I'm With the Rand
Celebrity fans of the cult of selfishness.
Angelina Jolie: "I just think [Ayn Rand] has a very interesting philosophy...You reevaluate your own life and what's important to you."
Christina Ricci: "My favorite book is The Fountainhead...I relate to it because of the idea that you're not a bad person if you don't love everyone."
Vince Vaughn: "The last book I read was the book I've been rereading most of my life—The Fountainhead."
Rob Lowe: "Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand is a stupendous achievement and I just adore it."
Eva Mendes: Any potential boyfriend "has to be an Ayn Rand fan."
Mark Cuban: "I don't know how many times I have read [The Fountainhead], but it got to the point where I had to stop because I would get too fired up."
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.): Recently tweeted, "Still reading Atlas Shrugged, quite the read."
Hugh Hefner: The Fountainhead "is a compelling tribute to man's quest for personal freedom."
Billie Jean King: "Like Dagny Taggart, I had to learn how to be selfish, although selfish has the wrong connotation. As I see it, being selfish is really doing your own thing."
Jerry Lewis: The Fountainhead is "a very profound book...Makes you think!"
Brad Pitt: The Fountainhead "is so dense and complex, it would have to be a six-hour movie."
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
A cult?
Submitted by Richard (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 12:44 PM PDT.
Be careful with the word "cult", it has a range of connotations. You will find that Objectivism has a following of the same quality as those people who agreed with Galileo that the Earth orbits the Sun, or the early Greeks & Chinese who grasped that the Earth was round. In that sense, and that sense alone, it is a set of outsiders who have good reasons for respecting a new understanding of the world that has not yet reached social prominence. Objectivism, and Ayn Rand veneration, is not a religious cult, or a fad.
Definition of the word cult
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Jul. 20, 2009 1:51 PM PDT.
cult - noun
a system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object : the cult of St. Olaf.
a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister : a network of Satan-worshiping cults.
a misplaced or excessive admiration for a particular person or thing : a cult of personality surrounding the leaders.
[usu. as adj. ] a person or thing that is popular or fashionable, esp. among a particular section of society : a cult film.
I think the author's use of the word cult is reasonable.
Cult?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 3:53 AM PDT.
While I suspect you could probably find a couple hundred Rand "personality worshippers", one could hardly consider the most important philosophy of the past 60 years a "cult"...vacuous celebrity "fans" notwithstanding.
Of course, those who fear the consistent use of reason love to smear Rand and Objectivism. They have little else.
cult of selfishness=predestination?
Submitted by rimchamp77 on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 12:46 PM PDT.
What annoys me about those who follow Rand's "cult of selfishness" is that they presume that all wealth is deserved and that it does not arise from theft, fraud, coercion or from God's gift of natural resources. Since Rand was an avowed atheist this last factor would seem irrelevant. It's likely that Rand's adoption of atheism was 'convenient' to justify the wealthy.
The concept of predestination was a cult of Christianity that supposed that anyone who was wealthy and powerful was favored by God and that anyone acting against the wealthy was sinful. Of course anyone familiar with the moral decadence of those born into wealth would feel this concept was absurd - but would not openly state so as to not "rock the boat" and upset those in power.
I find it convenient that most - but not all - of her "successful" fictional characters had talents and character that seemed to merit wealth and success. In the real life world of capitalism there is very little relationship between actual talent and productivity and wealth. In real life most of the wealth that Rand worships is gained with the aid and assistance of the very government she despises.
Rand also seems to place little to no value in helping the poor either through charity or payment of higher wages. In her world society is there only to reward those whose connections and subservience to the accumulation of wealth is paramount in their lives. Those who cheat, lie steal or use coercion to gain wealth are revered as heroes - despite their total lack of principle and character.
Such a world would by definition be highly inefficient and unstable: a poor model for any society. In fact if her idealized model had existed during the evolution from tribal to city economies, our civilization would never have advanced beyond crude barbarism. Of course there are many who believe in moral character that we haven't really evolved that much.
