-
Laying Down My Pen
May 24, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Laying Down My Pen
May 23, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal
May 21, 2013 | 46 comments
-
Putting Heritage in DeMint Condition
May 10, 2013 | 57 comments
-
Military Might, Out of the Wilderness
May 8, 2013 | 115 comments
Streetcar Line
Atlas Needs Help
Conservatives should not shrug at movie.
True confessions: Dagny Taggart is the only fictional character I ever fell in love with — or at least, when reading the first third of Ayn Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged some two decades ago, I was so smitten with the heroine that I wished somebody like her would show up in real life. All of which explains how high was the hurdle standing in the way of the movie version of Atlas Shrugged if it wanted me to “buy in” to its representation of the novel so iconic for individualists everywhere. To a surprising degree, the new movie, which opens at theatres April 15, cleared that hurdle. What’s so disturbing, though, is that the frightening dystopia it portrays seems all too real a possibility in today’s Obamaworld.
First, let’s dispense with the mini-review of the movie. Produced by Harmon Kaslow and John Aglialoro and directed by Paul Johansson, the movie — part one of three — stays remarkably faithful to Rand’s script while moving it more than half a century forward, to an eerily believable 2016. Dagny Taggart still runs a railroad with her rotten brother James, and the railroad still is plausibly depicted as such an integral part of the national economy that major newscasts would breathlessly report on its major initiatives. All the “moochers” and the influence peddlers are out in full force as well, making their evil deals and abusing their ill-gotten powers.
Rand fans may hate me for saying so, but only the first third or so of the novel itself is gripping; after that, it’s tedious and not-believable, and at places its philosophy borders on the monstrous. The good news is that with this movie covering only part one, it captures by far the best portion of the story. Better still, it captures it well — entertainingly, with good pace. The breadth and scope of the stakes are well explained; the scenes are big and lush as Rand would have wanted, except for just those times when Rand strove to create stifling intimacy. And actress Taylor Schilling does a more than passable job at inhabiting heroine Dagny — apart from about three or four quick scenes where her facial expressions embarrassingly miss the mark, a flaw probably correctable if a larger budget had allowed for more “takes” on each scene. Schilling is sleek, determined, and an alluring blend of indomitability and emotional semi-vulnerability.
One big problem: It’s almost impossible to have the novel’s “big reveal,” its essential secret that in the book isn’t really explained until far later in the story, make much sense within the “part one” covered by this current film. The movie’s ending really isn’t satisfying, therefore, and is probably even less so for someone who hasn’t read the book. All that said, though, the movie is largely a triumph. And the world it shows us is the one we conservatives right now, right here, are fighting to ward off.
Rand’s world is one in which the government’s power is virtually limitless. There’s the “Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule” and the “Equalization of Opportunity Bill.” There is a law forbidding any one person from owning more than one company. There’s a law requiring economically well-off states (in this case, Colorado) to support poor ones. There are unions going on strike and making threats; a government-run institute of science with vast powers; confiscatory taxation and flat-out seizures of private industry and private property. It takes no great insight to see in Atlas Shrugged previews of TARP and the automobile company takeover (which still to me seems flat-out illegal) and so many Obama initiatives. (See, for instance, this excellent column by Stephen Moore.) Today, as in Rand’s world, virtually everything productive is hampered; everything original is harnessed; everything successful is looted. Offshore drilling is brought to a standstill; oil shale goes undeveloped; nuclear waste depositories aren’t allowed to be used; coal-burning plants are regulated with almost unreachable emissions limits; consumer products are subjected to prohibitively expensive testing for nonexistent lead and other mythical dangers.
The Justice Department is a den of lawlessness. Inspectors general in several departments are abused. The administration is found in contempt of court and still ignores a judge’s order on drilling, and ignores a judge’s order on Obamacare, and refuses to defend the constitutionality of a law (the Defense of Marriage Act) which, the administration even admits, has overwhelming precedent on its side. Selective compliance with official Freedom of Information requests. Ignoring lawful subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Intruding into local schoolyards on jihads against heterosexual “bullies.” Repeatedly imposing new environmental regulations without congressional authority. On and on the abuses go. This is a regime in which constitutional limits are no object; it will do whatever it thinks it can get away with, and even do some things it isn’t sure it can get away with but is willing to risk trying.
This is power based not on merit or achievement, but enforced (in effect) at the point of a gun — or, when it can’t use government controls, then by ginning up mobs of union goons and other assorted thugs. And it’s exactly the sort of scenario — in kind, if not yet in degree — brought to life in both the book and movie of Atlas Shrugged. It is not much of a stretch, not much at all, to see in today’s administration the belief, outlined with disgust by Rand, that “it was society’s duty to see that no competitor ever rose beyond the range of anybody who wanted to compete with him.” It is not a stretch to see Obama create a “Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources.” On the other hand, as Michael Barone just noted is true in our age as well, the states that thrive in Rand’s land as in our own are those where “they don’t even have a modern government.… It does nothing — outside of keeping law courts and a police department. It doesn’t do anything for the people. I don’t see why all our best companies want to run there.”
Of course we conservatives know that a state with a limited government is a state to which people will flock. We know that freedom, not state planning, leads to prosperity and fulfillment (or at least the best chances thereto). We know that “entitlement” is the precursor of laziness, and of failure, while the converse — market rewards for success — breeds a stronger society.
And we know that the Dagny Taggarts of the world are the ones who bear the world’s weight, while the Obamites suck the lifeblood from us. Dagny may be merely fictional, but she’s still worth being smitten by. Smitten by, and emulated. And that means resisting the looters in the White House, through every legal means, with every fiber of our being.
About the Author
Quin Hillyer is a senior editor of The American Spectator and a senior fellow at the Center for Individual Freedom. Follow him on Twitter @QuinHillyer.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (107) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Quin Hillyer
More Articles From Streetcar Line
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/31/atlas-needs-help
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Demise of Money and Credit
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Razing Reagan
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Larry| 3.31.11 @ 6:27AM
I read "Atlas Shrugged" once a year EVERY year. It's my favorite book. And I love the entire book. Not just the first part. It has everything- politics, economics, science fiction, hot sex without being crude and disgusting and, although I don't need it, a reminder of where this once great is and is going (not to a good place).
I too fall in love with Dagny Taggart each time I read the book. Apart from the ultra-sensitive, Lifetime-watching, proud-to-cry-for-no-reason-at-all males who are members of the party of peace and love (lib scum/socialists), what male couldn't fall in love with her?
I hadn't planned to see this film at all. After reading your review however, I'm willing to give it a chance if it opens near me. I'm still VERY skeptical. I believe that Ayn Rand wrote a screenplay for the story. If so, I'd have much preferred that they use it. I'm now willing to give at least this first part a chance. It's still very difficult for me to see how Hollywood can come close to doing it justice. I'll give it a shot though.
Thanks for the column!
Karl Lucifer Marx| 3.31.11 @ 10:44AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/.....66677.html
The current economic strategy is right out of "Atlas Shrugged": The more incompetent you are in business, the more handouts the politicians will bestow on you. That's the justification for the $2 trillion of subsidies doled out already to keep afloat distressed insurance companies, banks, Wall Street investment houses, and auto companies -- while standing next in line for their share of the booty are real-estate developers, the steel industry, chemical companies, airlines, ethanol producers, construction firms and even catfish farmers. With each successive bailout to "calm the markets," another trillion of national wealth is subsequently lost. Yet, as "Atlas" grimly foretold, we now treat the incompetent who wreck their companies as victims, while those resourceful business owners who manage to make a profit are portrayed as recipients of illegitimate "windfalls."
