Originally posted by FlyersFan
Originally posted by smallpeeps
The rich will fortify themselves against the poor huddled masses when it gets real bad, and they'll re-write the constitution on their own.
I saw the intelligent living out the ultimate Darwin Theory.
Yeah, I hear you. I am sympathetic toward the idea as you phrase it. Let's see...
The smart leave the dumb to stew in their own juices.
Okay but here's where Rand is lacking: The poor do not have any juices. They can only thrive on the "juices" or production of the rich and able.
Now the term "stewing in own juices" means leaving a person to their own doomed philosophy (that of mooching) and letting them weep as their
children starve because they didn't catch the scent of Galt's trail (though all these doomed people were saying his name so obviously they were
seeking Galt, right?)
See here is where Rand failed Eddie willers and every other average person: She couldn't boil the worship of Mammon down so that the little man
would understand it.
I feel that there are a lot of different people who will be propping up Rand's ideas as flags under which they aim to rally people. But even she
herself could not form a philsophy which spoke to the common man. I am now thinking of Vincent Van Gogh and how he went to live with the potato
farmers and the poor. Now I must say, why the hell would he do that? Obviously Rand would classify him as a lunatic for that and other reasons?
--But we know that she had great deep love for art, so I would imagine she'd talk about both subjects in an intellectual way and really mentally
RELEASE herself from having to choose between Vincent's obviously confused sense of values, but intensely appealing art. Rand would be forced inside
her mind, to dissonate. This is a concept identified by Leon Festinger and proven by the Millerites and many others. Rand did not respect the mind
as a reactionary thing, only as a stagnant or volitional. But the mind also hides and cowers and makes up comfy feelings so as to make it through the
The whole business which Rand dismissed (psychology), could have helped her create a more viable solution for the world of 2009 which now calls to
her ghost (which I believe does exist, that is to say that Ayn Rand had a soul which lived on despite her own philosophizing, and she is a good loving
person) to save them! Don't you see that it was Greenspan who was able to also shape Ayn's ideas of money and gold? Don't you see him shrugging
now, as if he realy is just as confused as everyone else?
The smart left the dumb to live in a world that the dumb created.
The dumb wanted it a certain way .. so the smart let them have their way.
Here's what I think: This idea of smart versus dumb is just another class war.
The indians have a solution for this: They let the crazy people put on masks and dance around like, well, crazy people. In indian society, there is
no smart versus dumb, there's (ideally) a place for everyone, crippled, crazy, stupid and brilliant. Ayn Rand didn't impress me as a Russian
immigrant NEARLY as much as the Russians who stayed behind to fight for their country. Also many American writers before and after her were better
Americans and better writers. Just because the whole world worships money doesn't mean Walt Whitman never existed. Money is the tool of the
superfluous if you ask me. Anyway getting back to indian society, the "smart" guy, i.e. a potential chief, can only ascend to the role of chief if
he has the goodwill of EVERYONE at heart.
You are certainly smart, but I would encourage you and all other smart people to see yourself in the role of being a "chief", and asking yourself
this question: "If I couldn't liquidate the stupid and the mentally below average and the insane, how would I make them useful to society while
enabling them to have rich, rewarding lives?" ...I don't think Ayn Rand really addressed this question, which is crucially important, now.
They let the ignorant die off.
Why? Ignorance isn't a crime nor is it a disease. Why were they so James Bond-ish about the whole thing? Even when John Galt got the radio, he
could have been nicer. No, he was a jerk. Even if the world went down after that, I think people would know who John Galt was. He was the biggest
jerk the world ever didn't know.
The smart are under no obligation to save the dumb.
Yes but going back to the way things work in reality, i.e. the tribal analogy, one has to realize that unless the smart propose to liquidate the dumb,
they are faced with little choice but to enslave or even IMPROVE the dumb. Rand tried to improve the "dumb" and it shows that she really did try to
explain why he should worship Mammon, but he just couldn't get it. The dumb always want to give their gold away to other dumb people who may have
empty bellies. How can one emulate John Galt when one is so frikkin dumb as to be charitable?
The dumb got the Darwin Award - all of them.
I like those darwin awards but I REALLY like the Mythbusters TV show where they prove (through much effort let's note) that half of them are bogus.
You gonna flush 90% of the world down the toilet based on some cute meme which has little basis in reality? I'm a fan of improving the "stupid"
not detatching and allowing them to die off. I think altruism has been shown in nature, others can back me up on this even without mentioning the
bonobo. Did Darwin know that Bonobos have as much or more DNA in the human soup as chimps do? As I recall, Ayn Rand had no comment on this
Originally posted by maudeeb
Smallpeeps – you ask this “Ask yourselves why dumb old Eddie Willers would slave his whole life for Hank Rearden and the Galt-ians and then get
left outside the valley to rot?” The point is not why was Eddie left outside to rot, but what caused the rot in the first place? We as a culture
and society are more focused on fixing the effects than addressing the causes. That’s what she stood against. That’s what we’re facing now.
Instead of rooting out the disease at the core we’re putting band aids on the wounds and hoping the disease just goes away. Personal responsibility
above all else, that also means being responsible in how you treat others. Eddie shouldn’t be mad at Hank – he should be furious with the society
that pushed Hank out.
So Eddie was the sacrificial lamb? Did Ayn Rand mean for him to become Christlike? I think he's the best character in her book Atlas Shrugged. The
most real, the most unsure, the most confused, and at the end he gets FACED by his slavemaster. Did anyone not know that Atlas Shrugged was a
disaster novel even before TEOTWAWKI was on people's lips? Merchant ships being sent to Davy Jones locker by blonde nordic angelic person? Where's
Blackbeard in Ayn Rand's worldview?
And for the "return of the kingly class", you're missing the soul of these characters. They would never allow themselves to be kings as we know the
word. Our "kings" of the day have no qualms taking that which is not theirs to take. Her kings would have never allowed this. An Ideal ? Sure, but
one that's worth looking up to.
I hear what you are saying. See my analogy about tribes and how an actually right-thinking chief behaves in regard to those who are less-able than he
is. ANSWER: Protectively. Not harshly. Rand would see such a chief as Sitting Bull or Red Cloud as a stupid savage who couldn't see the true
light of Mammon's gold. Me, I'll be with the natives of this land loved so much by Rand.