May God's will be done on earth and let it begin - and end - with myself. If it happens any other way it's not God's will.
I haven't read Rand,
Submitted by danaseilhan on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:52 PM PDT.
I haven't read Rand, although her followers annoy me. I should get around to checking her out one of these days just to see if I think people are parsing her writings correctly (well, as far as that goes with works of fiction). People misunderstand what they read all the time and I'm sure Rand's critics are no different.
That said, your supposition that only in developing large-scale agriculture and cities did we develop any kind of moral character or decent behavior is racist to its core, not to mention unrealistic. There are forager tribes existing to this day who, when informed of how the "civilized" people live, are appalled at our bad manners and complete lack of cohesive culture. Sorry, being up and up on snooty books, snooty plays and the latest fashions does not constitute culture. It's just another form of consumption in a drive to fill the empty place inside us all where our hearts got ripped out of us because we're not allowed to be human anymore.
It's hopeless!
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 2:13 AM PDT.
As this comment brayfully demonstrates, most Mother Jones "readers" do not know how to think.
Not that such ignorance belongs only to the Left. Writing in National Review, Whitaker Chambers famously misunderstood Ayn Rand when he summed up "Atlas" with, "To the gas chambers, go!"
Maybe progressives cannot do progress, either.
rimchamp77 analysis
Submitted by Pete (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 5:36 AM PDT.
I suspect that you have either not read Rand at all or stuck with critical digests of her work, extrapolating the points you make. Lying, cheating and stealing are not exactly virtues of John Galt, the epic hero of Atlas Shrugged as his fifty page soliloquy makes pretty clear. Howard Roark, in Fountainhead, is scorned by his contemporaries for his candor, and loses important work because he is willing to play the game of the "good old boys."
Rand does not eschew charity per se. What she detests is the non-producers' shakedown of producers, that is thinly veiled as altruism. Institutional "altruism", like warfare, is a means for those who don't create value to extract wealth from their contemporaries.
I encourage you to read, or re-read, either of her two best sellers. You may remain critical of Rand, but your criticism is bound to be different.
Raynd
Connections, lie, cheat?? are you mad?
Submitted by Robert M (not verified) on Fri Aug. 7, 2009 2:22 PM PDT.
To state your position you need to either be confused or have not read anything that Rand wrote. Maybe you are simply parrotting someone elses words. Rand's unique perspective and atheism may cause you to bristle and label her as immoral but she clearly advocated morality as it pertains to interpersonal relationships. The only "morality" that she ignored were those proffessions made by priests and pastors relating to slavish altruism, not benevolent actions. In fact if you read Fountainhead you will see that the main character acted with benvolence toward his friends by choice without religion to taint it with demands.
Confused
Submitted by Confused (not verified) on Mon Aug. 10, 2009 9:27 PM PDT.
I'm not sure which books you were reading but to say that "Those who cheat, lie steal or use coercion to gain wealth are revered as heroes . . . " is literally the opposite of the truth. Rand's heroes are honorable, honest, never parasitical, and believe that the way to work with other people is through voluntary exchange (never force, fraud, or coercion).
BTW--Remember that it is impossible to be compassionate with somebody else's resources. If you take from others to give to causes you believe in you are not generous, you are a thief. You don't say directly that you'd do this, but it is implied. If I'm wrong and you believe in earning your way through life, then I apologize.
Have You Read Capitalism and Unknown Ideal
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 6:58 AM PDT.
I think if you read some of her books, you will see that she is opposed to those who use the political system to achieve wealth. I am speaking of her non-fictional essays on capitalism.
Ayn Rand as an author, not philosopher
Submitted by Snad (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 12:56 PM PDT.
I have read most of Ayn Rand's novels and enjoyed them. They were well written and well constructed, and were good stories. Does that make me selfish? No. I can read Atlas Shrugged and appreciate the story without signing on to Rand's School of Objectivist Epistemology. I can even appreciate the quest for personal, artistic, and social freedom without believing that the current system of unsustainable economic growth and "every man for himself" anti-socialism is the best way to go.
