Ayn Rand Exposed as a Collectivist Rotter and Sociopath

I tried this subject earlier, but did not adhere to approved format - I will try again, using another tack.

Years ago, about 1965, I stumbled across Ayn Rand's Anthem, which I no longer have, but I remember that in the intro, she had a straw-man liberal see the eventual outcome of his/her political philosophy. I think she hinted that it would include prison camps, and had the liberal say, "But I didn't mean that! " Now, it is 2011, and we see Rand's philosophy percolating through our society, and not openly as Rand would probably have advocated, but hidden, under the surface. Randianism, however Rand's objections, lead to the Libertarian movement, the Libertarians got co-opted by the Repugnicans (the spelling is on purpose, and I state the co-option as my own opinion as a disgruntled ex-Libertarian), and that lead to the Tea Party. I'm fairly certain that a lot of Tea-Baggers have never heard of Ayn Rand.

[more later, got to go]

I'm back again. So, as I said, it's 2011, and we see Rand's philosophy having an effect on our country, but we do not see the Galt's Gulch paradise of hard-working, intelligent people, as promised. We see an erosion of our living standards, job and industry going overseas, political corruption, and our main export these days seems to be war. What went wrong? I wonder if Rand could be brought back from the dead, would she say, "Well, I didn't mean this?!" The promise has become a version of the America depicted in Atlas Shrugged, has it not? A friend of mine, who also had contact with the whole Rand/Lib phenom, sent me two links. One is to an article which shows that Rand, who was always talking about living by Principle, took her Social Security benefits, and Medicare as well. OK, she was a human being after all. The second is more chilling, pointing out that she admired a sociopath child-murderer. Maybe she only admired one aspect of that man's psychology, and maybe she overlooked that one aspect connected to another. Maybe it is no coincidence that our country seems not only to be run by half-baked Randians, but Sociopaths as well


Here's one link:

www.alternet.org... page=entire


Here's the other, and note that it's a four pager:

www.alternet.org...

Ayn Rand was a paid shill for Phillip Rothschild, of the banking family. atlas shrugged is the ideology of the super rich who believe that without their control of the worlds money, we peons would collapse into misery. Who is John Galt?
figure out who he is and what he did in the novel before you call this nonsense.

I can see Ayn Rand being a sociopath. I'm not sure what a Rotter is though. But anyway, I read Atlas Shrugged, and it's interesting how the heroes of the book, are also the ones that have difficulty empathizing. And I'm not sure how many articles have been written about how rich people have more trouble empathizing than poor people do. And articles about how difficulty empathizing is a psychological disorder. Where sociopaths have trouble empathizing. So yeah.

but yes, if you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, it's pretty interesting. It shows both sides...The ones who think we should help those who are poor, and the ones who think we shouldn't help those that are poor because they didn't earn it. Ayn Rand writes it that if we help the poor it destroys society. I can see how that works, but it's disheartening that Ayn Rand proposes to let those people rot. She definitely lacks compassion. But I also think there is an inverse correlation with compassion and desire for power. So those who desire power lack compassion, and those with compassion lack desire for power. So I guess it's like a natural law of the Universe for those that lack compassion have a desire to rise to the top. Although the biggest villains in Atlas Shruuged are the hypocrites that say they want to help the world and give to the poor, but at the same time only care about how to fuel their own pockets at the same time. So sure, they raise millions of dollars to give to the poor by taxing the rich, but at the same time they throw a big party and spend millions on the party, essentially just burning money for the sake of burning money. It's counter-productive, a waste of money, and essentially hurting everyone else including themselves. (it hurts the poor because they don't see that money, it hurts the rich because they took the money from the rich, and it hurts themselves because it destroys their self-respect).

But yeah, went off on a tangent...it's an interesting read, and I can definitely see Ayn Rand being a sociopath just from how the heroes in Atlas Shrugged fit that mold too.

The basic misunderstanding of people who are libertarians and followers of people like Ayn Rand is that to go extreme on any side of the political poles will always produce some form of tyranny because it lacks balance.

Balance is the key word here. Indeed, a proper balance between capitalism and socialism and between libertarianism and government input likely will produce a modern healthy working society.

People like Rand and the tea party and libertarians want it all one way, to the right side of the political spectrum and don’t understand that on doing that they neglect to make the balance therefore it will result in tyranny of the oligarchy (as is happening now in the US) as a left wing unbalanced government produced soviet communism the other way.

There is no thing such as unlimited absolute freedom, though we want what we call freedom, but that freedom has to be balanced by a great degree of understanding and responsibility.

Remember one doesn’t have the freedom to cry fire when there isn’t one, or have the freedom to kill any one they want or have sex with anyone they want; therefore absolute freedom doesn’t exist for if it did we would have anarchy.

