An Atlas-Induced Sh*tstorm Is Coming

[PDS]

In case you haven't heard: Atlas Shrugged opens in theaters tomorrow... ;)

Let the record reflect that, early on, before the movie was set to open in hundreds of locales, I predicted this movie would be this year's Blair Witch Project, without the ghosts and trees that look like crucified leaves (Sorry, Mr. Zevon). Now I am happy to predict--without the need for or benefit of any expertise in this area, mind you--that Atlas Shrugged is going to be a raging commercial success.

That success is from whence the shitstorm will come. In this age of you-tube, every Peikoff Snippet and Binswanger Boondoggle is bound to be broadcast high and low, and, because there is every reason to believe these two gentlemen are still alive, their respective (ahem) bodies of work are bound to grow. I can see the lead-in to the Peikoff interview on Fox News now: "Ayn Rand's Intellectual Heir Says Iran Should Be Turned Into Wal-Mart Parking Lot," etc. That will be the first wave of zaniness.

The second wave will be the "Rand Hated the Notion of a Female President" series of stories, with a dab of "Rand thought smoking is good for you" jabs. The third wave will likely consist of a number of self-appointed Objectivists coming out of the closet and making statements about the philosophy which are either stupid or wrong or both--and here I don't just mean Peikoff and Binswanger. The fourth wave may be a flood of visitors to some of the orthodox sites, where they can be treated to sermons on why mashed potatoes are immoral, and other important Issues of the Day, and be left wondering why some people who adhere to Rand's philosophy are so goofy.

I will happy to be wrong about these prognostications, but is it possible that Objectivism could be so lucky?

These problems come with the territory, I suppose.

[Peter]

pds, thanks for the reminder about AS.

I live in the styx so I will probably have to wait for it to get here, or I will see it on Netflix.

Peter

[Robert Campbell]

These problems come with the territory, I suppose.

Indeed they do.

If that much attention is getting paid, many good things will come out of it as well.

The nearest theater showing the Atlas movie tomorrow is a bit of a haul from where I live, so I'll have to get caught up later.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

pds, thanks for the reminder about AS.

I live in the styx so I will probably have to wait for it to get here, or I will see it on Netflix.

Peter

Annapolis

GOOGLE MAPBow Tie Harbour 9

2474 Solomons Island Rd., Annapolis, MD 21401Bethesda

GOOGLE MAPRegal Bethesda 10

7272 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814Gaithersburg

GOOGLE MAPAMC Loews Rio Cinemas 18

9811 Washingtonian Center, Gaithersburg, MD 20878

[Selene]

These problems come with the territory, I suppose.

Indeed they do.

If that much attention is getting paid, many good things will come out of it as well.

The nearest theater showing the Atlas movie tomorrow is a bit of a haul from where I live, so I'll have to get caught up later.

Robert Campbell

Robert:

Wouldn't Spartanburg be reasonably close? It is just north east of Clemson.

Spartanburg

GOOGLE MAPRegal Spartan Stadium 16

855 Spartan Blvd, Spartanburg, SC 29301

Edited April 14, 2011 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

The second wave will be the "Rand Hated the Notion of a Female President" series of stories, with a dab of "Rand thought smoking is good for you" jabs. The third wave will likely consist of a number of self-appointed Objectivists coming out of the closet and making statements about the philosophy which are either stupid or wrong or both--and here I don't just mean Peikoff and Binswanger. The fourth wave may be a flood of visitors to some of the orthodox sites, where they can be treated to sermons on why mashed potatoes are immoral, and other important Issues of the Day, and be left wondering why some people who adhere to Rand's philosophy are so goofy.

...............

That is so on point. When I posted to OO (I gave up walking on eggshells over there) I noticed that every single issue (without exception) was considered to have Moral or Ethical Import including the crucial decision to consume or not consume mashed potatoes. When I raised the point that the choice of whether one had vanilla or strawberry ice cream was purely a matter of taste and nothing else, I was subjected to verbal abuse (not that I cared). When I further suggested that there are no ethical issues in a world in which only one sentient being exists I was put on moderation.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Peter]

Thanks to Adam for the locations of theatres showing "Atlas Shrugged." The closest would be Annapolis which is about 2 and a half hours away. And I would need to leave The Land of Sky Blue Water, cross the Bay Bridge, and go into heavily populated, enemy (Union) territory.