Maybe some of these people you've listed above can as well.
Brand of Selfishness
Submitted by CMStewart (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 1:05 PM PDT.
The brand of selfishness glorified as a model for societal living in The Fountainhead falls apart after 10 seconds of critical thinking. But it's fine for hopelessly self-obsessed celebrities, I suppose.
enlighten us
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Aug. 10, 2009 9:36 PM PDT.
Please enlighten us with your "ten second" analysis. I've read every Rand book, some multiple times and I can't think of an "analysis" that causes the logic to crumble. What it comes down to is that Rand is arguing to put your own value system above the value system of others. If you value your children more then your neighbors then you should save them first if both houses catch on fire. It's usually not so dramatic, but it's just that obvious. If you want to be altruistic, let your kids burn while saving your neighbors. If you want to call me "selfish" because I'm going to save my kids first, I'll take that label with pride.
The left have more contempt
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Aug. 15, 2009 7:07 PM PDT.
The left have more contempt for Ayn Rand than Hitler, because Hitler was irational, but Ayn Rand is rational, therefore it poses a larger threat to them.
They don't even dare to open a book made by Ayn Rand, because they know that one single provoking thought could shatter the base of their current world view.
The problem at the core of
Submitted by Handworn (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 1:06 PM PDT.
The problem at the core of being so flippant and dismissive as to term it "the cult of selfishness" is the same as talking about good and evil: relative terms can't be made absolute, and certainly cannot be by taking as granted your own unexamined assumptions about them. What we might consider selfishness today might be considered the middle ground by a thoughtful Victorian robber baron, or the height of civilization by a Pol Pot victim. In turn, what we consider great altruism or selflessness might be thought rather callous, or nothing more than anyone deserves from basic politeness, a century from now. God save us from the so-called moral judgments of people then, who are likely to blame us for not living up to the morality they've come, without understanding why, to be able to afford.
Which only demonstrates the worthlessness of "selfishness" without agreeing on definitions and first principles. Those who bother to discuss it with no one who doesn't already agree with them on those will acquire great and utterly unfounded self-righteousness, with so great a belief in the universality of their own sensibilities, those very same definitions and first principles, that they'll become mewed up in their own extremism and the consequential irrelevance.
I'm not an Objectivist, but I agree wholeheartedly with those who think it has ideas worth serious and undismissive discussion. Which I doubt I'd get from anyone calling it "the cult of selfishness."
What annoys me about most
Submitted by khalderman (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 1:10 PM PDT.
What annoys me about most people like rimchamp77 is that they will not acknowledge that most people whose wealth arises from theft, fraud and coercion use government to obtain it. Without government most of the wealth accumulated would be deserved.
I hit recommend and I didn't
Submitted by danaseilhan on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 4:03 PM PDT.
I hit recommend and I didn't mean to. This comment has got to be a joke. If you think people need government to steal a lot of property or resources, you haven't studied history much.
Try again.
Submitted by student of history (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 11:10 PM PDT.
Yo...
You said:
"If you think people need government to steal a lot of property or resources, you haven't studied history much."
People throughout history have used government as the primary means of theft for property & resources in virtually 100% of the major cases you will ever find.
Try again on that one buddy.
Look around and see where the monopolies are and how they develop - Bet you dollars to donuts that in every instance you're likely to discover, a specially crafted law is at the root of it.
Hell, all the major monopolies in the US right now *are* government functions - Power companies, phone companies, municipal water, and near monopolies in education & health care to name but a few. And while we're on the topic, the big gigantic corporations that everyone seems to hate so much are almost invariably a result of special government protection as well... From the big, obvious defense contractors like Halliburton on down to why High Fructose Corn Syrup is ubiquitous when regular cane sugar is better tasting and generally better for you (subsidies for our corn producers and import tariffs on foreign sugar producers).
So yeah. I AM actually a well versed student of history and what you said is bollocks.
