Atlas Shrugged
nealboortz
country on Friday. I was privileged to talk to two theatre-loads (if you
will) Friday night before the showing of the movie. The big surprise for me
was that at least one-half of the folks in both of these theaters have not
read the book.
Now I'll be the first to admit that the movie might be just a bit
confusing -- perhaps taking thirty or so minutes to catch on -- for someone
who hasn't read the book. So I spent a few minutes trying to give these
movie-goers a hint on what was to come. After the movies were over the
reactions I got from these people were generally positive.
Did I think it was the best-produced and acted movie I've ever seen? No, it
wasn't. I didn't go to see cinematic craftsman ship however, I went to
finally seen Ayn Rand's book played out on the screen .. to see and listen
to the characters brought to life. This is a 1000+ page book we're dealing
with here; not something easily whittled down to a feature-length movie. The
book is delivered in three parts, and so it is with the film. I was a
perfectly satisfied viewer and I can tell you that I'm eagerly looking
forward to Part 2.
Now you're certainly going to see some very negative comment about the film
in the media. Just remember this ... Atlas Shrugged presents a philosophical
viewpoint that is absolutely poisonous to the type of people who who use the
phrases "give back" and "the less fortunate." I would have loved to see how
Rand would have handled those two terms of art from the left if they had
been around in her day. I'll just say that I give from what I have earned,
not from what has been given me; and most of the people the left would have
you believe are just not "fortunate" are right where they are in their lives
this very day because of the combined affect of the decisions they have made
over the past 20 or 30 years. "Luck" is opportunity met by preparation.
If you've read the book you absolutely must go see the movie. If you haven't
read the book the movie will surely whet your appetite for Rand's work.
Besides ... the more money Atlas Shrugged takes in, the more pissed and
downright apoplectic the left will get .... so make a liberal miserable, go
see Atlas Shrugged.
Gary Forbis
> Now you're certainly going to see some very negative comment about the film
> in the media. Just remember this ... Atlas Shrugged presents a philosophical
> viewpoint that is absolutely poisonous to the type of people who who use the
> phrases "give back" and "the less fortunate."
So, let's argue the philosophy. You start. What did you learn from
the book
or the movie?
I'm glad you've declared yourself a non-Christian right up front. But
let's begin.
reilloc
>
> If you've read the book you absolutely must go see the movie. If you haven't
> read the book the movie will surely whet your appetite for Rand's work.
> Besides ... the more money Atlas Shrugged takes in, the more pissed and
> downright apoplectic the left will get .... so make a liberal miserable, go
> see Atlas Shrugged.
While I can't speak for anyone other than myself, here in the movie
group, where they let me interact from time to time, you won't often
find that the reason a movie's recommended is because your watching it
will piss off somebody else.
You're a guy, though, who derives his entertainment from the thought
that others will be made to feel bad, eh?
That worked out well for you in your personal relationships?
LNC
William Hale
<Neal Boortz> wrote:
I am a liberal. I read the book around 1965. I would like to see the
movie, but it is not playing in theaters near me. If a theater nearby
plays it, I will go see it.
calvin
> I am a liberal. I read the book around 1965. I would like to see the
> movie, but it is not playing in theaters near me. If a theater nearby
> plays it, I will go see it.
At this website you can see where it's playing
in your state:
Nickname unavailable
its really not hard to dismiss rand rants that tried to dress up a
pig. it can be done with as little as one short sentence such as
lincolns quote, or galbraiths quote. others maybe took a small
paragraph or to, to destroy her illusion, and put squarely on the
table what she was, and what she stood for.
"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or by any
controlling private power."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
show me a criminal that is for regulation
" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith
"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.
Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"
ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases
While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell
Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.
"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim
``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne
teddy roosevelt
We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.
Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean
Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'
"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman
Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."
and we can go back to adam smith, who was really a socialist, not a
libertarian, who advocated for wealth redistribution, unions,
regulation, as well as taxation based on ones abilities to pay.
trotsky
Even the website looks cheap. Did you order a lot of the merchandise?
Nickname unavailable
its going to be hard and expensive for the KOCHS, and other assorted
cranks to dress up this pig.
ayn_rand_novel_disappoints_at_box_office/#paragraph5
Audiences Shrugged: Film Adaptation of Conservatives' Beloved Ayn Rand
Novel Disappoints at Box Office
Anyone tempted to declare the weekend box office grosses of the Atlas
Shrugged movie should take it up with the folks at Box Office Mojo:
For a pure independent release, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's opening was
fine. But for the first-ever adaptation of Ayn Rand's influential
mega-
selling 1957 novel that had far more media hype than any other
independent movie could dream of, it was disappointing.
There aren't many direct comparisons, because it's rare that an
adaptation of such a famous book gets such a modest release. Atlas
Shrugged: Part I opened higher than recent limited Christian movies
The Grace Card and To Save a Life, and it was distributor Rocky
Mountain Pictures' third highest-grossing launch, behind End of the
Spear and Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. But none of those movies
are significant in the grand scheme of things. They're all still
blips, even if Atlas was a slightly bigger blip than many.
What's more, Atlas Shrugged: Part I's box office dropped six percent
from Friday to Saturday, further indicating niche appeal. The movie
would require exceptional holds moving forward to right its course.
... Didactics alone don't carry the day. To the uninitiated (and to
many of the initiated), Atlas Shrugged: Part I looked stilted,
esoteric and cheap in its marketing....
Boosters of Atlas Shrugged: Part I might point to the movie's per
theater average to spin it as a success (ex. "it did almost as much
per theater as Scream 4!"), but spin is all it is. It's a common ploy
to cling to per-theater average to rationalize a soft run. Obviously,
it's generally easier for a small release to have a higher per-theater
average than one at over 3,000 theaters (at any rate, Scream 4 was a
disappointment itself)....
Nabbing $1,677,000 on 300 screens (for a $5,590 per-screen average) is
slightly better than the first-weekend performance of From Prada to
Nada a couple of months ago ($1,115,638, 256 screens, $4,358 per-
screen average). From Prada has now made a total of, um, a little over
$3 million. It has not changed the world.
calvin
All this box office analysis is silly. The movie is what
it is. Those who let box office determine whether
they see a movie or not certainly are not going to be
individuals enough to to be receptive to either the
book or the movie.
reilloc
> its really not hard to dismiss rand rants that tried to dress up a
> pig. it can be done with as little as one short sentence such as
> lincolns quote, or galbraiths quote. others maybe took a small
> paragraph or to, to destroy her illusion, and put squarely on the
> table what she was, and what she stood for.
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of
> the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal
> with the real world. The other involves orcs."
Who wrote this one?
>
> "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
> growth of
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
> their democratic
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
> ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or by any
> controlling private power."
> -Franklin D. Roosevelt
>
> show me a criminal that is for regulation
See, Lucky Luciano.
LNC
Nickname unavailable
try putting lipstick on the pig did not work. america is wising up to
plutocracy.
Nickname unavailable
> On 4/18/2011 5:29 PM, Nickname unavailable wrote:
>
> > its really not hard to dismiss rand rants that tried to dress up a
> > pig. it can be done with as little as one short sentence such as
> > lincolns quote, or galbraiths quote. others maybe took a small
> > paragraph or to, to destroy her illusion, and put squarely on the
> > table what she was, and what she stood for.
>
> > "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> > of
> > the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> > engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> > to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> > deal
> > with the real world. The other involves orcs."
>
> Who wrote this one?
>
>
i picked it up years ago. its factual, true, and to the point.
>
> > "The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
> > growth of
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
> > their democratic
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
> > ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or by any
> > controlling private power."
> > -Franklin D. Roosevelt
>
> > show me a criminal that is for regulation
>
crooks are always trying to become the guarder of the hen house. its
why so many become bankers and republicans.
> See, Lucky Luciano.
>
> LNC
N∅ ∅baMa∅
taken control of the means of production, bureaucrats have impose
harmful regulations on businesses and turmoil in the Middle East has
sent oil prices skyrocketing. Sound familiar?
Lee Curtis
To hear conservatives tell it aren't ALL
regulations on business "harmful"?
Nickname unavailable
ask him if he agrees with these statements,
then you must agree with these statements correct?
"We must take from state authority those functions for which it is
incompetent and which it performs badly... I believe the state should
renounce its economic functions, especially those carried out through
monopolies, because the state is incompetent in such matters... We
must put an end to state railways, state postal service and state
insurance."
"hasten the privatization of municipal enterprises."
"We have broken with the practice of persecuting capital."
ask him if he supports labor unions:)
dave
This movie is the best sociopath detector ever. Thanks for showing us
the true colors of the new breed of (not even) Republicans
dave
dave
Lee Curtis
Republicans will exploit Tea Baggers and Looneytarians
to get votes just the way they exploited the Born-Agains and
the States Rights crowd, while in the end doing nothing for
them.
Christian Conservatives Weigh Abandoning GOP
Sept. 30, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3672897&page=1
Nickname unavailable
BINGO!
Neoconis_Ignoramus
wrote:
Nope, does not sound familiar at all. Unless of course you're fucking
crazy.
BillyBobMarley
Thanks for showing your critique as opposed to a knee jerk name
calling anti objective stance like the usual liberal.
dave
A-fucking-men and Amen
John Smith
Ignoramus ... how aptly named!
... plonk ...
Regards,
JS
capri
maybe not agreeing but thinking about the current state and condition
of the country, its "leadership' and lack of the same. and what would
happen if the true leaders went on strike..The book at 1000
pagestcould easily have been half that size and still got the same
message and Rand's philosophy across to the reader. I read this book
when I was in college back in the 60' and I think that it had quite an
affect on how I went through the last 50 years. I just finished
reading it again and this time around found my self agreeing less with
what Rand had to say but still moved by the whole overall concept. I
intend to see the movie but have no expectations that it will be
nearly as good as the book. Movies rarely ever are.
calvin
When I read it again a couple of months ago, there were big
sections of it where I was 'high' on it, and I looked forward
to getting back to this 'high' every day. She is extraordinarily
good at certain aspects of writing, and it's really a shame
that there are people who have read the book who decide to
smear it. There is a special kind of rottenness in human
nature that provokes such low and mean actions.
moviePig
So, those who find the book's prose rickety and febrile are guilty of
"smearing"? Hell, print it in a King James version, and you can add
"heresy"...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Nickname unavailable
if it quacks like a duck, its a duck.
Ayn Rand was a high functioning, manipulative and cunning
sociopath:her writings are expressions of Borderline Personality
Disorder and therefore appeal to a certain borderline type:Galt's
Gulch and face the facts:Mental illness is real:the Sociopath Next
Door
http://blogs.myspace.com/psychorand
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
I get email.
Category: Blogging
I live in a neighborhood that has a small homeless population. One
such person within that homeless group is known to the rest of us by
her first name only. I can hear her now, outside my apartment. I'm
told she lives in a kind of dilapidated garage of some sort, where she
sleeps in a pile of blankets and debris. She often walks my street,
collecting bottles and cans for the cash deposits. Whilst on her
journeys, she often stops abruptly, plants both feet firmly to the
ground and launches a kind of "external dialogue" with the world. She
doesn't scream, but rather projects her voice with a powerful force.
Her chanting can literally be heard for blocks as she speaks directly
to phantoms that only she can see. Sometimes she appears to be
"lecturing" passersby with a hostile, throaty tone. It all comes out
in a weird staccato rhythm, like a drill sergeant. Mostly, she's
harmless and her monologues, indecipherable. This is the kind of
obvious mental illness we can all recognize. But there are other forms
of psychosis. And books such as "The Sociopath Next Door" by Martha
Stout illuminate that fact clearly. Still, as I write this, the sound
of our homeless inculcator strikes me as familiar. I am reminded of my
first Ayn Rand girlfriend ARGF1, who's moods would alternate between
states of overblown confidence and abject misery from time to time.
When she was on one of her transient "highs", she would ad lib her own
monologues, paraphrasing Ayn Rand's vituperative critiques on modern
society with a bratty, flippant demeanor. ARGF1 was crazy too. She was
a borderline.
I'm surprised that my little corner of Myspace gets the modest
attention that it does. However, to my critics and others who would
send me email defending Ayn Rand: let me be clear.
The main topic of this page is Borderline Personality Disorder and the
reasons why the belief system of Ayn Rand appeals to certain
individuals who exhibit traits of that psychological malady. The main
topic of this page is not – I repeat NOT about the merits of Ayn
Rand's "philosophy". Take a psychological perspective on what she said
and how she acted in life. The available research on BPD is extensive,
so I suggest that Rand's defenders who don't understand the disease
should first read "Stop Walking on Eggshells" by Paul Mason and Randy
Kreger. For a different take on the psychology of Objectivism, read
Ellen Plasil's autobiography "Therapist", in which she chronicles how
she was sexually molested by her Objectivist father when she was 11
years old and other horrific events that took place in the Randian
subculture of her time. It is my opinion that Plasil's book is
essential to understanding the cult-like phenomenon of Ayn Rand.
In so far as Rand's "philosophy" is referenced here, it serves mainly
to reinforce the established and substantiated opinion that Ayn Rand
probably did suffer from Borderline Personality Disorder. Her black &
white / all or nothing / love & hate beliefs (including her narrow
views on art and music) reveal her as a borderline pretty quickly to
any person who has experienced a close relationship with a BPD
partner. Apart from Rand's own tawdry personal story, it's also
distinctly evident to me that her writings are expressions of BPD and
therefore appeal to a certain borderline type, as my experiences and
those of others have demonstrated. (I've been contacted by supportive
readers who shared their stories of relationships with Randian
borderlines.) It's very clear to me that Ayn Rand was a high
functioning, manipulative and cunning sociopath (see: gaslighting, as
the term relates to borderline pathology). She was also severely
narcissistic and imperious. She was afflicted with multiple
personality disorders (co-morbidity) and psychologically abused people
within her social group, perhaps most cruelly her own husband.
Evidence of her unbalanced psychology appears early in her life, as
Michael Prescott has observed. This is not a case of a person "losing
it" in her old age, although her psychological problems were magnified
during that later time period.
I suggest that my critics crawl out of the fantasy world of "Galt's
Gulch" and face the facts: Mental illness is real. Borderline
Personality Disorder is real. Now take a fresh new look at your
precious guru.
Currently reading:
The Sociopath Next Door
By Martha Stout
Release date: 2006-03-14
5:04 AM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
THERAPIST: A book that is testimony to Rand’s destructive legacy.
I purchased a used copy of Therapist from Amazon. It deserves to be
reprinted and perhaps someday a new edition will be published.
It's an engaging read, but disturbingly so. I actually had knots in my
stomach while getting through it. In Therapist, author Ellen Plasil
recounts in detail her experience as a patient with the Objectivist
psychiatrist, Dr. Lonnie Leonard. Over the course of several years,
Dr. Leonard psychologically manipulated, controlled and sexually
abused the author and other women in his care. Years later, legal
action was taken against Dr. Leonard, and some justice was procured
for the victims.
Many of the doctor's patients were students of Objectivism, and it's
unsettling how immured they were, as a group. The doctor's sex
theories were highly informed by those of Ayn Rand, especially in
regards to his interpretation of the so-called "ideal man" that Rand
championed. Plasil says that she, along with other "students of
Objectivism" were all blinded by the mechanism of Objectivist culture,
where leaders of the movement possessed unchallenged authority, much
like a cult. It was this culture that enabled the abuse.
"Whatever their source, there seemed to be rules of right and wrong
for everything in Objectivism. There was more than just a right kind
of politics and a right kind of moral code. There was also a right
kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a
right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we could not buy,
and right ones which we should. Wrong books were written by "immoral"
people whom we didn't want to support through our purchase; right
books never were. There were plays we should not see, records we
should not listen to, and movies we should not pay to watch. There
were right ways to behave at parties, and right people to invite to
them. And there were, of course, right psychotherapists. And on
everything, absolutely everything, one was constantly being judged,
just as one was expected to be judging everything around him. And if
one was not judging everything that was around him, one was judged on
that, too. It was a perfect breeding ground for insecurity, fear, and
paranoia."
"The numbers of these blindly devoted went beyond coincidence. There
was more to this than just a chance meeting of several dozen sheep all
willing to follow their hero, their ideal man anywhere. Maybe the
"hook" was in the lesson that if Objectivism was the right way, then
being a student of objectivism made us more right than others. And for
those of us who were not certain of our value to begin with, such
superiority helped us ignore our self-evaluations and feed our
egos.... Or maybe it was in Ayn Rand's incorporation of "hero-worship"
into her representation of romantic love; show an Objectivist a hero
and the hero has but to take command."
Therapist reveals the dark side of Objectivism like no other document
can.
Currently reading:
Therapist
By Ellen Plasil
Release date: September, 1986
9:03 PM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Why I created this page.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Borderline Personality Disorder;
how I wish I had never heard of these two things!
And how I wish that I'd never heard of a person named Ayn Rand.
Actually, I'm reasonably confident that I never would have heard of
that name until recently, if it were not for one person: I will call
her Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number One, hereafter referred to as ARGF1.
I met ARGF1 about 1 year after graduating from college. I was in my
first (and last) corporate job at the time, making decent money and
trying to figure out what to do with myself. ARGF1 was slightly
younger and had a troubled life. Her father was a recovered alcoholic
and her parents were long divorced. I guess when she was about 15, she
dropped out of high school and ran away to the state where her father
lived. She slummed around, used drugs and ran with a group of punk
rock kids. But when she needed money or food, her father's place was
not far. Indicatively, she had very poor relations with both of her
parents, especially her mother, whom she often spoke of in disparaging
tones. Somewhere along the line, ARGF1 suffered from some kind of
abuse. Parts of that dimension within her history were known to me,
and others I surmised were either missing or suspect, because ARGF1
was a chronic prevaricator. Lies of omission were especially
problematic with her. However, it was certain that something terrible
did happen to ARGF1. I witnessed her trauma as she would break down in
tears, unpredictably on several occasions. Other times she raged and
her face morphed into the most ugly countenance I have ever seen,
before or since. I realized that those incidents occurred because of
triggers (unknown to me) that would cause her to act out. Those
moments were frightening and unsettling. I didn't know it then, but
ARGF1 had Borderline Personality Disorder. Clearly though, I did
perceive that she had Narcissistic Personality Disorder and was
unmistakably antisocial. My friends couldn't believe I was dating her.
Nobody liked her, including my parents.
What was I thinking? Well, I have my own problems too! I'm working on
those issues now. But, let's just say that in the past, I've taken on
the role of the "rescuer" in certain relationships. Also, I honestly
saw the good in ARGF1, even if others did not. Perhaps most
significantly, at that time I was very young. During college, I never
took a proper psychology class. I regret that now.
I mentioned before that ARGF1 was a high school drop out (she later
earned her G.E.D. after she ran away). In this regard, she was low
functioning and characteristically she also had trouble keeping jobs.
The false identity that she fostered, both as a brash punk and an
intrepid runaway appeared outwardly to indicate that she was
independent. The opposite in fact, was true; she was needy, insecure,
petty, histrionic and childish sometimes to the point of caricature.
Somehow, she cultivated an image of herself that equated independence
with intelligence. Her bookshelf was packed with second hand copies of
things I knew she could not possibly have read, including books on
complex subjects such as physics and mathematics. In actuality, when
she enrolled at the local state university, she had to drop out of
basic algebra because she was failing. She was intelligent on a
certain level, however she was not book smart. Revealingly, she only
really finished one specific group of books on that shelf. Indeed, she
read and reread these particular books thoroughly and memorized her
favorite passages from them, underlining the important sections for
good measure. These were the books of Ayn Rand; The Fountainhead,
Atlas Shrugged, We the Living, The Romantic Manifesto and lastly, a
title so sensationally vulgar that it virtually insures book sales to
the publisher – The Virtue of Selfishness.
I don't remember at what stage of the relationship I was introduced to
them, but Ayn Rand's books were obviously important to ARGF1, so I
reluctantly agreed to consider some of them. I wasn't a huge fan of
fiction at the time, so I first chose to read The Virtue of
Selfishness, since it was supposedly a summary of Rand's "philosophy"
and it contained long passages from her fiction anyway. Now let me
declare from the outset that I was immediately suspicious of this
work, since ARGF1's behavior was already troubling, and if these books
were informing her actions at the time, there must have been something
weird about her exaggerated enthusiasm for them. Besides, as a recent
graduate from an elite university with its subsequent required course
work in English literature, I found it strange that I had never heard
of this supposedly important author. My suspicions correctly reflected
the general academic position on Ayn Rand: She was a prodigious hack
who would never have been able to stand up to any kind of rigorous
academic peer review process. This work was nothing more than pop
philosophy and more importantly, it was dogma. To any reasonable
sentient human being, the first few pages of The Virtue of Selfishness
reveal the author as what she was: a hateful, pedantic, patronizing
and arrogant pedagogue.
But people with Borderline Personality Disorder are not reasonable
human beings. They are narcissists. When I tried to explain my
objections to Ayn Rand's "philosophy", my concerns went right through
one ear of ARGF1 and exited out the other side of her skull. It simply
did not register. To ARGF1, Ayn Rand was good, all good and nothing
but good. This hostile dichotomy of things that are either all good or
all bad is in fact, a hallmark of Borderline Personality Disorder.
Moreover, I think the ideas contained in The Virtue of Selfishness
were interpreted by ARGF1 to justify her destructive behaviors. At
times, Rand reads like a teenager who just discovered Friedrich
Nietzsche. It's crass, unsophisticated and simplistic. But that's why
it's so appealing to borderlines: It has often been written that
borderlines stop their emotional development at an early age. While
they may appear to be adults, emotionally, they are frightened
children. Rand dresses her arguments in a kind of pseudo-intellectual
aura, but really she appeals to ugly, base emotions. One of her
favorite words repeated continuously in Atlas Shrugged is contempt.
And contempt is what Ayn Rand exuded in virtually everything she
wrote.
With welcome relief, I ended that relationship within a year. I heard
through a mutual friend that ARGF1 had shacked up with another punk
and consummated an even more turbulent relationship with him. They met
at a punk club. It's my understanding that she cased after him when
she caught a glimpse of the Ayn Rand quote he had scribbled on the
back of his studded leather jacket. Sometimes borderlines are just
like cartoon characters. It would be funny if it weren't so
horrendous.
That was 17 years ago. I'd hoped to have forgotten Ayn Rand. But in
later years I would meet another person that would throw me for a
loop. Unlike ARGF1, she was extremely intelligent, talented and
beautiful. I was in love. In the beginning, it was wonderful. But Ayn
Rand and Borderline Personality Disorder would once again intrude upon
my world. Thus begins my tale of Ayn Rand Girlfriend Number Two.
To be continued…
Update: For personal reasons, I have decided to post only minimal
information regarding my former relationship with ARGF2. There is a
post regarding Ayn Rand tattoos that covers the topic with brevity.
11:57 AM
1 Comments
(Add Comment) |
2 Kudos
Translate
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Mental illness is REAL.
They call them "invisible borderlines".
These are people who are "high functioning" and outwardly, they appear
normal.
Inside however, there is emotional turmoil.
Control is what they need; control over their own feelings of inner
shame,
control over their significant others and family members.
Outwardly, they might exude self confidence, but during times when
"the
mask" is off, they often reveal an unusual and irrational fear of
abandonment.
It is this constant fear of abandonment, always churning in the
background
that makes the whole thing so tragic and pernicious.
What this all has to do with Ayn Rand becomes clear when you get
involved
with one of her borderline fans.
Ayn Rand's books are MADE FOR BORDERLINES.
Let me explain. And may I submit that I am not jumping to conclusions
here,
but I am now convinced that there is a quantifiable, tangible
CONNECTION
between Ayn Rand's ideas and the characteristics of borderline
personality disorder.
Twice in my life, I have been involved with BPD women that
"discovered" the
writings of Ayn Rand. The similarities of these two relationships, set
years apart
from one another are frighteningly striking. The cold, social
darwinism championed
by the hateful Ayn Rand appeals to the narcissistic side of the
borderline. Also, the
simplistic black and white solutions to EVERYTHING would seem
perfectly necessary in the BPD's mind. Ayn Rand's portrayal of human
beings as being either "all good" or "all bad" is 100% consistent with
their views of all others and themselves. And a lack of empathy
towards other people, so similar to what Rand preaches is a hallmark
of borderline personality disorder.
Not convinced yet? If your BPD girlfriend has ALL THOSE BOOKS on her
shelf, take a look at them closely, especially if the spines are worn
(evidence of repeated readings). Look for the parts that she
underlined. These passages are frightening glimpses into the mind of
borderline. Remember, Ayn Rand herself was a diagnosed NPD and current
research suggests that she had BPD also.
If you meet someone who claims that Ayn Rand has inspired them to new
heights of
philosophical awareness, be very, very concerned.
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:52 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Monday, June 11, 2007
Why did Ayn Rand use Dexedrine?
This is interesting.
Consider this description of Dexedrine from Wikipedia:
"Dextroamphetamine is a powerful psychostimulant which produces
increased wakefulness, energy and self-confidence in association with
decreased fatigue and appetite."
Self-confidence?
Why did Ayn Rand need a drug to boost her self-confidence? She
apparently held a negative view of her own body image. But her fans
claim that she was the most confident person who ever lived.
Question: Did Ayn Rand even like herself...?
Currently reading:
THE AYN RAND CULT
By Jeff Walker
Release date: 1999
3:46 PM
0 Comments
(Add Comment) |
0 Kudos
Translate
Sunday, June 10, 2007
This is how Borderlines talk...
An exaggerated form of hero worship is one of the many hallmarks of
BPD.
Consider these examples of quotes from Ayn Rand's most famous
disciple, Nathaniel Branden.
"I had come to Ayn out of the void - and I imagined that without her a
void was all that awaited me."
"I am in the first place I have ever felt at home in my entire life...
a place where only good can happen and no harm can possibly come."
Borderlines often speak about their lives as being "voids"... They
have a chronic feeling of emptiness. They attempt to fill that void by
virtue of idolizing their significant other (for certain amount of
time) until they "split" and devalue that person.
--------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
[Dr.] Stout says that as many as 4% of the population are
conscienceless sociopaths who have no empathy or affectionate feelings
for humans or animals. As Stout (The Myth of Sanity) explains, a
sociopath is defined as someone who displays at least three of seven
distinguishing characteristics, such as deceitfulness, impulsivity and
a lack of remorse. Such people often have a superficial charm, which
they exercise ruthlessly in order to get what they want. Stout argues
that the development of sociopathy is due half to genetics and half to
nongenetic influences that have not been clearly identified. The
author offers three examples of such people, including Skip, the
handsome, brilliant, superrich boy who enjoyed stabbing bullfrogs near
his family's summer home, and Doreen, who lied about her credentials
to get work at a psychiatric institute, manipulated her colleagues
and, most cruelly, a patient. Dramatic as these tales are, they are
composites, and while Stout is a good writer and her exploration of
sociopaths can be arresting, this book occasionally appeals to
readers' paranoia, as the book's title and its guidelines for dealing
with sociopaths indicate.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."
ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews2/9780385513999.asp
AYN RAND AND THE WORLD SHE MADE
Anne C. Heller
Anchor
Biography
Hardcover: 9780385513999
Paperback: 9781400078936
Anne C. Heller acknowledges that “because [she was] not an advocate
for Rand’s ideas, [she] was denied access to the Ayn Rand Papers at
the Ayn Rand Institute.” By “advocate” she meant “idolater” since that
is what is required of those who wish to gain access. But as well as
being able to read many letters and papers not possessed by the
Institute, she interviewed Rand’s still-living family and her ex-lover/
first great protégée, Nathaniel Branden (born Nathan Blumenthal, a
young man who at one time admired Ayn Rand so much that he changed his
name to incorporate hers within it, a kind of marital custom in
reverse), to discover much about the life of the highly controversial
author.
Ayn Rand (born Alissa Rosenbaum in 1905) immigrated to the United
States from Russia in her early 20s and quickly gained employment as a
Hollywood screenwriter. She was nothing if not driven, believing she
had a destiny as a great author. She used amphetamines to stay awake
night and day to write both her best known books, THE FOUNTAINHEAD and
ATLAS SHRUGGED. She sometimes taped a needle to her thumb so that if
she lost focus, she could stick herself back to work. Rand espoused a
philosophy that came to be called Objectivism and was symbolized by a
U.S. dollar sign. Objectivism celebrated the total independence of all
human beings, yet Rand was devastated when ATLAS SHRUGGED was, for the
most part, panned by the reviewers. Paradoxically, it seemed that
praise was the food she most craved, yet when people merely liked her
work without espousing the ideas behind it, she was quick to label
them fools and weaklings.
Heller takes a dispassionate view of Rand and, in this detailed
portrait, seeks to reveal her as a whole person rather than the
cardboard cutout swathed in legend created by the great lady herself.
