| FAQ |
| Calendar |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#11
11-08-2008, 09:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Harry Turtledove writes fantasy, for which I have a very low tolerance; but he's also the outstanding author of "alternative history," which fascinates me. His books in this area deal with such topics as, What if Robert E. Lee's army had been mysteriously supplied with AK-47 rifles? What if the earth had been invaded by hostile aliens at the height of WWII? What if the Spanish Armada didn't sink, but conquered England - - - and William Shakespeare led a revolt against them? He does his homework, and makes historical figures fascinating by putting them into unexpected situations. This stuff is like catnip to me. If I were a cat, I mean. But I haven't read much modern Christian fiction that appeals to me. Ted Dekker is good, if your brain is tired and you need "mental chewing gum;" but the "Christian horror" genre irritates me by its very nature. I don't have anything against horror movies, if they're not occultic or dirty; but I've never read a "Christian horror" book that didn't involve preposterous theology. I appreciated the strong anti-abortion message of Frank Peretti's "Prophet," but his theology is all over the place. Quote:
The problem you run into with conservative authors is that they tend to be Catholic, like Buckley. But then, there's a huge Catholic strain running through American conservatism in general, probably due to the abortion issue. (Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingram, etc.) That's why I don't recommend Buckley's non-fiction to young people: he was so good, and so smart, that his Catholicism might lead them astray. I am, obviously, a very "traditional" conservative: my heroes are Goldwater and Reagan, not Bush or Gingrich. As for the authors you named, I have very little use for them, although they've done good, patriotic work. Ann Coulter irritates me because she wastes her intelligence and insight by being intentionally provocative. I don't regard Rush Limbaugh as a true conservative at all, but merely a spokesman for the Republican Party. I think Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are arrogant, egotistical popinjays. None of these people are serious writers. They're entertainers. That has a place, and is not unimportant; but they're not literary people. Dick Morris is simply a disgruntled Democrat who has a personal grudge against the Clintons. Bill Bennett is the closest thing to a real writer in your list; but he, too, is a Catholic. Sigh...... Quote:
That's what irritates me about Rush and Ann and Sean: they've dumbed down conservatism so horribly. If he were still alive, Edmund Burke would roll over in his grave. Wait a minute...... 
|
|
#12
11-08-2008, 11:20 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
VR,
Quote:
I have always wondered why Whittaker Chambers gave Atlas Shrugged such a bad book review. Von Mises and Rand seemed to respect each other. Yet Chambers seemed to really hate Rand for some reason. I am somewhat amazed that other than you and I nobody seems to read Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt and others. Atlas Last edited by atlas; 11-08-2008 at 11:26 PM. |
|
#13
11-08-2008, 11:34 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Peace and Love, Stephen |
|
#14
11-09-2008, 12:20 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Stephanos,
Quote:
Quote:
Dose 2 + 2 contradict the Bible? There are many truths found outside of the Bible. I can read about how to build a log cabin and this book of building truth will not contradict truth or the Bible. The Bible is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice. How to fix my car, work out math problems, and many other issues are dealt with out side of the Bible. I can use many books to find truth in. The Bible is the only perfect book on earth. It is the only book written by God. It is the book of books. This dose not mean that other books have no value. Nor dose it mean that history, math, philosophy and how to books are all bad. All politics and books on economics are philosophy books. Politics and economics are just two branches of philosophy. Now my biggest problem with Rand, Buckley and others is they did not live up to the book. Anywhere where they oppose the book they are always wrong and the book is always right. Ayn Rand did have an impact on me, no doubt about it. As has Buckley, Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt and others. She was a smart lady, I only hope she found the Lord before she died. I doubt she did. She is more than likely in hell with her enemy Marx right now. She did not believe in God. Now she dose no doubt about that either. Buckley was not much better off as you well know. He was a Catholic. I am thankful for Buckley and Rand, I think they both tried to stop the tide of communism and socialism. Sadly I think they both failed in the end. Atlas P.S, I have read Fahrenheit 451. It is a good book. It also had an impact on me. Charlie Tremendous Jones once said, " You are the same today you’ll be in five years except for two things: the people you meet and the books you read. " he was 100% correct. He was a good friend of my heart was saddened when he died in Oct. of this year. be careful what you read. I will have an impact on you. I was glad when the IARFC ( International Association of Registered Financial Consultants ) showed much respect for this good man. I am also glad he was saved and now with the Lord. He personally helped me make it was I was in my darkest days in this industry. For that I am thankful. Last edited by atlas; 11-09-2008 at 12:42 AM. |
|
#15
11-09-2008, 02:51 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Rand hated all religion, and especially Christianity, no less than Madalyn Murray O'Hare. She refused to appear in the same room with Buckley, because Whittaker Chambers had panned "Atlas Shrugged" in Buckley's "National Review." She simply would not tolerate any religious sentiment among her followers; any of her inner circle who expressed religious tendencies was banished. I know what I'm talking about; for awhile, I nearly worshipped the woman. I read every book she wrote, subscribed to her newsletter, and have read the books written by her closest friends since her death. She was an egomaniac and an adulteress; in fact, she demanded that her followers approve of her adultery. On one occasion, and only one, she found herself in Buckley's vicinity, at a party. Without even shaking his hand, she snapped in her heavy Russian accent, "You ahrr too intelligent to believe in Gott!" To which Buckley, bless him, replied, "Well, Miss Rand, that certainly is an ice-breaker!"  She was, and continues to be, one of the most destructive, anti-Christian writers of modern times. If necessary, I will write a second post documenting what I've said; but I hope it won't be necessary. |
|
#16
11-09-2008, 03:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here is the text of Chambers' review. After leaving the Communist Party, he became very religious, although I wouldn't vouch for his salvation. Anyway, judge for yourself. The bold print is mine.
