Cathy

Cathy, Rand made many false analogies in her passion to express her ideas. Comparing human beings to insects was one of her worst, in my opinion,

The things that I have been learning about her views on leaches and parasites, I can understand her view point on using those terms...my father used terms like that to. Some people wont try to help themselves, they wait every month for government hand outs...like parasites nesting on a host (government) and then they will take every last dime they can get, or have another child to get a raise...like a leach sucking the blood out of the government that keeps raising our taxes to keep feeding and supporting the people who now feel they are entitled. These entitlements (welfare) is suppose to be temporary and necessary for those that are in unfortunate circumstances...not to make a way of life from it. At least that's the way I perceive my aunts meaning of it...and I agree. I know a lot of people are on food stamps...my daughter is. She is a single mom and works 40 hrs a week and the stamps supplement her wages. She would rather not have food stamps and make a better wage, because she wants more out of life...and that's the way it should be. The ones who are leaches and parasites are the ones who are comfortable living in poverty and feel like they are owed those entitlements and complain about it not being enough, but yet wont go get a job or two to get out from under their situation that they are complaining about in the first place. I hope that makes sense, and if I am getting her view point right. ~Cathy~

It wasn't land thief except maybe purely morally, for the Native Americans held no title in lands and merely displaced each other to the extent they could and wanted to. Then the Europeans did it to them. The worst genocide (de facto) was the spread of European diseases, especially influenza, for which native peoples had little immunity. South Sea islanders were terribly afflicted too. There were quite a few massacres by both civilians and soldiers. Forced migrations did more harm. I think half the Cherokees died on The Trail of Tears. I don't know how traumatic Kit Carson's forced migration of the Navajos was to them. It was a two-way trip for them. There was also the wiping out of the buffalo herds. I think Rand was generally to ignorant of these things to have actually endorsed them even if she had tried. If I were to endorse them I'd be a no good low down evil SOB. Most of what happened to Native Americans running into the Europeans considering the times was tragically inevitable.

Rand endorsing (hoping for) a "just" war with the Soviet Union in answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum is much more difficult to explain away, for believable ignorance can't float that boat.

--Brant

Thank you Brant...can I use this? ~Cathy~

I wrote it in a public forum so it's yours to use.

--Brant

thank you so much Brant...I am so glad you all are here! Every time I have a problem, I run over to OL and know someone is going to put me in the right direction, its a good feeling ~Cathy~

No, no, not that I know of. I was only commenting on her image of society as just producers and leeches. |She always had young men admirers and did say at one point, I think in the pre Atlas years, that she was considering a divorce. Her life has been examined pretty heavily and there is absolutely no evidence that she ever had an extramarital lover except nb.

She thought about a divorce? Why? I remember a time when they were hiding behind a door to surprise someone (maybe us)and I came through the back door, but they were expecting the person to come through the front door. But they were giggling, and trying to shhh the other one up, but they were laughing so hard...like little kids. I cant say where and when this was...its still a foggy memory. But they were happy together...even when they knew no one was around. I'm happy they didn't get a divorce ~Cathy~

Even her disabled husband's illness "sickened" her (which she used as an excuse for her affairs.

Cathy,

This is bullshit. Just ignore it. A person who says that is beyond interest in the facts.

Michael

I know, I cant stand reading things like that...people can be so mean.

Thank you very much...it helped a lot! can I use this to defend her? ~Cathy~

Cathy,

Sure, but the kind of person you want to defend Rand against is not interested in facts. He is interested in the victimization narrative that he adopted--the one that makes him feel good, that makes him feel morally superior to you.

If you want to defend Rand, always make it clear that you realize the person you talking to will not change his mind, but you are presenting the material for the reader. That way the reader can get another view and decide for himself.

In my experience, this drives people like you are arguing against apeshit. They are innately control freaks and can't stand the idea that the reader will control his own narrative, not them through their manipulations. They really do go nuts and once you realize this, you can have some great fun.

As to the rational part, I remember a comment on a forum somewhere (I no longer remember where) by a Marxist that applies to this kind of person. He was talking about Jehovah's Witnesses. He said you can argue with them all day, present fact after fact and win the argument. But you won't change their mind.