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 3.31.11 @ 6:38AM
This is a good review of what I'm sure is a good movie. However, the real drama is playing out on Capitol Hill as the Republicans appear ready to join the moochers in a Volksmarch to the cliff, and like so many lemmings, go over the cliff.
Ayn Rand's world was about principles, and individualism.
Our world is awash by the lack of principles and ever encroaching statism.
The current drama being played out on the budget could not be more illuminating.
According to an article in this morning's Washington Post and The Hill, the republicans are willing to compromise on a final budget cut of 33 billion, a reference to an number that was between the number of 30 billion offered by Democrats and the ever shrinking number offered by Republicans of 36 billion, which would move the Republican Party into the moocher class universe, because that sum is so paltry as to be embarrassing.
It's only embarrassing if you have standards and principles. The political weasel class leading this country has few principles and few standards worth fighting for or against. They are a new political class I refer to as the muddle class.
As long as they can steal what they want from the U.S. Treasury, they will muddle through and the budget compromise is another muddle.
In November of 2010 former President George W. Bush appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show and when she asked him what he would tell candidate Bush he stated, “If you chase popularity, you’re chasing something and it’s just a fleeting moment, but principles last forever.”
Bush never advertised himself as anything but a compassionate conservative, which meant he was a big government type. The Republicans accepted that. Obama is really not that different preaching compassionate government, i.e. conservatism, under a different line. That's probably why he won, because he sounded so much like Bush as opposed to McCain who looked like a political nut, and in fact, bragged about being a maverick.
So a new elite is guiding the political conversation in this country, and behind the scenes the Republican leadership is selling out the Tea Party just as Harry Reid predicted or was it a prediction?
It's more likely Harry Reid had already been approached about the deal and saw the sell out and decided to advertise it, hoping the Tea Party abandons their cause of constitutionality.
So, the better drama is in real life, where the political ruling class rides again. The working stiffs will be told this is the best that can be done and the 2012 budget will be no better.
Congress has fallen back into it's old ways, and there is more drama and disaster to come.
Brian Mc| 3.31.11 @ 6:56AM
The "Oh, well, so...there it is" approach that I see is being forced upon us as we sit in our armchairs and grate our teeth is quickly bringing us to a revelation, Bill H. We sent kids (to fight for Constitutional government from within) but are quickly coming to the realization that the fight will need to come from without, for we are outside looking in now and there are none worthy of the challenge to gain back our liberties. They were sent in, by us, to clean out the pig sty and are found wallowing.
DG in GA| 3.31.11 @ 10:00AM
It wasn't so much that McCain appeared like a political nut, it was because most Republicans were sick and tired of RINO McCain, joining hands with Ted Kennedy and other Dems to write and pass legislation that was directly in contrast to conservative principles. Those of us who voted for McCain had to hold our noses to do it. Let's hope the Repubs learned from that experience and nominate a true conservative for 2012.
Mimi| 3.31.11 @ 7:29AM
Insane....spending 'til September..Then what??
The Dems literally refuse to control spending , The Republicans , even after a huge mandate to stop the " WILD" spending will allow them to get away with it......Something ain't ...RIGHT IN DENMARK !!! Heh , wake-up.... You can,t be wrong when you stand on PRINCIPLE...All of you , face reality...It's OVER ! CUT YOU MUST..Now.!! BE BRAVE
PolishKnight| 3.31.11 @ 1:11PM
It's not quite that simple, Karl. Or even a tragedy of noble sentiments as Atlas Shrugged would imply. Leftism is simply political cronyism and useful fools and the direction we're going in is the Soviet model.
It's hilarious that the leftists who worship a far off Swedish utopia are seeing it destroyed by elements of their own USA destroying dogma (multiculturalism and feminism.) It's just a matter now of which falls first.
Having a woman as a heroin is quite ironic since leftism has been bashing working MEN for decades now while seeking to create a life of leisure for loyal leftist voting women.
mike daniels| 3.31.11 @ 11:39AM
I just finished the entire 1168 pages of "Atlas" and loved it. It is so eerily descriptive of what Obama and the unleashed liberals have done to us it gives me nightmares. What to see the world Rand describes first hand? Closely follow the thuggery, lies, and intimidation going on is Wisconsin where the unions have rendered the democratic process irrelevant. If you can't find time to read the book then at least see the movie!
Walking Horse| 4.3.11 @ 2:33AM
Interesting. I first read "Atlas Shrugged" when I was 18 years old. This was at the beginnings of the Endarkenment in 1966. Living through the blossoming of the malignancy we have all about us now, that book was like a spectre that has hung over me all these years. I've read it at least a half dozen times since, and it is still as fresh as tomorrow's clean linen.
Those of us who saw the existential threat to us are among the more guilty. We were unable to get people's attention. They simply would not believe that what was afoot was evil incarnate. It is almost like we were among those who didn't raise a fuss at Starnes Motors Company when it might have counted.
test| 3.31.11 @ 10:47AM
test
Teaghan| 3.31.11 @ 7:46AM
God, how depressing.
Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 3.31.11 @ 7:48AM
The last movie I saw in a theater was George Clooney's Syriana (back in 2005?). I hated it so much, that after about what felt like five hours of watching it, I got up and announced to the whole theater that, "This movie sucks", and walked out. So I'm going to go see Atlas Shrugged on April 15th, if for no other reason than to do my part in helping it have a great opening weekend. Then maybe, if it's a big hit, the next time a script like Syriana crosses somebody's desk in Hollywood, they'll throw it in the trash, like they should have done back then, and make a movie that doesn't trash America from start to finish. I have never read Atlas Shrugged, and I don't know if that's a good or bad thing before seeing it, but I've heard a lot about it in the last few years, and I like what I've heard so far. Hollywood didn't want to make this movie, so that should tell you a lot about it too. The script doesn't live up to their political views of how the World should really run, and since their political views are completely "F'd" up, maybe I'll actually enjoy a Hollywood movie again, maybe.
Seek| 3.31.11 @ 12:54PM
Actually, I saw "Syriana," too. There was nothing in it that could be called "trashing America." Any honest limited-interventionist libertarian on the Right could laud it. And it was just one movie, for crying out loud. Each year, 200 or more movies are made, very few of which are political in any way.
Film, no more than novels, should be expected to serve as mass political agitprop. It's about storytelling.
Hillel| 3.31.11 @ 7:59AM
Of course "Syriana" was awful. The heros were the rapists of Dafur afterall. Ayne Rand wrote screen plays: She had to live. Her most famous was Manhattan Melodrama. "and where were YOU on the night of January 16?" The problem is that RAND had serious matters to discuss and fiction is a poor vehicle for it. However it did remind people that logic and freedom are the proper basis for society.
MOS was 71331| 3.31.11 @ 10:28AM
Sorry, Hillel. Ayn (not Ayne) Rand wrote the screenplays for "The Fountainhead", "Love Letters", and "You Came Along". (If she ever worked on the screenplay for "Manhattan Melodrama", I'd like to see some evidence for her participation. Arthur Caesar, Oliver Garrett, and Joseph Mankiewicz got the official credits.) There was a 1941 movie "The Night of January 16th", BASED on Ayn Rand's play with that title, but Delmer Daves and Robert Pirosh got the official credits. (As I understand it, Ayn Rand objected to the final script.)
