave themselves at the country club again…and over their Glen Livet Scotch, simply muse about how “awful” it all is?
I have a small hope…that finally the Right is growing a “backbone” and will begin protesting as they should have done 4o years ago, when the onslaught or organized lies and smears began. And I…
Thank you…its about GD time….and by the way, not only did I tell you what the future was going to be as it was self-evident…but those of you who told me to “keep my mouth shut” and “act like a lady”…while this country was being raped and robbed…now owe me an apology.
And Rand was making the point…that it was “supermen” who go above and beyond all collective, religious, cultural pressures and demands…and is a heretic, a nonbeliever, and who thinks outside of the box.
It takes extraordinary will power, brains, and a spine…to live in a world that rewards mediocrity and hates the “rich” and the successful. Those who do so…are supermen and super women.
Every single thing you dumb collectivite socialists use, you dumb cluck…was invented by a heretic, a superman or woman, who refused to live a static life…and fought against the dull, unimaginative, boring, insecure, uneducated, poor…like you….who are jealous, filled with revenge and hate, for those who achieve and succeed.
Not only do the “supermen” have to fight their own minds in order to not submit to the status quo…when and if they do achieve something great, such as make a statement that “the earth revolves around the sun,” with such statements these supermen and super thinkers…are punished, destroyed, put in prison..and labeled “anti social.”
Every time I see such a person who is “anti social” and fights against the collective, mindless bull shit boring, retarded rhetoric that wants us to be all the same and POOR…I go Hoorey for them!
Go ahead…live your little boring life, filled with video games, and TV promoting bizarre sexual life styles…of which we taxpayers are told we MUST pay for…go ahead…go to the left wing schools and media outlests that promotes the collective ant hill anti individualist mind…go ahead…pay those taxes, and demand that the rest of us pay more, because we MUST be punished for being successful thinkers and especially for being independent.
But, know that the mindless socialist collective ALWAYS makes bad decisions and FAILS. Already the collective socialists are bankrupting and destroying this country…and who will suffer the most? You, the little mindless following bipedal insect….you will suffer because you do not have the ability to think or survive on your own….The collective insects do not think in the future, do not save, or invest, or create new ideas that allow them achieve a better, more sustaining lifestyle.
And in return…the strongest will survive…and survive well. Did it ever dawn on you why the successful and the rich live in enclaved homes and gated communities and away from people like you? Because, the masses of you vote, and because you vote, you are dangerous…you do not respect intelligence or achievement, or anyone’s property or right to “live”… but in your mindless, boring, poverty stricken world and follower’s mind…you hate.
As a student of zoology, you Left wing cretins also remind me of a pack of hyenas. A bunch of giggling hyenas all grabbing and sniffing each other’s crotches…and thinking you are soooo cool…because you voted for Obama’s “change” and yet you have not a clue what that change would lead to.
Your previous comment outlining the complacency of the right, while snide, sniviling socialists disguised as Democrats took control of the bus and steered it over the cliff, was magnificant. Sounds like you have earned the right to say “told you so”.
“And the economy paid a dear price as Greenspan’s government-enforced low interest rates contributed to the 2002-2006 hosuing bubble.”
So is it Greenspan’s fault or government in general’s fault? Cuz, see, it SEEMS like you are “sacrificing one individual” (Greenspan) “for the sake of other individuals.” (Objectivists and their consistency) Man this stuff seems like its hard to keep pure.
And of course this leads into why Objectivism and Libertarianism will never be a major political force because they are too inept to establish a state by means of politics, diplomacy, bribery, or force of arms. Because, 1) Their beliefs are unpalatable to the people at large (even to those who ostensibly believe them)
2) They act like insufferable assholes
3) Despite all that preening about achievement and mooching and work product, they actually don’t have that much money.
4) They can’t run a revolution because of their moral objection to force (although they’ll find a way to justify it, ask Timothy McVeigh. If smashing the state means blowing little children to bits, so be it)
This is why their best strategy for running any nation is to throw this clockwork temper tantrum every 4 to 8 years against any new administration and merely serve as a security blanket for angry, whiny, Republican pusses. And their only weapon is this Galt-style daydream that they will take their ball and go home and everybody will miss them and crumble without them. But they never do, because they are afraid of the fact that they might leave and nobody would notice or care. (or, even worse, flourish with the added concentration that comes with their silence.)
So please, Go Galt, have a nice trip.
Jeff, not a single point you make applies to any sentiment that belongs to Rand’s Objectivism. Not one. If that makes me an insufferable asshole, it makes you an intellectual neanderthal.
Not once…has any ANTI RANDER poster ever QUOTED RAND CORRECTLY. Why is that?
What is it and how is it…that the Anti-Logic Left Wing Twits…who “hate” Ayn Rand with an intensity verging on insanity…have never read Rand or even have the simple intelligence to quote “what” they hate about Rand accurately? How do they do that?
Where and how do the Anti-Logic Rand haters…get their hate information? I’d like to know.
So…here is the question:
WHO AND WHERE DID YOU ANTI-RANDER HATERS LEARN ABOUT AYN RAND? FROM WHOM DID YOU LEARN TO HATE RAND? WHAT ARTICLES OR BOOKS HAVE YOU READ ABOUT RAND? Who spoke to you about Rand….and what references did they use as examples?
I am betting that maybe 1 in 1000 will be able to truthfully state…they hate Rand, because someone in their peer group told them to. As mere “ghosts” of a human being, the Anti Randers are incapable of being anything but a parasite, sucking off the idiotic words of someone they think is “cool” without knowing if what they parrot like a squawking bird is accurate or not.
What value or enjoyment is there in living like a LAMPREY…sucking the blood of a host, or living off of offal and detritus?
In my more “outrageous” moments, I would like to put an Anti-Rander in a room, just me and him or her…and begin to question them about what they really know about Rand and why they hate her or Objectivism.
Every time they tell a “lie” or refuse to answer…or get a wrong answer, I’d like to send an electrical shock through their chair…until they begin to answer with honesty.
Any Anti-Rander who simply states: “I don’t know where I got this information…gets a lollipop.” But, then I’m not the head inquisitor in charge, and the lousy, confused, strange little perverted lies they tell…punishes them far beyond anything I could do.
To a person…those who hate Rand and Objectivism…have failed personalities, and schizoid personality disorders.
Hmmm, let me see…there is a little P. Henry in this forum, who “guffaws” at Rand’s writings…and then there are the millions who understood what Rand was offering, i.e. respect and integrity for one’s self….Hmmm…
1 vs millions of Rand Readers….hmmmm, let me see who I would be more inclined to respect….one little anti-Rander whiner, or the millions who understand and enjoy Rand….and think for themselves.
Hmmmm, I am so confused. Gee…do you think I should ask P. Henry what to do? He is such an “expert” in logic and rational thinking. NOT
Greenspan did not promote “low income” low interest loans to those without documentation, no money, no jobs…NIJA Loans (no income, no jobs)….
Who demanded that the “poor”…read undocumented aliens of which over 75,000 of the 500,000 who defaulted on their loans were illegal aliens.
Greenspan was told what to do…by Barney Fwank, the head, mindless, idiotic socialist, gay-hater of heterosexuals of them all.
Christopher Dodd…and at least 100 Democrat reps and congressmen…all demanded through ACORN, that those who are minorities and with the lowest IQs and educatonal levels… with the least ability to pay, all be given mortgages guaranteed by the US Govt.
Greenspan is not god, he has no control over the Left Wing Dems and their neo-religious socialist ideology that has made saints out of the Poor.
Ergo…the entire collapse of this economy was the result of the transfer of wealth and property…to those who could not pay for it…all demanded and engineered by the Insect Collective Left. We are now witnessing the largest crime of theft in the history of the world.
The second largest documented crime of theft in the world…was when the US under Clinton, through his buddies at the UN, Mark Rich, etc…who Clinton pardoned…all sent billions of the tax payers’ money to Saddam Hussein in the fraudulent “Oil for Food” program.
Just how the American people have been able to live through these two massive thefts…is because the majority of the income to the US govt is through independent business people…who Obama is not threatening to destroy.
Now just how intelligent is that?
Just as religion is a cult of death with promises of riches in the afterlife..the Obama cult of socialism is a cult of poverty, whose riches they promise lie in the poverty of the mind and sameness.
Just as religion declares that poverty is good…you will be rewarded with heaven when you die…the Obama socialists declare also…that the poverty of socialism is good…being poor will make it all “fair.” And in this state of sameness and poverty…we promise you will be “happy.”
But will it?
When the religious prove there is a god…then I will believe that the poverty of socialism is good.
I was deeply influenced by Ayn Rand when I was younger, but as I grew older I realized that her ideas, like many others, sound good on paper but don’t work out so well in real life. Her heroes all seem to have a sense of basic right and wrong, and if we could always count on everyone behaving to some basic standards, then Objectivism could work. Sadly, while most people are decent, there are clearly enough who aren’t to spoil the whole thing.
It is abundantly clear you have no clue about Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is predicated on each person’s right to life and everything else proceeds from that. As a result, the advocates capitalism; a free people voluntarily exchanges value for value. She was totally opposed to the initiation of force. While I think her personal life had some serious blemishes, she was also a very generous person. Her so-called biographer obviously has an agenda that would be interesting to psychologize about.
As for Greenspan, he departed from Objectivism decades ago.
Ayn Rand’s ideas and Atlas Shrugged are very prescent for today. The bottom line on her politics and books is you must take accountability for yourself and you are responsible for your own well-being. If you give up and just let society take care of you and your family, you become a moocher. Her ideals of shelfishness are to do what is in your best interest and disregard others, but it is to do what is in your best interest that will help others. The person that creates jobs, does so to better themselves and their family, while creating jobs for others. The person that invents to gain profit does so by also creating new materials and new products for all to enjoy. The sum is far greater than the profit produced by the object in the first place. The current administration is a looter that seeks to vilfy those that produce. Beware of John Galt and beware of ignoring the consequences of ignoring reality.
go take a nap. all of you. now.
I am quite weary.
I believe I shall.
To Spencer Moseley…how does looking out for yourself benefit others? Your comments remind me of the idea of trickle-down economics that Reagan (The Rand fan) promoted. The rich create the jobs so therefore we should thank the rich and be their slaves. Bull*$#!. The rich DO NOT create jobs and any businessman looks to get by with as few jobs as possible at the cheapest expense to increase the bottom line. Humans and human work is a commodity to be outsourced, disposed of, and eliminated at will. Do you honestly think that the corporate executive or even the small businessman cares about you or I? NO! They are out to make sure that THEY take home the money. We are on our own with Capitalist philosophy. There is no love for our fellow man. May the strongest win. May the strongest survive. I happen to be a very capable hard-working man who has desperately been looking for work in this horrid economy. Does that make me a moocher while our big banks are lining up at the trough and collecting their million dollar bonuses? I am ready and willing to work hard, but have been unable to find a job. Perhaps you would call me lazy. I call it a flawed system This is how it works, which should be painfully obvious in the current climate of this country.
timste (aka moocher),
Based on your comments, it would appear that your inability to secure employment may be related to the fact that you have a higher opinion of your capabilities than is justified. It is far more likely that you are just not willing to work in positions for which you are qualified.
Here we go again…those who work, who look out for themselves…are now being demanded that we “also” love those who won’t work. Pure insanity…
So now…TIMSTE…thinks its a sane idea to demand, legislate and coerce me and everyone to “love” them and bless them with unconditional LUV. Socialism in the minds of the delusional..is therefore equivalent to being loved. The more I know about the psychology of the Left…the more I realize how mentally ill and hideous they are. What a bunch of rodents and parasites.
Has anyone ever in their life time…seen such hideous, idiotic neoreligious beliefs as this? That by engaging in theft of other people’s money, livilihood, independence and property, and, mandating through legislative theft…which follows with massive poverty and state failure, that we will “prove” how much we love others? I think I’m going to puke.
The only persons in recent history who made such claims were Adolf Hitler, Joseph stalin, Pol Pot, and now Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
Oh yeah! Create a mindless, socialist police state paradise….rob the “rich” (anyone with a job)…and give to the sainted, lowly POOR and show them how much the state Loves them.
What vomit. What a bunch of Hyenas the Left are. Pass the puke bag.
Gosh timste, you could not be more confused.
If a man has an idea for business, he could keep it small scale, so only he works at it. Or, if he has a good idea, he could expand it so more of his customers benefit. Please note: HIS ideas benefit his CUSTOMERS! In some small way, clearly, they think his idea makes their lives better. Yes, it may be a small way, but it is multiplied by the total number of his customers. Culturally his effort is of enormous value.
Harm his business (by taxation, by legislation, by cheating him of profit, or by resentment of his success) and you foolishly undercut the benefits his customers enjoyed. You may even be one of those customers! Even if you are not his customer, you live in his society. Therefore, your anti-capitalist sentiment will, without doubt, harm one or more businesses from which you DID benefit.
So, our businessman discovers that he can hire one or more individuals to achieve his expansion. YES, he his helping even more customers!
Now, surely you can understand that the people he hires did not have the idea he had for helping his customers. Yet, to you, they are of equal value to him because they take orders, package his goods, type his letters, and so forth.
Surely not!
Worse, it says that his quality idea, that helps his customers so widely, is worthless compared to the relatively minor achievement of his employees packaging and typing efforts. No, the idea that made the business a value to its customers, is also the idea that gave the employees the job, that only owes them a market competitive wage for the non-idea by which his employees operate.
The employees are NOT advancing the lives of the company’s customers, except in so far as they properly present the value that only the businessman envisaged.
On “trickle-down economics”, the businessman has had an idea that advances the lives of his customers (first ‘trickle’) and then hires other individuals whose *labor* expands his business (second trickle down). Their labor did not create the business idea, nor even the business. Why should they be assigned economic and inventive equality with the businessman? To do so would constitute a horrible injustice.
Why don’t you try reading some of Ayn Rand’s books before passing judgment on them. Ayn Rand’s basic social premise is that there are only two ways for humans to deal with each other: reason and force. She chose reason. You leftys choose force. You half-use your brains to come up with “common good” ideas and don’t care that you leave a trail of devastation anywhere you are allowed to try to implement them. Then you blame human nature for your failures not realizing that you are exposing your rebellion against reality in doing so. Human nature is what it is and not subject to your whims, tantrums, or legislations. It is up to us to accept it and build social structures that allow us to thrive and prosper as human beings really are and not as you wish they would be in your fantasy world where food, health care, and mani-pedis grow on trees.
Keep trying to impose your ideas on the rest of us by force. You will find that many of us will not go quietly into another thousand years of dark ages and that brute force is no match for intelligent use of force.
Everybody chooses force. You righties who were brought into this world naked, hungry and screaming just like the rest of us, leverage what was given to you to perpetuate your hegemony over the less fortunate while sanctimoniously declaring that you’ve earned it with your conceited notions of how intelligent you are. But there is a tiny bit of justice after all, because in the long run you too are dead.
And Ragnar….how and in what way do the “righties” who ever they are…perpetuate “hegemony” over the less fortunate?
When in fact, it thru taxation, gifts, funding, capitalization, ventures, etc…that pay for and help the less fortunate.
Answer this Ragnar…if there is no money, no money made or created, thru capitalism…then just how will the “state” take care of the less fortunate?
Answer Ragnar…don’t just whine and make unproven statements, but prove it.
And yes…there are some who are intelligent, and use their brains to help themselves (oooohhhh what a sin!), and then help others.
And what kind of “justice” are you talking about Ragnar.
Do you really think that stealing other people’s money and property is “justice?” Then prove it…
We all die…so what? Big deal…the idea is to live and live well while you are here.
Whatsamatter Ragnar, did you drop out of school and now you are a disgusted derelict (bum) whose pissed off because YOU made bad, stupid choices…and now want to punish the rest of us who work and make money?
Sounds like you are really jealous and a hater of anyone who works…please, oh please…Ragnar…do not vote and do not have any children, or you will pass your disgusting, depressing, negative, and idiotic genetics onto your poor kids.
If there was ever a case for free birth control and free abortions Ragnar, you are it…and its too bad that abortion cannot be done in retrograde.
Ragnar:
So the Bush Jr. administration’s war in Iraq isn’t an example of force, but of pure reason?
The Left/Right view is egregiously incorrect. Both sides believe that some sort of government compulsion is needed to make citizen’s conform.
The morally superior view is to respect and *defend* each Individual’s Life, Liberty, Property and Pursuit of happiness ——without taxing him or legislating him so as to compel him into decisions that conform to the State’s view of Politically Correct goals.
As soon as that compulsion is enacted, human progress stalls.
It was PURE REASON as to why Bush entered into the war in Iraq….because Saddam Hussein, was NOT a person of reason.
Sometimes I wonder just how dumb the Left is…then all I have to do is read these Left Wing posters and I am reminded. Bush never acted alone…life and the world is not like a video game you like to play, where little you get to make all the decisions. The invasion in Iraq had been brewing since Clinton, and other Democrats “knew” that upon the advice of some 15,000 intelligence and military analysts…that it was necessary.
The US went into Iraq because of these “reasons”..which were meant to pre-empt a larger war, such as WW II in which 14 million people were murdered. Now take your pick Lefty–choose between 14 million killed, most of whom were noncombatants and civilians…or 5000 “VOLUNTEER” soldiers who died so you could shoot your stupid mouth off? And “yes,” it was a “NeoCon” idea…because NeoCons…think in terms of “pre-emption” and not wait until the shit hits the fan and the situation becomes a massive, fucking world-wide problem. The war in Iraq was cheap…compared to what the US went through in WW II.
The US went into Iraq for many reasons…to wit:
1) Saddam Hussein had created the largest army in the Middle East and had already demonstrated his willingness to invade other countries…
2) Kuwait…which had been previously invaded by Iraq/Saddam…and all the other countries around Iraq…where we get our OIL, and Saddam would have invaded Kuwait again–as per his words…as he was filled with the “religious belief” he was the heir apparent, or the reincarnation of Nebuchadazzar (Read biographies on SAddam you twit to understand why we entered into a war).
The results in human suffering and cost to us would have been devastating if Saddam had been allowed to take over the ME. Both Clintons, Pelosi, Reid, Gore, Kerry, and Kennedy, etc…said that “eventually the US would have to go to war with Saddam.” That was correct. And…all of them voted for, and supported Bush’s war funding.
3) Saddam stated he was going to:
a) dominate the ME so that the US and our allies would have to pay $100 for a gallon of gas. Did you want that to happen? Can you think for yourself what the consequences would be, and,
b) Saddam was investing in WMDs….everyone around Iraq…i.e. Pakistan, Syria, Lybia, India, etc. had nukes…so why not Saddam? When that lying piece of filth….Wilson went to Niger and stated that it was not true that Saddam was seeking to buy “yellow cake”…it was a semi-lie created by Wilson who was working for the Kerry campaign to embarrass Bush…Wilson knew for a fucking “fact” that Saddam was seeking yellow cake in Chad…not Niger. Chad is right next door to Niger…
4) Saddam, et al, was going to change buying oil from USDs to Euros and force all the other countries in the ME to make the US buy oil with Euros also. Do you understand that if Saddam had been successful…the US would have had to exchange dollars at a discount rate to Euros to buy oil, instantly making the USD (United States Dollar) worthless…and upping the cost of oil to 2 times its value or more. The US would have instantly gone into a recession worse than the one we are now involved in. But, I guess you Left Wing Lazy Ass Loonies don’t care about the rest of us being poor…
Yes, it was a “War for Oil” and many other reasons. I use to post that if the Left did not like the “War for Oil”…then they should simply throw out all plastic products in their homes, stop driving a car, or riding on anything that runs on oil. Turn out all lights, just sit in the dark and eat twigs and grass…and live in a tent and “walk.”
But, of course, the Left are consummate hypocrites and liars who like to talk a big game and whine, but when it comes down to putting their money where their mouth is…and to being real and living up to their own ideals…they can’t do it. The Left is a bunch of Frauds.
