Ayn Rand and the Sociopathic Society or ' How I Learned to Stop Loving My Neighbor and Despise Them Instead.'

Ayn is hated because she was a greedy , selfish , hyocritical bitch--just like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul. We certainly did not need our predecessors to tell us that. We have many modern day libertarians who worship her hellish example on which to base our opinions , without looking to the past. The Ryan Budget should be entitled the Rand Budget- it is mean spirited,
ideologically driven and has a total disregard for anyone but the rich-just like it's name sake.
And , like her as well-dead as a doornail.

No, the response from the Left is irrational and hysterical. Therefore, it is interesting to try to get to the real reasons that the Left-wingers have these parxoysms of absolute rage. When it is as extreme as one sees with Left-wingers, then one knows that Rand strikes a nerve because of something that the Leftists fear.

Someone else suggested counseling. I think that, or at least serious reflection, is a good idea. For this very thing.

I think you have me confused with your new stalking victim, Anonmaly. He is a true extremist left wing fruitcake. Has the love affair ended already?
Only a truly deluded right wing totalitarian , authoritarian extremist could possibly construe my political leanings as extremist, when I'm constantly under attack here and accused of being a ( horror of horrors) a "moderate." If you can't tell the difference between contemptuouness for your despicably anti-humane policies and rage, you are not as smart as you think you are.

Yes, those who advocate socialism are, by necessity, advocating for the end of our republic and our Founding principles. It probably is unwittingly, but they are participating in it all same.

No, you are obviously enraged, but that is OK.

And you need to reflect on why the policies you advocate are very anti-humane. Of course, if one takes a cursory look, they really do APPEAR as "humane," but it is really a destructive "enabling" process, of course. The real humane process is the harder one.

Sorry.

Your radical, militant, fanatical, bigoted, zealotrous, inflexible, intransigent, unreconstructed, reactionary, praetorian philistinism always winds up being rejected by the American people,
it is always short lived. 236 years of American history is proof that liberalism always wins out in the end. You just stand there immobilized as history passes you by. Sream all you like, rage against the inevitable movement toward progressivism as much as you want,continue the pretense of your intellectual and moral superiority to liberals if you deem it important to your own self preservation, but the course of history proves me correct. The people will always reject radical right extremism, any cursory examination of the facts will support me. It is the reason we keep moving forward rather than returning to the19th century ideals you so ineffectively support. Liberalism takes us 10 steps forward, you gather your forces temporarily and drag us 2 steps back. We return to power, take us another 15 steps forward, you regroup and take us back two steps. And the process repeats itself again and again and again. You're too blind to notice that while you're celebrating having pulled us back 4 steps, we have advanced 21. The truth is hard to accept
and I know you will deny, deny, deny, but it's right there for all the world to see. You represent the hares of this world and I the tortoise. I'll be looking for you in the rear view mirror, but I don't think there is much chance of your ever catching up.

[[[[[ YAWN!!]]]]]

No denial, just truth here. No radicalism, but it appears that you think that limited government - as our Constitution prescribes - Rule of Law and private property rights are "radical."

Well, for people who insist on the government granting rights and controlling the economy, I suppose those things could be viewed as "radical."

Your form of "progressivism" actually REQUIRES a denial of our Founding principles, do you know that? It actually negates the idea of Natural Rights because Progressivism of your brand negate permanance. The DANGEROUS thing about your Progressivism is that it treats the "ideal" as the real: Even a great country like America cannot live up to impossible utopian ideas, so criticism ensues. The programs of you people are all the "what if," and the realities of slower change and the realities of HUMAN NATURE are compared to these utopian visions and always fall short, of course.

You people thrive on conflict, and could not exist without it. You never accept realities and appreciate and enjoy your liberties and bounties. No, no, no. You stir up conflict - Class conflict, racial conflict, conflict between men and women, conflict between the putative "evil" rich and "oppressed" masses.

Sorry for the delayed answer. Computer problem.
( DOUBLE YAWN.)

I eagerly await your next well thought-out and insightful post.

Please hold your breath.
Some people may not learn when to stop banging their heads against the brick wall of intractable, unregenerate, Republican right wing, propoganda, but I do. Continuing an unending dialogue with an unyielding contrarian is an exercise in futility . Conversing with someone who lumps all those who disagree with them into a monolithic group, deriding everything they say with typical conservative condescension, does not constitute an exchange of ideas, and is a complete waste of time. Find some other unwitting sucker with whom to play your pathetic games . Your comments will receive nothing from me , other than the ridicule and derision they so wholeheartedly deserve.

{Your radical, militant, fanatical, bigoted, zealotrous, inflexible, intransigent, unreconstructed, reactionary, praetorian philistinism....}

I am not bigoted......

