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 ...
Well stated.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/546409/posts
PsyOps - Guilt by Association.
She also said that "an embryo has no rights" and that "abortion is a moral right."
Here is Ayn Rand on God. She says that God is incompatible with reason.
I don't accept her conclusions but I can still accept objectivism as a guiding philosophy. The problem comes when objectivism or any other philosophy is turned into dogma.
That is practically the opposite of what Ayn Rand proposed for a philosophy.
Uh, if you say so.
L. Ron Hubbard's philosophy was a naive kind of science-worshipping naturalism and rationalism brought to crackpot levels of extremism. In his philosophic outlook, 'mysticism' was the bad guy -- the corrupting influence on people which needed to be weeded out. And this meant Christianity, belief in God, etc., -- these parasitic beliefs cause all the problems in the world. This is much like Randism. However, Hubbard really was a satanist, for real. It is interesting to note that Robert Heinlein was a friend of Hubbard. Heinlein is a much loved science fiction author among libertarians and objectivists (and satanists too). All three: Hubbard, Heinlein, and Rand, used fiction as a vehicle for promoting their philosophies.
Why?
Oh, noes. The telegraph.co.uk has found us out. We’re all a bunch of satanists.
Come now, aruanan, we are FReepers. We are not as other men.
Humanism IS Satanism.
See tagline
Why do I need Rand to tell me this when it was said a lot better by Aristotle and countless others a long time ago?
Objectivism rejects mysticism!
You mean, Objectivism rejects Christianity. Which is true. Christianity embodies both "mysticism" and "altruism" and so has both of the supreme Objectivist devils rolled into one. Perhaps once the Randians get powerful enough, they'll find ways to get rid of this troublesome mysticism-altruism that causes all the world's problems. Who knows, maybe they'll even join the jihad against Christianity.
The Telegraph.co.uk is the only paper that gives the news..that was just a commentary.
The Telegraph exposes news that the media here fails to cover or investigate. It uncovered background on the Fort Hood shooter before the government got their act together. Course it takes time for the government to cover up and perform damage control, and be PC before details are reported...the media here just regurgitate the AP. And we know the AP didn’t investigate the source of their duped story a couple weeks ago before shooting it out to the press.
This story above was an exception by one blogger.
May wish to read todays news eventually you drop the MSM in the US unless bites are on your Google home page.
A thread from Objectivism Online: Atlas Shrugged Amazon book-bombing Help send the book to #1 on bestseller list
It anchors all knowledge to the facts of reality: existence, consciousness and identity. It helps tremendously to understand science and reject subjective science. As a philosophy of life it is a little less useful but still helps me understand and appreciate work, productivity and purpose. About 25 years ago a guy at a competing company said that my problem was that “I live to work”. 25 years later I still have that problem.
Freeping an online poll? Wonder where they got that idea???
Yes, unfortunately that is true. But objectivism also rejects other forms of mysticism and subjectivism that lead to liberal politics and politicized science. The antidote is not conservative dogma, but objectivism in everyday life. Faith is not incompatible with that objectivism, but it takes considerable intellectual effort which I myself have not expended (nor did Ayn Rand).
Sounds like Aristotle and scholasticism. So why do I need Objectivism if I have 2000 years of Aristotle and scholasticism to draw on? It's far more developed and well though-out than Objectivism.
You were able to reject conclusions coming from Objectivism. If a conclusion is reached by Objectivist reasoning then it should be compelling to reason, at least to the reasoning faculty of an Objectivist. His reason should assent to it. But you say the conclusions can be ignored. Maybe Objectivism has little to do with reason in the first place, and more to do with sophistry, polemics or fiction-writing.
It’s hard to determine the exact point where Objectivism derails, but IMO it is in ethics and morals where a certain amount of reality is ignored by the more dogmatic objectivists. It is a nontrivial task as they themselves acknowlege: e.g., what is “good”? It is the one of the highest level, most abstract concepts built on a large base of underlying concepts.
That's quite a leap.
I've never been much of a "joiner" because it is rare that I sufficiently identify with any given group's beliefs and goals that I felt comfortable being a member.
But what I do believe is much closer to "Objectivism" than to "Marxism" such that I find your statement rather troubling. Objectivism may "reject" Christianity, but I don't recall reading anything that suggested that Christians should be sent to penal institutions or death camps by Objectivists. My reading of Objectivism is that objectivists just want to be left alone by Christians.
I also am not aware of any analogy in Objectivism of Islam's mission to kill the infidels.
I don't claim to be an expert, but isn't it even a stretch to refer to "Christianity" as though it is one thing and not many things some of which are contradictory?
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.