a far right ayn rand propaganda documentary for intellectually challenged fascist creeps to wank away with
sirb...@hotmail.com
aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh. one day, long long time ago, there
was a little bitch named ayn who was required to provide rightards with
the ability to relabel themselves the emblems of liberty, reason and
any word people might deem groovy. she was a despising anti-humanist
little bitch, so what did she do, label herself the emblem of humanism!
she was an authoritarian cunt particularly fond of having yes-men
around her, so what did she do, label herself a ''libertarian''! she
was the result of a result, a yes-woman of power, control and authority
so what did she do, relabel herself a ''libertarian''. she was the
representation and reproduction of the powers that be and was
particularly fond of hierarchical and oppressive institution known as
the corporation so what did she do, relabel herself ''the
individualist''. what kind of ''individual''? ah well, the one in
power, of course! that the right's been associated with religion? well
repeat over and over again how neutral, moderate and cool you are
because you're an ''atheist'', just to stop the flow of anti-religious
chaps into the left (and ironically provide religion far greater room
for maneuvre)! add two and two together and you'll understand why
certain morally abject far right crapbags desperately need so much
intense doublespeak. rand will forever be a favourite for the hardline
right.
the funny little complicity between fascism and capitalism was
self-evident and in came rand, like the band, like the wind, like a
hurricane. so whenever you see a little far right creep who doesnt
admit he's a neo-conservative, who claims to be reason and liberty, you
know to provide him a lot less respect than the honest ones who at
least admit being neocons). i'll leave you with the only half-decent
review of some poor guy who suffered throu the 2 and a half hours of
this brainwashing movie for idiots.
"Ayn says: Businessmen are the last hope of US Civilization", 7 May
2004
2/10
Author: ChrisWN from Santa Cruz, CA
screams a newspaper header pictured in this documentary. Finally, the
stupid people of the world have their own philosopher & this film
covers her life's work & story very well.
Bereft of any intellectual discussions, this film repeats Rand's
"philosophy" over & over: individualism over collectivism, rationality
above all, humans must heed their inner voice....repeated over & over
with exceptionally annoying background music. It's quite obvious that
this "documentary" is really a thinly veiled marketing video produced
by the Ayn Rand Institute. All of those who are interviewed are her
friends. The film never engages critically or substantively ( or is
there no substance to "objectivism"?) with philosophical, economic, or
political ideas. Hence, the contradictions that crop up (to a person
with the capacity to think, anyway) are glaring: Ayn is on the hunt for
the "ultimate man" with her fiction yet marries an unassuming dolt, Ayn
is preaching individualism from a rarerified life inside a Frank Lloyd
Wright castle while the collective masses outside protest
segregation...
The film does cover a few details of her life in order to portray her
as the classic immigrant to the US who struggles against all odds to
become sucessful. But the filmmakers really have to go overboard to do
this, hence the ad nauseum repetition. They repeat over & over that she
was fascinated with the New York skyline in Hollywood movies & that
this shaped her philosophy & novels. But, she had to walk to work to
save up enough money so to see a movie (420 movies in 2 years that
is).....of course, lots of others emigrated to the US on dreams too &
at least they don't have an over-inflated sense of self. So what makes
Ayn so special? That she's unapollagetically an atheist? Emma Goldman
is more interesting. That she didn't bake cookies....? A lot of
housewives have contributed more to
society than this woman. That her books helped many conservatives and
libertarians let go of any social conscious they may have had & helped
them succeed in business without even trying? Her most popular books
were fiction & not self-help or how-to books. That she set up the Ayn
Rand institute, an hommage to herself, to keep the cult going.
Scientology, Focus on The Family, and UFO abductees are just as
successful at this...
The only conclusion I can come to after seeing this film is that Ayn
Rand became successful because she is the truest mirror for Americans
to bask in their own reflection:
1. act selfishly, it is your true nature 2. self-promotion makes your
life's work into a work of art, and the more money you die with, the
more staying power your life's work will have. 3. the more you repeat
things, the truer they become 4. all of your intellectual capacity,
moral guidance & reflection can be summed up on a cocktail
napkin.....even if you've had 3 too many martinis.
oh, and repeat after me: "There's no place like home, there's no place
like home...."
Calvin
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
I have the VHS tape. It's very nice. Macpherson hates it though,
so he wins.
Kingo Gondo
semi-respectable intellectual circles. And I would call myself a
libertarian.
Of course, blobby, if you ever manage to make to even semi-respectable
intellectual circles, or even semi-respectable semi-intellectual
semi-circles (still highly, highly doubtful even at that standard), you will
steal her crown.
enki
I have read or have listened to parts of the book. It does come off as
very arrogent but still makes very good points. It is not the be all
and end all of philosophy does a good job of countering socialist
arguments.
enki
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
>
> aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh. one day, long long time ago, there
> was a little bitch named ayn who was required to provide rightards with
> the ability to relabel themselves the emblems of liberty, reason and
> any word people might deem groovy. she was a despising anti-humanist
> little bitch, so what did she do, label herself the emblem of humanism!
Yes she is arrogent and it make reading dificult.
> she was an authoritarian cunt particularly fond of having yes-men
> around her, so what did she do, label herself a ''libertarian''! she
> was the result of a result, a yes-woman of power, control and authority
> so what did she do, relabel herself a ''libertarian''.
How do you derrive this authoritarianism from her work. The ideas abe
based that people have a choice. She makes the argument that rational
self interest is the best way.
Please explain how you get authoritarianism from her?
she was the
> representation and reproduction of the powers that be and was
> particularly fond of hierarchical and oppressive institution known as
> the corporation so what did she do, relabel herself ''the
> individualist''. what kind of ''individual''? ah well, the one in
> power, of course! that the right's been associated with religion?
She also speaks against religous athority I do believe calling them the
other worldly. She see the selfless aspects of religon as bad.
well
> repeat over and over again how neutral, moderate and cool you are
> because you're an ''atheist'', just to stop the flow of anti-religious
> chaps into the left (and ironically provide religion far greater room
> for maneuvre)! add two and two together and you'll understand why
> certain morally abject far right crapbags desperately need so much
> intense doublespeak. rand will forever be a favourite for the hardline
> right.
Sorry, You loose me there.
>
> the funny little complicity between fascism and capitalism was
> self-evident and in came rand, like the band, like the wind, like a
> hurricane. so whenever you see a little far right creep who doesnt
> admit he's a neo-conservative, who claims to be reason and liberty, you
> know to provide him a lot less respect than the honest ones who at
> least admit being neocons). i'll leave you with the only half-decent
> review of some poor guy who suffered throu the 2 and a half hours of
> this brainwashing movie for idiots.
OK, you didn't like the movie or point of view. I am fimilliar with
the book and have read parts of it. I havn't seen the movie and am not
sure how well her arguments are made or the motives of the maker. It
is quite posible that the movie was written in a way to twist her
ideas.
If you calm down there are enough people here who could explain her
ideas and the value of those ideas. What ever you call here
liberitarian but more objectivism. That there is a world as it is.
There are right and wrong ways to do things. There are poor good and
better ways of building a bridge or a house for example and it is our
work and intelligence which find the best ways to manipulate nature to
our advantage. If she is authoritarian it that nature is
authoritarian. It has not pitty for our desires or wants it just is
despite what we would like and the more we face that the better off we
will be.
> Bereft of any intellectual discussions, this film repeats Rand's
> "philosophy" over & over: individualism over collectivism, rationality
> above all, humans must heed their inner voice....repeated over & over
> with exceptionally annoying background music. It's quite obvious that
> this "documentary" is really a thinly veiled marketing video produced
> by the Ayn Rand Institute. All of those who are interviewed are her
> friends. The film never engages critically or substantively ( or is
> there no substance to "objectivism"?) with philosophical, economic, or
> political ideas. Hence, the contradictions that crop up (to a person
> with the capacity to think, anyway) are glaring: Ayn is on the hunt for
> the "ultimate man" with her fiction yet marries an unassuming dolt, Ayn
> is preaching individualism from a rarerified life inside a Frank Lloyd
> Wright castle while the collective masses outside protest
> segregation...
I don't know much about here personal life and don't care. From what I
know about her work, she makes good points and other points don't hold
up well. Take some ideas like them or not and we could have a
discussion.
>
> The only conclusion I can come to after seeing this film is that Ayn
> Rand became successful because she is the truest mirror for Americans
> to bask in their own reflection:
>
> 1. act selfishly, it is your true nature 2. self-promotion makes your
> life's work into a work of art, and the more money you die with, the
> more staying power your life's work will have. 3. the more you repeat
> things, the truer they become 4. all of your intellectual capacity,
> moral guidance & reflection can be summed up on a cocktail
> napkin.....even if you've had 3 too many martinis.
I can understand your take and it can seem selfish and to an extent it
is. There are some philosophers who see selfishness as good.
Basically if you want freedom then people are free to be selfish. To
remove that right or basic property rights is a huge degration of
freedom. The basic premise to property is being able to exclue others.
We have property as a result of work. We take things in nature and
transform them into things that people want. Finding metal ore and
making a plow out of it takes considerable effort. If there was no
reward for all the work then people would not expend the effort to make
the plow.
The disturbing thing for most moralists that Rand dosn't see inherent
humand value but only what they produce. If you value your family they
you will spend time and physical resources on them but you are not
required.
I am not trying to get into an argument but a discussion of her ideas
and their value based on logic.
Lewis Mammel
Say, you haven't been reading Nietzsche lately, have you? Just wondering.
This one went forth in quest of truth as a hero, and at last got
for himself a small dressed-up lie: his marriage he calls it.
That one was reserved and chose warily. But then he spoilt his
company for all time: his marriage he calls it.
David Oberman
>Say, you haven't been reading Nietzsche lately, have you? Just wondering.
blob doesn't read Nietzsche. He just sort of paraphrases him.
Actually, he doesn't paraphrase him, either. He just sort of ...
mentions him.
____
Most people keep their thermostat set to around 78. That's
way too damn hot. I prefer the thermostat set to about 72.
-- Spinoza
George Dance
Kingo Gondo wrote:
> Rand is the most overblown bag of crap I have ever encountered in even
> semi-respectable intellectual circles.
Don't you understand how stupid that sounds? It's like you told us
that Ayn Rand had cooties.
If you want your opinion to matter to anyone, as opposed to wanting to
say something stupid, it might be good to give at least one reason, one
example that might support your opinion.
> And I would call myself a
> libertarian.
>
> Of course, blobby, if you ever manage to make to even semi-respectable
> intellectual circles, or even semi-respectable semi-intellectual
> semi-circles (still highly, highly doubtful even at that standard), you will
> steal her crown.
Well, that was an impressive flame, but wasted as you'd already lost t
least some of your audience by that point.
JC
Is it really true that Ayn Rand had cooties?
Kingo Gondo
"George Dance" <george...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:1165647685.5...@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
> > Rand is the most overblown bag of crap I have ever encountered in even
> > semi-respectable intellectual circles.
>
> Don't you understand how stupid that sounds? It's like you told us
> that Ayn Rand had cooties.
>
> If you want your opinion to matter to anyone, as opposed to wanting to
> say something stupid, it might be good to give at least one reason, one
> example that might support your opinion.
I am not here to have some debate about Rand--God Almighty, the last way on
earth I want to spend my time is yammering away with Randians. It was my 2
cents, and I am done. If you want more there are endless texts squandered on
this annoying bitch. Enjoy them.
Kingo Gondo
"David Oberman" <doberman@[socal.rr.com]> wrote in message
news:ocnkn2h66blr2be6i...@4ax.com...
> Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >Say, you haven't been reading Nietzsche lately, have you? Just wondering.
>
> blob doesn't read Nietzsche. He just sort of paraphrases him.
> Actually, he doesn't paraphrase him, either. He just sort of ...
> mentions him.
Hey, at least if you are in the same room with a paraphrase of Nietzsche,
you are somewhere.
michael
> Is it really true that Ayn Rand had cooties?
the one time i saw her on johnny carson she scratched away like she had
cooties the size of quail eggs the whole time... i never went to the
fountainhead pub on davie street in vancouver for fear of becoming
infested by association...
michael
sirb...@hotmail.com
enki ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
> >
> > aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh. one day, long long time ago, there
> > was a little bitch named ayn who was required to provide rightards with
> > the ability to relabel themselves the emblems of liberty, reason and
> > any word people might deem groovy. she was a despising anti-humanist
> > little bitch, so what did she do, label herself the emblem of humanism!