Reasonable minds may differ over which of Rand's screenplay was "most famous," but I would pick "The Fountainhead". I've seen the movie perhaps a dozen times, and I still find it thrilling. I enjoyed "Love Letters", and, NetFlix willing, I'll see it again.
I'll also try to get "You Came Along" from NetFlix.
Handy| 3.31.11 @ 1:41PM
Hillel and MOS,
Rand also wrote many non-fiction essays which are now available in book form such as The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Just go to Amazon and see.
No one has so far mentioned Rand's first major novel: We The Living. It is set in 1920s Russia and features a heroine, Kira (played by Alida Valli. WooHoo!!!), who hates collectivism, but is romantically in love with an avowed communist. I won't reveal the whole plot, because it is very worthwhile reading. Incidentally, Rand herself said that Kira was really most like herself. "Closest thing I will ever come to writing an autobiography"
We The Living was made into a movie without Rand's knowledge. The Fascists in Italy promoted it during WWII, because they thought it was anti-communist. When they finally wised up and discovered that it was against all forms of collectivism, the government ordered every copy destroyed. Fortunately at least two survived.
Rand was attending a dinner party in the 1960s when she first discovered that the film had even been made. Who told her? Rosssano Brazzi who had played one of the lead roles. (People may remember him more famously as Emile de Beque from the movie South Pacific.)
Here's an cool side story. The Italian production company could not do business in the USA back then, but it recognized intellectual property rights and set up a trust to make sure Rand was compensated for the story they pirated. That trust survived, and she got some dollars, but, more importantly, her estate retains the rights. Now, the film is available with a few mouse clicks.
Ayn Rand didn't just write about heroes, she eptomized them. She jump-starts minds, and her works will become ever more important as time wears on.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 9:35AM
Thanks, Handy, but I already have bound copies of the entire runs of "The Objectivist Newsletter" and "The Ayn Rand Letter", as well as copies of most of her nonfiction books. (My interests are politics and economics. I'm not too concerned with AR's thoughts on art, music, and writing, or, for that matter, stamp collecting. [AR was an avid stamp collector.])
I thought Barbara and Nathaniel Branden's bios of AR ("The Passion of Ayn Rand" and "Judgment Day") were balanced discussions of AR's life and character until I read James Valliant's book, "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics". "Critics" compares the Branden books with each other and with material from other individuals who knew AR personally. Valliant's conclusion: "What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents -- and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works." I read Valliant's book, and he, a retired judge and criminal prosecutor, presents a convincing case. I strongly recommend his book.
Dan Hirsch| 3.31.11 @ 8:03AM
I live in Wisconsin. My studiously-non-political insurance guy received a threat from the local AFSCME office that if he did not display a sign at his business supporting them in the current political battle over the union "rights," his office would be picketed and customers would be prevented from entering his office.
I called my State Rep. She has school age children; recently 50 union "representatives" arrived to picket her HOME unannounced and with no prior discussion.
The thugs are here - they are coming to your neighborhood soon.
It ain't fiction any more! America had better stand up to these thugs or we'll be wishing we were Greece!
Don't tread on me!
Larry| 3.31.11 @ 8:55AM
This is the age of the community organizer! Ugh!
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 9:15AM
I am an "Insurance Guy" in Va & I can tell you this. If this had been my office & my threat I would have changed my full page print newspaper inserts to reflect the reality of the threat, included photos & quotes from my clients who were prevented from paying their bill for coverage & run those ads indefinitely.
My phone would be ringing off the hook with new business quote requests from EXACTLY the kind of clients I want to work with.
Pelligrino| 3.31.11 @ 10:54AM
Steve A., I'm with you. If I learned your office's story (threats from mob thugs with union entitlements tattooed on their foreheads), I'd be reading your ads and perhaps becoming a client.
But...is this now representing a huge cultural/social divide in America? Can it be that your part of Virginia is so different than Dan Hirsch's Wisconsin?
I agree with you. No office or business should be cowed or buckle under. Rather: Go on the forthright offensive.
I have to believe (want to believe) that the silent, decent, hardworking, mom & pop America is still a 4:1 majority. Am I wrong?
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 11:07AM
Pelligrino, I do not think you are incorrect at all. I think the vast majority of us still have a valid, inherent sense of fairness. I would bank my business on it. If I alienated any clients by relating the truth of these tactics & they went packing, good riddance.
The reality is that this largely silent majority has been increasingly pushed into a corner & told to shut up while we meanwhile are footing the bill for those who accuse us of the intloerance that they, themselves, display.
We are like the quiet, intelligent kid at school who has been picked on & eventually gives the bully a fist in the face & he folds like cardboard.
Nunya| 3.31.11 @ 12:00PM
Seems to me that's blackmail. Last time I heard it was illegal, and I would have reported it to my local District Attorney, as well as to the Attorney General of my state.
Sean| 3.31.11 @ 8:58AM
I'm not sure I understand what about Rand's philosophy 'borders on the monstrous'?
She believed in freedom, reason and individuality - points that you seem to support in your article, so I'm confused by your comment.
The philosophy that leads to Fascism or Communism or even Welfare Statism is by far more 'monstrous', in my opinion.
Francis W. Porretto | 3.31.11 @ 12:19PM
I was wondering what Mr. Hillyer had in mind there, myself. Possibly Rand's attitude toward religion, which was deplorable -- she definitely threw the baby out with the bathwater, there. But aside from that, I can find nothing in the ideas expressed in the novel to object to.
Ken (Old Texican)| 3.31.11 @ 9:06AM
tick, tick, tick..................
The hour grows late.
Louis Jenkins| 3.31.11 @ 9:51AM
Dear Texican:
The hour indeed grows late. So much so that we're about to view a movie about Atlas Shrugged. The government may shut down next week, and if it does, then that is okay. At least the elected reps will slow down (notice I only said "slow") on the spending for a day or two. But what have you people done to ensure your survival? Best to get ready if you can. Local law enforcement has you in their sights. Speak of the Constitution, abortion, Obama's birth certificate, the Second Amendment, government spending, or patriotic bumper stickers, and you'll wind up on their domestic terrorist list. Their training has changed in the last ten years, and you are now the target.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 9:57AM
Aside from being one of the most over-rated novels ever written, Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" is not a Conservative novel, and it's philosophical underpinning of "objectivism" cannot be considered as separate from Rand's malignant narcissist personality disorder, as well as her atheism.
That's not to say that Rand doesn't point out several truisms in "Atlas Shrugged":
Yes, Government SHOULD be smaller, and yes, Government should cease it's constant meddling in the private sector, and yes, crony-capitalism is a form of corruption, and yes socialism will destroy economic opportunity and freedom...But you don't need a 1,000 page treatise on the importance of the "uber-menschen" to figure that out.
In describing the raw, unabashed elitism that permeates every page of "Atlas Shrugged", Whittaker Chambers aptly summarized "Atlas Shrugged" by saying "To the gas chamber, go!". While perhaps a bit over-the-top, Mr. Chamber's review does have a ring of truth to it. Ayn Rand clearly believed that there are among us brilliant, special people who are above the petty moralizing and philosophizing of society as a whole, and these special people should be free to pursue their passions without regard for anything but their own desires and abilities. History, and especially the 20th century, is littered with the corpses of those who pursued their ideological ideals at no thought to the cost.
