Sales of “Atlas Shrugged” (by Ayn Rand) Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis (interviews as well/

reply to post by mental modulator


I'm not sure we are discussing the same thing.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Love and Empathy.

Ayn Rand did not speak against these emotions. Do you think that she did?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
...The super rich are just that....

Psychopaths.

If you say so...

*sigh*

[edit on 4-3-2009 by loam]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Competition is the incentive and driving force that creates opportunities.

There is another way.

We don't have to be smart rats chasing the cheese. Connect to the higher self.

Real change is coming soon and it is a different way of seeing the world through the eyes of the higher self and not through the eyes of the monkey.

I dont mean the change Obama is talking about either...a basic spiritual change of the higher self being our driving force. The world is dividing and the two tribes will split. Those that strive for greatness and those that strive for another piece of cheese.

No need to be a rat when you can be a Buddha.

reply to post by loam


Your mood states you are evolving. Look into the mirror of the soul and ask yourself. What am I evolving into?

Your inner being has the answer if you listen.

Of course not all of the super rich are psychopaths...most not all.

More like really smart monkeys.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Of course not all of the super rich are psychopaths...most not all.

Just curious. How many of the super rich have you personally met?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by David9176

 

The deck has been stacked and we are in the middle of being squeezed. Both sides are working for the same goal, to loot us dry and given big business all the power they need.

More to the point than the terms "smart" and "dumb" are the terms "moochers" and "looters." In Atlas Shrugged, the moochers and looters rely on government to take from the actual producers. The moochers are, in essence, the socialists and the looters are the corporatists. So your personal hatred is for the looters, and they do indeed loot us all, but one of the key understandings inherent in the book is that the moochers (think Democrat) and looters (think Republican) have us outflanked politically. It is not that we will fall to Marxism (Obama) or to Fascism (Bush). Instead we will fall to an alliance of both.

The reality of the modern world is that very few minds create virtually all the wealth we enjoy. That some of them are highly compensated is well publicized, but what no one is willing to discuss is what would happen should they suddenly withdraw their abilities from productive use.

Who is John Galt? I am, pal. I am.

There is quite a bit of misunderstanding of Objectivism in this thread.

Try these two links for excellent information:

en.wikipedia.org...(Ayn_Rand)

www.aynrandsociety.org...

the problem i have with Rand is there are people who are incapable of handling there own affairs in a rational and logical way. the idea of free will is great, as long as a person is able to use it wisely and constructively.
so... what do you do with the people that cannot reach this seemingly easy state of mind? do you let them die? or be put down like a rabid dog? i believe in the rules of living put out by Rand...it's the human exceptions that cannot grasp her reasoning that i worry about.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by jimmyx]

reply to post by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by mental modulator

 

Competition is the incentive and driving force that creates opportunities.

There is another way.

We don't have to be smart rats chasing the cheese. Connect to the higher self.

There are many 'ways'. Sitting cross-legged while contemplating your navel is just another way, not the only other way.

It all depends on what you aspire to.

Since it seems alot of people are confused about what she believed, here is a link of 40 audio/video interviews, lectures, speeches etc from the 1960s to 1981 which covers every issue from abortion, philosophy, moon landing, to foreign policy.

Enjoy

From the link is an video interview from 1961 called. Capitalism vs. Communism

The conflict between capitalism and communism, Ayn Rand says, is really a war of reason vs. mysticism. She warns businessmen: "You do not hire witch doctors as mechanics or engineers; do not hire them as PR men."

Also from 1961 America's Persecuted Minority: Big Business

The injustice of the antitrust laws and the manner in which they penalize success for being success.

I know alot of people are going to be offended by this one. Conservatism: An Obituary

Ayn Rand discusses the appalling spectacle of conservatives trying to defend capitalism—while scurrying to evade its actual meaning; also, why conservatives are an impediment to laissez-faire capitalism.

There are many more here

[edit on 4-3-2009 by Cool Hand Luke]

I'd have to say this book is the worst piece of garbage ever to emerge from western civilization. Calling this abomination literature would be an insult to the cat in the hat.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

Just curious. How many of the super rich have you personally met?

A few I am Fire/rescue near the worlds home "edit to not disclose my fire dept location"

Non empathetic no real love very smart monkey's. Sorry its the truth.

How about yourself?

[edit on 4-3-2009 by LoneGunMan]

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

There are many 'ways'. Sitting cross-legged while contemplating your navel is just another way, not the only other way.

It all depends on what you aspire to.

You have no idea what I am.

Some things are better left unknown. My path is not for you to understand so I will not try and enlighten you further...you chose your path long ago and now the time has past for you.

I am sorry.

reply to post by LoneGunMan

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
How about yourself?

