Introducing: ‘The Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged’
by Chris MortensenIn October 1957, author & philosopher Ayn Rand published her last and most ambitious novel. Atlas Shrugged was destined be one of the most popular, influential and controversial books of the twentieth century.
Set in what Rand called ‘the day after tomorrow,’ Atlas depicts an American society driven to the edge of collapse by over-zealous government regulators and their business cronies. Besides having penned three previous novels, Rand had already written for the movies and had success on Broadway and knew how to capture an audience’s attention. Atlas was an old-fashioned page-turner – a stylistic throwback to 19th Century classical romantics in the manner of Tolstoy, Jane Austen and Victor Hugo. But 20th Century critics, accustomed to a regular diet of naturalistic prose (Kerouac’s On the Road was published that same year), failed to appreciate the novel’s archetypal characters, operatic themes and melodramatic sensibilities. Atlas was panned and even ridiculed for what some critics called its ‘unlikely plot’ and ‘black & white’ characters.’
—–
But questions of literary value had little to do with the controversy that has followed author and novel ever since. Atlas is at its heart a morality play illustrating Rand’s conviction that America had lost touch with her core values of individualism and freedom and was marching blindly toward the collectivism that had ravaged her native Russia. The only hope, she said, was for American to turn away from the concept of altruism – living for the sake of others – that had represented ‘morality’ in this country since the late 19th Century. Loving thy neighbor is killing us, she said. The solution and salvation lay in selfishness.
This eyebrow-raising theme – along with the ‘cause and effect’ philosophy Rand introduced called Objectivism – was received with open hostility by philosophers, religious groups, politicians and intellectuals of every ideological stripe. Rand, they said, was a nut, a loony, a fascist! But even as author and novel were intellectually marginalized, Atlas Shrugged found a popular audience, made the bestseller lists and remained there for half a century.
During that time, like religion and politics, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged were dangerous topics to bring up at a dinner party – unless your intent was to start a food fight. So, for years you didn’t hear much about Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged. Even as the book stayed on the bestseller list, year after year after year.
Then came the financial crisis of 2008. In that single year Atlas Shrugged sold over two hundred thousand copies – an all time record. The following year over half a million books were sold. Perhaps even more surprisingly – in the media and public discourse, you heard the names Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged again.
Maybe it was the countless new laws and freedoms-limiting regulations Washington was churning out in the wake of 9/11. Or maybe because people couldn’t see the upside of the foreign conflicts in which their young men and women were sacrificing their futures, bodies and lives. Or around the time that the government-built Mississippi River Bridge collapsed. Or when Hurricane Katrina destroyed a major American city because incompetent cronies had been left in charge. Or when the housing bubble burst… and the brokerage houses went under….and the banks collapsed….or when the auto industry was nationalized and the stock market crashed and the jobs went away.
Somewhere in there – during that tumultuous first decade of the 21st Century. That’s when you heard people talking about Atlas Shrugged. Because people remembered that all that had happened in the book. And how spooky was that?
When I first read Rand in college, I was oblivious to the controversial or political aspects of the novel. It’s not that I failed to grasp Rand’s ideas – she makes them abundantly clear. But at that tender age I couldn’t imagine them being controversial. Wasn’t she talking about individual rights, creative freedom, self-sufficiency? Atlas for me was just a good read – a page turner (if you don’t count John Galt’s 57 page speech near the end).
Nor did I recognize much connection between the world of Atlas Shrugged and the world I lived in. I saw no chance that the America I knew would soon or ever deteriorate into anything resembling the bleak dystopia depicted in the novel.
That’s why I was surprised to discover that Atlas and Rand were not universally admired. In fact, quite the opposite was true. “You can’t be serious. You actually liked that book?” Rand was an elitist, a fascist, an atheist, a Darwinist. She’s all about greed. She calls selfishness a virtue. She wants corporations to rule. She wants to exploit the poor!
Was this true? How could I have missed that?
What did Ayn Rand know and how did she know it? That’s the question I looked to answer when I began the documentary Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged.
My documentary is not intended to be a defense of Ayn Rand or the ideas contained in her epic novel. Indeed, I’ve come to believe that Rand’s ideas don’t require defending. But they ought to be removed from the rancor and ad hominem attacks in order to be heard and understood. Most Rand detractors I’ve met confess to having never read a single page of her work.
Nor does it offer a doc version of a TV-pundit-style shouting match - although, I confess to having spent a lot of time persuading prominent figures with opposite views to Rand to go on camera. But they demurred – probably because they were no more interested in appearing in a philosophical reality show than I was in moderating one.
Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged is a biography of a book and an idea. Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged – about as dire an illustration of America as could be imagined at that point – in the post-war late 40’s and mid-50’s. We usually think of that period as one of the most benign and prosperous eras in American history – certainly in the 20th Century. Yet that’s when Rand decided that we were on a slippery slope to dystopia and devoted the next twelve years of her life to showing us how and why.