This attitude is evident from the behavior of the elite industrialists as they destroy their businesses and disappear. It is on stark view in John Galt's 56-page speech to mankind (the ultimate ode to narcissism - a world stage where one has the population captured and captivated by one's private philosophy), but it is also evident from the way in which Rand describes the interpersonal relationships between the antagonists (primarily between Dagny , Hank, and Francisco), but also in the utter contempt that the protagonists display for the antagonists like Jim Taggart and Hank's brother. These antagonists are merely clunky, cardboard cut-outs of the kind of people of people Rand herself despised, and to display them so one dimensionally not only short-changes them as characters, it over-simplifies Rand's ideals.
Again, you cannot separate the underlying theme of "Atlas Shrugged" from Rand's own malignant narcissism. Rand's personal life was a disaster, and was littered with the remains of people whom she brought into her circle of influence only to personally destroy. And like a good narcissist, Rand felt no guilt for her actions. "Objectivism" is merely the extrapolation of her lack of guilt; if others stood in the way of her greatness, or were no longer useful, why should she feel guilty for casting them aside???
"Atlas Shrugged" is really nothing more than "Freedom through Self and Selfishness". One is left to wonder what Rand would have thought of Anton LaVey's (founder of the Church of Satan) proclamation that the "best way to serve Satan is to serve yourself".
Additionally, and finally, Rand was no novelist. Her dialogue is often stilted and awkward (especially between the protagonists), and there are some genuine guffaw-inducing moments throughout the book that would make readers of dime-store "Bodice-rippers" laugh out loud.
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 10:17AM
DR, I viewed Rand's book as a fantasy. What if: The producers completely bailed on the Progressives & escaped to a closed society of like minded people? What if: The Progressives were left to feed off of each other?
This fantasy was generated from & a contrast to the disaster that was the Russian Revolution. Her personal life, atheism & self love are really irrelevant. The fantasy is that the statist get exactly what they deserve, while the producers are spared the holocaust that is inevitable in real life as the statist take their vision to it's final stop on the train line.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 10:53AM
Irrelevant? Hardly. All 3 (personal life, atheism, and "self-worship', not "self-love", form a core part of here treatise, which is disguised as a novel).
And as I said, no one is arguing with her assessment of the destructive capacity of statism. What is objectionable about "objectivism" is it's inherently elitist and selfish view about human relations. In Rand's world, the individual has NO responsibility to check his/her actions and/or desires against the potential impact on society, a view Rand no doubt inferred upon herself.
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 11:25AM
Sooooooooo what we do is we judge someone's work, any work, art, music, literature, legal brief, my dental hygenist,... we evaluate that product by taking a life history survey covering personal life, religious beliefs, self evaluation, pshchological profile & then we critically evaluate the merit of the product? Wow, I have been living wrong all these years.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 12:14PM
No, that's NOT what I said. But now that you mention it, do you think it's a BAD idea to understand the author's motivations as you interpret a work of literature?
If "yes", then I suppose you think that the life of Karl Marx's father, a religious sham-artist, had no impact on his son's world view?
Or maybe we shouldn't consider the life and influences of the young Barry Obama?
Please...get serious.
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 12:39PM
I am serious. Absolutely, yes, the author's personal experiences & beliefs impact the product. No question about it.
Obama, given all of his history, could actually come out with a policy or action to which I agree. There happen to be 2 examples: 1) He gave the green light for Navy Seals to shoot the Pirates who held American captives. 2) He swatted that fly in an interview some time ago. Other than that, I disagree with pretty much all he has done. He may very well come out next week with an action that I applaud.
But it seems the flavor & motive of your take on Atlas was an assault on the personality of the author more than anything else. You did critique the product, but your criticism was linked to her, personally, more than the content (this is simply my opinion & I may be off base). My point is that the work, as a whole, given the time & context it was written, the sex of the author & the subject matter, is nothing short of an extraordinary work, in spite of any personal lack of appeal for the author's views & actions.
MOS was 71331| 3.31.11 @ 10:44AM
Sorry, Doc, but I (and, if it matters, many others) disagree. To take only one point, where do you get the idea that "Rand's personal life was a disaster"? It's most likely you base that claim on Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's books about Ayn Rand, both published AFTER Ayn Rand's death to ensure she had no opportunity to reply.
James Valliant (a retired judge and criminal prosecutor) read the Branden's books, and, in his book "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics" stated "What I found upon careful examination and comparison of both of these authors' works, however, was that they had erected monuments of dishonesty on a scale so profound as to literally render them valueless as historical documents -- and that Rand's critics have been building on a foundation of historical sand in their widespread reliance on these works." I read Valliant's book, and I have to agree with him.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 10:56AM
Narcissism is self-loathing expressed as self-worship. One's own desires are elevated above the potential impact on other individuals. The desire to be special and feel no guilt masks a deep-seated self-hatred. The malignant narcissist can only feel special (ie, normal) by making others feel as miserable as they truly feel themselves.
The Branden episode is exemplary of Rand's narcissism, not an exceptional facet of it.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 9:51AM
If you read Valliant's analysis, you may realize that the narcissism was Nathaniel Branden's, not Ayn Rand's. From the Branden's books and Ayn Rand's extensive and contemporaneous notes, it's clear that the Brandens (and particularly NB) lied to AR for years before the AR finally concluded that she had been deceived. Her outrage was justified, not psychotic.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 4:38PM
You neglected to answer my question: "[W]here do you get the idea that "Rand's personal life was a disaster"? I doubt you ever met AR. (Had you met her, you'd probably have said so in your post.) So your knowledge of AR's life (almost certainly) comes from reading (or being told about the contents of) Nathaniel and Barbara Branden's books.
You also say her life "is littered with the remains of people whom she brought into her circle of influence only to personally destroy," yet you don't name a single one, probably because you can't. I'm far more familiar with Ayn Rand's life and activities than you are, so I believe what you mean by "destroy" is "refuse to have any contact with." Except for one instance of repeatedly slapping Nathaniel Branden in 1968, that is the greatest punishment Ayn Rand ever inflicted on anyone. Surely Ayn Rand should have been free to avoid (or even denounce) anyone she cared to. (By the way, Ayn Rand ALWAYS gave reasons why she ejected a person or persons from "her circle." Nothing stopped others from pondering those reasons and disagreeing with AR's conclusion.)
I have to laugh at all the similar criticisms leveled against Senator Joe McCarthy. People claim McCarthy "ruined" innocent people but can't name a single one.
There are only two names I've ever heard cited. The more common one is "Alger Hiss." Hiss was Nixon's "victim," not McCarthy's. And Hiss was NOT innocent; he was convicted of perjury, and he had systematically supported Stalin's government while working in different capacities for the federal government.
The other person supposedly destroyed by McCarthy is Fred Fisher. During the televised army-McCarthy hearings, the army's counsel, Joseph Welch provoked McCarthy into saying "that if [you're] was so concerned about persons aiding the Communist Party, [you] should check on a man in [your] Boston law office named Fred Fisher." Welch responded, "Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness." Welch received a lot of acclaim for his response, but two facts remain: (1) Fisher had been a communist. (2) Fisher wasn't "destroyed;" years after the hearings he became president of the New York Bar Association. [I wish I could be similarly "destroyed."]