And before anyone decries Ayn Rand as supporting all these companies and of being a corporate shill, you'd do well to note that she also said:
"Government "help" to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off. "
You need government to steal
Submitted by khalderman (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 7:51 AM PDT.
You need government to steal 5 billion dollar to build an aircraft carrier that no one wants or needs and that no one would voluntarily pay for. You need governemnt to steal 5 billion dollars to produce ethanol from corn when it takes more energy to make a ltwer of ethanol than you get from that liter. Rothbard was right when he said that if you view government as just a bunch of thieves using force and coersion to make people pay for things they would not pay for on their own then you have a correct viewpoint. Frankly I have no interest in killing Iraqis, Afghanis, and Pakastanis and I consider the money taken from me and used for these purposes to be stolen.
"You need gov. to steal"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 7:40 AM PDT.
I don't really see funding a standing army/military as outlined by the U.S. constitution as stealing. The reason our founding fathers put a mandate in the constitution to maintain a military was because no one would fund one on their own, plus if they did where would the allegiance lie?
So for purposes of that I don't see as stealing.
I see stealing as something not in the constitution but somehow congress and the Pres. deem it "necessary" for the "greater good"
So your example of turning corn into ethanol, then yes I would say that would be "stealing"
The wars are another subject entirely.
But I have read Atlas and about to finish up The Fountainhead.
I rented and watched the moving about 2 nights ago....I was sorely disappointed, I think it could have been done so much better.....she made the characters act like robots and have no life whatsoever......
But I think I like Atlas far better than The Fountainhead, I think because the romance and pent up sexual tension in the latter through me off......I felt it annoying for the most part.
I liked Roarke's story and thought (sans Doninique) far better.
I also enjoyed the Toohey character and how Rand built his character, best explanation of thought in that area I have seen.
I plan on getting some more of her books to read
Like Anthem and the one on Capitalism....
"You need government to steal"
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 12:07 PM PDT.
The Constitution does not contain an outline for a standing army in peace time, and in fact the Founders were very much opposed to that idea. It does give Congress the power to declare war, and the power to levy taxes, which is one reason some of us would like to see it thrown out, along with its bath water. Ayn Rand, if I recall correctly, was a minarchist and Constitutionalist, so I part ways with her on the issue of taxation.
Any property that is confiscated from you without your permission is stolen property. Unless people give their permission to be taxed, taxation is therefore theft. Government legalizes theft by forcing everyone to pay taxes, but it is still theft in every sense except the legal definition.
Cults have been around
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 1:35 PM PDT.
Cults have been around forever, and most are shrouded in the mists of a concerted effort to make their defining characteristics occult--occult used here in its most catholic meaning--'understood only by the initiated.'
So loose is the garment that, for instance, while some experts of cult study proffer that one, if not the primary, of the defining characteristics is the process of proselytization, we see it not here. Firstly, we hesitate as a shamed, conditioned nation to use the word proselytize too openly because it now enjoys the protection of both politically conditioned response and the speckless deference demanded be awarded to it because it is . . . religious! In all of the discussions thus far, none even seemed moved to include that factor. Only proves how slippery this eel is.
Rand is locked into a near-infants' fantastical life, parametered by her infantile emotional shocks-and-lock, shut down when she decided not to feel, and further, to reckon forever (a defiant infant often embraces absolutes when feelings are the capital) that feeling itself is grotesque suffering at best, and she has the wounds to prove it! Often she uses the absurd cruelty of her feelings to prove her over-cerebralized mentations. The narcisstic substitute of her self is her soapbox, and ever stands at the ready to receive her jump-up, to fecklessly demand that her complete selfishness is beyond criticism.
Do you see the emotional infant within? When I see her playing with her dolls who have no faces, bouncing along in her novels with her fingers agrip at their necks, and see her bouncing them through dramas that attempt to satisfy her little tyrant expectations, I feel sorry for her. And nothing else I could do would hurt her worse.
Even Neitzche, aware of the huge similarites of sociopathology, would have winced at her tamtrumic insistence.
re: cults have been around
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 4:11 AM PDT.