A sufficient number to draw the conclusion that they span the spectrum like any other financial group.

Just as the poor do not have a monopoly on empathy, the rich do not have one on greed.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by LoneGunMan

 

A sufficient number to draw the conclusion that they span the spectrum like any other financial group.

Just as the poor do not have a monopoly on empathy, the rich do not have one on greed.

From your idea of a sufficient conclusion I see you are looking at this from using only logic and have yet to tap into something more.

The super rich...not the rich. Believe me they are driven by a very dark ambition that is all consuming. They have young souls and are full of animal motivation. They are smart and cunning enough to hide it...unless you have trained yourself to feel beyond the five senses you will not pick up on this.

Creepy energy to these dark people. Please at least try and rise above your meat computer and access your higher self. You can be more than just another smart monkey. It is in you. This is true evolution.

Turned on the tele and guess what was on....

The passion of Ayn Rand... Weird - I have been having many coincidences as of recent

reply to post by LoneGunMan


Why are you pooping all over a realist/objectivist thread with this sort of nonsense? If you believe that human's have secret supernatural super-powers, start a thread about that, it has squat to do with objectivism or this thread.

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by maudeeb

 

Too see someone back in the 50's stating where our political system was headed and to actually see it happening right in front of our eyes....that's saying something.

Actually there are "better people" who deserve more credit for predicting what would happen in today's world.

Now, notice that Ayn Rand herself admitted, in the first video presented in black and white that she was set to destroy everything that the western world represents, including religions, to be replaced by a more atheistic view of the world, this is in essence what Communism has tried to achieve.

Now, if you want to read what other people who had fled the U.S.S.R. and have come to live in the United States, and other countries such as England, these people in essense have written, and told to the world the goals that TPTB had/have for the western world.

Today's economic woes are rooted in the fact that western institutions and governments have been infiltrated by groups of people from the east, which includes former U.S.S.R. and China that have wanted, and still want the destruction of the west economically, and militarily.

Soviet defectors since the 1950s have talked about this, and have made predictions on what will happen as the goals of TPTB came into fruition years, and even decades down the road, hence what this woman is doing is exactly what the soviet defectors have been telling us, but in essense she seems to have been a tool of TPTB.

I don't doubt for one second that she was actually working for the KGB/Kremlin.

Here is what Soviet defectors, such as Anatoliy Golitsyn, predicted would happen, because these things, which have come to pass, almost every one of them have been part of a master plan.

More recently, Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Soviet defector of high status, has suggested that the Soviet Union is capable of disinformation on such a massive scale that even the Borkenau system is no longer viable.2 In a book first published in 1984, and of necessity written before then, Golitsyn argues that the leadership of the whole Communist bloc came to an agreement in 1958 in which it established a long range program, a master plan, which it would realize through a large scale deception of the West, a monumental scam.

Golitsyn maintains that the goals of the master plan were to provide a more profound political stabilization of individual communist regimes by developing wider mass support, the rectification of economic weakness of the bloc by increased international trade and the acquisition of credits and high technology from the West, the creation of a substructure for an eventual world federation of communist states, political isolation of the US from its allies, developing influence among socialists in Western Europe and Japan, the dissolution of NATO, and an alignment between the Soviet Union and a neutral, preferably socialist, Western Europe; concerted action with nationalist leaders in the Third World to eliminate Western influence as a preliminary to absorbing them in a communist federation, shifting the balance of power in favor of the Communist world, and the ideological disarmament of the West to create favorable conditions for convergence of East and West on communist terms.3

Golitsyn predicts that the Soviet regime will be stabilized by the creation of spurious, controlled opposition movements and the use of those movements to neutralize genuine internal and external opposition, and that it will encourage communist parties to establish united fronts with socialist parties throughout the world thus increasing Soviet influence in parliaments and trade unions.4

www.umd.umich.edu...

continued

Some of the techniques, according to Golitsyn, will be dissension within the bloc, unity of action behind disunity of words, a show of weakness before meeting with Western leaders or before major initiatives or negotiations, and the heavy use of disinformation.5 This disinformation will emanate from official Communist sources, unofficial Communist sources, and "secret" communist sources, much of it retrospective. It is to be delivered through Western newspapermen, scholars, officials, and the Soviet intelligentsia.

It is interesting to note, in this regard, that most of what we believe to be happening in the Soviet Union still comes from Soviet sources, which are delivered directly to the West and are not always available internally, glasnost notwithstanding. Boris Yeltsin's book, Against the Grain,6 was published in the West in English, apparently to establish his bono fides as a dissident candidate just before he was elected president of the RSFSR. It has not been released in the USSR in any language whatsoever.