In my experience this is also true.

Michael

Micheal, I know what you mean. Conny and I do not agree politically. I can give her facts, but she will still defend Obama and blame the white guy (Bush). I wont change her mind...but then again, she wont change mine either I just don't like hearing bad things about my aunt and uncle, it bothers me to think she said that about uncle Frank being disabled and that's why she had the affair. He was innocent and not disabled...if she said that. I am trying to learn about Ayn Rand, but I don't think I can be partial. Its one thing not agreeing with her philosophy (I can handle that) its another thing when they say terrible things about them. ~Cathy~

Cathy, Rand made many false analogies in her passion to express her ideas. Comparing human beings to insects was one of her worst, in my opinion,

Daunce, did she say that? Did she have more than one affair? ~Cathy~

This is what another person said.

The majority of human beings are "leeches." Even her disabled husband's illness "sickened" her (which she used as an excuse for her affairs.

How could she have said that? Uncle Frank wasn't disabled when she had the affair. Why would that say affairs (plural) I only heard about one affair.

You always have my permission Cathy,..Adam is another story!

LOL! Well, I don't hear him

THIS CAME OFF OF ANOTHER SITE...I NEED TO KNOW IF SHE EVER DID THIS, OR IF SOMEONE IS MAKING THIS STUFF UP. DOES ANYONE ONE KNOW OR COULD FIND OUT FOR ME, I WOULD APPERCIATE IT. ~CATHY~

Little known fact - Ayn Rand endorsed the land theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans because they held property in common, not privately. Many of her views were really quite morally repugnant.

Cathy,

Rand did not ever endorse genocide or ethnic cleansing. Ever. At any time. This is crap people who don't like her make up. Basically, these folks cannot answer her ideas as she states them, so they simply make shit up and say she stood for it.

Rand did think the settlers had more right to the land than the Indians because they came with a concept of property rights, they cultivated the land and developed it, whereas the Indians were tribal, nomadic, brutal and did not have any kind of concept of individual rights.

What gets the Rand-haters all wound up is that Rand had contempt for savages of all types and she said so very clearly. She considered American Indians to be savages and made no bones about it. But note, she is not referring to the race of American Indians. Any individual who respects individual rights in her view is entitled to them, including Native Americans. And she would have considered attacking such people as a vicious monstrosity.

Her problem was with societies based on tribal leaders and dictatorships. She held the position that if a country or people had no concept of individual rights and dealt with each other mainly by force, they should not be treated as if they were entitled to those rights. She held that anyone has the "right" to invade and settle where brutes are and fight them off if attacked. Here is what she said in Ayn Rand Answers (pp. 103-104).

(Note: I am adding paragraph breaks to make this easier to read on the Internet. This was spoken, so there were no inherent paragraphs. Anyway, this was edited in a ham-handed manner by Robert Mayhew, so there might be some things distorted, albeit I do believe this represents Rand's views. Also, in the first question, in Rand's answer, she bashed slavery, said a war was rightly fought to abolish it, and that the progressive President Franklin Roosevelt placed Japanese Americans in labor camps, not defenders of capitalism and Americanism. I did not include those parts.)

When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War Two, how can you have such a positive view of America?

. . .

Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages.

The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not.

Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using.

It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect?

The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights.

But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

. . .

Should this country return some of the lands that were seized from the Indians under the guise of a contractual relationship?

As a principle, one should respect the sanctity of a contract among individuals. I'm not certain about contracts among nations; that depends on the nature and behavior of the other nation.

But I oppose applying contract law to American Indians. I discuss this issue in "Collectivized 'Rights'" [in The Virtue of Selfishness].

When a group of people or a nation does not respect individual rights, it cannot claim any rights whatsoever. The Indians were savages, with ghastly tribal rules and rituals, including the famous “Indian Torture.” Such tribes have no rights.

Anyone had the right to come here and take whatever they could, because they would be dealing with savages as Indians dealt with each other – that is, by force. We owe nothing to Indians, except the memory of monstrous evils done by them.

