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 ...
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.
yes Larry,
to paraphrase ‘ you are what you eat’
Aren’t Christians exhorted to seek after the pure and holy ?
I’ve seen the movie. I love it and intend to see it again. There’s no legitimacy in comparing Atlas Shrugged to Battlefield Earth. NONE-ZERO-ZIP-ZILCH-NADA.
They feel threatened. And so they attack her. But in attacking her, they make people wonder what the fuss is about, putting her book Atlas Shrugged at #18 on the Amazon best seller list this week (#2 if you just look at the literature/classics category).
I think it was Napolean who said "Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake".
“One can separate Rand’s political and economic theory from her philosopical musings. I completely accept the former and totally reject the latter.”
AMEN! I suspect that most of us who admire her work and enjoyed the movie feel exactly as you say. I know I do. I went to see A.S. Friday evening and I took my family to Easter services on Sunday morning. I see nothing inconsistent in any of that and I’m quite comfortable in my appreciation of both Rand’s political and economic theory AND my Christian faith. I intend to see the movie again and I intend to continue worshipping as a Christian.
I don't think anybody has said that she WAS a satanist - only that her philosophy and that of the satanists have a lot of similarities...which is true.
They’re the object of cult worship by those who can’t think to use discernment for themselves?
Atheistic materialism is the purest form of satanism.
Probably so - but that’s no reason for us to fall into the trap.
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.