http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto…ked-witch/full/
My God. This must be the nastiest piece of trash I’ve read all year.
They tell you who they are afraid of by who they continually try to destroy personally.
Also, do you notice how it appears as though they all read from the same attack playbook? This is not a coincidence.
I’m getting sick of the whole “drug addict” attack.
She took them bnecause her doctor prescribed them to her at a time when doctors tended to over medicate women in general.
As soon as another doctor told her to stop taking them she stopped. This, according to what I’ve read of the matter.
And making light of her lung cancer? That’s just fucking low.
The thing that for some reason never ceases to suprize me is how much hatred self proclaimed altruists and humanists have in their hearts.
Unable to attack her ideas they attack her personally in ways that are disproportionate. Lates say you hate someone’s ideas.. fine.Attack those ideas. But even if one had a plausable reason for hating the ideas of Objectivism the fact is she violated no one’s rights, did not harm, steal or murder… so why such brutal ugly attacks?
Unable to attack her ideas they attack her personally in ways that are disproportionate. Lates say you hate someone’s ideas.. fine.Attack those ideas. But even if one had a plausable reason for hating the ideas of Objectivism the fact is she violated no one’s rights, did not harm, steal or murder… so why such brutal ugly attacks?
I am sure she’d have much more to say about “The Art of Smearing” if she were still alive. It has leaped past ignorant dismissal of ideas as “extreme” (though this is still a tactic) and it has gone straight to ad hominem attacks and attempted character murder.
By now, it should be understood that personal attacks are a badge of honor rewarded to anyone who even hints at the idea of individualism. It is, at times, both a calculated and subconscious response by those who hold an anti-life premise.
I am sure she’d have much more to say about “The Art of Smearing” if she were still alive. It has leaped past ignorant dismissal of ideas as “extreme” (though this is still a tactic) and it has gone straight to ad hominem attacks and attempted character murder.
By now, it should be understood that personal attacks are a badge of honor rewarded to anyone who even hints at the idea of individualism. It is, at times, both a calculated and subconscious response by those who hold an anti-life premise.
In this review of the new Burns bio
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues…nifer-burns.asp
…there is a great quote from Oscar Wilde about how in the modern world we insist on vulgarizing heroes.
I think that is a dead on sentiment, not only in the context of the endless smearing of Rand but also the vulgarizing of anyone successful.
With a deceased person you can’t reach out to club them. Spitting venom at her ghost is pretty much the closest thing they’ve got. Ayn Rand lived a long, successful life and so they’re left with taking pleasure in emphasizing tiny and petty character flaws. Iirc it’s not even correct that she died in connection to lung cancer, so they can’t even keep their spiteful wishes within the facts.
I just skimmed the article, the way I see it, if they have any rational argument, bring it, otherwise don’t waste my time with small minded, gossipy nonsense that has little to do with actual survival and prosperity in the real world.
I just skimmed the article, the way I see it, if they have any rational argument, bring it, otherwise don’t waste my time with small minded, gossipy nonsense that has little to do with actual survival and prosperity in the real world.
Exactly.
I read The Passion of Ayn Rand when I was, I think 22 years old. I started reading Rand when I was 13.
When I read TPOAR at first regarding the issue of affairs and lying about affairs I thought “this is horrible, is this true?”
Then I realized it was simply irrelevent.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-sto…ked-witch/full/
My God. This must be the nastiest piece of trash I’ve read all year.
In the comment section, in response to a comment, he claims that not one line was written out of hate.
In the very first paragraph:
I’ll lay my cards on the table—Ayn Rand and her followers have given me the creeps since high school. Rand herself always looked to me like Lotte Lenya’s Rosa Krebb in From Russia with Love, and her disciples like extras from Village of the Damned.
I hope he doesn’t go around telling people he’s a journalist.
You’ll notice that there isn’t a single philosophical argument in the article. It’s just a smear piece.
The thing that for some reason never ceases to suprize me is how much hatred self proclaimed altruists and humanists have in their hearts.
You don’t just start out hating others. You have to hate yourself first.
The thing that for some reason never ceases to suprize me is how much hatred self proclaimed altruists and humanists have in their hearts.
Your point is understood and well-taken. Though, you must admit that it’s not really a big surprise, in the end. Love, a deep valuing of other humans, benevolence, lose their authenticity under altruism.
I’ll lay my cards on the table—Ayn Rand and her followers have given me the creeps since high school. Rand herself always looked to me like Lotte Lenya’s Rosa Krebb in From Russia with Love, and her disciples like extras from Village of the Damned.
Sounds like my least favorite type of person. I work with a guy who would rather argue by flaunting his knowledge of movies and literature via similes/metaphors than by actually putting forth rational points.