5) Saddam had “spies” all over the world…who besides having the largest weaponized army in the ME…was also paying Palestinian suicide bombers’ families $25,000 for each bomber to blow up innocent civilians not just in Israel, but Turkey, Bali, Lebanon, France, the UK, Greece, Chile, and Yes..’plot and plan’ to kill us in the US. Saddam had spies in the every major city in the US…now what were they doing here? Taking basket weaving lessons?
6) Saddam had indeed supported and helped to train the 9-11 bombers. Mohammad Atta’s room mate in Hamburg, Germany was one of Saddam’s lieutenants in his secret police. Did you think it was an accident that these two lived together? Read Stephen Hays’ book….on the 9-11 Saudis, some of whom were trained in an airfield 60 miles North of Baghdad by Saddam. No matter what the Left Wing Media Liars stated or IGNORED AND REFUSED TO PRINT…that Saddam/Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11…that is a lie, by the most anti-American in situ haters this country has ever had to deal with except for the USSR.
7) Saddam had also welcomed and allowed one of the Al Qaeda terrorists to have his broken leg treated in a Baghdad hospital. There were ties between Saddam and every single Moslem-terrorist group in the world and the ME. “What we now know” ….about Saddam Hussein, the Abu Sayeff, the Palestinians, Al Qaeda, and the Taliban were and remain in communication with each other and hate the “West,…1000 times more than they hate each other.
It was a FLAT LIE promoted by then VP, Al “The Chinese Whore” Gore in a press conference to “correct” the CIA’s intelligence…”that Saddam et al, were not in cahoots with each other.” Yes…they were, as it was proven, over and over again by thousands being murdered all over the world by “Moslems” with ties to Saddam.
8) And now for the crux of the main problem. Who supplied Saddam with weapons and materiel? It was NOT the US…I have had a standing reward now for about 8 years…that if any single person can come up with a photograph of any of Saddam’s soldiers or military holding a single US rifle, driving a US tank, flying a US airplane…I will send them a reward check for $10,000. That the US “supplied” Saddam is one of the most monstrous, outrageous lies told by the Left Wing Media of all time.
Who supplied Saddam with materiel was the USSR, the Chinese, North Korea, East Germany, and our good buddies France and the UK. The USSR sent Saddam tanks and arms, China sent in cheap weapons, AKs, etc. France supplied the engineering for Saddam’s bunkers, as did the East Germans who were the main engineers on these projects.
Our good buddies (sic) the UK…supplied satellite intelligence, and germ warfare to Saddam. You do remember that 100,000 Kurds were murdered by “gas” after the US left them out in the cold…after telling the Kurds they supported their fight against Saddam? Guess where that gas came from?
I personally interviewed through a translator, a Cuban defector in Miami…who worked in Castro’s germ warfare weapons labs in Cuba…with East Germans, and British scientists.
Castro was also involved in supporting the Moslems in the war against the US. In Nicaragua…on the 7th floor of the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Managua, Moammar Ghadaffi’s Lybian terrorists were being put up, wined and dined…while they trained the Marxist Sandinistas.
Did if cross your mind…why the US would NOT allow the French to enter into Iraq when the war started? Of course you didn’t…you on the Left never read anything or think for yourselves and are incapable of doing any research about any subject…The French were in bed with Saddam’s Ba’athist Party from Day 1…which was one of the reasons why France had such a good oil deal, paying lower prices for crude than everyone else. It then followed, that France and the Europeans would get an even better deal if they could pay in Euros and not USDs.
The truth is that the US is at war with Europe for control of the ME and its oil, and for dominance of the Euro over the US Dollar…but then the Left Wing lying assholes never said a word about the real reason for this war or why “Bush” invaded Iraq…the truth hurts doesn’t it.
9) And now about the traitors in the US: In the United Nations’ Oil for Food Programme…Clinton and his buddies were making billions of dollars off the US, in which the UN made the US the chief payer. The problem was that the money for Saddam’s oil, did not go for food or medicine, but was then used to build Saddam’s massive army. The Clintons in return…were given millions in illegal campaign funding through dozens of Moslem sources, including the BCCI bank, owned by radical Indonesian Moslems.
Yes…the Clintons were caught, as they have been at least a dozen times…and merely gave back a couple of hundred thousand dollars. But, in all…these illegal campaign funds, funneled from the US, to Saddam, from Saddam to other sources, then trickled back into the US through all kinds of campaign funding sources…was then used by the Clintons for Billy Boy’s second presidential campaign, and Hillary’s run for the Senate.
The Democrats have a very long history of acquiring Left Wing, communist, international socialist funding…and filtering it back into the US. The true reason for the Water Gate break in of the DNC headquarters during the Nixon era…was to find proof of where the Democrats were getting their funding…because the traitorous, highly compromised, and down right ignorant boob journalists refused to investigate the Dems or the Left.
One of these “facilitators” and “go-betweens” for the Clintons’ campaign funding and Saddam’s “Oil for Food programme” was Mark Rich…who Clinton eventually pardoned the last day of his presidency. Rich is currently serving time in a federal prison for his role in Saddam’s “oil for fraud” programme. The Clintons and the Left have such nice, caring friends.
The US had no choice but to invade Iraq for many reasons, but another primary reason was that this was just another “proxy” war…in which the US was under siege and assault by our so-called European socialist friends to gain dominance of the ME and the “world” through Saddam. If the Left does not want the US to be the policeman of the world…then they should tell us who they think should be in charge? Hugo Chavez?
So take your pick…did you want the Europeans to win…and turn the US into a third world country, or do you want the US to win so that you can continue to shoot your Left Wing Loonie Mouth off about that which you know nothing about?
The US had one single asset in that dog fight in the 1960s, who was a double agent for the US. Sarkis Soghanalian, one of the largest arms dealers in the world, worked for the US. His counterpart and competitor did in fact sell arms to Saddam…was Adnan Kashoggi, whose brother owns Harrads in London, whose son (Dodi Fayed) was killed in the auto accident with Princess Diana. Sarkis…kept Saddam off balance and fighting our “other” enemy in the ME…Iran, by feeding Saddam false intelligence. (You DO remember that Iran took Americans hostage and kept them until Ronald Reagan took office. Wanna know how Reagan got our hostages released? Reagan threatened to blow up Iran’s Karg island and oil depot…20 minutes after taking office…if Iran did not release US hostages…something that ball-less little Left Wing, highly medicated turd Carter could not bring himself to do.)
Regarding Sarkis…It was a much better strategy to keep Iraq and Iran killing each other, rather than beginning the war against the US in the 1970s, whereby thousands of US soldiers would die in the sands of the ME…Although this was one of the most brilliant intelligence strategies of all time…that essentially cost the US nothing…once again, the Left interfered and as usual, screwed it all up.
Who created that cluster fuck which destroyed our one good asset that kept Saddam hunkered down and out of bothering the US…was that Left Wing stupid cunt, Linda Tarbe, a US attorney in Houston, who filed charges against Sarkis and 12 other defendants (all innocent) for having illegal weapons. This was not true…Saddam had one single RPG found on a plane at the Pan American air field in Miami. Tarbe, a Left Wing piece of shit…then got Sarkis convicted, outted him as a US double agent.
The rest of Sarkis’ co-defendants had been giving honest monthly reports to the FBI (Fumbling Bumbling Idiots) for more than 12 years…thinking they were being good patriots and citizens by being honest and were “sanctioned” by the US…The rest is history:
Saddam made peace with Iran…rebuilt his army, and began his assault on the US through many sources and assets. Saddam then invaded Kuwait…for which 325 American soldiers died liberating…so you, you Left Wing asshole could have cheap, affordable gas.
Clinton…then invaded Serbia/Bosnia and supported the Moslem terrorists who were funded by the Albanian Moslems, and on the orders of Hillary Clinton, ex-general Weasel Clark bombed and murdered 250,000 Serbian civilians, before he was fired by sec def Cohen. The Taliban…so emboldened by the US “mistake” of who was the enemy…then took over Afghanistan and murdered and executed women who showed a lock of hair in violation of Islamic Law.
After 9-11…the US, and especially the FBI which had been completely compromised by the Clintons…had to be replaced. Did it ever occur to some of you…WHY? the FBI was replaced by Homeland Security? The Clintons “owned” the FBI who did nothing about Islamic terrorism…but cover up the Clinton’s lies, theft, and corruption and ties to Moslem terrorists…up to and including the FBI giving Hillary 920 “secret files” and background investigations on GOP congressmen…who were then forced to vote as Hillary saw fit. Now you know…why Billy Boy escaped impeachment…as many in Congress were blackmailed to vote against impeachment.
And once again…Hussein Obama and his Chicago thugs…have issued a call…to turn in anyone whose anti-Obama thoughts and words are “fishy.” Oh pulleeese, email this entire post to: flag@whitehouse.gov…I dare you.
And so…you think the invasion of Iraq was not necessary?
The Left needs a brain enema. And, as far as I’m concerned…we need a good revolution in this country…by any means necessary. But, let’s try the peaceful approach and use the Saul Alinsky tactics of the Left first…Let’s scream and yell at the Left in Town Hall meetings…let us throw pies in the faces of Left Wing Liars…and use all of the tactics the Left has been using to destroy democracy for the past 50 years.
Judy seems to have mixed up who authored what comment. I think she is responding to Disgusted Derelict — or is that Disgusting Derelict?, arf arf arf.
The Left chooses “force” because the Left cannot Reason.
The Supermen that Rand speaks of….will NOT go quietly into the supernatural world of socialism…ruled by a police state FORCE….
And trust me…the Supermen and Superwomen among us…will bravely strap on our “gear,” kiss our families and loved ones good bye…and will take you down where you stand.
You who love the sainted and poor “parasites” …will not last for long…because you are incapable of thinking or strategically planning for yourselves…
Mobs do not win wars…they make a lot of noise, engage in much self destruction and murder of innocent people…and in the beginning it will appear that the collective mob of insects and hyenas can win…but the will not.
And in winning this last war for individualism and the advancement of the human “mind”…I predict that in the end…there will be safeguards put into place, that will preclude the poor from ever having the power to rob and thieve ever again.
All…this war needs to begin…is mass starvation and the imposition of an Obama police state in the US, and in the Obamarama Circus and Bag of Socialist Tricks…such poverty and starvation may come sooner than anyone expected.
One of the reasons the Left hated the war in Iraq…was they knew, and we knew, that it was just practice and a prelude to the coming war of the Collective Mob of Socialist Hyenas against the Independence of Human Beings.
Ayn Rand was no philosopher. She was a Hollywood hack with psycho-sexual pretensions whose sycophantic followers encouraged a truly Bolshevist egomania.
Her “philosophy” is to set up a false dichotomy – “self-reliant heroes” vs “parasites” – and pretend that anyone who questions her dictatorial definition of the winners must ipso facto be on the side of the losers. Reminiscent of George Bush – another great thinker – “you’re either with us or against us”. Not to mention that the clearest case of self-interest is simple theft and that in any case her sexualized fantasies of “great men” are more a reflection of her emotional need to be folded, spindled and mutilated than any recognizable reality.
Curious that all of the “individualist thinkers” out there must follow the scent-trail of this potato-faced loon and mindlessly attack anyone who questions their Heroin.
“Her “philosophy” is to set up a false dichotomy – “self-reliant heroes” vs “parasites”.
So which was Eddie Willers?
As for “her sexualized fantasies” I suggest you are guilty of “psychological projection” rather than any understanding of her grasp of sexual relations.
This entire post, and its supportive comments, are the epitome of the intellectual depravity to which Rand was opposed. That is, morons do not deserve serious consideration. To that end, I only write in support of those few readers who are open to reason.
The psycho-sexual projections of the LEFT and Socialists is becoming obvious:
LEFTIST SOCIALISTS HAVE THE SAME FEELINGS AS SHOPLIFTERS—
There are two groups of people who live in a trance state of which there is no intellectualism, no recognition or search for facts…nor any desire to know or understand the consequences of ideas, policies or behaviors.
These two groups are: The Religious and the Left.
Each group has a “religious” fantasy-driven agenda, that is based in their Limbic systems (emotions) of the brain, that preclude them from functioning at a basic 2 + 2 =s 4 level.
Both the Left and the Religious believe in “belief”…meaning anything they “feel…or believe…or desire” is considered “true” without any facts to back it up.
In all the 600 plus posts in this forum and another one on the LEFT…there are those who “hate” Ayn Rand with “passion.” This passion is not driven by facts…but emotions.
I really hate to be crude…but this is the very best image I can come up with when describing those on the Left who constantly engage in Mental Masturbation…in that they appear to be standing around with the hands on their dicks…jerking off…and repeating to themselves how good (socialism) feels. While in such a sex- and emotion-driven mind state…they could be standing on a bed of coals with flames going up their legs, but are so stoned on “utopia: that they don’t notice being burned alive.
Secondly, this “hate” toward Rand…driven by “emotions” does two things…it floods the brain with fight or flight neurotransmitters…which keeps the Leftists’ brain from functioning on an intellectual level…and prevents them from doing any kind of questioning or research to determine what is true or not…and begin the process of considering the long-term consequences of what the Left believe in.
Just as there is a highly charged sexual, sado-masochistic element in religion (jesus in a state of divine ecstasy and pain, hanging on a cross in a state of bondage, half naked)…there is also the same kind of sexual, sado-masochistic element in being a Leftist. Such symbolic and religious pseudo-divine ecstasy is very much being a part of the Lefts’ vision of themselves as suffering “martyrs” for the poor and the “masses” …which is the same thing a Nun does when she flagellates herself for jesus.
In reviewing the Leftists diatribes, they are indeed “orgasmic” when it comes to robbing the rich…therefore, there is no room or conditions for any intellectual debates of substance.
Unfortunately, such orgasm-driven “imprinting” in the Left and the Religious begins early in life, and becomes habituated by these kinds of memories and references.
For example…if someone who is strongly religious goes to a car lot and buys a used car…just because there is a “Christian bumper sticker” on the back would anyone with any intellect surmise this was a good decision? Of course not. The previous christian owner could have owned a junk heap and driven it in the ground. However, the Xian bought the car based on “christian” beliefs and symbols.
If someone on the Left…thinks that the socialist system of government and health care in Cuba is a good idea and then promotes it in the US…without ever going to Cuba (a Junk heap of a country), or asks Cubans what they thought of their health care. Would then anyone else surmise that this desire for Cuban health care in the US…is a good idea based on an “emotional” feeling about Cuba?
Of course not. But, this is how the Leftists’ brains’ functions, not from a position of intellectual discernment, but because of limited, nonintellectual and immature, imprinted and habituated “feelings”based on the Left’s childhood and neurotic desires.
One of the processes in growing up and acting in an adult manner…is to be able to separate out one’s “feelings”…and judge the world and life based on logic, reason, and common sense.
This is the difference between Ayn Rand’s philosophy of mature, rational thinking, finding proof, doing research, and gaining evidence of the “facts” of what is being offered as a “good deal.” And…
What those on the LEFT want…is associated with robbing other people of their property and rights…because of the “feelings” of pleasure when taking something that doesn’t belong to them. Interesting research by the Neiman Marcus foundation found that many shoplifters are “sexually charged” up when shoplifting. The same is true of the Left…who basically function like sexually frustrated shop lifters.
Just how successful is making decisions based only on feelings? How many of us have made mistakes when we made impulsive decisions based on feelings to then regret it in the future? We all have.
But…the primary problem with the LEFT is that they exist in a neo-religious trance state…whereby the LEFT while praying the mantra of socialism in their heads…will not listen to anyone with any ideas different than their own,or who interrupts their trance state mantras.
Why is the LEFT in a trance state? Because what and who they are is based on “feelings”….feelings produce ENDORPHINS, which is the brains form of heroin.
The LEFT is therefore “stoned” and “high” on the “feelings” when visioning a Utopian world where all their wants and desires will be satisfied by others…or “punishing” those on the RIGHT…who remind them of their “failed” meany parents.
Ergo…that is the reason for using CAPS, which is an attempt to wake them up.
…we know from the research that when one is “stoned” or in a trance state…its hard to either LISTEN…or take in information, or judge what is real, not real, or useful and then think about it.
Again, in some 600 posts I’ve read in this forum, especially by those on the Left who “HATE” Ayn Rand…99% of them, have NEVER READ AYN RAND…and know zip/zero/nada about Rand or Objectivism… nor does it seem they want to.
The LEFT is the only group in the entire world…who “hates” something without knowing anything about that which they hate.
Thus…if I could, I would use large 20 pt caps and …Huge RED Fonts all the time…to reach that part of the brain that is conscious in the Left…
If I was in a class room teaching such brain dead students, I would probably bring some brass cymbals and clang them to wake them up. Of, if I could get away with it…throw cold water on them too.
To a person…the Left is simply asleep or stoned…or when they do make an effort to respond…they are “sleep walking” and merely repeating memorized propaganda. When asked to explain this “sleep walking” propaganda…they can’t. When asked to contrast and compare Leftist propaganda and Objectivism…they can’t.
When one of the 1% on the Left go so far as to “picK” and restate a phrase made by Ayn Rand…it is 100% of the time, out of context or flat wrong. Most of the time Rand never said anything the Left claims she did.
And, I have never, ever seen so many who claim to be so educated not understand the vocabulary they use. (Sociopathy =s social darwinism).
Neurologically, although there are some on the LEFT who have memorized or cut and pasted huge tracks of Left Wing Communist/Socialist propaganda…they cannot talk about whether or not…what they “believe” in…works. They won’t talk about where such ideas came from…or the consequences of such ideas on human beings, and individual rights.
Why? Because it is the “emotional” idea of Revenge, Class Warfare, Jealousy, and out right murder and destruction of those whom they perceive as their enemy that is the goal. The Left is not just stoned, but they are insane and dangerous.
For about 98% of the Left…being a Left Winger is an emotional, neurotic, brain-chemistry driven mind state…that is no where capable of being intellectual. Subsequently, the Left is incapable of any “genuine, intellectual debate.” Facts, or reason…are meaningless to the Left. Its the “feeling” that counts…
As stated by RnBram….the Left is “hopelessly attached to (their) religious beliefs….the very same as 12th Century Christian Inquisitors who burned people at the stake for not having the same religious “beliefs.”
Now ask yourself, did the Christian Inquisitors sit down with the heretics…and say…”Hey! Let’s discuss our beliefs together and figure out what is real and not real…or good for people.”
No Sir…the Xian Inquisitors and the Leftists have one desire and that is to burn YOU at the stake, or destroy anyone who questions or does not believe in their utopian world view..or interrupts their stoned utopian trance state.
Leftists are extremely fearful of reality…
Again…RnBram is correct, when he said that many of the smarter people on the Left woke up one day, when they got over the “emotional high” and drugged mind state of Leftism and realized that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said:
“Socialism Fails when it runs out of other people’s money.”
In part…The Socialism of the Left…is the equivalent of a child or teenager…always bugging mommy and daddy for money, because they “feel” they are entitled to it, and do not have to either earn it, or pay it back. And when mommy or daddy says “NO” they have a temper tantrum.
RnBram also stated that …”no leading capitalists have converted to socialism.”
The proof is…that immigration, whether legal or not is always TOWARD a Capitalist country. I know of not a single instance where someone got on a leaky raft in Florida, braved sharks and drowning to float to Cuba…to live under socialism.
I do not know of a single instance…where someone sneaked across the border into such a draconian police state as the USSR…to live under communism.To repeat myself…100% of all immigration is INTO the CAPITALIST UNITED STATES.
Human beings…do not immigrate into failed, socialist states. That alone is PROOF that Leftist, socialist statism does not work and is to be avoided at all costs.
Just as it is known in criminal psychology studies of sick people who falsely “confess” to crimes they didn’t commit…the Left then also confesses to wanting to live in a Police State which the Left calls “the common good.” The Left is flat out insane and should be perceived as in need of medications and therapy…and gene counseling.
To be a Leftist…is to live in a dream state, where there is an over arching desire to be “high” and drugged” on an idea… where everyone is “forced” to be nice according to their standards, and everyone is taken care in a Mommy-GAWD state.
