PDA

View Full Version : Ayn Rand



CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-04-2010, 09:22 PM
I'm not a big fan of Ayn Rand--I think her stance on charity is pretty heartless, and I didn't like her anti-religion stance, but this excerpt--from a 1964 Playboy interview struck me, and I tend to agree completely:

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?

RAND: Yes, to a certain extent.

PLAYBOY: Why?

RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man's evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose -- a productive purpose.

PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?

RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.

PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn't he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons?

RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.

PLAYBOY: Couldn't the attempt to rule whim out of life, to act in a totally rational fashion, be viewed as conducive to a juiceless, joyless kind of existence?

RAND: I truly must say that I don't know what you are talking about. Let's define our terms. Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombi, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.

PLAYBOY: Should one ignore emotions altogether, rule them out of one's life entirely?

RAND: Of course not. One should merely keep them in their place. An emotion is an automatic response, an automatic effect of man's value premises. An effect, not a cause. There is no necessary clash, no dichotomy between man's reason and his emotions -- provided he observes their proper relationship. A rational man knows -- or makes it a point to discover -- the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them. He never acts on emotions for which he cannot account, the meaning of which he does not understand. In appraising a situation, he knows why he reacts as he does and whether he is right. He has no inner conflicts, his mind and his emotions are integrated, his consciousness is in perfect harmony. His emotions are not his enemies, they are his means of enjoying life. But they are not his guide; the guide is his mind. This relationship cannot be reversed, however. If a man takes his emotions as the cause and his mind as their passive effect, if he is guided by his emotions and uses his mind only to rationalize or justify them somehow -- then he is acting immorally, he is condemning himself to misery, failure, defeat, and he will achieve nothing but destruction -- his own and that of others.

http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 09:29 PM
Read some of her books, start with atlas and you might change your mind about her. You don't have to agree with everything a person says to derive wisdom from them. don't cheat yourself through preconceptions.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-04-2010, 09:32 PM
Read some of her books, start with atlas and you might change your mind about her. You don't have to agree with everything a person says to derive wisdom from them. don't cheat yourself through preconceptions.

Well, I bought Atlas and I probably will read it.
I've read interviews with her though, and I just disagree on the whole thing about charity, or about sacrificing for others.
If everyone believed that sacrificing for others was immoral, there would no be soldiers to defend us from foreign enemies; Why should they? The primary duty of a soldier, of a police officer, of a firemen, is to sacrifice in some way, or is built on the possibility, of sacrificing for something or someone else.

Her opinions on Life as far as purpose, though, I agree with 100%. She was a very intelligent woman even if I don't agree with her; I wish more women were as intelligent or philosophical.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 09:43 PM
She was a very intelligent woman even if I don't agree with her; I wish more women were as intelligent or philosophical.
We would never get laid!

Gingersnap
11-04-2010, 09:46 PM
Well, I bought Atlas and I probably will read it.
I've read interviews with her though, and I just disagree on the whole thing about charity, or about sacrificing for others.
If everyone believed that sacrificing for others was immoral, there would no be soldiers to defend us from foreign enemies; Why should they? The primary duty of a soldier, of a police officer, of a firemen, is to sacrifice in some way, or is built on the possibility, of sacrificing for something or someone else.

Her opinions on Life as far as purpose, though, I agree with 100%. She was a very intelligent woman even if I don't agree with her; I wish more women were as intelligent or philosophical.

Although as a Christian, I can't accept Rand's views about religion, I have often said that if I was an atheist, I would be an Objectivist (with some misgivings).

When you understand Objectivism a little more, you will see that soldiers, police, nurses, and others have an important place and that their professions are far from "immoral" in the Randian sense.

Her quote in this article about having a purpose in life sheds a little light on that particular issue.

Rand is completely correct about purpose. From a certain perspective, I am a rational Christian. Christianity has a moral view and set of values that I find to be extremely positive and practical. As she says, I don't have to deal with a thousand situational ethics problems every day. If stealing is off the menu for me, it's off the menu in every plausible situation. Same thing with lying, cheating, or killing. I don't need to run a calculus constantly.

This isn't to say that a purpose can't be reevaluated in progress - it can, but having a purpose (even an imperfect purpose) is preferable to living at the whim of random emotions.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-04-2010, 09:47 PM
Read some of her books, start with atlas and you might change your mind about her. You don't have to agree with everything a person says to derive wisdom from them. don't cheat yourself through preconceptions.


We would never get laid!