How did she know where it would all lead? The author once said that, if you can identify the dominant philosophy of a society and you can predict its course. What Rand perceived as America’s dominant philosophy – and fatal direction – provides the jumping-off place for this film.
Here’s just a bit of what I’ve learned over the last two years: Contrary to what you may have heard or believe: Ayn Rand was not right wing or fascist or elitist or even conservative. The intellectual she most despised was William F. Buckley! She would likely have seen little distinction between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Ayn Rand and her ideas – if they must bear comparison – are similiar to what once was known as classical liberalism – unequivocal belief in the individual’s rights to lead his own life or – as Jefferson phrased it – the pursuit of happiness.
Rand championed small businessmen – independents. Didn’t much care for corporations, thought they promoted groupthink and limited individual creativity. As for the ideas that greed is good and selfishness as a virtue - she enjoyed throwing those bombshells around simply to get a rise out of people and to get them to think about the difference between earning something on your own and stealing it or having it handed to you. In that sense, even a liberal stooge like – well – me, has to admit that, given that choice, greed is the more desirable trait. Incidentally, despite her strong endorsement of capitalism, Rand herself didn’t care much about money or any material things in general. While writing Atlas and for the rest of her life, she lived simply in a little apartment on 34th Street in Manhattan with her husband and a cat. To make ends meet, she took in laundry. (Okay, that last sentence is false.).
As for the prophecy of Atlas Shrugged? I’m a glass-half-full guy and am still hoping that the similarities between the book and today’s headlines are all just coincidence. What do you think?
Mad Universe Presents A film by Chris Mortensen. Ayn Rand & the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged. Executive Producer John Corry, Associate Producer Fawaz Al-Matrouk, Camera Al Broderick Mark Simon, Editor Martin Singer. Produced, written & directed by Chris Mortensen. Run Time: 85 minutes Genre: Documentary Rating: This film is not rated. Adult language. Distribution Mad Universe, LLC.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
156 Comments
this looks surprisingly good
Be very carefull who you idolize. Atlas Shrugged has predicted a lot of the problems we see but I contend for the wrong reason than she conjectures. It is not because of the philosophy of Alturism or living for others it is entirely because of living for the self. Politicians will do anything to be re-elected, gain more finacial support and is a perfect example of living for the self.The me generation, wanting what we consider is due us and who cares who pays for it are all selfish motivations. Indiscriminate sex with no regard to damage caused is a completely selfish motivation.
When people realize thier actions and inactions have ripples and consequences that have a real inpact on others they temper thier behaivior. She was rationalizing her own sefishness at the same time predicting the results of the very same. Government gets involved not because they are concerned with us but because they are concerned about themselves.
Too many very smart people have been seduced by her rationializations and not even realizing that concern for the other rather than for the self is a better path to success. When you go into business you are concerned about your customers, you provided a better product or service at a better price and you succeed. As that business owner you are also more concerned about your employees because they work for you and the business owner has a responsibility to be concerned for thier welfare. Thusly the employees work better and have more loyalty. In a self centered approach the employees are only concerned about keep thier jobs and not the service or the products they provide which is union mentality.
As I said, be very carefull who you idolize
I am not a fan of Ayn Rand. She was for massive abortions, believed that the sick and old should not be cared for, wanted Atheism spread worldwide, and to top it all off had an affair in her fifties with a married man in his twentys. After about a decade of it, he wanted it to end but Ayn treatened to kill him and his wife if he did…She was an evil lady.
Those Christians who pan "Atlas Shrugged" because the author was an athiest are missing the point, which is that philosophy is what matters, not religion. If the U.S was an athiest nation, it would be just as great.
It is totally selfish to want to treat your customers and employee well. Obviously, if the employees are good you selfishly want to keep them on your team, to selfishly help them grow and improve themselves and, in tuen, your business.
Mrs. Rand's selfishness was an enlightened one, one that understands the individual is not alone. The reason Regressives cannot grasp this is because they have the emotional maturity of a two year old, when everything is Me Me Me and No No No.
By your standard there is no one, ever, worthy of admiration, no work by the hand of man with any worth or value. People, all people, are flawed creatures. It's the rare thing of beauty, the rare clear thought, that elevates man above their base nature.
Objectivism is a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.
As a fervent devotee of Rand (who saved me from leftism), I thank you for your honest characterization of her here. It's very rare to find anything written about Rand from either the left or right that's not dripping with contempt and peppered with lies. The bulkf of the comments here illustrate this, as usual whenever Rand's name comes up. For those of you interested in and unfamiliar with Rand: read her and judge her ideas for yourself.
Couldn't it be said that concern for self can be expressed by concern for others? A person starts a business, mainly to make money and be successful, and he is interested in promoting a good product because it is a reflection of himself/herself. That person hires people who they trust to make the product the way it is supposed to be made and thusly takes care of those employees in a manner that encourages that production. The business owner is still taking concern for himself to a high level but at the same time spreads that concern to all who are involved with him. He knows that they make him successful which is the whole point of why he went into business, to make himself successful. I hope that made sense in some form or fashion.