LOL

Can't handle the truth , huh?

Nope. Plenty of people disagree with my on many things.

I concentrate on those who would advocate for more and more power to the federal government, of course. Those are the only people whom I point out because they are against liberty. They are advocating for what we have tried for centuries to get AWAY from: The centralized state.

In the past, it was emperors, kings, feudal lords, and Church that owned the property and controlled the society as the central power. They promised protection and shared the wealth that they chose to share. Today, you Leftists would bring us back to that.

You call it "scientific socialism" and all sorts of other things, but it is the same, of course: The centralization of power in order to purportedly do what is "best for the rest of us," with your rule by experts and bureaucratic state that has its scummy tentacles into every aspect of our lives.

I wrote,

"I eagerly await your next well thought-out and insightful post."

To which you responded:

"Please hold your breath."

So, it appears that you will not write posts that are well thought out or insightful.

OK

Your neighbor must look better than mine.

Yes, the stories are fiction, but the philosophy they describe is very serious, very real and growing in popularity. Sadly, most who think they understand it, don't.

- heh. +^d

Some of them need it NOW. A good counselor can work miracles.

As with all fairy tales, we should learn the difference between Rand and reality by the time we become adults.

Good point.

Ayn Rand, Ron Paul, and carrying around blankies: most people outgrow them.

Spoken like someone who missed the point entirely. What she describes and advocates is rational self-interest - not predatory "damn them all" selfishness. She spoke against those who see other human beings as a means to THEIR ends rather than having a right to live for their own values and goals. She wanted human beings to deal with one another with respect for the sovereignty of each individual rather than as humans preying on humans.

Those who can do and are willing to owe nothing to those who cannot do and are not willing to ... unless they choose to be charitable. What a man earns belongs to that man alone. He does not owe his fellow man simply because they demand it.

Contrary to popular understanding, this does not preclude his choosing to give to others for his own reasons. As it happens, genuine charity only comes from those who can and do earn value and who give it freely. "Compulsory charity" is a contradiction.

Cute, but how about a mature critique instead?

Okay, but I get the feeling you will like the "mature" version even less. Ayn Rand and Ron Paul appeal to that part of the brain, the amygdala, which deals with emotions, especially fear. Their positions advocate base reactions that strongly promote self-preservation and ignore any resulting effect on others. This behavior works well for one who is stranded on a desert island. Not so well in a society. Blankies are just plain cute.

Very interesting!

I would like to read your comments and insights on something that could be pretty important: Why Rand gets such violent reactions from certain people.

I have made the tentative assumption that part of it originated not from her books and philosophies per se, but her attacks on Russia and Communism. I suppose you know about her testimonies before Congress.

In 1936, she wrote a book or screen play called, "We, the Living." Basically, it said that there is a part of human beings that can never be touched by the government. The government tries, but it can never fully control or subjugate it. This is our true humanity.

She did not mention the USSR, but it was an obvious attack on it. She volunteered to speak to the Senate about Russia, and she did.

She got refusals to get it published, precisely because it was anti-communist. Finally she did.

Then it gets more interesting:

The manuscript was going to be made into a movie, and something interesting happened. A number of famous movie stars actually asked to be in it, but they would contact her a week or so later and say that they did not want to be in it.

Why? Their agents told them that they would not be able to work again. And why? Because Hollywood was pro-communist, and they would blacklist these actors and actresses!

That, I believe, is how the hatred of Rand actually started from the Old Left. The New Left inherited the Old Left, and today's Liberals have inherited that legacy.

Cute again, but misses the mark again. Thanks for trying.

Funny you should mention "We the Living". Rand's intellectual property was stolen by the Italian fascists and made into a a grossly distorted two-part version for their own purposes. As I understand it, Rand was compensated later after WWII for the theft. A more true version was released in 1986 of the original films without the fascist content but I haven't seen it yet. What the Italians did is precisely one of the things she spoke against so strongly in her philosophy, essays and personal appearances. What another produces isn't free for the taking simply because you have the need or the desire to use it. Such behavior is predatory and, thus, uncivilized.

At any rate, the hatred of Ayn Rand is largely by those who have only a knee-jerk reaction to the terms "selfish" and "capitalism" and others without truly reading and understanding what she was getting at in her work. These persons claim to be all about "compassion for one's fellow man", i.e., egalitarians but, in my experience, they are simply predators who will not suffer those who refuse to be preyed upon quietly. Whether you prey on human beings for your own ends or for the ends of others - you're a predator all the same.

Take it from me, the present-day right-wing is as far removed from Rand in her philosophy as is the left. She would have rejected both as passionately today as she did when she was still living. Neither genuinely supports individual liberty - they merely support their own brand of control. Interestingly, she rejected libertarianism in her day also because she felt the libertarians wanted the the ends without a good understanding of why those ends were intellectually justified. Their intentions are good but they couldn't defend themselves at the time and, some would argue, can barely defend their point of view today.