That Rand was Russian was known -- her accent proclaimed that --- but
that she was Jewish was less acknowledged, especially since Rand made
the claim that she had decided upon atheism by her early teens. Heller
seeks to illustrate by many examples Rand’s “Russianness” and her
cultural “Jewishness.” The biographer took care to disentangle the
public image of Rand --- caped, clever and sometimes cruel --- from
the private person, an enigma wrapped in a mystery and possibly driven
more by personal fear than by public idealism.
No doubt, she was a genius who had many insightful ideas and could
write a whale of a sexual romance. Her plots thickened exponentially,
and even those who disagreed with her world view tired themselves out
turning the pages of her giant tomes, keeping them on the bestseller
lists despite critical disdain. Rand posited a world in which only
productive, capitalistic people truly matter, the rest being slaves
and underlings. She believed that only fiercely independent people can
truly enjoy sex; in her own way, she was a proto-feminist and also
anti-war, two banners that could have won her some admirers on the
left. But she caustically rejected any devotion that was not total.
Also, it is difficult to feel warm towards someone who characterizes
altruism as the greatest possible evil, and that was Rand’s absolute
belief.
Reacting poorly to the world’s failure to fall at her feet, and
perhaps affected mentally by years of ingesting large numbers of
dexadrine pills, Rand gradually fashioned herself into the legend she
thought she deserved to be. Reading the book, I found myself thinking
she was, by turns, either a high-functioning autistic, a psychotic, or
a self-degraded drug addict, despite her genius and her occasional
acts of kindness. She vilified nearly all of her early supporters
(anyone who might have remembered her when she was not famous),
dropping them in favor of a coterie of young admirers (who some would
call sycophants). She never thanked anyone. She handily forgot her own
missteps and recalled only her glory moments. Fiercely anti-
communistic, she paradoxically played the role of a petty Stalin at
the center of a clutch of young worshippers, staging psychologically
destructive purges and lengthy show trials of those she identified as
disloyal.
Surprisingly, however, her longest relationship, with her husband
Frank O’Connor, exemplified, on his part, the quality she claimed most
to despise: generosity of spirit. Hardly the sadistic, raging hero of
her literary imaginings, he was passive yet protective, the opposite
of what a “goddess” like Rand deserved. Frank defended her, cooked and
cleaned for her, and did not protest over her affair of many years
with a man some 30 years her junior conducted twice weekly in Frank’s
own bed. Rand’s books have always sold well as each new generation
“discovers” her. Young people, usually in their teens, take her
philosophy to heart.
But, ultimately, her cold ideas lose their flavor, and most of her
avid readers become as indifferent to her seductive speechifying as
did her lover, Nathaniel Branden. By recanting his once hot ardor for
all things Rand, he was cast into outer darkness, and an unknown young
professor, Leonard Piekoff, inherited all of the author’s considerable
intellectual property. That was the beginning of the Rand Institute,
the end of the open sharing of Objectivism, and the middle of what is
proving to be a long story. Though she passed away in 1982 from lung
cancer and loneliness for her dear, weak Frank, Ayn Rand’s philosophy
and the novels that proclaim it are getting more attention since the
current recession took hold. That and the right wing’s perception of
the imminent threat of government takeovers comprise just the sort of
scenario Rand would love to have been alive to scorn and struggle
against.
Nickname unavailable
you sound like the type with shaved heads and togas that i run into
at airports.
calvin
You don't legitimately 'find' those things, or the other 99
damning words and phrases with which you've chosen to
smear the book. Nothing you say about the book has any
value because you destroyed all of your credibility when you
said that the author 'couldn't write a lick'.
trotsky
calvin, could you please clarify what you're trying to say here? Is
mpig just as "low and mean" as any literature critic who criticizes
Rand's writing, or is he somehow worse? Could this be just a case of
you trying to kill the messenger?
dave
I am a Libertarian Socialist. Liberals make me ill. At least the kind
they have half an hour South of me.
calvin
Since I've read the book three times I don't need
a 'messenger' to tell me what's in it, especially
not a liberal elitist wise-ass messenger.
steve
On 20-Apr-2011, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> So, those who find the book's prose rickety and febrile are guilty of
> "smearing"?
I happen to be one of those people, even though I respect Rands general
philosophy. And Im not alone in that combination of opinions. About half
of my libertarian friends/aquaintences find her fiction barely tolerable at
best...especially those with better writing skills. The other half are
either Randian zealots or they just dont care. Most consider her to be far
less relevant than the true libertarian giants like Hayek and Von Mises.
Her non-fiction essays are far more interesting, IMO. She has an excellent
essay on the 1960s student movement, for example, in "Capitalism, the
Unknown Ideal". I find that she is excellent at drawing relevant moral
distinctions and identifying philosophical contradictions in the
collectivist camp.
It would be interesting if she was alive today.* No doubt she'd have two
million facebook friends and a multitude of people hanging on her every
"tweet".
I must have asked you this before PM...have you read any Hayek?
steve
* Grammar question: Ive often seen this type of sentence: "It would be
interesting if she was alive today." ...written with "were" rather than
"was", as in "if she were alive today". I dont have any sense which is
correct (or preferred). Both "were" and "was" are past tense, and, oddly
enough, the thought expressed deals with the present. Weird. Do you know
the answer?
--
"If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be rolling in their
graves."
Joe Liberty
moviePig
What about the late John Harkness, who graced these n.g. pages with a
similar offhand opinion of Rand's writing? Did he likewise leave all
"credibility" at the gates of Citadel Calvin?
Michael Price
You're projecting again. Anyway you were going to list the ways
that libertarian and fascist thought are "identical".
alexy
>* Grammar question: Ive often seen this type of sentence: "It would be
>interesting if she was alive today." ...written with "were" rather than
>"was", as in "if she were alive today". I dont have any sense which is
>correct (or preferred). Both "were" and "was" are past tense, and, oddly
>enough, the thought expressed deals with the present. Weird. Do you know
>the answer?
"were"
It is the subjunctive, used to express a hypothetical, not a
past/present distinction.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
moviePig
> On 20-Apr-2011, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > So, those who find the book's prose rickety and febrile are guilty of
> > "smearing"?
>
> I happen to be one of those people, even though I respect Rands general
> philosophy. And Im not alone in that combination of opinions. About half
> of my libertarian friends/aquaintences find her fiction barely tolerable at
> best...especially those with better writing skills. The other half are
> either Randian zealots or they just dont care. Most consider her to be far
> less relevant than the true libertarian giants like Hayek and Von Mises.
>
> Her non-fiction essays are far more interesting, IMO. She has an excellent
> essay on the 1960s student movement, for example, in "Capitalism, the
> Unknown Ideal". I find that she is excellent at drawing relevant moral
> distinctions and identifying philosophical contradictions in the
> collectivist camp.
>
> It would be interesting if she was alive today.* No doubt she'd have two
> million facebook friends and a multitude of people hanging on her every
> "tweet".
>
> I must have asked you this before PM...have you read any Hayek?
I read a bit a while back at your recommendation, iirc ...but (as I
continue to admit) I'm not much of a sponge on this stuff.
> * Grammar question: Ive often seen this type of sentence: "It would be
> interesting if she was alive today." ...written with "were" rather than
> "was", as in "if she were alive today". I dont have any sense which is
> correct (or preferred). Both "were" and "was" are past tense, and, oddly
> enough, the thought expressed deals with the present. Weird. Do you know
> the answer?
I "know the answer" only intuitively, i.e., according to what sounds
right. That turns out to work pretty well, though, as I've now read
Bill's article (though his pun befouled my mood) without upsetting my
internal apple cart.
I did take exception to the article's claim that "If I was wrong, I
apologize" is equivalent to actual apology. It's more often a craven
dive into a bunker at an overrun position. (I.e., it shouldn't be
"If...", but rather "As...".)
calvin
You can name any number of people who agree with you,
but that is nothing to me. There are millions of admirers
of the book, if I needed anyone to validate my views. If I
had never read any other books, then you might reasonably
think that I could use some coaching in what makes a
good writer and a good book. But that is far from the case,
very far. I have read many books with which to compare and
contrast this book, if that was the way I do things. But it
isn't. I take a book for what it is, on its own terms, without
concern about whether or not it violates the usual
conventions of a novel, or any other conventions. This book
purposely flouts conventions, in any way you look at it.
That's for you and the late Harkness to worry about, in
your chosen field of destructive criticism. But I and the
millions of other people who like this book will go on
enjoying it for what it is, for what the author intended it to be.
moviePig
Nothing you can say,
Can tear me away,
From my guy.
Nothing you could do,
'cause I'm stuck like glue,
To my guy.
I'm sticking to my guy,
Like a stamp to a letter,
Like birds to there feathers,
We, stick together,
I'm tellin you from the start,
I can't be torn apart from my guy.
Nothing you could do,
Could make me be untrue,
To my guy.
(My Guy)
Nothing you could buy,
Could make me tell a lie,
To my guy
(My Guy)
I gave my guy,
My word of honor,
To be faithful,
And I'm gonna,
You'd best be believing,
I won't be deceiving,
My guy.
As a matter of opinion,
I think he's tops,
My opinion is,
He's the cream of the crop,
As a matter of taste,
To be exact,
He's my ideal,
As a matter of fact.
No muscle bound man,
Could take my hand,
From my guy.
(My guy)
No handsome face,
Could ever take the place,
Of my guy,
(My guy)
He may not be a movie star,
But when it comes to being happy,
We are,
There's not a man today,
Who can take me away,
From my guy.
No muscle bound man,
Could take my hand,
From my guy.
(My guy)
No handsome face,
Could ever take the place,
Of my guy,
(My guy)
He may not be a movie star,
But when it comes to being happy,
We are,
There's not a man today,
Who can take me away,
From my guy.
(what'cha say?)
There's not a man today,
Who could take me away,
From my guy.
(Tell me more!)
There's not a man today,
Who could take me away,
From my guy.
calvin
Amen.
steve
On 21-Apr-2011, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> > I must have asked you this before PM...have you read any Hayek?
>
> I read a bit a while back at your recommendation, iirc ...but (as I
> continue to admit) I'm not much of a sponge on this stuff.
When you need to evaluate a political position in the area of economics,
what is your basis for doing so? When BHO and company talk about QEII (or
III, "Killer QE; A New Beginning of the End"), do you know what they are
talking about? When republicans claim lower tax rates bring in higher
revenues over time, how do you evaluate that argument? Do you have an sense
of the consequences of these policies? Or do you evaluate policies based on
the stated goal? What mental process do you engage in to decide what/who to
support?
I'll bet 95% of voters have no clue what monetary policy is, let alone its
consequences.
> I did take exception to the article's claim that "If I was wrong, I
> apologize" is equivalent to actual apology. It's more often a craven
> dive into a bunker at an overrun position. (I.e., it shouldn't be
> "If...", but rather "As...".)
Yea. An apology with no admission of responsibility is just lip service.
steve
William Hale
wrote:
> "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>
> >* Grammar question: Ive often seen this type of sentence: "It would be
> >interesting if she was alive today." ...written with "were" rather than
> >"was", as in "if she were alive today". I dont have any sense which is
> >correct (or preferred). Both "were" and "was" are past tense, and, oddly
> >enough, the thought expressed deals with the present. Weird. Do you know
> >the answer?
>
> "were"
>
> It is the subjunctive, used to express a hypothetical, not a
> past/present distinction.
There is a past/present distinction. For a present tense false
hypothetical, you use the past tense (If she were alive today, ...). For
a past tense false hypothetical you use the past perfect tense (If she
had been alive in the stone age, ...). I'm not an English major, so this
might be wrong. I did a brief web search and came up with the following
link:
trotsky
Yes, and McDonald's has billions and billions served.
Nickname unavailable
> On 20-Apr-2011, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> > So, those who find the book's prose rickety and febrile are guilty of
> > "smearing"?
>
> I happen to be one of those people, even though I respect Rands general
> philosophy. And Im not alone in that combination of opinions. About half
> of my libertarian friends/aquaintences find her fiction barely tolerable at
> best...especially those with better writing skills. The other half are
> either Randian zealots or they just dont care. Most consider her to be far
> less relevant than the true libertarian giants like Hayek and Von Mises.
>
von mises worked for the central european fascists in the 1930's, and
hayek was a pinochet man, pinochet was a well documented fascist.
here are the three 3 phases of conservative decay.
1.conservatism(policies always fail)
2. libertarianism(the drive for purity, the conservative polices and
those that implemented them, were not pure enough)
3. fascism(the rise of the strong man to ensure purity), the
strongman
will drive out the impure, liberals, jews, immigrants, trade
unionists, communists, socialists, those with mental and physical
defects,
gypsies, etc. this to fails on a huge scale. just look what happened
to the central european fascists. they collapsed their economies, and
came up millions of workers and soldiers short.
inside the minds of monster:conservatives/libertarians/fascists and
the ties that bind:von Mises, hayek, freidman all have worked for
fascists:Hayek and Friedman both lent their support to Pinochet’s
Chile, mises for fascist austrian dollfuss
http://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2010/12/08/from-hayek-to-rand-a-short-...
↓ Jump to Comments
From Hayek to Rand: a short stroll through
neoliberal thinking
Hayek: the Daddy of Neoliberalism
Friedrich von Hayek was the daddy.
He was the Thatcher government’s
philosophical anchor. He was one of
the high priests of
neoliberalism. Hayek was the man whose book
Thatcher famously slammed
down on a table and declared “This is what
we believe in”! The book
in question was Hayek’s second attack on
socialism titled The
Constitution of Liberty. His first, The Road to
Serfdom is given
similar veneration by Conservatives and is no less
visceral in its
straw man critiques of socialism and liberalism. This
is an odd
position for a man who was wedded to the ideals of
classical
liberalism but it is the social aspects of liberalism that
Hayek rails
against, not its economic message.
In the first chapters of the book, Hayek rails against both
liberalism
and socialism. He holds Britain (or England as he says) as
a model
economy and it is through Britain’s free trade policies of
the 19th
century that his notion of liberty is predicated. he says,
The rule of freedom which has been achieved in England seemed
destined
to spread throughout the world
He ignores the methods by which the British idea of freedom was
exported throughout the world: by the barrel of a gun. The Road to
Serfdom was published in 1944. Hayek, an Austrian economist had taken
a position at the London School of Economics. In Vienna he had been
influenced by Ludwig von Mises, the founder of the Austrian School of
Economics whose name has gone on to grace the title of a US right
wing
libertarian think tank. Interstingly enough for a self-
confessed
‘liberal’, von Mises gave his support to Englebert
Dollfuss’s
Austrofascist regime. Von Mises served as economic advisor
to Dollfuss
until the latter was assassinated by the Nazis. The
Jewish von Mises
would have found it difficult to live under a Nazi
regime because of
its racial purity laws.
The von Mises Institute ‘scholar’, Lew Rockwell has a selective take
on fascism here. He completely rewrites history by airbrushing out
von
Mises involvement in Dollfuss’s regime. Indeed apologists for
von
Mises will brush aside any suggestion of his collaboration with
the
“it was a lesser evil [than communism]” defence. We can see the
start
of a pattern here: those who would describe themselves as
classical
liberals would go on to offer their support for
authoritarian regimes.
Hayek and Friedman both lent their support to
Pinochet’s Chile; Hayek
visited there in 1984. The libertarian
rhetoric obscures the
reactionary and authoritarian tendencies that
are present within their
strain of classical liberalism. He left
Austria for the United States
and together with Hayek and Friedman
they created the Société du Mont-
Pèlerin, which became a sort of
anti-Kenynesian think-tank; a hothouse
for neoliberal thinkers. You
can read their Statement of Aims here.
Neoliberalism is essentially a late 20th century variant of classical
liberalism. Whereas the the emphasis of classical liberalism was on
free trade, limited government and so forth, Hayek and his
contemporaries Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman, placed greater
emphasis on the notion of the individual as a sovereign being
unfettered by regulation and free to act as agents consumers within a
‘liberal democracy’. This they posited would move human society along
a progressive path because competition is supposed to be the natural
human condition. A system that entirely deregulated economic activity
would produce greater wealth and thus greater happiness and provide
an
outlet for competition. All social relations would become market
relations: everything would be bought and sold in a market place
(Gilbert, 2008). This included the welfare state, much of which was
largely dismantled by Thatcher in the 1980′s. Neoliberalism is
classical liberalism that has been taken to an extreme. Everything
and everyone must make a profit. Thatcher once declared that she
wanted to see a “nation of entrepreneurs”. Everyone would become an
entrepreneur, un petit capitaliste, a shopkeeper, a spiv whether they
wanted to be one or not. The former nationalized companies were
expected to make profits for their shareholders, the lessons of
history were apparently forgotten as the government sold the public a
romanticized image of the age of the great railway companies.
Nostalgia was a new way of selling government ‘products’. Gil Scott-
Heron says in his beat poem, B-Movie
The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They
want to go back as far as they can – even if it’s only as far as last
week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards.
What the government failed to mention was the fact that all the so-
called Big 4 railway companies (Southern, LNER, GWR and LMS) were
struggling before they were nationalized in 1945. LNER never made a
profit. It is impossible for an enterprise that serves the public
interest, such as a publicly-owned railway, to turn a profit. They
are
public enterprises. Such enterprises are necessary for the
greater
good of the nation because they stimulate the economic growth
of which
Hayek and his disciples claim to be in favour. Publicly-
owned
enterprises are therefore too important to be left to the
devices of
the market. As we have seen with rail privatization, the
situation is
chaotic: there are multiple train operating companies, a
separate rail
infrastructure company and at least 3 different
regulators which
includes the Department for Transport.
Material wealth underpinned this notion of the individual and the
human being was magically transformed into a rational calculating
machine free only to consume commodities. This is best illustrated by
Adam Curtis’s examination of Nash’s game theory and its employment in
the neoliberal project in The Trap – What Happened to our Dream of
Freedom? (BBC2, 2007). In the film he says that the theory was
employed by the West during the Cold War. It produced the so-called
theory of Mutually Assured Destruction. Nash’s theory also filtered
into the sphere of economic thought and resonated with Hayek. It was
posited that human beings are rational beings that act only in their
own self interest. There is no room for altuism. There is no
alternative (TINA). One of the cornerstones of neoliberalism is its
insistence on personal responsibility
Freedom to order our own conduct in the sphere where material
circumstances force a choice upon us, and responsibility for the
arrangement of our own life according to our own conscience, is the
air in which alone moral sense grows and in which moral values are
daily recreated in the free decision of the individual.
Responsibility, not to a superior, but to one’s own conscience, the
awareness of a duty not exacted by compulsion, the necessity to
decide
which of the things one values are to be sacrificed to others,
and to
bear the consequences of one’s own decision, are the very
essence of
any morals which deserve the name.
Nietzsche would question the use of the word “morality” here. He said
“morality is the herd instinct of the individual”. Morality is
imposed
on others by those who dishonestly claim that they have some
form of
moral authority or a superior framework of morals to the
Other.
The Tories were in the electoral wilderness for 13 years. During this
time they had 4 leaders, 3 of whom offered little different to the
standard Hayekian formula that had been fused with romanticism
(Hague’s Save the Pound campaign slogan). The election of David
Cameron in 2007 was portrayed as a break with the past. He was a
fresh-
faced old Etonian with some blue blood in his veins. In spite
of his
evident poshness, Cameron was immediately compared to Blair
but the
comparison relied solely on the fact that they were both
relatively
young when they became party leaders. Blair had no
philosophical
anchor unless you count Giddens. Indeed Blair claimed
to be “beyond
ideology”. He was neither right nor left (sic).