As a Catholic, I obviously find Rand's views on abortion to be reprehensible and hypocritical — you can't have liberty without life … plain and simple. The rights of the unborn as individuals should be protected like everyone else's.
I also find her views on religion at be borderline ignorant. The Catholic church has always championed the rights of the individual over the collective (plus, it's an awesome adventure!). It is through your talents as an individual that you can be charitable and serve God — but through FREEWILL (just like Rush's song about Rand).
That being said, you have to look at things from her perspective. She fled one of the most oppressive regimes in history. She has seen things I probably never will, so her distrust of anything centralized is understandable — I just wish she would've been open to the fact that her and Pope John Paul, for example, had a lot in common.
I still find Rand's work to be invaluable. "Altas Shrugged" in particular did wonders for putting conservatism/libertarianism in a context to easily understand. No one can deny that the book is prophetic, which makes this documentary a must-see for me.
By the way … has anyone ever seen her comments on Israel? Priceless: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
"Contrary to what you may have heard or believe: Ayn Rand was not right wing or fascist or elitist or even conservative. The intellectual she most despised was William F. Buckley! She would likely have seen little distinction between George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Ayn Rand was right-wing, but true, she was not fascist or conservative or elitist. The intellectual she most despised was Immanuel Kant. Buckley she hardly took seriously, like Karl Marx. No, she would not see a distinction between Bush and Obama, unlike most conservatives.
What's a massive abortion? J/k – but how about sourcing that, since you're implying Rand was a eugenicist/proponent of eugenics, which she was not and that's a pretty nasty thing to say about someone, living or dead, sort of like everything else you said about Rand.
While she did indeed have an affair with Nathaniel Branden, his wife Barbara and her husband Frank were both aware of it and Rand didn't threaten to kill anyone (read Barbara Branden's memoir of those years for a greater understanding – there were not secrets and lies, and the affair was conducted with everyone's awkward approval).
When you say "cared for," you are correct in the sense that she believed that it's improper for the government to take money from one person and give it to another person, including taking care of an old person who didn't plan for the future and whose family is too selfish to take care of him/her. Take care of the sick ie she would've been against Obamacare and was galled by Social Security, Medicare and, no doubt, Medicaid (as am I, as are a great many Americans in their 30s, 20s and younger who face increasingly strenuous tax-burdens to fund the moral imperatives of people who believe that the bible and the tax code go together like peas and carrots).
She didn't want atheism "spread" worldwide – she was an atheist, though, but there was nothing evangelical about her atheism. The term "atheism" is not used in Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead or Anthem one time, nor is Judeo-Christianity explicitly mocked or shown contempt – she removed the character of a priest from AS because she understood that many who agreed with her ideas would be turned off if they saw it as an attack on Judeo-Christian values. She abhorred "altruism" and the most vicious attacks on Rand's character and her work tend to come from people who are threatened by this attack on a good mooch spoiled, just like movement Conservatism was turned off by Rand as soon as she told William Buckley Jr, upon first meeting him, that he "was much too smart to believe in God!" Buckley repaid her insult by publishing the infamous Whittaker Chambers review of AS, which demonstrated Chambers had not read the book (like most of the book's nastier critics).
I try to avoid Rand threads, but thought one at BH might be a bit different – hardly. Whenever Rand's name is mentioned in a positive light, out comes those offended by her atheism to slander a dead woman's name – never fails. Most haven't read her books or multiple bios written about her just like they haven't read the holy books on which they claim to base their lives.
If America was an atheist nation we wouldn't exist. Who do you think first came here and why?
Ayn Rand's selfishness was enlightened. It is more in line with putting on your oxygen mask first, then putting one on your child. Having government employees running around with the masks – not so good.
I read Atlas for the firs time this summer. I was a bit taken aback at the parallels between what was published then, and what's happening now. Life imitating art…
In a perverse way, the Obamoids and other looters do subscribe to Rand's philosophy of self-interest. They're using their talents purely to benefit themselves.
The big difference between them and the residents of Galt's Gulch is that they produce nothing of value and are a net drain on GDP.
The doers have been leaving for Galt's Gulch for a long time now, either by going abroad where they can produce without unreasonable restraint or underground where they operate in the growing American gray economy.
Does selfishness really lead to less dystopian society? The small business that Rand champions may have a very difficult time without addressing the fraud and corruption that is endemic in a society that does not adhere to its principles.
Consider a recent case in Texas where the judge appointed a "trustee" over a Dallas business owner. The business owner was involved in a civil dispute and paid millions of dollars to lawyers, and when he objected to their fees, they had a “friendly” judge seize all of his property, without any notice or hearing, and essentially ordered him to be an involuntary servant to the lawyers. The business owner has been under this "servant" order for 10 months and is prohibited from owning any possessions, prohibited from working, etc…
http://www.lawinjustice.com has details about this disturbing case. Does selfishness fix problems like these?