Mark Plus| 3.31.11 @ 11:05AM
Two of the "heroes" in the novel - Ragnar the magic, uncatchable pirate, and Francisco the rich Argentine who pretends he has "game" but in fact has assumed secondary virginity after his college romance with the novel's heroine - engage in industrial sabotage, literally blowing up capital equipment around the world. If environmentalists or Muslims (two groups who rank highly in Objectivists' current demonology) went around setting off explosives in factories, mines, ships, port facilities, etc., Objectivists would scream for their arrest and execution. Yet they turn a blind eye when Rand portrays that behavior as "heroic" and "moral" in her published fantasy life. Basically Rand assumes a form of antinomianism: If you have what she considers the "correct" philosophy, then ordinary morality doesn't apply to you.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 5:07PM
There's one element in "Atlas Shrugged" I wish I could have discussed with Ayn Rand. She wrote of Robin Hood being an example of everything which should be denounced, probably because she thought "he stole from the rich to give to the poor." As Robin Hood is a fictitious individual, I think she should have explained which Robin Hood she meant.
As I recall the movie, Errol Flynn's Robin Hood returned to the local peasants the taxes Basil Rathbone's Sheriff of Nottingham collected from them. He was doing in RH the same as Ragnar was doing in AS. I hope Ayn Rand would have been amused by my question.
As it happened, Basil Rathbone performed similar villainy in Spanish California and was opposed by Tyrone Power's Zorro. I believe Ayn Rand enjoyed Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes, so she might equally have enjoyed Rathbone's portrayals of villains.
Dave Williams| 3.31.11 @ 11:24AM
And what, pray tell :-), is wrong with atheism? I'll take a reality-based belief system over fantasies of supreme beings and an afterlife any day.
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 11:36AM
Dave, The suggestion that your physical body & your spirit (the part that wrote what you just did) is all some cosmic accident caused by something (matter) forming from nothingness (a void with no God) is so absurd & lacking in imagination that it should check you in your tracks.
First off: there either is a God or there is not a God. There are only 2 alternatives, correct?
Secondly: Your lack of belief, or my belief, has no bearing on the answer. You do not create your own reality. It simply is. You had no decision on being here & you will have no decision after you draw your last breath.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 2:41PM
"The suggestion that your physical body & your spirit (the part that wrote what you just did) is all some cosmic accident caused by something (matter) forming from nothingness (a void with no God) is so absurd & lacking in imagination that it should check you in your tracks.First off: there either is a God or there is not a God. There are only 2 alternatives, correct?"
There is nothing inherent in Atheism that necessitates a belief in something forming from nothingness. Just as theists believe that God "always was," an atheist can just as logically assert that the cosmos (or something) has always existed (in one form or another.)
Only two alternatives? That's kind of like asking someone if he still beats his wife. A third is that the word, god, is not defined. What is meant by the word? To what does it refer? Ask ten different people and you'll likely receive ten different answers. In the Bible God tells Moses "I Am That I Am." But what exactly is That? What are Its attributes? Nothing can have an identity without attributes and nothing can exist without an identity. A supreme being? In what way supreme - and what is meant by being? The totality of existence itself is supreme to any and every existent which comprises it. Ruler of the cosmos? Natural law rules the cosmos (as far as we can ascertain.) Creator of the cosmos? Then from whence arose this Creator? Something cannot arise from nothingness. Will you say that this God transcends human understanding? Well then it's probably not something with which humans should concern themselves. Far better to concern ourselves with existence: It Is That It Is - and it has attributes knowable to human intelligence, which means it is real, ie. existence exists.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 12:17PM
What's wrong with atheism??
Hmmmmm...I'd ask the victims of Nazi Germany or Stalin's Russia (or Mao's PRC), but they're not around to answer.
Atheism is at the root of every murderous ideology that brutalized the 20th century. When you posit that God does not exist, then the natural extrapolation is that man is free to play God.
Plus, atheism is silly, and has no basis in fact.
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 12:41PM
DR, Yes sir. Right on.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:00PM
"What's wrong with atheism??"
Nothing that I can think of. But you might want to ask the victims of the Inquisition or the various tribes in the Bible, who were exterminated in the name of God, what they think about theism. Oops, they're no longer around to answer, are they? Greed for the unearned - lust for the goods and property and women of one's fellow man "is at the root of every murderous ideology that brutalized the 20th century" and all other centuries as well. Man has always been "free to play God" and it has generally always been the ones who claim to speak for their god who do most of it.
skip| 4.4.11 @ 10:44PM
sasob
Your unintelligence is exceeded only by your dishonesty.
Here's some atheism for you:
Maoism (China):
1949-1987: 76 million citizens killed
Stalinism (U.S.S.R.):
1917-1987: 62 million citizens killed
Liberalism (U.S.A.):
1973-2011: 53 million unborn citizens killed
Naziism (Germany):
1933-1945: 20 million citizens/occupants killed
Moron.
Francis W. Porretto | 3.31.11 @ 12:23PM
Nothing is wrong with atheism -- it's quite as defensible on its own merits as theism of the usual varieties -- but the behavior of militant atheists leaves a lot to be desired. Indeed, it closely resembles that of militant evangelicals, and often goes beyond it in magnitude of abrasion.
Atheists who are amiable about the convictions of their differently minded friends and neighbors cause no one any agita. Of course, the same is true for theists.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 12:33PM
Atheism was responsible for the deaths of 100 + million people in the 20th century.
Can you demonstrate, with actual facts, how many have been killed by "militant evangelicals"?
And let's not forget...To an atheist, anyone who believes in God is a "militant evangelical".
Steve A| 3.31.11 @ 12:47PM
The primary motive for an atheist's "belief" is to not be held accountalble for any action. At least the one's I have spoken to. However, I will add this. I know more than 1 atheist who I would trust more than some of my Sunday worshipper pals with a $$ all day long.
Seek| 3.31.11 @ 12:58PM
Communism was about war on private property. Nazism was about war on racial enemies as national renaissance. Atheism was at best an ephemeral issue in both cases. Hitler, for the record, repeatedly affirmed his membership in the Catholic Church and had good relations with the Vatican.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 10:15AM
Ridiculous! I'm an atheist, and I've yet to kill anyone. I simply don't care about the religious beliefs of others. If they, individually or in organized groups, let me alone, I'm content. The religions with which I'm familiar consider murder, theft, and fraud to be wrong, and I'm happy to see there are laws against all of them, regardless of why those laws were passed. [I also agree that abortion is murder and regret the Roe v Wade decision by the Supremes.] I'm less comfortable with "Thou shalt not commit adultery" being legally enforceable, but I do consider adultery to be a fraud against an UNKNOWING spouse. [I don't expect to commit adultery, but, if a Grace Kelly type were to offer me the opportunity, I might take the chance despite the fear that my wife might find out.]
Paul Kotik| 3.31.11 @ 9:58AM
We've been warned, though subtly, for decades.
Every pack of smokes, every bottle of beer.... what did you think Government Warning meant?
RAMIII| 3.31.11 @ 10:35AM
Dr. Right -- You are right on in your analysis of the book. There is still value in the expose of government corruption and largesse found in this book (movie), but the elitist alternative described therein is not much different than the govmt it seeks to replace. The heroes/heroine of the book reduce themselves to murder to accomplish their objective (at the point of a gun), which then in essence is no different than what the government of any given country has the poser to do. Btw Marxism is an elitist philosophy disguised as a populist one.
MOS was 71331| 3.31.11 @ 10:46AM
See my response to Doc Right above.
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 10:58AM
"...but the elitist alternative described therein is not much different than the govmt it seeks to replace."