I don't know how you found those. Could you find any in Virginia Beach or Norfolk for me? That would be a three hour drive but it is mostly straight through sparsley populated Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay Bridge / Tunnel - cruise control all the way.

Peter

[Jerry Biggers]

WEATHER REPORT: Expect yet another in the series of anti-Rand media shitstorms.

The liberal/"progressive" (talk about "package deal!") MSM, websites, and blogosphere will just pick-up where they left off, in a 54 year long tradition of trashing Rand, occasionally rising to the level of temper tantrums, or "shitstorms."

The last two major anti-Rand shitstorms occurred with the coincidence of the rising opposition to the Obama regime by the "Tea Party," especially when they were parading around in demonstrations carrying signs extolling Rand and Atlas Shrugged. The emergence of two new biographies about Rand gave the libs another excuse to trash Rand. Some of the reviews did not even discuss the merits of these books but used them to attack Rand (e.g., Jonathan Chait in The New Republic in the summer of 2009, and followed by many others using similar tactics). A few lib reviewers demonstrated that they had read at least parts of the books, by emphasizing eccentricities in her sex life and any other "juicy, scandalous" incidents.

This onslaught continued for about a year, until they grew tired with it. However, their interest was renewed by the actions of the Governor of Wisconsin to deal with government unions. After savaging Wisconsin, they turned on Congressman Paul Ryan, whose congressional district also, conveniently, was in Wisconsin. They became even more enraged when Ryan was the one who came up with a viable deficit-cutting federal budget and also, not coincidentally, drew many of his ideas from Rand (and, once again, Jonathan Chait launched his vitriol again at Rand, but including Ryan in the pages of this week's NewSpeak [aka, Newsweek]).

And now the film comes along. First they will try to ignore it. If, however, they fear that it may become an "underground" box office success, then they will start a new shitstorm. They will say that it was cheaply made, poorly acted, and incoherent; with the hope that they can dissuade potential moviegoers from seeing it.

The common thread in all these attacks is to misrepresent what Rand's philosophy actually says, and divert attention to personality issues, etc. The problem for them is that they get so hysterical in their attacks that it likely achieves the opposite of their intentions by raising the curiosity of their own readers who then go out and buy more of Rand's books. Serves them right!

Edited April 15, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[9thdoctor]

Let the record reflect that, early on, before the movie was set to open in hundreds of locales, I predicted this movie would be this year's Blair Witch Project, without the ghosts and trees that look like crucified leaves (Sorry, Mr. Zevon). Now I am happy to predict--without the need for or benefit of any expertise in this area, mind you--that Atlas Shrugged is going to be a raging commercial success.

Anyone game to play "predict the gross"?

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10196&view=findpost&p=126493

Thanks to Adam for the locations of theatres showing "Atlas Shrugged." The closest would be Annapolis which is about 2 and a half hours away. And I would need to leave The Land of Sky Blue Water, cross the Bay Bridge, and go into heavily populated, enemy (Union) territory.

I gather you're in Virginia, what about Richmond?

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/theaters

[Philip Coates]

> If, however, they fear that it may become an "underground" box office success, then they will start a new shitstorm...The common thread in all these attacks is to misrepresent what Rand's philosophy says.

Jerry,

I've found over decades that it's very easy and fast to write a one of two sentence rebuttal. A lot of my l.t.e.'s doing this got published, and now any of us can use the internet comment sections so are not limited by printed paper constraints.

Don't get caught up in the "you lefty evader; you've never fully understood Rand; you are dishonestly trying to smear her" psychologizing and personal attacks stuff.

Just politely point out the error in what Jonathan Chait or the others say. People tend to read brief comments without a lot of chaff.

I very definitely would take fifteen minutes out of a busy day to find this battle of setting the record straight.

Edited April 14, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Let the record reflect that, early on, before the movie was set to open in hundreds of locales, I predicted this movie would be this year's Blair Witch Project, without the ghosts and trees that look like crucified leaves (Sorry, Mr. Zevon). Now I am happy to predict--without the need for or benefit of any expertise in this area, mind you--that Atlas Shrugged is going to be a raging commercial success.

Anyone game to play "predict the gross"?

