Galt’s Glitch
Is Atlas shrugging in Brazil? This just in:
A massive power failure blacked out Brazil's two largest cities and other parts of Latin America's biggest nation for more than two hours late Tuesday, leaving millions of people in the dark after a huge hydroelectric dam suddenly went offline. Paraguay was also affected when the Itaipu dam straddling the two nations' border stopped producing 17,000 megawatts of power, resulting in outages in Rio de Janeiro, Sao Paulo and at least several other big Brazilian cities, Brazilian Mines and Energy Minister Edison Lobao said.
“The cause of the failure had not been determined . . . ”
Ayn Rand’s ghost, it seems, haunts the world yet.
Entries(RSS)
Blame the Bush Depression. Which was caused by the Bush Wars. Which have been paid for with the Bush deficits and the Bush inflation. Which are now crashing the world economy.
Mr. Raimondo,
Sorry, but Ayn Rand was one of the most despicable people to ever inhabit God's earth. Fortunately, there are sane libertarians who disavow her and continue to adhere to Christian morality. Reason requires me to reject her nonsense.
Mr. Whitmoore: It may be that MS Rand was as despicable as you say, but that has hardly anything to do with the matter at hand. The question is: does Justin (and MS Rand) have a point, suggesting that the world runs on the backs of the gifted?
In my adult life, I can recall three major (region wide) power outages in the US, one of which became more or less legendary. None of these made me think of Atlas Shrugged, the boring and tedious book of the malicious and over-rated Ayn Rand.
I found this part of the blackout more interesting -
"The outage came in hanndy for a group of muggers, who robbed people en masse near Rio's Maracana stadium, which will host the Olympics' opening and closing ceremonies. But overall, police said, crime did not rise in Rio and fell in Sao Paulo during the outage."
I cannot be a conspiracy-monger but can anyone think of a better way for Brazil to finance the Olympics. After this blackout, money will flow to them from all around the world so that the Olympics are not embarassed or jeopardized. No, I don't think anyone planned this but it is funny how things work.
Christians don't like Ayn Rand because she would never have loved her enemies to the point of suicide.
She may have been a nasty old hag, but at least she knew how to keep her self respect.
I thought Ayn Rand plagiarized Garet Garret's "The Driver," and only Chronicles Magazine has had the moxie to call her on it. She is over-rated indeed, I'm so confused I can't decide whether to drink beer or eat an Eskimo Pie.
To paraphrase Marx, "Any twenty year old who doesn't recognize Ayn Rand's genius is a wimp, any thirty old who does is a g_ddam fool."
let's not forget about the power outages and water rationing in Venezuela. That is the real story behind this news item. Its not Atlas it is the usual Socialist Utopians at work.
#7 C.I., you are being disingenuous. There is considerably more to the distaste of Ayn Rand by her Christian critics than what you have inferred. Her atheism and hatred of nature have always bothered me, and in my opinion anyone who considers the concept of Christian charity to be indistinguishable with that of communism does not deserve to be taken seriously. Yes, Rand may have at times been right and yes, she may have been a very bright and charismatic individual who was able to debate with the best of them, but that does not outweigh the grievous evils that underlie the philosophy of objectivism. After all, even Hitler and Marx were capable of making agreeable points on occasion. Calling oneself an objectivist is merely an extravagant way of calling oneself a hedonist. As a Christian I cannot give praise or support to Ayn Rand. Her objectivism is an ideology of social Darwinism in its purest form which is capable of nothing more than the fostering of destruction.
Ayn Rand's work is a perfect example of evil draping itself with some good so it is appealing and glamorous.
Rand was right about a few things. Yes, there moochers and looters out there. Yes, the lazy and slothful use the government to steal one man's money and give to another to whom it does not belong, a form of legalized theft.
But Rand's philosophy overall is objectively evil. It is the flip side of communism. Instead of worshipping the state, which communists do, Rand worships the individual.
So when Rand is right she is only right in the sense that a broken clock is right twice a day, and a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while.
No human being can have anything to do with her individous ideology without endangering his soul.
Again, her books are appealing precisely because evil is glamorous.
I would correct you, R. Cort Kirkwood. Ayn Rand does not worship the individual. Objectivism has no place for worship anywhere in it. What Ms. Rand does advocate is individual liberty. She was an individualist. Her philosophy leaves us all free to act in any manner we choose (non-coercively, of course). From that beginning we are all free to pass judgement on others' actions as we see fit (non-coercively, of course). She didn't believe in God. You may judge her accordingly. Her philosophy allows your judgement. Condemn her all you want, but, please, get her philosophy correct!
Mr. Phillips, I think you are missing Mr. Kirkwood’s point which is that objectivism deifies the individual in the same manner that communism deifies the state. Worship does not always require theism as you seem to be implying. In fact your entire comment is an outright non sequitur.
I disagree, Mr. Porter. Objectivism doesn't deify anything. An Objectivist would be insulted by such an assertion. Objectivism is a philosophy predicated on individualism, nothing more.
Just for the record, the Dan Phillips above is not me, the Dan Phillips a.k.a. Red Phillips.