"Loving thy neighbor is killing us, she said. The solution and salvation lay in selfishness."
but isn't this what the democrats do? they on one hand tell us to love thy neighbor, while at the sametime being extremely selfish about lining thier own pockets? just now they are having these phony protests to tell us how the rich must give up thier wealth, while having pensions and perks far and above the average person.
Set the author aside, Ayn Rand, her philosophies, and simply look at the book. The similarities to modern day America are alarming, and should be heeded. I look forward to your documentary.
Oh yay… a bunch of Professors running our lives.
"Atlas was an old-fashioned page-turner"
I'm sure it was a page-turner, lol.
Ayn Rand's work is awesome, and works well within the safety and liberty of a Christian nation… not so much in Atheist nations… not so much…
I find it interesting that Rand's world view, despite its flaws & absurdities, has evolved into a kind of underground, alternative humanism for people on the right. And this has happened through the market, without the planning & institutional support from government & academia enjoyed by left-liberal humanism.
Ironically progressives keep feeding the Rand phenomenon by acting according to her framing of their agenda.
I also find it interesting that many of China's new millionaires plan to do their own version of "shrugging" by seeking citizenship in other countries and moving their fortunes out of China. They've figured this out on their own, without Rand's help.
Indeed, her comments on Israel prove she doesn't believe her own books. When it comes down to it, she was not only a collectivist (Israel was founded on communist principles) but a TRIBALIST. Her books were to trick the Goyim in to going it alone while the Jews band together to control the world.
BTW, it has been the Muslims fighting communism in the region.
Rand's religion or lack thereof are completely irrelevant. When she claims "loving thy neighbor is killing us" isn't it possible that she meant in the context of the citizens relationship to the government? After all, isn't that what she saw happen in her native country? What is alarming to me is that, as a Christian, I see this kind of philosophy taking over our churches. The idea that compassion and true Christian giving can be expressed by supporting a massive secular bureaucracy. The non-Biblical ideals like "social justice" are beginning to take the place of real sound principles. As a Christian, do I want my leaders to share my ideals? Of course, but if they will simply follow the Constitution and keep the government out of my church, the church (if it is fulfilling its mission) will take care of the poor, sick, elderly, etc. We've gone so fare now, we'll probably never know with a government so big it actually thinks it is its job to regulate everything from air travel to a kids lemonade stand. The rollback must start in November 2012 or Rand will be right.
I always thought her use of the word "selfishness" for the quality of valuing the self was a mistake. In "The Fountainhead" her novel previous to AS, the protagonist, Howard Roark, goes out of his way to help others, particularly those who have been damaged by the collectivist society. His interactions improves their lives usually one on one, but even by his architecture the society in general. The truly selfishin her stories, in the Judeo Christian use of the term were the James Taggerts and Toohey's who knew better but wished to rule.
Theirs is not the enlightened self-interest that Rand promoted, nor have they the forthrightness and honesty she admired. They are EXACTLY what she preached against, selfish faceless parasites preaching that others must sacrifice so that they the (selfish) parasites might "give" (and incidentally live very very well). And those gullible enough to believe too much in altruism are the losers who let these parasites thrive. Be very, very suspicious of those who preach altruism while living like kings.
Any business that puts its customers on a pedestal will first and foremost NOT MAKE A PROFIT. Its in your customers best interest that your efforts reward you with enough to sustain your existence (that you may be there to again provide an inexpensive service/product) while providing them with your best efforts (regardless of your own outcome, the customer on the pedestal trumps all) which affords them more of their own wealth to improve on their own standard of living. As for your own employees above yourself or your company, you'll not be in business long at all with that model. Employees work for the salary as measured against the job itself and anyone selling anything else isn't a businessman. As for unionism, its the ultimate expression of employee first and it is very much an 'us VS them" model with its own caste structure. The member therein is indeed keyed to his own fortunes, as are we all, but the union itself absolutely is an 'us" model.
I love her books, 'Atlas Shrugged', 'We The Living', 'The Fountainhead' are all great works, if a bit long winded, especially in the case of AS. She saw things around her very clearly and from her Russia experiences she knew that the past is prologue in the case of runaway gov't.
That said, I never really bought into 'Objectivism' or the personality cult that surrounded her. I also really loved Bill Buckley and her near hatred of him always turned me off.
Like all people, she was flawed, deal with it.
I've yet to meet another businessman who went into it thinking 'I have to make jobs for others." rather than 'I can do that better." A successful business does something for its customers as well as it can profit/quality/efficiency and its those same customers belief that it is being done best cost/quality/timely which secures their patronage.
Well said. When I hear someone say, 'social justice' I know the rest of what they say is pretty much a waste of breath.
I've read Anthem and will read Atlas Shrugged right now. I have it at home.