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=126493

Thanks to Adam for the locations of theatres showing "Atlas Shrugged." The closest would be Annapolis which is about 2 and a half hours away. And I would need to leave The Land of Sky Blue Water, cross the Bay Bridge, and go into heavily populated, enemy (Union) territory.

I gather you're in Virginia, what about Richmond?

http://www.atlasshru...t1.com/theaters

I think he is in Maryland with the ugliest female Senator in history!

[9thdoctor]

I think he is in Maryland with the ugliest female Senator in history!

Virginia Beach is pretty far south, and he doesn't want to cross into Union territory, hence my assumption of his location being in Confederate lands.

[Selene]

I think he is in Maryland with the ugliest female Senator in history!

Virginia Beach is pretty far south, and he doesn't want to cross into Union territory, hence my assumption of his location being in Confederate lands.

And I had no idea . . . she has already raised two million dollars. Now that is remarkable. I may give her a few bucks as I have, Rand Paul, even though I live just across the border in Maryland.

If I did this properly it should open on that post, if not it is post # 16.

I have no clue as to why he lists his location as the Land of Sky Blue Waters because that means Oklahoma or Minnesota to me.

Eureka it worked!

Edited April 14, 2011 by Selene

[9thdoctor]

I think he is in Maryland with the ugliest female Senator in history!

Virginia Beach is pretty far south, and he doesn't want to cross into Union territory, hence my assumption of his location being in Confederate lands.

And I had no idea . . . she has already raised two million dollars. Now that is remarkable. I may give her a few bucks as I have, Rand Paul, even though I live just across the border in Maryland.

If I did this properly it should open on that post, if not it is post # 16.

Eureka it worked!

OK, I'm convinced. I imagine he's south of the Mason Dixon line. Who knows, he likes Mitt Romney, so anything goes.

[Robert Campbell]

Wouldn't Spartanburg be reasonably close? It is just north east of Clemson.

Adam,

Spartanburg's 60 miles by road from Clemson. Dull, kinda run down, not a tourist destination.

A theater on the southeastern side of Greenville is also showing Atlas Part 1. Around 40 miles, more interesting neighborhood.

When you're in a town of 13,000, some things take a while to arrive.

Robert

[Selene]

Wouldn't Spartanburg be reasonably close? It is just north east of Clemson.

Adam,

Spartanburg's 60 miles by road from Clemson. Dull, kinda run down, not a tourist destination.

A theater on the southeastern side of Greenville is also showing Atlas Part 1. Around 40 miles, more interesting neighborhood.

When you're in a town of 13,000, some things take a while to arrive.

Robert

Robert:

Lol. I understand that, but I am just doing my best to get as many live breathing bodies into those three hundred plus theaters this first weekend as I possibly can.

It is that lever principle that the Greek guy came up with and moving the world.

Additionally, since, as McLuhan noted, you are a "gatekeeper" and it is his 100th year anniversary, so the sooner you see the movie the greater amount of folks you will effect. Ponds and pebbles and things.

Come on, Robert, go see it on the opening weekend and add to the gross and the numbers.

Amusedly,

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Come on, Robert, go see it on the opening weekend and add to the gross and the numbers.

If I recall correctly, you live in the same college town as Dan Edge. Y'all can carpool!

[Selene]

Come on, Robert, go see it on the opening weekend and add to the gross and the numbers.

If I recall correctly, you live in the same college town as Dan Edge. Y'all can carpool!

And pick up some Dagny chicks on the ride over...yeah boy!

[Peter]

The handsome Ninth Doctor wrote:

Quote

OK, I'm convinced. I imagine he's south of the Mason Dixon line. Who knows, he likes Mitt Romney, so anything goes.

End quote

Now cut that out, Dawg. Reread my first sentence of the thread. I said Romney was a ‘con-do” but not a “can do” guy. I think Michael may have been the only person who picked up on that.

I honestly just wanted to give Mitt a honestly personal introduction to OL. And yes, I think he is a *good man.* I like him as a person, but my first choices are not Mitt.

Peter

[Jerry Biggers]

(oops! I messed up the copying of your post! Don't know how that happened!)

Phil,

Correct. An outright libel or other misrepresentation of Rand should not go unchallenged, especially if the website article allows for reader comments (some, such as AOL, have changed their policy on this and are making it difficult or complicated for their readers to reply to an article).

