Monbiot writes: "Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, 'Ayn Rand Nation,' she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult."
Ayn Rand's influence spans 60 years, with Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) among her notable acolytes and devotees. (photo: Barnes and Noble Review)
How Ayn Rand Became the New Right's Version of Marx
06 March 12
Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats
t has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.
Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax.
Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.
The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife "who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".
Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult. Almost one third of Americans, according to a recent poll, have read Atlas Shrugged, and it now sells hundreds of thousands of copies every year.
Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". Rand, Weiss argues, provides the unifying ideology which has "distilled vague anger and unhappiness into a sense of purpose". She is energetically promoted by the broadcasters Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli. She is the guiding spirit of the Republicans in Congress.
Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read it. I believe it is making itself felt on this side of the Atlantic: in the clamorous new demands to remove the 50p tax band for the very rich, for instance; or among the sneering, jeering bloggers who write for the Telegraph and the Spectator, mocking compassion and empathy, attacking efforts to make the word a kinder place.
It is not hard to see why Rand appeals to billionaires. She offers them something that is crucial to every successful political movement: a sense of victimhood. She tells them that they are parasitised by the ungrateful poor and oppressed by intrusive, controlling governments.
It is harder to see what it gives the ordinary teabaggers, who would suffer grievously from a withdrawal of government. But such is the degree of misinformation which saturates this movement and so prevalent in the US is Willy Loman syndrome (the gulf between reality and expectations) that millions blithely volunteer themselves as billionaires' doormats. I wonder how many would continue to worship at the shrine of Ayn Rand if they knew that towards the end of her life she signed on for both Medicare and social security. She had railed furiously against both programmes, as they represented everything she despised about the intrusive state. Her belief system was no match for the realities of age and ill health.
But they have a still more powerful reason to reject her philosophy: as Adam Curtis's BBC documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan, former head of the US Federal Reserve. Among the essays he wrote for Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business – even builders or Big Pharma – he argued, as "the 'greed' of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking … is the unexcelled protector of the consumer". As for bankers, their need to win the trust of their clients guarantees that they will act with honour and integrity. Unregulated capitalism, he maintains, is a "superlatively moral system".
Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, cutting taxes for the rich, repealing the laws constraining banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. Much of this is already documented, but Weiss shows that in the US, Greenspan has successfully airbrushed history.
Despite the many years he spent at her side, despite his previous admission that it was Rand who persuaded him that "capitalism is not only efficient and practical but also moral", he mentioned her in his memoirs only to suggest that it was a youthful indiscretion – and this, it seems, is now the official version. Weiss presents powerful evidence that even today Greenspan remains her loyal disciple, having renounced his partial admission of failure to Congress.
Saturated in her philosophy, the new right on both sides of the Atlantic continues to demand the rollback of the state, even as the wreckage of that policy lies all around. The poor go down, the ultra-rich survive and prosper. Ayn Rand would have approved.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Rand never quite understood, like so many deformed professionals in class deformed civil society that inverted totalitarianism , whether Stalinism or Post colonial states were linked to the class hierarchies of dominant Western capitalist states.
In her revolt against Stalinism she embraced the class hierarchies and class deformed markets of Capitalism, with its penchant for Orwellian totalitarianism and never really broke free from the parallel totalitarianism of hierarchies produced by the same dominant Fascist, Late Capitalism, only substituting one for the other.
The link between NAZISM, fascist Capitalism, which called slavery , Freedom, "ARBEIT MACHT FREI" produced a lot of JEWISH, SOCIALIST victims through the same class myths that Capitalist ideologues embrace, especiallyt Rand. Since she and Greenspan were Jewish, yet embraced this totalitarian class dogma, class myths, they both became victims of their own FASCISM, TOTATLIARIANISM , which also produced failed, deformed post colonial and Stalinist states, a mirror, class outcome of Fascist capitalism.
Smith was much closer to Marx, until the class, deformed ideological thugs used a deformed Smith to counter another social theorist, MARX. CHAMELIANS, class/empire whores ARE DANGEROUS.
globalcitizen, you keep doing this.
Rand was not just crazy, but a lousy philosopher.
I began to read her when I was a callow teenager, but I read a little bit and declared "This is garbage" -- even then it was obvious to me. It didn't make sense, it wasn't logical, and it wasnt based o realistic assumptions. I put it down never to return.
Marx makes quite a bit of sense and is based on reality (especially the reality of his time frame). The two should not be compared.