On a side note, many of my favorite band"s (RUSH) early songs and some of the later ones were inspired by the writings of Rand. Check them out if you like unique rock.
It's the blind belief in selflessness that kills us by enabling lazy and selfish parasites to thrive. Rand was a little harsh on religion, and it is unfortunate that she was, but it is because she refused to compromise with anything she thought was mushy or untrue. More is the pity, because the notions of individual rights and dignity she championed are largely the creation of the Judeo-Christian world and were not thought up by atheists. Rand's ideas and her followers should be allies of Christian society, not enemies.
Self-interest is not the same as selfishness.
The world easily tolerates self-interest. When it is in the best interest of my "self" to lift up a friend or neighbor (which clearly, it can be) then my altruism is a gift I give myself and my community. I impart, encourage, forgive, fund, or otherwise help those who directly influence my "self" community and I can thus expect a return for my effort: a stable marriage, a secure neighborhood, a thriving community of friends and family. This is how individuals co-habitate and cooperate: entirely out of self-interest. (Feelings have nothing to do with it, but there are many lovely ones that arrive at the doorstep of the properly self-interested.)
What nobody tolerates is dictated altruism from a disinterested entity; from a person whose idea of self-interest is to take from another in order to shore up their own lazy ambition. That may be self-interested on the face of it, but at heart it is other-interested. It is a weak and lazy character that parasitically seeks the Other to achieve what it will not do for itself. Selfish in the sense that such will not tolerate even the notion of having to look after itself, not when others can be made to do it for them. We have all lived under such a tyrant if we've ever had a baby.
And that's why parenting isn't for indulgent cowards who can be emotionally blackmailed into a lifetime of servitude to a tyrant. Where do you think Democrats come from, after all?
That's exactly what I'm talking about! It's how you can be selfish yet still have a high morality with that selfishness. When I start a business, or farm out work (which is what I do), it's to make me look good, make money for myself, and create more business for me. The people I contract out to, or employ, get the benefit of what I'm trying to do for myself. If anything, they're using ME to make themselves more successful just as I'm using them. We all benefit in the long run but I had to start the ball rolling and it was initially with concern for myself in mind.
It's almost biblical: you can't love others until you love yourself. You can't benefit others until you benefit yourself.
wait a minute. selfishness is a good thing. when i improve my house for my own vanity, and selfishness, the next owner of my house gets the benefit of my improvement as well. when i produce products for less money, by increasing productivity of my workers, the consumer benefits from my selfishness of earning all the extra money produced by the increased sales. and the consumer benefits from the lower prices of my goods. when i make this extra money, and hoard it away in a bank, i like the extra interest i earn to feed my selfishness. the bank then loans the money out to help someone else purchase a home, or start thier own business. this is what she is referring to, not lazy selfishness of union workers, or welfare recipients.
they are now, and look what kind of mess they made?
Selfishness can never be enlightened, only rationalized. Yes a businessman wants to suceed for his own reasons but that simply does not matter. All businessman want to suceed, the question is which busniesses do suceed and why? You suceed by understanding it is the customer, not you, thaqt is the key. It is also imperative that you do not give away the farm because then your ability to serve your customers will be short lived. Gordon Geko in Wall Street is the personification of selfishness and Greed, powerful motivators, but he produced nothing but profit and improved nothing. The opposite is just as bad, keeping failing enterprises going instead of re-inventing them.
It seems to be two sides of the same coin, but motivations matter. Is it better to do the right thing for the wrong reasons? Or is it better to do the wrong thing for the right reasons? Niether is preferable but sometimes life can be complicated.
Native Americans came here first.
"2112" introduced me to Ayn Rand, and changed my life forever. Yeah!
Look, it's OhSoStupid, spreading idiotcy indiscriminately for all to ignore.
I love Ayn Rand's works. Atlas Shrugged is the embodiment of Santayana's maxim: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." She studied history as well as philosophy in college, BTW.
Excellent! +1000!
Same here! The Thinking Man's Rock Band has and continues to warm my fuzzy little brain!
Good article. I also see her as a classic liberal.
"The Constitution only guarantees the American people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." Ben Franklin
Indeed! Like:
You don't get something for nothing
You can't have freedom for free
You won't get wise with the sleep still in your eyes,
No matter what your dream might be!
Start reading AS today. You won't be disappointed!
Wasn't chastising you but adding to this line of thought to reinforce the message. Its is exactly what exists within successful businesses and why they continue to be so. By their writing, a great many seem to believe that a business' prosperity is moot when its the crux to the employee.
Post a job which is a short term contract and another which pays less but is long term. You'll get resumes 10:1 for the long term position. If that position is in a successful company, those resumes become ones of better skilled workers. Most of those better skilled workers will also likely be currently employed also but seeking a better position, working conditions or chance of advancement based upon their performance.
The true genius of small business is work environment. We can't compete with advancement or in some cases salary but we excel at flexibility.
She chose that word deliberately, and spent most of her life defining and defending it. Check out her book "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Wrong those migrating from Eurasia did.