When I have replied, I try not to engage in denying each of their falsehoods, which is impossible if a whole article is devoted to that sort of attack. Instead, what I have done is give a variation of Branden's commentary on Rand's critics in his article, The Moral Revolution in Atlas Shrugged. I have quoted that whole section several times here on OL, so no point in repeating myself.

But here is a reply from a reader (calling himself "John Galt") to an attack (I do not recall exactly where I saw this) that is a re-phrase of Branden's points:

The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, and say "...and that's what I reject?"

The other point that I usually add is that the outrageously distorted image that the critics paint of Rand, and want their readers to accept, has the paradoxical effect of causing their readers to go out and read what she actually wrote, and then rejecting the distortions in the critics' arguments.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Jerry Biggers

[studiodekadent]

I unfortunately happen to think this is likely.

Many, not necessarily all but many, of Rand's haters will do ANYTHING to distort and obfuscate what she actually wrote. I learned this during my time on TVTropes where Rand's enemies ALWAYS changed the subject from "Rand argued X" to "Rand was a bitch." They are simply unwilling to look at the arguments alone, disconnected from the personal flaws of the person that promoted them. Hell, they are usually unwilling to look at the arguments full stop.

Of course, all other philosophers and writers get the "okay, we'll look at your work and stop trying to discredit you as a person" automatically.

No one bashes CS Lewis for the fact he had a massive spanking fetish, and no one uses his fetish for spanking as a way to 'disprove' his Christianity. But Rand's unsuccessful polyamory and kink for bodice-ripper sex is ALWAYS used to bash her ideas.

[caroljane]

I unfortunately happen to think this is likely.

Many, not necessarily all but many, of Rand's haters will do ANYTHING to distort and obfuscate what she actually wrote. I learned this during my time on TVTropes where Rand's enemies ALWAYS changed the subject from "Rand argued X" to "Rand was a bitch." They are simply unwilling to look at the arguments alone, disconnected from the personal flaws of the person that promoted them. Hell, they are usually unwilling to look at the arguments full stop.

Of course, all other philosophers and writers get the "okay, we'll look at your work and stop trying to discredit you as a person" automatically.

No one bashes CS Lewis for the fact he had a massive spanking fetish, and no one uses his fetish for spanking as a way to 'disprove' his Christianity. But Rand's unsuccessful polyamory and kink for bodice-ripper sex is ALWAYS used to bash her ideas.

But other philosophers did not claim that they lived their philosophy in its every particular, or that they and their loved ones were the living embodiments of fictional heroes.

Objectivists have been wrestling to explain/rationalize this for 40 years and counting.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: A Classic Example of Typically Bad "Objectivish" Communication and Persuasion

> Here is a reply from a reader [JG] to an attack ..[rephrasing Branden's essay]:

QUOTE

The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, and say "...and that's what I reject?"

ENDQUOTE

,,,,,,

Jerry [post #20], I think what you quote from JG is a perfect example of a typically bad "Objectivish" response one sees, and one that won't change many minds:

1. JG assumes dishonesty rather than laziness in reading carefully or second-handedness about what Rand thinks . . . or any less moralistic an explanation.

2. He uses Objectivist catchphrases that require some elaboration or explanation -- "reason, not force", "self-responsibility not self-indulgence", "each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends".

3. Worse, he strings them all together abstractly in quick succession in sort a 'so there!' fashion, as if his intent is to bludgeon or impress. Not to clarify or persuade.

Even the clearest of his lumped together phrases, "the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association", which is familiar to those who remember the Bill of Rights and the ideas of the Founding Fathers is just *asserted*. He doesn't cite any quote or example from Rand that shows her advocacy of this.

We might think JG's response is 'powerful' because it does summarize briefly a whole bunch of misunderstandings which he is responding to. And because -we- might say "right on! I agree!!" But that's a major communication and persuasion mistake.

Maybe he is trying to summarize a whole involved essay by Nathaniel Brnaden. But you just can't do that in a sentence. The problem is it's too much, too abstractly, too fast. It will go right over the heads of the readers. Please don't anyone tell me it's only addressed to 'the very best minds': NO ONE will get this!!! Unless they already know...it's only persuasive to someone who has already read and understood Rand and therefore doesn't need it.

