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

Hollywood....




www.imdb.com...


Release Date: 2011 (USA)

plot:

Based upon the controversial 1957 novel by Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged follows the struggles of Dagny Taggart, a railroad heiress trying to maintain her integrity, and keep her family's railroad alive in the midst of a rapidly decaying world. She faces increasingly corrupt government agencies, the callous incompetence of her own brother, and the systematic loss of her best and most competent workers. As she works to overcome each obstacle, she begins to detect a pattern, and suspect a sinister force working against her. All across the country, there is a growing sense of helplessness, often summed up in a catch phrase that everyone seems to know, but no one knows the origin of - Who is John Galt?. One by one, the best and brightest industrialists in the country are disappearing overnight, without a trace, and abandoning their businesses to be cannibalized by corrupt political interests. But many are disappearing just as she needs them most, leading her to realize that someone, some destroyer, is keeping just ahead of her, and is working against her. As she wonders what he could be telling these men - to get them to give up everything and disappear - she knows she must somehow beat him if she wants Taggart Transcontinental to survive.

She pursues the mystery cross country looking for clues to the destroyer, and also to find the inventor of a revolutionary motor she found in a trash pile of an abandoned industrial lab. As the world sinks further into decay, she knows her time for saving her railroad, and maybe staving off the collapse of the world around her, is growing short. However, the revelations she seeks will ultimately challenge her views, and force her to decide between fighting in her world, or leaving everything she's valued behind.

www.imdb.com...

When Obama was elected, I kept thinking, as I listened to the rhetoric from "The Office of The President Elect," that I had heard all of this before. It hit me when I saw someones's signature here on ATS. That person's sig is "Who is John Galt?" That's when I realized that Ayn Rand had, along with R.A. Heinlein, accurately painted a picture of a deterioating, balkanized U.S.A., where anyone who is innovative and entreprentenural is punished, while the "great unwashed" are rewarded for their unwillingness to take responsiblity for themselves.
Objectivism is a philiosophy cloaked in selfishness. But all animals are inherently selfish, putting survivial of self above all others. (Family counts as self, since the family, by definnition, is a continuation of the gene pool. Humans adopt, and extend their "gene pool" by name.) So selfishness is not always a bad thing. Charity can be noted among lower forms of life.
But in the end, the bottom line is, sadly, if you don't look out for yourself, no one else will.
Read the book. It is on my list to re-read as soon as I finsh the biography of Churchill that I am deeply involved with.
In the meantime, "WHO IS JOHN GALT?"

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.
The smart leave the dumb to stew in their own juices.
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.
They let the ignorant die off.
The smart are under no obligation to save the dumb.
The dumb got the Darwin Award - all of them.

I remember reading that they want Angelina Jolie to play the part of Dagny. Great pick if that is indeed the case.

Originally posted by redhatty
I am waiting to see the new graffiti craze of Who is John Galt spread

I tried to order a bumper stick of 'Who Is John Galt?' a couple of weeks ago but the place that sells them online is sold out. OUT OF STOCK. When will they get more? Unknown.

Originally posted by modusoperandi
I remember reading that they want Angelina Jolie to play the part of Dagny. Great pick if that is indeed the case.

I saw that rumor as well. Atlas Shrugged is supposed to come out in 2011 or something like that. I heard that Rachael Wiese was also being considered to play Dagny. I'd rather see her as Dagny then Angelina Jolie. Too much attention would be played to Jolie instead of to the message of the book. She'd be a distraction I think.

There’s an extremely important distinction to make in regards to the brand of “selfishness” portrayed in Ayn Rand’s work. It’s not the typical “me first” selfishness of today’s corporate culture. What she preaches above all else is self-responsibility, and a “selfishness” that’s based completely on reason and honorable morality. I’ve seen comparisons in the past of today’s “rich” elite to the group of visionary heroes in her works and nothing is farther from the truth. If you look at the real power brokers today they are the embodiments of the villains in her works. They are the “raiders” of value and not the creators. There’s even a banker character in Gault’s Gulch that is the prime example of what a “banker” SHOULD be, and not the slime we’ve been seeing all over the news. Greenspan is in no way one of the heroes. He’s a raider of other’s value and nothing more.

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.

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.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by maudeeb]

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 day.

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 question.

