|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 17, 2009 8:15:31 GMT -5
Before the election I heard quite a few conservatives say they'd leave if the dems won. Well the dems won and they still won't go.  Now all the talk is about Going John Galt. (though I doubt any of them have ever read the book) www.goingjohngalt.org/blog/Just hippies by another name.  Seriously, they believe they can drop out and make a wonderful little completely independent conservative paradise on their own where they can live out their "It"s mine and I'm not sharing" and "Fuck you" state of mind. I expect we might be hearing a bit more of this from faaaaar right pundits over the coming months Not to break from topic, but isn't this the same party that said that everyone should follow their president because they thought McCain/Palin was a sure thing and now they're out there screaming for Obama's head and trying to oppose him no matter the reason? |
|
|
|
Post by booley on Mar 17, 2009 8:29:48 GMT -5
..... Not to break from topic, but isn't this the same party that said that everyone should follow their president because they thought McCain/Palin was a sure thing and now they're out there screaming for Obama's head and trying to oppose him no matter the reason? Hypocrisy is it's own reward. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 17, 2009 8:31:15 GMT -5
..... Not to break from topic, but isn't this the same party that said that everyone should follow their president because they thought McCain/Palin was a sure thing and now they're out there screaming for Obama's head and trying to oppose him no matter the reason? Hypocrisy is it's own reward. If only that reward involved kicking them out of politics and taking away their right to vote |
|
adoylelb90815
Full Member
I'm the feminist intellectual fundies warned you about
Posts: 120
|
Post by adoylelb90815 on Mar 17, 2009 15:59:05 GMT -5
Death, I didn't go further than the title of the thread, initially. John Galt=Atlas Shrugged=Ayn Rand=libertarian bullshit, being the "I got mine" mentality, fuck social responsibility, fuck the social contract, fuck everybody but me. When I was around 14 years old, I thought Ayn Rand was a genius, a person who knew how things worked. Then I finished school, spent some time in the real world and realized what a major crock of shit she was peddling. If I offend any Ayn Randites out there, my purpose wasn't to offend, merely to point out the bankruptcy of her philosophy, simplistic and selfish. Inhuman, actually. The only person I know who would be offended is my ex since he believes in that philosophy, "fuck everybody but me." This is one of the many reasons why he IS my ex. |
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 17, 2009 16:02:45 GMT -5
Death, I didn't go further than the title of the thread, initially. John Galt=Atlas Shrugged=Ayn Rand=libertarian bullshit, being the "I got mine" mentality, fuck social responsibility, fuck the social contract, fuck everybody but me. When I was around 14 years old, I thought Ayn Rand was a genius, a person who knew how things worked. Then I finished school, spent some time in the real world and realized what a major crock of shit she was peddling. If I offend any Ayn Randites out there, my purpose wasn't to offend, merely to point out the bankruptcy of her philosophy, simplistic and selfish. Inhuman, actually. The only person I know who would be offended is my ex since he believes in that philosophy, "fuck everybody but me." This is one of the many reasons why he IS my ex. And me. Glad I'm not dating you.  |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 19, 2009 18:09:08 GMT -5
Question- do you actually agree with any of the standard randroid dogma; belief in tyrannical corporate government, the immorality of altruism, oppression of the upper class, immorality of any regulation on buisness, ect? You know the things that she supports in her book? Or do you just think it's a nifty story?
The second I can understand, even if I disagree. Art is, of course, subjective. But the first... not so much.
*snip!* This is not F&B. Please be civil. ~Lady Renae
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 18:18:11 GMT -5
Fred, hon, do you understand, first of all, that belief in tyrannical corporate gov't is not in her book? AIG bosses and people who made strongarm deals are not the kind of "heroes" Rand wrote about. She also wrote about people who weren't part of the business elite. As far as immorality of altruism goes, what she didn't like was people who gave things to other people for no real reason other than it was "expected"--think church tithing and such. She had no problem with people giving very generously to other people or organizations because it was what they wanted to do. It was when they were expected to do it or didn't understand why they were doing it that she thought it was immoral. That's what she calls "altruism." I appreciate where your attack is coming from, but quite frankly, you make way too many strawman arguments whenever you go to talk about Ayn Rand's books. Her philosophy has a lot of points that you might actually agree with, if you took the time to read it thoroughly. Some things she says makes a lot of sense. And you certainly don't have to buy in to everything she says to agree with some of what she says. Thinking she got some things right doesn't make one a randroid. Her own personality, especially as she got older, and her bizarre relationship with everyone else in her closed circle is certainly weird. And Peikoff is a tool bag.
|
|
|
|
Post by CtraK on Mar 19, 2009 18:35:14 GMT -5
An early reviewer also got it right when he said that 'Atlas Shrugged can only be called a novel by greatly devaluing the term'. Democrat control of all branches of federal government, conservatives relentlessly bitching about it - what is this, 1993? |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 19, 2009 19:22:12 GMT -5
Fred, hon, do you understand, first of all, that belief in tyrannical corporate gov't is not in her book? AIG bosses and people who made strongarm deals are not the kind of "heroes" Rand wrote about. She also wrote about people who weren't part of the business elite. As far as immorality of altruism goes, what she didn't like was people who gave things to other people for no real reason other than it was "expected"--think church tithing and such. She had no problem with people giving very generously to other people or organizations because it was what they wanted to do. It was when they were expected to do it or didn't understand why they were doing it that she thought it was immoral. That's what she calls "altruism." I appreciate where your attack is coming from, but quite frankly, you make way too many strawman arguments whenever you go to talk about Ayn Rand's books. Her philosophy has a lot of points that you might actually agree with, if you took the time to read it thoroughly. Some things she says makes a lot of sense. And you certainly don't have to buy in to everything she says to agree with some of what she says. Thinking she got some things right doesn't make one a randroid. Her own personality, especially as she got older, and her bizarre relationship with everyone else in her closed circle is certainly weird. And Peikoff is a tool bag. The problem is, the psychopaths who are muttering about "going John Galt" seem to believe in the strawman wholeheartedly. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 19, 2009 19:45:17 GMT -5
That. And the fact that Rand herself was no stellar example of how to behave in general. And the little matter that her book might be plagiarized...  |
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 19, 2009 22:57:50 GMT -5
Ooh, I haven't heard that one before. Got more info?
|
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 20, 2009 7:48:31 GMT -5
Well, it stems from a book an author with the hilarious name of Garet Garrett wrote. (Seriously, why pick that name??) He wrote a book in 1922 (AS was written in 1957) called The Driver. In this book some interesting things happen. Probably the most interesting thing is the "driver" question in the book: "Who is Henry Galt?" Yep, that's right. It's been suggested she got the name from a man named John Gall whom she wrote to often, I think he was some sort of industrialist. But the driving question is just too big to ignore.
Then there is the issue of Garrett's book Cinder Buggy: A Fable in Iron and Steel. This book has a plot that concerns two industrialists essential at "war" over whether iron or the new steel (sound familiar??) would be the metal of choice. Cue Rearden Steel images here.
Is it plagiarism? Maybe, maybe not. The Galt thing is stunningly similar. I think it's highly plausible she was influenced and "borrowed" from these books--the plots are not the same as Atlas Shrugged, BUT they do contain lots of elements that are found in Garrett's books. The bigger problem is that her philosophy claims to be unique in that it didn't exist before her. But the themes are there in Garrett's work--lots of little things and a few big things. The fact that she basically claimed to be first (and not "last", or part of a tradition that sort of culminated in her) is the real problem here as far as I'm concerned.
Her philosophy is interesting to read. I like parts of it quite a bit. The cult around Rand and her philosophy that she explicitly encouraged (ironically named "The Collective") operated exactly like a cult, including excommunications, codes of conduct, controlled reading material and thought processes. It's all quite fascinating--like watching a train wreck. So, her philosophy, which borrows heavily from other places, never really gets put into practice except in her novels (which is what she said their purpose was anyway). As an example herself, she's terrible.
|
|
|
|
Post by Death on Mar 20, 2009 8:13:58 GMT -5
Well, it stems from a book an author with the hilarious name of Garet Garrett wrote. (Seriously, why pick that name??) He wrote a book in 1922 (AS was written in 1957) called The Driver. In this book some interesting things happen. Probably the most interesting thing is the "driver" question in the book: "Who is Henry Galt?" Yep, that's right. It's been suggested she got the name from a man named John Gall whom she wrote to often, I think he was some sort of industrialist. But the driving question is just too big to ignore. Then there is the issue of Garrett's book Cinder Buggy: A Fable in Iron and Steel. This book has a plot that concerns two industrialists essential at "war" over whether iron or the new steel (sound familiar??) would be the metal of choice. Cue Rearden Steel images here. Is it plagiarism? Maybe, maybe not. The Galt thing is stunningly similar. I think it's highly plausible she was influenced and "borrowed" from these books--the plots are not the same as Atlas Shrugged, BUT they do contain lots of elements that are found in Garrett's books. The bigger problem is that her philosophy claims to be unique in that it didn't exist before her. But the themes are there in Garrett's work--lots of little things and a few big things. The fact that she basically claimed to be first (and not "last", or part of a tradition that sort of culminated in her) is the real problem here as far as I'm concerned. Her philosophy is interesting to read. I like parts of it quite a bit. The cult around Rand and her philosophy that she explicitly encouraged (ironically named "The Collective") operated exactly like a cult, including excommunications, codes of conduct, controlled reading material and thought processes. It's all quite fascinating--like watching a train wreck. So, her philosophy, which borrows heavily from other places, never really gets put into practice except in her novels (which is what she said their purpose was anyway). As an example herself, she's terrible. That makes sense. I was quite surprised to see that AS was written in the fifties and not the twenties.It seemed to be heavily influenced by european anarchism and futurism. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 20, 2009 10:08:41 GMT -5
It's definitely influenced by european anarchism. The whole Galt's Gulch thing is basically an anarchist community set up by rules determined by the members who choose to live there. The whole rallying against oppressive state power by breaking from the state and forming your own system is a very anarchist idea. And in her other big book, The Fountainhead, the act the architect takes by destroying the building (which was supposed to improve public life) because it had been taken over by the State is also an anarchist one, especially from the late 1800s to the 1920s when a few (not many) anarchists like Alexander Berkmann were all about destructive displays because of the attention/statement making factor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Paradox on Mar 20, 2009 19:05:05 GMT -5
Lulz, just the other day I was telling my girlfriend about the racism in the stories that was (obviously) absent from the film, and how it made my respect for Lovecraft drop a good ways. He was still an awesome writer though. Yeah Lovecraft was racist. I used to think he was just a victim of his times but eventually it's become clear that he was overly racist even by the standards of that era. Ironically, his wife was a Jew. He would start to go off on racist rants about the Jews occasionally, and she'd have to remind him that she was a Jew herself. Racism is odd. |
|