Ergo…a few years ago, I began to notice that both the religious and the socialists “dreamt” the same things….and were “stoned” and high on utopia. Therefore, I promote the idea that much more research should be done into the neuro- psychophysiology of those on the Left…who for all practical purposes are mentally ill.
Maybe we can vote for some government programs and raise taxes to involuntarily put the Left into hospitals for long-term care and deprogamme them. The world would be much better off.
And its obvious….you believe in the “right” of the parasites to live off other people’s work and money.
I am sooo glad you just let us all see how you people function, or rather don’t function….you said, that if you “want to keep your own money in your self interest…then you are a thief! What The Holy Fck!!!!!
Rand “thought” about what she said and how she said it…often dramatically and in clear terms, so the little people like you, the “feelers, the whiners, and emoters” who can’t think…just might get it.
And you are a loser…and its hilarious, because Rand never knew either one of the George Bush’s so what is the point of mentioning Bush or Rand in the same sentence?….and its true, you are either a parasite, who thinks you can justify “stealing” other people money…or you are not.
Apparently, you don’t like the idea of individual rights at all…why is that? Some people like you are just “genetic slaves,” you want to be a slave…when you are a slave of the state, then you don’t have to be burdened with thinking or being responsible for yourself. Say…is there any cows in your ancestry? Cows like living in a herd too. Moooo!
And…once again…you on the Left, in the best Marxist school of WORD TWISTING…SAYS THAT IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR OWN MONEY…THEN YOU ARE A THIEF.
How does that work out Lard Blortstoke? How is keeping your own money “theft?”
Please explain that incredibly bizarre, unrealistic fraud of a philosophy which you on the Left then attempt to justify why YOU ARE THIEVES. Just see if “theft” is justified in a court of law if you hold up a bank…or engage in a home invasion robbery…and you tell the judge and jury…But, I’m a socialist…I was just “liberating” the “people’s money,” when I robbed those people. Liar, Liar pants on fiar…hehehehe
How is doing something in your “own self interest” a bad thing? Why…should I just stand around with my thumb up my ass hole…and wait for you or someone to do something for me? How does that work? I would no more ask you to “do something for me, or think I am entitled to it…then I would ask Jesus Crispy to commit suicide for me…but, apparently, in your neoReligious Socialist state, you not only want the rest of us to volunteer to rob ourselves and our children, but commit suicide for you.
And…why are those who like being individuals, or live as self respecting individuals, who have the balls, brains, and the pride to take care of themselves…then become “potato-faced” loons. How does that work? Man are you jealous…I bet you are some fat, old oaf, who can’t get off the couch to do any more than hit the “fat” in the refrigerator and drink another beer…or is it pot? And…you want the rest of us to pay for your lifestyle…hahahaha….Dream on you fat socialist piggy, Oink Oink.
You can make all the cutsie little bull shit statements you want but you have not proven anything at all…and again sound jealous, filled with hate, resentful, and just filled with the need for revenge against those who work and wish to keep their own money and property.
I guess you think that welfare and health care FRAUD is “justice.”
And I’ve never seen someone who likes Ayn Rand’s objectivist philsophy, do so “mindlessly.” Randites think…you however…whine, howl, grovel, snivel, cry, cringe, and out right LIE and Lie and LIE….in that you cannot prove anything other than you are a snot dripping, cretin, who is so morally and ethically bankrupt…that you call keeping your own money, that one rightfully earned, in your own self interest “theft.”
I take it all back…you are just insane. Or did you just “overdose” on stupidity?
And as Ron White my favorite Texan said…”You can’t fix stupid.”
I came across this blog because of a line (sponsored link?) appearing on my gmail. Though I do not agree with everything Ayn Rand says, and I even consider her extreme in many points, she has certain ideas that really appeal to me. In spite of the expose by Barbara Brandon that revealed a number of psychological problems borne by Ayn Rand (like who doesn’t have psychological problems?), her portrayal of Howard Roark was not only inspired, it was an inspiration. If I have any literary hero it is Roark. A romanticized figure to be sure, but she always claimed to be writing modern romanticism. By cultivating a Roarkian attitude, I have been more at peace and more effective in my professional and social life than I ever could have been without Ayn Rand. She is not the only influence on my moral life, but she is a big one. Thumbs up for her fans, thumbs way down for her detractors.
Vincente says: “By cultivating a Roarkian attitude, I have been more at peace and more effective in my professional and social life than I ever could have been without Ayn Rand.”
Are you sure about that? You can’t possibly see or imagine any other philosophy that might have given you a feeling of peace, and greater effectiveness? And how sure are you that your feelings of peace and effectiveness, aren’t the result of giving up your free will to her philosophy, rather than doing the hard work of forming your own?
Me too! I read Rand’s “The Anthem” when I was 18 years of age…and saw what all the religious freaks, the Kennedy goons and socialists did not want me to see…that “I” had a “RIGHT” to not only think on a rational, realistic level..but a RIGHT to keep my money, and a RIGHT to live my live as I saw fit.
To live for others, to live for jesus crispy, to live for another human being, to live for the church, to live for what my community expected of me (marriage, kids, church membership, etc)…was nothing more than mental slavery. I was not born to be a slave of anyone…no matter what the Left says.
And…before you goofy Left Wing twits go any farther, NO…living my life does NOT mean hurting anyone else, or lying, or taking advantage of anyone. That is often where you numb nuts anti-Reason Left Wing Twits go wrong…is that you have wrongly been told and now believe…that to live for one’s own existence and happiness is a bad, bad thing.
All that you Lefties enjoy, all the technology, all the science, all that you have…came out of the mind of individualists, heretics, those who functioned outside the box…and who refused to bow down and obey “the collective.”
When you read the word “collective” substitute it for the words Insect Hive.”
Now ask yourself..how can I live for you or the “hive?” How can you “live” for me? I can voluntarily assist you, if you want it…but I have no right, nor do you have a right to IMPOSE a life style, especially if takes away my right to choose, earn a living, save and use my money and property as I see fit.
I’d like someone on the left to explain where they got the idea that they had a right to take my money away, or tell me how to live my life…or what doctor I can go to, or what countries I can visit, or how many people can live in my home, or tell me that they have a right to “censor” my speech…and demand that I obey the “state.” Where do you get such ideas?
I am in a field…where Marxism, and Living for the “poor” is the standard philosophy. But, what I found all through out my life, is that those who “do things for the poor”…do not help the poor become better, independent, functioning people..capable of taking care of themselves, so that they have pride…The Marxist Left…makes the “poor” into dependent slaves of the state.
For years…I functioned as a “secret Objectivist” and in doing so, out of my own work ethic and pride, and my own self interest in doing a job well…for “ME”…I became much more able to “help” the poor than by obeying the Marxist state or pandering to the emotional pity fawned off on those in my field…as “helping the poor.”
Socialism does NOT help the poor…it puts human beings farther into the pit of despair, poverty, and slavery than any African or South American dictator ever did.
EVERYBODY BECOMES POOR IN A SOCIALIST SLAVE STATE.
And…to think that the Left believes that by making everyone poor…they are engaged in justice.
Is the Left insane or what? I watch Obama go into his socialist spiel and wonder…is he nuts or what? Is this really all about punishing white people, retribution for slavery, what the hell is going on in his mind…or lack thereof.
In my personal life…as an objectivist thinker…my life and goals and human relationships also became more clear, directed, honest, and without any of the social or psychological problems that are created by “living for others”…or being altruistic or unselfish. If I want to help someone, I do so…because I want to, not because I am forced to by social convention or the demands of the socialist state. Slaves and other involuntary, or coerced workers do not make a good community… in fact, resentment builds and in time…the collective community collapses into hate, sniveling, resentment, rebellion, class warfare…and crime…every time. Ask the Europeans…ask the Norwegians, the Danes, and the Swedes..what has happened to their countries under socialism.
Whenever anyone lives a life of “unselfishness”…in a life scripted by the state, or Obama, or socialists, or the church…then that person becomes unsatisfied, miserable, and worse…wants everyone else to be as miserable as they are.
No thank you…
When I finally die…on my cremation vase, I’m going to have it written:
Thank you Ayn Rand…I did it my way.
“The best (and primary) way to help the poor, is to not be one of them”.
Ayn Rand’s writings were largely about intellectual property. Architect Howard Roark blew up Cortland Homes because his design was altered without his consent; John Galt blew up the engine he invented because a bunch of people were conspiring to take it from him. Rand’s point was that a person’s property doesn’t belong to anyone but himself. Her support of the rights of the individual are pretty much in line with the views of the USA’s founding fathers. Ayn Rand was not right about everything, but she wasn’t wrong about everything, either.
I read Atlas shrugged 35 years ago and appreciated that it was a cartoon caricature of a philosophy masquerading as an entertainment novel. As a work of art, it was atrocious to the point of being campy. As a philosophy, well it made sense.
And that’s about all I can say. No doubt both Ayn Rand and the authors of this site will disparage me…
TOo bad.
JT…no we don’t disparage you at all. Why disparage a person who thinks? Why disparage a person who states that one has a right to their own property?
I have often thought that Rand created such idealistic, characters because she understood that the majority of readers in the US could not understand or “get” her Objectivist philosophy unless it was promoted by some kind of culturally-laden and timely medium.
When Rand wrote her “fiction”– one only has to look at the kind of media entertainment that was popular at the time. Her fiction matches. It was not meant to be classical or “high brow” art, but blatant examples of the potential of the human mind…at a time when Americans were on the brink of dabbling with, and moving toward socialism.
In this year of 2009…we are where Rand stated that we would end up…if the masses became seduced by socialism. In that she was prophetic. Ergo, her “fiction” was directed at the highly romantic masses and the importance of mass media…who could either be seduced by that spark of individualism that may reside in all of us…against the backdrop of the media-driven romanticism of communism and collectivism.
Barack HUSSEIN Obama…unfortunately, was seduced by the communist Left when he was “9 YEARS OLD.” His seducer he states in his book…was Frank Davis, a black activist, who was not only a communist, but a convicted child molester, and a pot head. I also wonder if Davis introduced Obama to cigarettes.
Therefore, as a “child” Obama…was “molested” mentally and physicall …and now he is promoting the molestation of this country in the name of the socialist collective. To wit:
August 27, 2008
Obama’s Communist Mentor Was A Child Molester
Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy in the Media, who has been exposing the radical ties between Obama and people like Frank Marshall Davis, says that the “Frank” in Obama’s book, “Dreams From My Father,” had sex with a 13-year-old child, but also says that Obama was introduced to “Frank” when he was just 9 years old:
Covering a sensitive and explosive subject that has been off-limits for the major U.S. media, the London Daily Telegraph is now claiming that Communist Frank Marshall Davis was a strong influence over a young Barack Obama for nine years of his life, rather than just four, and was a sex pervert and pothead. The Telegraph article alleges that Davis was a bisexual engaged in “sordid” sexual activities and had repeated sexual encounters with a 13-year-old girl.
In an article headlined, “Frank Marshall Davis, a self-avowed Communist, was an early influence on Barack Obama,” writer Toby Harnden confirms everything Accuracy in Media has been reporting since February about the mysterious “Frank” in Obama’s book being Communist Party USA (CPUSA) member Frank Marshall Davis. Harnden is the Daily Telegraph’s U.S. Editor, based in Washington, D.C.
A Strong Ayn Rand Ideal
- Equality: Ayn Rand’s philosophy was that you should leave people alone to do the work they want to do and to charge what they want for that service. If everyone were free, there would be no barriers to innovation, and no forced buying. With our government system, our politicians depend on campaign funding and will offer favors in exchange for contributions. As our government grows, the big businesses and rich people you liberals are against and who can afford to make significant contributions, will be able to cheat their way to getting more rich, and all us little people will be the losers. This has not and will not change with the rise of Obama.
What a way to make an argument out of something that was taken completely out of context. I was hopeful that your blog would be somewhat sane and logical but I was disappointed once again. It would seem that being a fence sitter is the way to go in this country if a person wants real debate. “Keeping the pilot light on”, as was so eloquently described in your sidebar, is quite obviously not what you are doing here. Between making weak and minimally researched accusations against a popular author and publishing tabloid-style articles on your front page, all you seem to be accomplishing is making total idiots of yourselves. This is why I do not like the leftist side, rarely is there a person who can actually debate with logic and research to back up opinions.
I was entertained, however, at how wonderfully people above me in the comments section handed your rear end back to you on platters of actual reason. Thus my visit was not entirely useless after all.
This is very hot information. I’ll share it on Digg.
You just add to the liberal stereotype of high school bullying when someone says something you don’t like. There are not facts to back up what you say, just emotion and adolescent angst. Maybe if you read “Atlas Shrugged” you might find a moment of enlightenment!
“…the liberal stereotype of high school bullying”?? Please clarify. Do you mean you think that liberals are the ones that bully in high school? If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.
The way the world is right now I feel like I’m living in a Ayn Rand novel. Others must also or why all the talk about an old novelist.
P.S. I think Atlas Shrugged was overwrought but I was profoundly affected by The Fountainhead.
Both were works of fiction. Look around you at the real world, and see how real people and real things really work. Portraying a character in a novel as going through all kinds of travails, and getting the reader’s sympathy, is relatively easy to do, even when the situations described in the novel are rare enough, and carefully exclude real-world data, as to not be useful as a basis for an entire philosophy.
As a fiction writer I must agree with you John. Good show. Many other comments credit/criticize Ayn Rand being a philosopher or a social scientist. Astute marketing of her work artificially placed her in this genre. It worked, perhaps beyond her expectations. If her books are viewed as fiction- especially “Atlas Shrugged” and “Fountainhead”, one sees the backdrop of the world wars and their global impact on lifestyle as well as work ethics.Frustration was more a norm than productivity and she articulately wove the events of the time as fiction to express the mainstream emotion of societal collapse. The strategy paid off-her books became a phenomenal market success. Then, riding on that wave she wrote,” The Virtues of Selfishness” selling a new model of “self-help” to depressed individuals, deprived of societal altruism . A better title would have been ” How to survive in bad times”. However, from a marketing standpoint, she made the right choice for her part-fiction part motivational theme. This move reflects her own example of “what one wants” and then,” how to get it?”. A fiction writer made a shift to a motivational writer. That’s a good career move for any writer! It is doubtful if she ever wanted to be a cult pioneer.The readers (fans) planted her there-that is being objective.
I have had this discussion with many people at http://www.affluence.org both from the far right and far left. My main problem with socialism/liberalism boils down to this: nobody should be forced into ‘charity’. I can not steal money from you to give to the poor, so why should the government?
Also, regardless of who Ayn Rand was, people need to look at the message she sent. Obama is the biggest hypocrite in government (look at his claims vs actions), but everybody loves him.
So you believe there should be no taxes, at all–personal, corporate, etc. Taxes take money from people to use for other people. Never mind the fact that those taxes pay for the roads you drive on, the police force that protects you, the schools your kids go to, etc. Or maybe you just believe in taxes on “poor working slobs”? That way, the rich get to drive on those roads, etc. without having to pay for them.
Don’t forget that many taxes are purposely voted into existence by the people in the form of local ballot measures. Guess those people are deluded charity givers.
And since when are socialism and liberalism so related, as to separate them with a slash to make them a single phrase?
Sam, what’s all this talk about how the government steals from people via taxes!? If the government is truly democratically elected, then, what is it stealing? It’s my understanding that all government powers come from the consent of the governed. By the very definition of democracy, some are forced to go along with the will of the majority. Poor Sam, now you know how many of us felt during the Bush years. Don’t worry, this is just democracy in action. None of us can go out and arrest people or print money either because we have delegated that work to the government and we pay for that service with taxes.
Gearge W. was not much of a conservative fiscally; not in the classical sense, anyway. The idea of classical fiscal conservatism is to tax less and spend less.
Bush did neither.
The whole endless discussion of Ayn Rand has become far too complicated for its own good. Rand advocated amoral devotion to one’s own well-being. In the absence of an agreed-upon metaphysics, such a proposal is neither “right” nor “wrong.” We can, however, examine its consequences, and thereby shed light on the chances for survival of such a social system which tries to operate on Rand’s principles.
The result is clear: Rand’s method of living is not compatible with the functioning of an ongoing human society. Rather, her way of life is explicitly “anti-social,” in the same way that, for example, the pattern of existence adopted by T. Kozinski, the Unabomber, is incompatible with stable social patterns which imply mutual survival.
Ayn Rand’s philosophical framework of action could never survive if adopted as a social system, because it is opposed to mutual help and cooperation, two behaviors which are essential to the survival of any human group.
Rand’s experiment ends in the same way that Kozinski’s ended — in failure and ignominy — simply because it is incompatible with cooperative human existence.
Ms. Rands point of view is only another consideration when steering through decisions that may present themselves to anyone. Balancing behavior takes a look at the other end too…say, the philosophical ambitions of Mother Theresa. I have found a way to the balance…I want to crush competitors, and make lots of money changing a service system that currently exploits the workers and their customers. Cab Cards are coming.
Altruism is a total myth. Every action you take, no matter your reasons, is selfish. Why? Because you are a volitional being and you make your own choices. If you choose to volunteer or do charity work, you will receive something. It may only be intangible satisfaction, but you always receive something. You put up this blog for selfish reasons. Being selfish isn’t bad, it’s inevitable.
We’re talking about degrees and kinds of acceptable selfishness, not whether altruism is (or should be) totally devoid of any kind of selfishness. Helping those who need it, may give personal selfish satisfaction, but that’s fine–it isn’t supposed to mean all forms of selfishness are OK or equivalent.
“Being selfish isn’t bad,it’s inevitable”- how true! I will go further-it is motivational as well as contextual. If meditation is “self-serving” -to discover the inner self, procreation is to leave progeny behind – to perpetuate selfishness.
If we put aside the name-calling between pro and anti Randians and look instead at the ideas she espoused, it’s not hard to identify a fatal flaw in her philosophy. She successfully criticized socialism, which she defined as working according to one’s ability, being paid according to one’s need, as encouraging neediness. Under such a system, some people would inflate their need to get more, at the cost of the ones with ability, who were more productive. The system is unfair to the productive, and stifles innovation. Fair enough. Here’s the flaw. She fails to apply the same cynicism to the motives of her heroes. In the real world, unfettered capitalism inevitably results in monopoly, which, wait for it, is unfair to the productive and stifles innovation. People who are smart and capable should get ahead, but when they do, some will use the wealth and power they accumulate to crush competitors. This ultimately leads to a few large entities that have too much control and are to big to fail.
The role of government is to balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the many. The pendulum shifts from favoring one to the other over time, because both extremes are unworkable. Adherents to each extreme will cry bloody murder when the pendulum shifts away from their side, but really the system is just working the way it was designed to.
Well said Rob
Bravo! A new, fresh perspective, indeed!
Well-done!
Hmmm, the “role of the government is to balance the needs of the individual against the needs of the many….”
What total crapola….what happens when there are so many MANY…who then vote to destroy the rights of the individual out of existence? The “MANY” then pack the US Supreme Court…control schools, control universities, control the media…to the point that any kind of respect for “individual” rights…becomes nonexistent.
That was and is the strategy of the Saul Alinsky, and Cloward-Piven’s strategy…to make so “MANY” artifically “poor” and dependent on the STATE…that the “individual”becomes over whelmed by both politically…and economically by the MANY, and thus usher in the socialist state.
Either the State protects the “individual” or it does not. There is no “balance” when it comes to individual human rights.
Please refer to the US Bill of Rights…to understand the concept of individual rights.
The State…does not have the “job” of balancing (read: engage in social justice)…whereby it over taxes, over regulates, and over controls for the benefit of the MANY POOR….
Who the hell are the “MANY” by the way? The MANY can also be described as the Left Wing Parasites…who are using the State to destroy Individual Rights.
I’m sorry…but such naive statements sound as if they came out of a 7th grade social studies text book…without anyone clarifying who are the “MANY,” and thus once again, the Left is able to use such simplistic platitudes to destroy our way of life.
I grew up on a ranch in a Southwestern state about 30 miles from the closest town…we could not think in terms of being “one of the MANY,” and as such were completely independent. If we failed…we failed, learned, and moved on. If one of us was injured…we cared for our own.
To now be “forced” to take care of the MANY to the point that I cannot take care of myself or my own family…is a death warrant for this country…composed of “individuals.”
The STATE is incapable of “balancing” or taking care of the individual. How could it? Am I missing something here? Does the Left think that the STATE can “channel” my individual wants, needs, and desires…and then satisfy them? If the Left has its way…are they going to hire “psychics” to see what all those “individuals” desire?
Those who represent the STATE, have one idea in mind…and that is control of the individual in the name of the MANY. And we all know who the MANY are….
Education is the answer to many problems. Her followers who had influence were not students of the humanities, but technocrats. Obviously Plato covered this with respect to art in the Republic. Atlas Shrugged is the sophistry his community had to ban, on steroids. Modern physics/traditional wisdom of interdependency negates the autonomy conceit, though common sense would do as well. However, one has to ask, how can anyone who is so dishonest about economic history (railroads are a parody of capitalism!) have been so accurate in portraying the globalist bureaucracy that actually runs “capitalism”? As many are writing now, Marx is just as delinquent as “liberals” in recognizing the obvious centrality of Mathus in any economic analysis. Get your own house in order and stop playing “the other guy is wrong makes me right”.
At the heart of Ayn Rand’s belief was that the individual is responsible for what the individual believes and how the individual behaves in relation to their beliefs.
Her criticism, or as you phrased it, “despising” of the “average man” is a response to the notion that the average man often doesn’t strive for an ideal but instead settles for what is expected of him. Often strives for what is expected of him, and that as a society we maintain quite low standards.
Her perspective can be applied to either conservative or liberal politics. I imagine that she would admire though not necessarily agree with, anybody that is truly committed to achievement, whether liberally or conservatively inclined. In fact I think she would scoff at the notion that liberals and conservatives are really that different. The entire concept of our liberal/conservative political construct has become one of our country’s most prolific barriers to progress and our liberal and conservative “leaders” have become the torch bearers for keeping standards low.
who is John Galt?
Ayn Rand’s philosophy has been blown out of proportions in this article. It has been said that she actively propagated selfishness. Though this is true ,it has not been pointed out that this selfishness is not the conventional sense of selfishness. Any person who has read her books in depth can verify that selfishness according to Ayn Rand is when a person refuses to alter his views in order to be accepted by society. Selfishness to her is when a person competent in his profession refuses to serve as a slave to an incompetent being. She was a radical supporter of capitalism because she believed that capitalism evoked the competency in man.
Mans sense of competency forces to compete and beat others. This sense is prevalent in the competition between businesses which allows us to enjoy cheaper and better quality goods improving our lifestyles daily.
Isnt it ironic that the author has been able to post an aritcle denouncing capitalism and Ayn Rand while using a computer,high speed internet connection and servers which are essentially the fruits of a capitalistic and selfish economy.
Rand was a big Russian woman, who wrote big Russian books.
She berated bolsheviks and badgered big-hearted blathering liberals. She was a whole-lotta-woman, and she shunned those who disagreed with her. OK.
But were her books any good?
I liked ‘em.
Did her near-perfect general worldview have flaws and screw-ups in its implementation? …I think so.
Most Randians are part of a cult that exists today, in Irvine CA. Those who decided to keep the good parts of Rand’s political philosophy formed “the Objectivist Center”, under David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden. They are rational people who view “objectivism” as an open system, the basis for which is belief in a knowable external world (a world that rejects a blief in god and mystical forces). They are usually right about social ideas, and politics. Often, they are even right about psychology. If you have similar tastes, they are right about artwork, but there are rational reasons to tolerate other interpretations in artwork, other than the ones you personally believe.
(Rand went nutso attacking artists she didn’t like. I agree with a lot of her attacks, personally, but I disagree with some of them. I also place the importance of art criticism very low on the scale of total importance. No art critic –no matter how much I disagreed with him about art– ever threatened to kill me. On the other hand, police and politicians threaten to kill not just me, but thousands of innocent people every day, all while strangling innovation and business-formation in our economy. Moreover, Rand was a woman. She had never been to battle. She therefore didn’t appreciate artwork that was more suited to warriors. She also didn’t appreciate a heirarchy of ideas and the mind-body connection that often drives human actions. She also had a big pussy, and didn’t understand that sometimes a man often desires a little pussy more than a big brain. These oversights caused her a lot of hell, and wrecked havoc on her belief system and the cult that rigidly followed it.)
A lot of intellectual lightweights attack Rand’s basic premises. In these disputes, I usually agree with Rand. (As I generally do in replying to the above condemnation of her.)
But sure, the further Rand got from political philosophy, the more nuts she sounded when she refused to give an inch in admitting that there were some problems and ideas that philosophy was not suited to building a consensus on.
I can be a libertarian, and enjoy the bloodthirsty scenes in “Natural Born Killers”, even though Rand’s followers would be horrified by them. Why? Because I know the difference between fact and fiction. Because I can view the movie with complex alterior objectives, such as preparing myself for actual violence in real life, or thinking about it, and pondering whether I am physcially able enough to deal with the bad results of social programming.
Moreover, is our society worth saving? Have we betrayed so much of the basis for America that it is simply better to start over?
A lot of Randites are simpletons who would never see any of the prior value, because their belief system isn’t portable to the actual diversity of the real world. This is why Hayek overtly favored diversity and evolution.
Rand only favored evolution, and didn’t think a lot about its appliction to social order, and economic production. She was not a futurist. She was not a pure materialist. She was not a cryonicist, so now she’s dead.
Thinkers like Jacob Sullum and Nick Gillespie at Reason Magazine have taken Rand’s premises and proceeded further down the path of individual freedom.
But Rand’s criticisms of liberal collectivists was 100% accurate. They claim to be against greed, but what they really are is the greediest thieves in society. Given a choice between a greedy theif or a greedy businessman who has to convince me to buy his product, I’ll take the latter any day.
The thing that liberals forget, is that congress demands their money, whereas businessmen seek their money.
I much prefer businessmen, even if they are often tasteless and grasping.
At least I can withhold my money from those who are smart and provide excellent services. At least there can be emergent order and evolution that way.
I want to live forever in a free market, and not be weighed down by the stupid majority.
…But government doesn’t give me a choice. Out of compassion for protecting the marketplace, I waited 6 months for my mortgage broker’s license in Illinois. I am not a racist, and I was located in a black neighborhood in IL. My business would have allowed poor blacks with ARMs (Adjustable Rate Mortgages) to refinance before their ARMs proceeded to skyrocket. …But we’ll never know what might have happened, or who lost their homes because I didn’t pay off one of Rod Blagojevich’s friends, to get my license sooner! (or payoff his goddamned wife! –A real estate appraiser who was responsible for legislation that forced people to pay for additional appraisals that they didn’t need!)
The law requires people to act against their own self-interest. A poor businessman ASKS a person to act against their own self interest.
Everyone is hurt in the first example. Only the stupid are hurt in the second example.
I’ll take a system that punishes stupidity over one that punishes everyone, any day.
And when the system punishes everyone, does that mean that everyone gets hurt equally?
HELL NO! Poor blacks and others get targeted by prison builders, and thrown into cages by the police state. You see, even the people in government are incentivized to act in their own self-interest.
The pathetic thing about liberals, is that they are too stupid to understand that “voir dire” destroys jury rights (Voir dire was originally begun in courts in the 1850s to select only people who agreed with slavery for jury duty. That way, the north could honor their promise to return fugitive slaves! ..That the practice was unconstitutional and unjust didn’t matter to the illiterate masses. It continues today, with only the libertarians fighting it.)
Liberals are also too stupid to see that judicial instruction destroys jury rights. Once again, only the libertarians and Randites are fighting for jury rights. Liberals are silent on this issue, as the prisons fill up with poor blacks who are guilty of nonviolent drug offenses.
Joe Biden is a liberal, right? Charlie Shumer is a liberal, right? They both support the idea of “group rights” and “collective society”. As a result, they support all of the drug laws, and have always voted in favor of additional drug restrictions. Shumer grilled John Roberts over the Raich decision, asking whether he supported a broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause: He literally opposes property rights to the extent that he wanted Roberts to commit to a position that demands that sick people are denied the medicine that they need to live! …WOW! Now that’s compassion!
But most liberals are surface thinkers. They can’t go a small fraction of the depth that I can go into the issues.
As much scorn as I have for Rand being an idiot and being taken in with Ronald Reagan (thinking he represented an alternative), and for not rejecting Greenspan when he became a government central banker, and for opposing the Libertarian Party (since she stupidly claimed that they “stole her ideas”), the liberals of our nation deserve a million times more contempt.
They oppose the basic rights of the defendant to even speak the truth in his own defense in court! They support the Federal Reserve System (and the literal enslavement of every man woman and chile in the USA, in perpetuity).
Jury rights are the heart of government. Jury rights elevate “We the People” over the power of government. In fact, only one single individual can “hang” a jury, and waste the prosecution’s time and money.
But that power has ALWAYS been opposed by the uneducated majority.
And that’s why America is the land of the fee and the home of the slave.
That’s why there is no fair trial, and no justice in AmeriKKKa.
That’s why Ayn Rand’s books were right, even when she was wrong.
I’ve got it all figured out, but the fact that YOU don’t means that I just might have to shoot you someday.
In fact, I’ll say this much: If you dumbass liberals don’t start voting libertarian, then nothing can save you. Either your own government will kill you, you will starve when your job leaves for foreign soil, or some other aspect of collectivism will crush your individual life without a thought.
Your only chance is to be respected as an individual.
We are either all equal under the law (an inequal in the results of our achievements), or we are equal (as slaves) in the results of our achievements.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t allow the state to hold back some people without giving them the power to hold back everyone.
In pointing this fact out, Rand did the USA a great service.
So what if her books were propaganda? They were propaganda with a noble goal: freedom.
One word: Bravo.
I agree with Mark: Bravo!
Not an objectivist, but I did read Atlas Shrugged. Subsidize (reward) poverty/mediocrity you just get more of it. Allow universal suffrage and the people will vote themselves the public till. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The solution, as outlined in Atlas Shrugged is to get government out of the way of commerce and let the people vote with their dollars. This way power is decentralized and you only pay for what you want to use. Subsidizing education and healthcare only makes them more expensive, creating more uninsured and uneducated people. This is no more evident than in the U.S. where the literacy rate is the lowest in its history and the expense of medical treatment has driven people south of the border.
This blog was written by idiots. I just read the commentary “Keeping the pilot light on” to the right of this article. It states:
“Since the late 1970s and Ronald Reagan’s inauguration we’ve seen supply side economics, deregulation, an explosive growth of free markets, the sapping of union power.”
—TOTALLY INCORRECT!
Reagan was a statist, every bit as much as Jimmy Carter was. There never was any period of “supply side economics, deregulation, an explosive growth of free markets” –to assert this is to blindly believe what the news of the day often reported.
But answer me this, you moronic liberals: “Did Reagan get rid of the Federal Reserve?” No. “Therefore, was there anything resembling a free market while he was in power?” No. “Therefore, are you talking out your ass?” Yes.
Did Reagan deregulate? Very slightly. But jury rights were never reinstated. Once the judicial system claims those, only a jury rights rebellion or a violent revolution can get them back. A friend of mine named ____ ____ was a hardcore anti-environmentalist under Reagan, who actually worked at the EPA (a giant, power-grubbing, unconstitutional government agency that steals western farmers’ land at the behest of eastern liberals who have paved over their entire states). Interestingly, he pointed out something that even few libertarians realize: If most of the companies simply defended themselves against the charges of violating the EPA’s regulations, they would have won. …But they rarely did.
They intuitively had so little faith in the courts, and so much fear that the system was rigged, that they plea bargained, almost continuously. My friend, (the EPA prosecutor) even noted that when companies did stand up for themselves, he often pointed out that the regulation didn’t really apply, saving the company millions, and that it was simply his job to “follow up” on complaints, legit or otherwise.
But rather than actually standing up for jury rights, liberals fight to skew the courts in favor of poor defendants, which then bites them in the ass, since we all lose our individual rights when the courts are biased.
And that is exactly what has happened. In 1895, “Sparf and Hansen v. The USA” was decided by the Supreme Court. It set a precedent that stated that the jury was not entitled to be informed of their right to veto the law, even though they possessed that power as jurors. Now, judges regularly lie to juries and tell them that they are not to be the judges of the law itself, only whether it was broken.
…This totally eviscerates the jury! It renders the presence of the jury meaningless! It is an insult to the intelligence of all Americans!
But are liberals arguing this? Are they the ones arguing that jury rights need to be preserved, for the poor blacks and mexicans filling our prisons?
Are they arguing that 1 in 10 blacks can’t find good work because they are being mercilessly preyed upon by LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE politicians?
No. Because they are part of the problem, every bit as much as the Republicans are part of the problem. In fact, it is POLITICIANS who are the problem. It is government that is the problem, and it doesn’t matter in the least whether that government calls itself “LIBERAL” or “CONSERVATIVE”, since they are both identical in their philosophy. Neither one of them opposes government power, neither one of them stands for jury rights, the power of the people.
Neither one of them wants to get rid of ballot access restrictions on the only party that cares about people: the Libertarian Party.
I have nothing but contempt for liberals who act like they’re not racist because they voted for Barack Obama, a sellout prison-monger who nominated the worst drug warrior in congress (Joe Biden) to be his running mate.
Biden is the asshole responsible for “the Rave Act” which is so anti-property rights and personal freedom that it states that you can be charged with drug possession for unknowingly letting someone who is carrying drugs into your house, while hosting a loud electronic music party! So much for electronic music parties or “raves”!
And did the liberals defend minorities against the racist drug war? NEVER. NEVER. NEVER. Even though drug prohibition was created based on this congressional testimony from Harry Anslinger (A treasury agent!):
“There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
Liberals and Conservatives are more properly called “statists” or “collectivists” or “groupthinkers” or “government whores” (Unless they work for the government, in which case it’s more proper to categorize them as “government pimps”).
The Libertarian Party is the only Party that stands for individual freedom. At least it did when Harry Browne was running as their presidential candidate. Now, who knows?
Maybe the 30 years that idiot America had to find the LP (and their own lost jury rights) has been wasted.
If the comments to the right are any indication, Reagan succeeded in completely confusing the idiot left, which now is rebelling against their own freedom, full speed ahead!
Yes! Please take our guns away from us! It worked so well on the west side of Chicago! (It made the immoral prohibitionist police the supreme power on the west side, and the courts proceeded to devastate black America using the drug war as an excuse. If even a small percentage of the harm done to blacks was done to whites in the name of prohibition, there would have been a violent rebellion, years ago, and the white judges know this. Why do you think they give court supervision to whites, and hand out felonies like candy to blacks? When are you stupid brainwashed corporate-court and cop-sucking liberals going to wake up?!?!?!?!?)
Lenny Bruce was right, but the average liberal of today doesn’t even know who he was. They never even get the words in their minds to imagine rebellion, much less fight for their right to live it.
Blind, obedient, sheep.
Baaaa-aaaa-aaaa Tell your friends that Reagan stood for a free market! Baaaa-aaaa-aaaa!
Most of you dumb cocksuckers will never know who Frank Turney was. You will grow old and die without ever having had a clue that he stood outside fo the Fairbanks courthouse for you, so you could insult him, strip him of his rights, send him to jail, and sentence him to community service, even though he’s old enough to be your grandfather.
But Frank knows what he’s doing. In spite of being sentenced to jail for speaking the simple truth outside of a courthouse, to random members of the general public, (one of whom happened to be a juror –Oh no!– We can’t very well allow the jury to know that they are more powerful than the judge! They might not enforce the drug laws, and might not pack Arizona prisons chain gangs full of ruined lives!) –you and your hideous liberal-conservative government can’t shut Frank up.
So burn in hell, you soul-murdering liberal-conservative-statist slimebags!
You’ve been wrong about everything for your entire lives, having never thought to crack a book, or think an original thought. Now, you blame industry and the innovators for all your problems, when they are the thread that you’re hanging by. You ask government to sever the thread, to keep you hanging.
Someday, you’re going to get what you deserve: and it will be exactly what you voted for: enslavement and mass murder.
That’ll be the time to go ask your libertarian and conservative friends if you can borrow a gun.
I’m surprized most blacks haven’t figured this out yet. At least Russell Means and the the Native Americans have: http://www.freelakotabank.com
But they were forced to! …The government never would have stopped murdering them otherwise.
As a homework assignment, I want all you liberal jackasses to research a court case, OK? “John Bad Elk v. the United State”(1900)
…Then tell me that the group has a right to control my property!
100% OF THE TIME….THOSE WHO HATE AND BASH AYN RAND AND OBJECTIVISM…HAVE NEVER READ RAND, OR UNDERSTAND ONE THING ABOUT OBJECTIVISM.
Ergo…why do they bother?
The better question is…who exactly starts the “rag” on Ayn Rand…for what reason, and how do they get away with bashing Rand and O-ism without knowing a thing about it?
I use to take care of my nephews, age 5 and 7 years of age while my brother and his wife was out of town. I would serve vegetables at dinner. My nephews would turn up their nose and go “I don’t like vegetables!” I would then ask “why?” My nephews would say “Because Billy who lives across the street doesn’t like vegetables.”
Wow…what a great bunch of reasoning. I’d come back and state. OK…how old is Billy? “He’s 7.” Ok does that make him a little kid or is he a “big person.” “Uh, he’s a kid.” Really, I’d say…and so you are going to let a “little kid” who lives across the street tell you what to do?
Of course, my nephews would sit there thinking about what I said. However, when I was awarded my PhD I was told that if I could not manipulate or manage kids and dogs, I would have to send my diploma back (Just kidding!).
So, I’d tell my nephews: “Well, that’s OK…vegetables are just for grown ups anyway. I’m not going to give you anymore….don’t tell your mother I tried to serve you vegetables either, she would get upset that I was feeding you “big people’s food.”
Well, that set them to thinking….and so for the next two days I wouldn’t put any vegetables on their plate. By the third day…my nephews were “begging” me to feed them some vegetables. “Please, please” they would beg…”we want to eat big people’s food too!”
My point is…that apparently, Ayn Rand and the concepts of “objectivism” are for adults. Little kids and the immature don’t get it..and it just makes them all too ready to “rebel” against adults telling them how to think.
So…there should be a disclaimer when reading or discussing Ayn Rand:
***Reading or discussing Ayn Rand is meant for adults and has an XXX Rating. Being engaged in Objectivism, may cause feelings of maturity and responsibility for one’s self…and thus, please read or discuss Ayn Rand with caution. Those of immature minds are warned to not discuss Ayn Rand or Objectivism, because it may cause extreme logic, and thus upset irrational, childish thought processes. Please sign below if you are a) over 18 years of age, and b) if over 18 years of age…are of a mature mind and demeanor.
____________________
It would be one thing…if the detractors would be so honest and intelligent to state something Rand said, and then pose or respond with a logical argument.
Instead, what we get is some diatribe of ranting and screaming about concepts Rand never said or endorsed?
How do these people walk around and see where they are going with their head up their ass?
The above written article doesn’t merit comment except for the bold faced lie about Ayn rand “crushing”….
That is not Ayn Rand’s style nor what objectivism means.
I’ve stopped being amazed at how much half truths, outright lies or misrepresenting socialism/communism relies upon to deceive the masses they profess to love so much.
My argument with Ayn Rand is more that she is simply an idiot, like Karl Marx, without a clue when it comes to human behavior. Uncontrolled government power: murder, gulags. Uncontrolled corporate power: robber barons, corporations that hate America by exporting all jobs and using offshore headquarters to not pay any taxes at all.
If you don’t make people work, they don’t. If you don’t keep greedy people honest, they aren’t.
Grow up people.
Uncontrolled corporate power also leads to murder. The escapades of the United Fruit Company are just one early example.
I have been an Objectivist for some 3 years and head my own philosophy group. I have read almost all of her fiction and non-fiction books and nowhere does she refer to her books or philosophy as “propaganda”.
Ayn Rand has always stressed people should make up their own minds and thats what Alan Greenspan did when he became Fed chair and tinkered with the economy by raising and lowering interest rates which pumped credit into the economy leading to the economic downturn we are experiencing.
Matter of fact, I would dare to argue that the author’s rant VINDICATES everything Ms. Rand and Professor Ludwig von Mises said about government intervention in the affairs of the economy.
When government pumps credit into the economy using a central bank to do so, it creates artificial prosperities and awful recessions, if not outright depressions.
As far as Objectivism being a cult, that is a baldfaced lie. Yes, Objectivists are doctrinaire and can be dogmatic, but communists, socialists and everyone else who subscribes to a philosophy can be too.
The difference is that, ultimately, everyone has free will. We aren’t forcing our views on others and want everyone to be free. However, the first step in a person getting back their freedom would be to start thinking.
That might be what the author of this and other posts on this blog might want to start as it would be an original achievement. :)
The author’s post is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
Any ‘ism’ which hopes to define the world we live in, is flawed. We all experience the world in our own way; even though there is a physical and objective reality.
I’m a citizen of the United States and so my main concern is that at any given moment in our history we are less than a “more perfect union”. What does this mean? It means A.) I think we are a society. B.) I think we are a governemnt. and C.) I think in any country those entities are difficult to separate.
People who work, completing a task society deems worthy (like say a janitor), should be able to afford those things we as a people deem right. Food, shelter and yes even health care. If that is not attainable by working members of society then something is broken. When Any Rand or Karl Marx try to intellectualize these concepts they they are not looking to fix that problem. They are looking to make people just like them
Bravo! Wonderful point!
Dear Mike,
FYI, from http://www.playboy.com/articles/ayn-rand-playboy-interview/index.html :
PLAYBOY: Then what you are saying is that to achieve these changes one must use essentially educational or propagandistic methods?
RAND: Yes, of course.
The largest message I received from Atlas Shrugged was that everyone should reap only what the sow. No free rides and moochers allowed in any form. I largely agree with that. however, I do believe that society does have a responsibility to fund and take care of those who have no ability to fend for themselves, ie.. victims of drunk drivers or Downs syndrome individuals.
I think Ayn Rand concepts would be spot on helpful to our society if we incorporated them in revamping our Social Security System. She would absolutely believe in privatizing Social Security. Think about it.. if 6.2% of every payroll dollar were “invested” into stocks, bonds or even passbook savings at a local bank our economy would never suffer like it is now due to a credit crunch. EVER! The banks would be so saturated with money they would be begging people to take loans. Thus endless job creation!!
Why can’t we as a society have faith in our own productivity and the free enterprise system?
Why do we allow the government to take away our freedom to manage our own retirement? I WANT MY FREEDOM BACK DAMN IT!!
Social Security gives a rate of return on your hard earned money of a whopping 0%! And I have no choice or voice about it!!
IT IS TIME FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY REVOLUTION!!!
I teach college English and have for many years. My associates cover the entire spectrum of belief systems. When it comes to Anyn Rand I find that it is very rare you ever find anyone who is hypercritical of her writing who has actually read them. Ignorance and pseudeo-intellectual bullshit comes out of the mouths of those so full of themselves who pretend they understand what she wrote when never even read it. This woman left the Soviet Union in 1918 after her family was destoyed to poverty by Lenin and the Party. Her father was a pharmisist She hates communism in all forms because unlike these idiots who bad mouth her she saw millions of her countrymen killed under its savage practices. She knew what Stalin did to her countrymen-35,000,000 murdered. She idealizes America for the values that made it great. She learned English as a second language as one of the most brilliant fee thinkers in American literature right up there with Thoreau and Emerson and the like. If you read her completely and understand her points, she champions the individual over the collective realizing a person who is the BEST they can be, benefits everyone. Getting rewarded for hard work, creativity, and risk is not a selfish thing. It is the physical form and expression of self-reliance and freedom in everyday life. She understood the nature of money and how it had to be created before it can be robbed, taxed, given away or anything. Creating wealth is what pays for the government. Most of its money comes from working people who work for their own self interest (their families!) and we all benefit from this effort. Money does not come from a printing press but is underwritten by the people who feed off those that do make it. They are the loudest and quickest to condemn Rand who they, out of total ignorance, misunderstand or distort her ideas to support their psuedo-Robinhood way (I say psuedo because they take from those that earn to spread it around to their cronies and special interests and not the poor or disinfrancised.) I have never met a person who criticizes Rand who has ever signed the frontside of a check drawn on an account they earned. All her critics sign the backside of a check-government issued or otherwise. People who inherit money like the Kennedys have no concept of how money is earned. They invest it to make more. Grand Dad was a boot legger. Funny how illegitimate gains get cleaned up in the social laundry of time. I have studied alturism and self-interest and found that most alturist are very concerned about controlling other people’s money as they seem unable or unwilling (or perhaps just too lazy) to earn their own money. A very interesting point: look at the tax returns of those considered mean spirited or selfish and compare them to the top ten of the people alturist think are so so wonderful. 10-20% vs 1-2% of contributions to charities. Look at Biden’s and Obama’s tax returns since 2000 and I make my point. They are really into spending not only other peopl’e money but borrowing money from the Chinese to enslave our children’s children to government debit to give money to special interest on the Obama list. Rand has a lot to say and her ideas make sense if you have the guts and open, intelligent mind to actually read her. Conservatives read Marx and Engels and many other things. Too many Liberals critcal of Rand read only airheads authors from academia who never had a real job and also who can’t defend their ideas very well but believe them anyway inspite of facts and reality. I’ve work around them for years.
They let you teach College English? Anus Rand is dead. Let it go.
Jay says: “I have never met a person who criticizes Rand who has ever signed the frontside of a check drawn on an account they earned. All her critics sign the backside of a check-government issued or otherwise.”
Oh really? That, right there, shows you don’t know what you’re talking about.
One of the primary problems people have with Ayn Rand, is her belief in “unfettered” business. “Unfettered” business too often leads to monopolies, crushing of competition, etc. “Fettered” business, if done right, doesn’t allow these things to happen, and fosters competition.
I feel for Rand and her experiences regarding the Communists, but her emotional reaction to that, caused her to swing too far in the opposite direction, becoming too starry-eyed for big business. The result of her beliefs, was the collapse of the world’s economy in 2008–unfettered Wall Street speculation. Even Greenspan, one of her followers, and one of the main people responsible for the collapse, finally admitted he hadn’t taken human greed into account–he thought, since few people would act contrary to their own self-interest (he and Rand were wrong about that too), that this meant Wall Street wouldn’t act in ways that would bring down the very system by which they “made” their money. Boy, was he wrong. Even a child knows that many people will steal, etc. just to get what’s in front of them today, with the consequences for the future be damned.
I was mildly entertained by Atlas Shrugged. I would have been more entertained had it been 1/2 as long.
You are clearly evil. I only wish you could experience the endgame of your own pathetic “morality” without pulling the rest of us into a cannabilitsic devolution. The problem with your ideology is that eventually, it runs out of victims. “I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man or ask him to live for mine.” John Galt
Peddle your trash elsewhere, you death lover.
I take issue with the idea that Ayn Rand was a good writer. She was horrible – her fiction is just dreadful, from any critical standpoint.
You mention her as anti-democratic, and I agree, since market populism, which is a sort of mob rule, has been pushed as a replacement for politics – by her, Hayek and others. “Mob Rule” is precisely the phenomenon democratic theorists strive to prevent, whether it’s republicanism (small “r”) or anarchism. This market populism simply declares: “what ever is most popular goes.”
Ayn Rand was by no means a great author, but because she provided the world with a rationale for selfishness, she has been celebrated as one by the selfish.
A great propagandist certainly, but not a great author in the sense that, say, John Steinbeck was a great author.
Thinking like Rand’s is what made the Russian Revolution necessary in the first place; all that take and no give makes Jack a dull boy if you catch my drift.
That, and she drove Steve Ditko mad and ruined his career.
I say good day !
Ayn Rand wasn’t “neo-Nietzsche”, she was vehemently “anti-Nietzsche”… All that is needed is to read her foreword to her book “The Fountainhead”, in which she directly opposes “Nietzschean mystics” and anything dealing with introversion and self-reflection/criticism. Rand’s “Objectivism” is nothing more than a projection of her own extremely subjective and one-sided worldview.
The populace needs to understand the subtleties in our interpersonal conflicts, whether it be introversion vs. extroversion, rational types vs. irrational types, or individuals’ confrontations with those of their own inferior type.
Nietzsche may have been more focused on confronting his own neuroses (maybe even to his own demise), just as Rand is more focused on stimulating herself with worldly pleasures (likewise to her demise); but both are in the same place when confronted with death, wishing that they’d both had a little bit more of the other side of life.
How can Ayn Rand be in your crosshairs? She is dead.
However, the widespread acceptance of her ideas and the ideas that she promoted grows larger and larger every year. Why? Because a lot of what she wrote makes sense. The immediate relevance of her legacy was her ardent defense of the principles that America’s Founding Fathers promoted.
When one observes the history of the United States of America it makes sense how a society’s ethics determines its politics. Patriots of yore were well aware of John Locke’s identification of natural rights and of Payne’s Common Sense. Their set of ethics brought about the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution. Generations later, a different set of ethics brought about the New Deal and The Great Society. The ongoing battle in the course of human events is to return to the principles that the USA was founded upon and thereby expand individual freedom or to expand the welfare state and thereby diminish individual freedom. Ayn Rand’s ideas and the ideas she promoted lead the charge for expanding individual freedom.
This blog amounts to one long ad hominem attack. You have resorted to attacking the messenger instead of arguing the message.
If you were to be concerned with her ideas instead of her person, I can find no better summary of them then an article written by Craig Biddle. It is titled, Introducing the Objective Standard and can be found here:
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/introducing-the-objective-standard.asp
Ayn Rand wrote horrible fiction – which must be why the right-wing loves her so much, most of their ideology being based on bad fictions: the bible; Christopher Columbus; trickle-down economics; american exceptionalism. And, of course, Darwin would not recognize ’social-darwinism’ as having any relationship to his biological theories.
Rand’s prose is so heavy handed and redundant, I don’t know how any literate person can wade through it. Her characters are all two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, who hammer her shallow philosophy of selfishness with every line. It’s, just…bad.
Everyone has a half-baked idea from time to time, but those of Ayn Rand never saw the inside of an oven. For example, the idea that if a few captains of industry disappeared, the economy would grind to a halt is ludicrous. For every captain there are battalions of lieutenants pushing their way up. Certainly Rand underestimated people in general.
George Orwell said more in just over 100 pages in “Animal Farm” than Rand did in the almost ten times as many pages of her turgid tome.
Rand’s characters are one-dimensional, and the speeches that her characters make to one another are absurd. I find it interesting that none of her main characters have good relations with their families.
I cannot understand how reasonably intelligent people find her “philosophy”, which boils down to, “I’m getting mine, and to hell with everybody else”, acceptable. Rand follows in the path of the extreme revolutionary party in nineteenth century Russia, the nihilists who approved of nothing in the constituted order of things.
The best refutation of Rand’s “objectivism”, which includes laissez-faire economics, is the consequence of deregulation and the lack of government oversight that has brought the American economy to the point where it is today. Unfettered capitalism tends towards monopoly; competition is stifled. Now there are institutions that are “too big to fail”, a consequence, in part, of the policies of Rand’s acolyte A. Greenspan.
And just one more thought: The choices are not just between capitalism and socialism. That kind of dichotomous thinking is too limiting.
WEll that was another dumb Leftist delusional statement, i.e. in which you dispute that “if the captains of industry disappear, the economy will grind to a halt.”
Well, let us look at the facts…Below are the countries for which your Left Wing Communist Socialist Assholes…killed, or deported the captains of industry and stole their companies and yes indeedy, industry did grind to a half and they all became POOR….now I dare you to tell me about how successful their socialist economies are now!
I learned this from George Bush Sr….”the Poor can’t help the Poor.” Bush was right.
So here are your socialist countries…who are or were devoid of the Captains of Industry…and ruined life for everyone.
Cuba
Argentina
Germany
England
France
Russia/USSR
Vietnam
Cambodia
Poland
Hungary
Czechloslovakia
Albania
Laos
North Korea
China (now turning Capitalist)
Benin
Bulgaria
Angola
People’s Republic of the Congo
Ethiopia
Finland
Greece
Grenada
Kampuchea
Mongolia
Romania
Somalia
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Bangladesh
Libya
India (now becoming Capitalist)
Portugal
Sri Lanka
Syria
Tanzania
Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia)
Nicaragua under the Marxist SAndinistas
Algeria
Burkina
Ghana
Madagascar
Mali
Seychelles
Sudan
Suriname
Tunisia
Uganda
Iran
Syria
And yes…the captains of Industry did flee…and now these countries are nothing but poor, dirty…and you want us to be like them? You are insane.
Hey…go live in Cuba for a while, where your own children are the property of the state, and you are “forced” under armed guard to go out and cut sugar cane.
And you want us all to live in such …where the inefficient, idiotic “state” attempts to run industry?
Socialis is nothing but a miserable joke.
Although she makes some good points, Ms. Rand is an extremist and a hypocrite. As anyone who takes their personal vendettas to an extreme, dear Ayn becomes contradictory in her novels and her philosophy. As the great philosopher said, “I have become that which I hated”.
Ms. Rand seems to have an incorrect assessment of capitalist history. She assumes that great individuals, acting alone, as heroic individualists, created the society we have today. False. Our capitalism is built on the division of labor- most people in an economy are but a cog in a machine- giving their labor to the corporate collective. The elites at the top DO NOT do all the work that sweet Ayn wants to give them credit for. And if she wants to point out parasites, how about executives who receive lavish salaries and credit for work done by the little people beneath them?
And if we want to study the Capitalist heroes of our society; Vanderbilt, Carnegie, Astor, Morgan, Edison, Gates, etc.; we see a list of sociopaths who used treachery and exploitation of their competitors/ employees/ customers/ society in general to win. In a competitive society, all else being equal, it is the man with the LEAST ethical restraints who rises to the top.
I see many objectivists quoting Randy’s novels as if they were god’s holy gospel. They’re not- they are fictional propaganda. And not particularly good fiction at that. Thank you.
Plastic Lives for Plastic People Free Market at the Mall – we are so scientifically brainwashed at this point that we will buy re-bottled TAP water that might come from SuperFund sites and because the advertising shows a mountain we will think that the plastic encased water tastes like a mountain spring even though we are driving an SUV in traffic going nowhere fast to pay our bills to buy more crap to live in freedom to work at our job that we are afraid we will lose so that the corporation can better position itself to take over again and that regional Manager is sucking down his/her cup of Rand to feel good inside even though there is no inside left because we are so scientifically brainwashed at this point that we will buy re-bottled TAP water that might come from SuperFund sites and because the advertising shows a mountain we will think that the plastic encased water tastes like a mountain spring even though… God forbid the Gov’t regulate the water supplies when Large Corporations have more money to do it. Humans can’t be trusted to vote in trusted public servants, Corporations are so much better, their advertising is so much more convincing in any case so don’t waste your Time making such a case. Time is Money, remember? Money bolsters Ego and allows you to make better decisions of which products to purchase – with the aid of advertising of course. Advertising is a form of Education after all. The invisible Hand will swat you down the toilet and you won’t even know what hit you and it will actually feel good to you. Buy or Die. Consume or Be Consumed.
In a free world of objective, fair laws and respect for the individual…you may live in a hut, eat twigs and dig in the dirt as much as you wish. It is your “choice.”
But, your utopian world becomes a slave state…when you demand and enforce others to live like you. Go ahead…live as you wish, but do not enforce your police state on the rest of us…By the way, everything that you have stated…is exactly how the “religious” think and how the “church” justified the murder of 50 million who refused to believe in the same god.
I don’t believe in your “socialist” god-state…now what are you going to do? Take away my money, my property, my rights to live as I wish? Then come right out and be honest about it…state that you are nothing more than a thief.
Socialism is THEFT.
Of course it is, Judy. But they say, “Property is Theft” never grasping that when they pick fruit from a tree and put it in their own mouths they have made it THEIRS.
Yes Lefties, in eating that fruit, you are stealing it from others!
Capitalists have a better solution. One will raise the fruit in large quantities, caring for it and rightly calling the fruit his own. Another will offer woven clothing, that is his own because he made it, in trade for the fruit. BOTH benefit when they trade. The one with too much fruit gets the clothing, the one with too much clothing gets the fruit.
Trade is the ONLY MORAL way of life. Will some cheat? Of course, but that is why Capitalism depends on Rights, Courts and contracts.
THE FUTURE WAR BETWEEN THOSE WHO “THINK” AND THOSE WHO “DON’T THINK:”
More doom and gloom clap trap thinking….when we are Free to think and invent, we create a world to our liking.
I know of dozens of people who think for themselves, and who value independence…to the point, because we as yet, continue to live in a semi free state, are moving out to the deserts, mountains, deserted islands, and farm lands…and building self sufficient places to live.
Such people do in fact…think and vote …or get out. If you pay attention to the demographics, people are moving out of the cities who are losing large numbers of populations. They are also moving out of the suburbs into living in much smaller areas by population, because the oppressive “feel” that living under such political and media pressure is not right…it is not comfortable and there is growing knowledge that if there is a time to move…it is now. Inner cities have already been destroyed by those who “don’t think.” Why wait until all other areas of greater or lesser population density also become ghettos of those who “don’t think.”
Obama and his thugs, and all the rest have assumed that human beings are ultimately manipulatable, and can be “trained” and herded like sheep into ghettos of nonthinking humans. Obama and his thugs are wrong. The “thinkers” are thinking about what to do in their defense and protection.
In time, the “thinkers” will make it possible to generate one’s own power, manufacture and grow one’s own food, take care of one’s own waste, provide comfortable shelter, and have access to greater technology and all the knowledge in the world…not because some socialist state created it….but because individuals thought how to do it…and it pleased them.
One hundred years from now…it will be simply an unthinkable atrocity to be subjected to “state control.” We are evolving…and it is no longer a question of the “have’s vs the have nots,” it is becoming a war between those who “think and those who don’t.”
Of course…those who “don’t think” will demand that those who “do think” support them. However, those who “think” will figure out that those who “don’t think” simply do not have the “right” to demand anything from the “thinkers.” Ergo, the “thinkers” will figure out ways to enclave and protect themselves from the ravages of the Zombie Zocialist NonThinkers….Moving away from the “nonthinkers” will be just one strategy among many.
The most interesting part about the Future…is that those who “think” will create all kinds of free or near-free devices for those who “don’t think” in order to sustain themselves and others. However, as “those who don’t think” become disturbed that those who “think” have “more”…those who “don’t think” will become enraged, no matter how much they are “given” by those who “think.”
Ridden with rage, jealousy, and revenge…those who “don’t think”…will eventually be separated into areas of land where they can’t hurt those who “do think,” and left to their own devices.
Those who “don’t think” will just have to show up at feeding stations to be fed, be issued clothing for warmth and go to live in nondestructable housing which they can’t destroy.
(Note: Every single thing “given” to the nonthinkers, such as public housing…was and is rapidly destroyed by the “nonthinkers.” The nonthinkers write graffiti on the walls break out the windows and piss out the doors, and destroy everything they touch. Even when given everything to the “nonthinkers”, including free educations, welfare, training, medical care, transportation, rehabilitation…social workers, etc…the “nonthinkers” destroy the very environment they live in. So be it…in time, both the body politic and technology will enable those who do “think” to separate themselves from the “nonthinkers.”
Yes, this sounds like a utopian movie plot…and a warning, that if those who “don’t think” keep waging war against those who do think…the “nonthinkers” will be separated and enclaved out of existence. Take your pick….(Sounds like a movie plot, yes?)