Better to just pick one of those four abstract catchphrases(especially since they overlap) and knock down that one alone:

"You say Rand believe the powerful and rich should oppress the weak. But It's exactly the power of government which the powerful used to oppress others...What Rand wants to do is take away the guns and clubs from those who would steal, loot...."

Something like that. Then give an example. Once the readers see the critic JG is responding to has gotten something this basic completely wrong, they will then question everything he says. And may be intrigued enough to read for themselves.

But the typical Objectivese "jargon-slinging contest" that has been tried for decades isn't going to work.

WBCTW: Write Better, Change The World

Edited April 15, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Forgive me for dissecting the JG published reply to an attack on Rand at such great length.

It seems as if I've seen that exact same reply a hundred times (and overheard it in conversations).

And each one of those hundred times it has failed. And the writer may not even know why!!! He may feel with a certain amount of pride, "well, I certainly showed that liberal so-and-so. I got -that- off my chest."

[Jerry Biggers]

Subject: A Classic Example of Typically Bad "Objectivistic" Communication and Persuasion

> But here is a reply from a reader ..rephrasing Branden's [essay:

QUOTE

The highest tribute to Ayn Rand, abundantly in evidence here, is that her critics must distort everything that she stood for in order to attack her. She advocated reason, not force; the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association; self-responsibility not self-indulgence, and a live-and-let-live society in which each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends. How many critics would dare to honestly state these ideas, and say "...and that's what I reject?"

ENDQUOTE

,,,,,,

Jerry [post #20], I think what Mr. JG has written is a perfect example of a typical Objectivist response once sees and one that won't change many minds:

1. He assumes dishonesty rather than laziness in reading carefully or second-handedness about what Rand thinks . . . or any less moralistic an explanation.

2. He uses Objectivist catchphrases that require some elaboration or explanation -- "reason, not force", "self-responsibility not self-indulgence", "each individual is treated as an END, not the MEANS of others' ends".

3. Worse, he strings them all together abstractly in quick succession in sort a 'so there!' fashion, as if his intent is to bludgeon or impress. Not to clarify or persuade.

Even the clearest of his lumped together phrases, "the individual's rights to freedom of action, speech, and association", which is familiar to those who remember the Bill of Rights and the ideas of the Founding Fathers is just *asserted*. He doesn't cite any quote or example from Rand that shows her advocacy of this.

We might think JG's response is 'powerful' because it does summarize briefly a whole bunch of misunderstandings which he is responding to. And because -we- might say "right on! I agree!!" But that's a major communication and persuasion mistake.

Maybe he is trying to summarize a whole involved essay by Nathaniel Brnaden. But you just can't do that in a sentence. The problem is it's too much, too abstractly, too fast. It will go right over the heads of the readers. Please don't anyone tell me it's only addressed to 'the very best minds': NO ONE will get this!!! Unless they already know...it's only persuasive to someone who has already read and understood Rand and therefore doesn't need it.

Better to just pick one of those four abstract catchphrases(especially since they overlap) and knock down that one alone:

"You say Rand believe the powerful and rich should oppress the weak. But It's exactly the power of government which the powerful used to oppress others...What Rand wants to do is take away the guns and clubs from those who would steal, loot...."

Something like that. Then give an example. Once the readers see the critic JG is responding to has gotten something this basic completely wrong, they will then question everything he says. And may be intrigued enough to read for themselves.

But the typical Objectivese "jargon-slinging contest" that has been tried for decades isn't going to work.

WBCTW: Write Better, Change The World

Phil,

You make a strong case, but I think that those readers not acquainted with Rand will be able to get his point.

Also, his points are not so steeped in"RandSpeak" jargon. A bonafide Randroid would use archaic words used often by Rand, such as "bromide."

But as a recovering "Randroid," (or "Brandroid"??), I may be assuming that his argument would be understood by the uninitiated.

In the case of Jonathan Chait, and many others written in liberal journals such as New York, and The New Yorker, I do indeed question their honesty. When these people have been challenged on a point that they made, they will (on rare occasion) respond in such a manner that reveals that their mis-statements were not accidental, not based on naivety, but were intentional attempts to mislead. When I see this, I think that they should be called on it.