>
> Yes she is arrogent and it make reading dificult.
>
> > she was an authoritarian cunt particularly fond of having yes-men
> > around her, so what did she do, label herself a ''libertarian''! she
> > was the result of a result, a yes-woman of power, control and authority
> > so what did she do, relabel herself a ''libertarian''.
>
> How do you derrive this authoritarianism from her work. The ideas abe
> based that people have a choice. She makes the argument that rational
> self interest is the best way.
>
> Please explain how you get authoritarianism from her?
>
your post was fairly honest but i've basically made my points already.
nevertheless, i'll go throu them again. yes i do get a heightened sense
of authoritarianism from her. her ''individual'' is a fantasy right
winger. the only ''individual'' she's defending is one within the
magnetic fields of power she'll feel happy with. so she'd be on the
side of copyright wankers criminalising ''happy birthday'' and against
individuals sharing such material. see, her ''property'' fantasy only
works in her twisted direction. she wants ''reason'' and ''rational''
whatever to be on her side. who doesn't when they want to win
arguments. she will always side with the richer and those who steal the
lives of the weaker. take a lion and rabbit, she will always side with
the lion. that is all she is.
> she was the
> > representation and reproduction of the powers that be and was
> > particularly fond of hierarchical and oppressive institution known as
> > the corporation so what did she do, relabel herself ''the
> > individualist''. what kind of ''individual''? ah well, the one in
> > power, of course! that the right's been associated with religion?
>
> She also speaks against religous athority I do believe calling them the
> other worldly. She see the selfless aspects of religon as bad.
> well
the late 20th century saw the right wing's need to convince its
population to vote for them every four years. what does that mean? well
a new far right wing rhetoric was required to salvage the outspoken
neoconservative god-on-our-side stance, and that's where rand came in.
OF COURSE she made a big deal of being an atheist, it was a way of
saying you can be a fascist without going to church, a way of getting
more votes. which is why she also labelled herself a materialist. but
since her materialism is grounded in the authority of the powerful, of
the king, and the king's responds only to god, she was a lame rip-off
of the same previous spiritual agenda.
and she really did seem to be speaking tongues didnt she. i mean, you
say ''objectivism'' is ''the world is'', and i gaze in dismay and
wonder ''really? really? did no one come up with something like that
before her?! unfuckinglikely!''
indeed, she was very much a theological seminarist! and while my talk
of her is a process of revealing, hers is a labour of concealment.
which aint a surprise, that's what right wingers have always done.
> > repeat over and over again how neutral, moderate and cool you are
> > because you're an ''atheist'', just to stop the flow of anti-religious
> > chaps into the left (and ironically provide religion far greater room
> > for maneuvre)! add two and two together and you'll understand why
> > certain morally abject far right crapbags desperately need so much
> > intense doublespeak. rand will forever be a favourite for the hardline
> > right.
>
> Sorry, You loose me there.
> >
rand is the greatest thing that can happen to a fascist. it's a way of
denying one's own fascism and claiming it materialist liberty. that's
all her doublespeak is about. she's got a great future in the far right
wing's mass media.
> > the funny little complicity between fascism and capitalism was
> > self-evident and in came rand, like the band, like the wind, like a
> > hurricane. so whenever you see a little far right creep who doesnt
> > admit he's a neo-conservative, who claims to be reason and liberty, you
> > know to provide him a lot less respect than the honest ones who at
> > least admit being neocons). i'll leave you with the only half-decent
> > review of some poor guy who suffered throu the 2 and a half hours of
> > this brainwashing movie for idiots.
>
> OK, you didn't like the movie or point of view. I am fimilliar with
> the book and have read parts of it. I havn't seen the movie and am not
> sure how well her arguments are made or the motives of the maker. It
> is quite posible that the movie was written in a way to twist her
> ideas.
goodness me no. i haven't seen the movie or read the book. that's
something i pasted from someone who'd seen the movie, and i agree with
it because of the amount of rightards i've caught wanking n quoting her
books, so i practically know all her phony points by now. and no, there
is no way on earth i'm going to read her tripe. i think it's more than
forgivable, given that all the randian fanboys have never read any good
philosophy nor show any signs of intelligence.
well reductio ad homynems explain a lot. for instance, what was a
''libertarian'' ''champion of freedom'' ordering people about like
that? she was a total fascist bitch in real life and she obviously
needed to build a bureaucracy around herself to justify being such a
creep.
her points have been made by other conservatives in a much more honest,
concise and intelligent manner. certainly before her. after, i dont
know, since they've gone all down the randian drain and quote her every
two paragraphs. current neoconservative libtard behaviour consists of
intense doublespeak that seem written by 4 year olds.
> >
>
>
> > The only conclusion I can come to after seeing this film is that Ayn
> > Rand became successful because she is the truest mirror for Americans
> > to bask in their own reflection:
> >
> > 1. act selfishly, it is your true nature 2. self-promotion makes your
> > life's work into a work of art, and the more money you die with, the
> > more staying power your life's work will have. 3. the more you repeat
> > things, the truer they become 4. all of your intellectual capacity,
> > moral guidance & reflection can be summed up on a cocktail
> > napkin.....even if you've had 3 too many martinis.
>
> I can understand your take and it can seem selfish and to an extent it
> is. There are some philosophers who see selfishness as good.
> Basically if you want freedom then people are free to be selfish. To
> remove that right or basic property rights is a huge degration of
> freedom. The basic premise to property is being able to exclue others.
> We have property as a result of work. We take things in nature and
> transform them into things that people want. Finding metal ore and
> making a plow out of it takes considerable effort. If there was no
> reward for all the work then people would not expend the effort to make
> the plow.
rand would clearly be on the side of slavery. there is no question
about it. she's a fascist monarchist warlord authoritarian you name it,
that's what she was, i'm afraid.
no. selfishness is ok, it's an end, not a function and it contains a
lot of pleasure. but to go around forcing the absolute that
self-interest is recommendable and justified is ethically criminal,
stupid and immoral. it breeds one tyranny after the next, all of which
rand would support. she'd support whatever she could get away with. and
current right wing rhetoric consists in blaming all the ills of the
world on the left. example, the british financial empire conquers india
for itself, divides it in a ridiculous line and the pakistanis and
indians slaughter each other. example, the usa invades iraq and the
sunnis and shiites slaughter each other. never the fault of the
imperialists, according to rand. britain and the usa are on the moral
highground. while civils rights were being fought in the usa, she was
in her ivory tower wanking away to power, control and domination. she'd
compliment a cocaine farmer or a hard drug dealer for their moral good
work. but that's just the iceberg. she would always be on the side of
the employers, anywhere anytime, in 2006 and 3000bc while the slaves
built the pyramids. i'm sure if you look closely at those
hieroglyphics, you can find an equivalent of ayn rand.
>
> The disturbing thing for most moralists that Rand dosn't see inherent
> humand value but only what they produce. If you value your family they
> you will spend time and physical resources on them but you are not
> required.
>
> I am not trying to get into an argument but a discussion of her ideas
> and their value based on logic.
logic was also another thing she'd want on her side because she was an
abject cheating bitch.
sirb...@hotmail.com
George Dance ha escrito:
YOU are talking to gingo gongo, famous for being a coward hit n run
pussy, thou one wonders what and whether he thinks he's hitting
something at all.
sirb...@hotmail.com
Lewis Mammel ha escrito:
yeah i read two nietszche books half way i think, eternal return and
can't remember the title of the other one right now, but i stopped them
halfway cuz i knew it all already and i'm devastatingly lazy
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
sirbloboshit wrote:
> aynt she a fascist little bitch
What a pathetic desperate tosser ewe are.
sirb...@hotmail.com
mikegor...@xtra.co.nz ha escrito:
> sirbloboshit wrote:
> > aynt she a fascist little bitch
>
> What a pathetic desperate tosser ewe are.
still alive, you nazi fuck? i would have thought the cows would have
eaten you by now.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Howard Brazee
<kingo_nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Rand is the most overblown bag of crap I have ever encountered in even
>semi-respectable intellectual circles. And I would call myself a
>libertarian.
She's a teen-age boy's wet dream of Libertarianism. Where the teen
ager fancies himself as John Galt.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Kingo Gondo wrote:
> Rand is the most overblown bag of crap I have ever encountered in even
> semi-respectable intellectual circles. And I would call myself a
> libertarian.
Which is why libertarians need to watch their backs when dopey commie
cunts like you call yourself libertarian.
MG
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
sirbloboshit wrote:
> aynt she a fascist little bitch,
Ewe poor desperate sad commie cunt.
MG
*Anarcissie*
enki wrote:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
> >
> > aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh. one day, long long time ago, there
> > was a little bitch named ayn who was required to provide rightards with
> > the ability to relabel themselves the emblems of liberty, reason and
> > any word people might deem groovy. she was a despising anti-humanist
> > little bitch, so what did she do, label herself the emblem of humanism!
>
> Yes she is arrogent and it make reading dificult.
>
> > she was an authoritarian cunt particularly fond of having yes-men
> > around her, so what did she do, label herself a ''libertarian''! she
> > was the result of a result, a yes-woman of power, control and authority
> > so what did she do, relabel herself a ''libertarian''.
>
> How do you derrive this authoritarianism from her work. The ideas abe
> based that people have a choice. She makes the argument that rational
> self interest is the best way.
>
> Please explain how you get authoritarianism from her?
>
Rand insists that everyone has to think exactly as
she does. But then she comes up with liberalism of a
sort, which is a curious turn. That is, in her theories.
In every account of her personal life I have read, she
comes across as a control freak.
JC
I saw her on Carson and again a few years later on either
his show or Dick Cavett's show, or maybe both. I had
met her once, too. I don't remember an itch. I was
itching to ask her about her accent.
a_friend
George Dance wrote:
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
> > Rand is the most overblown bag of crap I have ever encountered in even
> > semi-respectable intellectual circles.
>
> Don't you understand how stupid that sounds? It's like you told us
> that Ayn Rand had cooties.
"Cooties" -- thanks for the laugh George -- that was hilarious.
Calvin
an evil book, or whatever you want to call it, it is a
monumental work of fiction, and anyone who hasn't read
it is the poorer for it.
Anyone who will take the word of agenda-driven people in
the academic world, or idiots on Usenet, instead of seeing
for himself/herself is really missing out. Just find a copy
and start reading. It will blow you away. Ayn Rand writes
one hell of a story.
Wull
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1165676128.3...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
enki
Probibly got the opinion from a South Park episode where it was
mentioned.
enki
Why not debate it? You don't have to like or agree with the philosophy
but how does it harm your to learn things new. I strongly disagree
with Marx and wonder why so many people find it appealing.
enki
It is a good story the collaps of the US through socialism. Still
important issues and philosophies are presented. The book is very
arrogent and his hard to plow through. I would still recomend that
book to any one who wants to be a thinkers. I do like the ideas but
have plenty of criticizm. Still, somone has to raise the issues and it
is a good topic for disciussion.
JC
> It is a good story the collaps of the US through socialism.
What would happen if the United States, through the
leadership of an ignoramus who takes his marching orders
"from a higher father," ordered an invasion of another
nation for no reason at a cost of $2 trillion in borrowed
money paid mostly to civilian contractors whose owners
vociferously oppose socialism?
Is that sentence too long for you to parse?
enki
> nevertheless, i'll go throu them again. yes i do get a heightened sense
> of authoritarianism from her. her ''individual'' is a fantasy right
> winger. the only ''individual'' she's defending is one within the
> magnetic fields of power she'll feel happy with. so she'd be on the
> side of copyright wankers criminalising ''happy birthday'' and against
> individuals sharing such material. see, her ''property'' fantasy only
> works in her twisted direction. she wants ''reason'' and ''rational''
> whatever to be on her side. who doesn't when they want to win
> arguments. she will always side with the richer and those who steal the
> lives of the weaker. take a lion and rabbit, she will always side with
> the lion. that is all she is.
She makes her arguments and there is nothing stopping you from
countering them. I would enjoy the discussion. I do like some of here
points but have disagreements in other areas. I understand that you
don't like the philosophy but do your self a favor take some time and
indentify the ideas you don't like and why you disagree. I often feel
the same way about Marx but I have to step back and articulate my
criticism.