EXACTLY!!!!
In the end, the average citizen is either ruled by a corrupt bureaucracy, or by a self-appointed "elite" who lack the capacity for introspection.
I'll take the corrupt bureaucracy any day.
RAMIII| 3.31.11 @ 10:36AM
oops not "poser" rather "power"
Stefan Stackhouse| 3.31.11 @ 10:50AM
If someone were to suggest to the likes of Sens Schumer, Reid et al that they pass an "Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog" bill, do you think they would realize that the joke is on them? More likely, they'd latch on to it as a great idea.
Howard| 3.31.11 @ 11:01AM
Excellent article. I read the book many years ago, and felt the same way. That it was gripping for a long time, and then Rand needed an additional 300 pages to articulate her philosophy. Actually her philosophy was simple: "I want to be free to do what the f*** I want without YOU telling me how to live my life" Or in such words.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 10:21AM
That one sentence "I want to be free..." is far from an accurate encapsulation of Objectivism. Ayn Rand never came close to suggesting that anyone should be free to rob banks if he or she wanted to.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:21PM
"Actually her philosophy was simple: 'I want to be free to do what the f*** I want without YOU telling me how to live my life' Or in such words."
So what is wrong with that, as long as she doesn't initiate the use of physical force or aggression against anyone? Actually it came closer to being "I want to be free to live my life for my own sake without having to justify my existence to the tribe, to society, the state, or to your conception of god, and without having to ask or pay for permission to do so.
JP| 3.31.11 @ 11:59AM
Ayn Rand did share a materialist view of humanity with Marx. However, with Marx you had faith in History; with Rand it was the individual. Both were ahtieist. Objectivism vs Marxism is a strawman. For both were children of radical Enlightenment philosophy. Pick your poison, for both apples fell from the same tree.
Rand, like Tolkien seem to have a lock on young people's imagination. For Rand, it was the ideal of individual self-fullfillment. Tolkien, on the other hand, hid much of his deeper philosophy inside the characters and creativity of his work. Rand may seem like an antidote Collectivism; but Rand never feared the post-modern collective of the Fascist society or State. She was fighitng a 19th Century battle in a post 20th Century reality. Tolkien as well as Orwell knew better. And in Tolkien you get a much deeper if not more frightening drama of our conflict.
In an interview Tolkien was said that he preferred to speak the new dead dialect of the West Midlands (West Mark was the locals once called it). The interviewer asked why he would forgo the tongue that given to Britain by the Normans and produced such beautiful language written by Shakespeare and Chaucer. Tolkien responded that within that ancient tongue was a world more alive, humaine, and closer to the Creator. The Norman's destroyed such reality and replaced it, in his view with something more inauthentic. Tolkien, whether he knew it or not, was close to subscribing to Heidegger's "volk minds" or "volkgemeinschaft" (Community is the modern term). Rand speaks nothing of language or Being. For her, the individual is enough. Of Course, this misreading of Human Nature usually hits the young person once he/she graduates from college.
Rand is still pertinent in that she points the reader to more serious thought. The Founders, despite what the Left says, were much closer to the Truth than Rand ever was. The individual must be protected. But he must never be fully trusted. Modern Man's departed from Grace in order to make a more just and prosperous society. But that departure was and still is frought with dangers.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:26PM
"Ayn Rand did share a materialist view of humanity with Marx."
She didn't think so. She asserted the existence of human consciousness and reason, the creative power of the human mind. That is hardly materialism.
David T| 3.31.11 @ 12:11PM
Ayn Rand's novels rank among the worst ever written in the English language.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 1:31PM
I wasn't a lit major, so I don't know the correct jargon for a literary appraisal of Ayn Rand's writings. Instead, let me simply say that only two novels have had scenes to which I responded with sobs rather than just tears. One such scene was the end of Ayn Rand's novel "We, the Living" when the heroine is shot and killed as she tries to leave Soviet Russia. The other scene was the last few pages of R.F. Delderfield's novel "Diana" when Diana dies. Surely, a writer who can so move a reader is excellent.
By that measure, Delderfield may be a better writer than Rand. Part of my response to Kira's death was surprise that she died; I thought she was going to get out OK. In the case of Diana, her death from cancer was fully expected.
While I was writing this I reread the last few pages of Diana and started tearing again. For a fair comparison, I also again read the last few pages of We, The Living and didn't tear up. Advantage: Delderfield!
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:31PM
Ayn Rand's novels rank among the worst ever written in the English language.
Yes? Then by what standard? Have you anything more substantive than what amounts to simple name-calling?
eolon| 3.31.11 @ 12:44PM
Ayn Rand is one of the best authors in the world.
The fact that her work is still repressed in the government schools is evidence that the ideals that she represents are feared by the parasites feeding off the bloated corpse of our former republic.
Best Regards,
e
.::.
Dagny Taggert| 3.31.11 @ 12:45PM
I think I'm going to have to change my TAS handle. There was some cache when you had to have read the 1100 pages to get it.
ONTIME| 3.31.11 @ 12:55PM
We are being prodded into a energy shortage today by a government out of control in size, ability and cost. The uncredentialed Mystery Man has now claimed that in this time of enforced shortage the government will seek to cut energy supplies from foreign dependence by 33%, the kicker being he has stabbed energy producers in the US in the heart and made our industrial might stumble....Rand was more of a pundit than one could imagine.
Mooserider | 3.31.11 @ 1:09PM
You are absolutely correct. The first third of the book reads as a prophetic mirror that reflects from day one of the current administration. It well captures the collective attitudes enforced today and that were re-enforced by much of the press. The latter part has similar elements to a romantic bodice ripper, as does the "The Fountainhead". "Atlas Shrugged", however, remains amazingly prescient!
I look forward to seeing the film version.
Ed| 3.31.11 @ 1:34PM
I agree with a lot of what Ayn Rand had to say about socialism and what we now call the progressive agenda. But, her radical Anti-Christian screed ruins it for me. She is not a conservative as defined by William F. Buckley.
Appleby| 4.3.11 @ 9:42AM
I read Atlas Shrugged because some crazy person gave a copy to the friend of mine who wrecked my motorcycle and nearly killed herself thereby, to while away 3 or 4 months in traction. Since my friend never read anything but magazines, she gave it to me and asked me to read it and tell her what it said so she could pretend she had read it. I sat down and read it in about 3 days (I was about 25) and was astonished to see a lot of my own very unpopular ideals detailed therein. It was the first time in my life I had ever seen in print that Girls could make their own decisions and NOT do what everyone else had voted to do at some point when we were in the garage handing Daddy a wrench instead, and it likely saved me from alcoholism, numerous bad marriages and an early death.
However, I agree that Ayn Rand missed the boat in two major fields: her view of charity and her hatred of religion. No world without these two ways of living in community could survive long enough to become Utopia; without them, Galts Gulch is just one more iteration of *What if Everyone in the Whole World Disappeared Except Us?*
As for her wooden, stupid characters, I note that Larry Niven wrote a novel called Oath of Fealty that was a marvelous depiction of a city inside a tall building, but because he is an engineer, he fell in love with the engineering and the characters became only playing pieces. Oh, and he missed out on two vital things: (1) everyone in his building utopia has a landline phone; and (2) what happens when the power goes out?
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 4:18PM
"... Galts Gulch is just one more iteration of *What if Everyone in the Whole World Disappeared Except Us?"
