Post Reply
Page 1 of 23  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
Switch to Forum Live View News for conservatives: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus.
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 2:25PM #1
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848
Article from USA TODAY.

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011...

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 2:37PM #2
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Jun 7, 2011 -- 2:25PM, Christianlib wrote:

Article from USA TODAY.

www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2011...






Good article, CL.


Self reliance and self love should have its limitations.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 3:25PM #3
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Roo,


When I was a kid in Vacation Bible School, and Sunday School, we had those buttons that said, "I Am Third."


The belief being illustrated was, we were to think of God first, other people second, and ourselves last.

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 3:40PM #4
loveontheair
Posts: 4,057

Jun 7, 2011 -- 3:25PM, Christianlib wrote:


Roo,


When I was a kid in Vacation Bible School, and Sunday School, we had those buttons that said, "I Am Third."


The belief being illustrated was, we were to think of God first, other people second, and ourselves last.




 


Hello,


 


I learned that as well CL. Good article.


 


love

Good works will never produce faith, but faith will always produce good works. loveontheair
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 3:52PM #5
Ebon
Posts: 10,148

I've been saying that for years. Rand was a sociopath and her "philosophy" is a training manual for sociopaths. Now, I've heard a lot of pseudo-pious nonsense attempting to reconcile the two. Generally a flat denial of the fact that Jesus's acolytes practiced religious communism (as many religious groups, including many Christian groups, have) and some lipservice that Jesus wanted "us to be generous individually, not have the government do it". That would be far more convincing if it didn't invariably come from the kind of "Christian" who regards "free market uber alles" as the Eleventh Commandment and didn't so blatantly translate to "I just don't want to pay taxes and am using my religion to cover that up".


Screw it, I'm not even going to try at intellectual distance. Rand was scum of the worst sort and I only call her "scum" because any attempt at imparting my feelings about her in more detail would be (rightfully) removed. She was scum. I'm extremely glad she's dead, am very sorry she didn't die far sooner and only regret that I didn't get to kill her myself (NOTE for those unable to resist getting all sniffy about my morality on that score: I often use hyperbole when I'm ranting, this is (in part) an example. I would likely content myself with spitting in her face and telling her that the only way she would improve the world was her suicide). Her "philosophy" was that of an adolescent neanderthal, a rancid stew of Nietzchian will-to-power, sexual politics verging on the offensive even by my standards and yet another entry into mankind's very oldest intellectual pusuit: An attempt to claim that naked greed is somehow admirable. Rand was an admirer of the serial killer, William Hickman, whose crimes were brutal even by the standards of serial murderers and considered that his utter lack of remorse, conscience, empathy or guilt were admirable qualities. Rand's "philosophy" is nothing more than an extended excusal of base selfishness. She describes her vision of a perfect man as a being whose one and only concern was satisfying his own desires. We have words for people like that: "Sociopath", "psychopath", "narcissistic personal disorder", "anti-social personality disorder" and "serial murderer". His "seduction technique" verges on rape (which Rand described as "rape by engraved invitation". In other words, it was the victim's fault), his associates commit acts of outright terrorism and he regards altruism as the greatest crime imaginable.


I'm not kidding here. Upstairs (I like to study in bed), I have a copy of "Without Conscience" by Dr. Robert Hare, the landmark work which first documented sociopathy/psychopathy (the two are largely interchangeable), coined the term, defined the symptoms and included the first publication of Dr. Hare's checklist, a diagnostic tool that's still widely used. I have evaluated both Rand and her "heroes" on Dr. Hare's diagnostic criteria and both she and they are clinical, diagnosable sociopaths and while not all sociopaths are violent (in fact, most aren't), their complete lack of conscience means that they have no heisitation in using violence to satisfy their desires. Rand's sensible enough to end her narrative before the multi-state killing spree, ensuing trial and John Galt's pathetic, adolescent whining speech (which goes on forever) gets laughed out of court. That doesn't change the fact that she and they are walking embodiments of every single quality humanity has always tried (rightfully) to surpress.