Au Contrare.
I once dated a girl who was very deep and very very intelligent; She and I were both 14 at the time, and she had already written a NOVEL. She was crazy in the sack. We don't talk anymore. She later turned out to be a devoted Socialist, but still, she was very intelligent and deep nonetheless even if I disagree with her ideology.

Another girl, when I was around the same age, was 13--same age as I at the time--and was obsessed with philosophy and taught me, at 13, all about existentialism. Hers were the first pair of boobs that I saw.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-04-2010, 09:51 PM
Although as a Christian, I can't accept Rand's views about religion, I have often said that if I was an atheist, I would be an Objectivist (with some misgivings).

When you understand Objectivism a little more, you will see that soldiers, police, nurses, and others have an important place and that their professions are far from "immoral" in the Randian sense.

Her quote in this article about having a purpose in life sheds a little light on that particular issue.

Rand is completely correct about purpose. From a certain perspective, I am a rational Christian. Christianity has a moral view and set of values that I find to be extremely positive and practical. As she says, I don't have to deal with a thousand situational ethics problems every day. If stealing is off the menu for me, it's off the menu in every plausible situation. Same thing with lying, cheating, or killing. I don't need to run a calculus constantly.

This isn't to say that a purpose can't be reevaluated in progress - it can, but having a purpose (even an imperfect purpose) is preferable to living at the whim of random emotions.

I can agree with all of those sentiments. For many, Religion itself can their purpose--or at least, fuel their purpose. See all of the Priests and devoted Missionaries of the world. I have my own reasons of course why I view religion as a positive, but I don't want to turn this into a religion thread lest Wilbur jump in and complain.

Having a certain purpose can be a beautiful thing; I'm still trying to find my purpose. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I do know that once I find out, I'll give 120% toward accomplishing it. Having a purpose can draw you away from the stresses of life--Throwing yourself into a purpose to drive away the distractions which emotional things can bring about.

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 09:56 PM
I can agree with all of those sentiments. For many, Religion itself can their purpose--or at least, fuel their purpose. See all of the Priests and devoted Missionaries of the world. I have my own reasons of course why I view religion as a positive, but I don't want to turn this into a religion thread lest Wilbur jump in and complain.

Having a certain purpose can be a beautiful thing; I'm still trying to find my purpose. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I do know that once I find out, I'll give 120% toward accomplishing it. Having a purpose can draw you away from the stresses of life--Throwing yourself into a purpose to drive away the distractions which emotional things can bring about.

If you ever choose to do so you would make a very good missionary.

NJCardFan
11-04-2010, 09:59 PM
Read some of her books, start with atlas and you might change your mind about her. You don't have to agree with everything a person says to derive wisdom from them. don't cheat yourself through preconceptions.
I have to admit, I tried reading this book and to me it's like reading a can of paint.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-04-2010, 10:02 PM
Although as a Christian, I can't accept Rand's views about religion, I have often said that if I was an atheist, I would be an Objectivist (with some misgivings).

When you understand Objectivism a little more, you will see that soldiers, police, nurses, and others have an important place and that their professions are far from "immoral" in the Randian sense.

Her quote in this article about having a purpose in life sheds a little light on that particular issue.

Rand is completely correct about purpose. From a certain perspective, I am a rational Christian. Christianity has a moral view and set of values that I find to be extremely positive and practical. As she says, I don't have to deal with a thousand situational ethics problems every day. If stealing is off the menu for me, it's off the menu in every plausible situation. Same thing with lying, cheating, or killing. I don't need to run a calculus constantly.

This isn't to say that a purpose can't be reevaluated in progress - it can, but having a purpose (even an imperfect purpose) is preferable to living at the whim of random emotions.


If you ever choose to do so you would make a very good missionary.

If you're being serious, why do you think that?

Gingersnap
11-04-2010, 10:05 PM
I can agree with all of those sentiments. For many, Religion itself can their purpose--or at least, fuel their purpose. See all of the Priests and devoted Missionaries of the world. I have my own reasons of course why I view religion as a positive, but I don't want to turn this into a religion thread lest Wilbur jump in and complain.

Having a certain purpose can be a beautiful thing; I'm still trying to find my purpose. I'm not sure what I want to do, but I do know that once I find out, I'll give 120% toward accomplishing it. Having a purpose can draw you away from the stresses of life--Throwing yourself into a purpose to drive away the distractions which emotional things can bring about.

Absolutely. Most people believe they haven't found their purpose at your age (and some do crazy things looking for it) but older people will tell you that the beginnings of their purpose were already shaping up then; they just didn't recognize it until later.