I am delighted to have found on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Das_Kapital a link to http://librivox.org/capital-volume-1-by-karl-marx/ with a downloadable audio version of "Capital: A Critical Analysis of Capitalist Production, Volume 1"
(I have a text version, but it's a tough read while sitting at a computer.)
For the complete masochist, a full reading of Atlas Shrugged is second only to Ulysses.
You are to be applauded for your youthful perspicacity. Most young readers (I was 19)fail to see through Rand for the first few years because she presented not a philosophical argument in syllogistic form, but romances in novel form. Very seductive stuff to the young, impressionable, as-yet-unprotec ted-by- official-traini ng-in-critical- thinking minds.
We must also give the devil her due. Rand was simply one of the best writers in the English language; much less just one of the best authors of English as a second language. Given all of the "ear candy", that she could spin in the presentation for her cause, - in some cases, downright elegant prose - and the nebulous, theatrical obfuscation achieved via pitching her Objectivism as romantic fiction rather that straight-out philosophy, Ayn Rand remains a powerful force to be reckoned with among the naive and impressionable reader of any age. Love her or hate her.
Many readers never do "see through" Rand because they cannot keep up with her quick-paced presentation at any level of reader maturity... and yet others claim to have "seen through" Rand, lo, all these many years... but have yet to actually read any one of her works !
LOL !
I guess we have all types out there somewhere ......
As one wag put it: "It's better than it sounds."
gdp1 wants to complicate the issues by failing to find the common connection for all ISMS and ahs no clue what my argument is all about.
Anyone who disagrees with my arguments, come up with something more substanatial, then self professed ignorance and confusion. Come up with actual ideological arguments and get to know the gist of my social theory, theoretical history which I routinely post here:
A SOCIAL MANIFESTO AND THEORY OF HISTORY
http://asocialmanifestoagainstclasshistory.com.
I will argue any general and specific responses....no t confused, distorted representations of my arguments.
I strongly agree w/ you that the author's parallelism w/ Marx & Rand is inaccurate. Mnobiot says, "Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. Yet, as Gary Weiss shows in his new book, Ayn Rand Nation, she has become to the new right what Karl Marx once was to the left: a demigod at the head of a chiliastic cult." The Left didn't exactly see & does not see Marx as a supernatural savior who would return to Earth as the chiliastic belief literally does in reagards to Christ. I know, it's used symbolically. But Monbiot's use of it is absurd in falsely equating Marx w/ Rand. Their ideas were of course ideologically different.
I disagree with bluepilgrim's comment about Marx. Marx was a brilliant 19th century thinker, and some of his analysis of capitalism is quite deep. But he was fundamentally wrong about what he called the "laws of capitalist motion" (his predictions have turned out badly in this regard), and his theory of the state and politics are both thin and have been subject to much subsequent abuse by many active leftists like Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Fidel. It also does not help that his economic theory, like that of Adam Smith and Ricardo and the other earlier British economists, is based on the utterly discredited notion of the labor theory of value.
I do of course agree that Ayn Rand was a deranged fanatic. A pity that Zoloft was invented too late to help her.
Yet, it is a brilliant work. Compare it the Freud's work, which has it's flaws and yet was groundbreaking. Or even Darwin, who knew almost nothing about genetics. We HAVE learned quite a bit in 150 years, about everything.
I'm not an economist, but looking at http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article288 about capitalist motion I see some good stuff there so far, which echos many of my own thoughts on the subject. The author says there is controversy about them, but I am not yet familiar enuogh with them to comment intelligently. I've only gone through a few brief 'crash courses' on the internet. It's a complex subject and takes a long time to understand especially trying to break through the negative propaganda. I have mostly approached this from a different point of view entirely -- mostly systems analysis.
I can say this: it's not possible now to talk about economics competently without at least a basic knowledge of Marx, or the ideas involved, and many people apparently have no idea of what he said, and just use 'Marxist' as an epithet.
Again I have to agree w/ you. Marx & Engels themselves wouldn't have thought they had the absolute truth or a cureall for society's ills, but their ideas were to be used as an important guide; & I find the Marxist interpretation of economics to still be credible, although of course not perfect. I agree w/ you about Stalin, although I see him more as Tsarist & fuedal-like, putting himself above the law, the Communist Party, the Soviet gov., & of course the masses. Stalin & Stalinism went beyond necessesity & reason into absurdity & tragedy. But I don't fall for what I would call a slippery slope going backwards & forwards, i.e., if Stalin was bad then Lenin was bad, & if Lenin was bad then Marx was bad, etc. I recommend reading "Let History Judge" by Soviet historian Roy Medvedev. It gives perhaps the best analysis of Stalin & Stalinism, in B/W & shades of gray.