Big Sister is Watching You by Whittaker Chambers From National Review, December 28, 1957, pp. 594-596. Several years ago, Miss Ayn Rand wrote The Fountainhead. Despite a generally poor press, it is said to have sold some four hundred thousand copies. Thus, it became a wonder of the book trade of a kind that publishers dream about after taxes. So Atlas Shrugged (Random House, $6.95) had a first printing of one hundred thousand copies. It appears to be slowly climbing the best seller lists. The news about this book seems to me to be that any ordinarily sensible head could possibly take it seriously, and that apparently, a good many do. Somebody has called it: "Excruciatingly awful." I find it a remarkably silly book. It is certainly a bumptious one. Its story is preposterous. It reports the final stages of a final conflict (locale: chiefly the United States, some indefinite years hence) between the harried ranks of free enterprise and the "looters." These are proponents of proscriptive taxes. Government ownership, Labor, etc. etc. The mischief here is that the author, dodging into fiction, nevertheless counts on your reading it as political reality. "This," she is saying in effect, "is how things really are. These are the real issues, the real sides. Only your blindness keeps you from seeing it, which, happily, I have come to rescue you from." Since a great many of us dislike much that Miss Rand dislikes, quite as heartily as she does, many incline to take her at her word. It is the more persuasive, in some quarters, because the author deals wholly in the blackest blacks and the whitest whites. In this fiction everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad, without any of those intermediate shades which, in life, complicate reality and perplex the eye that seeks to probe it truly. This kind of simplifying pattern, of course, gives charm to most primitive story-telling. And, in fact, the somewhat ferro-concrete fairy tale the author pours here is, basically, the old one known as: The War between the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness. In modern dress, it is a class war. Both sides of it are caricatures. The Children of Light are largely operatic caricatures. In so far as any of them suggests anything known to the business community, they resemble the occasional curmudgeon millionaire, tales about whose outrageously crude and shrewd eccentricities sometimes provide the lighter moments in Board rooms. Otherwise, the Children of Light are geniuses. One of them is named (the only smile you see will be your own): Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Antonio. This electrifying youth is the world's biggest copper tycoon. Another, no less electrifying, is named: Ragnar Danesjold. He becomes a twentieth-century pirate. All Miss Rand's chief heroes are also breathtakingly beautiful. So is her heroine (she is rather fetchingly vice-president in charge of management of a transcontinental railroad). So much radiant energy might seem to serve an eugenic purpose. For, in this story as in Mark Twain's, "all the knights marry the princess"— though without benefit of clergy. Yet from the impromptu and surprisingly gymnastic matings of heroine and three of the heroes, no children— it suddenly strikes you— ever result. The possibility is never entertained. And indeed, the strenuously sterile world of Atlas Shrugged is scarcely a place for children. You speculate that, in life, children probably irk the author and may make her uneasy. How could it be otherwise when she admiringly names a banker character (by what seems to me a humorless master-stroke): Midas Mulligan? You may fool some adults, you can't fool little boys and girls with such stuff— not for long. They may not know just what is out of line, but they stir uneasily. The Children of Darkness are caricatures, too; and they are really oozy. But at least they are caricatures of something identifiable. Their archetypes are Left Liberals, New Dealers, Welfare Statists, One Worlders, or, at any rate, such ogreish semblances of these as may stalk the nightmares of those who think little about people as people, but tend to think a great deal in labels and effigies. (And neither Right nor Left, be it noted in passing, has a monopoly of such dreamers, though the horrors in their nightmares wear radically different masks and labels.) In Atlas Shrugged, all this debased inhuman riffraff is lumped as "looters." This is a fairly inspired epithet. It enables the author to skewer on one invective word everything and everybody that she fears and hates. This spares here the plaguy business of performing one service that her fiction might have performed. Namely: that of examining in human depth how so feeble a lot came to exist at all, let alone be powerful enough to be worth hating and fearing. Instead, she bundles them into one undifferentiated damnation. "Looters" loot because they believe in Robin Hood, and have a lot of other people believing in him, too. Robin Hood is the author's image of absolute evil— robbing the strong (and hence good) to give to the weak (and hence no good). All "looters" are base, envious, twisted, malignant minds, motivated wholly by greed for power, combined with the lust of the weak