>
>
>
> the late 20th century saw the right wing's need to convince its
> population to vote for them every four years. what does that mean? well
> a new far right wing rhetoric was required to salvage the outspoken
> neoconservative god-on-our-side stance, and that's where rand came in.
> OF COURSE she made a big deal of being an atheist, it was a way of
> saying you can be a fascist without going to church, a way of getting
> more votes. which is why she also labelled herself a materialist. but
> since her materialism is grounded in the authority of the powerful, of
> the king, and the king's responds only to god, she was a lame rip-off
> of the same previous spiritual agenda.
You sound more like you are describing Thomas Hobbes. He was for the
power of the king over the forces of chaos. If you look at Atlas
Shrugged, there is a total lack of coersion on either side. The wole
premise of the book is that people can withhold their efforts it they
don't think they are justly compensated. Just like you choosing not to
buy a product you don't need want or somone offers a better value.
>
> and she really did seem to be speaking tongues didnt she. i mean, you
> say ''objectivism'' is ''the world is'', and i gaze in dismay and
> wonder ''really? really? did no one come up with something like that
> before her?! unfuckinglikely!''
Those ideas are as old as Aristotle and phislsophy itself. That is
just her take on objectivism. In a modern world most people do see how
things are produced and doon't realize the effort involved. You buy
some thing in the store. Some one had to make it or make the machine
that made it. We have had a few people that came up with ideas that
greatly improved our lives and we take it for granted. We see how a
corporation a accumilates wealth but we often don't recognize the
benifit we get from a corporation.
>
> indeed, she was very much a theological seminarist! and while my talk
> of her is a process of revealing, hers is a labour of concealment.
> which aint a surprise, that's what right wingers have always done.
You loose me here.
>
>
>
>
> rand is the greatest thing that can happen to a fascist. it's a way of
> denying one's own fascism and claiming it materialist liberty. that's
> all her doublespeak is about. she's got a great future in the far right
> wing's mass media.
Please make an argument not just a statment. I don't see how you come
to that conclusion. How is my refusing to work or live up to my
potential if I don't feel I am compensated, facism?
>
>
>
>
> goodness me no. i haven't seen the movie or read the book. that's
> something i pasted from someone who'd seen the movie, and i agree with
> it because of the amount of rightards i've caught wanking n quoting her
> books, so i practically know all her phony points by now. and no, there
> is no way on earth i'm going to read her tripe. i think it's more than
> forgivable, given that all the randian fanboys have never read any good
> philosophy nor show any signs of intelligence.
I say the same thing about Marx, I view it as appealing as gay porn.
It is some thing I have to read eventually and I am not going to like
it. I don't get your reasonong it sound more emotional. Socialism
is my religon and somthing that counters it is evil and heritical.
You are only hurting yourself with your intollerance for other ideas.
>
>
>
> well reductio ad homynems explain a lot. for instance, what was a
> ''libertarian'' ''champion of freedom'' ordering people about like
> that? she was a total fascist bitch in real life and she obviously
> needed to build a bureaucracy around herself to justify being such a
> creep.
Still I don't get your point. You don't like an idea so you attack the
person and oin that basis what they say in invalid. That is a terrible
way to devlope thought. Again how is working as cab driver when you
graduated at the top of your class in medicine wrong for what ever your
reason?
>
> her points have been made by other conservatives in a much more honest,
> concise and intelligent manner. certainly before her. after, i dont
> know, since they've gone all down the randian drain and quote her every
> two paragraphs. current neoconservative libtard behaviour consists of
> intense doublespeak that seem written by 4 year olds.
>
Deal with that issue seperatly. When somone quotes here give the
obvious response. Engage in debate streingthen your mind. Don't take
the easy way out by attacking the motives of a person.
> >
> >
> > I can understand your take and it can seem selfish and to an extent it
> > is. There are some philosophers who see selfishness as good.
> > Basically if you want freedom then people are free to be selfish. To
> > remove that right or basic property rights is a huge degration of
> > freedom. The basic premise to property is being able to exclue others.
> > We have property as a result of work. We take things in nature and
> > transform them into things that people want. Finding metal ore and
> > making a plow out of it takes considerable effort. If there was no
> > reward for all the work then people would not expend the effort to make
> > the plow.
> rand would clearly be on the side of slavery. there is no question
> about it. she's a fascist monarchist warlord authoritarian you name it,
> that's what she was, i'm afraid.
How do you derrive that? The whole premise of her work is that people
don't have to produce. The reason people do difficult things is
because they want compensation. Take drug companies for example. They
don't produce medicine because of their humanity they want to make
money. If the incentive is taken away and people don't see that field
as worth wile people won't study it and they will find jobs in oter
areas. I am not saying that all people are modivated by profit but
many people are.
Let say that there was a standard wage every one earned. I would seek
out the easist job out there because anything more dificult would not
be worth it. It is easier to do a job yourself than training and
modivating somone else to do that same job. Not all people can be good
and effective leaders. There has been a debate over CEO compensation.
I would take a multi-million dollar CEO job and I would only charge two
hundred thousand. I havn't gotten any offers. Wonder why?
> no. selfishness is ok, it's an end, not a function and it contains a
> lot of pleasure. but to go around forcing the absolute that
> self-interest is recommendable and justified is ethically criminal,
> stupid and immoral. it breeds one tyranny after the next, all of which
> rand would support. she'd support whatever she could get away with. and
> current right wing rhetoric consists in blaming all the ills of the
> world on the left. example, the british financial empire conquers india
> for itself, divides it in a ridiculous line and the pakistanis and
> indians slaughter each other. example, the usa invades iraq and the
> sunnis and shiites slaughter each other. never the fault of the
> imperialists, according to rand. britain and the usa are on the moral
> highground. while civils rights were being fought in the usa, she was
> in her ivory tower wanking away to power, control and domination. she'd
> compliment a cocaine farmer or a hard drug dealer for their moral good
> work. but that's just the iceberg. she would always be on the side of
> the employers, anywhere anytime, in 2006 and 3000bc while the slaves
> built the pyramids. i'm sure if you look closely at those
> hieroglyphics, you can find an equivalent of ayn rand.
First if you read the book neither side uses violence or corersion.
She states violence and coersion are highly immoral and ineffictive.
When people make bad decision they fail and there is a natural proscess
which stupid and untallented don't succeed. To be successful in
business is that you have to satisfyt the consumer. Basically your
please your fellow man. If you don't make somthing that is useful and
in an efficient way some one else will.
Rand has her flaws but still you have given me a bunch of assumptions
based on things that have nothing to do with her ideas. Marx had his
ideas but he didn't advocate gulags or re-education camps. Those were
things that were imposed on people who he influenced not what he
advocated.
>
> .
> >
> > I am not trying to get into an argument but a discussion of her ideas
> > and their value based on logic.
I am not saying in an argument but make an argument. Take evidence,
somthing she wrote and say why it is false.
> logic was also another thing she'd want on her side because she was an
> abject cheating bitch.
That has nothing to do with the ideas. What is the big deal about
trashing a person you don't like then discrediting them on the basis of
that trashing. It is circular reasoning.
Rand is a stupid bitch. Because she is a bitch her ideas are invalid.
I think you are using the Chewbacca defence.
George Dance
Possibly. Or maybe the Simpsons episode featuring the Ayn Rand School
for Tots daycare.
enki
>
> Rand insists that everyone has to think exactly as
> she does. But then she comes up with liberalism of a
> sort, which is a curious turn. That is, in her theories.
> In every account of her personal life I have read, she
> comes across as a control freak.
Yes, she is arrogent. People can think that 2+2 = 5 but they woulld be
wrong. She wants us to recognize that the universe has laws that it
does and all of our whiching won't change facts.
We might think that it is better for cars to run on water not gas.
Nature may or may not have a solution for that desire. If it is
possible then people have to work hard to find out.
enki
There is nothing wrong with admitting you are lazy we all are we want
the most benifite from the least work. If you want to read Nietzsch
the easiest is Human all too Human.
enki
Unfortunaly when you post as you do this is the kind of responses you
get.
David Oberman
Calvin, do you like Oregon wild blueberries?
____
Most people keep their thermostat set to around 78. That's
way too damn hot. I prefer the thermostat set to about 72.
-- Spinoza
Calvin
> Calvin, do you like Oregon wild blueberries?
I presume you read my most recent words to you.
David Oberman
I did. But I refuse to accept the depressing possibility that you will
ignore me completely from now on. You're too good a man for that: too
kind, too thoughtful, too gracious.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
[deletion]
> Calvin, do you like Oregon wild blueberries?
I'm not Calvin, although I am increasingly /calvus/, but overall I prefer
huckleberries to blueberries.
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Calvin
> I did. But I refuse to accept the depressing possibility that you will
I G N O R E (just practicing)
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
> "David Oberman" <doberman@[socal.rr.com]> wrote in message
> news:ocnkn2h66blr2be6i...@4ax.com...
>> Lewis Mammel <l.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Say, you haven't been reading Nietzsche lately, have you? Just
>>> wondering.
>>
>> Actually, he doesn't paraphrase him, either. He just sort of ...
>> mentions him.
>
> Hey, at least if you are in the same room with a paraphrase of
> Nietzsche, you are somewhere.
Allow me to call to your mind Kevin Kline's character Otto in _A Fish Called
Wanda_; he thinks he knows all about Nietzsche in particular and philosophy
in general.
When Otto first meets Ken (Michael Palin), he says: "You really like
animals, don't you, Ken? What's the attraction?"
Ken stutters in reply: "Because you can t-t-trust them, and they don't
sh-sh-sh..."
Otto: "Shit on you? Show off all the time? Know what Nietzsche said about
them?
He said they were God's second blunder."
Much later in the film, Wanda (Jamie Lee Curtis) is raking Otto over the
coals for being stupid. He says, not for the first time: "Don't call me
stupid."
Wanda: "Oh, right! To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people!
I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs.
But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"
Otto: "Apes don't read philosophy."
Wanda: "Yes, they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me
correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The
central message of Buddhism is not every man for himself. The London
Underground is not a political movement. Those are all mistakes. I looked
'em up."
David Oberman
>I'm not Calvin, although I am increasingly /calvus/, but overall I prefer
>huckleberries to blueberries.
I don't think I've ever had a huckleberry, Frank. I've had gooseberry
pancakes with loganberry syrup (or something), & I went to Knott's
Berry Farm 50 million times to buy jars of boysenberries, &c.
There's something majestic about the blueberry: from its richly royal
blue color to the little diadem encircling its cranium to the ease
with which it moves from use to use.
www.roadsideattractions.ca/blueberry.jpg
http://refractedmoments.com/images/20050914152937_blueberry.jpg
www.ushbc.org/recipes/Blueberry%20Lemon%20Charlotte%20BC-17.jpg
www.piekitchen.com/pies/blueberry-lg.jpg
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman ha escrito:
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> >David Oberman wrote:
> >> Calvin, do you like Oregon wild blueberries?
> >
> >I presume you read my most recent words to you.
>
> I did. But I refuse to accept the depressing possibility that you will
> ignore me completely from now on. You're too good a man for that: too
> kind, too thoughtful, too gracious.
>
>
>
funny, that. reminds me of our situation, boots. sufjan dixit:
''we swaggered and swayed...''
sirb...@hotmail.com
enki ha escrito:
surely i knew that without being told it's an absolute by the far
right, who are the ones i keep finding quoting rand.
> >
> > indeed, she was very much a theological seminarist! and while my talk
> > of her is a process of revealing, hers is a labour of concealment.
> > which aint a surprise, that's what right wingers have always done.
>
> You loose me here.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > rand is the greatest thing that can happen to a fascist. it's a way of
> > denying one's own fascism and claiming it materialist liberty. that's
> > all her doublespeak is about. she's got a great future in the far right
> > wing's mass media.
>
> Please make an argument not just a statment. I don't see how you come
> to that conclusion. How is my refusing to work or live up to my
> potential if I don't feel I am compensated, facism?
most of the things we do today are fascist in nature. they're what the
fascists were fighting for back in the 30s. today, a trumpeting sense
of our moral highground results in fascism. didnt rand make a speech at
west point praising the american administration over vietnam? well
vietnam, like iraq, is fascist u.s. policy, and she'd love it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > goodness me no. i haven't seen the movie or read the book. that's
> > something i pasted from someone who'd seen the movie, and i agree with
> > it because of the amount of rightards i've caught wanking n quoting her
> > books, so i practically know all her phony points by now. and no, there
> > is no way on earth i'm going to read her tripe. i think it's more than
> > forgivable, given that all the randian fanboys have never read any good
> > philosophy nor show any signs of intelligence.