Ayn Rand was an atheist and her worldview antithetical to our judeo-christian ethic. And not only an atheist, but she HATED religion, including Christianity. This is not my opinion, but a fact. I wish conservatives would stop pushing her tripe. She not only opposes collectivism, but also altruism. She calls it "evil." She even wrote a book arguing against the very notion of altruism. That should be unacceptable to conservatives. I mean, do human beings really need to be convinced to be more selfish? Some things require no further reinforcement.
Philosophy is bent by the events unfolding around their creator therefor it very much exists as is recorded because of the prevailing religion. Bias isn't developed in a vacuum.
Planned parenthood?
The conservative creed!
Neil would give me a slightly disapproving look right now, since he's more of a libertarian.
I'll start reading tonight!
Exactly. Christianity and Objectivism have much more in common than one might think. Both revere the individual as a unique and profoundly moral being. Both insist that actions have consequences, and that the individual must bear resopnsibility for those consequences. Both have a clear vision of good and evil. And both believe unequivocally that life is man's unalienable right.
Life happens to all of us. Losing his wife and daughter left an indelible mark.
Stellar.
True that. And this underground humanism needs to ally itself with Christianity, for our common cause of human dignity and freedom. The militant atheists drive a wedge between us that should not be there.
But you know, it took him 5-6 years but he dealt with his dual tragedy. He found the strength to carry on within himself. He didn't rely on anyone. He knew, at the end of the day he was responsible for living and continuing his work.
Of course he had good friends and family but he leaned on them just enough but not too much.
That's a lesson we can all learn from. I think it's a message that all of us need to internalize because tough times are coming. I believe Obama and his cohorts are leading us into a class-race war and we had better be prepared and find that inner strength now.
six words-The Union Of Soviet Socialist Republics.
One HUGE part of the Judeo-Christian ethic is to educate oneself in order to more fully enter into dialogue with the rest of humanity on a level that approaches a modicum of respect for the human brain's ability to think, reason, and be persuaded by thoughtful communication.
You know, the ability to make people want what you have.
You might wish to reconsider how selfish it can seem for you to speak as though others outside of your circle aren't listening. They are.
If you need a biblical citation, remember that God can speak through an ass. He can humble himself to be heard, even while being beaten for it. It does no good to proclaim this a land of judeo-xian ethics when clearly, God has allowed it to be overrun with others who do not share that view. Will you alienate them to shore up a disgruntled political position? Others are dying for the sake of the Gospel. You're merely inconvenienced by someone's viewpoint. . . a viewpoint which could do you a good political turn, but does not come in the expected package..
Consider: Ms. Rand rendered unto Caesar what is Caesar's. In fact, she gave him a good five-across-the-eyes! In the spirit of separation of church power and state power, she celebrated her part with verve and conviction. You don't have to agree with her disdain of Christianity, but you may find that many Conservatives are willing to celebrate her political viewpoint as one that aligns with our Constitution.
Perhaps she never met any thoughtful Christian who was unafraid of her godlessness enough to befriend her in spite of it. That, to my mind, is a far more damning indictment to our side.
One of the best posts I've read on these boards.
FYI, the Muslims are going to fight anybody who isn't a Muslim. I doesn't matter whether the Jews are communist or capitalist. The Muslims want them enslaved.
FYI, the Muslims are going to fight anybody who isn't a Muslim. I doesn't matter whether the Jews are communist or capitalist. The Muslims want them enslaved.
Well so far you have not made me want what it is you think you have. Perhaps you should follow your own advice? Now please disprove anything I said.
Sounds more like they don't want to be enslaved. We are in Muslim lands, not the reverse.
Liberals will refuse to accept anything, especially the written word, that contrasts with their ideology or shines the light on truth. They are so illiterate they cannot be bothered to even look up words in the dictionary like fascist which has everything to do with socialists and nothing to do with conservatives-what used be called Keltic1's liberal (gov't should leave us alone).
Since Lenin's communists threw her father out of his doctor's office and stole the property, forcing her family to live in one room of their former home, Rand brought experience to her stories. She spent seven years writing AS with clear memories of actual acts she must have seen and learned about in her 20's. The dialogue of characters in the book is right off the TV of today as the government confiscates property of the states and residents, give monopoly power to their crony non-tax paying GE for toxic light bulbs made in China while shutting down manufacturing and jobs in the U.S. of regular light bulbs, shut down the fossil energy to steal money for 'green' projects of their cronies. How could the book be more real than today?
There are plenty of whacko good writers and artists whose history we know well, Hemingway, Picasso, Van Gogh. That does not diminish this incredible work. I'd like to know sales for 2010.
More people are awakening to the real time protests of moochers organized by unions and the "We the People" Obama campaign cash on display today.
