Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Atlas Shrugged, Part II - 73 days
26 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
Aug 1, 2012, 10:15:45 AM8/1/12
to
I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
so I am passing it on:
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
so I am passing it on:
"Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
moviePig
Aug 1, 2012, 10:48:45 AM8/1/12
to
I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
it.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Obveeus
Aug 1, 2012, 10:54:52 AM8/1/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
>> promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>>
>> Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
>> so I am passing it on:
>>
>> "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man�s life, the
>> central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
>> other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
>> work�pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
>
>ATLAS SHRUGGED, PARTOUT.
>
>I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
>it.
cover?
Meanwhile, I cannot help but think that USENET runs as an exact opposite to
Rand's reason d'etre defined above.
calvin
Aug 1, 2012, 11:04:06 AM8/1/12
to
On Aug 1, 10:48 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
> > promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>
> > Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
> > so I am passing it on:
>
> > "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
> > central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
> > other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
> > work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
>
> ATLAS SHRUGGED, PARTOUT.
>
> I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
> it.
There has been a postage stamp:
> On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
> > promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>
> > Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
> > so I am passing it on:
>
> > "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
> > central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
> > other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
> > work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
>
> ATLAS SHRUGGED, PARTOUT.
>
> I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
> it.
http://www.cordair.com/gaetano/stampprint.php
I had to look up 'partout', and in the process learned
the probable origin of the Jules Verne character,
Passepartout, in Around the World in 80 Days.
Tom
Aug 1, 2012, 1:29:26 PM8/1/12
to
philosophy.
Tom
nowreviewing
Aug 1, 2012, 2:25:34 PM8/1/12
to
Calvin, here's Gore on your darling:
Now, before I’m investigated for having taken the un-American stand
that sex is a minor department of morality, let me try to show what I
think is morally important. Ayn Rand is a rhetorician who writes
novels I have never been able to read. She has just published a book,
For the “New Intellectual,” subtitled “The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”; it
is a collection of pensées and arias from her novels and it must be
read to be believed. Herewith, a few excerpts from the Rand
collection.
• “It was the morality of altruism that undercut American and is now
destroying her.”
• “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical
opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same
society. Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the
choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest,
with its consequence of freedom…or the primordial morality of altruism
with its consequences of slavery, etc.”
• Then from one of her arias for heldentenor: “I am done with the
monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood
and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over
the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being,
this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this
one word: ‘I.’”
• “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty
is to himself.”
• “To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the
creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your
effort for the effort of the best among men.”
• “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral….”
This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed
and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in
purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What
interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,”
but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the
one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction
for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to
paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the
thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their
hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the
root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb
or incompetent that’s your lookout.
She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the State
being anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain
people from stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate
company here. There is a reactionary position which has many valid
attractions, among them lean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But
it is Miss Rand’s second battle that is the moral one. She has
declared war not only on Marx but on Christ. Now, although my own
enthusiasm for the various systems evolved in the names of those two
figures is limited, I doubt if even the most anti-Christian free-
thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christ in the Gospels.
To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to
justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only
immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human
being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far
more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or
to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of
a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another
for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To
get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of
government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is
right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which has figured in
most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often
fail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until now
we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now the
dictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinction
between right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to which
right action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is
uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she
must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this
life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the
one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other
through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells
us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson
should have read: One for one and none for all.
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which
makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as
we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux.
The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from
the deep. Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the
Forum. There are storm warnings ahead. But to counter trolls and
Caesars, we have such men as Lewis Mumford whose new book, “The City
in History,” inspires. He traces the growth of communities from
Neolithic to present times. He is wise. He is moral: that is, he
favors right action and he believes it possible for us to make things
better for us (not “me”!). He belongs to the currently unfashionable
line of makers who believe that if something is wrong it can be made
right, whether a faulty water main or a faulty idea. May he flourish!
End.
Now, before I’m investigated for having taken the un-American stand
that sex is a minor department of morality, let me try to show what I
think is morally important. Ayn Rand is a rhetorician who writes
novels I have never been able to read. She has just published a book,
For the “New Intellectual,” subtitled “The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”; it
is a collection of pensées and arias from her novels and it must be
read to be believed. Herewith, a few excerpts from the Rand
collection.
• “It was the morality of altruism that undercut American and is now
destroying her.”
• “Capitalism and altruism are incompatible; they are philosophical
opposites; they cannot co-exist in the same man or in the same
society. Today, the conflict has reached its ultimate climax; the
choice is clear-cut: either a new morality of rational self-interest,
with its consequence of freedom…or the primordial morality of altruism
with its consequences of slavery, etc.”
• Then from one of her arias for heldentenor: “I am done with the
monster of ‘we,’ the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood
and shame. And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over
the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being,
this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride. This god, this
one word: ‘I.’”
• “The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty
is to himself.”