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.

reply to post by smallpeeps


Great discussion. I'd like to add to this later when I'm not busy trying to make a living

One quick observation - I have a great appreciation for "spirituality" and have often thought that had Ayn been around for some of the more recent spiritual movements that preach responsibility and self fulfillment she might have been more open to the idea. In a lot of ways at the core, they mix well. Take the works of Eckhart Tolle, Ester Hicks and many others. Her stance against religion was based more on conservative values and the "god fearing" days of old. There is definitely a common ground there - a way for both to coexist. Taking care of your tribe is in your own self interest, if it creates harmony and a constructive envrionment. But if your tribe doesn't appreciate the effort and tries to make your life miserable at every turn - limiting your ability to make the necessary choices then by all means it's time to shrug.

reply to post by David9176



Buy the books and make the investment in time and you will not be sorry. If you have a long commute you can also do the audio as the book is about 1,400 pages long.

While you're at it, read Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury to get a sense of what the future holds if we stay on our present course

I was just thinking the other day that Mrs Rand would probably have MUCH to say about current events, and it would be really nice to be able to hear her put it all into proper perspective. She would have been vehemently against any sort of government bailouts, that much is for sure.

It's nice to see some tv interviews with her, she's someone I've never gotten around to looking up on Youtube. You could tell she was losing the Donahue audience by the second, and it was distracting. It was nice to see the Tom interview in a quiet 1on1 setting, so that I could examine my reactions to what she was saying without outside influence.

I had no idea that Atlas Shrugged was doing bigger sales, I wonder how/where new generations are hearing of the current relevance of her works; their discussion isn't something I've run across online until now, that i can remember.

Originally posted by maudeeb
Her stance against religion was based more on conservative values and the "god fearing" days of old.

[...]

But if your tribe doesn't appreciate the effort and tries to make your life miserable at every turn - limiting your ability to make the necessary choices then by all means it's time to shrug.

Well the chiefs who struggled against the US powers were often made miserable by their own people, but this is what gave them their spiritual power, you see? Like in iceland recently when the government tanked: It's the grannie with their kitchen knives and soup pots who are banging them in front of the gov't offices and that's when you know there is a vacuum of leadership. The real leaders who fill these vacuums have to take care of grannie first and that requires a mentality different from Rand's.

Take for example Quanah Parker who was actually Irish and Indian mixed but who was one of the more ruthless and violent indians in the first half of his life, but who later decided to get along and try to improve the life of his people. He was eventually made into a Federal US judge and did actually struggle to get a better life for his tribe (and himself of course) but he took care of the grannies, is my point. Parker is also seen by many Comanches as having betrayed his tribe so you can't please all the grannies anyway but the moral imperative is to try.

You can't win against the stupid, and perhaps we can agree on this, but I'd say that the path of a believe in the afterlife is superior to Rand's. She would have associated "stupidity" with believe in the afterlife so here you and I are actually able to go beyond what she believed, and talk maybe of what she missed.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by smallpeeps]

FANTASTIC discussion smallpeeps! FUN!

Originally posted by smallpeeps
The poor do not have any juices. They can only thrive on the "juices" or production of the rich and able.

In Atlas Shrugged it was clear that the dumb didn't realize that they needed the smart. Also - The blue collar workers didn't realize they needed the white collars to keep things running.

Here's what I think: This idea of smart versus dumb is just another class war.

Here's what I think: The idea of a class war is just sugar coating the fact that those who don't have as much as others, just want to take away from those that are more successful. Mediocrity hates success.

Ayn Rand didn't impress me as a Russian immigrant NEARLY as much as the Russians who stayed behind to fight for their country.

I hear ya' and I agree that I admire people who have the courage and who are able to fix their own countries much more then those that run away. I understand that some have to run ... but I admire the fighter more.

Many American writers before and after her were better Americans and better writers.

That's a matter of taste. I LOVED how 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'We the Living' were written. People don't write like that anymore. While
reading Atlas Shrugged I felt like I was watching an old black and
white movie with the big names (Clark Gable, etc) from that time period.
I could almost feel it coming out of the pages.

how would I make them useful to society while enabling them to have rich, rewarding lives?"

The point of Atlas Shrugged was that those people didn't want to be
useful to society. They just wanted to mooch and loot no matter how
much you try to change them.

Why? Ignorance isn't a crime nor is it a disease.