Being committed to a religion, philosophy, or life path does benefit most thoughtful people. It can buck you up when things go wrong and it can force you to do ultimately beneficial things when you'd rather drink or vegetate or be hateful.

Everybody loves to mock the goodie-two-shoes of the world but they are by and large happy, productive, and free from obsession or boredom. ;)

Rockntractor
11-04-2010, 10:05 PM
I have to admit, I tried reading this book and to me it's like reading a can of paint.

I'm a dreamer, I don't have any trouble with books like that. I get a lot of these books in audio form now and listen to them while I operate equipment.

obx
11-05-2010, 07:59 AM
I read "Anthem" in high school and loved it. I am waiting for "Atlas" to come in to the local library.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-05-2010, 08:36 AM
The Fountainhead is actually a halfway decent book. You can actually justify Roark's dickish behavior because he's been shat on his whole life.

Atlas is terrible. Taggart is an aristocratic bitch who would be absolutely nothing if she wasn't born into all of her wealth (she also tries to sleep with every character in the book), d'Anconia is basically the business world's Lindsay Lohan, Rearden is a sociopath, and Galt is no less of an ideologue than Hitler. These are the heroes of Atlas Shrugged, and the villains are anybody who tries to get in their way.

marv
11-05-2010, 09:04 AM
I first came across Ayn Rand in the early fifties when I started high school. I don't march in lock step with every thing she said, but the vast majority of her (and Nathaniel Branden's) philosophy made a great deal of sense.

linda22003
11-05-2010, 09:58 AM
I have to admit, I tried reading this book and to me it's like reading a can of paint.

She was an extremely turgid writer, that's for sure.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 10:11 AM
I've been waiting for some Ayn Rand threads.

It seems as if Ayn Rand's philosophy (and the plot of some of her books) are the main backbone behind contemporary conservative ideology. Makes sense.

Still, I find her fundamentally flawed, it's as if she read some Aristotle, some Neitzsche, and just plain skipped everything between and after and wrote her books. These are sophomoric at best.


You may agree with her on some things and not others, but like many aspiring philosophers she has tried very hard for a sense of internal consistency within her writing, and you'll see that her views on religion shape her views of Truth, which form the basis of her political and economic views.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 10:24 AM
I'm not a big fan of Ayn Rand--I think her stance on charity is pretty heartless, and I didn't like her anti-religion stance, but this excerpt--from a 1964 Playboy interview struck me, and I tend to agree completely:

PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged, one of your leading characters is asked, "What's the most depraved type of human being?" His reply is surprising: He doesn't say a sadist or a murderer or a sex maniac or a dictator; he says, "The man without a purpose." Yet most people seem to go through their lives without a clearly defined purpose. Do you regard them as depraved?

RAND: Yes, to a certain extent.

PLAYBOY: Why?

RAND: Because that aspect of their character lies at the root of and causes all the evils which you mentioned in your question. Sadism, dictatorship, any form of evil, is the consequence of a man's evasion of reality. A consequence of his failure to think. The man without a purpose is a man who drifts at the mercy of random feelings or unidentified urges and is capable of any evil, because he is totally out of control of his own life. In order to be in control of your life, you have to have a purpose -- a productive purpose.

I disagree. I should recommend Kierkegaard here, especially for those of you who are Christian, so was Kierkegaard.

Kierkegaard was a bit more complex, he said there are people who's only purpose is to satisfy their urges, to get pleasure and satisfaction, this is the lowest level of existence for a human.

Then he mentioned the ethical life, the life that Rand is describing, one driven by rational principles. However, unlike Rand, Kierkegaard (and MANY others) have clearly found the limit to rationality and how it relates to how we live our lives.

Kierkegaard included another realm of life, one where even rational thinking takes a step back to make way for the religious life. Here you are driven by God. In this case you don't have to have a clear principle or set of rules, in fact your actions cannot be explained to anyone else (the example Kierkegaard uses is Abraham accepting God's call to sacrifice Issac,)




PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?

RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose.

This is weak at best. People can have purpose, such great purpose that it even supersedes their own lives. The 9/11 hijackers had purpose, they died for a cause they believed in. This is a naive view that everyone with a happy self-esteem and a feeling of purpose will be nice to everyone, no that's not it at all. It's usually people with very high self-esteem and high feelings of "purpose" than tend to be abusers in relationships too.

Also Hitler went psychotic because of his abuse of amphetamines, which made his thinking borderline autistic. something which I wouldn't entirely write off for Rand either....

