Atlas Shrugged Part 1

by littlerockguy 126 Replies latest social entertainment

  • Terry
    Terry

    My point was, that part of your "argument" was so bereft of accurate information that it damages your credibility. In other words, you're so full of crap your eyes are brown, and I'm not going to believe anything ELSE you might try to tell me without massive substantiation.

    You obviously believe what you want to believe like any Grad Student cramming for a good grade.

    You as an individual should NOT be in the business of BELIEVING me or anybody else. You need to dig deep

    and figure out who is lying, who is telling the truth and come up with a reason for each.

    WHO you read is as important as WHAT you read. The political agenda of so-called historians colors their interpretations.

    So, you have to read BOTH sides as far back to the source as possible.

    Preview

    Read the carefully crafted DESCONSTRUCTIONIST characterization of the text? What is happening there?

    Check this one out, too:

    The Middle Ground: Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Studies in North American Indian History) by Richard White (Nov 1, 2010)

    Now for a lesser point:

    Compare the plight of the Jewish people of 6,000 years with the plight of the native american Indian (as a loose-termed ethnicity).

    Why do Jews have their own homeland, a thriving Democracy and an arsenal of weapons available to defend against those who would destroy them?

    Why do Indians live on reservations largely in the throes of gambling, alcoholism and political obscurity.

    The answer to that question is reflected in what Ayn Rand (that monster!) clearly explained in her politically incorrect opinion.

  • asleif_dufansdottir
    asleif_dufansdottir

    You as an individual should NOT be in the business of BELIEVING me or anybody else. You need to dig deep

    and figure out who is lying, who is telling the truth and come up with a reason for each.

    I can't decide if YOU saying that to ME is hysterically funny, or pathetically sad. Probably both.

    You don't know anything about me or what I believe. You seem to be making a tremendous amount of assumptions about that based on a sliver of evidence. The only thing you know about me is that I objected to your mischaracterization of "American Indians". In addition, you seem to conclude that I am a liberal academic, based the fact that I don't agree with you, and on my vocabulary and writing style.

    Whatever. I don't really care what you think, or what you believe. My only point was that your "facts" (beliefs) about "American Indians" are in error. You have obviously chosen Who you are going to believe. And it's not me. No skin off my nose.

  • Terry
    Terry

    Let's not get our knickers in a wad!

    I don't have to agree with you and--guess what? You don't have to agree with me.

    The fact remains, in Europe at the end of the 7 years war it wasn't the GENERIC WHITE MAN who came to Native American paradise and looted them

    as victims.

    That is nonsense!

    Outcasts from European society and religion settled here in a DO or DIE last stand for freedom.

    The Indians outnumbered them!

    To the extent there was co-operation they co-existed.

    However, the French stirred things up in the French and Indian war.

    Here is an excerpt of a review of a book that neatly sums up the TRUE SITUATION in the americas vis a vis the "white man" and the "indian."

    On the opposing side, were the European tribes: a disparate collection of Europe's ethnic underbelly. Most were thrown onto the North American shores to sink or swim as a last resort to their lowly European existence. As people, these European tribes were as unalike and as disconnected from each other as any group ever dumped onto the shores of a foreign land. For the most part they disliked and distrusted each other immensely, and did so for all the obvious reasons: They had fought each other on the European continent over customs, traditions, religions, politics, resources, etc. But in Europe they were at least protected from each other by national borders. In the new world even this final barrier was torn way. They were all thrown into the same American mixing bowl, left to their own devices, to sink or swim.

    It was in fact these "pockets" of differentiated, unmixable and profoundly isolated ethnic European tribes that were strewn and strung vulnerable across the pre-American frontier. Each tribe it seems had in fact made a conscious effort to get as far away from other European tribes as was humanly possible. This cultural dis-affinity and isolation among the white tribes, which even today remains an enduring fixture of the American cultural and geographic landscape, during the time of Seven Year War, became a decidedly serious military liability. Both the French and their Indian allies were keenly aware of, and sought to exploit this vulnerability. The Indians used terrorist tactics (such as scalping their victims and leaving them in conspicuous places) to brilliant effect. By "picking off" the settlers one hamlet and fort at a time, the Indian raids raised to the breaking point the ante on fear and terror among the isolated settlers. The disparate white tribes now had no choice but to try to come together to fight a common and very effective and determined enemy. However, this proved easier said than done. The then "powers that be, the landed gentry, secure on their estates, away from the outer perimeter of the frontier, could care less about those poor desperate bastards left isolated and vulnerable "out there" of the nation's periphery. So, what to do? The tribes had no choice but to come together, under the shrewd media blitz and demagoguery of the peddlers of a new war propaganda and a new racial ideology of "saving the white men from the terror of the red men;" and in doing so, they made a virtue out of necessity. This book tells how they did this. That is to say, it tells how the demagogues of that day, repackaged the fear and horrors of the frontier wars to create an artificial unity among the European tribes that overtime would endure and would evolve into, not just a unifying racial ideology and worldview, but also into a democratic revolution that dignified ordinary people and gave expression to the fledgling new republic's deepest yearnings. .