Why do you hate your betters? Those who produce because it pleases them and who live their lives purposefully and rationally in a manner that is consistent with their values deserve your respect, if not adulation.
Smears belie your own emotional and moral failings.
"Why do you hate your
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 12:52 PM PDT.
"Why do you hate your betters?"
Sire, the peasants are revolting.
The peasants are revolting
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat Aug. 15, 2009 11:47 AM PDT.
The peasants are revolting against those toward whom the government has directed them.
An Interesting Distinction
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:24 PM PDT.
One difference, for the most part, between the listed celebrities who enjoy Rand that distinguishes them from many other celebrities you could quickly name is that you don't see them devoting their lives to testifying in Washington and pretending they have some expertise in political theory, economics, etc. In other words, unlike most other celebrities, they are willing to live their lives without attempting to push their views onto other people by passing laws, prohibitions, and mandates. On this ground alone, I wish more celebrities would read more Rand.
Many years ago back in the
Submitted by von bond (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:49 PM PDT.
Many years ago back in the early 60's i was in the Navy and 'stuck' in a bus station for the night. Needing something to read i by chance picked up a copy of her book titled; For the New Intellectual. It was a moving event in my life as i read all night and come morning i screamed: This is the way i've always thought but could never put it into words. Many years later i still subscribe to her philosophy. I remember in a philosophy class at Waynesburg College i mentioned her name and was told that she is not considered a modern day philosopher. I was disappointed since i did have a respect for this particular professor. I lost it!
The thing I wish Rand's
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 6:34 PM PDT.
The thing I wish Rand's followers distinguished more was the difference between honest selfishness and selfishness as defined by most of society. Theft, fraud, and deceit are all considered selfish by society, but most reasonable objectivists would not condone them. As an example, there's nothing wrong with running a rival out of business and sending him and his family to the poorhouse if you do it fairly and by providing a better service, but there is something wrong if you hijack his trucks or steal his trade secrets. Obviously there are shades of gray, but that's the general idea.
Regarding the question of
Submitted by ubuntu22 (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:38 PM PDT.
Regarding the question of whether the "Randians" constitute a cult or not, an interesting and amusing work that might clarify this issue is a play entitled "Mozart Was a Red" by Murray Rothbard.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/mozart.html
As far as Murray Rothbard and libertarians go, there is much to disagree with. But this one work is excellent and can be appreciated by all across the political spectrum that wish to understand this curious case of the "Randians."
As far as Murray Rothbard
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 12:23 PM PDT.
As far as Murray Rothbard and the libertarians go, we couldn't care less what you think of us. Rothbard's satire correctly lampooned the Rand cult, but it was far, far below his brilliant works on history, economics, ethics and political philosophy.
As for Rand's cult ... compared to the Obama cult, or the neocon cult, or a thousand others, the Objectivists are paragons of sanity, and far and away intellectually superior.
Great writer? Not!
Submitted by greenknight on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 4:21 AM PDT.
I am an omnivorous reader, willing to plow through even very challenging material; but I could not make it through The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. Long, wordy, preachy, pretentious; wooden characters, simplistic ideas, unrealistic situations. After a few hundred pages, I was thinking "Why am I wasting my time reading this drivel?" "Who is John Galt? WHO CARES?" Writing at great length does not equal great writing, though many people seem to think so.
I did read one novel by Ayn Rand that was pretty good, however - it's titled Anthem, and is commendably short. Same simplistic philosophy, but much more readable; sort of a science fiction novel, it's set in a future when socialism has mankind in decline - but one man has the courage to be an individual, to show initiative, and begin to revive the human spirit. Hokum, but it's a page-turner.
Re: Alan Shrugged
Submitted by Barry Loberfeld (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 5:06 AM PDT.
As "Fed chair," Greenspan OPPOSED "government regulation"? That's like opposing book-burning while serving on the censorship board.
Government needed to steal?
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 6:06 PM PDT.