And not only that but Rand is a really bad writer. There's no arc to her characters, they don't change and grow. She has three base characters: "Heroes", students and villains. The heroes are all rich, successful and hung like a mule, the students exist purely for the "heroes" to exposit to, like a Socratic disputant who was unlucky enough to wander onto the wrong set and the villains are everybody else in the whole world. Her heroes spend all their time both despising everyone who isn't as rich as them and complaining that the plebs don't fall down and worship them. Her characters aren't just one-dimensional, they're zero-dimensional. They're not even characters since they exist purely to explain Rand's toxic waste of a "philosophy". John Galt's final speech goes on for, in real time, about four fucking hours. Her "heroes" are about as likeable as Gerald Gallego. They're lying, sociopathic, charmless, murderous terrorists and, unlike the Joker, they're not even entertaining enough to be considered worth reading about. Because Rand is creating her own world, every event conspires to prove them right, no matter how unlikely or how instantly and utterly her "ideas" would fail in the real world.


Rand's novels aren't novels. They're books of pathetic philosophy with a paper-thin plot that exists purely to show how right Rand is. Because, like all sociopaths, she was also an arrogant bitch, she dubbed her mental illness, "Objectivism" because, obviously, anyone who onserved objective reality would automatically come to complete and slavish agreement with her. Invariably, when I go off on a tirade like this, someone will accuse me of "not understanding Rand". It's like the view of the Inquisitions (which is fitting since Rand is about as pleasant): Since no sane man would reject the embrace of Mother Church, anyone who did was, by definition, either insane or demonically influenced. I do understand Rand, fully and completely. It's not difficult, there's not much there there. I understand what she was trying to say completely, it's just that what she was trying to say was repulsive, disgusting, nonsensical, self-defeating, immoral and all-around loathsome.


Most don't see true, pure evil very often and so, they don't always recognise it when it shows it's face. I don't use the word "evil" much. When you spend your studying day immersed in the details of monsters who rape and murder as casually as we would swat a mosquito, who imprison mentally sub-normal women in their basement, rape them continually to concieve an incestuous family and then force them into cannibalism; it's difficult to get truly incensed over the latest stupid smear directed at Obama or the Republican's latest mean-spirited scam directed at the average Joe. They irritate, annoy, sometimes even aggravate me but I've seen and read too much to be able to call them "evil".


Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" are evil. The real thing. Raw, unadulterated, in-your-face evil. Atlas Shrugged is every bit as monsterous as Mein Kampf and if it hasn't killed as many (and given how many Rand acolytes there are in the corridors of power, even that's up for debate), that's purely through luck. Had Rand ever sought and achieved political power, she would have left a bodycount that Hitler could only envy (yes, I know, Godwins, but I think the comparison is valid on this occasion). The only reasons anyone takes Rand remotely seriously beyond the age of, perhaps, 14 is either that they're rich; that they've been told the books are really good and haven't the nerve to disagree or that they delude themselves into thinking they're a "rugged individualist" who would be at home in Galt's Gulch.Yes, by mindlessly agreeing with every fetid dropping that Rand smears on a page, you too can be a rugged individualist! I've studied the cases of Erzsebet Bathory, of Aileen Wuornos, of Beverley Allit and I think Rand is possibly the most evil woman in history.


The worst curse in Romanii translates as, roughly, "may your name be forgotten". It's the kind of curse that's rarely spoken quietly but usually screamed as you hurl yourself at someone with a weapon. In Rand's case, it's not enough that her name be forgotten, her works, life and every word she ever spoke or wrote should be as well. In fact, it would have been better if Rand had been executed at birth or just never born at all.


Well, now that I've gone on for a very long time and probably pissed off a few people, I think I'll leave it there. Thanks for the excuse to blow off some steam though, Lib. I feel a bit better now.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 4:04PM #6
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Brilliant, Ebon.


Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 4:29PM #7
rocketjsquirell
Posts: 15,981

Ebon


I think you have summarized Ayn Rand pretty well. You forgot one thing, Libertarianism is the philosophy of silly adolescents who believe themselves to be indestructible, always right and destined to win at everything.

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 5:09PM #8
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,301

This is a consensus formation thread...


I second C'Lib & Squirrel.


Ebon, your post is brilliant indeed!


One thing, though: I think "conservative" is a misnomer for Rand. Conservatives tend to preserve the old ways (hence their name), Rand doesn't care for that at all... I think you would agree, loveontheair, wouldn't you?


tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 5:25PM #9
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

That, in fact, is part of the point, Char.  Those who CALL themselves "conservatives" and espouse the Objectivist/Libertarian line, are not conservative either.


 


Note, neither the article nor I said you can't be a conservative and a Christian.  I know many.  BUT, it is a warning to true conservatives of the abyss into which their "philosophy" appears to be slipping.


Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 07, 2011 - 5:41PM #10
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

Jun 7, 2011 -- 3:52PM, Ebon wrote:


I've been saying that for years. Rand was a sociopath and her "philosophy" is a training manual for sociopaths. Now, I've heard a lot of pseudo-pious nonsense attempting to reconcile the two. Generally a flat denial of the fact that Jesus's acolytes practiced religious communism (as many religious groups, including many Christian groups, have) and some lipservice that Jesus wanted "us to be generous individually, not have the government do it". That would be far more convincing if it didn't invariably come from the kind of "Christian" who regards "free market uber alles" as the Eleventh Commandment and didn't so blatantly translate to "I just don't want to pay taxes and am using my religion to cover that up".


Screw it, I'm not even going to try at intellectual distance. Rand was scum of the worst sort and I only call her "scum" because any attempt at imparting my feelings about her in more detail would be (rightfully) removed. She was scum. I'm extremely glad she's dead, am very sorry she didn't die far sooner and only regret that I didn't get to kill her myself (NOTE for those unable to resist getting all sniffy about my morality on that score: I often use hyperbole when I'm ranting, this is (in part) an example. I would likely content myself with spitting in her face and telling her that the only way she would improve the world was her suicide). Her "philosophy" was that of an adolescent neanderthal, a rancid stew of Nietzchian will-to-power, sexual politics verging on the offensive even by my standards and yet another entry into mankind's very oldest intellectual pusuit: An attempt to claim that naked greed is somehow admirable. Rand was an admirer of the serial killer, William Hickman, whose crimes were brutal even by the standards of serial murderers and considered that his utter lack of remorse, conscience, empathy or guilt were admirable qualities. Rand's "philosophy" is nothing more than an extended excusal of base selfishness. She describes her vision of a perfect man as a being whose one and only concern was satisfying his own desires. We have words for people like that: "Sociopath", "psychopath", "narcissistic personal disorder", "anti-social personality disorder" and "serial murderer". His "seduction technique" verges on rape (which Rand described as "rape by engraved invitation". In other words, it was the victim's fault), his associates commit acts of outright terrorism and he regards altruism as the greatest crime imaginable.


I'm not kidding here. Upstairs (I like to study in bed), I have a copy of "Without Conscience" by Dr. Robert Hare, the landmark work which first documented sociopathy/psychopathy (the two are largely interchangeable), coined the term, defined the symptoms and included the first publication of Dr. Hare's checklist, a diagnostic tool that's still widely used. I have evaluated both Rand and her "heroes" on Dr. Hare's diagnostic criteria and both she and they are clinical, diagnosable sociopaths and while not all sociopaths are violent (in fact, most aren't), their complete lack of conscience means that they have no heisitation in using violence to satisfy their desires. Rand's sensible enough to end her narrative before the multi-state killing spree, ensuing trial and John Galt's pathetic, adolescent whining speech (which goes on forever) gets laughed out of court. That doesn't change the fact that she and they are walking embodiments of every single quality humanity has always tried (rightfully) to surpress.


