It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ayn Rand Exposed as a Collectivist Rotter and Sociopath

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by doctornamtab
 


You made several illogical assumptions about what I said.

The scum of our society are those who are living off of entitlements, and are incapable to do their own part.

In part, it's because they really can't anymore. Technology has made their roles irrelevant.

Trust me, there is a lot of scum out there. Not sure what kind of bubble you live in.

It would be most wise to wipe them out, for the good of our species.

Continuing to not do so will only further weaken our social and cultural structures.

Ever heard of dysgenics?! Read what eugenics really is, and tell me it's not ideal.

If so, I will call you a fool.

It makes perfect sense.




posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 10:04 PM
link   
To those who say that Rand advocated the elite:

If you actually were to read atlas shrugged, you would clearly see that the villainous moochers that the author and hero condemn ARE THE ELITE who do nothing but live on the hard working men and women of the world and do everything that they can to rob them of their success. True, hank rearden was a wealthy business man but was ultimately cheated out of years of hard work and investment to support the incompetent elitist agenda.

What was supposed to be represented was a situation like enron, where the bad guys are the ones who took what was not theirs, not the other way around...

And to the idiot that said, "I would never read those books...", that statement that concluded your rant is the logical equivalent to me saying , "I will never watch the news..." and then voicing strong opinions on a breaking news thread... Please stop talking, I'm embarrassed for you.

True, the story was not completely correct in its depiction of the real world, but that's why you find it in the fiction section. Show me a philosophy that is mutually beneficial for all of mankind and I will live by it for the rest of my life and thank you everyday for doing so.
edit on 31-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-8-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TheThirdAdam
 


I feel that I must expand on why Rand was not depicting sociopathic thinking as righteous. I will be posting a thread giving examples of where the hero's of this book were actually more socially conscious than the selfish jerkoffs that all of you see them as...

Stay tuned, my friends



posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
I think Rand just was not seeing clearly because of her background- she went to an extreme. I think balance is necessary. All the philosophers that focused on personal freedom and power to the extreme were just as "off" as those that focus upon self sacrifice, selflessness, in service of the collective.

I think America has become a pretty accurate manifestation of the values Rand held, and the problems she did not foresee have become manifest. The current technological world and global market has made things much more complex than she could have imagined.

One thing I percieve is that the self centered ego which becomes accustomed to being individualized to a point of lack of empathy and their own social needs (which is what happens when you are only tuned into asking yourself "what do I want?" ), means that more moochers are created.

Also, the more the manual working class is de-valued as a role in the society, less people are motivated to step into it. You lose an important resource. I always wondered about Rands ideal hidden society the intellos ran off to, and how it was built, with only engineers and architects to design the buidlings, but no workers to build them? Who did the daily sewage and trash work? Who weaved the cloth and sewed the clothes they wore? Who did the dirty work, the physical work, the work that would use up each day and leave the body using all the calories and the mind less sharp over time?

I guess we thought we could replace the need for those people with machines. Problem is, as I see it, not everyone is born for being an intellectual leader. And although some may say that is not being PC, I would retort that if you see the true value of being more physically able than intellectual, then you wouldn't say that.

I can converse and contemplate all kinds of ideas, sometimes rather complex, and yet I have only admiration for my neighbors who work the land, have animals they know how to raise and slaughter, know how to build their house with stones, and are always working out there. But they are ignorant, intellectually.
But if we were to lose our electricity tomorrow (EMP attack, for example, big earthquake or major catastrophy) guess who'd be in power then??? I'd be begging them for a job on their farm in exchange for a little food. (my work wouldn't be worth much seeing as I haven't the experience, the muscle memory or mass, or physical endurance they have).
Their DNA would be more likely to continue on than would mine.


edit on 31-8-2011 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


A very, very reasonable point of view. I think you just said all that needed to be said, my friend.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


You cannot be serious. So, because technology has made some people's jobs redundant, we should kill them? Will you be the one making the decisions as to who gets killed? Problem with these Nazi theories you advocate is that sooner or later your name is going to come up on the list - maybe not for what you originally intended, but because YOU do not fit in with "their" plans. If you advocate this, it shows your world view. Not for nothing and I'm sure you could give two rats, but you are not the kind of person I'd want to associate with. You must be the life of the gestalt parties.

CJ



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:35 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
*****************************

Let's please avoid the personal attacks. Concentrate on the topic, and not each other.

Thanks.

*****************************



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


You're assuming that the government listened to Ayn Rand. They haven't. Welfare is on the rise, as is the use of force which Rand was opposed to unless it was for self-defense, which these wars clearly are not. Your straw man argument is like bringing Jesus back from the grave and saying "Well, what went wrong," he would most likely reply "you didn't listen to me, you didn't treat each other with respect," I think a more apt body to dig up from the grave would be Albert Einstein, and ask him why his theory of relativity led to the atomic bomb and the destruction of civilization. Of course it's not really my thing to question zombies so I'll just let the dead sleep.

Whenever I see an "Ayn Rand Exposed" thread I feel the need to link to this:

The Left's Endless Smears Against Ayn Rand.

