Libertarian Rand

February 3, 2001

I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as

vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in

the end.

However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual

only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever --

whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on

Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of

Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect

model for any Rand villain.

In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always

either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears

thin...

--wally

Re: Libertarian Rand

>

> > The Nazis were socialists, and Rand was

> > no socialist. I haven't read _The_Fountainhead_ or seen the

> > movie, but I have trouble believing Rand published anything

> > even vaguely Nazi-like.

>

> While the Nazis indeed called themselves socialists, to describe them

> as socialists is similar to on the basis of their name describing

> Zhirinowsky's Liberal Democrats as liberals and democrats, or to

> say that as Republicans oppose Democrats, they arent democrats, etc.

> etc.

>

> Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

> Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

> competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

> about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

> extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

> seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

> scientific discovery since Newton!

>

> However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

> Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

> individualism.

>

> P.

February 3, 2001

> I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand

novels as

> vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys

based on

> ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who

are

> portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it

when she

> makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen

win out in

> the end.

> However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the

individual

> only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or

whatever --

> whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm

not up on

> Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the

nature of

> Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the

perfect

> model for any Rand villain.

>

Or Hitler or Stalin. Have you ever listened to McCaffre(?) Clinton's

Drug Czar?

He is right out of Atlas Shrugged. She describes him with uncany

accuracy.

> In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue

is always

> either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It

wears

> thin...

It sure does. The repetition and speeches do get old halfway through.

Atlas Shrugged should have been a Wagnerian Opera, not a novel;-)

Jim

February 3, 2001

> I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand

novels as

> vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys

based on

> ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who

are

> portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it

when she

> makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen

win out in

> the end.

> However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the

individual

> only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or

whatever --

> whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm

not up on

> Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the

nature of

> Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the

perfect

> model for any Rand villain.

>

Or Hitler or Stalin. Have you ever listened to McCaffre(?) Clinton's

Drug Czar?

He is right out of Atlas Shrugged. She describes him with uncany

accuracy.

> In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue

is always

> either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It

wears

> thin...

It sure does. The repetition and speeches do get old halfway through.

Atlas Shrugged should have been a Wagnerian Opera, not a novel;-)

Jim

February 3, 2001

At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as

>vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

>ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

>portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

>makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in

>the end.

I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

>However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual

>only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever --

>whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on

>Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of

>Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect

>model for any Rand villain.

And more to the point, the Nazis were in fact socialist. They

were collectivists. It was the race which was important,

not the individual. Everything should be done centrally,

controlled and regulated by government.

I suppose it's only natural that modern socialists try hard

to deny this. Who the heck wants to be associated with

Nazis? But it would probably make more sense for them

to point out that sharing one trait with Nazis doesn't mean

that they are all evil.

H*tl*r was supposedly fond of children and dogs. That

doesn't mean that other people who are fond of children

and dogs are all mass murderers waiting to happen.

Similarly, most socialists aren't race supremacists. But

back to the point -- Ayn Rand was neither a socialist nor

a race supremacist. She had diddly-squat in common

with Nazis. Any reviewer who claims her work is

Nazi-like is presumably just trying to smear her, since

no one could reasonably conclude her views were

even close to Nazi views.

>In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always

>either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears

>thin...

Heh, good old Ayn Rand and her speechifying. There's a speech

in _Atlas_Shrugged_ which lasts for something like 45 pages!

February 3, 2001

At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as

>vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

>ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

>portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

>makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in

>the end.

I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

>However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual

>only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever --

>whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on

>Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of

>Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect

>model for any Rand villain.

And more to the point, the Nazis were in fact socialist. They

were collectivists. It was the race which was important,

not the individual. Everything should be done centrally,

controlled and regulated by government.

I suppose it's only natural that modern socialists try hard

to deny this. Who the heck wants to be associated with

Nazis? But it would probably make more sense for them

to point out that sharing one trait with Nazis doesn't mean

that they are all evil.

H*tl*r was supposedly fond of children and dogs. That

doesn't mean that other people who are fond of children

and dogs are all mass murderers waiting to happen.

Similarly, most socialists aren't race supremacists. But

back to the point -- Ayn Rand was neither a socialist nor

a race supremacist. She had diddly-squat in common

with Nazis. Any reviewer who claims her work is

Nazi-like is presumably just trying to smear her, since

no one could reasonably conclude her views were

even close to Nazi views.

>In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always

>either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears

>thin...

Heh, good old Ayn Rand and her speechifying. There's a speech

in _Atlas_Shrugged_ which lasts for something like 45 pages!