Many who claim to espouse Ayn Rand's ideas of late have rather obviously never read her. Rush Limbaugh has frequently claimed that "Atlas Shrugged" is "the greatest book ever written". If you're familiar with the book, you are most likely aware that he does resemble several characters in the book, but definitely none of the "good guys".
do we all need each other to survive? yes, i think we do. rand would disagree.
There is some free material at http://rethinkingmarxism.org/ but most of it is 'academic' and requires a 'phenomenal fee' to read it (another of capitalism's problems). Peasants like me are not supposed to know things or be educated. It is only through access to the internet over the last decade that I have been able to even hear about much of this (and I'm over 50 years behind in my education).
I'm hoping that many bright kids now will become conversant with all of this and more, and be able to see through people like Rand at a glance, and know what the roots and alternatives in thinking are (as well as a much broader knowledge in many areas). Some of these kids will turn out to be scary smart -- if the fascist school/media/in doctrination system doesn't break them first.
Anyone with any collective sanity out there?
My father employed the only two black pharmacists in town - no one else would give them a job. We all worked our asses off in that drug store, but my father was no millionaire hero. One could argue that it is the working people, not the plutocrats, who really hold the world up.
Rand's views are too black-and-white . A world without compassion and altruism is a jungle. But government need not be in charge of these things.
Similarly, capitalism would be more ethical if there were more transparency in its operations -- that means better, not more regulation -- AND (highly unlikely) ethical behavior were consistently rewarded.
She appealed to many youthful people who were engaged in asserting their intellectual independence from middle class constraints, but she herself loathed any displays of independent thinking. Now elected officials have no excuse of adolescent rebellion to explain why they pay homage to her ideas.
They are dishonest in this as they are in so much more.
We should remember in the Christian fable, the question "Am I my brother's keeper?" was asked by a murderer. To Ayn Rand, Cain would have been the hero of the fable.
She was very much in favor of independent thinking and always was.
Yes the socialist, progressives, who claim that enslaving the masses is freedom would be in great pain.
You don't know shades of gray when it comes to socialism and progressivism & thus you don't know socialism and progressivism.
Wright actually designed a house for Ayn Rand in 1946 that never got built.
as have I
If you want to know who John Galt is I suggest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xStn_jXKo&list=PL80DF800A579444B3&feature=mh_lolz
I rolled those ideas around in my head a while, looked at things this way, that way, then said, "Nahh," all before age 21.
It seems to be taking the teabaggers a long time to grow up. Maybe they can't think their way through things on their own brain power. Maybe they have to learn by first hand experience what it is to be a "billionaire's doormat."
A lot of teabaggers are nearing retirement age. I look forward to seeing them checking in at the doctor's office with their Medicare cards.
"A lot of teabaggers are nearing retirement age. I look forward to seeing them checking in at the doctor's office with their Medicare cards."
An effective point. The TP rank & file merely shrug like Atlas while politically cutting their own throats.
The government does not have unlimited freedom - it only has a limited set of freedoms carefully prescribed. And to further contain that freedom the three branches each with the power to negate the other two.
I see Rand as an advocate fro positive freedom - you have freedom becasue you exist. Your freedom is not dependent upon the approval of others any more then they are dependent upon yours. The only limitation is you do not have the freedom to involuntarily impose your self upon another.
the only thing "chiliastic" about marx may be confusing karl with groucho..i think the marx brothers may have had a film about the millenium?...me anwhile, people who know little or nothing about karl marx should really refrain from criticizing mythology and calling it marxism...other wise, yes, rand was a putz...or putzette?
Rand and Marx are in fact diametrical opposites.
Rand is the ultimate Nazi. She develops the Nazi doctrines of the ubermenschen and der fuhrerprinzip to their logical (and logically savage) extreme in a rationale for absolute rule by the One Percent and the merciless enslavement of all the rest of us. The one work comparable to Rand's writing is therefore Hitler's Mein Kampf.
By contrast, Marx not only explained (and predicted) the ultimate manifestations of capitalist evil, he and his colleague Frederich Engels also gave us the only realistic roadmap to liberation from the enslavement we now suffer at Rand's behest.
Indeed as the infinite malice of the One Percent becomes ever more apparent, what becomes equally apparent is that Marxism -- and in particular Marxian discipline -- is our only remaining hope. All other proposed solutions have failed.
Totally false.
Nazi were all about subsuming the individual to the fatherland and to it's leader - an involuntary system of centralized power where the individual is a disposable cog in the social machine.