I agree with objectivity to the extent there is truth in reality’s existence. But why must objectivity be so religiously rigid and compartmentalized when it comes to individual unique potential? How ironic! — Indeed, it wouldn’t hurt for objectivists to be a little bit more — objective by recognizing “truths” exist in every reality that unfortunately is genetically predetermined.
Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain. In fact, achieving the confidence for self-sufficiency by trusting one’s instinct is a concept far beyond their ability to perceive. Mental and emotional retardation or illness, as well as physical malformations make personal independence an impossible goal. Your reality is not the end-all so try to relate to other people by finding a common ground — and don’t be so narcissistic. Always remember; your reality is not the center of the universe.
Now, go seek and develop your awesome talent to be the best it can be. Soar to your fullest potential then sell out to commercial interests — or not. But just don’t sell yourself short (— which is impossible in Rand’s world of unfettered and unregulated capitalism). As businesses are gobbled up by corporations that inevitably consolidate until there is naught but monopolies or oligopolies left for the pickings. — In other words, it is paradoxical to embrace all of Rand’s philosophical objectives blindly. So take what you like and throw the rest out, as your individualism is at stake.
Objectivity is NOT religiously rigid. But, to remain sane and respect the rights of others…one must “know” when they are operating outside the laws of physics, living in a dream state of their own imagination…and when they are not.
You said: Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain.
True…and Rand stated that is why we must have “objective” laws…so that we can be protected by those who “believe” they have the right to rob, murder, and rape….laws against government corruption, laws against those in private enterprise who “steal”…and punishments that fit the crime.
Unfettered and unregulated capitalism…demands that those who engage in it…do not lie, steal, or impose their will on others. Socialism…demands, that you only buy what the state allows you to buy or what the state produces (see today’s headlines, Unions and Obama now control car industry, and Obama’s socialist state is now seeking control and domination of health care, banks, transportation, and a “state-run” media (a bunch of Obama butt lickers, who need to get a room).
And once again…I suggest you have not read Ayn Rand…because she states that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights (this does not include the right to steal or hurt others), including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Before you start howling about anti-trust…think: A capitalist cannot prevent another capitalist from engaging in competition, or using unfair methods, such as sabotague, to keep another another capitalist from engaging in business. The only function of the government…is to protect “individual” rights…and “acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who (first) intiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under “objective control” (meaning..fair laws, that protect the individual, and do not promote any dogma or ideology of the “mob”..or the church, or utopian socialists who wish to create a police state of “volunteer” slaves.”)
The “moral” justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it “represents the best say to achieve the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequences. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only s ystem consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice (What is Capitalism?, CUI, 20).
The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort (Slaves don’t make good workers or providers, which Obama and his thugs have yet to figure out). Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival…(and to survive well is the object).
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual (and cannot be imposed by the socialist/communist state or Obama’s Czars)…and since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival rquires t5hat those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t (those who want to live as slaves of the state).
Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible (in contrast to Obama and his thugs who claim greater moral and intellectual superiority)…they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment (or if they are not “rational” they must be free to fail… and thus learn from their mistakes).
Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind (in counter to Obama’s socialist thugs, who think that by enslaving American workers and achievers, they can then impose and thus deliver a “greater society.” Many such thugs and ideologues and “the church” have tried to impose a “greater” world…and have failed, leaving poverty and millions of dead in their wake.)
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly (in contrast to Obama’s socialism which promises that it can support, and even reward those who are not rational, those who don’t work, those who don’t invent, or achieve…in fact, the very “least” in society is to preferred as something more “noble” and saintly…than those who strive.
Capitalism leaves every man freee to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition can carry him (in contrast to Obama’s view of fairness…that the “cap” on success for today, will be $250,000…and tomorrow, as the government falls further in debt with programs that do not work…this cap will be lowered to allow only an income of $25,000 with each human being then dependent on the state for his/her food, and shelter. This was tried in the USSR and did not work. Obama and his dumb thugs, have never read any history.)
I’ve read two of her books(“Fountainhead & Atlas Shrugged”), they are long reads but decent. Way better fiction then Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth”
Gore is a liar…and a thief. The earth has only warmed by 1 degree, and human beings are not at fault. Mars is also warming up by a few degrees, and that cannot be blamed on human beings. Other forces are at work.
Why Gore is a liar and a thief…is that he is not only making millions out of his Church of Global Warming, by fools buying “carbon credits,” what ever the fk that is…but, he has invested in and is pushing “green” technology which will make him a billionair.
Gore’s own 5,000 square foot house, and his private jets are leaving the largest “carbon footprint” of any one executive in the world. Its all about money…Gore making money, and fools like you believe in Obama as the new Messiah, and Gore as Obama’s prophet. Bull shit!
I completely agree wit this article’s author. Ayn Rand was a hateful and selfish bi-ch. Her accolytes today, Libertarians and Republicans, try to emulate her “qualities” every chance they get. They form “think-tanks” like the Competitive Enterprise Institute to spew forth bald-faced lies on everything from denying climate change science to discounting the hazards of smoking etc, consequences to the world be damned. All in their voracious pursuit of the almighty dollar. But you can bet they sleep soundly at night since these people have no shame.
The author of this article is a nitwit. I’ve read all of Ayn Rand’s books. And many others on the subject of capitalism. There are a great many myths in this country, created and propped up by the government.
For example many people still believe FDR’s propaganda about how the great depression was caused by laissez faire capitalism. That analysis is provably false today, and was even provably false at the time, although with less data.
Read “America’s Great Depression,” Murray N Rothbard and separately do your own study on the stock market crash of 1920 and compare it to the one of 1929. Both were scientifically created and controlled. Read the “Creature of Jekyll Island,” G Edward Griffin
As for why there are so many think tanks, and as for Alan Greenspan. Both are the same problem. People who intend to do something that’s completely can⋅tan⋅ker⋅ous and self serving will try to garner support from anywhere they can.
Alan Greenspan put across a deception that he was an Ayn Rand Objectivist. It’s not the truth, because the deception was only useful to get him the job as chairman of the Fed. But all of his actions as chairman of the Fed were contradictory with his stated motive. His actions were those of a Marxist, so that’s probably what he is.
The reason I felt is prudent to respond to this article was not that I thought it had any content worth responding to, but rather to point out that it didn’t.
SJ Doc:
LOL – As a teenager (a LONG time ago), I came up with this one:
Heinlein would have liked me and my thinking, I think… Yet I am but an egg.
.
You are right~ My mother who said the very same thing…that the majority is “always” wrong…stated this axiom in a 1960s reflection of the New York Times stating that Fidel Castro was going to be the savior of “mankind.” …when New York City gave Castro a “parade.” Hitler’s majority, gave us Fascism in Germany…Stalin’s communist majority murdered 60 million people. The Vietnamese Communist “majority” murdered 3 million people AFTER the slimy, hypocrital, Left Wing Socialist Dems…forced the US out of Vietnam….the list of “sins” against human beings by the Left is nearly limitless.
In the 1980s and 1990s…the Left Wing Socialist/Fascist Dems…supported every communist, filthy dictatorship in Central and South America. Today…the Dems support Hugo Chavez who is destroying his country, they support militant Moslem extremists who wish to create 10,000 “9-11’s,”…and again, the list is endless of how much the LEFT wishes us to commit suicide.
Why? Because my mother, who was an attorney, observed that the “majority” function as a “herd,” a “pack,” a tribe, a “hive” of insects…who do not think, they move in unison for dominance and what they perceive as “protection.” In a “herd”…they do not protect the individual, or the weak…they sacrifice them for the herd.
Watch an ant hill…and you will see what the Left Wing Insects have in mind for the world. All the mindless little insects, all scurrying around, each with his little job…all controlled by the “Queen.” In this case, the Left Wing Insects “queen” is now Barack Obama. What a bunch of disgusting examples of human Dysgenics.
Such anti-individualism that Ayn Rand observed…was in reaction to how the “majority” functions…i.e. democracy is nothing more than “mob rule,” by the uneducated, led by the clever and avaricious…and Rand was right. In the 1980s, I interviewed the “last white” president of Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe, who said…that the Left believes in “one vote, one time,” and then reverts back to tribalism. Smith was right…Zimbabwe is the poorest country in the entire world…even poorer than the Sudan or Somalia.
The Left Wing Loonies don’t get it…it is the “individual” mind, the heretic, the human being who thinks outside of the box…and refuses to be organized and controlled to be a tool of the state…that creates progress, justice, and creativity…all of which benefits individual human beings. In the Left’s personal and neurotic insecurities, in which they seek a “surrogate daddy” to replace their biological “daddy” who disappointed them…they perceive the “state” as their all-loving, all-giving god-father, the daddy they never had, or the daddy would who never fail them.
Left wingers are neurotic, sick, mentally ill “haters,” …who like little jealous 12 year kids…seek to destroy those who they perceive as their “betters.” OK…then, let the Left move enmasse to Africa, or the country of their choice…and get the hell out of the US. Go ahead…create the utopian Insect Society you so crave. You are not Americans….you are “mind slavers”…you are idiots who wrap your selves in socialist rhetoric and “altruism.”
Ah…”altruism,” the very “banner” the Left uses and proclaims as the justification for human slavery. Ayn Rand was right…”altruism” is the enemy of individual human rights.
In Rand’s text, “Return of the Primitive” (1971)…she also predicted that a whole generation of “students” would be trained to “react” like one of Pavlov’s dogs. I ran into one of these Left Wing Pavlovian-trained “students” protesting in front of Starbucks. When my friends and I asked “why are you protesting,”…the hairy, unkempt, filthy little Left Winger said “Because they are “bad” dude…they are bad.” Really? We then asked…”why are they “bad?” Our little dirty finger-nailed, sandeled Left Winger looked confused and said…”Wait a minute, I have to ask the “organizer.” We wait…and finally the Lefty came back and said: “Because they don’t pay the farmers who grow their coffee enough.”
Taken aback…we said. “What if Starbucks didn’t create any jobs at all, would that make you happy if the coffee growers didn’t have any jobs at all?”
Our little unwashed Lefty…again looked confused, and then ran off to ask the “organizer” how to respond. The Left are nothing more than mindless Insects…
The “primitive” functions as a “tribe” never asking if what they believed in was right, or just, or respects the “individual,”…The mindless Left moves like a “sludge” through our communities, towns, and cities…creating filth and corruption in their wake, using double talk..promising utopian, happiness, justice, and wealth…and in reality, what they really want is power, power to make you submit to the HIVE.
Ayn Rand was right…and no matter how much the “sludge” hates her, and calls her selfish, blah, blah, blah…she was right. We are being over run by the parasites, the sludge, the perpetual “victims”…the Insects, and the genetic liars…all of whom expect the government to “rob” those who work…to feed and take care of them.
Those who hate Ayn Rand…a) never read much of what she stated, and b) simply “hate” the idea that they are responsible for themselves…
Obama and his “thugs”…hate you, they hate all individualism. Obama is nothing more than an extension of some African tribalism, with Obama as the HNIC, who will say and do anything, including throwing his white grandmother who took him in when no on else would under the bus. Obama is a born racist…who in his hypocrisy has now turned on his good buddy “Prof. Gates” to appease da’ liberal white folks who are in charge of pandering his Marxist totalitarian doctrine…and pass his state-run health care bills.
Too bad you dumb liberals, who think you are soooo intelligent, don’t realize that you are merely clever. What is the difference you say? The truly intelligent look at the consequences of their actions on individuals…whereas, the merely clever do not, and seek only to live in the present…and “win” regardless of the lies they must tell, and the horrific totalitarian consequences they bring about.
Did you know that 20% of the GOP voted for Obama? Wanna know why? Did you think it was because the GOP liked Obama? Dream on you fools. No…20% of the GOP voted for Obama…to teach the American people a “lesson” about socialism. Socialism is nightmare…dressed up in terms of a utopian dream that is held out as the answer for all ills, all social problems, which would create a ‘heaven on earth’ by the all knowing, all loving, all powerful god-state.
The GOP “knew” that in a very short period of time, the Am. People would lose their romantic view of both socialism and Obama…if he was elected. This is quickly coming to pass…and in the next elections, the GOP would win by default…as the ONLY answer to the Left and the Dems’ complete disrespect of individuals.
I predicted that in 6 months…Obama would either be impeached or isolated and controlled by his own party. I was right…and we are seeing the “end” of Obama now. I will be surprised if Obama is still in office in the next 12 months. Obama’s corrupt buddies will taken him down as a partner in crime. Nixon’s sins were nothing in comparison to Obama’s massive theft and corrupt control through ACORN and other 300 organizations, who have by hook and crook received Federal funds…to secretly “organize” voters and created a socialist police state.
In the 1960s, with LBJ’s “Great Society,” the ground work for today’s Left Wing Insect voters…was set, when LBJ threw black fathers out of the home…and then seduced black women into creating a “cottage industry” where they were “paid” in welfare checks to have children they could not support or really take care of.
Our public schools….were down graded into propaganda farms and “re-education” camps…where millions of children were taught not how to think, or discern reality and consequences, but to “believe” in altruism, to be a ‘volunteer,’ to serve the “state,” and that every “poor person” was decidedly more “worthy” of support. Today…many high schools engage in “forced slavery” to state through mandatory “volunteer” programs…which if the student doesn’t not comply…they are denied their high school diploma. This is not “volunteerism” it is forced slavery, which kids are nos being taught as something “good” and normal. Disgusting….Did the Left really think they could get away with such “forced voluntary slavery” forever?
Games up…Obama has nothing going for him but Rahm “Dead Fish” Emmanuel and his teleprompter who committed suicide last week. Its over….When the realism hits the American people as to who and what the Dems, Libs, and Obama’s thugs have in mind…they will be outraged.
Judy
Judy, your ‘rant’ is pretty awesome. In nearly every other comment, I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, your approach will not change those who disagree, but who have doubts. For them your denigrating language, however justified, will not convince those who are ‘on the fence’ because they cannot share your view. The worst example is your use of HNIC. Yes, in terms of why a great many people voted for Obama, your use of racism is entirely accurate. But you must put it in those terms: those voters who DO think in terms of race, more than in policy, wanted an HNIC. In fact they are so numerous that they may have made the mistake of getting what they wished for.
That said, the alternative voters faced was to place a RWIC (Religious Wingnut In Charge). Though Leftist BullSh_t & Environmentalism are deeply anti-American, Religion is the bigger long term threat to America. The socialist Deathnocrats are intellectually bankrupt, and must lie (“hope” & “change”)to gain power. Obamabull is already becoming evident, even to the Leftist media. The rightist anti-capitalist Republicides still have their pseudo-intellectual religious morality working for their side —though it is leads to the same moral HELL that is destroying the greatest nation ever created.
Ayn Rand = Alistar Crowley’ “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”
Both argue might = right. Do for yourself, and screw everybody else. If you can steal a car and get away with it, then to hell with the suffering of the weak. If the weak want to keep their cars, they need to be strong enough to keep them from being stolen.
Randian selfishness justifies every crime, every abuse.
The very concept of “law” is to prevent the strong from harming the weak. Rand is diametrically opposed to any law, because the very existence of law prohibits the strong from doing what’s in their own “best” interest.
We’ve seen Randian philosophy in action. The three most Randian people in the last 100 years were Stalin, Mussolini, and the mustachioed Austrian corporal. Now THEY lived by the idea of “what’s best for me is all that matters…”
Sigh. Come on, Dan. Show that you’ve read at least the dust-jackets of some of Rand’s books. She explicitly rejects the notion that morality is a choice between altruism, i.e., the sacrifice of self to others, and the kind of “selfishness” that you talk about: the sacrifice of others to oneself. Rand’s morality of (rational) selfishness was a rejection of sacrifice of any kind, either of others to oneself or oneself to others. Her ethic ejects from the realm of morality both the dictators you list and altruists like Mother Teresa, whose morality requires the existence of hapless victims (and which, thus, has incentive to manufacture victims – cf. the welfare state). (It wasn’t an accident that Stalin, Hitler, and Mussolini all believed that others should be sacrificed for the state, as they saw it.) . . . I have yet to see a good critique of Rand’s core philosophic ideas of reality, rationality, and individual rights from someone who actually understands them. . . Sigh.
Rich, your “synopsis” left out the essence of Rand’s aesthetics, which is the principle that art is a selective recreation of reality based on an artist’s metaphysical value judgments (or something along those lines). Please critique that principle before launching into criticisms of out-of-context concretes.
Dan…you are a nasty, little liar who has never once read Ayn Rand…this is what she said about “the law:”
“It is a grave error to suppose that a dictatorship rules a nation by means of strict, rigid laws which are obeyed and enforced with rigorous military precision. Such a rule would be evil, but almost bearable; men could endure the harshest edicts, provided those edicts were known., specific and stable; it is not the known that breaks men’s spirits, but the unpredictable. A dictatorship has to be capricious; it has to rule by means of the unexpected, the incomprehensible (altruism), the wantonly irrational; it has to deal not in death, but in sudden death (of not just persons, but businesses, corporations, and organizations); a state of chronic uncertainty is what men are psychologically unable to bear (and why Obama will be defeated as long as we have the right to honest vote).(Antitrust: The Rule of Unreason” TON, Feb, 1962, 5).
The task of a “proper” government..its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government…is to “bar” physical force from social relationships, and a code of ethics under objectively defined laws.
What is objectivism?
1) Reality exists as an objective absolute–facts are facts, independent of man’s “feelings,” wishes, hopes or fears (Left wing utopianism…demands that you “believe” in the religion of socialism, of you will be punished, and that socialism can be made “real” through one’s imagination and belief (the same dogma as is held by the religious). It is not).
2. Reason (the mental faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. (The opposite is religious “magic” and socialism, which states “if you can imagine it, then it exists.” No it doesn’t, this kind of magical beliefs are the same found in children before the age of reason.)
3. Man–every man–is an end in himself (as opposed to be part of an Insect Hive, a tribe, or a herd)… and is also an “end in himself,” not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
***4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another…NOT AS VICTIMS OR EXECUTIONERS, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.
The government acts only as a policeman that protexts man’s (individual) rights; it (the government) uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reason as the separation of state and church (Introducing Objectivism, TON, Aug. 1962, 35).
Rand further stated: “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest folows. This–the supremacy of reason–was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Obejectivism (Brief Summary, TO, Sept. 1971, 1.)
“All laws must be objective (an objectively justifiable): men must know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law forbids them to do (and why), what constitutes a crime and what penalty they will incur if they commit it.” (The Nature of Government, VOS, 149;p pb 110). (Note: This is counter to “thought crimes” which the LEFT wishes to impose on human beings who do not want to be a part of involuntary socialism.)
The retaliatory use of force requires objective rules of evidence to establish that a crime has been committed, and to prove who committed it as well as objective rules to define punishment and enforcement procedures.
Men who attempt to prosecute crimes, without such rules, are a lynch mob. If a society left the retaliatory use of force in the hands of individual citizens (Obama’s Czars! And now Sotomayor…), it would degenerate into mob rule, lynch law, and an endless series of bloody private feuds and vendettas. (Ibid, 147; pb 109).
When men are caught in the trap of non-objective law, when their work, future and livelihood are at the mercy of a bureaucrat’s whim (I.E…Sonia Sotomayor, who says as a Latina women she can make better decisions than a white man), when they have no way of knowing what unknown “influence” will crack down on them for which unspecified offense, “fear” becomes their basic motive, if they remain in the industry at all–and compromise, conformity , staleness, dullness, the dismal grayness of the middle-of-the-road are all that can be expected of them.
Independent thinking does not submit to bureaucratic edits, originality does not follow “public policies,” integrity does not petition for a license, heroism is not fostered by fear, creative genius is not summoned forth at the point of a gun.
Non-objective law (promoted by the Left against certain persons, such as the “rich” for which a certain “income” level…then makes them criminals to be punished by having their money and property taken away from them)… is the most effective weapon of human enslavement; its victims become its enforcers and enslave themselves (The “poor” are fooled and seduced into believing they are benefitting by a) being slaves, and b) making slaves of others (white people, the rich, corporations, etc). (Vast Quicksands, TON, July 1963, 25.)