February 3, 2001

At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

>I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels as

>vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

>ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

>portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

>makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out in

>the end.

I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

>However... it's really QUITE different. The fascists valued the individual

>only as a component of a greater entity -- State or Volk or whatever --

>whereas for Rand there is nothing greater than the individual. I'm not up on

>Nazi theory, but I did once read an essay by Mussolini on the nature of

>Fascism. Mussolini, as he expressed himself, could have been the perfect

>model for any Rand villain.

And more to the point, the Nazis were in fact socialist. They

were collectivists. It was the race which was important,

not the individual. Everything should be done centrally,

controlled and regulated by government.

I suppose it's only natural that modern socialists try hard

to deny this. Who the heck wants to be associated with

Nazis? But it would probably make more sense for them

to point out that sharing one trait with Nazis doesn't mean

that they are all evil.

H*tl*r was supposedly fond of children and dogs. That

doesn't mean that other people who are fond of children

and dogs are all mass murderers waiting to happen.

Similarly, most socialists aren't race supremacists. But

back to the point -- Ayn Rand was neither a socialist nor

a race supremacist. She had diddly-squat in common

with Nazis. Any reviewer who claims her work is

Nazi-like is presumably just trying to smear her, since

no one could reasonably conclude her views were

even close to Nazi views.

>In fact that's one of the main problems with the novels. Dialogue is always

>either a little Mussolini speech or an anti-Mussolini speech. It wears

>thin...

Heh, good old Ayn Rand and her speechifying. There's a speech

in _Atlas_Shrugged_ which lasts for something like 45 pages!

February 3, 2001

> I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid and should

>have known better. You try to pass the buck for them. Try to blame someone

>else for their own ineptitude and irresponsibility. Just like you, I

>suppose. Why is it my job to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool?

>Its not because everyone knows there is nothing I can do about that. I

>can't do anything about that, so why then is it my job to make sure the

>stupid fool doesn't get hurt?

Please explain how it is stupid to hold down a job, the only job in town.

Please explain how it is stupid to try to get better working conditions.

Please explain how it is irresponsible to accept a job when you have to pay

for food and housing.

Pray tell, what would you have had them do? Shoot the owners of the

company? If there were no other jobs available, or none with better working

conditions, what would you have them do?

Apparently you live a coddled life of luxury, or you'd have a better

understanding of what it's like to be poor and hungry. No one is asking you

to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool, but obviously, the men who

owned the sweat shop were greedy, evil men who didn't give a damn about

their employees--not unlike you, perhaps?

February 3, 2001

> I am not crying about your sob story. Those girls were stupid and should

>have known better. You try to pass the buck for them. Try to blame someone

>else for their own ineptitude and irresponsibility. Just like you, I

>suppose. Why is it my job to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool?

>Its not because everyone knows there is nothing I can do about that. I

>can't do anything about that, so why then is it my job to make sure the

>stupid fool doesn't get hurt?

Please explain how it is stupid to hold down a job, the only job in town.

Please explain how it is stupid to try to get better working conditions.

Please explain how it is irresponsible to accept a job when you have to pay

for food and housing.

Pray tell, what would you have had them do? Shoot the owners of the

company? If there were no other jobs available, or none with better working

conditions, what would you have them do?

Apparently you live a coddled life of luxury, or you'd have a better

understanding of what it's like to be poor and hungry. No one is asking you

to make sure someone else isn't a stupid fool, but obviously, the men who

owned the sweat shop were greedy, evil men who didn't give a damn about

their employees--not unlike you, perhaps?

February 3, 2001

----- Original Message -----

> At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

> >I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels

as

> >vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

> >ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

> >portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

> >makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out

in

> >the end.

>

> I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

> that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

> about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

> cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

> for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally

[snip]

February 3, 2001

----- Original Message -----

> At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

> >I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels

as

> >vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

> >ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

> >portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

> >makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out

in

> >the end.

>

> I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

> that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

> about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

> cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

> for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally

[snip]

February 3, 2001

----- Original Message -----

> At 08:37 AM 2/3/01 -0500, you wrote:

> >I can guess why the reviewer might have seen the plots of the Rand novels

as

> >vaguely Nazi-like. Characters are either good guys or bad guys based on

> >ideology. There's an overall tone of contempt for the 'masses', who are

> >portrayed as corrupted by collectivism. Rand obviously loves it when she

> >makes the baddies get their comeuppance and has the Ubermenschen win out

in

> >the end.