Read some of the comments above. She missed something by being as antagonistic to religion as she was, but after all whatever she saw of religion was probably the stale and self-indulgent prelates of pre-revolutionary Russia, servants and apologists for the czars and as selfish as any government functionary. Indeed churches, including Christian churches, have often been the servants of tyrants, and for this reason she discounted their assertions of moral authority. (Not everyone who preaches from a Christian pulpit in America is a saint or hero, either.) This does not disqualify her from making profound and needed observations about society, it only points up that she had her shortcomings, as every human does.
Yes, correct. Whether it be Eurasians or Native Americans, they were NOT Christian, were they?
The kind of altruism Rand disparages is not the Christian variety, but the communist/collectivist one. Big difference. She didn't fully understand the difference herself, which is why she was so anti-religious.
Agreed, she was on a serious backlash against the state religions of Europe as well as the communism she grew up under. I can sympathize with that. But someone as brilliant as she was should have know that has nothing to do with the message of the Gospel, nor altruism, a central tenet of that Gospel. She's not talking about the "Church" there, she's talking about a practical approach to the world, a worldview. She was too brilliant for me to overlook that kind of "shortcoming."
She wrote a BOOK on the evils of altruism, but couldn't understand the difference between Leftist collectivism and Christian charity? Then you are saying she was an idiot.
Why is it "all or nothing" ? I take things from different beliefs and create my own personal philosophy. I agree with some of Rand's philosophies, some I disagree with. I don't accept an "all or nothing" in any belief system.
That said, I think the moral of Atlas Shrugged can be summed up in Galt's motto, and something in which I belive … "I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."
Now this doesn't mean I will not help someone out when I can, it means I do not believe in a government-forced individual health insurance mandate just so someone else can have health insurance. And I won't expect others to as well.
OMG2012
There's a universe of difference between selfishness and self-interest. That's what I took away from "Atlas Shrugged" 30 years ago when I read it.
If somebody has read her books and still thinks they are the same, they just don't get it, or they do "get it" and still call it selfishness simply to impugn her efforts, hoping nobody will call them on it.
I've read her bios, and a lot about her. She was an awful person–domineering, cruel an predatory in her personal life.
However, if you want art you either have to put up with the sordid artists, or ignore the artist and enjoy the art.
And their civilization wasn't very prosperous or advanced, was it?
And their civilization wasn't very prosperous or advanced, was it?
I first encountered Rand's ideas as a student of architecture when I read "The Fountainhead". How many books have an architect as the hero? Going thru the book, I found I agreed with much of what Rand infused the novel with. The ideas of individualism, holding fast to one's own ideas even in the face of defeat or humiliation. The toward the end of the novel when the idea of selfishness vs selflessness are laid bare, I was thrown ass-over-tea-kettle. I had trouble reconciling the ideas I had agreed with during the first 700 pages with the manner in which they were formalized at the end of the book. I couldn't get those ideas to harmonize with my Christian faith and it's self-sacrificing foundation of putting others first. Sometime later it came to me.
The only way anyone can truly be a betterment to society and his fellow man is to be "selfish" first in order to be selfless towards his fellow man. If a man is going to adopt the teachings of Christ and be truly selfless, he must first shut out all opposing influences. Influences that say to him "keep a little more money for yourself, don't give away all those clothes you may need them", etc., etc. He must be selfish in the sense that his belief in the teachings of Christ come first and he must hold to that first and foremeost. The same with charity, if a man is going to maximize his charity he must be "selfish" in accumulating any wealth he can so as to maximize his charity. I may not be correct in sseing Rand in this way -especially in light of her atheism- but it is how I can philosophically make her writings work for me.
"I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is what they certainly project; not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hatred for an unnamed object…Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against ambition, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today's intellectual field, they call themselves 'pro-life.'" –Ayn Rand
America as it is NOW would not exist. It was about religious freedom that started the exodus from Europe. And I am part Native American and a Christian.
Yes, I read it. No, she's not an idiot. Quit putting words in my mouth. I AM saying that she made too many incorrect assumptions about Christian charity. Christ said acts of charity must originate from a reasoned understanding of what it means to love God. Mandatory charity, whether by guilt-tripping or outright force, is wrong. Yes, Rand would argue God's existence. But her definition of goodwill (her word for charity) is nearly identical to what Christ expects, minus the relationship to God. Goodwill must not be forced, and man must be free to choose whether and/or how to help another person.
And no one's asking you to overlook it. No one's asking you to prove anything about Ayn Rand.
I'm just wondering why you wish to judge the conscience of other Conservatives who happen to be speaking about her over-arching political tenet of self-interest. Plenty of conservatives are quite able to draw the broad distinction between her ideologies for themselves.
If you now regard her as brilliant in some unnamed way, can we not also draw our own distinctions about her views on altruism? Can you elaborate on which things she was brilliant?
The lesson I think Christians can draw from Objectivism is this: If you're meant to love your neighbor as yourself, hating and devaluing yourself doesn't help.
Can you cite for us the evils she outlined in her book?