That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation…not in a free country, not if we are to have “a government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others (I*bid, 28).
Awesome job, Judy. Of course, you vastly exceed their intellectual abilities.
Again…you have never read Ayn Rand…you are just another one of the primitive insects that parrot what you have heard. Rand was against the “utopian” state of Stalin, Hitler, Castro…and now Obama…. This leads me to perceive that you have not read Rand…not one word of what she stated. Who fed you the crap you “believe” like some dumb religious cretin? Tell me…in what state-run, university or high school…did you swallow such idiotic propaganda about Ayn Rand? Tell us…
If Rand states that individuals have “rights”….then please by all means, state how that is “hateful” and why she is a bitch…if Ayn Rand promoted individual rights and choices?
If such “think tanks” form and spew forth “bald-faced lies”…then name them. Prove Global warming exists….Rand never stated anything about smoking. If one wants to smoke in their own home…let them, but the rest of us should not have to pay for consequences of their nasty habits.
Ergo..if gays and drug users want to get HIV/AIDS or become addicted because that is their lifestyle, then…let them, but the rest of us should not have to pay for their care…as it is their choice.
There is no shame in desiring to have individual rights, own property, have choices, live my life as I wish (without harming others)…and achieve that which makes me happy.
You may wish to live in a guilt-free world…then go ahead, but don’t force me to live in your utopian police state.
Objectivity is NOT religiously rigid. But, to remain sane and respect the rights of others…one must “know” when they are operating outside the laws of physics, living in a dream state of their own imagination…and when they are not.
You said: Integrity, accountability, responsibility, self-reliance, and independence are wonderful character traits to strive for but not necessarily a reality for some people to attain.
True…and Rand stated that is why we must have “objective” laws…so that we can be protected by those who “believe” they have the right to rob, murder, and rape….laws against government corruption, laws against those in private enterprise who “steal”…and punishments that fit the crime.
Unfettered and unregulated capitalism…demands that those who engage in it…do not lie, steal, or impose their will on others. Socialism…demands, that you only buy what the state allows you to buy or what the state produces (see today’s headlines, Unions and Obama now control car industry, and Obama’s socialist state is now seeking control and domination of health care, banks, transportation, and a “state-run” media (a bunch of Obama butt lickers, who need to get a room).
And once again…I suggest you have not read Ayn Rand…because she states that “Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights (this does not include the right to steal or hurt others), including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Before you start howling about anti-trust…think: A capitalist cannot prevent another capitalist from engaging in competition, or using unfair methods, such as sabotague, to keep another another capitalist from engaging in business. The only function of the government…is to protect “individual” rights…and “acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who (first) intiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under “objective control” (meaning..fair laws, that protect the individual, and do not promote any dogma or ideology of the “mob”..or the church, or utopian socialists who wish to create a police state of “volunteer” slaves.”)
The “moral” justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it “represents the best say to achieve the common good.” It is true that capitalism does—if that catch-phrase has any meaning—but this is merely a secondary consequences. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only s ystem consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice (What is Capitalism?, CUI, 20).
The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort (Slaves don’t make good workers or providers, which Obama and his thugs have yet to figure out). Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival…(and to survive well is the object).
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual (and cannot be imposed by the socialist/communist state or Obama’s Czars)…and since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival rquires t5hat those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t (those who want to live as slaves of the state).
Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible (in contrast to Obama and his thugs who claim greater moral and intellectual superiority)…they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment (or if they are not “rational” they must be free to fail… and thus learn from their mistakes).
Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind (in counter to Obama’s socialist thugs, who think that by enslaving American workers and achievers, they can then impose and thus deliver a “greater society.” Many such thugs and ideologues and “the church” have tried to impose a “greater” world…and have failed, leaving poverty and millions of dead in their wake.)
Capitalism demands the best of every man—his rationality—and rewards him accordingly (in contrast to Obama’s socialism which promises that it can support, and even reward those who are not rational, those who don’t work, those who don’t invent, or achieve…in fact, the very “least” in society is to preferred as something more “noble” and saintly…than those who strive.
Capitalism leaves every man freee to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition can carry him (in contrast to Obama’s view of fairness…that the “cap” on success for today, will be $250,000…and tomorrow, as the government falls further in debt with programs that do not work…this cap will be lowered to allow only an income of $25,000 with each human being then dependent on the state for his/her food, and shelter. This was tried in the USSR and did not work. Obama and his dumb thugs, have never read any history.)
OK, I understand your point…but, I’m using the Left’s own strategies codified by Saul Alinsky in his “Rules for Radicals,” which state that to “intimidate” the enemy, it is good to humiliate them into submission and cowardice.
I am following Alinsky’s Rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
Being “nice” and ladylike for the past 40 years…has not worked one whit.In fact…being nice has given the Left an Edge of which they have taken full advantage. So, its time for a “change” in tactics. In fact…being “nice” to the Radical Left Wing Nut Cases…has often signified “defeat” and “cowardice” of the “enemy”….in which often times they were right.
Those who are naturally gifted with intelligence, logic, and respect for reason, will “get it” on their own. Such persons “seek out” information and measure and weigh such information for “natural logic.” Those who are genetically predispositioned….for fantasy, utopian delusions, hate, revenge and psychopathic or schizoid religiosity won’t change no matter what one can do.
Being “hostile” to such persons, if successful, might “blunt” the impetus of their irrational emotions, because they are not being rewarded for their own irrational hostility toward logic and objectivism. At the very least…confrontation and being “hostile” toward the Left…will NOT be perceived as a “neutral reward” for their irrationality.
Far too often since the 1970s, when the Left has become irrational and hostile…they were rewarded by the rest of us, by being “nice”…tolerant, understanding, silent, cowardice, and simply giving in.
The Israelis have tried every known psychology to get the Palis to the bargaining table, to try and “understand” and “meet the needs” of the Moslems to come to a peaceful settlement. Of course, we now know it did not work…only “real pain” makes any difference, if not temporarily” in how the Moslems function.
In both common pop psychology, and that practiced by Obama and Carter…it was from the “I’m Ok, You’re OK” school of political science. Or, if we all just “sat down and acted like christians” we can solve problems. On Obama’s Apology Tour…our enemies as well as the onlookers, just laughed their asses off at Obama’s childish high schooler’s attempt at being nice…so we can all become a “club.” Obama has to be one of the most naive presidents in history besides Carter…which makes him extremely dangerous. To wit: Right now there are two Russian submarines, who are not our friends, trolling right along the 20-mile barrier to the US.
Now ask yourself…why are the Russians here? And…what is their message? So you think they are coming close to the US in order to order some Papa John’s Pizza?
Knowing a little about the subject, the Russians are testing not only our defenses…but our “will” to meet them head on by what defenses…if say a thousand, nuclear-armed Russian naval ships and subs come into our coastlines.
We cannot afford to be “nice” to the Left anymore…the balance has tipped in their favor and we are now at war. We cannot win…by being nice, standing in place, being temperate, tolerant, or showing them respect.
The Left must understand for once…exactly what we think of them and what they are…a bunch of vomit eating hyenas, who as bipedal parasites, who wish to rob and lie their way into power and the complete control of this country… for the sake of some neoreligious, utopian crap world view.
May I suggest that you read Miyamoto’s strategy for dealing with Left Wing radical idiots, who have no respect for YOUR individualism:
MIYAMOTO’S PUBLIC RELATIONS RESOURCE
STRATEGIC PUBLIC RELATIONS
Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals
By Craig Miyamoto, APR, Fellow PRSA
(This is an expanded version of the 2000 Third Quarter issue of Public Relations Strategies, a quarterly publication of Miyamoto Strategic Counsel)
To paraphrase some sage advice, “keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer.” If your business or organization ever becomes a target of radical activists, it will be extremely helpful to know what strategies of attack will used against you.
Short of having spies infiltrate their organization – a practice that is sure to be found out and exposed to your discredit – it would help to study their methods.
Known as the “father of modern American radicalism,” Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory – no matter what.
Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky’s rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.
Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky’s out-of-print book – “Rules for Radicals” – illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.
Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.
Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:
RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Years ago I read her book ‘The Romantic Manifesto’ which is about her thoughts about art and I would like to convey my thoughts.
I found the book to be replete with contradictory ideas and lack of realizations to the point I concluded that she knew nothing about art but was one of those people who pontificated about something whether she knew about it or not.
For example, she extolled the virtues of capitalism and capitalists whilst disparaging communists or socialists. Also, she hated every type of modern art except architecture. It did not register on her mind that the largest purchasers of modern art were businessmen and corporations. It did not seem to register with her that Picasso, the communist, was patronized by the Rockefellers as Jackson Pollock was by Peggy Guggenheim. I realize that the following information was not available to her in her day but the stock market follows Golden Section proportions meaning 62% positive outcomes (buying long) to 38% negative outcomes (selling short.) Rand hated Classical art/music because it was formulaic and derived from the Golden Section but liked James Bond films (which are obviously formulaic.) Rand loved ‘noble man in noble action’ and was inspired by her hero Victor Hugo. In the 20th century, with its emphasis on abstraction and modernism, her aesthetic most closely resembled those of Nazi Germany and the USSR (because of their use of the human figure whether they be the teutonic everyman or the working class hero.)
This is the synopsis because the paper was 25 pages long and it is too long for this site. In conclusion I found her to be a dogmatic, solipsistic thinker with totalitarian overtones and wonder why anyone with an independent voice would actually be inspired by her.
Rich….how can you equalize capitalism and capitalists with communists and socalists? How is that possible… neither group has anything in common with the other group.
Capitalism is a social system that respects individual rights…communism/socialism says the individual has no rights, only the state convenes such “rights.”
She did not hate modern art…Rand stated that it was the politicization of “modern art,” that represented existentialism and then socialism was the problem, meaning…that it was being promoted by essentially the Left…in that there is the belief that reality does not exist. Ergo, if reality does not exist…then any kind of totalitarian governmental system could be promoted…and subsequently determine what the state believes is reality for you. And…Picasso was a communist….
Most artists in the Modern Art movement were communists and socialists…who believed that a “utopian” government would “support” them through state funding, so they could engage in “modern art” (scribbling).
And you are sooo wrong about the idea of the “noble man,”…being “closely resembled of …Nazi Germany.” I think you have not read anything of Rand but are merely parroting what you were told by some ill-educated, Left Wing twit who never read Rand.
Ayn Rand’s “noble man” pursues what makes him happy, what he believes achieves progress and science through individual, self-directed work….whereas, the “noble man” of Germany and the USSR…”sacrifices” himself for the state. The state determines what is “noble,” not the individual.
I cannot believe you are either this dumb…or cannot separate one having the right to “live for one’s self” as a noble pursuit…and not give in to the “state”…whereby “the state” demands that you nobly “sacrifice” yourself for the state or society.
If you were in my class….you would get an F….
It is true….Northern Europeans, and some Teutons understood the “noble” pursuit of individual justice and rights…and such an individualist…has nothing in common with the Communist idea of the Noble man, who engages in sacrificing everything about his life and individuality, or desires…for the state.
Can you tell the difference between living for what makes you happy and being brave and “noble” enough to pursue it…in contrast to the “state” demanding or stating that you can only be “noble” if you sacrifice yourself, your desires, you wants and needs for society or the state?
She was not dogmatic…think…just how “dogmatic” can anyone be…who promotes individuality and individual rights?
Duh….The “state” demands that you “dogmatically” obey the state, in which you have no individual rights.
What in the bloody hell are they teaching in schools today. If your garbage is representative of a “state education,” then no wonder such craven messianic twits like Obama are elected.
You cannot even tell the difference between capitalism and socialism. You cannot tell the difference between “individualism” and being owned and controlled by “the state.”
the scary thing is that Rich has a computer and can type. I would rather see an ape hit the keys randomly, than see Rich believing he has some glimmer of rationality in his grossly conflicted view of cultural and political freedom.
None of these are actual arguments addressing what Ayn Rand actually said. Based on your claims of what she supposedly said, I can only conclude you actually haven’t read her work or at least haven’t processed it.
Sometimes you do make claims of things she actually said, but you take them so out of context as to distort their meaning.
I encourage people to actually read Ayn Rand and judge for themselves. Even if you do decide that you do not agree, at least you can say with honesty that you have read her, which is more than most of her critics can say.
A more careful reading of Ayn Rand’s works will clear up your confusion.
The Left can scream about “greed” all they want to, but what Ayn Rand said is the basics of human rights: a) I get to keep my own money and property, as it does not belong to you or the “common good.” If I choose to share that is my business not yours. b) Socialism is a utopian-based “religion” in which it is a belief system…based on dreams and delusions, that does not work. No one in their right mind wants to live in a socialist police state. A police state is the only thing that would make socialism work for a while. And c) Rand stated that all decisions and thoughts should be based on logic, proof, and evidence that such ideologies work and respect the individual. D) Those who want to take money, property, and rights away from other people…are frustrated little neo-religious demi-god dictators. Now is the time for Ayn Rand…and Atheism. There are no gods, the state is not god, and Obama is not the New Messiah. I and all other “individuals” have a right to personal freedom and property ownership and to NOT be used and controlled as a disposable tool of the state…or either political party.
The facts are….that if someone, or a “collective” believes that they have a “right” to live off the production of others, they are parasites.
Now why should I have to work 6 months out of the year for “parasites?” Obama now promises to make us all work 10 months out of a year for his personal parasites and “the collective.”
Socialism is nothing but THEFT…and for the life of me, I cannot fathom “why” the Left believes it has a right to steal my money and property, take away my rights, especially my right to free speech without having a pie thrown in my face…and the right to determine my own life….except:
That the personalities on the LEFT are delusional, frustrated martyrs and saints, and fit the definition of a neo religion with the same kind of zeal and self righteousness as some jerk-legged, greasy-haired TV preacher who demands we believe in his religion…or else.
One of the most outstanding and wonderful tenants of Ayn Rand’s Objectivism…is to not “lie” and to tell the truth about where your information comes from, and then prove that it works. The Left lives in a religious, utopian dream world, where they can make up any lie, or claim without any proof…and then become outraged when you don’t believe their emotional, self righteous garbage. I no more “believe” in socialism, than I believe in Jesus.
The Left doesn’t get it….the Left is just as religious as any religious organization and promises the same kind of utopian delusions and rewards as religion.
The Left has its martyrs and heroes, and demands for self sacrifice just like religion…the Left overtly states just like the religious, that the “individual” is incompetent, and incapable of self direction…therefore, the Left functions as a GOD…and believes it has the right to determine everyone’s life style.
And the Left demands just like the religious, that one’s income be given to the “state” as the all-powerful “church” in charge of the world and the universe. There is no difference in the Left and all the bogus religions that have been playing mind games for the past 5000 years.
I don’t want to be part of either some ridiculous “collective” or any organized “religion.” The leaders and little, mindless followers of the Socialist Left and organized religion are both arrogant, and insecure fools, who need to control others to compensate for their sociopathic and very failed personalities.
Both the Left and Religion needs to get a life and get out of mine. I owe you twits nothing.
Judy
Judy, I’m not a socialist, because I don’t believe in labels, categories, etc. But take a look at some of the most successful, truly socialist countries in the world today (not ones you label as “socialist” simply because they’re awful). Tell us whether they’re police states. They’re anything but.
Socialism, in its proper form, simply supports people helping people–it doesn’t involve coddling massive numbers of people who otherwise could earn a living. The vast majority of people want to work, innovate, etc.–living in a political system that will come to their aid when they falter, and provides things for them that few individuals can provide for themselves, doesn’t somehow sap that out of them.
Then why don’t you just move to one of those wonderful socialist utopias and stop trying to change this country into something that it was never intended to be. I refuse to sacrifice my freedom for your (and those like you) misguided ideals.
Judy, compare “tenets” with “tenants”. The former entails essential principles, whilst the latter pays rent,
Rand’s philopshy explains why she might have used plagerism to get ahead. There is a Russian author named Zamathian (sp?) who wrote a book called “We” before Rand’s Anthem book was published. The Rand book appears to be a plagerism of “We.” Since she was Russian, it makes sense she would have thought “We” would never be translated and see the light of day in the West.
I’ve read “We” and Rand’s “Anthem”. Based on the actual content of the two novels, your claim of plagerism is nonesense. Go read both.
And what is the source of your statement and claims? Lots of books have been named “WE.” So what…show us your source before you being slandering Rand.
Rand and Neitzsche make good points, im not a devout capitalist, but thier arguments on how self improvement leads to the birth of the human spirit are remarkable. Every liberal should read Rand, if only to be able to put thier liberal ideas to the test. I like Rands views on privacy, and on earnings the luxuries of the wourld, and not just being given them. Having said that, I realize she’s excessive, Atlas Shrugged is still an amazing read though.
Over several decades, scholars from Walter Kaufmann to R.J. Hollingdale to Robert Solomon to Kathleen Higgins have patiently explained why the conception of Nietzsche as a proto-Nazi bent on physically dominating and enslaving weaker people is absurd. You should look into them so as not to make yourself look foolish repeating slurs that have been long debunked.
Ayn Rand is a Fraud. So is Alan Greenspan, just as Prof. Ravi Batra wrote in his book, “Greenspan’s Fraud”.
She put forth inventors of perpetual motion machines (i.e. John Galt) who drew energy from “thin air”, just like the real life inventor Joseph Papp and his patented “nuclear engines” that ran on “noble gases”. She in fact was promoting a fraud in John Galt who has been modelled after real life “inventor” and fraud artist, Joseph Papp.
It takes some time to penetrate the fog bank of circular arguments that Rand lays out (i.e. “A is A”). But in truth, Rand is a minor “philospher” like Karl Marx, with about the same amount of blood on her hands. She and Marx never took responsibility for their ideas and the murder and mayhem that their “philosphies” helped justify.
In truth, both Marx and Rand fostered a “new religion” more than an economic system or a new political world order. Millions of souls lost their lives because of these killers.
Rand indeed was a sociopath, and her habit of sleeping with students, only accentuated her own morality as not applying to herself.
Antonio Gramsci would no doubt identify both as doing what linguist revolutionaries do best; they pervert the meaning of words. For Rand, she perverted the word “virtue” by turning it into a “vice” and by turning a “vice” into a “virtue”. Thus “compassion” became a “vice” just as “greed” became a “virtue”.
Laisse Faire capitalism always leads to fascism, it did in Germany in the 1930s and today it has done the same for Amerika.
For me, Ayn Rand is that scriptural Whore of Babylon, dressed in purple, cavorting with the Nations, High Priestess of the Reformed Libertarian Church of Objectivism.
The problem of this “religion” however, is that it has no more staying power than the one invented by her contemporary, Karl Marx. That is because the values of capitalism and the values of communism cannot “endure” which is the sine qua non of any genuine religion.
Indeed, the Whore of Babylon, has deceived many, just like her admirer Alan Greenspan has deceived many.
Scriptures admonish Believers “Do Not be Deceived!”
Your claims are egregiously ridiculous, showing no grasp of her work. E.g., Atlas Shrugged is fiction…
John Galt did not create a perpetual motion machine, but found a means of using the energy discrepancy between earth and sky. You might imagine that it uses a static electrical differential.
Don’t demand adherence to elementary facts in fiction, as you would in a scientific journal. You would not do that when reading, say, Dune by Frank Herbert. The broader theme of a work of fiction may be more accurate, true and valid, than many of its fictional facts.
Why do I have to go through this with the IGNORANT over and over again…When you use the word “religion” to describe Objectivism, it is clear you don’t know what the the word “religion” means…
To wit: Religion demands or ascribes to a supernatural, superstitious mythical belief.
Everything about Objectivism…is about NOT being engaged in magic, supernaturalism, or superstitious behaviors.
Religion worships something, usual a divine thingy…Objectivism states that “worship” of anything is stupid and makes the individual blind and ignorant, a dumb follower of something.
Now back up…use the word RELIGION correctly and attempt to restate something.