That's an ironic thing to say considering that the stated theme of the novel, Atlas Shrugged is what happens when the "men of the mind" disappear from the whole world leaving no one "except us."
hrh | 3.31.11 @ 1:41PM
Agree with Doctor Right that Rand's objectivist/individualism-to-the-point-of-total-selfishness philosophy as a whole is a disaster if one really tries to live it out.
Dagny's affairs with all of the strong men in the novel and the absence of children are telling: You CANNOT be a TOTAL individualist and make all the sacrifices that raising healthy children requires. For one example.
However, her critique of government as the arbiter of collective sacrifice versus individualist capitalist markets is SPOT-ON!
I'm soo looking forward to the movie ... although currently it's only playing in Fairfield, CT ... more than 2 hours from me. :(
Also.
There is an Ayn Rand capitalist without the selfish, atheistic baggage on the scene today:
Sarah Palin
Check out her speech and Q&A in India for evidence of her support for free markets versus central planning of economies:
http://tinyurl.com/5sz58ft
and
http://tinyurl.com/4jrhkkh
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 1:47PM
I'm aware of nothing in Objectivism requiring a person not to value his or her children, so it's NOT automatically a "sacrifice" to buy food for the children rather than, say, a wanted new suit for one's self.
Speaking personally and not as the Objectivist I'm not, I'd rather buy a DVD for myself than food for my 16-year-old daughter. If you knew my daughter, you might understand.
Francis W. Porretto | 3.31.11 @ 2:12PM
To "Doctor Right" above: Can you name an atheist who didn't hold at least one other noxious conviction (e.g., Nazism or Marxism) whom history records as a mass murderer?
Yours is the fallacy of the Undistributed Middle, in a form something like this:
1. All historical mass murderers were atheists.
2. Smith is an atheist.
3. Ergo, Smith is either a mass murderer, will become one, or would like to watch as someone else commits a mass murder.
Dear God! I'm a Catholic, and a serious one. I spend quite a bit of my energy defending faith, and people of faith, from militant atheists. Then someone like this comes along and gets me wondering whether I shouldn't let everyone else fend for himself.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 10:28AM
I "can name an atheist who didn't hold at least one other noxious conviction," namely myself, although it's possible you might consider one of my convictions to be noxious. If you do, the extent of your noxiousity evaluations would be ridiculously broad.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 6:14PM
Another point: There's no way to know what convictions another person has unless he or she tells you. And, if a person is willing to murder, surely that person is also willing to lie.
Maybe Hitler believed the tenets of Naziism; maybe he didn't. Personally, I don't care what he believed. All I care about is what he did and persuaded / ordered others to do.
Your above reasoning seems familiar to Woody Allen's: "1. Socrates is a man. 2. All men are mortal. 3. Therefore, all men are Socrates."
Doctor Right| 3.31.11 @ 2:42PM
@ Francis W. Porretto:
(Something's wrong with TASOnline's forum; I can't reply to specific comments)
There is a distinct difference between atheism (an activist non-belief in God) and agnosticism (a benign indifference). Many people who claim to be atheists are, in fact, agnostics.
Atheism is not passive; it seeks to actively agitate for the removal God from the public arena as a first step, and from the private arena as a final end.
Of course, all genuine, active, agitating atheists are NOT mass murderers. In fact, obviously, most of the are not. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not atheism was at the core of the horrors unleashed by Nazi-ism and Communism in the 20th century, as it most certainly was. Both the Nazis and the Communists (two off-shoots of Fascism) replaced the worship of God with the worship of the State, and they did it with an iron fist. They understood that when God is removed from the equation, then they can play God, themselves. At this point in a society, all bets are off. If God is "dead" and morality is only a relative concept, then right and wrong have NO meaning other than that which is ascribed to them by the state. The end result of a society that completely abandons God and embraces worship of the state (an "atheistic" society) is usually always bloodshed, and usually on a massive scale.
That does not excuse the crimes perpetrated on humanity by those pretending to act in God's name, of course. THAT would be a false conclusion. However, those crimes absolutely pale in comparison to the crimes against humanity committed by atheists in the 20th century.
And "Seek"...We've had this conversation before. Hitler was an atheist, and a pagan. Nazi-ism was characterized by an embrace of state-worship, as well as the old, pagan beliefs of the Nordic peoples. Hitler's occasional use of Catholic rhetoric was an attempt at propaganda and manipulation, not religious fervor (his native Austria being traditionally Catholic...it's called "real politiks"). Additionally, the atheism of Communist societies is NOT incidental, it is purposeful and of primary importance. You can't take away private property until you convince the people that their rights come not from God, but from the state. I think you need to brush-up on your history.
simon templar| 4.2.11 @ 12:08AM
I would like to add, Seek, on the point of Hitler as an atheist. One has to distinguish between the propaganda writings of Hitler and the Nazi's from the actual government documents, actions, and state objectives. The evidence that Hitler despised christianity and intended to destroy it within two generations is voluminous. Another lie that is purported is that the Chatholic church cooperated with the Nazis. Tons of books have been written documenting the church's underground railroads and mass deceptions across Europe in aiding, protecting, and hiding Jews. Italy itself refused to injure Jews and went to great length to deceive the central fascist government in Rome.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 10:34AM
I'd say that the root of Hitler's, Stalin's, Mao's, Pol Pot's, ..., evil was not atheism, it was the lust for power over others. That lust has also motivated militant Christians, Muslims, Buddists, ... [It might also motivate militant Amish and Quakers, but I haven't encountered any of them.]
Osamas Pajamas| 3.31.11 @ 4:36PM
OhBummer has made a point of publicly denouncing Rand's books --- which immediately boosted their sales. I must say that I found nothing monstrous about "Atlas Shrugged," nor did I find that the story dragged, as the consequences of adopting bad ideas got together and bit the world on the ass.
Osamas Pajamas| 3.31.11 @ 4:47PM
On the subject of atheism, Doctor Right @ Francis W Porretto appears to be discussing what I call "left-wing" atheism." Those leftist monkeys turn atheism --- a state religion --- as the groundwork for statism. Atheist Ayn Rand never advocated that government outlaw religion, believing as she did that even the poorly-educated have the same rights as the geniuses. Oh, she would call them "witch doctors" and poke fun at them, but in a free society you may think, speak, and publish as you wish, and the offended can go whiz up a rope. BTW, I'm an atheist and I have no hankering to go convert the world to atheism -- or to tear down the Christian and Jewish decorations in the town square, etc. The Muslims do give me the willies, however....
Brian Mc| 3.31.11 @ 6:07PM
What happened to this website? The replies capability is missing...this is hard to discern and will keep me away...might please some, I'm sure.
Brian Mc| 3.31.11 @ 6:08PM
Plus, the pop-ups are becoming annoying. They started roughly a week ago and I have not changed a thing.
jgo| 3.31.11 @ 7:11PM
"I read _Atlas Shrugged_ once a year EVERY year."
I did that for a couple decades as part of my celebration of summer, and I enjoyed all 3 thirds. A lot of the most preposterous seeming events, statements, and actions had actually happened.
I'd have trouble buying into the railroad focus in a contemporary setting, but then freight is still going strong, while airlines have been severely crippled by the war on the 2nd amendment. You'd also have trouble buying a sizable chunk of land anywhere in the USA without having a bunch of code-nazis snooping around and your finances tracked. Then again, who knows what Teddy Turner's really doing on his hundreds of thousands of acres.
jgo| 3.31.11 @ 7:30PM
"The replies capability is missing"
It was broken, and, at least for now, they've removed it. Perhaps it will return in a new and improved form.