>
> I say the same thing about Marx, I view it as appealing as gay porn.
> It is some thing I have to read eventually and I am not going to like
> it. I don't get your reasonong it sound more emotional. Socialism
> is my religon and somthing that counters it is evil and heritical.
> You are only hurting yourself with your intollerance for other ideas.
> >
>
god no. ''socialism''? me? but rand sees ''socialism'' in everything
that isnt hierarchical slavery. in any taxes that dont go towards
militarism or further hierarchies. she's into a jingoistic moral panic
exaggerating the left where it isn't and dragging everyone to the far
right.
>
>
> >
> >
> > well reductio ad homynems explain a lot. for instance, what was a
> > ''libertarian'' ''champion of freedom'' ordering people about like
> > that? she was a total fascist bitch in real life and she obviously
> > needed to build a bureaucracy around herself to justify being such a
> > creep.
>
> Still I don't get your point. You don't like an idea so you attack the
> person and oin that basis what they say in invalid. That is a terrible
> way to devlope thought. Again how is working as cab driver when you
> graduated at the top of your class in medicine wrong for what ever your
> reason?
> >
let's see. if rand talks about freedom and she clearly opresses in real
life. how is that not telling?
a doctor to work as a cab driver? when did i say that?
she's in love with hierarchy and domination. don't you see that?
that rationalisation is the same one used in the feudal times by
warlords.
and while capitalism provides us with a way of living, don't you see
its dangers of amorality? well that's precisely what rand wanted to
turn a blind eye to.
haven't read either her fiction or her non-fiction. but of course she'd
say her side doesn't use violence or coersion. why wouldn't she? all
religions say they're against force and for peace. christians, muslims
jews all say they are peace.
but she's full of shit, just like they are. she was a propagandist so
of course she'd say her side doesn't use violence or coercion. none of
the things in capitalism would be violence or coercion to her.
hierarchies, domination, slavery and the thievery of the strong over
the weak wouldn't be coercion or force for her, so why would she say
otherwise?
> When people make bad decision they fail and there is a natural proscess
> which stupid and untallented don't succeed. To be successful in
> business is that you have to satisfyt the consumer.
but listen to yourself. that's like telling the rabbit he has to
satisfy the leopard.
Basically your
> please your fellow man.
serve him and learn that the only pleasure in life is in having someone
serve you? beautiful.
If you don't make somthing that is useful and
> in an efficient way some one else will.
>
utilitarianism was already out n about 100 years before rand.
the courtesan giving the king a blowjob?
the whites looking over the plantation as the niggers slave for them?
all fine and dandy because the niggers are free to leave, so coercion
is not being used?
> Rand has her flaws but still you have given me a bunch of assumptions
> based on things that have nothing to do with her ideas. Marx had his
> ideas but he didn't advocate gulags or re-education camps. Those were
> things that were imposed on people who he influenced not what he
> advocated.
there are many other writers i'm very familiar, too familiar with,
without having read their books. i really do think i've described many
of her points, but if you dont think so, ah well. i've even see you say
the same points as me without my having read her books. i know rand too
bloody well :-(
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> surely i knew that without being told it's an absolute by the far
> right, who are the ones i keep finding quoting rand.
I quote Rand probably more than anyone here and yet I say that YOU,
have a right, which BTW is far more likely to be found in the ideas
from the far left, that ought be enshrined into law, a right that YOU
be left alone to live YOUR life according to YOUR values, albethey the
values of a seriously fucked in the head, dopey, evil, anti-human,
parasitical, mystical, sadistical masocshist, and the ONLY condition
being, of that right, that you would have to find other equally as
fucked in the head dopey hosts, to be the parasite of. peacfully.
Now explain where and how the fuck that is being far right?
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
*Anarcissie* wrote:
>
> Rand insists that everyone has to think exactly as
> she does.
Crap, Rand insists that thinking is a process of reason, therefore
unless what you think / reason about is linked to non-contradictory
identification and intergration of the matter of sensory reality, then
what you ARE doing in reality is, whimworshipping, you know that god
crap and that greater good crap.
> But then she comes up with liberalism of a
> sort, which is a curious turn.
Crap its en entirely consistent with her idea that YOU be the sole
benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR ideas and
energy.
> That is, in her theories.
> In every account of her personal life I have read, she
> comes across as a control freak.
Thats only because you dont like the idea of beng held totally
accountable for YOUR ideas and actions.
You call be held accountable, being controlled, whereas in reality its
a method of self control.
Michael Gordge
sirb...@hotmail.com
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz ha escrito:
bla bla bla. that's doublespeak, fuckface. describe a day in your life.
all the products and slavery you consume. all the anti-humanist
endeavours you get up to in any given day. like i have to give thanks
to a far-fetched fascist fuck like you for your ''letting me live''.
that's only coz you're thouands of miles away from me and you dont need
to compete directly with me. were we neighbours, you'd be pissing on
your claimed ground like a dog. what utter bollocks.
bla bla bla, anti-humanist fascist control, power and domination freak
gordge needs the rand bitch to prove to himself what a humanist
democratic fair, freedom lover, non-dominating space oddity he is.
>
> Michael Gordge
*Anarcissie*
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >
> > Rand insists that everyone has to think exactly as
> > she does.
>
> Crap, Rand insists that thinking is a process of reason, therefore
> unless what you think / reason about is linked to non-contradictory
> identification and intergration of the matter of sensory reality, then
> what you ARE doing in reality is, whimworshipping, you know that god
> crap and that greater good crap.
>
> > But then she comes up with liberalism of a
> > sort, which is a curious turn.
>
> Crap its en entirely consistent with her idea that YOU be the sole
> benefactor and the sole decider of the results of YOUR ideas and
> energy.
>
> > That is, in her theories.
> > In every account of her personal life I have read, she
> > comes across as a control freak.
>
> Thats only because you dont like the idea of beng held totally
> accountable for YOUR ideas and actions.
It is not very logical of you to say that, since you know
nothing about me or what I have read. Perhaps we will
have to summon the ghosts of Rand and Aristotle from
the Other Side and have them spank you.
Phil
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> sirbloboshit wrote:
>
> > aynt she a fascist little bitch,
>
> Ewe poor desperate sad commie cunt.
>
> MG
They don't get come angrier or defensive than this poor sap, do they?
enki
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> enki ha escrito:
>
Si yo escribi...
Bueno, yo ha leido el Libro y no entendo como tu ha llegado a su
conclusiones. Pero voy a continuar respondiendo.
>
>
> surely i knew that without being told it's an absolute by the far
> right, who are the ones i keep finding quoting rand.
I have read a great many books from Ancient to modern. She has valid
points but she is not the end of philosophy or economics. I keep
repeading myself from what I read is that people don't have to produce
or work if they don't think the compensation is worth it. Basic risk
vs reward. People will stop producing if they are not rewarded for
their efforts.
wing's mass media.
>
> most of the things we do today are fascist in nature. they're what the
> fascists were fighting for back in the 30s. today, a trumpeting sense
> of our moral highground results in fascism. didnt rand make a speech at
> west point praising the american administration over vietnam? well
> vietnam, like iraq, is fascist u.s. policy, and she'd love it.
>
Rand has nothing to do with these issues. That is your interpitation.
I don't how you get from people fefusing to produce to waging wars you
disagree with. I don't agree with you on those issues but I can't see
how Rand has anything to do with these situations. She is explicit
that violence is completly contrary to what she believes. She was a
witness to Stallin and what she writes is mostly a reaction to that
experience.
>
> god no. ''socialism''? me? but rand sees ''socialism'' in everything
> that isnt hierarchical slavery. in any taxes that dont go towards
> militarism or further hierarchies. she's into a jingoistic moral panic
> exaggerating the left where it isn't and dragging everyone to the far
> right.
>
She is against socialism because she sees that people who engage in
commerse benift society far more than the profits they make. How much
compensation would be would be equal the benifit of his work on the
lightbulb. Take a practicle example. Go out into nature and make
somthing that somone wants. Go find iron ore and create a wrench. It
is dificult even at that low level of technology. Try to figure out
how to create light bulb or computer on your own.
> > Still I don't get your point. You don't like an idea so you attack the
> > person and oin that basis what they say in invalid. That is a terrible
> > way to devlope thought. Again how is working as cab driver when you
> > graduated at the top of your class in medicine wrong for what ever your
> > reason?
> > >
>
>
> let's see. if rand talks about freedom and she clearly opresses in real
> life. how is that not telling?
We thould burn all of Aristotle's books and disreguard all work he
influenced because he though there were natural slaves and masters.
Declair the US constution unconstitutional because the authors owned
slaves and no women or minorities had a part in writing it.
>
> a doctor to work as a cab driver? when did i say that?
I did. That is an example of from the book. You can agree or disagree
with the ideas but atleast deal with the issues the book raises. There
are people with more ability or ambition and society benifits more if
those people are free to engage in the commerse that they create. A
doctor that graduated at the top of their class would be a benfite to
society in saving lives. Being a doctor is a dificult job. If he felt
that he didn;t make enough he chose to drive a cab because it is easier
and he don't make that much less for much less work.
>
> she's in love with hierarchy and domination. don't you see that?
In a way but it is free exchange not domination. That is somone has an
idea creates a product and hires people. A business is a private
property. Again somone has an idea they go to a bank and get a loan
from that they make capital investment in equipment and people. As a
boss you have the most able people at the highest levels or your
orginization. People don't do thier jobs out instinct like bees.
Somone has to coordinate and make decision on how best to produce a
product or deliver a service.
>
> > How do you derrive that? The whole premise of her work is that people
> > don't have to produce. The reason people do difficult things is
> > because they want compensation. Take drug companies for example. They
> > don't produce medicine because of their humanity they want to make
> > money. If the incentive is taken away and people don't see that field
> > as worth wile people won't study it and they will find jobs in other
> > areas. I am not saying that all people are modivated by profit but
> > many people are.
>
>
> that rationalisation is the same one used in the feudal times by
> warlords.
In medieval times they didn't have the ideas of human rights as we know
it today. I was about two or three hundred years ago when this idea of
human rights was being concieved. Mostly is was a reaction to the
divine right or kings. Still in those time people thought people were
granted streingth by god and the stonger had a divine right to impose
their will. In rands world no matter how rich you are you can't force
comone to do somthing you will only offer the person what you think the
service is worth. They can refues. I would disagree with her on the
idea of objective value. I would say that value is purly subjective.
A thing is only worth what somone will pay for it. There are places
where this argument breaks down especially when goods and services are
offered by monopolies where there is no one who is available to offer a
lower price.
> and while capitalism provides us with a way of living, don't you see
> its dangers of amorality? well that's precisely what rand wanted to
> turn a blind eye to.
She does stress morality but I don't agree with her take. One of the
main criticizms is that there are people who have no value. Still she
is not about forcing anyone to do anything but for those who have to
withold from people they think have no value. I have a business of
making obselete products, I should find a new product or fail in my
business. I think you miss her morality. Good is being able to produce
somthing somone wants. If you don't produce anything you have no
value. Children don't produce anything but if the parent sees no value
in them they can be neglected. If there is any moral problem with Rand
is the right to neglect or not help if some one dosn't want. Again, I
disagree with what she called objective.
>
> >
> > First if you read the book neither side uses violence or corersion.
> > She states violence and coersion are highly immoral and ineffictive.
>
>
> haven't read either her fiction or her non-fiction. but of course she'd
> say her side doesn't use violence or coersion. why wouldn't she? all
> religions say they're against force and for peace. christians, muslims
> jews all say they are peace.
Hittler was too, I have listened to some of his speeches. Since the
end of Roman times just about everyone was for peace. Gods of war went
out about 1,500 years ago. Most people see violence only for defensive
purposes. Still it is how you define defence. Rand still has nothing
to do with war. Clauswitz von Kreig is all about war and he says that
war is about making somone submit to your will.
I have written in the past on my theories on violence and human nature.