Ayn Rand took lots of Speed, and her thinking/writing are perfect examples of it.




PLAYBOY: If a person organizes his life around a single, neatly defined purpose, isn't he in danger of becoming extremely narrow in his horizons?

RAND: Quite the contrary. A central purpose serves to integrate all the other concerns of a man's life. It establishes the hierarchy, the relative importance, of his values, it saves him from pointless inner conflicts, it permits him to enjoy life on a wide scale and to carry that enjoyment into any area open to his mind; whereas a man without a purpose is lost in chaos. He does not know what his values are. He does not know how to judge. He cannot tell what is or is not important to him, and, therefore, he drifts helplessly at the mercy of any chance stimulus or any whim of the moment. He can enjoy nothing. He spends his life searching for some value which he will never find.

This is the words of a person who believes they are truly their own master, which is never true. This sort of thinking died out in the 18th century.

Her ontology, her metaphysics, her epistemology. I have problems with every aspect of it and they are all intimately linked.




PLAYBOY: Couldn't the attempt to rule whim out of life, to act in a totally rational fashion, be viewed as conducive to a juiceless, joyless kind of existence?

RAND: I truly must say that I don't know what you are talking about. Let's define our terms.

lmao, exactly........



Reason is man's tool of knowledge, the faculty that enables him to perceive the facts of reality. To act rationally means to act in accordance with the facts of reality. Emotions are not tools of cognition. What you feel tells you nothing about the facts; it merely tells you something about your estimate of the facts. Emotions are the result of your value judgments; they are caused by your basic premises, which you may hold consciously or subconsciously, which may be right or wrong. A whim is an emotion whose cause you neither know nor care to discover. Now what does it mean, to act on whim? It means that a man acts like a zombi, without any knowledge of what he deals with, what he wants to accomplish, or what motivates him. It means that a man acts in a state of temporary insanity. Is this what you call juicy or colorful? I think the only juice that can come out of such a situation is blood. To act against the facts of reality can result only in destruction.

I'm sorry but her modernistic empiricist attitude towards reality is just not up to par with her contemporaries. Literally every other major thinker in her time had already addressed and re-developed everything she talks about many times over. Her popularity comes not from her excellence in philosophy or novel-writing, but in the fact that her message is entirely in support of those in power. When you preach to keep the status quo for those in power, you are far more likely to be given exposure than you speak more "radical" thoughts.

I am totally in agreement with her idea that man should examine himself, man should examine his ideas, his base principles, should question why he does what he does and why he believes what he believes. This is about where I part ways with her.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 10:28 AM
Rand's entirely philosphy is based on rigid atheism and the FACT (as she calls it) that Rationality is the sole and primary source for Truth. She outright rejects faith as intellectual weakness and feels it erodes society. Her entire philosophy is a solarsystem that revolves around Truth, which for her is defined by a near Richard Dawkins level of rejection of Faith.


Rejecting faith outright is the core of her philosophy, it's what everything else is built on. For those of you who feel that Faith is an important aspect of your life and should be the core of your decisions, you should be careful around Ayn Rand

FBIGuy
11-05-2010, 10:31 AM
I think that if Nietzsche was gelded then he would be indistinguishable from Ayn Rand

marv
11-05-2010, 10:36 AM
Still, I find her fundamentally flawed, it's as if she read some Aristotle, some Neitzsche, and just plain skipped everything between and after and wrote her books. These are sophomoric at best.


You may agree with her on some things and not others, but like many aspiring philosophers she has tried very hard for a sense of internal consistency within her writing, and you'll see that her views on religion shape her views of Truth, which form the basis of her political and economic views.
Try "For the New Intellectual", 1961, and "The Virtue of Selfishness", 1964. BTW, religion plays much less of a role than you think.

KhrushchevsShoe
11-05-2010, 10:39 AM
I didn't think people seriously read Ayn Rand for philosophy instead of just pleasure reading. Yeah, you're better off working your way through Leviathan or at least the Republic, at least you'll learn something from those.

AmPat
11-05-2010, 09:04 PM
Well, I bought Atlas and I probably will read it.
I've read interviews with her though, and I just disagree on the whole thing about charity, or about sacrificing for others.
If everyone believed that sacrificing for others was immoral, there would no be soldiers to defend us from foreign enemies; Why should they? The primary duty of a soldier, of a police officer, of a firemen, is to sacrifice in some way, or is built on the possibility, of sacrificing for something or someone else.