The Darwin Award ... only the smart survive. This makes the species
smarter and makes the species better able to survive. That's what
I was referring to.

unless the smart propose to liquidate the dumb, they are faced with little choice but to enslave or even IMPROVE the dumb.

The point of her book was that the dumb didn't want to improve.
They just wanted to feed off the smart. They looted. They did nothing.
They were incapable of change no matter how hard the smart tried.
Therefore - the smart left the dumb to run things as the dumb wished.
The smart walked away and let the dumb have their way.
The dumb died as a result.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
It was a matter of self survival for the smart.
Let the dumb commit suicide.

Originally posted by maus80
I was just thinking the other day that Mrs Rand would probably have MUCH to say about current events,

Same here.

She'd probably be looking at the TV .. shaking her head slowly. Bailout after bailout. Nationalization of banks .. supposedly only a temporary thing. Entitlements. Handouts. Obama's plan to make students 'volunteer' in order to get loans. The new nanny state of America. Next step is slavery to the state. etc etc It's conjecture for me to say that she'd have a lot to say about this ... but I'm willing to be I'm pretty accurate.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
She would have associated "stupidity" with believe in the afterlife so here you and I are actually able to go beyond what she believed, and talk maybe of what she missed.

Not addressed to me but I'll respond ...

Yes. Absolutely. Rationalism left no room for the metaphysical. Perhaps it was burned out of her due to her experiences in Russia. Perhaps it was something else. But any God-talk was equated with ignorance.

Side note - 'The Fountainhead' disturbed me. She had a thing for violent sex. There was no real love or tenderness. There was just violence. Even between characters who were supposedly in love. It was very odd. There was a hint of this in 'Atlas Shrugged'. But it wasn't as obvious as in 'The Fountainhead'.

First off let me wipe away my tears for are the poor billionaires who have doubled their
money in the last decade...so sad...

I can't wait to live in a world where money is the prime consideration
Further more I think real liberty will reign when a few people consolidate the majority
of money and wield power beyond our wildest dreams!

We can ditch the government and outsource all of our jobs to the third world...
then in order for America to compete we can lower wages to that of the third world -

ALL the laws and rule will be made with the consideration of PROFIT which is good for America!

Distilling the LED from vaccines is expensive What does a little led injected into the blood stream hurt?

IT HURTS PROFITS

I hate driving on my roads for free!

I want to pay tolls

Anyhow I think we should battle socialism with fascism







[edit on 4-3-2009 by mental modulator]

reply to post by FlyersFan


SO you would be comfortable to have $$$$$$$$$$ and it's accumulation dictate laws and rules of America?

Pure Objectivism COULD bring about tyranny IMO, why do you think it would augment
your freedom???

Where were you with those videos when I wrote my thesis....
hehe
Anyway, yes Atlas Shrugged is not a light read. Oh the times I picked it up with a tremendous hangover and I swear my eyes bled. If you haven't yet in your lifetime read Rand you should probably start with something a bit....."lighter".
Its funny as well to see all these conservatives these days all of a sudden becoming fans of Objectivism when forty years ago they were saying Rand is just as good as the evil Marxists with all the godless immorality her philosophical novels promote....
Just saying.

Originally posted by mental modulator
I hate driving on my roads for free!
I want to pay tolls

You missed the point.

Pay taxes for what you need. I FULLY support taxes. I have said this over and over elsewhere. If you drive on a road or if you are kept safe through our national defense .. etc ... then you pay taxes.

Atlas Shrugged' isn't about 'not paying taxes'. It's about being looted. It's about having your hard earned money taken away by those who refuse to work to their fullest capacity due to laziness or stupidity. It's IMMORAL for those that choose to be lazy to take from those who have money.

At some point those that are over taxed and over burdened will say 'enough' and stop working hard and stop earning money. Then the whole country will suffer.

That's the point.

Protest sign from one of the recent 'tea parties' -


[edit on 3/4/2009 by FlyersFan]

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.

Originally posted by mental modulator


Pure Objectivism COULD bring about tyranny IMO, why do you think it would augment
your freedom???

Pure objectivism if twisted, distorted and misunderstood could definitely bring about Tyranny, but then it wouldn't be pure objectivism would it ? Then again, pure democracy could do the same if it stopped being democracy. Same holds for any other belief system. Pure objectivism in no way condones or supports looting or stealing.

[edit on 4-3-2009 by maudeeb]