Makiaveli

("Ayn Rand Worshipped a Serial Killer" here and about a million other places online.)

Why exactly did you chose this one to link? It's incredibly biased drivel even if it's based in reality.

Cashing in intellectually on a lifetime of work and thinking that resulted in her magnum opus and the non-fiction writing that essentially wrapped up her career in the 1960s. As for--re Greg--"character," sure, so she wasn't going to mess everything up with a public extra-marital affair or any expression of imperfection she could avoid. She got confused about art and life and ended up stuck inside her novel. Fortunately, she had a hell of a lot of counterbalancing positives. (Note that I've reduced the three blocks to two blocks rather than go back and make three blocks with somewhat different parameters. That only depends on where you stick Galt's Speech, which belongs both to the novel and her non-fiction. She wrote it when her relationship with Nathaniel Branden was at its fervid peak--romantically, sexually and intellectually--and whether or not Objectivism was her "gift" to him, he certainly picked up that ball and ran with it.)

As for "etc."--very funny. I wondered what you were thinking of substantially as I couldn't image it.

--Brant

So I take it you're not an Objectivist or just not a fan of hers?

PS: I listened to an interview with Nathanial where he was asked about his forthcoming book, and he seemed smarmy to me. At the time, all I knew about him was he had known her, etc and that he had written a biography so I was excited for it. I came away with the impression (partially from him trading in his wife several times) that he was simply trying to cash in on having known her. FTR, I'm all for capitalism, but it seems to me he's being immoral in the sense that it's fraud to misrepresent facts in order to sell your product.

So the vast majority here seems to be that Frank may or may not have been an alcoholic and Ayn may or may not etc, and if it's being covered up.

Why TF do you guys care? Unless you consider Ayn Rand to be a god, then why should she, or her husband, have been perfect? She came up with Objectivism, and unless I'm mistaken, never claimed to be a perfect representative or that she had laid it all out and it was sacrosanct canon etc.

It really seems to me that many of you are trying to find fault with her to cover up your own inadequacies in following Objectivism (which in and of itself sounds likes it's counter to it) given if you can prove Ayn/Leonard/etc failed, then it's OK for you to do so.

Now I'm not a psychiatrist (I just play one on forums), so I may be way off here, but that's my $.25 worth.

Guys... I am pretty sure that's a gorilla, which is an ape not a monkey (it has no tail). They're incredibly strong (can punch harder than the best human boxer) but relatively passive.

To oversimplify the traits of some other primates:

Bonobos are sex crazed (but intelligent)

Chimpanzees are violent and aggressive

Not sure exactly how to describe orangutans and baboons...

Actually bonobos aren't sex crazed. That was the initial impression, but it's been shown that they use sex more as a way to ease tensions among the groups members and even welcome new ones.

They are actually related to chimps and the prevailing theory is that their territory has an abundance of food year round, whereas chimps inhabit an area with much less food therefore grew larger and more aggressive.

That said, pretty obvious where they fit in, orangutans are the welfare class (all those photos of fat ones sitting around) and baboons are legislators.

Welcome to OL Micky,

Kinda like a semi-human Animal Farm...

How did you wander in here, Ayn?

Are you a worker, student, business person?

A...

Thanks and that is indeed one's first impression. ;)

Long story short libertarianism lead to reading AS, which lead to more reading, and a year later I am here trying to make sense of it all. Objectivism seems right and wrong in equal parts, but the massive cognitive dissonance it causes makes me think it's right.

Interesting choice of the tension of cognitive dissonance that directed you to seek a positive testing with others rather than rolling up into a cult ball.

Objectivism is fundamentally right in a macro sense.

However, it has a number of "not right" pieces and like any great explosion of intellect, one can be blinded by the pure perfection of reason.

Ayn was like that to me. However, there were parts that did not appear to be paved with rationality.

There were a few dark paths in Ayn's garden that lead nowhere and had the faithful stumble and fall.

Sometimes to their death, either moral, or, physical.

Where did you run into Libertarianism/libertarianism?

A...

The cog diss lead me to seek something solid since I really had no place else to go. I felt modern liberals were absolutely wrong, cons were lesser of two evils etc, religion had failed me long ago and I just wasn't sure what to think anymore. I flirted with Bhuddhism due to its lack of an actual god, but the more I read the more I realized same thing, different storyline. L. Neil Smith's book The Probability Broach was my first real introduction to libertarianism, though I had no clue that that was what he was writing. I stumbled across a non-fiction book of his at a library which turned out to be waaaay over my head, so I went back to the TPB and decided I was going to be a secret libertarian. Eventually got on FB due to HS reunion, which lead to friends of friends etc so I "came out". That's when I finally read AS and then when I googled her I stumbled across interviews which lead to more googling etc. ARI etc lead to Dr. Peikoff's podcasts (watched about 70 of them so far, working my forward from #1) and now listening to his old radio shows mixed in for change of pace.

I could see some people losing their way, but I see that as their fault, not Objectivism. They are the ones who would be trying to cure gays, or bombing buildings in the name of Jesus if they went down a more traditional path.

Superficial points of commonality don't count. And atheism is not part of Objectivism simply because it's only a consequence of being rational. There is no Objectivist atheism. Objectivism is a positive construct and anything negative is what can't fit in 100 percent positively. It would be the equivalent of saying the moon is not made of green cheese is part of Objectivism. True individuality is core Objectivism. There are four basic principles of Objectivism and the first two are the metaphysics and the epistemology and are 100% individualistic because the thinking, rational mind is a one-man or woman enterprise. When you go into the ethics and politics it's still off that core base, but what's "off" is the elaboration on human social existence.

"Etc." What's "etc."?

