Posted on 04/24/2011 10:07:56 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
Ayn Rand is recapturing the hearts of American conservatives. The Cold War writer’s individualist philosophy is back in fashion among the Republican faithful. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged has just been released as a movie and while critics call it slow and two-dimensional, Tea Partiers are queuing around the block to see it. Something about Rand’s take-no-prisoners prose strikes a chord with people exasperated by Obama’s tax-and-spend liberalism and desperate for a road-map to liberty.
But Ayn Rand is not a natural pin-up for American conservatives. Her individualism went beyond libertarianism. It was an exciting, revolutionary mix of greed, atheism, materialism and the Marquis de Sade. It comes as no surprise that the 1960s Church of Satan lifted most of its high-camp gospel from Ayn Rand.One of its acolytes notes with approval that, “Rand’s philosophy rejects as ethical accepting the sacrifice of another to one’s self … The Satanic view sees as ethical the reality of domination of the weak by the strong.”
The story of how Rand fell out with the libertarian economist Murray Rothbard is instructive of her anti-conservative temperament (many versions exist; this one is attributed to Rothbard’s protégé, Prof Harry Veryser). In 1958, Rothbard and his wife JoAnn Schumacher
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Stuff-and-nonsense! Hasn't anyone read her work?!
EpistemologyObjectivism rejects mysticism! You can't have you cake and eat it to. Satanists believe in mysticism and the angel fallen from Heaven. All of this is balderdash and tripe. It is utterly impossible to find connections between Satanism and Objectivism."Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge." Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Think of the story, and think of who the critics are -
Was not Ellsworth Toohey in the Fountainhead a “critic”?
Most of these “critics” probably couldn’t change their own oil. Nuf said.
Many mainstream Christian ministers ARE now allied with the wannabe dictators. They ARE collectivists.
I've never really heard of such a simple and clean statement worthy of much pondering on my part.......which I will proceed to do....now.
The Lord implored us to:
Isa 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
It's interesting that nonbelievers see faith as irrational when, in reality, said faith is a gift of God to begin with, and not a product of vain imagination, lest man boast.
These two ethics positions have nothing in common - this entire article is brazen illogic. Rand witnessed the simple reality that no matter what selfless claims people cloak it in, they are always and only working for themselves and their own interests - so we might as well admit it and establish our laws around this plain truth. She was, in this way, trying to cut through the collectivist lies about "service," which is their main way of enslaving people.
The Church of Satan, to the absolute contrary, was openly advocating enslaving others.
What hubris the Left has over it's belief in it's mind-control tactics. Since they cannot dare critically analyzing Rand, they simply misrepresent her 180 degrees.
Contemptuous pigs.
Poetry.
Lemme guess, they couldn’t find any connection between the Tea Parties and Hitler, right? So they have to use the “next best thing,” i.e., the Church of Satan.
They characterize it in the media as a war between Catholics (predominantly Irish) and Protestants (Church of England) to cloud the real issue of self determination and national sovereignty
“Satanists believe in mysticism and the angel fallen from Heaven.”
That’s not necessarily true. Many Satanists reject the Biblical view of Satan as an actual being... instead they are nothing more than humanists... LaVey even praised humanism as true Satanism.
She opposed Reagan and mocked William F. Buckley for believing in God. Rand was not a conservative.
Why do I need an atheist anti-Christian philosophy as an ally? That is a bizarre assertion. If someone wants to adopt a philosphy that has 'A is A', the principle of non-contradiction and a reasonable epistemology of the real world, they can choose something sensible, with a long history to it, like Scholasticism. It's been around a lot longer than Rand.
The non-religion and anti-opression tenets staunchly oppose Evil Islam.
The anti-religious tenets of Objectivism also oppose Christianity.
In spite of Objectivism rejecting faith... Qbjectivism could never be an enemy
If it rejects faith in Christ, it's no better than marxism or Islam.
Qbjectivism... is an unwavering Paladin standing at the shoulder of our Civilization.
These kind of exaggerations of Rand's importance in the scheme of human history doesn't help to make the Rand cult sound any less loony.
They may do that because Protestant Oliver Cromwell invaded and re-conquered Catholic Ireland in 1649. Then 40 years later the Protestant King William Of Orange, from the Dutch Republic of the Netherlands, sealed the religious feud by defeating Catholic King James II and taking the British crown. The real issue has always been Catholic against Protestant and not self determination and national sovereignty. The Northern Ireland Protestants are called "The Orangemen" due to their traditional fealty to William of Orange.
Hint: Because Liberalism - Socialism and Islamism is in a life and death battle for our existence right now and you will have a perfect opportunity to convert the Objectivist in the passion of the moment while you are down in the foxhole together!
Your obstinacy and intransigence is a bizarre position.
I suppose any statement of their motovations must be believed at all costs.
Additionally, I am not even thinking of "importance in the scheme of human history," I am thinking of right this moment while we are witnessing Christians with their heads cut off by Satanic Islamists and our nation being defeated from within by Socialism up to the Commander-in-Chief!
Conservatives and Christians need to focus on the real enemies not the meaningless enemy of Ayn Rand rejecting faith. She never said let's kill all of the people that go to church as Islam and Communism have and a few of our Liberal enemies do every day.
SUN TZU'S FIRST essential rule for victory, "Choose Your Battles Wisely."
I have noticed a pattern to the criticism of Any Rand.
1: Well, you know, she was an atheist and she had a weird personal life so her ideas are all crap.
2: Misrepresentation of her ideas.
I have yet to ever hear her ideas refuted logically. Ever. I disagree with her about the existence of God. I believe a logical argument can be made for the existence of God.
As for the rest of her philosophy I think she is right.
All the arguments I have heard for religion amount to “I believe because I believe”. The element of faith takes religion outside of reason. That was her point.
I would love to see her other ideas refuted honestly but I haven’t yet.
Actually, most real satanists say that they don't actually believe in "satan," per se, as a spirit or demonic force. Instead, they just believe in the "principle" driving satanism, that of man's own greatness, etc. - "satan" is merely a figurative symbol they use. It is, in fact, more similar to Objectivism than many Objectivists are likely to be comfortable with.
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge."
Ironic, since this statement itself is a faith-based statement that meets Mizz Rand's own definition of "mysticism," since there is no way it can ever internally verify itself.
Stuff-and-nonsense! Hasn't anyone read her work?!
This brings up yet another point - which is that a lot of people HAVE read her stuff - we just don't think it's any good. Frankly, I didn't need Ayn Rand to teach me a thing about liberty. Her books are stiff, obnoxious idiocy, and I frankly find it to be a terrible commentary on the intelligence and knowledgeability of American conservatives that so many of us think that we have to read Ayn Rand's books or watch some movie about one to "learn about freedom." Truly, Americans increasingly have no discernment.
Earth to higgmeister - do some basic research before you spout off like an idiot on public internet forums.
Shoot, the element of faith takes reason outside of reason...
Charles Manson was inspired by the Beatles White Album. And John Hinkley was inspired by Taxi Driver. Guess we gotta cross those off our lists, too. :-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.