Freedom has to exist in the context of limitations to it based on wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

ayn rand was chozen, so she was working to establish a one world g0vernment. her last name was rosenbaum, but i guess her 'real' name was not good enough for her.

it is funny, the only peope to change their last names are the ones who have to 'hide' things.

so i would never read her books, because those books are just conditioning tools for the masses. so if it ever came to pass, the chozen one world g0vernment could say, 'but look, it was supposed to happen this way, is in all of [our] 'literature"

Ayn Rand grew up during the Bolshevik Revolution and her family fled the enforced collectivism. Her father's business was taken from him and it was pretty much the hugest bummer in Rand's life. I feel like her work is an overcompensation for this. She hates liberalism so much because it had a profound effect on her life. So she goes the other way, wayyyy over the edge the other way and thinks anytime you're asked to give to your fellow man its in infringement of freedom.

Understandable.

But she doesn't realize that these "communists" were really just tyrants hiding behind the philosophy of communism, perverting and distorting it for their uses. Its ironic then, that leaders of the US have done the same thing with her philosophy. They've used it as an excuse to plunder and steal from the American people and now the world's people.

Ayn Rand sucks. Don't get me wrong. She has very little human empathy and promotes selfishness, greed and elitism. Who is John Galt? He's a total dick.

reply to post by dantanna


Yes, I'm pretty much sorry I ever read any of that stuff. I didn't even know I was being programmed, or by whom. The Rand/Current-State-of-Amerika connection may not be so much of an accident. I recall that the Russian masses were promised peace, prosperity, justice and a worker's paradise. They didn't get any of it.

Originally posted by doctornamtab
Ayn Rand grew up during the Bolshevik Revolution and her family fled the enforced collectivism. Her father's business was taken from him and it was pretty much the hugest bummer in Rand's life. I feel like her work is an overcompensation for this. She hates liberalism so much because it had a profound effect on her life.

Understandable.

But she doesn't realize that these "communists" were really just tyrants hiding behind the philosophy of communism, perverting and distorting it for their uses. Its ironic then, that leaders of the US have done the same thing with her philosophy. They've used it as an excuse to plunder and steal from the American people and now the world's people.

Ayn Rand sucks. Don't get me wrong. She has very little human empathy and promotes selfishness, greed and elitism. Who is John Galt? He's a total dick.

BINGO!

reply to post by dantanna


Whoopie Goldberg changed her name so that she would sound jewish and land more jobs. True story.

The test of any political philosophy is this simple question: Would this work in your family? Ayn Rand's political family would step over each other for a dollar, leave their trash everywhere, steal, cheat and lie because they feel if anyone told them its wrong they're trying to enslave you to "liberal" values like caring and sharing. They'd sell the kitchen sink and then wonder why they have to wash in a bucket.

But its ok for us to live in our filth and bomb the world around us, murder other people and destroy their culture and cities because thats true freedom. People telling you not to hurt other people for oil and profits...obviously faggy, Pinko communists [sarcasm]

reply to post by Lazarus Short


Rand's biggest assumption is that People are all honest, hard-working and deserving of all recompense.

In fact, because the need for money exists, the soil for the root of evil - the LOVE of money - is rich. I would guess that shade and hands under are involved with 50% or more of the money movement on this planet.

And that means that draining the poor of all but Their blood occurs by Corporations labeled "People" in a legal sense with no One accountable for choices made, dictated by profit.

Get rid of the need for money and the nobility of the Human race can shine - and the only path to THAT goal is to introduce methods of drawing freely on what money represents: energy.

And because free energy would eliminate the power over Others that money/energy scarcity allow, TPTB suppress and hide the technology - with fervor.

Since I was taught about the science and implications of electrogravitics as a toddler by My father, a CalTech graduate in electrical engineering who worked at one of the top aerospace companies of the time. He also came home one night and woke Me up to tell me We couldn't talk about it anymore. "They want it secret for now." I couldn't talk about the flying cars, the floating houses and cities, the energy We would all have.

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.)

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 thought the Borg were collectivist. The Borg "Collective". Ayn Rand is her own Tershiary of her own Unimatrix of One, -Her- .

Originally posted by doctornamtab
.... and thinks anytime you're asked to give to your fellow man its in infringement of freedom.

Liberals don't ask. They use the force of government to take.

You guys are so full of it. Did you even read Atlas Shrugged? The characters did not have a problem helping the poor. The problem was the entire MOOCHER class, and the government that enabled them as a way of gaining/keeping power. Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart both helped the less fortunate. However, their way of helping was to give them jobs. The moocher class does not want a job. They want to exist off of the labor of others. Who is John Gault? A visionary role model for our time.

Good intentions often have horrible consequences.

I actually think the ones who lack empathy are the ones saying to help the poor via government.

They seemvto lack a certain emotional component that would enable them to see the end result clearly.

Having the community help some of the poor who are deemed worthy is ideal, but having the government create a means for unconscionable to suck out the energy of the working and innovating classes... That's just ignorance!

Keeping people who are subpar living is amoral, IMO. If enough scum keep reproducing, the end result is a collapse of society. Pressures to wipe them out are ideal for the whole of society, in my assessment.

You can pick apart segments of what I say to make me sound apathetic, but these words are said after years of hard thought, and I stand by them.

