scratch-mark

Shrug

I’ve had this entry of Billy’s marked "keep as new" in my RSS reader for too long, so finally this morning took to watch the two clips (Part I; Part II) which total about 15 minutes. Here’s some of my own recent thoughts on the 50th Anniversary of the publication of Atlas Shrugged, which has sold 30 million copies worldwide in a dozen languages.

As to the video, Part II is the more important and pressing and I think Barbara has a keen insight into Rand’s disappointment. Sometimes I find it interesting to just write down first thoughts and impressions before having any time to analyze or think deeply about them.

Here’s what I came up with: it was entirely natural for Rand to feel completely and wholly unpresumptuous in turning 2,000 years of cultural "wisdom" right on its fucking depraved head, where it belongs. She understood the evil represented by Christianity and other similarly parasitic cultural phenomena, and she never once in her life seriously wondered if she had any right to question it: to tell you, dear reader, that you’re all fucked up; perhaps not of your own purposeful making, but completely and utterly fucked up in the head nonetheless.

You can’t do that and not pay a price for it. It’s too bad she ultimately found her own advice — to shrug — beyond her own character and spirit. Then again, her heroes were never really meant to shrug. It’s just you could never blame them if they did, and it’s sure what this culture deserves.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

4 Comments

  1. Richard Nikoley on November 26, 2007 at 06:46

    Yea, John; good one.

    Definitely what Rand was up to.

    You know, there's something I've always wondered about you: do you really believe this religious nonsense, or do you simply believe they're "good lies," or both?

  2. John Sabotta on November 25, 2007 at 20:06

    "Indeed, the League of the Militant Godless was as embroiled in the collectivization campaign as it was in its mandated antireligious work. For example, a brigade of antireligious activists, sent to the Central Black Earth Region in January and February of 1930, summarized its assignment in this way: "The brigade conducted antireligious work, combining it with the tasks of the day (wholesale collectivization, liquidation of the kulak, [and] collecting for the seed fund)."

  3. Richard Nikoley on November 27, 2007 at 17:56

    You believe they're good lies?

    Your problem is you haven't a clear sense of morality. Short of Greenspan actually defrauding people, which he didn't, it's simply not in the province of morality.

  4. John Sabotta on November 27, 2007 at 17:44

    Yes, I believe what I write. Unlike some people.

    "No, I don't think it would be immoral for Greenspan to say whatever the hell he wants to about the market, paid to say it or not, whether he actually believes it or not." – R. Nikoley.

    Honestylog, indeed

Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780