Basically I think that people will be violent if it benifits them and
they can get away with it. All religon culture and isms are efforts to
curb this aspect of the human/anmial. I will expand on this idea if
you are interested.
>
> but she's full of shit, just like they are. she was a propagandist so
> of course she'd say her side doesn't use violence or coercion. none of
> the things in capitalism would be violence or coercion to her.
> hierarchies, domination, slavery and the thievery of the strong over
> the weak wouldn't be coercion or force for her, so why would she say
> otherwise?
People resort to violence and coersion on a daily basis around the
world. People have been doing this since there have been people.
100,000 years ago people used violence to get the meat and reasources
from mastadons. Written records only go back so far but all of the
evidence is that there was violence at the beginning of history. It
has been cutural evolution and experience that has taught us that there
are better ways to get things done than by coersion and violence. You
can either persuade people or coerse people not to be violent.
> > When people make bad decision they fail and there is a natural proscess
> > which stupid and untallented don't succeed. To be successful in
> > business is that you have to satisfyt the consumer.
>
> but listen to yourself. that's like telling the rabbit he has to
> satisfy the leopard.
Not so. the Rabit gets nothing in return. A government can take your
property through taxation but a coperation can't take a thing from you.
They offer you a product which you can choose or not choose to buy.
There are limits to this idea. If a corperation bought all the water
in a location charge all you had for the product and with held water
unless you became a slave. Still if some business has the government
create laws that made it impossible for others to compete with them
would also be unjust. We have limits on the free market like we put
limits on all other kinds of behaviors.
>
> Basically your
> > please your fellow man.
>
> serve him and learn that the only pleasure in life is in having someone
> serve you? beautiful.
I have a great TV Sony pleased me. I am happy with many of the
products that I buy. If I didn't like them I wouldn't buy them. I am
not happy with cell phones. I am making my choice and not giving my
money for one of them.
>
> If you don't make somthing that is useful and
> > in an efficient way some one else will.
>
> utilitarianism was already out n about 100 years before rand.
Sure. Like any philosopher they build on past ideas.
>
> the courtesan giving the king a blowjob?
Sure. What is that service worth to the giver and reciever. Still an
Illegal Alien would do it for less. I understand Rand but I don't
agree with all she writes.
>
> the whites looking over the plantation as the niggers slave for them?
> all fine and dandy because the niggers are free to leave, so coercion
> is not being used?
>
You have it all back wards. Slaver is the opposite of freedom. Those
people can't leave. If you have a crappy job you can quit and get a
better one provide you offer the needed skills. In the end you can
start your own business. People are free but there is a risk and
reward.
> > Rand has her flaws but still you have given me a bunch of assumptions
> > based on things that have nothing to do with her ideas. Marx had his
> > ideas but he didn't advocate gulags or re-education camps. Those were
> > things that were imposed on people who he influenced not what he
> > advocated.
>
> there are many other writers i'm very familiar, too familiar with,
> without having read their books. i really do think i've described many
> of her points, but if you dont think so, ah well. i've even see you say
> the same points as me without my having read her books. i know rand too
> bloody well :-(
>
I would not say accuratly. Again I have not read Marx although I am
fimilliar with his ideas. Still I need to read up on him because my
knowlege may be distorted. Your knowlege in Rand is distorted because
what you describe does not match what she wrote. I am trying to
describe my interpitation of what I read.
Kingo Gondo
Let's see--this week started with the LOTR fanboys/cultists. It's wrapping
up with the Randian cultists/obsessives. Both groups were already beyond
bearing by about my sophomore year of college. Yet, thanks to Usenet, I can
relive those good ol' days--hooray!
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
*Anarcissie* wrote:
> It is not very logical of you to say that, since you know
> nothing about me or what I have read.
Obviously you have no idea what you read.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
A silly little commie rant completely off topic as usual.
Answer the question knuckle-dragger, what is *far right* about
upholding a political principle that would have enshrined into law a
right that YOU be left free and alone to live YOUR life according to
YOUR own values, albethey the values of a seriously fucked in the head
knuckle dragging commie, the ONLY condition would be, that you would
have to find other equally as fucked in the head morons to associate
with, now how fair is that?
Now try and stick to he subject sirbloboshit.
Michael Gordge
RichA
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
>
>
> 1. act selfishly, it is your true nature 2. self-promotion makes your
> life's work into a work of art, and the more money you die with, the
> more staying power your life's work will have. 3. the more you repeat
> things, the truer they become 4. all of your intellectual capacity,
> moral guidance & reflection can be summed up on a cocktail
> napkin.....even if you've had 3 too many martinis.
>
> oh, and repeat after me: "There's no place like home, there's no place
> like home...."
Unlike the communist filth she fled whose motto (and they proved in the
1930s) was simply,
"kill anyone who disagrees with you."
chazwin
from Plato to the modern day.
"The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas.
I hearily recommend it to all. He does not mantion Ayn Rand once. In
fact he does not mantion ANY novelist because novelists do not do
serious philosophy.
Rand plays no part in Philosophy her ideas are bankrupt and without
merit. They are second hand and undigested reflections on the now
discredited Vienna school of logical positivism applied to wider
society, yet her limited bourgeois effete experiences prove of no use
for the sort of pan-social application to which her words have been
put.
Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple people. The sort of people
who glean their philosophical ideas from the back of a Cornflakes
packet: homespun red-neck notions delivered by a naive middle-class
woman under the spell of the glamour of the fascists of the pre1945
period.
Rand is no philosopher.
Chazwin
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
>
> aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh. one day, long long time ago, there
> was a little bitch named ayn who was required to provide rightards with
> the ability to relabel themselves the emblems of liberty, reason and
> any word people might deem groovy. she was a despising anti-humanist
> little bitch, so what did she do, label herself the emblem of humanism!
> she was an authoritarian cunt particularly fond of having yes-men
> around her, so what did she do, label herself a ''libertarian''! she
> was the result of a result, a yes-woman of power, control and authority
> so what did she do, relabel herself a ''libertarian''. she was the
> representation and reproduction of the powers that be and was
> particularly fond of hierarchical and oppressive institution known as
> the corporation so what did she do, relabel herself ''the
> individualist''. what kind of ''individual''? ah well, the one in
> power, of course! that the right's been associated with religion? well
> repeat over and over again how neutral, moderate and cool you are
> because you're an ''atheist'', just to stop the flow of anti-religious
> chaps into the left (and ironically provide religion far greater room
> for maneuvre)! add two and two together and you'll understand why
> certain morally abject far right crapbags desperately need so much
> intense doublespeak. rand will forever be a favourite for the hardline
> right.
>
> the funny little complicity between fascism and capitalism was
> self-evident and in came rand, like the band, like the wind, like a
> hurricane. so whenever you see a little far right creep who doesnt
> admit he's a neo-conservative, who claims to be reason and liberty, you
> know to provide him a lot less respect than the honest ones who at
> least admit being neocons). i'll leave you with the only half-decent
> review of some poor guy who suffered throu the 2 and a half hours of
> this brainwashing movie for idiots.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ayn says: Businessmen are the last hope of US Civilization", 7 May
> 2004
> 2/10
> Author: ChrisWN from Santa Cruz, CA
>
> screams a newspaper header pictured in this documentary. Finally, the
> stupid people of the world have their own philosopher & this film
> covers her life's work & story very well.
>
> Bereft of any intellectual discussions, this film repeats Rand's
> "philosophy" over & over: individualism over collectivism, rationality
> above all, humans must heed their inner voice....repeated over & over
> with exceptionally annoying background music. It's quite obvious that
> this "documentary" is really a thinly veiled marketing video produced
> by the Ayn Rand Institute. All of those who are interviewed are her
> friends. The film never engages critically or substantively ( or is
> there no substance to "objectivism"?) with philosophical, economic, or
> political ideas. Hence, the contradictions that crop up (to a person
> with the capacity to think, anyway) are glaring: Ayn is on the hunt for
> the "ultimate man" with her fiction yet marries an unassuming dolt, Ayn
> is preaching individualism from a rarerified life inside a Frank Lloyd
> Wright castle while the collective masses outside protest
> segregation...
>
> The film does cover a few details of her life in order to portray her
> as the classic immigrant to the US who struggles against all odds to
> become sucessful. But the filmmakers really have to go overboard to do
> this, hence the ad nauseum repetition. They repeat over & over that she
> was fascinated with the New York skyline in Hollywood movies & that
> this shaped her philosophy & novels. But, she had to walk to work to
> save up enough money so to see a movie (420 movies in 2 years that
> is).....of course, lots of others emigrated to the US on dreams too &
> at least they don't have an over-inflated sense of self. So what makes
> Ayn so special? That she's unapollagetically an atheist? Emma Goldman
> is more interesting. That she didn't bake cookies....? A lot of
> housewives have contributed more to
>
> society than this woman. That her books helped many conservatives and
> libertarians let go of any social conscious they may have had & helped
> them succeed in business without even trying? Her most popular books
> were fiction & not self-help or how-to books. That she set up the Ayn
> Rand institute, an hommage to herself, to keep the cult going.
> Scientology, Focus on The Family, and UFO abductees are just as
> successful at this...
>
> The only conclusion I can come to after seeing this film is that Ayn
> Rand became successful because she is the truest mirror for Americans
> to bask in their own reflection:
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
chazwin wrote:
A gleaming endorsement of his greatest fear, reason.
Calvin
> I hearily recommend it to all. He does not mantion Ayn Rand once. In
> fact he does not mantion ANY novelist because novelists do not do
> serious philosophy.
Atlas Shrugged is a great book, nevertheless.
JC
[On being Alitsa Rosenbaum aka Ayn Rand]
> Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple people. The sort of people
> who glean their philosophical ideas from the back of a Cornflakes
> packet: homespun red-neck notions delivered by a naive middle-class
> woman under the spell of the glamour of the fascists of the pre1945
> period.
>
> Rand is no philosopher.
Oy, that's telling them!
In the 1960s, the Randite species then in its infancy,
was confined to the American university campus. They
were white, middle and upper-middle class, intense,
slightly more male, and decidedly more Jewish than
other campus movements. They were engineering
majors, but not science majors.
Although one doesn't associate such descriptors with
cultists, the cultist label pegs them precisely.
Serious discussion among adherents consisted of
"Ayn likes this," "Ayn doesn't like that," and
plowing through approved literature: O Henry
and E. Stanley Gardner, stuff that any
well read 14-year-old American of the times
had absorbed. Other best selling authors
of the day, Capote, Mailer, and Auchincloss,
for example, and virtually the entire
list of contributors to _Saturday Review_
were not the sort of stuff that Ayn
would read when she wasn't being serviced
by her protoge Nathaniel Branden.
JC
It's certainly a great big book.
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > Atlas Shrugged is a great book, nevertheless.
> It's certainly a great big book.
If you're too lazy or too stupid to read it, you have
no business criticizing it.
JC
What's it about, and does Ayn Rand explain himself
better than Kneechuh's wandering Zoroaster?
Calvin
> What's it about, and does Ayn Rand explain himself
> better than Kneechuh's wandering Zoroaster?
Read it or shut up about it.
JC
I've already read Rand and I've read enough of Fritz
and I've read _Zorro_.
What you don't do is say anything about this gospel you
revere, as if to talk about it is to say the name
of God and risk upsetting him before his first cup of
coffee.
To which I say sheesh.
John W. Kennedy
At Brown, I noticed that they had a pronounced antipathy toward Tolkien.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > Read it or shut up about it.
> I've already read Rand and I've read enough of Fritz
> and I've read _Zorro_.
Apparently you haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Maybe you
have read Anthem, at most (maybe).
> What you don't do is say anything about this gospel you
> revere,
Atlas Shrugged is the only thing I've been recommending,
because it's a magnificent story, wonderfully well written.
I'm not an Objectivist, by the way.
> as if to talk about it is to say the name
> of God and risk upsetting him before his first cup of
> coffee.
> To which I say sheesh.
To your own silly assumptions.
JC
> JC wrote:
>
>>Calvin wrote:
>>
>>>Read it or shut up about it.
>>
>>I've already read Rand and I've read enough of Fritz
>>and I've read _Zorro_.
>
>
> Apparently you haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Maybe you
> have read Anthem, at most (maybe).