#15 Mr. Phillips, you are right that an objectivist would be insulted at the claim that their philosophy involves the deification of the individual. Likewise, a communist would be insulted if one asserted that they deify the state. Just because one may feel insulted or disbelieve that it is a form of worship does not mean that my observation of the contrary is erroneous.
I would also like to point out that LaVeyan Satanism which does admit without pretense that it is a faith rooted in self worship, is derived heavily from the philosophies of Ayn Rand.
#16 Thank you for the clarification Red Phillips.
"Dan Phillips above is not me, the Dan Phillips a.k.a. Red Phillips."
Well, no shi...!! As if anybody could mistake this delbert, Dan Phillips, for Red Phillips! Good heavens.
@Mr. Phillips (#13, 15):
I'm afraid Mr. Phillips is in denial. Having read all four of Rand's novels, I know what objectivism is. I didn't want to get into this, but given that Mr. Phillips is misrepresenting his cynosure, I have to.
Ayn Rand did indeed worship the individual, although hers is a leftist philosophy, as are all variants of libertarianism and liberalism, which are suicidal ideologies. I suggest Mr. Phillips reread "Atlas Shrugged," focusing on her descriptions of the men whom Dagney Taggart admires. Except that it is not admiration; it is naked idolatry. Focus on her use of the dollar sign: idolatry.
"Worship" is the wrong word? Au contraire. "Worship" is precisely the right word. Her fanatical devotion to greed, selfishness and sexual deviance was religious in nature. Again, look at her ecstatic descriptions of the men in her novels.
Rand was an "individualist?" Would Mr. Phillips care to discuss where "individualism" has gotten us over the past 40 years?
But let's turn that around a little by considering the Stalinist mind control she exerted over her followers (admittedly, very likely a brain dead lot). Anyone who disagreed was banished from her midst. And she was an "individualist?"
But on to Rand's atheism and ballyhooed love for "reason."
Rand was an atheist for the same reason that most atheists are atheists: They don't want to hear the word "no." And usually, the things they don't want to hear "no" about is sex. You might note that her novels focus heavily on unbridled, animalistic passion that has nothing to do with human love.
And Rand was an apostle reason, we are told.
Were Ayn Ran the great apostle of "reason" that she professed herself to be, she would have reasoned herself into a belief in God. Instead, to slake her greed and perverse sexual desires, she adopted a "philosopohy" called "Objectivism."
She should have called it "Subjectivism," given that it denies objective moral truths that have been taught for 2,000 years of Christendom. For Rand, anything goes.
You have been taken in, Mr. Phillips. Rand was a huckstress.
I strongly encourage you to reread the penultimate line of my early post (#12).
Although Ayn Rand's skewering of socialism/modern liberalism was right on, she offered a repellant philosophy based on a mix of greed, self-worship and un-Christian attitudes. Her philosophy is implausible as a governing model. It doesn't reflect how people live.
Anyone else notice how few children libertarians tend to have? Sure sign of a dead movement.
I second Mr. Kirkwood, although I dispute that Randianism is libertarian at all. Rand, the supposed individualist, thought it was OK to murder an entire countries populace if they had an 'irrational' government that was hostile to the US - and her opinion of what constitutes an 'irrational' government runs the gambit from the Soviet Union (communism) to Saudi Arabia (theocratic monarchy). To her, there was no such thing as 'collateral damage' - kill 'em all.
If that not the antitheses of her supposed individualism, I dont know what is. Randianism is fascism, not liberty.
Ayn Rand offers nothing to civilization whatsoever. Her sort can only live comfortably within a society that others have built. She sat outside the circle and sniped about how things could be different. Big deal! She's got her cult following, and as far as I can tell, they're going nowhere.
While the JRC convened in San Antonio, I was in NYC and looked with awe at the relics of ancient Greece. Somehow they formed a civilization that became the envy of the modern world. However, New York being the politically correct hole that it is, moved a room of wooden totem poles from the islands of New Britain and New Ireland next to the Greek exhibit. It was ugly stuff with overemphasis on genitalia. I finally read the sign which explained that these relics date all the way back to 1960.
I fear that New Western Europe will mimic the chaotic 60s rubbish of the deepest darkest Soputh Seas, and ignore the civilization that has kept man's basest instincts at bay for over 4000 years.
* South Seas,
Another messiah complex goes down the tubes.
When are people going to figure this out?
McCallum
Ouch! I get home from work to find that I've been vilified almost as much as Ayn Rand! Granted, it's been almost 35 years since I read Rand, but I think I must have read different books from you guys. In the books I read page after page said you could only defeat an idea with a better idea. The books I read were collectively the greatest moral defense of capitalism I've ever seen. The books I read were full of admonitions that an individual should act on his own conscience, and be prepared to accept the consequences of those actions. I didn't see any deification or worship worthy of mention. And certainly nowhere was there a hint of "to the gas chambers, go." Exactly the opposite in fact.
Now I'll admit that Rand was over the top in her denunciations of anyone who disagreed with her. In her personal life she was obviously a fruitcake. So what. It's the philosophy she espoused that is important. And the philosophy I read was full of encouragement for us to do our best and expect the same from our associates, no matter what. Determine things for yourself. Practice good old-fashioned American self-reliance. Those are admonitions I have taken to heart and tried to practice in my own life.
So get off her back! She was an atheist. It's her soul that is at stake, not yours. How Christian is it of you to despise her so. I would have thought you would be praying for her. Instead your hatred is palpable. What would Jesus think of you?
Oh, I almost forgot. Mr. Maxwel, I am unaware of Ms. Rand's advocacy of genocide. Could you please cite for me where and when that occurred? I'm not personally an Objectivist, but I know people who are, and they would be dismayed to learn of such a thing. Frankly, I find it hard to believe. I would greatly appreciate it if you would produce the quote.
#11 Gordon Parker
What other book of engaging fiction besides Atlas Shrugged is as apt at teaching students how to spot their modern enemies? The plot keeps readers fully attentive, and the bad guys are truly bad, all being the same sort we deal with daily.
C.I.
Precisely what do you mean by "modern enemies" in this context? Could you also elaborate on why you believe it to be necessary that we have a work of "engaging fiction" to teach students how to spot them? Have you pondered the possibility that Ayn Rand herself may also be one of our greatest "modern enemies"?
The flaws of socialism are self evident to even a small child, yet grown fools irrationality believe that it could actually function properly as a system. Your faith in objectivism as a feasible ethical theory is comparably irrational.
As for what I would recommend… it is solely the gospels of Jesus Christ as according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Although it is not a book of fiction, it is a far superior prose and contains far more accurate predictions.
Good, spirited discussion of the mostly risible Ms. Rand. Has anyone besides me noticed that her novella Anthem is more or less a less-well-written, diminished parody of Eugene Zamyatin's We? I thought so immediately upon first reading Anthem 40 years (give or take) ago.
Two things must be conceded about Rand: 1) she's no literary artist, and 2) her imagination was barely, if at all, original.
I admit I'm still waiting to discover her models for We the Living (which I've not read) and The Fountainhead (the lengthiest would-be s&m porn novel I know of--not that I know many, or any, others).
Rand's books or rather he characters and plot situations might not be more then comic book deep, but she was good popularizer in a baron land, and American's after WW II haven't had much in the way of High Culture anyway. She was good and reliable in defending throughout her life, America First and World War One era non-interventionism. I guess it's some holdover from the pre-internet debates of the 70s or something, but I do find the strong emotions so odd. I have no time for the cultists of course, but since when did this web site pay them any mind?
James Burnham & Whitacker Chambers, silent on behalf of the good guys, America First, when it counted, and both Red turncoats, seems to get a free pass into the pantheon, but not Rand? Thou doth protest too much.
Shrug, Atlas shrug. -- We all know what it means, a sort of spin on the tune in, drop-out meme of the '60s. I think we'd be lesser without the image.
@25
She and her followers always believed that. Read any article by her protege Leonard Peikoff about the Iraq War. Good example of Rand herself saying such things is her testimony before HUAC, or some of her pieces on Israel (who she thought was basically infallible). When it came to the middle east, youd have a hard time telling the difference between her and the most aggressive neocons. You should be able to find a goldmine of quotes on your own.
#31
So what you're saying, Mr, Maxwell, is that you can't produce the quote with which you attempt to destroy the woman. I had expected more from you, Sir.
@32
I did not'quote' her, I was paraphrasing from memory. Both were within essays, I think the Saudi Arabia one had to do with the 6 day war, and the Soviet bit I believe she repeated on TV. There are plenty of Rand-worshipping websites out there that have all her 'wisdom' archived for you - have at it.
I dont 'attempt' to destroy her, she did it herself. These are not some new revelations on the woman, even Raimondo wrote an essay on the warmongering ways of the Rand cultists (see lewrockwell.com: 'the Objectivist Death Cult').
#33
You should be ashamed of yourself.
@34
For not doing your googling for you? Sorry, some of us have lives.
No, for making irresponsible claims that another human being advocates genocide, and then refusing to substantiate them. You suggested I read Raimondo's essay "The Objectivist Death Cult," so I read the essay. Raimondo takes great issue with Leonard Piekoff and Yaron Brook (who wouldn't if Raimondo's quotes are correct); here's what he said about Ms. Rand: "A far cry from Ayn Rand herself, who, during the 1930's took to the stump for Republican presidential candidate Wendell Willkie, and when confronted by hecklers - of which there were many - gave as good or better than she got."
Now, please, Mr. Maxwell, show me where Mr. Raimondo says that Ms. Rand advocated genocide. And I repeat: show me the quote by Ms. Rand herself in which she made such a proposal. If you want to besmirch the reputations of Piekoff and Brook, then, provided the quotes are correct, I will join with you in the denunciations.
But to put Piekoff's and Brook's words in Ms. Rand's mouth is an action worthy of shame. When the Catholic Church regularly burned its opponents on the stake, was that something we should say Jesus did? Of course not! But your claims are of the same nature.
Are you a Christian? Do you practice Christian ethics? Would you say your actions on this board are something Jesus would do? I repeat, you ought to be ashamed!