-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Sorry I don’t have time to provide excerpts, because I need to rush off to a forum for which I am a panelist, but for those interested in Atlas Shrugged II, I give it a decent recommendation in a semi-review of sorts, here.
View all comments (20) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/15/on-atlas-shrugged-ii
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
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
JD| 10.15.12 @ 7:23PM
I agree, for the most part, with your critique of Rand. She's peerless when it comes to analyzing the flaws of collectivism and prediction its outcomes, but far less right when it comes to proposing alternatives. But on the latter point, I do find room for understanding, even though I too am Christian.
As to her prescription - a strike of the mind - I see two sides. On the one, she's absolutely right that to try to "beat" a collectivist society by achieving in spite of them is to fuel them. We see that in reality, as those who accomplish most are denigrated for their wealth while they feed the power of the beast that harms them. But on the other, Rand assumes (without even depicting it at the end of Atlas) that allowing the collectivists to win to the point of apocalypse will result in society seeing the light. I see no reason to believe that the Left will be any less effective at blaming the Right after apocalypse than before. I'm not sure what the right answer is.
Unlike the world of Atlas, America is NOT the world's most free remaining country, so the best and brightest don't need to flee to the nothingness of Galt's Gulch - they can just go overseas and resume being productive. The strike of the mind will not occur, for the men of the mind will not allow the collectivists to leave them no remaining nation. But then again, that they remain will always allow collectivists to blame them for taking more than their share of the world's wealth.
JD| 10.15.12 @ 7:33PM
I'd rather expand on the Christian angle, though.
Many Christians find appreciation for Rand, and I think it's pretty clear why: Her arguments against Christianity were straw men. Or at least, they were if you're my type of Christian.
Many "Christians" throughout history have preached work-righteousness, which devolves into the use of church guilt to coerce and enslave people. Rand rightly associates this with the secular guilt - the "You didn't build that" debt to society - that the Left requires us all to owe so that it can control us.
True Christianity is salvation by grace. Good behavior is not advocated out of requirement or guilt, but out of gratitude for grace. There is no coercion.
But even then, Rand might take issue with selflessness performed freely out of gratitude for grace, since she said to always be selfish. To that, I remember philosophers throughout history who suggested that selflessness doesn't exist. Today's "scientists" might say the same. We're all just difference engines, incapable of true free will, they say, and even our most "selfless" acts are products of some brain chemistry that says "this gives me a good feeling that's worth more to me at this moment than the possessions I'm giving away."
Simon Templar| 10.15.12 @ 7:41PM
If you want to beat the collectivist, the only way to do this is regain the instruments and institutions that they have taken hold of and use to control the flow of information and the narrative. Either take them back or create new ones.
The second most important action to be taken is tell the truth on them at every turn fearlessly as Breitbart did. They feed off an ignorant propagandized public, a segment of it that is critical for social and political control and winning elections. Do not accept their narratives and propose your own. Do not accept their intentions hold them to results; put appropriate doubt in peoples minds of their so-called good intentions and the monopoly they think they have on good intentions.
Letting them win so as to force people to see the light is not only stupid, but incredibly dangerous and stupid. History as proven otherwise. This republic was not founded on the idea of sitting back and just letting King George's reign collapse on itself. Reagan made it clear that if liberty vanishes here it will not be seen until another thousand years.
SYAsked| 10.15.12 @ 8:52PM
'Ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall make your free'. When confronted with this idea, I think it was Herod who said 'What is Truth?' Twp thousand years ag0, and Progressives like to imagine we are different, now, from those people. were like, then.
SYAsked| 10.15.12 @ 9:05PM
The most genuinely adult person I have ever heard about was the author of 'Ye shall know the Truth................. And Herod, being dishonest, took the path he chose. If he knew what we know, would he say it was his DNA, his parents, his environment, or 'The Devil made me do it?
A liberal would choose one or a combination of them all. He turned the best, ever, be over to be murdered in one of the worst ways designed. In the end, I think it was for me, and many, and I love him for it. For that I, too, am despised.
SYAsked| 10.15.12 @ 9:07PM
Really can write sensibly, just do not bother to edit, so posts are replete with errors.
JD| 10.15.12 @ 7:41PM
And the Bible concurs. It says "All our righteous acts are like filthy rags", and if you're like my brand of Christianity, you believe that no one can do anything truly "good" unless he has Gospel motivation.
To me, Rand is the perfect example of a very smart person who had Law but not Gospel. Given her background, this all makes sense. And since she lacked Gospel, she truly could do nothing "good", that is, nothing selfless, nor could she understand otherwise.
Her entire attempt to suggest a correct alternative to the evils of collectivism as she recognized them reeks of knowing Law but not Gospel, and so trying to fashion a righteousness herself.
Mostly, she just rejected Law. She lambasted the idea of Original Sin as a contradiction, saying "how can you claim free will AND claim inability to not incur guilt via sin?" To her, it was just another tool of guilt-control, and we know how she felt about those!