It's not worth arguing. I read the three major
novels 40 years ago in quick succession. I re-read
_Atlas Shrugged_, once again skipping around Galt's
marathon rant near the end, in the 1970s. By this
time, and I might mention still many years before
details of Rand's personal hypocrisies were widely
known (though known to me), I had dismissed
Atlas as crap. I liked her for awhile. She
captured my imagination from late 1965 to
early 1966. Late December and early January
roughly. I involved myself in the Nathaniel
Branden Institute lectures at the University of
Texas which led to socializing with other
Randites and a torrid affair.
I've never read _Anthem_. Rand's style is easily
imitated, and there were places in _Atlas Shrugged_
where I thought she parodied herself from _The
Fountainhead_. (She is also imitated by others.
The style of characters in Spider-Man for instance
appear drawn from Atlas.) Her favorite verb was
"integrate." If she didn't integrate once or twice
in twenty pages, you were probably reading too fast.
smw
JC wrote:
...
> I've never read _Anthem_. Rand's style is easily
> imitated, and there were places in _Atlas Shrugged_
> where I thought she parodied herself from _The
> Fountainhead_.
Quite a feat seeing that Fountainhead reads like a parody to begin with,
if, perhaps, a parody of a missing object.
Calvin
> It's not worth arguing. I read the three major
> novels 40 years ago in quick succession. I re-read
> _Atlas Shrugged_, once again skipping around Galt's
Then why do you object to me urging people to
read it for themselves? Do you think people are
too dumb to make up their own minds without you
telling them what to think?
Calvin
In both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged appear many
parodies of people like you and JC. She saw you coming a
half century ago, and nailed you perfectly. That is most
likely why you want to talk people out of reading the books
and seeing for themselves.
smw
Calvin wrote:
> smw wrote:
>
>>JC wrote:
>>
>>>I've never read _Anthem_. Rand's style is easily
>>>imitated, and there were places in _Atlas Shrugged_
>>>where I thought she parodied herself from _The
>>>Fountainhead_.
>>
>>Quite a feat seeing that Fountainhead reads like a parody to begin with,
>>if, perhaps, a parody of a missing object.
>
>
> In both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged appear many
> parodies of people like you and JC. She saw you coming a
> half century ago, and nailed you perfectly.
And she only needed the vision of a single sentence to do it! Is it any
wonder "people like me and JC" are scared of her progeny?
Calvin
> And she only needed the vision of a single sentence to do it! Is it any
> wonder "people like me and JC" are scared of her progeny?
One of the primary things that Ayn Rand skewered was
the academic world of collectivists. And ever since then
the first thing that young people who enter the academic
world are taught is to despise Ayn Rand without reading her.
Any connection? Hmmmm ...
smw
Calvin wrote:
Any fact in sight? Hmmmm...
>
trotsky
Question: why is it that I've had several college level literature
classes and Rand wasn't mentioned once?
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > One of the primary things that Ayn Rand skewered was
> > the academic world of collectivists. And ever since then
> > the first thing that young people who enter the academic
> > world are taught is to despise Ayn Rand without reading her.
> Question: why is it that I've had several college level literature
> classes and Rand wasn't mentioned once?
The answer is likely in what you quoted above your question.
In any case, you could read the book (Atlas Shrugged) whether
it's mentioned in one of your classes or not.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Isn't it interesting NOT, that when you read this very typical thread
of the indoctrinated regurgitiating Randaphobic retards and try and
find what it is specifically about Rand and her philosophy and
political ideas, that these commies Kantian khunts claim is so bad or
wrong, NONE of them mention or go into any detail about any aspect of
her ideas, not one, now why is that?
They mention her books, they mention names found in her work, they
mention words and phrases Rand originated and coined and used a lot,
but NONE of want to get into a debate about Rand's ideas, now why is
that?
None of them want to take up the challenge of explaining why they dont
want to be the sole benefactor and the sole decided of the results of
their energy, so as THEY and THEY alone can be held responsible for
THEIR ideas and actions, now why is that?
They dont want to explain what is it about their OWN lives and values
and morals, that they think other people should be held against their
will responsible for, now why is that?
Michael Gordge
trotsky
I could read the collected works of Stephen King, too, but that's a good
use of one's time either.
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > In any case, you could read the book (Atlas Shrugged) whether
> > it's mentioned in one of your classes or not.
> a good use of one's time either.
One has to use one's experience and intuition to decide
what to read or not. Reading Stephen King has never
even occurred to me, but back in 1964 I wanted to see
what all the fuss about Ayn Rand was about, so I started
reading Atlas Shrugged, and got hooked when I read this:
"It was a symphony of triumph. The notes flowed up, they spoke
of rising and they were the rising itself, they were the essence
and the form of upward motion, they seemed to embody every
human act and thought that has ascent as its motive. It was a
sunburst of sound, breaking out of hiding and spreading open.
It had the freedom of release and the tension of purpose. It swept
space clean, and left nothing but the joy of an unobstructed effort.
Only a faint echo within the sounds spoke of that from which the
music had escaped, but spoke in laughing astonishment at the
discovery that there was no ugliness or pain, and there never had
had to be. It was the song of an immense deliverance."
After reading that I knew I was going to read the whole book.
smw
trotsky wrote:
I've seen a lot of freshmen come and go, and I've taught them to despise
Ayn Rand in the same way as I've taught them to despise Danielle Steel.
They don't come up.
smw
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
>
>
>
> Isn't it interesting NOT, that when you read this very typical thread
> of the indoctrinated regurgitiating Randaphobic retards and try and
> find what it is specifically about Rand and her philosophy and
> political ideas, that these commies Kantian khunts claim is so bad or
> wrong, NONE of them mention or go into any detail about any aspect of
> her ideas, not one, now why is that?
>
> They mention her books, they mention names found in her work, they
> mention words and phrases Rand originated and coined and used a lot,
> but NONE of want to get into a debate about Rand's ideas, now why is
> that?
[etcetc]
The only 'idea' that has come up in this thread is that people who think
Ayn Rand is silly are silly. Doesn't make for scintillating
conversation. So what idea of Ayn Rand's would you like to discuss?
anima...@yahoo.com
JC wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > JC wrote:
> >
> >>Calvin wrote:
> >>
> >>>Read it or shut up about it.
> >>
> >>I've already read Rand and I've read enough of Fritz
> >>and I've read _Zorro_.
> >
> >
> > Apparently you haven't read Atlas Shrugged. Maybe you
> > have read Anthem, at most (maybe).
>
>
> It's not worth arguing. I read the three major
> novels 40 years ago in quick succession. I re-read
> _Atlas Shrugged_, once again skipping around Galt's
> marathon rant near the end, in the 1970s. By this
> time, and I might mention still many years before
> details of Rand's personal hypocrisies were widely
> known (though known to me), I had dismissed
> Atlas as crap. I liked her for awhile. She
> captured my imagination from late 1965 to
> early 1966. Late December and early January
> roughly. I involved myself in the Nathaniel
> Branden Institute lectures at the University of
> Texas which led to socializing with other
> Randites and a torrid affair.
I have to congratulate you on both your
perseverance and your good fortune. I was unable
to read more than half of _Atlas_Shrugged_, and I
am the sort of reader who can slog through almost
anything. And I certainly didn't get laid, either.
If I had only read it all the way through to the end!
I think it was the long rants that got to me.
Otherwise it was like a 400-page comic book
having about as much to do with the real world
as Batman. I suppose that is the secret of its
enduring appeal.
chazwin
Rand philosopher or Novelist?
Rand seems to exemplify the notion that our unreflected ideas are
products of our environment and childhood experiences. The chief force
motivating her life was a hatred of left-wing politics from the time
when her family was expelled from Russia, and an accompanying
acceptance of the glamour of the fascist dictators of the 1930s and
40s.
Is she a philosopher? I have just read a rather good synthesis of the
History of Philosophy from Plato to the modern day. "The Passion of the
Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas. I heartily recommend it to all. He
does not mention Ayn Rand once. In fact he does not mention ANY
novelist because novelists do not do serious philosophy. Rand plays no
part in Philosophy her ideas are bankrupt and without merit. They are
second hand and undigested reflections on the now discredited Vienna
school of logical positivism applied to wider society, yet her limited
bourgeois effete experiences prove of no use for the sort of pan-social
application to which her words are increasingly being used by the
neo-cons of the present day. Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple
jxr...@yahoo.com
Calvin
> Rand is no philosopher
Whether she was or not, Atlas Shrugged is a rousing
good story that can keep those who read it with an
open mind enthralled to the end. It is bizarre book,
though, not a 'novel' in the usual sense, but it
doesn't need to fit into any pat categories. It will
reward anyone who takes it up with a positive
attitude. People in this thread of course want to
poison the attitudes of those who haven't read it,
so that they wont even try it. These people are
'teachers' only in the sense of 'persuaders'. They
don't open the minds of the young; they close them.
enki
chazwin wrote:
> I have just read a rather good synthesis of the History of Philosophy
> from Plato to the modern day.
> "The Passion of the Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas.
>
> fact he does not mantion ANY novelist because novelists do not do
> serious philosophy.
I did read a similliar book the Modern Mind and it didn't mention Rand
either. We can choose what is important and what is not. Some people
find the ideas intersting and influental while others not. This same
author was very dismissive of Nietzsche. Authors don't spout objective
truth just what their interpitation and what they think to be
important. The author put heavy emphisis on Marx, Darwin, Freud.
> Rand plays no part in Philosophy her ideas are bankrupt and without
> merit. They are second hand and undigested reflections on the now
> discredited Vienna school of logical positivism applied to wider
> society, yet her limited bourgeois effete experiences prove of no use
> for the sort of pan-social application to which her words have been
> put.
>From what I have heard, socialism is realy popular in universities.
Personally, I disagree with socialism and favor on the side of personal
and economic freedom. Like many authors Rand makes good points and in
places her arguments are weak.
>
> Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple people. The sort of people
> who glean their philosophical ideas from the back of a Cornflakes
> packet: homespun red-neck notions delivered by a naive middle-class
> woman under the spell of the glamour of the fascists of the pre1945
> period.
>
> Rand is no philosopher.
>
> Chazwin
>
Again it would be good to bring up some of the ideas and explain why
they are not so good. I am fimilliar with her work and think she has
points from what I have read and my interpitation. What is with all
this trashing and little explanation and argument.
enki
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> >
> > Rand insists that everyone has to think exactly as
> > she does.
>
> Crap, Rand insists that thinking is a process of reason, therefore
> unless what you think / reason about is linked to non-contradictory
> identification and intergration of the matter of sensory reality, then
> what you ARE doing in reality is, whimworshipping, you know that god
> crap and that greater good crap.
>
I wonder why none of the Rand trashers are not responding to any of
points. Her ideas are worth discussing. She is just a much as a
philosopher as George Orwell. People express their ideas in different
ways some people can best do it in a story. I am for learning as much
as possible and I have read a book or two. I take my experience and
relate it to what I read and I come to a point of view.
enki
Whell, point out how she was wrong. In some ways she represents the
opposing side and because they are her anti-theisis they don't look too
good. People express their ideas and people can respond. Why is this
discussion all about the vaildity of her arguments but none of them are
brought up? I don't understand this debate. I am accessing this
debate from a philosophy forum and there is no philosophy discussed or
arguments made.
enki
Go read the book and find out. It is said that the academic world
tilts to the left and that book would not influence people to move in
that direction. I got finished college and hadn't learned about her in
any classes. There are many great books that were not taught to me.
Still I can go out and find things I find intersting and read them. I
am very curious whey people are posting such distorted view or Rand. I
don't see how the idea of personal responsibility and property are so
repellent to so many people.
enki
I didn't find the writing to my liking too many words with so little
meaning. It was like reading Tolstoy or Dof....ski really dull with
good ideas that jumped out. The book could have been easily 4-500
pages. It was a tough read but there was some good ideas in there and
some I ideas I disagreed with. Rands books are good because they bring
up many good points for discussion. I really don't get why there is
all this trashing and no debating the issues.
enki
> > The answer is likely in what you quoted above your question.
> > In any case, you could read the book (Atlas Shrugged) whether
> > it's mentioned in one of your classes or not.
>
>
> Isn't it interesting NOT, that when you read this very typical thread
> of the indoctrinated regurgitiating Randaphobic retards and try and
> find what it is specifically about Rand and her philosophy and
> political ideas, that these commies Kantian khunts claim is so bad or
> wrong, NONE of them mention or go into any detail about any aspect of
> her ideas, not one, now why is that?