Government is needed to steal? What idiocy. All that is needed to steal is the same sort of selfishness, greed, corruption, and lack of conscience possessed by those who DO use the government to help them steal (despite that government enabling is unnecessary), and those who subscribe to Rand's philosophy of self above all.
Brad Pitt: *The Fountainhead* as 6-Hour Movie
Submitted by James M. Martin on Sat Aug. 8, 2009 4:22 AM PDT.
I hate to break it to you, Brad boy, but Rand's *The Fountainhead* has already been filmed: King Vidor directed a version in 1949 with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal in the leads. It ran just shy of two hours. Some critics liked it (Steven H. Scheuer, my favorite, in *Movies on TV & Videocassette* (1990 ed.) gave it three out of four stars, but to my mind it is one of Scheuer's mistakes (there were few). The movie is leaden and dull. I cannot see how adding four more hours would help.
The Rand fans I have met have been insufferable egomaniacs, so it is not surprising that solipsistic movie stars would hold works by Rand in such esteem. Rand's philosophy has been called "enlightened egotism," but only the last word in that equation is applicable. These people are spoiled, self-centered brads -- I mean, brats -- who see themselves as the center of the universe and expect everything to be done according to their whims and wishes. I had one who visited in my home about fifteen years ago and he made me watch the Vidor version of the book. I was bored to tears and got into such a violent argument with the person after watching it, I threw him out of my house -- literally.
Ayn Rand is Brilliant
Submitted by Joshua Lipana (not verified) on Sat Aug. 8, 2009 7:55 AM PDT.
Ayn Rand is the most brilliant philosopher and Author I have ever had the pleasure of discovering, Its interesting to find out that some people from Liberal Hollywood actually like her.
Atlas Shrugged
Submitted by Take Notice (not verified) on Mon Aug. 10, 2009 8:48 PM PDT.
I've not had the pleasure of delving into The Fountainhead yet, but I've read Atlas Shrugged. I have to say it's very long, very long winded, not an easy read for anyone with ADD.
But, let me say this. Atlas Shrugged is one of the most important books that I have ever read.
It is palatable, in that it's fun and exciting and Rand is a most excellent writer, especially considering that her primary language was Russian.
I don't completely accept or buy into the philosophy of objectivism, but I think it holds more merit than anything that I have personally been able to piece together or have heard myself. As I was reading the book, so many things that I have felt my entire life were put to words for the first time.
I can see how some might call it pretentious, but I think Rand really wanted to stand on firm ground with her philosophy and her sense of moral ground.
If you don't ever decide to read the 1200 whopper of a book that is Atlas Shrugged, at least do one thing. Read the 50 page excerpt (I'm sure you can find it online) of John Galt's radio speech to the world. 50 pages is nothing and you can hammer through that in an hour at least. But really pay attention and absorb what is being said. It's important shit.
The end.
Atlas Shrugged, Starving The Monkeys, Mobocracy Looter Minions
Submitted by John and Dagny Galt (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 5:03 AM PDT.
Hello From John and Dagny Galt,
In Atlas Shrugged and Starving The Monkeys we find the Philosophical Maturity of the Non-Aggression Principle and why the Mobocracy Looter Minions resort to aggression and force and fraud in their doomed-to-fail attempts to continue the looting for booty and the perpetual gravy-train.
As students and advocates of the John Galt Solution and it's mirror in contemporary times, Starving The Monkeys(Tom Baugh, http://www.amazon.com/Starving-Monkeys-Entrepreneurial-Tom-Baugh/dp/0615...) we note with sadness the violence with which the Mobocracy Looter Minions will consume everything around them, then each other, and finally themselves. This must come to pass as the parasites perish after being cast off by their victims.
There are only two types of human beings in the universe.
The first type just want everyone to leave everyone else alone.
The second type refuse to do so.
To wit, knocking politely at our door might garner you a cup of sugar, but kicking down the door at midnight will render a much different substance.