• “To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the
creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your
effort for the effort of the best among men.”
• “The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral….”
This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed
and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in
purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What
interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,”
but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the
one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction
for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to
paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the
thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their
hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the
root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb
or incompetent that’s your lookout.
She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the State
being anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain
people from stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate
company here. There is a reactionary position which has many valid
attractions, among them lean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But
it is Miss Rand’s second battle that is the moral one. She has
declared war not only on Marx but on Christ. Now, although my own
enthusiasm for the various systems evolved in the names of those two
figures is limited, I doubt if even the most anti-Christian free-
thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christ in the Gospels.
To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to
justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only
immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human
being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far
more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or
to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of
a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another
for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To
get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of
government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is
right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which has figured in
most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often
fail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until now
we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now the
dictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinction
between right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to which
right action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is
uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she
must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this
life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the
one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other
through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells
us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson
should have read: One for one and none for all.
Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which
makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as
we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux.
The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from
the deep. Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the
Forum. There are storm warnings ahead. But to counter trolls and
Caesars, we have such men as Lewis Mumford whose new book, “The City
in History,” inspires. He traces the growth of communities from
Neolithic to present times. He is wise. He is moral: that is, he
favors right action and he believes it possible for us to make things
better for us (not “me”!). He belongs to the currently unfashionable
line of makers who believe that if something is wrong it can be made
right, whether a faulty water main or a faulty idea. May he flourish!
End.
calvin
Aug 1, 2012, 2:48:57 PM8/1/12
to
heard some of it, especially Vidal's often quoted,
"Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, ..."
Unlike most people around here, I can admire opposites
and adversaries. I've always liked Vidal's essays, but have
read only one of his novels. For Rand it's the opposite. I
never read her essays anymore, but I greatly admire Atlas
Shrugged and the auto-biographical aspect of 'We the Living'.
I love 'War and Peace' also, full as it is of Tolstoy's explicitly
presented collectivist philosophy, which Rand despises.
In what you quoted that Vidal quoted, much of it is quite
admirable. It's too bad that Vidal could not bring himself
to read 'Atlas Shrugged'. No doubt he would still disagree,
but he is intelligent enough to better understand the context
of his quotes, and I expect he would have done much better
with his criticism.
Both Rand and Vidal are included among my many literary
'darlings'.
nick
Aug 1, 2012, 9:08:25 PM8/1/12
to
On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
> promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>
Check out the riveting teaser trailer.
> I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
> promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>
http://www.movieinsider.com/m9269/atlas-shrugged-part-2/videos/8241/
tomcervo
Aug 1, 2012, 9:27:44 PM8/1/12
to
On Aug 1, 10:48 am, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
called great, I don't understand why Rand's fans are looking forward
to something they will probably end up denouncing as an abortion--
unless they think it will have proselytizing value.
OTOH, I'm really forward to "The Great Gatsby"--not for the book's
sake, because it doesn't need any pushing. (FSF has laughed at harder
punches, and it's another visual aid for the Pat Hobby stories.) It's
just that the whole project reeks of such colossal hubris that it may
well destroy a career or two--Baz Luhrman can settle into the
Australian TV career that he was born for, and DiCaprio can start
doing those comedy dad parts that DeNiro is too old to play.
calvin
Aug 1, 2012, 9:19:51 PM8/1/12
to
actually, the part showing Rand herself -is- riveting.
moviePig
Aug 1, 2012, 10:37:33 PM8/1/12
to
'Life Of Pi' are celebrated explicitly for their skilled use of the
written word. In marrying them to stereoscopic widescreen, fish
needing bicycles comes to mind. Still, as long as Baz doesn't put Leo
in another motorcycle gang, I, too, am looking forward to both...
trotsky
Aug 2, 2012, 7:30:58 AM8/2/12
to
On 8/1/12 1:48 PM, calvin wrote:
> Unlike most people around here, I can admire opposites
> and adversaries.
Bullshit alert.
> Unlike most people around here, I can admire opposites
> and adversaries.
trotsky
Aug 2, 2012, 7:34:12 AM8/2/12
to
trotsky
Aug 2, 2012, 7:36:43 AM8/2/12
to
have the same look in their eyes.
trotsky
Aug 2, 2012, 7:50:49 AM8/2/12
to
On 8/1/12 9:48 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
>> promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>>
>> Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
>> so I am passing it on:
>>
>> "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
>> central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
>> other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
>> work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
>
> ATLAS SHRUGGED, PARTOUT.
>
> I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
> it.
Odd--I heard she was cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.
> On Aug 1, 10:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> I've been ordered by my Randian masters to do my part in
>> promoting this movie, due out on 10/12/12.
>>
>> Along with my email orders, this evil message was included,
>> so I am passing it on:
>>
>> "Productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life, the
>> central value that integrates and determines the hierarchy of all his
>> other values. Reason is the source, the precondition of his productive
>> work—pride is the result." - Ayn Rand
>
> ATLAS SHRUGGED, PARTOUT.