Her opinions on Life as far as purpose, though, I agree with 100%. She was a very intelligent woman even if I don't agree with her; I wish more women were as intelligent or philosophical.

Read the book! (Atlas Shrugged.) You will not regret it.

Rockntractor
11-05-2010, 09:25 PM
I didn't think people seriously read Ayn Rand for philosophy instead of just pleasure reading. Yeah, you're better off working your way through Leviathan or at least the Republic, at least you'll learn something from those.

Says the boy who is named for a shoe.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 11:02 PM
Read the book! (Atlas Shrugged.) You will not regret it.

this book is the most http://imgur.com/uLzLn.gif ever

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 11:04 PM
as arroyobel or whatnot

http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Rockntractor
11-05-2010, 11:05 PM
this book is the most http://imgur.com/uLzLn.gif ever

Nobody here would expect you to understand it Wei, don't worry about it, go memorize some more Marx.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 11:06 PM
it's so juvenial there's not much to understand it's a basic masturbatory book celebrating those in power and the status quo way to go that's hard to do and be successful

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 11:07 PM
the so called philosophy is really sophomoric at best. it's appeal is that it confirms the ruling ideology and makes everyone feel 'right' who has the leasure time to read such books

Rockntractor
11-05-2010, 11:07 PM
it's so juvenial there's not much to understand it's a basic masturbatory book celebrating those in power and the status quo way to go that's hard to do and be successful

I would have guessed that would be what you would get out of it, now run along.

Wei Wu Wei
11-05-2010, 11:12 PM
she belongs to the series of people who are overorthodox and are overcomformist, and point out the absurdity of the ruling ideology be holding to it so purely. she is a joke, her philosophy is most interesting in an ironic sense but no one in real academic takes her seriously. she is popuiar but so is dr phil and tracey morgan. she is a wonderful criticism of capitalism in that she shows the absurdity of the system by holding to it so strongly, like how a religious fundamnetalist seems to do harm to the credibility of their belief by taking it too far.

Rockntractor
11-05-2010, 11:18 PM
she belongs to the series of people who are overorthodox and are overcomformist, and point out the absurdity of the ruling ideology be holding to it so purely. she is a joke, her philosophy is most interesting in an ironic sense but no one in real academic takes her seriously. she is popuiar but so is dr phil and tracey morgan. she is a wonderful criticism of capitalism in that she shows the absurdity of the system by holding to it so strongly, like how a religious fundamnetalist seems to do harm to the credibility of their belief by taking it too far.

Why don't you just start your own I hate Ayn Rand thread and stop crapping all over CITM's thread we got your point, now you're just going to piss him off!

CaughtintheMiddle1990
11-05-2010, 11:55 PM
Why don't you just start your own I hate Ayn Rand thread and stop crapping all over CITM's thread we got your point, now you're just going to piss him off!

It's cool. I like Wei Wei's little rants, they make things more interesting.
And I'm open to other points of view. That's why I made this thread about Rand. I don't agree with her on everything (I'm not a fan of Laissez-Faire economics but instead a mixed economy and I personally believe charity in one's own life is a virtue and try to be as charitable as I can be) but I can respect her pretty large amount of intelligence, and her opinions on some topics nonetheless.

I try not to agree or disagree 100% with things and do try to keep an open mind. For example, I personally don't believe in or ascribe to fundamentalism in any religion; even fundamentalism in Atheism. However, I also realize the good it can do and how it can really give people something to hold onto and believe when all seems lost. I can respect it, even if I don't ascribe to it--and that's my motto for most things except for Nazism, NAMBLA, the KKK, Hippies, the CPUSA and Socialism/Communism.

AmPat
11-06-2010, 11:25 AM
this book is the most http://imgur.com/uLzLn.gif ever

As usual, WEItard flings Pooh.:rolleyes:

Molon Labe
11-08-2010, 04:42 PM
she belongs to the series of people who are overorthodox and are overcomformist, and point out the absurdity of the ruling ideology be holding to it so purely. she is a joke, her philosophy is most interesting in an ironic sense but no one in real academic takes her seriously. she is popuiar but so is dr phil and tracey morgan. she is a wonderful criticism of MARXISM in that she shows the absurdity of the system by holding to it so strongly, like how a religious fundamnetalist seems to do harm to the credibility of their belief by taking it too far.

fixed...

Sounds like it's applicable to Marxist too.



There is no surer way to infect mankind with hatred brute, blind, virulent hatred than by splitting it into ethnic groups or tribes. - Ayn Rand


Gosh....this doesn't sound crazy at all. I kinda subscribe to that belief.