--Brant

Granted I only glanced at LaVey's site, but I think there is more than superficial resemblances as pointed out by william.

ETC is short et cetera

Those are three big blocks of development with the last being the cashing in. So it's within each block.

--Brant

Cashing in as in wrapping it up, or simply trying to make money?

Just goo you.

How so? Individual rights, serve yourself not others or a god. Not saying his philosophy is on par, but that it has valid points. Just like Aristotle had some good ideas mixed in.

Guys... I am pretty sure that's a gorilla, which is an ape not a monkey (it has no tail). They're incredibly strong (can punch harder than the best human boxer) but relatively passive.

To oversimplify the traits of some other primates:

Bonobos are sex crazed (but intelligent)

Chimpanzees are violent and aggressive

Not sure exactly how to describe orangutans and baboons...

Actually bonobos aren't sex crazed. That was the initial impression, but it's been shown that they use sex more as a way to ease tensions among the groups members and even welcome new ones.

They are actually related to chimps and the prevailing theory is that their territory has an abundance of food year round, whereas chimps inhabit an area with much less food therefore grew larger and more aggressive.

That said, pretty obvious where they fit in, orangutans are the welfare class (all those photos of fat ones sitting around) and baboons are legislators.

Welcome to OL Micky,

Kinda like a semi-human Animal Farm...

How did you wander in here, Ayn?

Are you a worker, student, business person?

A...

Thanks and that is indeed one's first impression. ;)

Long story short libertarianism lead to reading AS, which lead to more reading, and a year later I am here trying to make sense of it all. Objectivism seems right and wrong in equal parts, but the massive cognitive dissonance it causes makes me think it's right.

Actually, I've known many more leftists who were truly self-suffient than nut job conservative doomsday preppers who were. The lefty hippies actually independently produced their own food, clothing, etc., where the right-wing paranoid pretender preppers were totally dependent on society and just bought all of their prepper goods from the system that they claimed to oppose. In fact, all of the loony right-wing conspiracy preachers of imminent doom that I've known made their money by complying with, and even taking great advantage of, government's licensing or otherwise regulating their chosen professions and industries. I think the same is probably true of Apey Greg.

J

On the topic of taking advantage of the govt etc, I do that daily. I work for my city govt. The pay is horrible, but assuming we don't wind up like Greece, I have a pension and great insurance. So while it does offend my Objectivist principles, I consider it reparations.

Off on a tangent from the Temple of Satan, the mild-mannered secular cousin to the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set, I invite OLers to read a great book by Debbie Nathan and Michael Snedeker, Satan's Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt. This is the second edition of the book, which first appeared in 1995.

Nathan is the author of another great investigative book, Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case

Back in the day (post 1980, the publication year of the mother of all satanic conspiracy tales, Michelle Remembers) the topic of Satanic Ritual Abuse hit the airwaves hard and engendered a moral panic. One of the primary exponents of Satanic Panic was Geraldo Rivera. This is the full programme he presented back in 1988, as part of a serial exposé ,.. as the moral panic took hold, so did a therapeutic cult dedicated to 'recovering memories' of cult abuse. That cult still exists. Compared to the imagined horrors of satanic ritual abuse conspiracy, the Satanic Temple has the horror-quotient of a doggie daycare.

Fast-forward to 37:00 to see the arch-villain, Michael Aquino of the Temple of Set. Also features Ozzy Osbourne.

Is it just me, or is LaVey's Church of Satan have a lot in common with Objectivism? Atheism, individuality, etc.

So all secularists are leftists?

No. Just many forms of the same secular leftist political religion.

The political spectrum is actually a circle where the extreme right meets the radical left in total accord on their three pillars of faith:

1. dope

2. perversion

3. fetusnuffing

Welcome to OL, Mak.

I hope you enjoy your visits and I'll do my best to entertain you.

Greg

Greg

Your three pillars seem...odd.

Dope is a personal choice. A bad one, but personal. Perversion is highly subjective, and while some forms are bad for you, again personal choice. Assuming you mean "snuffing" as in killing, then I tend to agree with you there.

But hey, at least it looks like I can argue here with people who might actually be able to spell "debate".

Guys... I am pretty sure that's a gorilla, which is an ape not a monkey (it has no tail). They're incredibly strong (can punch harder than the best human boxer) but relatively passive.

To oversimplify the traits of some other primates:

Bonobos are sex crazed (but intelligent)

Chimpanzees are violent and aggressive

Not sure exactly how to describe orangutans and baboons...

Actually bonobos aren't sex crazed. That was the initial impression, but it's been shown that they use sex more as a way to ease tensions among the groups members and even welcome new ones.

They are actually related to chimps and the prevailing theory is that their territory has an abundance of food year round, whereas chimps inhabit an area with much less food therefore grew larger and more aggressive.

That said, pretty obvious where they fit in, orangutans are the welfare class (all those photos of fat ones sitting around) and baboons are legislators.

However they try to dress up the pig. Satanism is merely another dime a dozen leftist political secular religion. Their mission:

"The Satanic Temple facilitates the communication and mobilization of politically aware Satanists, secularists and advocates for individual liberty."

Secular leftism is the most dynamic political religion in the world. It is antithetical to American values.

Greg

So all secularists are leftists? Advocating for liberty, pursuing one's own interests, advocating science and Reason etc sure seems a far cry from the typical Collectivist. Yes they mention empathy etc but they also say respect the freedoms of others.

Is it a racket? Thinkgeek.com sells silly stuff to nerds, geeks, etc which could be considered "preying" on their weaknesses but I don't think they qualify as immoral. Am I wrong, and is this the wrong section to ask such questions?

PS: Normally I try not stir so many pots with my first post on a forum, but it's past my bedtime so what the hey!