Didn't Rand work on "Khartoum", too? And before screen-writing, she worked on costumes and some gopher kinds of work. Wasn't there something in a couple of the bios about her meeting Cecil B. de Mille?
The heroes/heroine use firearms in defense; bureaubums use them to initiate force, to intimidate people into setting aside their own values. As she saw it, both the leftists and the "conservatives" were both too eager to initiate both force and fraud.
"Rand's attitude toward religion" was that it was an attempt by thugs to deceive people to secure their own power. She saw it as an attempt to escape and destroy rationality, to make claims without providing evidence for those claims or subjecting the claims to challenge.
She liked her heroes and heroines to be "perfect" rather than disappointing. She definitely did not present them as "uebermenschen" because she thought no person should be master or slave of any other, i.e. no one should be "over" and no one should be "under", but good people, honest people, smart people should be honored as such.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 10:45AM
I enjoyed "Khartoum", with Charlton Heston as "Chinese" Gordon, but AR had nothing to do with that movie. Robert Ardrey wrote the screenplay for that 1966 movie. Laurence Olivier played the Mahdi, a great portrayal of a militant Muslim.
jgo| 3.31.11 @ 7:32PM
"Atheism is not passive"
Atheism is passive. Anti-theism is active.
jgo| 3.31.11 @ 7:35PM
"You CANNOT be a TOTAL individualist and make all the sacrifices that raising healthy children requires."
That's not true. The total individualist can value his children. Raising them is not a sacrifice in the Randian sense of giving up a higher value for a lower value, nor in the common, baseball, sense of taking a loss in the hope of possibly gaining some higher value. For a total individualist who values his children, doing what it takes is an investment in what he values.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 1:55PM
Well said! I made essentially the same point a few minutes ago after the "REPLY TO THIS" capability had been restored.
Rev. 18:4| 3.31.11 @ 8:43PM
"Hitler, for the record, repeatedly affirmed his membership in the Catholic Church and had good relations with the Vatican."
So, in other words you're saying he was a good Catholic.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:54PM
Considering the fact that Jews have historically been abused and persecuted by "good Catholics," that wouldn't be all that surprising. (No, I'm not Jewish.)
obadiah| 3.31.11 @ 9:07PM
I was an Ayn Rand fan when I was 17 years old in 1963. I read all the books numerous times, "Night of January 16" too. Never got through the long speeches in Atlas. Anyway, it all seems laughable now. I might try the movie just for the nostalgia. It was a fun adventure story for an intellectual teen-ager.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 1:57PM
"It all seems laughable now." Why?
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 3:56PM
If you didn't read the "long speeches," you probably weren't all that intellectual.
Gabriel| 3.31.11 @ 9:24PM
I read Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" about six months ago. While I do not agree with her on all subjects (religion for instance), the simple idea of letting business owners run their businesses as they choose to be perfectly logical. I look forward to seeing this movie when it comes out, and, when I am old enough, voting in its direction.
Principlex| 4.1.11 @ 12:07AM
"...it's tedious and not-believable, and at places its philosophy borders on the monstrous." Now that is a turd in the punch bowl if there ever was one. Why don't you give a reason for your statement? Maybe then you can amount to something in the world of discourse where it is possible that one's reasoning can affect another. C'mon. Grow up.
Seek| 4.1.11 @ 9:35AM
Hitler was a bad Catholic. But he was no "atheist."
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 2:00PM
Other than nazi and WWI veteran, I'm not sure in what collections of individuals Hitler would claim membership.
Jacob Morgan| 4.1.11 @ 11:11AM
"Hitler, for the record, repeatedly affirmed his membership in the Catholic Church and had good relations with the Vatican."
Barf !!! The Catholic Center party opposed Hitler in the elections. The Pope issued an encyclical "With Burning Sorrow" in the late 30's regarding the German situation. Hitler plotted the abduction of the Pope. From the beginning the Nazi's promoted "positive Christianity" which was a religion that supported Nazisim and one that was stripped of any substance of recognizable Christianity. Hitler sent over 1,000 Catholic clergy to Auschwitz.
No one, NO ONE, thought that Hitler was a good little Catholic or was supported by the Vatican until the 1960's when some communist in Germany wrote a play to smear the Catholic Church. Read Wm Shrier's work on Nazi Germany, written before the Soviet Agit-Prop narrative came out, to get the real history. To read that and come away thinking Hitler had one shred of Catholicism in his character or had any support from the Church is laughable.
The contentions that Hitler was a Catholic or had good relation with the Vatican are of the same mental caliber as the flat earth society. Enough already.
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 7:00PM
I agree. The Catholic Church in general, and Pope Pius XII in particular, have been viciously slandered. "The Nazi deportations of Italy's Jews began in October 1943. Pope Pius ordered churches and convents throughout Italy to shelter Jews, and in Rome itself 155 convents and monasteries sheltered five thousand Jews throughout the German occupation. Pius himself granted sanctuary within the walls of the Vatican, and his summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, to countless homeless Jews. Goldhagen's book conspicuously lacks any discussion of Castel Gandolfo, which enjoys a unique place in the annals of Jewish rescue (and Catholic rescuers) during the Holocaust: In no other site in all of Nazi-occupied Europe were as many Jews saved and sheltered for as long a period."
Also, the Chief Rabbi in Rome during much of the papacy of Pius XII converted to Catholicism after WWII. He was a personal friend of the Pope and obviously appreciated the protection the Pope and other Catholics gave the Jews, but I expect his experiences partially explain his decision to convert.
Anti-Catholic sentiment is almost as common as Anti Semitism. Some of the present feeling may result for the 1963 play, "The Deputy" by Rolf Hochhuth. "The Deputy" presented Pope Pius XII’s silence during the holocaust as criminal, inhuman, and cowardly, almost certainly generated the largest controversy in the history of drama. In response to the play's contention that the pontiff was criminally responsible for the death of countless Jews, JEWISH historian Pincus Lapide set to work researching the matter. The result was his book, "Three Popes and the Jews", in which he defended Pius XII. According to Lapide, as many as 800,000 Jewish survivors of the Nazi Holocaust owe their lives to the pontiff's leadership.
canuckistani| 4.1.11 @ 12:15PM
It is reminiscent of Saddam's placing of Islamic text on the Iraqi flag after GW1.
Simply playing on people's sacred cows to enable their trickery.
Dee See| 4.2.11 @ 12:06AM
BTW ----putting aside the issue of American Spectator (and our entire CON-job serving
political spectrum) NEVER ----EVER daring to
suggest the illegal debt to RED China be defaulted
----on top of decades of NEVER ----EVER considering the possibility that RED China is
itself ripe for a GENUINE regime change---
WHY does American Spectator REFUSE to
look at the ON RECORD FACT that Hollywood
has been cutting and gearing ALLLL of its
product, such as it is, to PLEASE Beijing
--and has been doing so for decades!
----THAT'S RIGHT! -----DECADES
MOS was 71331| 4.2.11 @ 2:03PM
I don't understand your post. The words in all capitals show you're concerned about something or some things, but I can't figure out what.
sasob| 4.3.11 @ 4:21PM
Selfishness, smelfishness. Ambrose Bierce said it best when he defined selfishness as lack of regard for the selfishness of others.
Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:02PM
is good