Feel free to visit Lew Rockwell and Strike-The-Root daily, to understand more fully and completely why you should join us in refusing to be willing victims and casualties of the Mobocracy Looter Minions!
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
Atlas Shrugged, Owners Manual For The Universe!(tm)
.
A Mirror
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 5:41 AM PDT.
Much of Atlas shrugged is a mirror of society. Watch how it really bothers some people when they get a deeper look at themselves and their parasitical actions.
Atlas Shrugged
Submitted by sdunn (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 10:48 AM PDT.
@Take Notice
Atlas is very long and you need not undertake the task of reading it lightly.
I agree with you.
But man it mirrors what is going on in the U.S. right now.
I just was so shocked at how a person back in the 50's could write what she did, and be so right on this day and age.
For people that don't know, keep in mind when reading Rand that she came to the U.S. from Communist/Socialist controlled Soviet Union.
So they constantly promoted "the greater good" for the actions they took....kinda like "I am from the gov. and I am here to help".
And why exactly do we care
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 11:24 AM PDT.
And why exactly do we care what celebrities think?
Said so well
Submitted by freeurself (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 12:21 PM PDT.
Commenter khalderman got it right on the head. I feel less lonely than I did a moment ago. Thanks.
Rand debate
Submitted by Diane (not verified) on Tue Aug. 11, 2009 1:42 PM PDT.
Wow. I have pretty much been a political burnout since the last presidential election (which I think may be the default state for many libertarians), but I feel a little revived by these comments. They never devolved into petty attacks and name-calling, which I so often see on comment threads -- at least not in the parts that I read.
Nice work everyone!
Take what you can use and leave the rest...
Submitted by Allan Walstad (not verified) on Wed Aug. 12, 2009 8:42 AM PDT.
I read Atlas Shrugged over 25 years ago and found it quite a bracing antidote to the collectivist presumptions pervading so much of the media and academe. Eventually I found I agreed with her on some things and disagreed on others--such as her idea that there's something morally fishy about voluntary charity.
"Cult?" That's kind of a sneer word, isn't it? Rather than address issues, just slap on a derisive label. I can do it too: Marx, Lincoln and FDR have been and remain cult figures for many.
Read Ayn Rand? Sorry,I Have Stuff To Do!
Submitted by glen.h (not verified) on Thu Aug. 20, 2009 10:32 PM PDT.
Wow, actors like Brad'n'Ange like Rand. That is a little surprising as they have both achieved things in life, like viable careers and personal relationships. In my (thankfully) limited experience with Rand fans, actual personal achievement seems to be very rare. In fact they make the cliche 'welfare queens' look like paragons of sucess! Perhaps if they put down Ayn Rand's doorstops of books, stopped blameing everyone else for their failures in life for a change and did something alturistic, they might just become better people, instead of the whiney brats that they are!
United States Congressmen
Submitted by Hillary Smith (not verified) on Fri Nov. 6, 2009 9:58 PM PST.
United States Congressmen Ron Paul and Bob Barr, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Clarence Thomas have acknowledged her influence on their lives, and former United States President Ronald Reagan described himself as an "admirer" of Rand in private correspondence in the 1960s.
The culture of cuteness
Submitted by Miley Cyrus Clothing Line (not verified) on Sat Nov. 7, 2009 1:52 AM PST.
I read some research in Japan that cuteness actually has an economic value. KEIO university for example has an entire department investigating the importance of looking cute to the consumers.
This is a pretty good
Submitted by cod liver oil (not verified) on Mon Dec. 21, 2009 2:13 AM PST.
This is a pretty good analysis, I think. Except for that last panel. I'm sure there are violence-advocating extreme leftists out there. But I've hung out with a pretty heavily lefty crowd since college and I don't know a single person who has unironically worn a Che shirt since they were 18, ever looked to Mao's Little Red Book as a life/philosophy guide, or advocated violence to achieve their political ideals. In fact, the lefties I know are generally both vociferously anti-Ayn Rand and vociferously anti-violence. So, yeah. There's that.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