But suppose there is evidence of white people treating Indians badly. That’s too bad; I regret it. But in the history of this country, it’s an exception.

It wouldn't give the Indians any kind of rights. Look at their history, look at their culture, look at their treatment of their own people. Those who do not recognize individual rights cannot expect to have any rights, or to have them respected.

If Rand had written this for publication, I believe she would have explained the hooks people like to distort in more depth. She was talking off the top of her head.

Here are my thoughts. The initial rights of any country is problematic for people who believe in individual rights. All countries in human history have started with settling on some land, violently defending it against attacks from those who used the land before or who want it, or outright conquering another country. So I see the institution of individual rights for social organization as belonging to a secondary stage. The first stage is violent and it always has been since prehistoric times.

I am not in full agreement with Rand's contempt for savages (I find the study of them fascinating at times), nor her characterization of American Indians as savages. Many were, but not all. And certainly, much of the crap the US Government did to the Indians once they had the upper hand is inexcusable. I think Rand's views on this were oversimplified.

I don't like to channel Rand, but I believe if the Indians had been practicing a civilization where rights were respected, she would not have held the position she did. And once again, under no circumstances would she have ever condoned genocide or ethnic cleansing.

The people who accuse her of that do so because they only think in racist terms as fundamentals, not in principles, so guess who are the racists?

I hope that helps.

Michael

Thank you very much...it helped a lot! can I use this to defend her? ~Cathy~

Cathy, in reply I live in central east Canada not far from Buffalo NY. You could stop off at Adam's place on your way north!

So, I have your permission then ;) ~Cathy~

this is what else he said...

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Cathy O'Connor Dupler and what if your SS bills end up being higher than what you paid into the system? Will you not accept any more money? Also you don't "pay in" to medicare the way they do with social security. It's paid for by taxes, and the program was less than a decade old when Mrs Rand got lung cancer. The point is, in the 70s people were being "forced" to pay taxes, then that tax money was going on to pay for her lung cancer that she only got because of her own choices. That makes her a parasite by her own definition.

Poor people pay for their welfare and their social security with their work, which is systematically undervalued by their employers in a Capitalist marketplace, and any sales and income tax they pay too. This whole idea of a "moocher class" is nonsense invented by the wealthy to justify to themselves their entitlement to their wealth. On the contrary, the real "moochers" are people lucky enough to get born into a wealthy family and use that wealth to mooch off of their employees.

Reply · Like

· 2 hours ago

.

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Also Ayn Rand supported the theft of land from Native Americans and their ethnic cleansing because they held their property in "common" not "privately". In fact she saw them as "savages" because of this. So she was a racist, or at least a cultural supremacist, who thought it was ok to rob from some people to help people like herself. She thought it was OK to mooch, as long as that mooching consisted of violently dispossessing tribal people from their land. She was a vile colonialist with deeply reactionary views.

She thought it was fine for the rich to benefit from the US government's land theft and its social programs, but as soon as anyone who wasn't independently rich wanted to use any kind of social service she thought they were a "moocher". That makes her a hypocrite, plain and simple.

First of all, do not respond to anything he said.

Start asking questions.

You make some Interesting points, out of curiosity were you born into poverty?

A...

ok thx Adam...I' asking it now

this is what else he said...

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Cathy O'Connor Dupler and what if your SS bills end up being higher than what you paid into the system? Will you not accept any more money? Also you don't "pay in" to medicare the way they do with social security. It's paid for by taxes, and the program was less than a decade old when Mrs Rand got lung cancer. The point is, in the 70s people were being "forced" to pay taxes, then that tax money was going on to pay for her lung cancer that she only got because of her own choices. That makes her a parasite by her own definition.

Poor people pay for their welfare and their social security with their work, which is systematically undervalued by their employers in a Capitalist marketplace, and any sales and income tax they pay too. This whole idea of a "moocher class" is nonsense invented by the wealthy to justify to themselves their entitlement to their wealth. On the contrary, the real "moochers" are people lucky enough to get born into a wealthy family and use that wealth to mooch off of their employees.

Reply · Like

· 2 hours ago

.

Sam Badger · Top Commenter · San Francisco State University

Also Ayn Rand supported the theft of land from Native Americans and their ethnic cleansing because they held their property in "common" not "privately". In fact she saw them as "savages" because of this. So she was a racist, or at least a cultural supremacist, who thought it was ok to rob from some people to help people like herself. She thought it was OK to mooch, as long as that mooching consisted of violently dispossessing tribal people from their land. She was a vile colonialist with deeply reactionary views.

She thought it was fine for the rich to benefit from the US government's land theft and its social programs, but as soon as anyone who wasn't independently rich wanted to use any kind of social service she thought they were a "moocher". That makes her a hypocrite, plain and simple.

This is what he says next...Source - wikiquote and the book "Ayn Rand Answers". She thought native americans had it coming simply because they didn't agree with her assumptions about private property and because she had all kinds of racist stereotypes about their culture and lifestyle.

Most absurd of all, she has the audacity to accuse anyone who disagrees with her on this of "racism", as if saying that a nomadic tribe has some kind of rights to live where they live is "racist" against while colonists. It's utterly nonsensical

It wasn't land thief except maybe purely morally, for the Native Americans held no title in lands and merely displaced each other to the extent they could and wanted to. Then the Europeans did it to them. The worst genocide (de facto) was the spread of European diseases, especially influenza, for which native peoples had little immunity. South Sea islanders were terribly afflicted too. There were quite a few massacres by both civilians and soldiers. Forced migrations did more harm. I think half the Cherokees died on The Trail of Tears. I don't know how traumatic Kit Carson's forced migration of the Navajos was to them. It was a two-way trip for them. There was also the wiping out of the buffalo herds. I think Rand was generally to ignorant of these things to have actually endorsed them even if she had tried. If I were to endorse them I'd be a no good low down evil SOB. Most of what happened to Native Americans running into the Europeans considering the times was tragically inevitable.

Rand endorsing (hoping for) a "just" war with the Soviet Union in answer to a question at the Ford Hall Forum is much more difficult to explain away, for believable ignorance can't float that boat.

--Brant

Thank you Brant...can I use this? ~Cathy~

THIS CAME OFF OF ANOTHER SITE...I NEED TO KNOW IF SHE EVER DID THIS, OR IF SOMEONE IS MAKING THIS STUFF UP. DOES ANYONE ONE KNOW OR COULD FIND OUT FOR ME, I WOULD APPERCIATE IT. ~CATHY~

Little known fact - Ayn Rand endorsed the land theft, ethnic cleansing and genocide of Native Americans because they held property in common, not privately. Many of her views were really quite morally repugnant.

A new YouTube show:

Gettin Jiggy With Cathy and Carol...

My heaven they might even start twerking!!

We would have to get a few drinks in us first Selene ;) ~Cathy~

Seriously, I mean soberly, if you gals ever want to make a sister trip to Canada I will rope in my cousin and show you a good time! No philosophy required.

That just might happen one day...what part of Canada do you live in? Believe it or not...I am getting into this philosophy! I am really starting to understand it...or at least what my aunt's meaning behind it (talking about government). Yep...I wouldn't mind seeing how the Canadians have fun...and if it ever does happen...I just may have a drink to celebrate! ~Cathy~

Hey, Conny, Cathy, Carol...make that a triple!

Ha ha ha ha ha! If you were having one...I would to ....Conny would have one anytime!

Wowie that looks declicious! Recently I had my first and likely last mai tai. No I did not win a trip to Hawaii, the premixed were half price at the liquor store.

Cocktails are so tasty it is a good thing I cannot usually afford them.

A la votre Cathy!

Carol

Moosehead forever

LOL...I don't drink at all...but I bet Conny would love it ;)

http://www.latimes.com/food/la-fo-destination-cocktail-20131102,0,2859490.story

Cathy,

I don't know if you've read this letter by Ayn Rand. It was sold on Ebay for about $5000 two years ago. It is a very clear explanation of Ayn's view on the destructiveness of altruism and also explains clearly that she had no animosity towards Christians, on the contrary, she respected Christianity for it's emphasis on the importance of individuals seeking their own salvation as the origin of individualism. I found this on RoR here.

Thx Mikee! This letter was fascinating! She really thought about what she was going to write to him. I think she respected peoples choice in their beliefs. At least in America you have that freedom...for the time being anyway. And wow, really...$5,000 just because she wrote it? Marna has letters from her to, but I know she wouldn't put them on ebay lol. To bad I didn't get none of my father's things, I know he had letters to, but they would have been from both of them in a single letter. I know my father had postcards back in the late 20's that both of them and some solely from Aunt Alice had sent my grandfather...and the only reason my father had those is because he was the last one still living at my grandfathers when he died...don't know what happen to those I do love reading these things! Thx again Mikee ~Cathy~

Keep them in a safe place. Have each photostated and kept elsewhere.

--Brant

And in an decent "fire proof" box. I might consider a small Community Bank's Safe Deposit box, depending on cost.

I will tell Marna that. The post cards and letters we received growing up, I am sure my step mother took...and she didn't know what their value was ...except sentimental value to me and my sister...I am sure she throw them out. Had to save Conny from a Ayn Rand web site today. She accidently came on to one...and all the skeptic's where there with their claws out lol. She held up well...but she needs to be here among friends. At least I know she is coming around. The best part of it all is someone connected me to Sunny Arbarnell (sp?) and I talked with her. Does anyone remember her? I remember my aunts taking about her...nicely of course. She was a friend of my aunt and uncles. ~Cathy~

Cathy,

I don't know if you've read this letter by Ayn Rand. It was sold on Ebay for about $5000 two years ago. It is a very clear explanation of Ayn's view on the destructiveness of altruism and also explains clearly that she had no animosity towards Christians, on the contrary, she respected Christianity for it's emphasis on the importance of individuals seeking their own salvation as the origin of individualism. I found this on RoR here.

Thx Mikee! This letter was fascinating! She really thought about what she was going to write to him. I think she respected peoples choice in their beliefs. At least in America you have that freedom...for the time being anyway. And wow, really...$5,000 just because she wrote it? Marna has letters from her to, but I know she wouldn't put them on ebay lol. To bad I didn't get none of my father's things, I know he had letters to, but they would have been from both of them in a single letter. I know my father had postcards back in the late 20's that both of them and some solely from Aunt Alice had sent my grandfather...and the only reason my father had those is because he was the last one still living at my grandfathers when he died...don't know what happen to those I do love reading these things! Thx again Mikee ~Cathy~

OMG...this is hilarious!

Cathy, I don't think anyone doubted their closeness.

I know Ginny...maybe I did because of that affair. When I heard about it when I was young, I thought it was a short time...like a few weeks. When I came on here, I found out it went on for a long time . Its almost like growing up with your parents together, then when your twenty one they get a divorce, so you question if they ever loved each other. Then you think and try to hold on to every memory where it seems they did love each other. Deep down I know they did, they would sometimes finish each other sentences...well she did ~Cathy~

.

Cathy, I'm not sure anyone has linked this one about your uncle and aunt.

Thank you so much Stephen, I had seen this picture of my uncle before, he looks so much like my father! I have never read this, I loved it. I have a son like Uncle Frank, He was working concrete and on a job site, when across the street a tree company was trimming trees. While my son poured concrete, he was watching them trim the trees and thought of how he could do it his way and better. He walked off the job site and went over to the operator and asked him if he would let him work for free the rest of the day to let him try his hand at trimming the trees. He was hire within the hour. He worked for the tree service for a few years and then started his own successful tree company. I heard through the grapevine that he is the best that's the O'Connor in him when I read this link, I remembered one time that Aunt Alice said that she believed that there wasn't anything Frank couldn't do. Sometimes I feel what has been written about Uncle Frank, that he just existed in Ayn Rand's world, like he didn't understand it or partake in it. But from the beginning he was the only one that understood her. I love hearing how close they were, thank you so much for showing me this. ~Cathy~