This is because they are only today beginning to understand just what Rand was getting at. The rest dismiss her as you'd expect a child would do.

"Whether you prey on human beings for your own ends or for the ends of others - you're a predator all the same."

Exactly.

Your other explanations of Rand's ideas were very sapient and interesting.

What do you think of Whittaker Chambers' criticism of Rand?

Non-political question: I cannot get a photo uploaded to the moniker. I have resized it to 220x220 and it is jpg. Do you know why it - I have tried several - is not uploading? Thanks.

Ultimately childish? And on the "childish scale", where would you place both predominant western and eastern philosophies largely characterized by their reliance on superstitious notions, bronze-age morality and predatory politics?

Most people are Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc. - philosophies all based in immature superstition too. I think I'll trust my immaturity over theirs.

Thanks.

"Ayn Rand and Ron Paul appeal to that part of the brain, the amygdala, which deals with emotions, especially fear. Their positions advocate base reactions that strongly promote self-preservation and ignore any resulting effect on others."

Funny. That's exactly how I would describe most of western - and now eastern - humanity's judeo-christian-muslim heritage.

I've been an admirer of Rand since the late 70's. Can't say I've ever been primarily motivated by fear, however, I and many who also admire Rand seem highly motivated by the need to discover what is genuinely true versus bullshit.

Turns out humanity progresses greatly by the discovery of the first and suffers greatly from worship of the second. Humanity is gradually maturing out of its need for fairy tales to get through the day.

Rand would be pleased but cautious.

"What do you think of Whittaker Chambers' criticism of Rand?"

His critique of "Atlas Shrugged" reminds me of the whine of all who write negative reviews of books - "Why couldn't the author have written the book I wanted to read?"

Perhaps the answer is this - she apparently wasn't writing for your sake. She'd likely remind you she was writing for HER sake and for the sake of those who could see the real-world implications of the message simplified and exaggerated within a work of fiction. Many understood it and it changed them fundamentally. He, on the other hand, seems to paint Rand's "solution" to the rule of - as Rand would call them - the "mystics of spirit and muscle" with colors that only apply to them and not to a complete understanding of the solution. She did not seek a replacement of one kind of control with another - she sought to eliminate man's chronic interference in the life of man. She argued for the liberty of the individual to achieve as much as they could achieve without the threat of economic or spiritual castration for "the good of the many".

His view that "Big Brother" is inevitable is a cynical view of human beings I and many do not share and Rand adamantly made clear she didn't share either. I see our species as incredibly enlightened compared to other life on the planet but, sadly, most of us wake daily to a cage constructed not by our own hands but by the hands of our ancestors and neighbors.

I'm reasonably certain - and history proves out - the cage is incapable of withstanding the ingenuity of the best among us. That is what Rand attempted to communicate in Atlas Shrugged.

Not certain about the photo problem. I know some sites take a while for an avatar change to appear - usually no more than the next day. I tried changing mine just now with my company logo and it hasn't yet appeared, so a delay may likely be the issue.

As I remember the critique by Chambers, it actually centered on a comparison with Marxism in which the sole focus of the universe is on man himself, and creating a paradise. With Rand, this paradise is attained by liberating oneself and becoming a superman. It is a bit sociopathic because, in Rand's philosophy, one strives to "liberate or extricate oneself from the needs and bonds of others.

Again, I am no expert on Rand, but if this is remotely true, it is where I strongly differ with her. I think morality actually is one's actions in relation to the OUTSIDE world, the society, not with oneself.

You're welcome. Always glad to help!

Good points!

She's even uglier on the inside than out.

it's all the hate that builds up in people. I believe it oozes out the pores and creates Ugly

That would pretty much explain the Christian-dominated Dark Ages.

Yep!

Your list is good, but you should go to (you tube) and listen to some of Ayn Rand's interviews. I can say nothing good about her are anyone that believes in anything that she has said.

Can you give me a 50 word synopsis?

Thank-you. Sorry I'm not that literate. Now you've got me curious. Please give me a BRIEF description of the two types of people. Thanks in advance.

Where do you come from? And when are you going back there?

Any thoughts on why that is? Do you agree with that theory? Is there or do you wish there was something more?

Did you take care a dat thing? You know dat thing we discussed?

You mean the more things change the more they stay the same? Only the technical matrix changes? Human nature and culture is relatively constant (changes glacially)? Except of course when it doesn't (for instance plagues, wars, famine, climate change)?

Maybe. But I wasn't there. (Loved that show, but I still don't get the ending, do you think the whole family was about to be liquidated by those ominous strangers in the restaurant?