I am a self-professed Ayn Rand expert, if you are going to smear the work of Ayn Rand expect me to refute it. I do so with pleasure.
edit on 1-9-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lazarus Short
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Given what you say, I find it odd that one of the features of Atlas Shrugged is a free energy device, invented by John Galt himself. Further, I have read about the social problems caused by the money system impacting "primitive" societies which had never had money before.


I find that odd too - but I think Ayn failed to understand the intimate link between money and meaningful energy expended. She did not grasp the fact that once energy is removed down the line, eventually there is nothing that isn't free. Money becomes (eventually) more effort than it's worth to mess with and falls to disuse, and meanwhile poverty vanishes, and life opens an enormous set of opportunities to each and every One of Us.

She was very naive (at best) and likely did not understand the death knell free energy would sound to any who have money/power/energy (three states of the same thing - like ice, water and steam) over Others.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy

Originally posted by Amaterasu


So, My point is this: IF We can wrest this technology from Them, We can free Ourselves to each live as Hume chooses. ("Hume" is a genderless pronoun for Human Being.)
edit on 8/31/2011 by Amaterasu because: missed word


So *&^(())%% publish the blueprints for this "IMAGINARY TECHNOLOGY" already.


[sigh] *I* can't. *I* was a toddler and did not grasp the tech, just the implications. What WE should do - to eliminate poverty and see Our Human race shine - is DEMAND it out of black ops. My dad is dead - and He was faithful to His oaths. I doubt He would talk if He was alive.

Call it "imaginary" all You want. The fact is that electrogravitics is DOCUMENTED (see Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion) though items released through the FOI act. I know what I know, and it matters not one whit whether YOU believe it.
edit on 9/1/2011 by Amaterasu because: clarity



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Ayn Rand was a saint. She saw the rot that was holding down the best people of our country. People didn't know it then but are finding out now that she was the second coming of jesus.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnknownSoldier
Ayn Rand was a saint. She saw the rot that was holding down the best people of our country. People didn't know it then but are finding out now that she was the second coming of jesus.


I presume this to be tongue-in-cheek...?

She was naive and lacked a certain degree of economic understanding.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by UnknownSoldier
Ayn Rand was a saint. She saw the rot that was holding down the best people of our country. People didn't know it then but are finding out now that she was the second coming of jesus.


I presume this to be tongue-in-cheek...?

She was naive and lacked a certain degree of economic understanding.


Ayn Rand was opposed to economic statism. How well is that going these days? The world economy is collapsing onto itself. The mainstream economists were wrong while the Austrian economists predicted the housing market crash. The only people who are naive are those who think the stock market is a safe place to invest your money.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
Ayn Rand was opposed to economic statism. How well is that going these days? The world economy is collapsing onto itself. The mainstream economists were wrong while the Austrian economists predicted the housing market crash. The only people who are naive are those who think the stock market is a safe place to invest your money.


I think You misunderstand My position. You seem to think My idea of a solution is "economic statism," when My solution runs quite another direction from either the ideal of every Human earning Hume's own way honestly and being compensated for it in the form of money - which is ludicrous to envision happening with the lure of money and the encouragement to love it rampant in Our society.

No, it's not good to have "economic statism," nor is it good to expect good out of the soil in which the root of all evil grows (as Ayn did). The solution is to add what money represents (meaningful energy expended), thereby eliminating the need for it and ridding the planet of poverty. This would entail breaking electrogravitics, and other methods of drawing on this plenum of energy We swim in, out of black ops.

They (TPTB) fear that more than most anything. They would retain Their lifestyle - but not Their power over Others. And it is the power over Others that inebriates Them; it is a drug, that money/power/energy, and like junkies, They will go to any length to keep Their drug supply flowing. So wresting the tech from black ops will not be easy.

Anyway... My thoughts.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   
reply to post by filosophia
 


All I care to say at this time is that there is a real disconnect between Rand's professed ideas, and how they have worked out among her followers. Consider her associate Alan Greenspan, who presided over the Fed, which as a good Randian, he should have avoided, as it is largely a financial sham. Further, he bailed just before everything went down the tubes, indicating that he knew it was coming. Do these sound like the actions of a truly rational man of integrity to you? No, he plugged himself right into the system Rand professed to oppose, and which he should have too. It is the usual case of "noble ideas" brought down by the allure of money and power. The same can be said for all the rest who profess to follow Rand's ideas - for the most part, they apply only those parts which give them a leg up on their fellow man. They seem to forget the second part of Galt's oath, about not asking any man to live for them, or however it was said - it has been too many years since I have read Atlas Shrugged for me to remember the exact wording.

As to the poster who stated that Rand is the second coming of Christ, well, His followers used what He said just about as well as the average Randian. It must be a human nature thing...

BTW, I am no non-expert on Rand, having read all of her books (as of about 1970), subscribed to her newsletters, etc. I even had at one time, Her famous denunciation of Branden, and Branden's reply.



posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 


So because she used Medicare and social security she is a hypocrite? That would be the same as saying that if she filed damage from an auto wreck on her auto insurance was wrong because the gov said it was mandatory... she paid for it so why not use it?

Btw- yes you are right about christians and randians misusing their teachings. Most people do not practice what they preach
edit on 2-9-2011 by TheThirdAdam because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join