I would like to have asked her, had I been around, what she thought of death. After all, she claims we have freedom and rejects inherent sin. Why, then, do we die? Because we all FAIL at some point to do what is needed to go on living? Hmm...
But in all of this, let's not lose the fact that despite her bad reasons, she would have advocated mostly very good policies.
Simon Templar| 10.15.12 @ 7:59PM
A word on Rand.
Rand did not fully understood Christianity, the founders, nor the concept of selfishness vs. selflessness or self sacrifice. She grew up in communism and an atheistic society that largely provided her with the only viewpoint or information about any of these ideas or belief systems. She did understand basic economics, the philosophical underpinnings of capitalism, and the power of the state like no other writer of her time. This is to her credit.
The odd thing is she, perhaps without knowing it, endorsed self sacrifice and selflessness in the character of Fountainhead who basically sacrifices his own career, his life, and his ambitions for a higher principle and ultimately making this self sacrifice for all those seeking liberty. The Left is devoid of principle but acts if it has a monopoly on principle and the fate of mankind. It is the conservative, classical liberal, or the free market libertarian that is truly principled, self sacrificing, and is concerned about all men and their fate. It is not greed that drives or motivates success, it is the great desire to express one selves true nature, talents, vision, and work without interference and draw the fruits of that success. We use to call it the pursuit of happiness.
Simon Templar| 10.15.12 @ 8:05PM
Rand did not fully understand, that is..sorry about the typos.
JD| 10.15.12 @ 8:49PM
That's true. The characters of Atlas also sacrificed great material wealth to live in simplicity, for a "greater good". That they claimed to be unable to live with themselves if they did otherwise is beside the point - their morals caused them to prefer the sacrifice to the alternative. They could have ruled the socialist world had they combined their intelligence with the morals of James Taggart.
Such is the sacrifice of any Christian or Capitalist charity.
SYAsked| 10.15.12 @ 9:14PM
Why have I never felt threatened by Rand's ideas, while I do feel threatened by those of the Progressive Religion?
I felt she was lost, but directed her animosity towards the same ideas and people as I do.
Does anyone recall the time when whistle-blowers were the darlings of the Left?
Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin fill that role, today, and garner contempt. Rand seems on their side, not the present Liberal, Progressive, or whatever the name du jour might be.
THKrupp| 10.16.12 @ 11:01AM
Ayn Rand didnt grow up in a communist state. She was 12 when the revolution took place and she left at 21 for the United States. She spent 9 years in Russia while it was communist. Her family was well off and lost everything which was probably what defined a lot of her thoughts.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 12:01PM
You are kidding, right? The age of 12 to 21 are the years of formative development where cognitive ability to handle deeper concepts and more complex information is possible. These are the years we consider to be the formative and growth years of enculturization. I am pretty sure her elementary and high school education was devoid of anything even coming close to a realistic review of religion or its role in development of western civilization and the founding of this nation.
Yes, her families financial condition was most likely a large factor in her personal experience and eventual philosophy.
Not sure what you are trying to say....
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 12:02PM
I meant high school and college years.
THKrupp| 10.16.12 @ 4:28PM
Yes you are right. In your comment that I responded to, it seemed like you were saying Rand's lack of Christianity stemmed from living in a communist society. She had exposure to society other than a Communistic one. Communism was not the only viewpoint she had available. She spent the ages of 12-16 in the Crimea which was still under White Russian rule for a certain period of time after the Revolution. She decided to become an atheist when she was in high school From Wikipedia:
"She later recalled that while in high school she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued reason above any other human attribute."
JimH| 10.16.12 @ 8:08AM
For Rand, and true Christians such acts are not sacrifices because it is the choice of the individual doing what they want and value most. It only appears as a sacrifice to the viewer.
JD| 10.16.12 @ 11:48AM
Indeed. Leftists seek to own the dictionary in order to sell their agenda. Words like "rights", "freedom", "fairness", "diversity", and "stimulus" are all redefined by Leftists to justify their agenda.
If we let them have all the words they seek to own for their agenda, we'll have no words left with which to refute them. Thus we cannot abide their redefinitions of words.
"Sacrifice" and "charity" were words the Leftists of Rand's day redefined to serve their agenda. Rather than take them back, she conceded them. She was wrong in that.
A true sacrifice, or true charity, is willfully given under no coercion whatsoever. Rand did not disapprove of these ideas, but she conceded the words "sacrifice" and "charity" to those who redefined them to apply to coerced redistribution. Then she condemned the words she had allowed to be redefined.
Oldefarte| 10.16.12 @ 2:27PM
Anything now produced by Hollywood is not worth a plug nickel and will be so biased that it will be no doubt disgusting. Americans need to boycott the S&G of the left coast entirely!!!!!
Oldefarte| 10.16.12 @ 2:30PM
PS: Alternatively, I'm currently re-reading Twain's THE ADVENTURES OF TOM SAWYER. Now that is entertainment supreme!!!!!!!!!
Oldefarte| 10.16.12 @ 2:32PM
PSII: Laughter, tears, etc.....the whole nine yards from this beautiful piece of writing!!!!!!!!