The final phase of the master plan, according to Golitsyn, is a disinformation and deception campaign of such magnitude that it would be "beyond the imagination of Marx, or the practical reach of Lenin, and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, the Soviet Union, and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland."7

Golitsyn predicted the "breakup" of the communist bloc in Eastern Europe as a technique to be used by the Soviet government to entice Europe to move more towards socialism and to align itself eventually with the USSR against the United States.8 The Third World would then join communist Russia and socialist Western Europe against the US and its allies. Then there would be a joint drive by the Soviet bloc and a socialist Europe to push the US out of Europe and into nuclear disarmament. A powerful world federation of communist states would emerge and the US would be induced to "converge" on communist terms.9

Such a plan would not only exceed the imagination of Marx, or the practical reach of Lenin, and be unthinkable to Stalin, but also defies credulity altogether. Still, despite its incredulity, it must be admitted that at least a year before Gorbachev came to power Golitsyn predicted in writing the breakup of the communist bloc and dissension within the Soviet Union. Since apparent change has come to Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union at a pace unimaginable only a few years ago -- unimaginable except, we must add, to Anatoliy Golitsyn -- perhaps it is worth the attempt to test the Golitsyn hypothesis in the light of what is currently happening in Europe and the USSR.

We should be aware, Golitsyn warns, that much of the information that is being served up in the Soviet Union and even in Eastern Europe is being prepared by the same cooks who fed the West lies in pre-glasnost and pre-perestroika times; hence the title of his book, New Lies for Old. Why should we, asks Golitsyn, believe that the same people who lied to us in the past are now telling us the truth? Is it not possible that glasnost is nothing more that a cover for a new set of lies, lies that the West wants to believe, the lies that Communism is dead and the USSR is mellowing? This information, which the Soviets themselves distribute, must be information that the Soviets want distributed. Is it not possible that perestroika is that limited restructuring described by Gorbachev in his book, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World,10 and not the stampede to capitalism which American pundits think they are witnessing?

www.umd.umich.edu...

Originally posted by jsobecky
Rand did *not* disdain mediocrity.

That's my comment. Not Ayn Rands. Perhaps I wasn't clear.
Mediocrity hates success. I say that. Not her.
Hope that's more clear.

The less wealthy were not a sub-class to Rand.

You are right. Absolutely not. They are definately NOT a sub-class in her novels or her thought process.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Isn't a RAND world a bit cold for all of you?

I find theft of lives and earned income by socialists and communists, to take care of the parasites and the freeloaders, to be cold and contrary to evolutionary psychology.

Originally posted by mental modulator
Is charging my father $30,000 a month for chemo that he could get for less than $1,000 in mexico steeling?

Then go to Mexico if you like how they do business. Bu-bye now.

Yet you seem to oppose single payer health insurance.

Your jumps in logic are bizzare ... and illogical.

Originally posted by kettlebellysmith
an objectivism point of view would look at these emotions and rationally come to the conclusion of whether acting on the emotion would be to your benefit or not.

Excellent. Well said.

Originally posted by mental modulator
There is only so much money and at some point the people - the majority of people on Earth will be cut off from that finite sum.

What manifesto did that come from?

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Real change is coming soon and it is a different way of seeing the world through the eyes of the higher self and not through the eyes of the monkey.

You are welcome to believe that.
However, the reality of here and now says differently.

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
Of course not all of the super rich are psychopaths...most not all.

That's like saying most, not all, black people are lazy.

Originally posted by Grumble
no one is willing to discuss is what would happen should they suddenly withdraw their abilities from productive use.

Ayn Rand did. Interesting what happens, eh?

Originally posted by loam
Just as the poor do not have a monopoly on empathy, the rich do not have one on greed.

Isn't it greed that makes a lazy person want to steal the money of someone who has more? Steal it through legalized theft ... overburden the rich with extra taxes ... extra regulations ... Yep. Greed.

Edited to add .. I'm not a Rand-Objectivist. I believe in the metaphysical too much to be one. However, Atlas Shrugged is a fantastic novel and it makes some very, very good points. I enjoyed it as a story - like watching an old black and white Clark Gable movie. I also enjoyed the theme and the message .. and the PROPHECY.

[edit on 3/5/2009 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by awake_awoke

 

I had never heard of Ayn Rand till a month ago. Loam posted a thread of one of the interviews that i added to this thread along with the others. (Mike Wallace interview)

I can't really comment on the books because i haven't read them....but some of the posts certainly have me intrigued.

My wife is stopping by the library tonight to pick up atlas shrugged and fountainhead....along with Revolution a Manifesto by Ron Paul which i've been wanting to check out.

I've got LOTS of reading to do.

grab "Anthem" as well, while you're at it..lovely (and relatively short) read...I was advised to read anthem first to get my feet wet with rand's style of writing..

[edit on 5-3-2009 by dragonseeker]