PDA

View Full Version : This is their mindset: Atlas Shrugged review from 1957




AMBurns
06-29-2009, 11:30 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

I found this article and it made my blood boil. This is an article printed in 1957 in National Review magazine. A neo-con rag that has touted the ideals of "conservatism" 1955. This is where the neo-cons came from. This review shows exactly what their mindset has been for over 50 years, don't argue with logic and reason, but use fallacy and emotion to get your message heard.

A lot can be gleaned from going back and reading the founding documents of the neo-con philosophy. I highly recommend it.

Atlas Shrugged is a book which changed my life forever. It opened my eyes to just what was wrong with this picture. Liberty or Death is it's core philosophy, and thusly it has become my own. Read it!

acptulsa
06-29-2009, 11:47 AM
That started out a good review, but soon debases itself into a screed that screeches even more shrilly than he accuses Ayn Rand of doing--and wound up much more shrill than Ayn Rand actually was.

emazur
06-29-2009, 04:04 PM
This might make you feel a little better:
"William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge"
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/105225

AMBurns
06-29-2009, 10:27 PM
This might make you feel a little better:
"William F. Buckley vs. Ayn Rand: Ayn Rand's Revenge"
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/105225

Thanks for that article emazur. I guess she had the last laugh.

Reason and logic always win out, even if it took 29 years after her death for it to occur I'm sure Rand would have gotten a kick out of his Buckley's son's book.

Romantarchist
06-29-2009, 11:12 PM
I don't know, alot of the influential neo-cons were actually former Leon Trotsky supporters who tried to combine conservatism with statism and Trotsky's idea of intervention in other countries to spread Communism. Except in this case, it's "democracy" (i.e. Israel's interests). They didn't originate in National Review.

I actually thought the review was pretty good. I agreed with the parts about how all of Rand's characters are either all-good or all-bad. Real people aren't like that. I know the novel is supposed to portray ideals, but you can easily do that without making the characters so ridiculous. The tone of overriding arrogance is there too, I mean John Galt's speech is just one giant preach-fest. And the fact that it's explicitly atheistic and materialistic is just going to turn alot of people off to the politics of freedom rather than turn them on. What about Christian defenders of liberty, like Leo Tolstoy and Lord Acton? What about liberty that is rooted in the spiritual? In the Word Of God?

Kludge
06-29-2009, 11:31 PM
I did a long research report on Ayn Rand a few years ago.

The man who wrote this was a Communist infiltrator who did not even read Rand's book.

Rand was furious that the review was published and never forgave Buckley (who she was formerly polite with -- one of a handful) for allowing it to be published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

AMBurns
06-30-2009, 10:22 AM
I don't know, alot of the influential neo-cons were actually former Leon Trotsky supporters who tried to combine conservatism with statism and Trotsky's idea of intervention in other countries to spread Communism. Except in this case, it's "democracy" (i.e. Israel's interests). They didn't originate in National Review.

I actually thought the review was pretty good. I agreed with the parts about how all of Rand's characters are either all-good or all-bad. Real people aren't like that. I know the novel is supposed to portray ideals, but you can easily do that without making the characters so ridiculous. The tone of overriding arrogance is there too, I mean John Galt's speech is just one giant preach-fest. And the fact that it's explicitly atheistic and materialistic is just going to turn alot of people off to the politics of freedom rather than turn them on. What about Christian defenders of liberty, like Leo Tolstoy and Lord Acton? What about liberty that is rooted in the spiritual? In the Word Of God?

The thing that makes Rand so important is she was one of the first to argue in favor of the liberty movement without using the crutches of religion or tradition. I'm not using the word crutch to demean religion, but it's an important distinction because there are so many types of religions. Muslims, Christians, Hindi, Buddhists; are all going to see the liberty movement in a different light if it's presented to them with the slant or bent of a religion whose values they do not hold or are not in full agreement with.

By presenting capitalism and liberty as secular entities not bestowed upon us by one god or another, we remove many of the arguments that would raze the cause of liberty while it's foundation is still being built.