Individual rights has no place in the socialist utopia the National socialist Workers party was endeavoring to create.
If your going to damn Rand for her selfish egoism then your going to have to comprehend that is incompatible with the collectivist NAZI.
I'm assuming you lump ALL socialisms or "socialisms" together. If so, again not realistic. The Right typically does that & again doesn't see shades of gray.
This coming from members of a culture that killed millions, enslaved millions for their labor and land. Yes really "moral"..
It certainly does seem to be working out like that, even to the casual non-biased observer: look badly off we are now after the last 30 years when the right wing mostly had it's way. If computer systems were designed according the conservative's ideaolgy they wouldn't work at all.
If the 'genetic vehicles' chances for survival and reproduction are enhanced by close knit and nurturing societies then that's what the genes will reflect.
Recall that 'social Darwinism' is a great distortion of what Darwin wrote, which was also a scientific and biological thesis. Right wingers will glom onto and distort anything to advance their own ideology.
What was the agreement?
What was the point?
What stopped those who wanted to build Courtland from using any one else to design it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTqv7s7478E
So it is psychopathic to respect the rights of individuals to conduct their lives peacefully in a voluntary order.
So What does one call the slave masters creed that justifies enslaving those of ability to those of need?
For years I lived among native islanders in the west Pacific. They were not perfect people. I had many a run-in with some of them. But they seemed to me in some ways wiser than, say, the people of Los Angeles--where I grew up.
The islanders really did not seem to believe we OWN things. They DID believe that one had a right to go on USING what one had at hand if the purpose was worthy. But that is about as close to ownership as they got. What restricted them from going further was, I think, a wise intuition that the life-of-the-tri be really WAS that which was life in each member of the tribe. The notion of impairing the life of the tribe for some larger share of "personal" life struck them, so far as I could see, as an absurdity. They did not RESIST a temptation here; they could not feel such a temptation.
What role does voluntary interaction play - who advocates the philosophy of a trader - one who trades value for value if and only if both parties see benefit.
What role does involuntary interactions play - and who advocates the slave masters credo of from each slave according to their ability to each master according to their need?
(see this ties back to the articles initial premise)
Depends on the philosophy. If they support pure individualism & reject their social connections to humanity, I don't think they'll get very far. But there are individual circumstances that will determine what a person will do but also connected to social/collecti ve conditions that'll also be just as much as a determiner.
From each worker slave according to his ability to each capitalist master according to his need. It is the nature of the bourgois beast.
The entire thing seems to be an absurd contrived straw man anyway. Rand was writing not fiction, but fantasy.
His payment was to see it built as he explicitly intended - that was the only payment he required, the only payment that was satisfactory - he was cheated of that.
He was not looking for money nor did he receive any for that project.
Of course Rand makes her characters some what cartoonist in emphasizing specific principals and values - that was her way of making a point.
You can't do good philosophy by ignoring reality and all the other considerations -- that's as bad as any extreme religious dogam -- it's what crazy people do.
Those who paid for this - were robbed, they were forced to pay for it at the end of a tax collectors gun.
Should the robber be rewarded?
If your mugger gives some of his loot to the poor does that justify his theft from you? Do you thank him?
IF the architecture was such a trivial part as you claim - if the idea of how something is to be done so trivial, then why not some one else - any one else to do that part?
I didn't say the archects work was trivial, but just a part, and a relatively small part at that -- you are making stuff up about what I said -- and that's true, and there are many architects who could have done that part of the work.
Actually putting up a building takes more time, work, and resources -- I know: I've both designed things and made them. A man can make up drawings for a building in a few days it would take him years to build.
But the point is that he destroyed all the work and resources others put in for his own egomaniacal fanaticism. It's like some nut who has a grievance against the company he works for or the government, and goes 'postal' and kills people or blows up a building. It's terrorism -- not some phony scare tactic but real terrorism. It's insanity.
Because It was in your mind ok to steal from him because so many others were forced to pay into it.
If I hired a contractor to build a sun room for $5,000 and I go on vacation and when I come back there is a three story addition larger then the house, a swimming pool and no sun room and I am given a bill of $250,000 and he says we need it and you can afford it.
By your thinking the builder has every right to force me to pay him, he and his workers needed the money, the suppliers needed the sales and before the project he had no money and his workers had no work and the suppliers had no customers.
Their need out weighted my need.
What both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead have in common is the protection of one's intellectual property. Roark blew up Cortland Homes because his design was altered without his okay. As such, his contract with Peter Keating was breached. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt blew up his revolutionary engine because people were trying to steal it from him. Are all of you Ayn Rand critics saying that outright thievery is acceptable? In that case, you must have been in favor of the outcome of the 2000 election.