And not only that but Rand is a really bad writer. There's no arc to her characters, they don't change and grow. She has three base characters: "Heroes", students and villains. The heroes are all rich, successful and hung like a mule, the students exist purely for the "heroes" to exposit to, like a Socratic disputant who was unlucky enough to wander onto the wrong set and the villains are everybody else in the whole world. Her heroes spend all their time both despising everyone who isn't as rich as them and complaining that the plebs don't fall down and worship them. Her characters aren't just one-dimensional, they're zero-dimensional. They're not even characters since they exist purely to explain Rand's toxic waste of a "philosophy". John Galt's final speech goes on for, in real time, about four fucking hours. Her "heroes" are about as likeable as Gerald Gallego. They're lying, sociopathic, charmless, murderous terrorists and, unlike the Joker, they're not even entertaining enough to be considered worth reading about. Because Rand is creating her own world, every event conspires to prove them right, no matter how unlikely or how instantly and utterly her "ideas" would fail in the real world.


Rand's novels aren't novels. They're books of pathetic philosophy with a paper-thin plot that exists purely to show how right Rand is. Because, like all sociopaths, she was also an arrogant bitch, she dubbed her mental illness, "Objectivism" because, obviously, anyone who onserved objective reality would automatically come to complete and slavish agreement with her. Invariably, when I go off on a tirade like this, someone will accuse me of "not understanding Rand". It's like the view of the Inquisitions (which is fitting since Rand is about as pleasant): Since no sane man would reject the embrace of Mother Church, anyone who did was, by definition, either insane or demonically influenced. I do understand Rand, fully and completely. It's not difficult, there's not much there there. I understand what she was trying to say completely, it's just that what she was trying to say was repulsive, disgusting, nonsensical, self-defeating, immoral and all-around loathsome.


Most don't see true, pure evil very often and so, they don't always recognise it when it shows it's face. I don't use the word "evil" much. When you spend your studying day immersed in the details of monsters who rape and murder as casually as we would swat a mosquito, who imprison mentally sub-normal women in their basement, rape them continually to concieve an incestuous family and then force them into cannibalism; it's difficult to get truly incensed over the latest stupid smear directed at Obama or the Republican's latest mean-spirited scam directed at the average Joe. They irritate, annoy, sometimes even aggravate me but I've seen and read too much to be able to call them "evil".


Ayn Rand and her "philosophy" are evil. The real thing. Raw, unadulterated, in-your-face evil. Atlas Shrugged is every bit as monsterous as Mein Kampf and if it hasn't killed as many (and given how many Rand acolytes there are in the corridors of power, even that's up for debate), that's purely through luck. Had Rand ever sought and achieved political power, she would have left a bodycount that Hitler could only envy (yes, I know, Godwins, but I think the comparison is valid on this occasion). The only reasons anyone takes Rand remotely seriously beyond the age of, perhaps, 14 is either that they're rich; that they've been told the books are really good and haven't the nerve to disagree or that they delude themselves into thinking they're a "rugged individualist" who would be at home in Galt's Gulch.Yes, by mindlessly agreeing with every fetid dropping that Rand smears on a page, you too can be a rugged individualist! I've studied the cases of Erzsebet Bathory, of Aileen Wuornos, of Beverley Allit and I think Rand is possibly the most evil woman in history.


The worst curse in Romanii translates as, roughly, "may your name be forgotten". It's the kind of curse that's rarely spoken quietly but usually screamed as you hurl yourself at someone with a weapon. In Rand's case, it's not enough that her name be forgotten, her works, life and every word she ever spoke or wrote should be as well. In fact, it would have been better if Rand had been executed at birth or just never born at all.


Well, now that I've gone on for a very long time and probably pissed off a few people, I think I'll leave it there. Thanks for the excuse to blow off some steam though, Lib. I feel a bit better now.





I wonder if Rand's works are required reading in some institurions and circles of influence. (God help us!)

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 23  •  1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 23 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook