Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Atlas Shrugged Mentioned On Neal Boortz...

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I was listening to Neal Boortz today (nationally-syndicated Libertarian radio talk show host). He took a call. Aparently, Neal had suggested that one of his callers read the ingenious book, Atlas Shrugged. The caller indicated that he loved the book, and that it has really changed his outlook. While he was previously a solid Republican, now he's much more open to the Libertarian philosophy. He also said he'd love to see a movie of Atlas made. He and Neal joked that Hollywood would certainly destroy the message of the book by making a movie. The caller then offered up a "perfect" director: Mel Gibson! Neal Boortz was in complete agreement. I had to wonder which copy of Atlas Shrugged these guys picked up. Mel Gibson's dramatic portrayal of the most famous sacrificial animal, Jesus, would make him the "perfect" artist to project John Galt (?!), the first man to explicitly define (and live) a profound love and reverence for one's own life.

I was so excited to hear Ayn Rand's name and her book come out over the air. It was such a brief instant, then I was let down. The Libertarian thing didn't bother me too much. Most people don't become Objectivists in one reading of one AR book. There's a transition for most people if they continue reading. I cannot fathom the Mel Gibson part, however. Cliche as it may be, reading Galt's famous radio speech changed my life...immediately. My philosophical convictions were always his (actually, AR's, of course), but my life was changed by knowing others existed who understood the importance of life. I'm sorry this guy just took it as an interesting point of view compatible with The Passion. Unbelievable.

-- George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

If you are trying to imply that you are no longer an Objectivist, and you are referring to the rule about promoting non-Objectivism, then probably not. If people ask for an explanation of why you aren't, suffice to say that if you gave a response as to why not, you wouldn't be banned. We have a few theists here actually who are currently debating about the validity of either Thomas Aquinas' ideas, or the idea of the existence of God - they're not being banned, despite the fact that it clashes with Objectivism.

If that's not what you mean, sorry for jumping to conclusions. But you might as well explain why you no longer agree with the sentiments that you made. You must think it was important to come back here 7 years later just to let us know you don't feel the same way you did

Edited by Black Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...