All of us, every single man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth were born with the same unalienable rights; to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And, if the governments of the world can't get that through their thick skulls, then, regime change will be necessary.
I don't know who his educators were, but I sure would appreciate giving today's elementary/middle/high school students the opportunity to learn to understand history the way he does.
I swear to heaven, this vid scared me more than almost anything I have ever read about totalitarianism, and that includes the Gulag Archipelago.
Guys, how the HELL do we counter this? It is so damn invidious, so pervasive - it just occured to me that it is, actually the "false consciousness" that Marxism accuses the dumb proles of having. And that is how they justify their "work" and "reeducation" camps.
These people just live lives of total denial and projection, don't they? I read "Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretentsions" a few months ago and the number of people sacrificed to this ideology is almost unbearable. Berlinski takes two (or three - I lent the book to some clueless lib friends of mine, so I don't have it in front of me) pages to enumerate every single modern revolutionary movement and the cost in blood - well, let's just say if you really thought about it, you'd never be functional again.
But when I saw this a few days ago, it shook me even more than the utopian death stats and the Gulag. I can't watch it again.
This is the philosophical basis upon which our current politboro bases its "governing."
This is why they are so cold.
And the really terrifying thing is this is what every single public high school child believes, let alone our ruling class.
Would you believe that we were warned of all this, back in the 1960s, while that part of the process was happening all around us -- by Ayn Rand? She once told the "anarcho-capitalist", radical Libertarians who tried to use some of her arguments, "You will not make me your Marcuse, hippie of the Right!" (It sounds even better with the Russian accent.) Her writings from that period nailed the cultural Marxists and their tactics to the wall -- even though the term "political correctness" was not in popular use yet.
I was too young to know about Rand while she was alive.
But I have read her stuff and love it. It seems like the conservative movement of the early 60's would have been the perfect vehicle for her ideas to gain currency. What happened? Why was Chambers so anti-Rand? Why was Buckley? Was it the atheist thing?
Am I wrong to believe that Rand's view of freedom follows very closely the view of freedom and liberty in "classical liberalism?"
Didn't religion offend her only insofar as it was used as a political argument for the sacrifice of individuals for the collective? Didn't she argue that it is immoral to impose one's "altruism" on others through the power of the state?
I am a Christian and I believe all of that. My own decisions to give or not give of my time and resources are mine and I have no desire to impose those on others.
RRA - do you have any suggested reading I could do to understand why Rand was rejected by the Goldwater/Buckley movement?
Pastorius - I have seen that vid, but I am not entirely clear as to what Mike Wallace was asking her.
If her point is that no man can ask another to live for anyone other than himself - fair enough.
But the only way that becomes oppressive is when such sacrifice is enforced by government fiat. At the point of a gun - which is what she experienced in Russia. And what we are starting to experience much more overtly here.
Private associations among free people are really none of her concern, from what I can discern. (At least politically).
From a political perspective, she might have opposed tax write-offs for charitable giving, for example.
But I cannot see her having an argument against individuals choosing to spend their money any way they wanted, without infringing the giver's right to make herself happy spending her money the way she wants to.
It is a little perplexing to me. I probably need to spend more time in Objectivism and over at that website.
But, here's the way I here her. She quite literally said that she intends to attack the institutions which promote altruism.
I think that is pure bullshit. Good luck to her, attacking the principle upon which the entire universe runs.
Hey Ro, you know your Faith. What does it say? Love the Lord your God, with all your Heart, and all your Mind, and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbor as you Love Yourself.
That is altruism.
Ayn Rand does not believe in that.
That is fine with me.
But, she clearly says, she plans to attack any institution which promotes that idea.
Well then, Fuck her.
She has the right to do it, and I have the right to say, "Hey, Fuck you Ayn Rand."
My understanding is Rand is against forced altruism as in the redistribution of wealth. My understanding is she is not against individuals offering charity on their own behalf since giving of ones own resources doesn't negatively impact the resources of others.
I don't know if that last comment was from you, Ro.
But, here's the thing. In this video, Rand betrays herself as just another egocentric philosopher bent upon demonstrating that her philosophical system is infallible.
I studied Philosophy and Religion in college.
I came to a conclusion. And here it is:
Both Nietzsche and Yeshua Moshiach are right.
Philosophical systems are necessarily fraught with paradoxes and contradictions. They are never infallible. We live in a flawed world. And each individual situation requires thought, wisdom and prayer.
Nietzsche the philosopher was against philosophic systems.
Jesus the Prophet and Son of God was against systematic Theology as was demonstrated when he healed people on the Sabbath.
But, Ayn Rand believes she has an answer for everything, and that answer is Ultimate Selfishness.
Think about it, my friend. Who does that sound like ?
Bill Whittle nails it - yet again!
ReplyDeleteI don't know who his educators were, but I sure would appreciate giving today's elementary/middle/high school students the opportunity to learn to understand history the way he does.
I swear to heaven, this vid scared me more than almost anything I have ever read about totalitarianism, and that includes the Gulag Archipelago.
ReplyDeleteGuys, how the HELL do we counter this? It is so damn invidious, so pervasive - it just occured to me that it is, actually the "false consciousness" that Marxism accuses the dumb proles of having. And that is how they justify their "work" and "reeducation" camps.
These people just live lives of total denial and projection, don't they? I read "Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretentsions" a few months ago and the number of people sacrificed to this ideology is almost unbearable. Berlinski takes two (or three - I lent the book to some clueless lib friends of mine, so I don't have it in front of me) pages to enumerate every single modern revolutionary movement and
the cost in blood - well, let's just say if you really thought about it, you'd never be functional again.
But when I saw this a few days ago, it shook me even more than the utopian death stats and the Gulag. I can't watch it again.
This is the philosophical basis upon which our current politboro bases its "governing."
This is why they are so cold.
And the really terrifying thing is this is what every single public high school child believes, let alone our ruling class.
Ro
FRENCH PETITION TO BAN THE BURKA IN PUBLIC.
ReplyDeleteTHE PETITION IS AVAILABLE FOR SIGNATURES BY NON FRENCH PEOPLE TOO.
French:
http://www.ripostelaique.com/Halte-a-la-burqa-et-au-voile,2571.html
English:
http://www.ripostelaique.com/Stop-the-burqa-and-the-veil.html
Thanks for that, anon. I am all for banning the wearing of body bags in public. Scares the living crap out of everybody.
ReplyDeleteModesty is one thing. Self immolation another.
Would you believe that we were warned of all this, back in the 1960s, while that part of the process was happening all around us -- by Ayn Rand? She once told the "anarcho-capitalist", radical Libertarians who tried to use some of her arguments, "You will not make me your Marcuse, hippie of the Right!" (It sounds even better with the Russian accent.) Her writings from that period nailed the cultural Marxists and their tactics to the wall -- even though the term "political correctness" was not in popular use yet.
ReplyDeleteI was too young to know about Rand while she was alive.
ReplyDeleteBut I have read her stuff and love it. It seems like the conservative movement of the early 60's would have been the perfect vehicle for her ideas to gain currency. What happened? Why was Chambers so anti-Rand? Why was Buckley? Was it the atheist thing?
Am I wrong to believe that Rand's view of freedom follows very closely the view of freedom and liberty in "classical liberalism?"
Didn't religion offend her only insofar as it was used as a political argument for the sacrifice of individuals for the collective? Didn't she argue that it is immoral to impose one's "altruism" on others through the power of the state?
I am a Christian and I believe all of that. My own decisions to give or not give of my time and resources are mine and I have no desire to impose those on others.
RRA - do you have any suggested reading I could do to understand why Rand was rejected by the Goldwater/Buckley movement?
Thanks,
Ro
Ro,
ReplyDeleteI would agree with your version of Rand, if that's what she was really about. That's not what I have gotten from her.
Ro,
ReplyDeleteCheck out this video for instance. I agree with everything she says in the first four minutes. But, check out where it goes after the 4:13 mark:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k
She was no live and let live person, from what I can tell. Hey, maybe I'm ignorant.
ReplyDeletePastorius - I have seen that vid, but I am not entirely clear as to what Mike Wallace was asking her.
ReplyDeleteIf her point is that no man can ask another to live for anyone other than himself - fair enough.
But the only way that becomes oppressive is when such sacrifice is enforced by government fiat. At the point of a gun - which is what she experienced in Russia. And what we are starting to experience much more overtly here.
Private associations among free people are really none of her concern, from what I can discern. (At least politically).
From a political perspective, she might have opposed tax write-offs for charitable giving, for example.
But I cannot see her having an argument against individuals choosing to spend their money any way they wanted, without infringing the giver's right to make herself happy spending her money the way she wants to.
It is a little perplexing to me. I probably need to spend more time in Objectivism and over at that website.
Ro
Yes, perhaps I have to study her.
ReplyDeleteBut, here's the way I here her. She quite literally said that she intends to attack the institutions which promote altruism.
I think that is pure bullshit. Good luck to her, attacking the principle upon which the entire universe runs.
Hey Ro, you know your Faith. What does it say? Love the Lord your God, with all your Heart, and all your Mind, and all your Soul, and Love your Neighbor as you Love Yourself.
That is altruism.
Ayn Rand does not believe in that.
That is fine with me.
But, she clearly says, she plans to attack any institution which promotes that idea.
Well then, Fuck her.
She has the right to do it, and I have the right to say, "Hey, Fuck you Ayn Rand."
My understanding is Rand is against forced altruism as in the redistribution of wealth. My understanding is she is not against individuals offering charity on their own behalf since giving of ones own resources doesn't negatively impact the resources of others.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that last comment was from you, Ro.
ReplyDeleteBut, here's the thing. In this video, Rand betrays herself as just another egocentric philosopher bent upon demonstrating that her philosophical system is infallible.
I studied Philosophy and Religion in college.
I came to a conclusion. And here it is:
Both Nietzsche and Yeshua Moshiach are right.
Philosophical systems are necessarily fraught with paradoxes and contradictions. They are never infallible. We live in a flawed world. And each individual situation requires thought, wisdom and prayer.
Nietzsche the philosopher was against philosophic systems.
Jesus the Prophet and Son of God was against systematic Theology as was demonstrated when he healed people on the Sabbath.
But, Ayn Rand believes she has an answer for everything, and that answer is Ultimate Selfishness.
Think about it, my friend. Who does that sound like ?
The Prophet Mo?