Rand was speaking to a largely Christian society when she wrote her book. Can we posit that she was deliberately inflammatory toward the dull national leadership that was invoking the Gospel mandate as a State mandate? If the political elites and their assumed Judeo-Christian ethic were cloaking their ambitions by appealing to the individual mandate to "love thy neighbor" then can she be blamed for throwing it back at the politicians so boldly? If they were innocently but misguidedly carrying their religious banner into the houses of State, can we assume that one who has lived under politically corrupted religion might justifiably express an unmistakeable revulsion to the mere hint of such a fallacy?
I too, could write a book on the evils of setting up altruism as an end in itself, having worked with and lived among the poor in two different countries. Oh, how I could regale with tales of corruption in the charities, even among those who profess to do the most good.
Doesn't even begin to support the original assertion. Try again.
I think Christian conservatives should be appalled at the dogmafication of Rand's book. The reason it has attained the cult status it has is that non-Christian conservatives needed someone to worship. We all have a natural instinct to worship, to glorify, to follow, and Ayn Rand provided someone with a book to put on a pedestal that wasn't God.
People don't see the constitution as a reflection of God's will for a new country called "America". They see it as their god. They don't see conservatism as a vehicle for traditional values, they see it as a god. I see it all the time here and I'll probably get a bunch of thumbs-down, and I really hope so. People will usually jump at an opportunity like that.
I too have worked for many years in the non-profit sector, so I know just how morally bankrupt some of these do-gooders can be. But I think that goes more to the type of people do-gooding attracts than it does to the nature of doing good.
If you speculate that perhaps Rand was just being "inflammatory", then don't be surprised at the reaction she succeeded at inflaming.
Joan,
her brilliance (or lack thereof) is not really the issue, her values are. But if she was as brilliant as some people seem to believe it certainly does not come through in her lack of subtlety.
I didn't know too much about Ayn Rand – had no real opinion either way – but I was alarmed to read an article that mentions she was the inspiration for Satanist Anton LeVay's 'The Satanic Bible'.
eg, from the article –
MORE
The moral philosophy of today can be summed up in the following hypothetical declarative: "I am an excellent mother because I've hired the best nanny money can buy." Meaning, it is not mutually exclusive concepts of unselfishness or selfishness / altruism vs. objectivism that is the sickness per se, but that we defer our moral duties to others, in most cases the government. In addition to an entitlement mindset, Socialism also promotes an "I gave at the office" mentality, where one pays taxes for social programs rather than offering help to one's neighbor, friend or family member directly. For example, Black America incorrectly likens social justice to the, 'My Brother's Keeper' biblical precept; Obama used it many times during his 2008 campaign, but it is nothing more than deferring one's own moral responsibilities to others then claiming the mantle of compassion – just like the self satisfied mother who pays a nanny to do all the mothering then tells others, loudly and often, what an exemplary parent she is. This is not true altruism, nor true charity, nor morality. It is an insidious kind of greed, sloth and immorality which can be found in the words of Ebenezer Scrooge when he asked rhetorically, "Are there no prisons, no workhouses?" [Are there no gov't programs for the poor to turn to], which was followed up with, "If they're going to die let them do it, and decrease the surplus population."[We need population control] The aloof mother, and the Scrooge are embodiments of the modern Leftist philosophy, no matter the agent's particular political self designation.
You may be bolts, but you're not nuts. You are right on!
To be fair LeVay also stole from Nietzsche, and the insane book Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard (in fact it appears he stole word for word in some instances from Redbeard), and many other thinkers.
I agree though many here, especially Christians need to rethink their support of Rand and Objectivism. Claiming to be a Christian and a fan of Rand's philosophy is much akin to agreeing with Darwinism.
For one thing, there was little, if any, mention of religion in Atlas Shrugged, It's focus was on the relationships between citizens, government, and private business.
Given that, the author's views on religion are completely irrelevant to the book's value.
It doesn't sound like you have read Atlas Shrugged. Have you?
I am a conservative, and am very religious. I am continually seeking balance between my religious experience and my objective experience. Ayn Rand was prophetic, and provides a lot of food for thought. I also see GW Bush and Obama in a similar light. We need severe cuts in the size and scope of government. We need to pay off the national debt. This will require a large dose of hard work, economic freedom, and living within our means for many years.
I hope that they can also help provide some of the leadership that Ayn Rand did.
Agreeing with a system of thought where the sanctity of human life and freedom are paramount is not worship.
Agreeing that the most freedom-preserving body of law on the planet should be adhered to is not worship.
Check your premises.
There's a distinction between altruism and the 'power that flows from a gun' type of enforced collectivism. Rand didn't pen a tome hoping to show that, giving her readers far more credit for seeing beyond the obvious than they deserve. More to the point, her book is an epic tale of man's attraction to the dark side when embracing the powers vested in him by his 'lessers' and on how forgetting lessons of the past will only ensure they'll be visited upon him in the future.
Wow. You're good. Really good. +100!
You must be logged in to post a comment.