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 ...
For you collectors.
They’ve really been trying to slander Ayn Rand lately.
Well it’s not really Ayn Rands fault that the Church of Satanism ascribes to objectivism. Anton le Vey acknowledged that his satanic bible has inspiration from her writings.
And, in turn, Rand may have lifted some of her gospel from earlier satanists like Ragnar Redbeard and Aleister Crowley.
The movie "Atlas Shrugged" has the Left reeling. They fear it's potential spotlighting of the current regime. Check out Rotten Tomatoes.com and check the rating by critics. It's 6%. That is the lowest I've ever seen for a movie on RT. The audience rating on the same site is at 85%. I've likewise never seen that type of disparity. The commies are in full assault mode.
She wrote that well, huh.
If Rand really was more like these liberals in worldview than she was like conservatives, one would think liberals would be loving Rand to death instead of bad mouthing her at every turn.
Maybe it’s because Atlas Shrugged (the book or movie) doesn’t say a lot about religion.
It has the whacko right’s panties in a bunch as well.
Either that or it's a really bad movie, on the level of Battlefield Earth or worse. Rand's novels are reminiscent of Hubbard's, both in content and terrible writing style. Johnnie Goodboy Tyler is kind of like a cave-man John Galt, no? Hubbard was also a satanist and a cult leader, by the way.
I’ve viewed some of her video interviews....she admitted she did not believe in God and did not see faith vital to the society as a whole, rather a mystical sort of thing people cling to which gets in the way of their ability to reason.
This was a sardonic reference to her stuff being quoted in the “Satanic Bible.” Of course I don’t believe in her twist on reality. God furnishes reason with a place to begin. She can disagree with the starting place, but she can’t furnish any alternative without an equally adamant dogma. Reason of itself can’t furnish premises any more than bookkeeping can cause a penny to appear in an empty checking account.
Good post! My opinion of her is she had only a portion of the package she might have had otherwise had she at least been open to the possibility of faith in God....therefore she herself took that mantel as I see it.
I didn’t care for the woman and noticed how she danced around questions which would have given some insight into her motives.
True, but really bad movies don't pull 85% audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. I'm no great fan of Rand. Her fervent atheism aligns more with today's left, but her anti-statism clearly does not. Atlas Shrugged is her anti-state/pro-individual liberty masterwork and that is why they are trashing this movie.
Someone arranged a social setting in which Ayn Rand met William F. Buckley. According to WFB, her first words to him were these: “You’re much too intelligent to believe in God.”
That could be the work of diligent Rand cultists, swarming the polls. Rand's books sometimes get up there in the top 10, next to Brothers Karamazov and such. It can't be due to merit. Hubbard cultists behave the same way.
Atlas Shrugged is her anti-state/pro-individual liberty masterwork and that is why they are trashing this movie.
I thiink it's counterproductive for conservatives to rally around someone like Rand. I wouldn't want to see conservatives rallying around Hubbard either because he was, like Rand, a cult leader and a nut.
Ayn Rand considered collectivist priests as witch doctors who allied with the "brute" (dictators) to controll the masses and rendered freedom unattainable. Think of Ayatollas and dictators in Iran and the Islamic mideast in general and the lack of democratic freedom there and you have what she feared. Her view was grounded in a reality of contemporary times and history. Think Islam is the only problem? Check out India where Hindus kill christians. Check out Northern Ireland where Catholics and Protestants blow each other up.
I don't recall "Battlefield Earth " having a high audience rating response. I have never been able to sit through a minute and a half of it. Who the heck is "Johnny Goodboy Tyler?" And why do you know anything about the insane L. Ron Hubbard's writing style?
I suspect the truth is that you have read L. Ron Hubbard's works more than you will ever admit, but have never read Ayn Rand's work. I recommend "Anthem" first, then "We the Living" to introduce her background before you try the thicker books.
I could not get through a page or two of Dianetics back in the Sixties, and that was back before Scientology was understood to be a lobotomized idiot cult. His supposed Science Fiction was to arcane and boring to even open a book.
In our modern times it is the best ally Christianity and Conservatives will ever find. The non-religion and anti-opression tenets staunchly oppose Evil Islam. The individual liberty and laissez-faire capitalism principles stalwartly oppose liberalism, socialism and communism and fascism.
In spite of Objectivism rejecting faith, its embracing rational self-interest and personal happiness as the guiding purpose of life grants any sovereign individual tacit license to hold personal beliefs as desired. Qbjectivism could never be an enemy but is an unwavering Paladin standing at the shoulder of our Civilization.
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. :-)
Rands publicity team, back in the late 1960’s responded to fan letters and were quick to explicitly state that Rand wasn’t married to Nathaniel Brandon, the man who was in charge of her public relations and everything else, and that her husband was Frank O’Connor . Rand was very much ‘into her self’. The Objectivist newsletter was boring and mundane not like the books. Rand was an avowed atheist and never entertained the idea of procreation. She was a true narcissist, a back stabber and no-one you would want to have as a friend.
Well, that's got nothing to do with Rand's philosophy.
From what I understand of Ayn Rand, she believed any form of altruism was foolish and ‘evil’ (in her understanding of what the word meant). Not the sort of position any right-thinking christian would or should ever take...
That may be true, but you are idiotic if you think she's a Satanist (even with your tortured definition).
She considered force to be evil, not the act of giving, but being forced to give. She also considered it foolish to give money to a bum who has no interest in bettering himself, but I don't think she would consider that to be evil (you are conflating the two).
I wonder how many people who’ve commented here have actually read the book or seen the movie?
I found the one theater in NE Wisconsin that was showing it and went to see it this past Friday night. The reviewer noted a “slow movie.” Well, I’m guessing that they saw a different movie. We all thought it moved along very quick, perhaps too quick.
Interesting and facinating movie. $5 cup of coffee, $37.50/gallon gasoline, inner cities crumbling and in kaos, educated professionals holding signs looking for work.... And it takes place in 2016.
Take it for what it is - a story. But at the same time, consider that this may be a look into our future.
Also consider why this movie hasn’t been picked up for a broader release. Oh, I guess there are so many other quality movies out right now - um, no.
Once can separate Rand’s political and economic theory from her philosopical musings. I completely accept the former and totally reject the latter.
I don’t need Rand either. I came to a libertarian outlook by taking time to read the Bible from cover to cover. When I was done I realized:
1. Man has free will to choose or reject God.
2. There are temporal consequences to rejecting God.
3. There are eternal consequences to rejecting God.
4. The temporal consequences are God’s way of making us understand when we’re not right.
5. If an authority of any kind takes “pity” on someone who has rejected God and tries to shield them from the temporal consequences of their actions (and their free will), they leave them at risk of the eternal consequences.
6. Anyone who says the state (or their church) should protect us from ourselves is holding that God doesn’t understand what He’s doing and we are better at saving people than God. (E.g., ‘protecting’ a 50 year-old from the evils of Beer on Sunday).
I don’t need a messed up Russian who doesn’t even keep her own name to make up some idea that “reason” replaces God. That’s not new to Rand either. Read Notes from Underground by Dostoevsky. He successfully debunks that notion, which was popular even in the 19th Century.
What are they so upset about?
The closer you come to Truth, the more people are alienated. As Truth attacks delusions, the deluded become defensive--even combative--even murderous!
But nevertheless--note tagline.
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.