  • agonus
  • agonus
    agonus

    test

  • Terry
    Terry

    Go to "Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America" page Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed early America… (Paperback) by Peter Silver The Captured: A True Story of Abduction by Indians on the Texas Frontier by Scott Zesch (Dec 27, 2005) The Captured: A True Story of Abduction by Indians on the Texas Frontier

  • agonus
    agonus

    Dammit, I did it AGAIN! OK, this is the last time:

    Let me get one thing out of the way: I've neither read the book nor seen the movie: However, I suspect I may not be the only one on this thread.

    That said, I've read sufficient plot summaries and expositions of Rand's philosophy such that I think I've got a pretty good handle on what she's driving at.

    Now, I'm going to change the tone of the discussion to present my always unique take on things.

    IMHO, John Galt (described as "perfect"), like Aslan from Narnia Chronicles and Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, represents nothing less than a Christ figure.

    Think about it: Christian theology teaches that Jesus came only ONCE for the explicit purpose of dying/giving his life for the remission of mankind's sins.

    However, Christian theology also teaches the the Lord would return again, for the explicit purpose of setting up his kingdom on Earth. Like Galt, he would have no need this go-round to be crucified by greedy religious leaders, corrupt politicians, or fat cat corporations. The ineffectual governments would crumble, leaving the world in a (possibly post-apocalyptic?) dystopian shambles. Out of the ashes of which Christ and his followers would raise the proverbial phoenix by creating a utopian society, AKA "Paradise", where altruism is a thing of the past simply because it's no longer necessary. Everyone is happy, fulfilled, and nobody wants for food or material goods. Such is the Kingdom of God. Wheteher the Lord accomplishes this miraculously or through good-old-fashioned elbow grease and hard work is strictly academic.

    Well, that's my take on it anyways. Am I totally off the rails (pun intended)?

  • Terry
    Terry

    IMHO, John Galt (described as "perfect"), like Aslan from Narnia Chronicles and Aragorn from Lord of the Rings, represents nothing less than a Christ figure.

    I like that you are thinking about it.

    Rand would probably shit a brick at your conclusion

    Christ was an Altruist sacrificing himself for others.

    Galt (in his speech) clearly states:

    The Doctrine of Sacrifice ("Whoever is now within reach of my voice...."):
    Sacrifice is the surrender of value -- of a higher value to a lower one, or of the good to the evil.
    The code is impossible to practice because it would lead to death, and thus moral perfection is impossible to man.
    The Doctrine of Sacrifice cannot provide man with an interest in being good.
    Since man is in fact an indivisible unity of matter and consciousness, the sacrifice of "merely" material values necessarily means the sacrifice of spiritual ones.
    The self is the mind, and the most selfish act is the exercise of one's independent judgment. In attacking selfishness, the Doctrine of Sacrifice seeks to make you surrender your mind.
    The Doctrine of Sacrifice commands that you act for the good of others but provides no standard of the good. And it requires only that you intend to benefit others, not that you succeed.
    The Doctrine of Sacrifice makes you the servant and others your masters --and adds insult to injury by saying you should find happiness through sacrifice.
    Sacrifice and the unearned ("You who have no standard of self-esteem...."):
    If you must act to benefit others, why is it acceptable for others to accept such benefits? Because they did not earn them. At its core, the Doctrine of Sacrifice is a doctrine that seeks the unearned.
    Lack of value gives one a claim upon those who possess value. The doctrine elevates failure, weakness, need, incompetence, suffering, vice, and irrationality and regards them as moral claims on success, strength, wealth, ability, joy, virtue, and rationality.
    On this inversion of values, one sacrifices morality and self-esteem, and becomes both victim and parasite, with no standard of how much sacrifice is enough.
    In the spiritual realm, the Doctrine of the Unearned commands unconditional love, love based on need rather than value, love for those who do not deserve it -- because they do not deserve it.
  • agonus
    agonus

    Again, I think Galt primarily mirrors Christ at his SECOND coming. The ultimate altruistic deed, giving your life for the benefit of others (i.e. atonement, remission/forgiveness of sin etc.), was clearly a ONE-TIME-DEAL. Our sins have been forgiven once and for all time, so need for the Lord to do it again! When Jesus comes back, He may very well "Go Galt" by withdrawing into a secluded location, perhaps Southwestern Colorado, perhaps not, with his a close circle of His followers while the world destroys itself, crumbling beneath His feet.

    When you think about it, isn't Monasticism sort of a form of "Going Galt"? Withdrawing yourself from the madness of modern society to focus on self-improvement?

  • agonus
    agonus

    Some of Rand's conclusions make sense, but as with any hard-and-fast rhetoric, its "pat answers" end up sounding a little half-baked. It's too polemical to be ultimately practical. I think a good compromise would be, "Self-interest whenever necessary, altruism wherever possible".

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit