Yeah, I especially loved the end, where Eddie was completely forgotten about, even though he successfully managed Dagney’s company while she went on a sexual exploration with three lovers, cursing Christians the whole way, until she too learned to cheer the destruction of mankind and the starvation of six billion people.
But what’s really terrifying is that folks like Alan Greenspan and Hillary Clinton love it. The only redeeming thing about it (and what gets conservatives to love it) was its hatred for the shackles that goody-too-shoes nanny-staters place on society. How does Clinton relate to that?
Frankly, the book is every bit as hate-filled as the Turner Diaries, just much, much more seductively written.
LOL - like hell they do!
What rot you've come up with! Rand fought collectivist tyranny - period. Leftists hate her with everything they've got.
If they love it... then why does everything they do/did seem to be contrary to it?
The true test of someone’s beliefs is not what they claim to believe in, but the actions they take. The actions that Greenspan and Clinton have taken show them as no lovers of Rand’s philosophies.
The reason Ann Rand is so quoted and revered in the conservative movement generally is that she hit the money with her observations of the evils of collectivism and statism. Unfortunately, she drew the wrong conclusions on how to respond to that with her damnation of all altruism and religion.
If you do that, and carry that idea through to its logical conclusion, then we make ourselves God. Does our life consist of nothing but more and more self-gain? If that is the case, we would never have children, or fall in love, or offer anyone else advice, or care, or comfort. Who wants to live in a world like that? I don’t mind helping the poor and the disadvantaged and those down on their luck. My problem is when the government does the helping, very badly, with my money, and for causes I don’t agree with!
The difficulty with Ann Rand is that though she had some good insights, you have to take the bad conclusions she came to as well. She certainly thought that anyway. Like most humanist philosophers, Ann was supremely arrogant and very self-centred. There were no half-measures with “objectivism”. You couldnt agree with some but reject other parts. As far as she was concerned that was worse than rejecting the whole proposal.
So just to make sure I got this straight... you are ok with the six billion people starving and being destroyed from within right?
It’s interesting that you say the book is “Hate-Filled”, I believe the book is a work of genesis. A creation, but instead of having a blank slate, something must cause the masses to realize they deserve nothing, but that which they earn. And being bound and gagged by the masses so they can have something for nothing by your labor and mind is the very collectivist theme we face today, and not just in the world as a whole but across the USA.
From your tone, I get the sense that you think it’s hate to let people burn in their own creations?
Maybe you can clear this up for us?