There is no such confusion with the Tories, they are right wing. But
Cameron
A is A
had to make some kind of break with the past. Hayek was deemed
too old
fashioned; too closely associated with the Thatcher years. So
they
turned to Ayn Rand.
Last year, I was watching Newsnight, I don’t remember the exact month
but they were running an item on Rand. If I remember correctly,
Douglas Carswell, MP for Clacton, whom I had never heard of at the
time, came on to talk about her.
That was the first sign of what was to come.
I also noticed that Rand was being talked about more in the quality
press. There was talk of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie making a film
based on Atlas Shrugs. Pitt and Jolie are self-confessed fans of
Rand.
There are others too ranging from Oliver Stone to Ronald
Reagan. In
April of last year, Carswell penned this blog.
Rand ’s ideas are back. Or more accutrately, Rand’s ideas never went
away. They were simply ignored by that leftist elite that presides
over our culture and our institutions. But now the internet means
all
those quangocrats, bogus academics and Guardianistas no longer
call
the cultural shots like they did.
The left are going to hate it.
Not just the left but anyone with a shred of humanity in their soul,
Doug. Carswell talks of a “leftist elite” but what is this “leftist
elite”? He assumes that because the UK hasn’t fully embraced the
authoritarian libertarianism of Hayek et al, then the country is
dominated by these “leftist elites”. To be sure, this is a phrase
that
Carswell has borrowed from the US where Rand is still very big
business. Carswell also ignores the fact that his own party, the
Conservatives is a party full of elitists – many of them are
millionaires and sit in cabinet.
Rand, like Hayek, placed the individual at the centre of her
philosophy. The Noble Soul was the habitus for her ideas of rational
self-interest or, as I would suggest it be called, rationalized
selfishness. This selfishness was further rationalized as ‘freedom’.
For Rand, freedom could only be achieved through unbridled laissez-
faire capitalism which she described as “the unknown ideal”.
When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled,
unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and
economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation
of state and church.
The sudden fetishization and appropriation of Rand’s philosophy by
some Conservatives is odd. On the surface, there is little to choose
between Hayek and Rand. In both cases, the arguments against
collectivized activity by Hayek and altruism by Rand ignore the
complexities of human existence which reduces humanity to its most
bestial level; a lump of flesh that either has the capacity for
money-
making or not. Emotions, community and family ties, empathy,
sympathy
and kindness are all erased by Rand. If one should show
kindness to
another, she would argue, then it is done entirely out of
self
interest. She does not say why. Regarding emotions, she wrote,
Emotions are the automatic results of man’s value judgments
integrated
by his subconscious; emotions are estimates of that which
furthers
man’s values or threatens them, that which is for him or
against him—
lightning calculators giving him the sum of his profit
or loss.
This is a rather strange rationalization of emotions, which are in
themselves, hard to pin down. What this passage certainly reveals to
us is Rand’s coldness. Perhaps it is because she thought of
relationship with other people as a means to an end. So cold was she
that she rationalized emotions as products in a system of exchange,
profit and loss. Her coldness is further revealed in her
pronouncements on humour.
Humor is the denial of metaphysical importance to that which you
laugh
at. The classic example: you see a very snooty, very well
dressed
dowager walking down the street, and then she slips on a
banana
peel . . . . What’s funny about it? It’s the contrast of the
woman’s
pretensions to reality. She acted very grand, but reality
undercut it
with a plain banana peel. That’s the denial of the
metaphysical
validity or importance of the pretensions of that woman.
Therefore,
humor is a destructive element—which is quite all right,
but its value
and its morality depend on what it is that you are
laughing at. If
what you are laughing at is the evil in the world
(provided that you
take it seriously, but occasionally you permit
yourself to laugh at
it), that’s fine. [To] laugh at that which is
good, at heroes, at
values, and above all at yourself [is]
monstrous . . . . The worst
evil that you can do, psychologically, is
to laugh at yourself. That
means spitting in your own face.
It is arguable that Rand had no sense of humour; it does not figure
in
the calculus of profit and loss.
Ayn Rand has been portrayed as a philosopher. Her philosophy, which
she named Objectivism, has become the template for those who are
either unfamiliar with Hayek or have been persuaded to read her
fiction because it is supposed to be some sort of rite of passage.
It
is possible to argue that Rand was deeply misanthropic, seeing
only
the potential for making money and rejecting human complexities
as an
almighty inconveniences – which she categorically ignored. She
once
said,
Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue.
It is not clear what she means by the word “virtue” but she employs
the word in the title of her book The Virtue of Selfishness. When
Rand
died her followers placed a wreath in the shape of a 6 foot
high
dollar sign beside her grave. It was an oddly pertinent symbol
of her
cupidity, though her supporters thought otherwise. Here she
declares
her selfishness
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.
Other people are simply there for their usefulness. Not because there
is any desire for companionship or anything like it. Rand had no use
for companions. She had disciples. She was a cult leader.
It is easy to see where phrases like “socialized medicine” comes from
too,
Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics—or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist)
Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia—or
partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are
superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic
principle, in all cases, is the same.
The alleged goals of socialism were: the abolition of poverty, the
achievement of general prosperity, progress, peace and human
brotherhood. The results have been a terrifying failure—terrifying,
that is, if one’s motive is men’s welfare.
Of course this presupposes that capitalism has never been responsible
for countless deaths, the loss of liberties or the imposition of an
authoritarian regimes who were wholly supportive of the idea of
neoliberalism. I am thinking here of Pinochet’s Chile.
As this article from Mother Jones suggests, the world of Rand is an
upside down one. In an deliberate inversion of logic, Rand’s thesis
is
that the rich and powerful are the oppressed, while the poor, the
vulnerable and the low-waged – whom she labelled “looters” and
“moochers” – are the oppressors. It is now easier to recognize the
source of the coalition’s policies in relation to those on the lowest
income scales. Those who receive state welfare benefits (including
those on Disability benefits) have been consistently painted as
“scroungers” regardless of their circumstances. The Tory press has
been at the forefront of this war against by printing a drip-feed of
stories about “chavs”, “dole cheats” and so on. They have acted as
the
Conservative Party’s unofficial information service. It is
arguable
that the only reason the Conservatives have adopted Rand’s
philosophy
is to legitimate selfishness and greed. Rand’s ideas
provide and
instant justification to the false premise that the poor
and the
unemployed are stealing money directly from their pockets
through
taxation.
A better world is out there.
Bibliography
Duggan, L (2003). The Twighlight of Equality? Neoliberalism, Cultural
Politics and the Attack on Democracy. Boston: Beacon Press
Gilbert, J (2008). Anticapitalism and Culture. Oxford: Berg
Hayek, F. A. (1983). The Road to Serfdom, London: Routledge Kegan
Paul
Nietzsche, F (2008). Beyond Good and Evil. Cambridge University Press
Rand, A (1975). The Romantic Manifesto. London: Signet
Rand, A (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. London: Signet
Filmography
Curtis, A (2003). The Trap – What Happened to our Dream of Freedom?
(BBC2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------
http://original-nazis.wetpaint.com/page/Engelbert+Dollfuss
Engelbert Dollfuss
Engelbert Dollfuss
Engelbert Dollfuss (b. October 4, 1892 d.July 25, 1934; in German
spelled Dollfuß) was an Austrian Christian Social and Patriotic Front
statesman, who was chancellor of Austria from 1932 and dictator of
Austria from 1933 until his assassination by Nazi agents in 1934.
Born in Texing in Lower Austria as the child of the single and deeply
religious mother Josepha Dollfuss by an unknown father, Dollfuss was
educated at a Roman Catholic seminary before deciding to study Law at
the University of Vienna and then Economics at the University of
Berlin.
Dollfuss had difficulty gaining admission into the Austro-
Hungarian
army in World War I due to his short stature – according to
The New
York Times he stood at 150 cm (4'11"),[1] but was eventually
accepted
and sent to the Alpine Front.
He was a highly decorated soldier and was briefly taken prisoner by
the Italians as a POW in 1918. After the war he worked for the
Agriculture ministry as secretary of the Farmers' Association and
became director of the Lower Austrian Chamber of Agriculture in 1927,
and in 1930 as a member of the conservative Christian Social Party
was
appointed president of the Federal Railway System. (One of the
founders of the CS was a hero of Dollfuss's, Karl Freiherr von
Vogelsang.) The following year he was named minister of agriculture
and forests.
Chancellor of Austria
Dollfuss became Chancellor on May 20, 1932 as head of a coalition
government, with the pressing goal of tackling the problems of the
Great Depression, in a state (post-Versailles Austria) that was
economically disadvantaged by the loss of a large part of its
manufacturing industry situated in Bohemia. Much of Austria-Hungary's
industry had been situated in the areas that were separated into
Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia with the Treaty of Versailles, and thus
this manufacturing power was lost to Austria after World War I.
Dollfuss's majority in Parliament was marginal (he had only a one-
vote
majority); deflationary policies implemented by his chief
economic
advisor, the famous Ludwig von Mises, would prove unpopular
among the
Social Democratic Workers' Party of Austria (SDAPÖ).
Dollfuss as Dictator of Austria
In March 1933, an argument arose over irregularities in the voting
procedure. The president of the National Council (the lower house)
resigned to be able to cast a vote as a parliament member. As a
consequence the two vice presidents, belonging to other parties,
resigned as well to be able to vote. As a consequence, the parliament
could not conclude the session due to formal reasons. Dollfuss took
the resignation of all three presidents as a pretext to declare that
the National Council had become unworkable, and advised President
Wilhelm Miklas to issue a decree adjourning it indefinitely. When the
National Council wanted to reconvene days after the resignation of
the
three presidents, Dollfuss barred entrance to parliament by
police
force, effectively eliminating democracy in Austria. From that
point
onwards he governed as dictator by emergency decree with
absolute
power.
One motive of Dollfuss' actions was that with Adolf Hitler becoming
German Chancellor in 1933, it looked increasingly likely that the
Austrian National Socialists (DNSAP) would gain a significant
minority
in future elections. On the other hand, the Soviet Union's
influence
in Europe had increased throughout the 1920s and early
1930s. Dollfuss
thus banned the DNSAP in June 1933 and the communists
later on. Under
the banner of Christian Social Party, he later on
established a one-
party dictatorship rule largely modelled after
fascism in Italy,
banning all other Austrian parties including the
social democrats.
Austrofascism
Due to Austrofascism's modelling after Italian fascism, Dollfuss
looked to Italy in support, especially also against Nazi Germany and
gained a guarantee for Austria's independence by Italy in August
1933.
He also exchanged 'Secret Letters' with Mussolini about ways
to
guarantee Austrian independence. Mussolini was interested in
Austria
forming a buffer zone against Nazi Germany. Dollfuss always
stressed
the similarity of Hitler's and Stalin's regime, and was
convinced that
Austrofascism under his reign and Italofascism under
Mussolini could
counter both national socialism and communism in
Europe.
In September 1933 Dollfuss merged his Christian Social Party, the
Nationalist paramilitary Heimwehr (Home Guard) (which encompassed
many
workers who were unhappy with the radical leadership of the
socialist
party) and other nationalist and conservative groups to
form the
Vaterländische Front. Dollfuß escaped an assassination
attempt in
October 1933 by Rudolf Dertill, a 22-year old who had been
ejected
from the military for his national-socialist views.
Austrian civil war and new constitution
In February 1934, Nazi agents in the security forces provoked arrests
of social democrats and unjustified searches for weapons of the
social
democrat's already outlawed Republikanischer Schutzbund. Due
to the
steps of the Dollfuss dictatorship against known social
democrats, the
social democrats called for nationwide resistance
against the
Government. A civil war began, that lasted from February
12 until
February 15, with partly fierce fighting primarily in the
East of
Austria, especially in the streets of some outer Vienna
districts,
where large fortress-like municipal workers' buildings
were situated,
and in the northern, industrial areas of the province
of Styria, where
Nazi agents had great interest in a bloodbath in
between security
forces and worker's militias. As a consequence of
the resistance, that
was put out by police and military power, the
social democrats were
outlawed, and its leaders were imprisoned or
fled abroad.
New Constitution
Dollfuss staged a parliamentary session with just his party members
present in April 1934 to have his new constitution approved as well
as
made all the decrees already passed since March 1933 "legal". The
new
constitution became effective on May 1, 1934 and swept away the
last
remains of democracy and the system of the first Austrian
Republic.
Assassination
Dollfuss was assassinated in July 25, 1934 by eight Austrian Nazis
(Paul Hudl, Franz Holzweber, Otto Planetta and others[2]) who entered
the Chancellery building and shot him in an attempted coup d'état,
the
July Putsch.[3] It was only thanks to the Heimwehr which attacked
the
forming units of Nazi agents that the coup did not succeed.
Another
reason for the failure of the putsch was Italian
intervention.
Mussolini assembled the Italian army on the Austrian
border and
threatened Hitler with a war with Italy in the event of a
German
invasion of Austria as originally planned. The assassination
of
Dollfuss was accompanied by Nazi uprisings in many regions in
Austria,
resulting in further deaths. In Carinthia a large contingent
of
northern German Nazis tried to grab power but were subdued by the
patriotic Heimwehr units. Similarly, the Nazi assassins in Vienna
surrendered and were executed. Kurt Schuschnigg became the new
chancellor of Austria.
Dollfuss is buried in the Hietzing cemetery in Vienna, alongside his
wife Alwine Dollfuss and two of his children, Hannerl and Eva.
Trivia
Dollfuss was a very short man and his diminutive stature (5' 2" = 155
cm) was the object of satire, among his nicknames were
'Millimetternich' (referring to the autocratic imperial chancellor of
Austria from 1815 - 1848, Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich), and
the 'Jockey'. The New York Times also reported a series of jokes,
including how in the coffee houses of Vienna, one could order a
'Dollfuss' cup of coffee instead of a 'Short Black' cup of coffee
(black being the colour of the Christian Democratic political
faction). In contrast to his own diminutive stature, his personal
assistant and secretary Eduard Hedvicek, who later played a
significant role in the unsuccessful attempt to save his life was
very
large and tall man (200 cm = 6'8").
External Links
The Assassination of Engelbert Dolfuss (German) - Translate to
English
Death for Freedom - Time Magazine - Monday, Aug. 06, 1934
Sources
1. Assassination in Vienna, Walter B. Maass, published by
Charles
Scribners's Sons, New York
2. The Order of the
Death's Head: The Story of Hitler's SS, by Heinz
Zollin Höhne and
Richard Barry
3. První zemřel kancléř, Vladimír Bauman a
Miroslav Hladký, Praha
1968
4. Na dne byla smrt, Otakar
Brožek a Jiří Horský, Praha 1968
5. Bußhoff, Heinrich,
Das Dollfuß-Regime in Österreich (Berlin:
Duncker & Humbolt, 1968)
6. Carsten, F. L., The first Austrian Republic 1918-1938
(Cambridge
U.P., 1986)
7. Dollfuß, Engelbert, Dollfuß
schafft Arbeit [Pamphlet]
(Heimatdienst, 1933)
8.
Ender, D, Die neue österreichische Verfassung mit dem Text des
Konkordates (Wien/Leipzig: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1935)
9. Gregory, J. D., Dollfuss and his Times (Tiptree: Hutchinson
& Co.
Anchor, 1935)
10. Maleta, Alfred, Der Sozialist im
Dollfuß-Österreich (Linz:
Preßverein Linz, 1936)
11.
Messner, Johannes, Dollfuß (Tyrolia, 1935)
12. Messner,
Johannes, Dollfuss: An Austrian Patriot (Norfolk,
Virginia: IHS
Press, 2003)
13. Moth, G., Neu Österreich und seine
Baumeister (Wien: Steyrermühl-
Verlag, 1935)
14.
Österreichischer Bundespressedienst, Der Führer Bundeskanzler Dr.
Dollfuß zum Feste des Wiederaufbaues 1. Mai 1934 (Österreichischer
Bundespressedienst, 1934)
15. Sugar, Peter (ed.) Native
Fascism in the Successor States
(Seattle 1971)
16.
Tálos, Emmerich & Neugebauer, Wolfgang, Austrofaschismus (Vienna:
Lit. Verlag, 2005)
17. Walterskirchen, Gudula Engelbert
Dollfuß, Arbeitermörder oder
Heldenkanzler (Vienna: Molden Verlag,
2004)
18. Weber, Hofrat Edmund, Dollfuß an Oesterreich,
Eines Mannes Wort
und Ziel (Wien: Reinhold Verlag, 1935)
19.
Winkler, Franz, Die Diktatur in Oesterreich (Zürich/Leipzig,
Orell Füssli Verlag, 1935)
20. Zweig, Stefan, Die Welt
von Gestern, eines Dichters von Morgen
(Frankfurt am Main/Bonn:
Athenäum, 1965)
> Her non-fiction essays are far more interesting, IMO. She has an excellent
> essay on the 1960s student movement, for example, in "Capitalism, the
> Unknown Ideal". I find that she is excellent at drawing relevant moral
> distinctions and identifying philosophical contradictions in the
> collectivist camp.
>
> It would be interesting if she was alive today.* No doubt she'd have two
> million facebook friends and a multitude of people hanging on her every
> "tweet".
>
> I must have asked you this before PM...have you read any Hayek?
>
> steve
>
> * Grammar question: Ive often seen this type of sentence: "It would be
> interesting if she was alive today." ...written with "were" rather than
> "was", as in "if she were alive today". I dont have any sense which is
> correct (or preferred). Both "were" and "was" are past tense, and, oddly
> enough, the thought expressed deals with the present. Weird. Do you know
> the answer?
> --
> "If the founding fathers were alive today, they'd be rolling in their
> graves."
> Joe Liberty
they sure would, considering the declaration of independence, the
preamble, and the constitution were all based on the writings of the
founder thomas paine, who advocated for a social welfare state. the
constitution is a socialist document:)
"Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
of
the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
deal
with the real world. The other involves orcs."
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the
growth of
private power to a point where it becomes stronger than
their democratic
state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism--
ownership of government by an
individual, by a group, or by any
controlling private power."
-Franklin D. Roosevelt
show me a criminal that is for regulation
" For too many of us the political equality we once had won was
meaningless in the face of economic inequality. A small group had
concentrated into their own hands an almost complete control over
other people's property, other people's money, other people's labor —
other people's lives. For too many of us life was no longer free;
liberty no longer real; men could no longer follow the pursuit of
happiness.
Against economic tyranny such as this, the American citizen could
appeal only to the organized power of government. The collapse of 1929
showed up the despotism for what it was. The election of 1932 was the
people's mandate to end it. Under that mandate it is being ended.
President Franklin Roosevelt "
"The perfect liberty they seek is the liberty of making slaves of
other people." -- Abraham Lincoln
We know now that Government by
organized money is just as dangerous
as Government by organized mob.
--Franklin D. Roosevelt
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest
exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a
superior moral justification for selfishness.--John Kenneth
Galbraith
"There is a great deal of psychological comfort to be found in a
fully
fledged ideology such as laissez faire because it removes the need
for
critical thought. The ideology is used as an algorithm. All the
individual has to do in any situation is to ask what the ideology
requires by way of action. The fact that the action may be harmful or
the ideology objectively at odds with reality is emotionally
unimportant for the individual. What matters is that an answer has
been
found which is compatible with the ideology. This is especially
appealing to the less intellectually curious.
Psychologically, political ideologies are akin to religion and their
practitioners behave in an essentially religious manner. For example,
in the case of laissez faire, its disciples chant "let the market
decide" in the manner of Christians saying "God will provide."
Those amongst the elite who are not true believers in laissez faire
will, in most cases, toe the ideological line because they deem it
prudent to do so for their own careers and security. The few who
speak
out against it are simply sidelined.
ROBERT HENDERSON"
ayn rand novels are not historically accurate, nor are they the
product of a stable mind.
what is the definition of a crank? one who gives out advise that
makes no sense at all.
what is the definition of a crank? one who accepts, or embraces
advise that makes no sense at all.
our state and nation have experienced major declines resulting from
contemporary conservative leaders and their simplistic ideas. their
dour polices regularly fail to connect the dots, let alone comprehend
the space between them.
richard a. swanson
definition of a cult:Confusing Doctrine Encouraging blind acceptance
and rejection of logic through complex lectures on an incomprehensible
doctrine, Chanting and Singing Eliminating non-cult ideas through
group repetition of mind-narrowing chants or phrases
While it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is
true that most stupid people are conservative. ... John Stuart Mill
"The game of Darwinian economics and the enshrinement of market-
miracle
theology is really the systematic looting of the pockets and purses of
the middle class"
Jerry M. Landay of Bristol
Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred
principles
of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not
be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.
- Bertrand
Russell
Taxes are not "punishment for success". Nor are they "theft". Taxes
are a royalty paid commensurate to the economic benefit obtained from
a shared socio-economic system.
"Those who gain the benefit should also bear the disadvantage."
- Common Law maxim
``Capitalism sowed the seeds of its own demise because the benefits of
a decade-long boom accrued to capital, with nothing flowing to labor.
Telling workers who hadn't had a decent pay raise for years to tighten
their belts once the good times ended proved disastrous.
The biggest political story of 2008 is getting little
coverage. It involves the collapse of assumptions that have dominated
our economic debate for three decades.
Since the Reagan years, free market cliches have passed for
sophisticated economic analysis. But in the current crisis, these
ideas are falling, one by one, as even conservatives recognize that
capitalism is ailing.
You know the talking points: Regulation is the problem and
deregulation is the solution. The distribution of income and wealth
doesn't matter. Providing incentives for the investors of capital to
"grow the pie" is the only policy that counts. Free trade produces
well-distributed economic growth, and any dissent from this orthodoxy
is "protectionism."
e.j. dionne
teddy roosevelt
We wish to control big business so as to secure among other things
good wages for the wage-workers and reasonable prices for the
consumers. Wherever in any business the prosperity of the businessman
is obtained by lowering the wages of his workmen and charging an
excessive price to the consumers we wish to interfere and stop such
practices. We will not submit to that kind of prosperity any more than
we will submit to prosperity obtained by swindling investors or
getting unfair advantages over business rivals.
Remember, when a Republican talks about "Free" Markets, they mean
Free of Regulation
Free of Oversight
Free of Competition
Free of Ethics
Free of Morality
Free of Common Sense
Free of Long Term Thinking'
"disinterest in good government has long been a principle of modern
conservatism."
paul krugman
Economist and author Henry Liu summed it up brilliantly in a recent
article in the Asia Times:
"The collapse of market fundamentalism in economies everywhere is
putting the Chicago School theology on trial. Its big lie has been
exposed by facts on two levels. The Chicago Boys' claim that helping
the rich will also help the poor is not only exposed as not true, it
turns out that market fundamentalism hurts not only the poor and the
powerless; it hurts everyone, rich and poor, albeit in different ways.
When wages are kept low to fight inflation, the low-wage regime causes
overcapacity through over investment from excess profit. And monetary
easing under such conditions produces hyperinflation that hurts also
the rich. The fruits of Friedman test are in - and they are all
rotten."
Nickname unavailable
been there, done that with you more than once. even other posters
have shown you in the same threads liar.
Nickname unavailable
well said. and this book was all the rage in major parts of europe
from 1933-1945.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf
but being the rage, and have millions reading it, does not change the
fact that it was evil.
Nickname unavailable
when someone brags about their destructive behavior, either they are
functionally insane, or they are crying out for help. if you are
asking for help. its out there. there are professionals that can break
the grip of a cult. seek one out, then you can live a normal
productive life.
Michael Price
Yep for Courage Unavailable reading is destructive behavior.
> either they are
> functionally insane, or they are crying out for help. if you are
> asking for help. its out there. there are professionals that can break
> the grip of a cult. seek one out, then you can live a normal
> productive life.
>
> "Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord
> of
> the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
> engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading
> to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to
> deal with the real world. The other involves orcs."
Ahh yes, snark, the perfect substitute for actual logic.
Michael Price
Nope liar you've never once said how libertarian and fascist
thought
were "identical". Once you claimed that they both supported
corporations
above people I believe, which isn't true of libertarianism and is only
somewhat
true of fascism. In any case sharing one characteristic doesn't make
things
"identical".
Nickname unavailable
beyond stupid. people even post to you, yet you blubber on and on.
Michael Price
If you really proved that libertarian and fascist thought were
identical, then link to
that post. Seriously be a man and admit you were totally wrong on it
and somebody
might start to respect you.
Nickname unavailable
beyond stupid. can you even retain simple basic information?
Michael Price
I can't retain what I have never gotten. If you made the point you
claim then just use
google groups with your own name as author, "> Michael Price",
"fascist" "libertarian"
and anything else you remember putting in the post. You keep calling
me stupid but
you can't even find your own post.
Nickname unavailable
over and over and over i, and others have proven our points. you
cannot be educated.
Ayn Rand's mix of free will/free love/free markets doesn't hold up
well on screen or anywhere really:If objectivism seems familiar, it is
because most people know it under another name:adolescence:usually
most grow up and out of it
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/otherviews/120514354.html
'Atlas Shrugged,' and you will, too
• Updated: April 23, 2011 - 7:51 PM
Ayn Rand's mix of free will, free love and free markets doesn't hold
up well on screen -- or anywhere, really.
The movie "Atlas Shrugged," adapted from Ayn Rand's 1957 novel by the
same name, is a triumph of cinematic irony.
A work that lectures us endlessly on the moral superiority of heroic
achievement is itself a model of mediocrity. In this, the film
perfectly reflects both the novel and the mind behind it.
Rand is something of a cultural phenomenon -- the author of potboilers
who became an ethical and political philosopher, a libertarian
heroine.
But Rand's distinctive mix of expressive egotism, free love and free-
market metallurgy does not hold up very well on the screen.
The emotional center of the movie is the success of high-speed rail --
oddly similar to a proposal in President Obama's last State of the
Union address. All of the characters are ideological puppets.
Visionary, comely capitalists are assaulted by sniveling government
planners, smirking lobbyists, nagging wives, rented scientists and
cynical humanitarians. When characters begin disappearing -- on strike
against the servility and inferiority of the masses -- one does not
question their wisdom in leaving the movie.
None of the characters express a hint of sympathetic human emotion --
which is precisely the point. Rand's novels are vehicles for a system
of thought known as objectivism.
Rand developed this philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the
intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a
napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a
virtue.
Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is
weakness. Weakness is contemptible.
"The Objectivist ethics, in essence," said Rand, "hold that man exists
for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest
moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor
sacrifice others to himself."
If objectivism seems familiar, it is because most people know it under
another name: adolescence. Many of us experienced a few unfortunate
years of invincible self-involvement, testing moral boundaries and
prone to stormy egotism and hero worship.
Usually one grows out of it, eventually discovering that the quality
of our lives is tied to the benefit of others. Rand's achievement was
to turn a phase into a philosophy, as attractive as an outbreak of
acne.
The appeal of Ayn Rand to conservatives is both considerable and
inexplicable. Modern conservatism was largely defined by Ronald
Reagan's faith in the people instead of elites.
Rand regarded the people as "looters" and "parasites." She was a
strenuous advocate for class warfare, except that she took the side of
a mythical class of capitalist supermen.
Rand, in fact, pronounced herself "profoundly opposed" to Reagan's
presidential candidacy, since he did not meet her exacting ideological
standards.
Rand cherished a particular disdain for Christianity. The cross, she
said, is "the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the
nonideal. ... It is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to
sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the
symbolism is used. That is torture."
Yet some conservatives marked Holy Week by attending and embracing
"Atlas Shrugged."
Reaction to Rand draws a line in political theory. Some believe with
Rand that all government is coercion and theft -- the tearing down of
the strong for the benefit of the undeserving.
Others believe that government has a limited but noble role in helping
the most vulnerable in society -- not motivated by egalitarianism,
which is destructive, but by compassion, which is human.
And some root this duty in God's particular concern for the vulnerable
and undeserving, which eventually includes us all. This is the message
of Easter, and it is inconsistent with the gospel of Rand.
Many libertarians trace their inspiration to Rand's novels, while
sometimes distancing themselves from objectivism. But both
libertarians and objectivists are moved by the mania of a single idea
-- a freedom indistinguishable from selfishness.
This unbalanced emphasis on one element of political theory -- at the
expense of other public goals such as justice and equal opportunity --
is the evidence of a rigid ideology. Socialists take a similar path,
embracing equality as an absolute value.
Both ideologies have led good people into supporting policies with
serious human costs.
Conservatives have been generally suspicious of all ideologies,
preferring long practice and moral tradition to utopian schemes of
left or right. And Rand is nothing if not utopian. In "Atlas
Shrugged," she refers to her libertarian valley of the blessed as
Atlantis.
It is an attractive place, which does not exist, and those who seek it
drown.
Michael Gerson's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers
Group.