Socialism and Marxism IS a religion…because it worships, Lenin/Marx and an idea of supernatural beliefs, that a utopian world can be created if only one commit intellectual suicide and become a slave of the state.
The “natural” mind of human beings are and do seek Objective (REAL)…thought processes and for that reason it is not only flourishing, but is the basis of all science.
Science and Objectivism are one and and the same mental processes.
Communism/socialism, etc…claim to be scientific, but do no research and certainly do not observe or seek out the consequences of a communist/socialist state.
The SCRIPTURES are garbage…written by human beings, to fool little people like you. Jesus did not exist, he was a created myth…there is no proof of Jesus anywhere outside of the bible…none. Your imaginary god does not exist. Why?
A “god” is something that can interrupt the laws of physics…not once in all of the 14 billion years of cosmological history, and to date…there is not one single instance of anything or an event…interrupting the laws of physics (magic).
Ergo…while you wallow around in your delusions sounding as if you are insane and a fool…Rand and Objectivism states that your life will be much happier, more organized, satisfying and successful…if you live in a state of reality and not religion.
Religion is simply a belief in magic. And we all know that magic does not exist. Right? …..
If one “believes” in magic/religion…then they are indeed DECEIVED~
—————————————————-
There is hidden, overlooked or denied the destructive role of boards in corporations in the novel, “Atlas Shrugged”
In fact the pass given in 1883 to “Corporation is legally the same as a person” has much to do with the problem so eloquently described.
Also overlooked by the zealots is that Rand is a pacifist, opposed to violence and military solutions. She does stand for reason rather than zealotry, which in her plot led to the
formation and isolation of a colony of rational people.
I never had the impression she triumphs over the loser; she simply hates to see a loser which is a great difference from Nietsche’s later thinking when on his medicine.
Well,as with great ideas, such as Marx’s they get taken over by the nut cases; an unintended consequence.
The “legal fiction” that corporations with limited liabilities but theoretically infinite lifetimes, is just part of this “grand deception” of modern laisse faire capitalism. Corporations are not “people” and they certainly do not have “rights” as real human beings do. Rather, this is a fiction that allows owners of capital to abuse other members of society that are not their shareholders.
Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan well understood this, and they exploited it. They understood better than most, that all frauds require a “rationale” or a “rational basis” from which the frauds can be launched against the public. Rand’s view, are those of P.T. Barnum, that there is a “sucker born every minute”. It underlays all of her “work” and has many similar characteristics of the “Big Lie”.
I most certainly do not agree with Frank Lornitzo that somehow Ayn Rand’s hands are clean. They are not, they are bloodstained from the millions of victims that her “philosphy” created. Objectivism afterall gave “moral authority” to criminals like Howard Hunt, who murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people in Guatamula, and many others in Central American countries including Catholic priests and nuns; until he eventually was convicted inside the US itself for criminal activity in Washington in the now infamous Watergate events that very nearly destroyed democracy in the USA.
Rand is just as responsible for these killings as Hunt himself. The Whore of Babylon was just as much a part of what President Johnson called “Murder Incorporated” as Hunt himself. And there are many, many others from this cluster of American war criminals. Henry Kissinger for example, who was central in the genocides in East Timor. Kissinger was prominent in the destruction of democracies like those of Chile and Indonesia. All of these bloody ideological mass murders received their “moral sanction” from Ayn Rand.
Nor was Rand a “pacifist”. Just look at what she was advocating with the pirates in Atlas Shrugged, who would kidnap and then murder democratic leaders who she called “looters”. This is precisely what took place with Pinochet under CIA direction in Chile. It was Rand that gave these killers “moral authority” to murder “looters” like the President of Chile.
Moral philosophers were slow to respond to the evils being purpetrated by such “philosophers” as Rand and Marx. Many tried to simply deny that Rand or Marx were philosophers at all. Rather they agreed with Rand’s own words when she referred to herself as a propagandist.
She was a wild eyed revolutionary that perverted words in the classical manner of all linguists that lead revolutions. She perverted the meaning of words by turning their meaning upside down.
It seems to me much more appropriate to compare her “work” to that of Goebels of the Third Reich, or to that of Marx whose arithmetic could not get past grade school. If ever there were two more fitting parents of the Cold War, it would have to have been Ayn Rand and Karl Marx.
One has to wonder what it was about nineteenth century European Jewry that produced so many perverse “intellectuals” as Rand, Marx, Freud, even Einstein and others like Teller, that have brought about so much human suffering.
The twentieth century has seen more people killed by these ideologies that spawn warfare, then all the accumulated disease in history.
I realize that most “objectivists” will not see things in this light, and will pass off Rand’s responsibility for how others have used or misused her ideas. Never-the-less, one is responsible for the consequences of ones own ideas.
That for Rand, was her ultimate “evasion”.
Corporations are not like some cartoon, Hollywood vision of Transformers. Corporations are made up of individual human beings, who voluntarily come together to achieve a goal…i.e. make money. One can either be an employee, or they can choose not to. If you don’t like what the corporation does…or how you are treated, you can either leave get another job, stay at home, or create a corporation of your own.
To treat corporations as if they are some nonhuman entity…is the same propagandistic excuse Hitler used to murder the Jews…whereby Hitler claimed the Jews were also “not human.”
I have worked for corporations…and have always been treated with respect and kindness. Why? Because it took a shit load of money spent by the corporation to train me and pay me.
Now why would a corporation treat me or any other employee badly, when we are valued for what we do? To hire someone else…costs money, to train someone new, also costs money and takes time. New employees fuck up a lot…an experienced, good employee who loves their job and is good at it…is a value to others and to themselves.
Only the socialist hyenas, and Obama’s collective says we are to be in involuntary servitude to the state…As we have sen far too often in state-run agencies, you are treated like a herd of cattle, by surly, sullen state/government employees, who cannot be fired for their shitty attitudes. Oh! You want to file a complaint against a government employee? Really…how can you do that when government employees’ unions state that such shitty employees cannot be fired.
Want more of Obama’s Socialst State…who is going to promise every idiot a job? Then just go and stand in line at the post office, or the drivers’ license agency, the social security office, or any government agency for an hour…and see why the Soviets got rid of communism…after 70 years of experiencing the worker’s paradise.
Give me the corporate life over a socialist state any time.
Libertarianism: the tails of a coin whose head is communism.
Heads, the state controls everything. Tails, the state controls nothing.
Both ideas will fail ABJECTLY in any real implementation, and both ideas are merely abdications of day to day decision making that is and always will be messy in an analog, not digital, world.
Rand’s followers live in a fantasy world…. as does anyone who bases their opinions on a work of fiction, like most religions….
http://luxamericana.com/2009/03/17/going-john-galt/
Ayn Rand and her Objectivist band
fell through the sand
not recognizing that it was, after all,
Quick
“Each Man for Himself!”
each one cried,
for it was this philosophy that each one plied
Too late!
they realized
their dear ‘leader’ had essentially plagiarized
and unwittingly lied.
insofar as possible i’d like to be left alone. i want to drive my car without a seatbelt,my motorcycle without a helmet and let darwin sort it out.many of the problems with capitalism have to do with people who spend money to create rules to force out competition-whether it be why you can’t find royal crown cola at the supermarket,or have to be licensed to do most skilled work,or the purple pill gets an unreasonable escape from generic status,or you haqve to pay the lawyer even if you win.ayn rand wrote in hyperbole to drive her message home. like any philosopher,she has a useful point of view,which we are free to accept in whole or in part.
Rand was a genius. She absolutely understood human nature better than anyone. It the basis of her philosophy that under the correct conditions which is primarily freedom to prosper in a non socialist state is what brings out the very best in human nature.
There will always some bad human nature present, but the good when left on it’s own, will always outweigh the bad. The majority of humans all want pretty much the same things … freedom, decent standard of living, security and entertainment. Where they differ is in how one achieves those goals.
Does it come from self-reliance and a willingness to develop skills and work or run a business?
Or
Does it come from a collective that claims to care about our well-being and will confiscate wealth from others to provide you with what you wish.
Know this … the state is not a caring compassionate institution. I cannot care about you and consider what usually runs any state, you can be sure those politicians, and unionized government workers most certainly don’t care about you.
You are the very person or entity to look out for yourself and your family. You only need to have the opportunity to do it profitably enough to provide the needs you desire.
I have never seen a socialist state become richer, freer, more interesting, more cultured, nor do the people create anything new or innovative. In reality most Socialist state are in a long slow decline as it destroys it’s productive wealth creating class and then falls apart or remains evermore in poverty and strife.
What I say is factual. It has been proved more than once in the last century. There are still a few in progress … I am sure you know who they are.
The USA under Obama will get their soon enough.
At a glance, Ayn Rands world looks tough and heartless, but that is the nature of the world. It is a thin veneer of civility that makes it possible for us to sit here and debate all this stuff.
The point is that “nothing good comes easy”. That is what Ayn’s world says. You need to do something to have something. We can’t all just live on grants and loans and welfare.
rand was an extremist. her views were of a world that could not and would not function. what is so bizarre is that people actually believe that that homophobic bitter old hag actually had something of real substance to say.
Re Harvey Peever calling Rand a homophobe: The picture is more complex than a leftist mentality paints. Ayn Rand’s closest friend in her California years was the openly homosexual brother of her husband. She submitted her manuscript to him of the Fountainhead for criticism. And concerning his claim that her extreme views could never work in reality, how is the mixed-economy view working out for you, Harvey, where government meddling in the economy, namely, Democrats passing laws to help their poor voting constituencies get mortgages and own homes that traditionally would have been denied them, was the original impetus that caused the speculation in the housing market that when it collapsed, as it inevitably was destined to do, started a domino effect that ended up in a worldwide economic collapse and the loss of trillions of dollars worth of wealth? The Democrats’ attempts to help the poor, just as Marx’s, Lenin’s, Stalin’s, Mao’s, Pol Pot’s, Castro’s, and Kim’s, are going to be the ruin of us all.
The number of bad loans as a result of loosening of mortgage requirements, was small-time stuff whose eventual resolution, if it only went that far, would have been merely a blip on the economy. What caused the economic collapse of 2008, was rampant speculation and over-leveraging based on not only those bad mortgage loans, but bad loans of all sorts, in which financial institutions bundled and sold those loans, along with good loans, into packages, inflated their worth, rated the bad loans as AAA quality, etc., as a scheme to allow those financial institutions to get far more loans for themselves, based on the inflated value of their assets, than their assets justified. Over-leveraging was the issue, and the people who got loans they couldn’t afford to pay back weren’t guilty of sitting in Wall Street offices dreaming up these schemes. The dollar figure for bad loans was, at most, no more than a few percent of the total loan payouts, making it a figure that the economy could have absorbed, even if all those bad loans had to be paid off by the government, far more easily than the payouts that Wall Street got, because Wall Street got bailed out based on their inflated, over-leveraged figures–they made up how much they were worth, and told the government that if they didn’t get money from the government to actually make the made-up numbers real, that they’d go out of business. But somehow, the people who couldn’t pay their loans got blamed for all this.
As to how this relates to Ayn Rand: “unfettered” business led to all this. It wasn’t over-regulation in the form of government-mandated loosening of mortgage requirements–it was under-regulation of Wall Street. Even the regulators whose job it was to prevent this from happening, are gradually admitting that it was their failure to apply the few remaining regulations, as well as the annulment of good regulations devised as a result of the Great Depression, that led to the collapse.
This article got nothing right at all. You couldn’t possibly have read Rand to mischaracterize her so completely. She most certainly did not put strength above morality. She didn’t put anything above morality. She judged people very harshly for any breach of morality for any reason.
Nor was she Darwinian. She advocated the trader principle where all human interaction would be voluntary and to mutual benefit.
Ayn Rand nailed your inverted morality to the wall.
In the world of the socialist it is a sin to be productive and a virtue to be needy.
Why did the Soviet union collapse? the mentality of “we pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us”… what is going wrong in America — we are adopting the same stinking thing.
Where the individual who earns their way – either the great inventor or the floor sweeper is to be celebrated; but the moocher the parasite the schemer who thinks that their mere existence is an automatic claim upon the life and produce of another is to be left alone until they decide that they will earn their way like any one else.
Who is John Galt?
Amen!
“I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
- Ayn Rand “Atlas Shrugged”
About Nietzsche, Nietzsche believed that man had a certain will to power, a grab at something above the commonality of person and person. This is true, always has been, always will be. Anarcho-capitalism allows this very true feeling flourish and survive in a world that at first demands that you shelter it away. “Fight for the common good *insert patriotic theme song here* march for the men and women of your communities!” sound familiar? (yes that is a flippant copy-cat of this bloggers writing style)Think Soviet Union, march for the best ball-bearing factory in all of Kiev comrades. . . seriously? like our patronage isn’t good enough? We have to kiss master Stalin who will wipe out class struggle and bring us Utopian end of history? get real Marx blew, copied Hegel and Kant and for the attacks on philosophy, try to tie it to philosophy. . . don’t rationalize what you don’t know a shit about by talking about Limbaugh or some shit. . . holy hell read or something you goof face. . . not MARX! for crying out loud you twat read some Rothbard, perhaps Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations is a great Summer read ya know!
Anarcho-capitalism!
Mike Dean
It’s not against your selfish interests to love and care for those around you. Okay? So much talk about “limited” thinking from so many collectivists on this board. Do you really think Rand meant that love, compassion and benevolence were unnecessary and damaging flaws of character? Have you actually read anything this person wrote about relationships, race relations, music, art, sex, whiskey??
I could say that because you are altruist you must not have any self-hood or capacity to think for yourself. But no, because I can see three inches in front of my face. You accuse me of being “amateur” and you can’t even see a simple false dilemma — Rand said selfishness and love could be the same thing, more powerful and personal than altruistic or religious love, which involves the abdication of personal choice and reasoning. When I say “I love you” I’d like the “I” to be an important part of the sentence. Otherwise I might as well tell my girlfriend “the public loves you.” Speak of propaganda. You try to condense all these noble ideas into some little misleading jingo so you can write bad poems about it. Good for you.
Among other things Rand was a completely shitty writer. Tone deaf, obvious, fatuous and sophomoric. I guffawed my way through the first pages of Atlas Shrugged, shaking my head in disbelief that anyone took this drivel seriously.
Some unfortunate braindead “objectivist” asked “Who is John Galt?”
The real life hero of Ayn Rand’s tome was Joseph Papp, inventor of the thermo-nuclear engine who actually received a series of US Patents for his “invention”. Like John Galt, Joseph Papp was a fraud who violated the conservation laws of physics.
Rand of course KNEW about the fraud, but persisted in spreading this lie until it consumed most of the industrial world.
When a person lies to you about some one detail, then they are capable of many more lies. Most of Rand’s writings/rantings are lies meant to subdue the working classes into accepting their meagre status quo.
Indeed, Rand and Greenspan were “perverts” who twisted the meaning of words, thus “virtue” became a “vice” and a “vice became a “virtue”. Acts of kindness, and caring became “altruism” while traditional “vices” like selfishness and self indulgence became “virtues” in Rand’s world.
Eventually of course, “reality” breaks through, and the bubble created by laisse faire capitalism collapsed under the weight of its own contradictions, precisely in the same way that communism collapsed under the weight of its contradictions.
Unless you enjoy perverse literature about “heroes” who rape their women who are “asking for it”; and perveyors of perpetual motion machines, most of Rand’s writings are a bore and a waste of time. The only significant thing to be said of Rand and Marx, is that their “ideas” caused much bloodshed and loss of life.
That is reason enough to condemn her writings.
Total mischaracterization of Rand’s philosophy. Concepts taken out of context. Pretty typical of the left.
D. Dufour just cannot stand the truth about his idol, and I use the word “idol” precisely.
Ayn Rand gave moral perverts around the world a “moral sanction” to commit all manner of crimes. She did that for Howard Hunt for example, the CIA station chief in Guatamula where he organized the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, women and children, all so that his boss at the CIA, Alan Dulles and that family could continue its exploitation of that Central American country and its people.
You all of course now know that Howard Hunt was an American criminal behind Watergate, an almost sucessful coup de etat against the American people.
This kind of “moral sanction” was a mirror image of what Karl Marx gave the communists. In reality, one was no better or worse than the other. Both were evil.
As for the likes of Dufour, let him refute what has been stated, not with right wing fascist ideology that Rand supported and backed by default, but let him refute that Joseph Papp existed, let him refute that this “John Galt” also proposed ideas that violated the laws of conservation of energy, let him refute that reality does not provide a “free lunch” of the kind that Galt and Papp peddled to a scientifically illiterate audience.
The bottom line, that Dufour cannot refute, is that the ideology of Rand and Marx, caused much bloodshed, murder and mayhem. The death toll ran into the millions on each side.
That makes Marx and Rand, monsters comparable to Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and Suharto.
Like I said, that is reason enough to condemn her writings.
In other words, “Mein Kampf” and “Atlas Shrugged” are moral equivalents. Books written by moral cripples and sociopaths that caused much boodshed and loss of life.
Reading them may have some function in clinical studies of mental illness, but its hardly a roadmap forward for society.
Your criticism (if one can call it that) of Ayn Rand, is very weak, and it is clear that you do not understand what her philosophy was. She never advocated the strong profiting at the expense of the poor, she advocated profit without abuse, without burdening others. If a factory worker builds a factory, he does NOT exploit the workers, they choose to work at the factory because they have no better solution. The factory gives them an oportunity to earn a better living, also reduces the cost of living, and raises living standards. By advocating socialism, liberals are promoting the kind of blood transfusion/canibalistic society which helps bring about the corporatist system we have today. Yes, the rich are getting richer by lobbying congress, this is only possible because foolish liberals actually believe that government regulation of business, I.E. forcing the businessman to pay for the shortcomings of others is somehow acceptable. Monopolies cannot exist without government support. This has been thoroughly proven by economists
Ayn Rand used to influence me strongly; in some ways she still does.
I think her work offers a good introduction to philosophy, and that some of her stuff makes for good “self-help” reading; a primer on personal pride, accountability, etc.
And at least she had the good sense to be an atheist, unlike modern US Conservatives.
But overall, she was an unbalanced mind, and her work needs to be shelved as far away as you can get it from any discussion of macro-economics or politics.
The tenet “greed is good” is a gross fallacy. A more accurate statement would be, “greed is an amoral force that can potentially be turned to good ends, if properly restricted and regulated.”
And you could say the same thing for capitalism – and note that any time a particular system is valued over the well-being of the people living within that system, then that system has, in a very real and tangible sense, BECOME A FUNDAMENTALIST RELIGION.
The tenet “government is bad” is equally fallacious. As a Liberal, Conservatives always try to re-label me as a “statist.” Yet “the state” is a terribly vague term. If “the state” is a democratic system, that represents the people and is driven by their efforts to improve the lives and well-being of everyone within that state – then fine, I’m a “statist”, and proud of it!
Obviously, a system that allows able-bodied free-loaders to live comfortably at the expense of other people’s labor is an immoral system. I sometimes speculate that maybe, relatively “free market” economics could work. I certainly have more sympathy for the Libertarian platform than I do for the Republicans.
But the real problem in the US, is that Rand’s “free market” rhetoric has been hijacked by fascists. They think that when John Galt said “Get out of my way!”, he meant, “Don’t impose carbon emissions regulations that will preserve the long-term survival of life on this planet, at the expense of my short-term profit!”
Jeff Walker is not Ayn Rand’s biographer, and his book is not a biography; it is an attack. I wrote her biography: The Passion of Ayn Rand.
Very glad you are here Ms Branden…you have contributed a lot and I thank you. I have your book and have read a number of your writings. Judy Weismonger.
I did not have the dedication to read through every post on this page, but I think I got the gist of it…
Ayn Rand was an idealist. Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are Romantic in flavor. Of course it doesn’t sync with reality completely, but neither did Jane Austen’s work.
But her point about Society being just a collection of individuals seems to me to be right on, and I’m skeptical of the motivations or reasoning ability of anybody who would disagree. Where is it, after all? Individuals compose it, and direct it. I think the cliche is “seeing the F