>

> I guess a very superficial reading might see similarities in

> that respect. However, the same complaint could be made

> about, e.g., _Rambo_. It's hardly uncommon to have

> cardboard characters who get their comeuppance, or

> for the hero to be " super " compared with normal mortals.

But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally

[snip]

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 12:02:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< 'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

a remake of it.

P. >>

<<hears the sound of goose steps now.. You were kidding about Step

Nazi

sponsor weren't you? <shivers> Just what we need, a re-make of Fountainhead.

Thanks P. Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 12:02:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< 'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

a remake of it.

P. >>

<<hears the sound of goose steps now.. You were kidding about Step

Nazi

sponsor weren't you? <shivers> Just what we need, a re-make of Fountainhead.

Thanks P. Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 12:02:55 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< 'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this. Heck, anything endorsed by my

Step Nazi sponsor has to be nuts! I read a review of the film " The

Fountainjead " the other day and I might type it in. The reviewer said

it sounds so like a Nazi propoganda film it would be embarassing to do

a remake of it.

P. >>

<<hears the sound of goose steps now.. You were kidding about Step

Nazi

sponsor weren't you? <shivers> Just what we need, a re-make of Fountainhead.

Thanks P. Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 3:04:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< What is scary is how many Rand fans are still around. Clarence you

might have guessed. But Alan Greenspan? He was a member of the Rand Inner

Sanctum once upon a time, and as far as I know he has never claimed to have

grown up.

--wally >>

OMG!!!!!! tell me it isn't so. Greenspan?? Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 3:04:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< What is scary is how many Rand fans are still around. Clarence you

might have guessed. But Alan Greenspan? He was a member of the Rand Inner

Sanctum once upon a time, and as far as I know he has never claimed to have

grown up.

--wally >>

OMG!!!!!! tell me it isn't so. Greenspan?? Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 6:03:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P. >>

One of my impressions of Rand, in her superficiality, was that

she was extremely taken with the sexual sizzle of an ubermensche in her bed.

Oh where is Galt??? Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 6:03:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P. >>

One of my impressions of Rand, in her superficiality, was that

she was extremely taken with the sexual sizzle of an ubermensche in her bed.

Oh where is Galt??? Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/2/01 6:03:17 PM Pacific Standard Time,

watts_pete@... writes:

<< Nazi-ism was supremacist, drawing on a primitive pseudo-Darwinism.

Aryans were supposedly superior as a result of laissez-faire

competition, if you like. Rand appears to have only been concerned

about the individual rather than a group, and interestingly, was

extremely skeptical about Darwinism, according to Branden. Rand didnt

seem to care about science very much; he says she valued little any

scientific discovery since Newton!

However the idea of a " Superman " above ordinary mortals was part of

Nazi thinking and it is this aspect that resembles Rand's rampant

individualism.

P. >>

One of my impressions of Rand, in her superficiality, was that

she was extremely taken with the sexual sizzle of an ubermensche in her bed.

Oh where is Galt??? Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/3/01 3:53:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home

for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally >>

GUFFAW~~ I swear some of the best humour exists here!!. ha.

Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/3/01 3:53:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home

for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally >>

GUFFAW~~ I swear some of the best humour exists here!!. ha.

Piper.

February 3, 2001

In a message dated 2/3/01 3:53:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,

wagt@... writes:

<< But then we don't have a Supreme Court Justice who takes his clerks home

for

private screenings of _Rambo_ to give them a feeling for his philosophy of

justice :-).

--wally >>

GUFFAW~~ I swear some of the best humour exists here!!. ha.

Piper.

February 4, 2001

> <<hears the sound of goose steps now.. You were kidding

about Step

> Nazi

> sponsor weren't you? <shivers> Just what we need, a re-make of

>Fountainhead.

> Thanks P. Piper.

I wasnt kidding abt the Step Nazi sponsor. He adoired Rand. I think

they are talking abt a Fountainhead remake.

Although the Nazis were collectivist and called themsleves socialists,

I stil think it's a bit much to use that term to describe them since

most socialists think they suck donkeys. Socilaism also has

anto-racist tradition. As I said, Zhironowsky calls his fascist mob

" Liberal Democrats " . douse that make them liberals or democrats, or

the same as the British centre Liberal Democrat party? Of course not.

You have to go by what ppl do, not by what they call themselves.

I would say that Rand is probably more akin to right-wing anarachist

rather than fascist, but there are similiarities - individual

suprmacism instead of race surpemacism. Ppl say " you might as well

call Rambo fascist " and I say " Yes! Rambo is indeed fascistic! " I

donty have a promlem with describing Rambo in those terms at all!

P.

February 4, 2001