"There really are only two types of people in this world...."

"Me" and everybody else? ;-)

I thought a little bit more about your (Nietzsche's) classification of people and tried to look through his glass. I see the downtrodden, the puppet masters, their lackeys (or is " lickies" a better word), and then the dupes or flunkies. The difference between the lickies and the dupes and the flunkies are that the lickies know in their hearts that the puppet masters are evil bastards but are content to do their bidding in return for the best scraps from their bountiful table, while the flunkies don't have a clue why they love fearless "perfect" leader. They just subsist on a gruel of propaganda and fear. And then the cycle starts again when the downtrodden have finally had enough and successfully revolt---then the last become first and the whole damn cycle starts again.

I vote anyone up who posts a little Nietzsche. Thank you for elevating the dialogue.

As for Master/Slave morality - I have always understood Slave morality to be synonymous with Christianity, and Master morality to be associated those who are brave enough, strong enough, to be "good without god."

I think it is right to associate Rand with Nietzsche, although I do believe she had a simple and one dimensional understanding of his thought.

As one who rightly finds Paul's association with white supremacists to be revolting, how do you view Nietzsche's embrace of nazism?

You are correct of course. My writing was not precise. He was not a Nazi and did not live long enough for anyone to ask him how he felt about some of his ideas (Superman) being hijacked by history's bad guys. I am interested in how the works of he, Sorel, and others were bastardized and adopted by thugs.

Nietzsche never embraced Nazism, and never expressed antisemitism. Nazis, however, did attempt to pervert and use Nietzsche to further their own propaganda.

Academics abandoned the "Nietzsche was a Nazi" idea 30 or 40 years ago.

wit. Oh my. -heh. +^d

. . .he was a tad binary. Admirable,....but might not have made a good Buddhist.

( One of the only really distinctly different, yet valuable, elements of orthodox Christianity, is that TRINITY bit; everyone of any real thoughtfulness has to wrestle the HELL ( no pun intended this time ) out of that element to keep a REMOTELY pragmatic plane of thought.

sorry, as a Platonist,....when ol Nietzsche is brought up,...."most honoured enemy" type discussions get started.

Nietzsche though, as opposed to Rand, I ENJOYED reading !

Funny.

this might help - ( or not ) -just my 2 bits-

Ressentiment -

is not to be considered interchangeable with the normal English word "resentment", or even the French "ressentiment". While the normal words both speak to a feeling of frustration directed at a perceived source, neither speaks to the special relationship between a sense of inferiority and the creation of morality.

Nah - - -near uncontrollable individualistic "warrior" soul anarchy IS an option.....

- not against it in particular. One rocket launcher to EVERY man,....no "safe haven factories",.....EVERY "deal" is a one man,....to one man,.....well armed and PERSONALLY defended deal between more or less equally lethal individual people as individually represented by THEMSELVES in the amoral court of "hard knocks" . . .

I can see that world. Hell,....I can cope with that world. O.K with it, even.

If Rush is not in the hall of fame,then there is no hall of fame..

I hope I did not offend you with the wording of my question for it was not my intent. I meant no offense. Please see my above post.

Sure but people also used Jesus' s teaching for beautiful things. I would put Dr. MLK, Jr. in that category.

no worries - no offense taken - rest easy, and thanks for your concern.

"There really are only two types of people in this world...."

Indeed - the genuinely civilized and the unrepentant savage. Everyone in between is too soon to categorize. Not surprisingly, most people spend their entire life "undecided".

Personally, I don't believe in the notion of "perfection", so "pretty close" will do just fine.

Believe it or not, it is Rand's philosophy that best defends the creators of "beautiful things". That so many don't see that rather overshadows the fact - at least in popular discourse - that there are a good many who do.

She simply argued that those who create beautiful things are the sole owners of such beautiful things and deserve compensation in return for it IF they ask for it. Nothing in her philosophy precludes a creator of beautiful things from giving them freely to others if they choose to do so.

What she argued against was compelling them to do so. This turns a human being, a creator of beautiful things into property. It steals their humanity and turns beautiful things into stolen goods.

It creates ugliness.

Thank you for the post, I agree.

Interesting notion, thank you.

Yep, good morning Mr. S.

Good morning, Mr. V. It's off to work I go. One more round on the tread mill.

yep, sigh {:-(

One day , maybe you could be the one receiving the Heritage Foundation's coveted Clare Boothe Luce Award. Keep the dream alive.

Leaders of the prominent think tank presented the Clare Boothe Luce Award to Cheney, 70, at a banquet attended by more than 1,000 of Heritage’s biggest donors and supporters, capping their President’s Club gathering at the Washington Marriott Wardman Park hotel.