I really stopped caring about all of the rumors made about Ayn Rand. That she doesn’t like black people (the only black characters in her story were mooches and theives) , that she told a member of her organization to divorce someone if they couldn’t convince them to become atheist,
It’s a shame, because I really do want to know the truth. But it seems like nobody can really attack Ayn Rand’s arguments, so they attack her instead. And it does not even have to be true. I really can’t see how anyone would think she’s a “Wicked Witch”. I saw her interview with Phil Donahue, and she seemed very intelligent and respectful of people who disagreed with her. But when she feels insulted, everyone is quick to accuse her of “not being able to disagree with others”. Like when one member of the audience said “I used to be a fan of your writing, but after being educated a little more…”, how could that woman not possibly realize what a personal attack that was?
It seems like the same thing is happening to HTWW as well (Lee Doren). Nobody can respond to his arguments, so they instead accuse him of making sock accounts, of being meean to people, of “Deleting his comments because he can’t handle criticism”, etc.
Seems like even her supposed supporters can’t help themselves when it comes to personal criticisms either:
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/10010…fner-heller.php
Why is it that people can look at this woman who explicitly and loudly stood for individualism and egoism, and complain that she wasn’t friendly enough, didn’t go far enough out of her way to appear happy? She totally spelled out her standard of a good life, then they turn around and judge her by the standards of how she treated others or how many friends she had or whether she made her philosophy “accessible” enough.
Bluey, I am not too surprised at the Atlasphere- the majority of its denizens are TOC-goers. One thing I have observed about TOC is its incredible consistency in being inconsistent: they condemn Rand’s methods, her personality, or the Ayn Rand Institute, but allegedly still hold to their own version of the philosophy and her vision whilst judging Rand by the Politcally Correct standards of an altruist viewpoint. They’re certainly an interesting bunch.
It sounds like someone has to check his premises. At worst this article will get a few people to read Rand’s books. It’s just another turd in the sea of feces.
Why do people accuse Rand of starting a cult, anyway? Do they think they’re funny and clever? Or is this seriously a concern of theirs?
-
People would describe a cult as a society in which the leader brainwashes their people.
-
Ayn Rand, however, did not encourage brainwashing. She encourages us to use our brains and think for ourselves. She encourages you not to start with fantasies of political systems, but to start from metaphysics, and come to your own conclusions about politics.
-
People would describe a cult as a movement in which people are to commit suicide for a God.
-
Ayn Rand was against suicide ethically, and she does not believe in a God.
-
People would describe a cult in which the leader uses fear to retain it’s people
-
Ayn Rand did not care if you turn away from her writings. It’s your loss, not hers.
-
People would describe a cult in which the leader encourages nothing but absolute agreement with them
-
Ayn Rand actually disagrees with modern objectivists about subtle things, due to lack of full understanding of objective reality. Homosexuality is a notable example. You do, however, have to agree on the five branches of philosophy: realism, rationalism, egoism, laissez-faire capitalism, and romantic realism.
When you do not uphold the value of reason, regard it as a virtue, strive to understand reason and the mental process it entails, you surrender to faith and force. Your mind does not function, cannot make differentiations between a good argument and nonsense.
Few people, generally, even “intellectual”, are basically able to tell the difference between an argument or a smear or a accusation or an emotional spew. It all seems the same to them.
Nor do they know the difference between what they want and what is, accepting the primacy of consciousness with their religion, etc.
Nor do they know the difference between knowledge and maybes, e.g., alien abduction. They do not know that they have to keep track of the sourse of their ideas and the reasons and justifications for accepting their ideas as knowledge.
It is all a blur.
So it should not be a surprise that they see nothing wrong about spewing at Ayn Rand because they feel threatened without actually having a real clue what she stands for or what her statements mean. We must keep in mind that there is a difference between thinking and what passes withing the U.S. culture.
Adam Reed, in his blog “Born to Identify” argues that in our attempt to spread Objectivism we need to teach people how to think. We see why, don’t we.
Poor Ayn Rand! It seems she knows nothing about philosophy, politics, or economics, and is a terrible writer of movie scripts and kitschy, potboiler novels. She married wrong and was a pathetic addict and narcicist who inspired people to do evil, in addition to the evil which she herself did. Her followers are basically all creepy bully confused teenage zombies defending priviledge. Rand was also a humorless puritanical didact who glorified rape. And on and on.
Gee, I don’t know if I would say all things about Satan! 
There is one thing the articles bring to attention: What is the truth behind Branden and Greenspan? How can people dedicated to reason completely reject Objectivism, after spending years advocating it?
PS: isn’t it funny how biographers pretend to have an objective view of the author but use the ugliest picture of her possible as a cover?