>
> I'm hoping for a limited edition Wheaties box with Ayn's picture on
> it.
nick
Aug 2, 2012, 5:57:06 PM8/2/12
to
three leads, including DiCaprio, that look about as well cast as
you're going to get. I think Gatsby is within Di Caprio's range.
Quentin Tarantino said that all movies are exploitation movies. If
you've got Paul Newman, you exploit that. You don't have Paul Newman,
you exploit boobs. With The Great Gatsby you've got an A-list
director (even if he is crap), A-list source materia by an A-list
authorl, an A-list cast. You can exploit the A-list level of every
aspect of the production. You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
what you've got.
calvin
Aug 2, 2012, 6:59:33 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 5:57 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
Maddow I doubt that you would be embarassed. However, I agree
that it was a poor teaser trailer. The book is far, far greater than
FOX News, and I hate to see a movie of it marketed at that level,
not to mention that it gives the opposition a free starting ridicule
point.
(I don't know if 'Atlash' was a typo or not, but it was funny.)
> ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
> hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
> Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
> throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
> what you've got.
If there was a lib movie teaser trailer with Olbermann, Matthews, and
> Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
> throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
> what you've got.
Maddow I doubt that you would be embarassed. However, I agree
that it was a poor teaser trailer. The book is far, far greater than
FOX News, and I hate to see a movie of it marketed at that level,
not to mention that it gives the opposition a free starting ridicule
point.
(I don't know if 'Atlash' was a typo or not, but it was funny.)
tomcervo
Aug 2, 2012, 7:59:24 PM8/2/12
to
> The trailer for The Great Gatsby makes it look bad as feared but with
> three leads, including DiCaprio, that look about as well cast as
> you're going to get. I think Gatsby is within Di Caprio's range.
He's got the range, but it'll take him all day to hit the target.
> three leads, including DiCaprio, that look about as well cast as
> you're going to get. I think Gatsby is within Di Caprio's range.
> Quentin Tarantino said that all movies are exploitation movies.
better. He reminds me of those writers who came to Thomas Mann when he
visited Hollywood and declared themselves whores compared to him. He
said something along the lines of that's only true if you have a
talent to prostitute.
nick
Aug 2, 2012, 8:10:56 PM8/2/12
to
On Aug 2, 6:59 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Aug 2, 5:57 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
> > hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
> > Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
> > throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
> > what you've got.
>
> If there was a lib movie teaser trailer with Olbermann, Matthews, and
> Maddow I doubt that you would be embarassed.
No. I'd be very embarrassed if there was a teaser trailer to a film
> On Aug 2, 5:57 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
> > hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
> > Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
> > throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
> > what you've got.
>
> If there was a lib movie teaser trailer with Olbermann, Matthews, and
> Maddow I doubt that you would be embarassed.
adaptation to The Great Gatsby with plugs from Keith Olbermann, Chris
Matthews and Rachel Maddow. That would be sad. As sad as getting
Dennis Miller a Dennis Miller soundbite for an Atlas Shrugged
trailer. Unlike Rand, F. Scott Fitzgerald doesn't need the political
noise machine to promote his work.
trotsky
Aug 2, 2012, 8:32:46 PM8/2/12
to
On 8/2/12 5:59 PM, calvin wrote:
> On Aug 2, 5:57 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
>> hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
>> Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
>> throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
>> what you've got.
>
> If there was a lib movie teaser trailer with Olbermann,
Why the fuck would that be?
> On Aug 2, 5:57 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ... You've got Atlash Shrugged II, what the
>> hell, let's do a teaser trailer and stick Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and
>> Dennis Miller in it, and to get the Randian fanboys drooling, let's
>> throw in a few seconds of Ayn Rand. Tarantino's right. You exploit
>> what you've got.
>
> If there was a lib movie teaser trailer with Olbermann,
calvin
Aug 3, 2012, 12:11:23 AM8/3/12
to
On Aug 2, 8:10 pm, nick <leftbehindbythetalk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ... Unlike Rand, F. Scott Fitzgerald doesn't need the political
Fitzgerald beat.
> ... Unlike Rand, F. Scott Fitzgerald doesn't need the political
> noise machine to promote his work.
If you're just talking about sales, I think Rand has
Fitzgerald beat.
tomcervo
Aug 3, 2012, 9:01:21 AM8/3/12
to
at the mosque?
calvin
Aug 3, 2012, 9:59:46 AM8/3/12
to
nick
Aug 3, 2012, 6:07:48 PM8/3/12
to
On Aug 3, 12:11 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
is . . . ?
calvin
Aug 3, 2012, 7:14:08 PM8/3/12
to
were just talking about sales, Rand needed it less than
Fitzgerald. I made no claim or assumption about
relative quality of work.
0 new messages