Rand's so-called philosophy was laissez-faire capitalism, not fascism, cruelty and greed. She stacked the deck in her books, of course, but what she was saying was that society progresses by innovators pursuing their own self-interest. I think it's worth noting that the Nazis hated her as much as the Communists did.
Her entire philosophy, she said, is spelled out in John Galt's 60-page speech when he hijacks the radio station. The Fountainhead, by the way, is pretty much a straight-up biography of Frank Lloyd Wright.
Now, I don't buy all of her ravings as unvarnished truth, but I've gotta say she was an excellent writer, particularly in view of the fact that her first language was Russian. Can you do that? She was on a U.S. stamp for a reason. I wonder how many of the commenters here have actually read any of her stuff.
Outright thievery is in general not acceptable. By our dislike of Rand, we're implying disapproval of her solutions and attitudes.
You'd be better off reading Conrad and Nabokov if you wish to appreciate those who write in their second language.
I didn't read the other about hijacking a radio station, but is this OK? Some clown decides he was done dirt to so he goes on a rampage and tramples on the rights of everyone else and the laws of society?
Yeah -- I see -- rights for you and the Rand groupies and to hell with everyone else....
But if we are to apply actual modern day constraints as you have in order to evade the moral point of a fictional work, so be it.
Well, then must we keep in mind the theft of trillions from the tax payers and their children with the endless stream of fiscal boondoggles that have been created by the politicians.
Look no further then AIG, GM , Citi, Goldman sacks to name a few .. look at the list of beneficiaries from the Federal bail outs - many more have been made poor by the meddling politicians then had the politicians simply maintained order and let people alone to their own peaceful profitable pursuits.
And soon we shall see the greatest scam ever the Social security, medicare/ medicaid default - all for the good of some at the expense of others. Well the good has been paid out and we are about to see at the expense of others play out as we are slipping into the morass of bankruptcy on these sacred cows.
Or maybe you can raise an army and start a war?
This better than getting rid of the corrupt politicians and getting real democracy back? Just what the hell are you thinking? Don't you see where that sort of thinking leads?
Rand was opposed to the slave state in opposition to the premise from each slave according to his ability - to each master according to their need.
Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged as a warning of where we were headed.
Bluep Her solution was non compliance, Not fighting and destruction as you falsely imply.
The draft title of "Atlas Shrugged" was "The Strike".
A strike by Those who have been exploited because they were not permitted voluntary interaction, a strike by those who have been exploited becasue of their ability, A strike by those who have been exploited becasue they had earned something which others decided gave them equal claim to their earnings, a claim upon their life.
Do not support your destroyers.
So Rands characters quit and left. With out the people of the mind - the inventors, the dreamers, the doers - they are on strike leaving those who believe they had a right to force others to satisfy their wants, they leave them to their own devices.
In Galt's speech he says We will no longer exploit you with our goods and services - your on your own.
This pretty much says it all. Kind of like the TeaPartier who wants the government to keep their dirty hands off his Medicare.
Good point. That typical hypocrisy of the Right where the public are to be deprived of beneficial necessesities in the name of selfishness for the nakedly ambitious few while the few take advantage of public programs.
Let's start our DSBM quest for the LAND WHERE OBNOXIOUSNESS IS SUPREME! Here we will b free 2b EXPONENTIALLY OBNOXIOUS, instead of the limited obnoxiousness we have settled for in the past. Here ...Tourettes is worshipped and adored, as the real ideology we strive 4, Here we have obnoxiousness fart currency, here we have obnoxiousness diahhrea resources, from spongy to foamy, obnoxiousness sex: retroactive orgasm olympics, obnoxiousness health: sleeping olympics and most of alll obnoxiousness humor: where u laugh b4 u laugh! 2 hear this FANNYFESTO LIVE b @ The Brokeridge 2797 Merrick Road, Bellmore, NY 11710 Tomorrow 3/9/12 at 10:00PM www.like2laugh.com
Also the Randians hate government excepted for one thing: protecting them from the hordes of beggar and thieves they imagine in their horrible fantasy about non-intellectua l cash filled mortals. A government is a monster, excepted when it enforce their views in the "stupid and lazy" folk. Hypocrisy! Be self reliant on your security, if your ideas are so correct
p.s. I personally think every thinking individual should go through their Ayn Rand experience. Whether they stay there is up to them.
RSS feed for comments to this post