Why are you so angry? I am all for discussing ideas and I still I
don't know why there is so much anger and an author that has been dead
for twenty years. They are just ideas to be discussed and debated.
Why are some ideas singled out for trashing on such inaccurate charges.
>
> They mention her books, they mention names found in her work, they
> mention words and phrases Rand originated and coined and used a lot,
> but NONE of want to get into a debate about Rand's ideas, now why is
> that?
I DO. Please start the discussion! I have given my take and those
posts are ignored.
>
> None of them want to take up the challenge of explaining why they dont
> want to be the sole benefactor and the sole decided of the results of
> their energy, so as THEY and THEY alone can be held responsible for
> THEIR ideas and actions, now why is that?
How can you tell that much from what people post?
>
> They dont want to explain what is it about their OWN lives and values
> and morals, that they think other people should be held against their
> will responsible for, now why is that?
Even before I ever heard of Rand how I would end up in life would have
a great deal to do with the life choices I made. I tried to enjoy my
life while not making bad decision that have long lasting consequences.
I worked as school and tried to do well, I didn't use drugs, I take my
jobs seriously even when they were at the entry level. I didn't have
kids or get married till I was estabolished in my job and nearly 30.
To me much of what Rand says is basic common sence other parts of it I
don't agree. When I screw up I don't look for others bail me out.
Success is dificult and failing is easy.
>
> Michael Gordge
enki
> > Then why do you object to me urging people to
> > read it for themselves? Do you think people are
> > too dumb to make up their own minds without you
> > telling them what to think?
>
> Rand philosopher or Novelist?
How would you describe George Orwell? His work are very intersting and
he makes valid points.
>
> Rand seems to exemplify the notion that our unreflected ideas are
> products of our environment and childhood experiences. The chief force
> motivating her life was a hatred of left-wing politics from the time
> when her family was expelled from Russia, and an accompanying
> acceptance of the glamour of the fascist dictators of the 1930s and
> 40s.
We could say similliar things about the Kennidies or Limburg. At that
time people were attracted to those ideas until they lead to war and
slaughter. After the 40s both extremes of Nazism and Communism were
seen as evils it was out of necesity that we sided with one evil to
defeat another.
>
>
> Is she a philosopher? I have just read a rather good synthesis of the
> History of Philosophy from Plato to the modern day. "The Passion of the
>
> Western Mind" by Richard Tarnas. I heartily recommend it to all. He
> does not mention Ayn Rand once. In fact he does not mention ANY
> novelist because novelists do not do serious philosophy. Rand plays no
> part in Philosophy her ideas are bankrupt and without merit. They are
> second hand and undigested reflections on the now discredited Vienna
> school of logical positivism applied to wider society, yet her limited
> bourgeois effete experiences prove of no use for the sort of pan-social
>
> application to which her words are increasingly being used by the
> neo-cons of the present day. Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple
> people. The sort of people who glean their philosophical ideas from the
>
> back of a Cornflakes packet: homespun red-neck notions delivered by a
> naive middle-class woman under the spell of the glamour of the fascists
Still these lables are thrown out with no justification. There are
some of us out here who don't see that truth a-priori. Us great
unwashed have to be learned why she is wrong and evil.
michael
> I am accessing this
> debate from a philosophy forum and there is no philosophy discussed or
> arguments made.
well... why don't you start us off, then?
i read rand in high school, a long time ago in a place very far away...
i liked the first book i read well enough that i cited her in the only
"formal" essay i wrote as a soon-to-be-expelled high-school student...
something pleading and resentful about why we should have to cite
"authorities" when we write "formal" essays... i was writing the thing
well into the monday morning when i had to hand it in and having done no
"research" i was glad to have her on hand for "support"...
like many "adolescents", both the real and the perpetual, i identified
with the persecution-complex, the sense of unrecognized "specialness",
the vision of a world set up just to thwart me and a few friends from
being "all we could be" that seems to me now to constitute what rand
"thinks"... of course, being a self-identified lefty by this time, i had
to jump myself through many complex hoops to be able to do so...iirc,
one of those hoops involved suspending belief re: the author taking
herself and her baroque paranoia seriously...
i never finished the second book because her outright contempt and deep
misunderstanding of me and my ilk, both as a lefty and as someone
emerging from the lumpen depths of the working proletariat, was
offensive, and the bad writing style simply could no longer be borne
just so's i could have a few flights of revery in identification with
some hard-done-to genius... or something like that...
the rand-loving egotist older woman (she was 17, i a tender 16) whose
pants i wanted into badly as i took her advice re: james joyce and ayn
rand is now a fairly high-level bureaucrat in ottawa, whereas i am a
poverty level ajarn in an obscure rajabat-university (among other
things) here in bangkok... when led zeppelin played the rock pile (?) in
toronto, after the first lp and before the second was released, she gave
me a handjob in the balcony to the strains of "lemon squeezer" and then
we jumped off my triumph tiger 500 on the way home, high on lsd, and
more or less did it in the road... the opp found my bike abandoned
beside a grassy knoll and called my parents, which lead to further
complications that have nothing to do with ayn rand...
so, by all means, let the discussion of issues begin...
michael
sirb...@hotmail.com
Calvin ha escrito:
> JC wrote:
> > What's it about, and does Ayn Rand explain himself
> > better than Kneechuh's wandering Zoroaster?
>
> Read it or shut up about it.
hey calvin, have you read chomsky's, foucault's, baudrillard's and
zizek's books? how come you can talk about all these ''leftist'' books
and authors without reading them and others can't do the same with your
shit?
sirb...@hotmail.com
Calvin ha escrito:
LOL!
oh you creepy dishonest putrid little wanker. you call that literature?
trotsky
They're repellent when they take 1200 pages to talk about. Hey, here's
a concept: personal responsibility to find an editor.
sirb...@hotmail.com
enki ha escrito:
> sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > enki ha escrito:
> >
> Si yo escribi...
>
> Bueno, yo ha leido el Libro y no entendo como tu ha llegado a su
> conclusiones. Pero voy a continuar respondiendo.
> >
> >
> > surely i knew that without being told it's an absolute by the far
> > right, who are the ones i keep finding quoting rand.
>
> I have read a great many books from Ancient to modern. She has valid
> points but she is not the end of philosophy or economics. I keep
> repeading myself from what I read is that people don't have to produce
> or work if they don't think the compensation is worth it. Basic risk
> vs reward. People will stop producing if they are not rewarded for
> their efforts.
> wing's mass media.
>
> >
> > most of the things we do today are fascist in nature. they're what the
> > fascists were fighting for back in the 30s. today, a trumpeting sense
> > of our moral highground results in fascism. didnt rand make a speech at
> > west point praising the american administration over vietnam? well
> > vietnam, like iraq, is fascist u.s. policy, and she'd love it.
> >
> Rand has nothing to do with these issues. That is your interpitation.
> I don't how you get from people fefusing to produce to waging wars you
> disagree with. I don't agree with you on those issues but I can't see
> how Rand has anything to do with these situations. She is explicit
> that violence is completly contrary to what she believes. She was a
> witness to Stallin and what she writes is mostly a reaction to that
> experience.
of course she is explicit that violence has nothing to do with herself.
OF COURSE! even michael gordge is explicit about being a peaceful
person in the way he claims to be allowing me to live. all fascist
regimes never stop emphasising how peaceful they are. how forgiving
they are, while they pretend to not understand their opposer's
arguments. i've already explained this. why don't you see that someone
who's out to harm the first thing he tries to do is make it seem like
he's not harming? the way to expand her vile extreme capitalism and
domination is best done by creating a doublepeak that calms the
conscience of the cogs in such a system.
certainly vietnam was extreme capitalism and she loved it. she probably
saw it as a mission of peace.
>
> >
> > god no. ''socialism''? me? but rand sees ''socialism'' in everything
> > that isnt hierarchical slavery. in any taxes that dont go towards
> > militarism or further hierarchies. she's into a jingoistic moral panic
> > exaggerating the left where it isn't and dragging everyone to the far
> > right.
> >
>
> She is against socialism because she sees that people who engage in
> commerse benift society far more than the profits they make. How much
> compensation would be would be equal the benifit of his work on the
> lightbulb. Take a practicle example. Go out into nature and make
> somthing that somone wants. Go find iron ore and create a wrench. It
> is dificult even at that low level of technology. Try to figure out
> how to create light bulb or computer on your own.
>
was she in the civil rights movement of the 60s? highly unlikely. she
probably saw it as ''socialistic''.
>
> > > Still I don't get your point. You don't like an idea so you attack the
> > > person and oin that basis what they say in invalid. That is a terrible
> > > way to devlope thought. Again how is working as cab driver when you
> > > graduated at the top of your class in medicine wrong for what ever your
> > > reason?
> > > >
> >
> >
> > let's see. if rand talks about freedom and she clearly opresses in real
> > life. how is that not telling?
>
> We thould burn all of Aristotle's books and disreguard all work he
> influenced because he though there were natural slaves and masters.
> Declair the US constution unconstitutional because the authors owned
> slaves and no women or minorities had a part in writing it.
no but here it's clearly does and is very useful. she talks about how
freedom is pleasing your master and she was a dominating doublepeaking
bitch in real life. it fits in perfectly.
> >
> > a doctor to work as a cab driver? when did i say that?
>
> I did. That is an example of from the book. You can agree or disagree
> with the ideas but atleast deal with the issues the book raises. There
> are people with more ability or ambition and society benifits more if
> those people are free to engage in the commerse that they create. A
> doctor that graduated at the top of their class would be a benfite to
> society in saving lives. Being a doctor is a dificult job. If he felt
> that he didn;t make enough he chose to drive a cab because it is easier
> and he don't make that much less for much less work.
> >
doctors were already around in feudal times. doctors are not the only
service/slavery in a society.
what you're talking about now is social darwinism and engineering,
another topic she was on the far right about.
of course she'd take ''the example of a doctor'' to make it seem that
service is moral and a way to ''please your fellow man''. but logically
that's just a way to twist an argument to her favour, to make '' slave
away for your master'' seem like ''please your fellow man''. therefore
she was a sadistic bitch.
> > she's in love with hierarchy and domination. don't you see that?
>
> In a way but it is free exchange not domination. That is somone has an
> idea creates a product and hires people. A business is a private
> property. Again somone has an idea they go to a bank and get a loan
> from that they make capital investment in equipment and people. As a
> boss you have the most able people at the highest levels or your
> orginization. People don't do thier jobs out instinct like bees.
> Somone has to coordinate and make decision on how best to produce a
> product or deliver a service.
> >
>
which is immoral and unethical. service is vampirism of the stronger on
the weaker. and the aristocratic strong will always say it's ''free
exchange and not domination'' to reinforce their hierarchical
anti-humanist positions.
>
> > > How do you derrive that? The whole premise of her work is that people
> > > don't have to produce. The reason people do difficult things is
> > > because they want compensation. Take drug companies for example. They
> > > don't produce medicine because of their humanity they want to make
> > > money. If the incentive is taken away and people don't see that field
> > > as worth wile people won't study it and they will find jobs in other
> > > areas. I am not saying that all people are modivated by profit but
> > > many people are.
> >
> >
> > that rationalisation is the same one used in the feudal times by
> > warlords.
>
> In medieval times they didn't have the ideas of human rights as we know
> it today. I was about two or three hundred years ago when this idea of
> human rights was being concieved.
let's see, if the slaves please a master, what is wrong with it? this
is a logical consequnce of ayn rand's fascism. less and less rights to
the weak because the land belongs to the strong. never legislate in
favour of the weak because the land belongs to the strong. allow the
strong to exploit and thieve the lives of the weak because this is
pleasing to the strong.
Mostly is was a reaction to the
> divine right or kings. Still in those time people thought people were
> granted streingth by god and the stonger had a divine right to impose
> their will.
no. the weak and poor were free to leave the lands of the rich and
strong. which is exactly what ayn rand is proposing. and because she
theorises in tongues, she is just like those archbishops that advocated
the divine right of the king.
In rands world no matter how rich you are you can't force
> comone to do somthing you will only offer the person what you think the
> service is worth. They can refues.
but the lands belong to the rich and strong, were can the weak and poor
go? legislating a limit on the harm (what she'd call pleasing service)
the rich and strong can inflict on the poor and weak is precisely what
ayn rand is against.
you say you've made you studies of the harm that people get away with
if they can, right? have you read the marquis de sade? well how don't
you understand how if they a multinational corporation will give jobs
of 1 dollar instead of a minimum wage of 5 if they can get away with
it? and you, sitting there with your sony dvd players, if you can
you'll buy them as cheap as you can and in the name of ''competition''
off a corporation that gives less money to its employees to compensate
for your desire? ever heard of one man's desire being another one's
slavery?
I would disagree with her on the
> idea of objective value. I would say that value is purly subjective.
> A thing is only worth what somone will pay for it. There are places
> where this argument breaks down especially when goods and services are
> offered by monopolies where there is no one who is available to offer a
> lower pric
e.
>
> > and while capitalism provides us with a way of living, don't you see
> > its dangers of amorality? well that's precisely what rand wanted to
> > turn a blind eye to.
>
> She does stress morality but I don't agree with her take. One of the
> main criticizms is that there are people who have no value. Still she
> is not about forcing anyone to do anything but for those who have to
> withold from people they think have no value. I have a business of
> making obselete products, I should find a new product or fail in my
> business. I think you miss her morality. Good is being able to produce
> somthing somone wants. If you don't produce anything you have no
> value. Children don't produce anything but if the parent sees no value
> in them they can be neglected. If there is any moral problem with Rand
> is the right to neglect or not help if some one dosn't want. Again, I
> disagree with what she called objective.
> >
she was downrightly fascistly capitalistic in every single sense.
''good'' is being able to produce something someone wants? that is
ridiculous. it's back to the rabbit serving the leopard. and no, the
rabbit can leave a certain place just as much as a poor weak american
can leave america, so the analogy works beautifully.
>
>
> > >
> > > First if you read the book neither side uses violence or corersion.
> > > She states violence and coersion are highly immoral and ineffictive.
> >
> >
> > haven't read either her fiction or her non-fiction. but of course she'd
> > say her side doesn't use violence or coersion. why wouldn't she? all
> > religions say they're against force and for peace. christians, muslims
> > jews all say they are peace.
>
> Hittler was too, I have listened to some of his speeches. Since the
> end of Roman times just about everyone was for peace. Gods of war went
> out about 1,500 years ago. Most people see violence only for defensive
> purposes. Still it is how you define defence. Rand still has nothing
> to do with war. Clauswitz von Kreig is all about war and he says that
> war is about making somone submit to your will.
you miss my point. the spanish fascists surrounded themselves with the
catholic church (which is a religious institution with a clear fascist
past and present) to invest themselves in an aura of moral highground.
ayn rand, like the far right THAT LOVES HER, makes the very same claims
today.
>
> I have written in the past on my theories on violence and human nature.
> Basically I think that people will be violent if it benifits them and
> they can get away with it. All religon culture and isms are efforts to
> curb this aspect of the human/anmial. I will expand on this idea if
> you are interested.
> >
> > but she's full of shit, just like they are. she was a propagandist so
> > of course she'd say her side doesn't use violence or coercion. none of
> > the things in capitalism would be violence or coercion to her.
> > hierarchies, domination, slavery and the thievery of the strong over
> > the weak wouldn't be coercion or force for her, so why would she say
> > otherwise?
>
> People resort to violence and coersion on a daily basis around the
> world. People have been doing this since there have been people.
> 100,000 years ago people used violence to get the meat and reasources
> from mastadons. Written records only go back so far but all of the
> evidence is that there was violence at the beginning of history. It
> has been cutural evolution and experience that has taught us that there
> are better ways to get things done than by coersion and violence. You
> can either persuade people or coerse people not to be violent.
>
that is not correct. darwinistic natural laws have merely consisted of
the following:
everyone proclaiming this and that as his or her own private property.
competition. see a dog when he pisses on a tree? he's claiming the
tree.
say, think about what's plunged and still has africa in chaos; the
eurocentric european imperialism that invaded africa and drew
fictitious lines which got various tribes mixed up and provoked the
ethnic cleansing that was to follow. which is why violence is so much
more intense in the last century than it was before. because everyone
claims this and that as his or her private property.
think of a bunch of animals and the way they compete. that is all ayn
rand is advocating for, the will of the strongest over the weakest. she
was IN LOVE WITH FASCISM. and you tell me where the weaker animals are
free to leave to if the entire island gets populated with the stronger
strand.
think of why europe is full of christians. it's because a few hundred
years ago they ethnically cleansed the place of the other spiritual
competing corporations, jews and muslims. and the same goes for areas
where muslims are majority. rand was just on the side of the greater
power. stick to your kind and make as powerful a group as you can. once
in power and in control of all the natural resources, make the peasants
serve you. give them a middlebrow philosopher named ayn rand so that
they do it with a calm conscience and confident that they have god on
their side. say that ''freedom is allowing someone to not buy a product
from you if they don't want to'' and repeat it a thousand times.
> > > When people make bad decision they fail and there is a natural proscess
> > > which stupid and untallented don't succeed. To be successful in
> > > business is that you have to satisfyt the consumer.
> >
> > but listen to yourself. that's like telling the rabbit he has to
> > satisfy the leopard.
>
> Not so. the Rabit gets nothing in return. A government can take your
> property through taxation but a coperation can't take a thing from you.
> They offer you a product which you can choose or not choose to buy.
> There are limits to this idea. If a corperation bought all the water
> in a location charge all you had for the product and with held water
> unless you became a slave. Still if some business has the government
> create laws that made it impossible for others to compete with them
> would also be unjust. We have limits on the free market like we put
> limits on all other kinds of behaviors.
> >
no. rand lovers believe in unlimited capitalist markets. they would
privatise the water supplies if they could. they will privatise
anything they can get away with, even language. when they or you talk
about something they call the ''government'' it's always about
something that threatens these hierarchies of domination and control.
> > Basically your
> > > please your fellow man.
> >
> > serve him and learn that the only pleasure in life is in having someone
> > serve you? beautiful.
>
> I have a great TV Sony pleased me. I am happy with many of the
> products that I buy. If I didn't like them I wouldn't buy them. I am
> not happy with cell phones. I am making my choice and not giving my
> money for one of them.
your choices are an engagement in cruelty. xmas is coming, for
instance. the kids want toys, so buy them as cheap as possible. are the
third world factory workers pleasing your kids?
> >
> > If you don't make somthing that is useful and
> > > in an efficient way some one else will.
> >
> > utilitarianism was already out n about 100 years before rand.
>
> Sure. Like any philosopher they build on past ideas.
> >
she'd love the usa, where you have to pay for everything and everything
is service. she'd hate sweden and the slightly less capitalistic
europe.
> > the courtesan giving the king a blowjob?
>
> Sure. What is that service worth to the giver and reciever. Still an
> Illegal Alien would do it for less. I understand Rand but I don't
> agree with all she writes.
> >
> > the whites looking over the plantation as the niggers slave for them?
> > all fine and dandy because the niggers are free to leave, so coercion
> > is not being used?
> >
> You have it all back wards. Slaver is the opposite of freedom. Those
> people can't leave. If you have a crappy job you can quit and get a
> better one provide you offer the needed skills. In the end you can
> start your own business. People are free but there is a risk and
> reward.
>
slaves were free to please their masters though. and since the only
thing that matters to ayn rand is property rights, why would rand find
an issue in slavery, since the slaves own no land? that today people
can hop from one slavery to the next is only a slight modification from
the previous system that's a result more of the massification of
industrial cities than it is of anything else. if the only thing that
mattered were what fascists like stewe or ayn rand erroneously call
''property rights'' then there'd be no limits to what the rich and
strong could do to the poor and weak. we could return to a situation of
slavery, as they've done in third world countries with no limits on
this kind of anti-humanist behaviour. what's the difference between
having the employees work for 15 hours a day while free to leave to
another factory with the same lack of rules and officially stating that
they're slaves? that the previous plantation holders were more honest?
>
> > > Rand has her flaws but still you have given me a bunch of assumptions
> > > based on things that have nothing to do with her ideas. Marx had his
> > > ideas but he didn't advocate gulags or re-education camps. Those were
> > > things that were imposed on people who he influenced not what he
> > > advocated.
> >
> > there are many other writers i'm very familiar, too familiar with,
> > without having read their books. i really do think i've described many
> > of her points, but if you dont think so, ah well. i've even see you say
> > the same points as me without my having read her books. i know rand too
> > bloody well :-(
> >
> I would not say accuratly. Again I have not read Marx although I am
> fimilliar with his ideas. Still I need to read up on him because my
> knowlege may be distorted. Your knowlege in Rand is distorted because
> what you describe does not match what she wrote. I am trying to
> describe my interpitation of what I read.
>
> > >
> > > I am not saying in an argument but make an argument. Take evidence,
> > > somthing she wrote and say why it is false.
> > >
> > > > logic was also another thing she'd want on her side because she was an
> > > > abject cheating bitch.
> > >
> > > That has nothing to do with the ideas. What is the big deal about
> > > trashing a person you don't like then discrediting them on the basis of
> > > that trashing. It is circular reasoning.
> > >
> > > Rand is a stupid bitch. Because she is a bitch her ideas are invalid.
> > > I think you are using the Chewbacca defence.
sirb...@hotmail.com
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz wrote:
more fascist wank.
so since you vomited more fascist wanking doublespeak, i guess i'll
have to repeat what i said. here goes:
bla bla bla. that's doublespeak, fuckface. describe a day in your life.
all the products and slavery you consume. all the anti-humanist
endeavours you get up to in any given day. like i have to give thanks
to a far-fetched fascist fuck like you for your ''letting me live''.
that's only coz you're thouands of miles away from me and you dont need
to compete directly with me. were we neighbours, you'd be pissing on
your claimed ground like a dog. what utter bollocks.
bla bla bla, anti-humanist fascist control, power and domination freak
gordge needs the rand bitch to prove to himself what a humanist
democratic fair, freedom lover, non-dominating space oddity he is.
sirb...@hotmail.com
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz ha escrito:
> chazwin wrote:
>
> A gleaming endorsement of his greatest fear, reason.
why do you fascists think people are going to fall for your
sloganeering of the word ''reason''?
ZerkonX
> Her ideas are simple and appeal to simple people. The sort of people who
> glean their philosophical ideas from the back of a Cornflakes packet:
> homespun red-neck notions delivered by a naive middle-class woman under
> the spell of the glamour of the fascists of the pre1945 period.
I agree with your basic opinion however a couple things I think you should
take into consideration:
Rand had, and relied very heavily on, a core group or cult that formed
around her, one of these people was Alan Greenspan who just left the
Federal Reserve. It might be more than just irony that a person who
professed such radical self-reliance seemed so dependent on her followers.
Rand was not at all a naive middle class woman, she was a international
sophisticate from Russia. Her notions where most certainly not
'home-spun'. She seemed to center her ideas around a reaction to
International Communism, which had gained great ground in the US via the
legitimate and often heroic struggles of the labor movement. Capitalism
needed a philosophical pretension to counter Marx/Lenin/Trotsky thinking.
Capitalism needed thought.
Finally. Rand saw a re-discovery in the early/mid 70's among the least
likely, or so it would seem. My opinion is the graduating college crowd of
that era had passionately professed a dizzying standard of high (while
high) altruism and selflessness while snug in college. They were very well
read in comparative philosophies, not as a matter of formal study so much
but as a matter of gaining social cred. So for them to enter the 'real
world', as this insipid saying goes, they needed a 'real world' philosophy
to justify a new need which was overt selfishness. Less than 10 years
later, they would become the driving demographic behind the Federal ascent
of Ronald Reagan.
IOW don't like her but don't underestimate her either.
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118662/
>
> aynt she a fascist little bitch, eh.
(snip that which I mostly agree with)
*****
It's a decent enough doco, though it is rather hagiographical. And
while it lays down the foundation of an intriguing point (to wit, the
degree to which she was influenced as a storyteller by DeMille), it
does almost nothing with it.
>From a purely narrative standpoint, she was very good at what she did.
Philosophically, however, she was monstrous.
Juan . . . you ever see King Vidor's film of 'The Fountainhead'?
Tom Sutpen
Calvin
> Juan . . . you ever see King Vidor's film of 'The Fountainhead'?
It sucked, even though Rand wrote the screenplay.
Read the book if you have any curiosity about
The Fountainhead. It's great and unforgettable.