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by doctornamtab
.... and thinks anytime you're asked to give to your fellow man its in infringement of freedom.

Liberals don't ask. They use the force of government to take.

You guys are so full of it. Did you even read Atlas Shrugged? The characters did not have a problem helping the poor. The problem was the entire MOOCHER class, and the government that enabled them as a way of gaining/keeping power. Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart both helped the less fortunate. However, their way of helping was to give them jobs. The moocher class does not want a job. They want to exist off of the labor of others. Who is John Gault? A visionary role model for our time.

True, the moocher class wants to exist of the labor of others. But who is the moocher class? The ones who are poor, on the fringes and never had a chance in the first place? No they arent THAT bad a moochers. How can someone who has nothing be a moocher? No, they're not living so well off the labor of others. But who does? Who barely lifts a finger yet gets all the profits from all the labor done by the rest of society? Ah yes. The the rich, upper class. They're the real moocher class.

Tell me, who gets all the profits from the labor of others? Its not the laborers is it? Its people like ole Johnny Galt, the guy who was so kind hearted that he gave a man a job. A job, where the honorable John Galt quickly took all the profits, all the fruits of the labor of this job. Do the John Galts of the world work the assembly line, no. Are most of them born super wealthy therefore did NOTHING to deserve this wealth, yes.

The moocher class is the upper class, I'll be generous and say the upper, upper class. The ones who think giving a job is saving a life. The ones who profit from this blood, sweat and tears of the laborers and pat themselves for making the world such a better place....with jobs. Freaking jobs. Everyone hates their job! You dont make the world a better place by creating things that people hate.

Originally posted by unityemissions
Good intentions often have horrible consequences.

I actually think the ones who lack empathy are the ones saying to help the poor via government.

They seemvto lack a certain emotional component that would enable them to see the end result clearly.

Having the community help some of the poor who are deemed worthy is ideal, but having the government create a means for unconscionable to suck out the energy of the working and innovating classes... That's just ignorance!

Keeping people who are subpar living is amoral, IMO. If enough scum keep reproducing, the end result is a collapse of society. Pressures to wipe them out are ideal for the whole of society, in my assessment.

You can pick apart segments of what I say to make me sound apathetic, but these words are said after years of hard thought, and I stand by them.

Jesus H Christ. That sounds like eugenics! The poor are not scum. No people are scum. Who the hell are you to make that distinction? The poor are not the ones collapsing society! The rich are. Jesus Christ. Have you looked at the news ever in your goddamn life? Wipe out the poor? You're not apathetic youre a #ing Nazi madman!

Edit to add: Sorry. Things got a little crazy for a second there. But I think we've found our first Randian sociopath of the thread...

come on! i mean, do you think douglas adams is a nihilist? because if you interpret all his stories as that of his personal philosophy that would be the result.

rand was clear about her philosophy, she wrote about it the forward of her novels, and whatnot. so it isnt even necessary to scrutinize the plot elements of her books, and call her a sociopath, jeez.

anthem was a nice story btw, maybe you should read it again.

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.

And you can listen to THEME FOR AN IMAGINARY WESTERN" while you publish it as a
torrent so all can have it.

The RICH MAN (white in the western world) invades,conquers, and destroys everything in the world so he can have all the power and all the money.

Originally posted by doctornamtab

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by doctornamtab
.... and thinks anytime you're asked to give to your fellow man its in infringement of freedom.

Liberals don't ask. They use the force of government to take.

You guys are so full of it. Did you even read Atlas Shrugged? The characters did not have a problem helping the poor. The problem was the entire MOOCHER class, and the government that enabled them as a way of gaining/keeping power. Hank Rearden and Dagney Taggart both helped the less fortunate. However, their way of helping was to give them jobs. The moocher class does not want a job. They want to exist off of the labor of others. Who is John Gault? A visionary role model for our time.

True, the moocher class wants to exist of the labor of others. But who is the moocher class? The ones who are poor, on the fringes and never had a chance in the first place? No they arent THAT bad a moochers. How can someone who has nothing be a moocher? No, they're not living so well off the labor of others. But who does? Who barely lifts a finger yet gets all the profits from all the labor done by the rest of society? Ah yes. The the rich, upper class. They're the real moocher class.

Tell me, who gets all the profits from the labor of others? Its not the laborers is it? Its people like ole Johnny Galt, the guy who was so kind hearted that he gave a man a job. A job, where the honorable John Galt quickly took all the profits, all the fruits of the labor of this job. Do the John Galts of the world work the assembly line, no. Are most of them born super wealthy therefore did NOTHING to deserve this wealth, yes.

The moocher class is the upper class, I'll be generous and say the upper, upper class. The ones who think giving a job is saving a life. The ones who profit from this blood, sweat and tears of the laborers and pat themselves for making the world such a better place....with jobs. Freaking jobs. Everyone hates their job! You dont make the world a better place by creating things that people hate.

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

The RICH MAN (white in the western world) invades,conquers, and destroys everything in the world
so he can have all the power and all the money.