to tear down the strong, out of a deep-seated hatred of life and secret longing for destruction and death. There happens to be a tiny (repeat: tiny) seed of truth in this. The full clinical diagnosis can be read into the pages of Friedich Nietzsche. (Here I must break in with an aside. Miss Rand acknowledges a grudging debt to one, and only one, earlier philosopher: Aristotle. I submit that she is indebted, and much more heavily, to Nietzche. Just as her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her ulcerous Leftists are Nietzsche's "last men," both deformed in a way to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Maria. And much else comes, consciously on not, from the same source.) Happily, in Atlas Shrugged (though not in life), all the children of Darkness are utterly incompetent. So the Children of Light win handily by declaring a general strike of brains, of which they have a monopoly, letting the world go, literally, to smash. In the end, they troop out of their Rocky Mountain hideaway to repossess the ruins. It is then, in the book's last line, that a character traces in the air, "over the desolate earth," the Sign of the Dollar, in lieu of the Sign of the Cross, and in token that a suitably prostrate mankind is at last ready, for its sins, to be redeemed from the related evils of religion and social reform (the "mysticism of mind" and the "mysticism of muscle"). That Dollar Sign is not merely provocative, though we sense a sophomoric intent to raise the pious hair on susceptible heads. More importantly, it is meant to seal the fact that mankind is ready to submit abjectly to an elite of technocrats, and their accessories, in a New Order, enlightened and instructed by Miss Rand's ideas that the good life is one which "has resolved personal worth into exchange value," "has left no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.'" The author is explicit, in fact deafening, about these prerequisites. Lest you should be in any doubt after 1168 pages, she assures you with a final stamp of the foot in a postscript: "and I mean it." But the words quoted above are those of Karl Marx. He, too, admired "naked self-interest" (in its time and place), and for much of the same reasons as Miss Rand: because, he believed, it cleared away the cobwebs of religion and led to prodigies of industrial and cognate accomplishment. The overlap is not as incongruous as it looks. Atlas Shrugged can be called a novel only by devaluing the term. It is a massive tract for the times. Its story merely serves Miss Rand to get the customers inside the tent. And as a soapbox for delivering her Message. The Message is the thing. It is a sum, a forthright philosophic materialism. Upperclassmen might incline to sniff and say that the author has, with vast effort, contrived a simple materialist system, one, intellectually, at about the state of the oxcart, though without mastering the principle of the wheel. Like any consistent materialism, this one begins by rejecting God, religion, original sin, etc. etc. (This book's aggressive atheism and rather unbuttoned "higher morality," which chiefly outrage some readers, are, in fact, secondary ripples, and result inevitably from its underpinning premises.) Thus, Randian Man, like Marxian Man, is made the center of a godless world. At that point, in any materialism, the main possibilities open up to Man. 1) His tragic fate becomes, without God, more tragic and much lonelier. In general, the tragedy deepens according to the degree of pessimism or stoicism with which he conducts his "hopeless encounter between human questioning and the silent universe." Or, 2) Man's fate ceases to be tragic at all. Tragedy is bypassed by the pursuit of happiness. Tragedy is henceforth pointless. Henceforth man's fate, without God, is up to him. And to him alone. His happiness, is strict materialist terms, lies with his own workaday hands and ingenious brain. His happiness becomes, in Miss Rand's words, "the moral purpose of his life." Here occurs a little rub whose effects are just as observable in a free enterprise system, which is in practice materialist (whatever else it claims or supposes itself to be), as they would be under an atheist Socialism, if one were ever to deliver that material abundance that all promise. The rub is that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence on "man as a heroic being" "with productive achievement as his noblest activity." For, if man's "heroism" (some will prefer to say: "human dignity") no longer derives from God, or is not a function of that godless integrity which was a root of Nietzsche's anguish, then Man becomes merely the most consuming of animals, with glut as the condition of his happiness. And this, of course, suits the author's economics and the politics that must arise from them. For politics, of course, arise, though the author of Atlas Shrugged stares stonily past them, as if this book were not what, in fact it is, essentially— a political book. And here begins mischief. Systems of philosophic materialism, so long as they merely circle outside this world's atmosphere, matter little to most of us. The trouble is that they keep coming down to earth. It is when a system of materialist ideas presumes to give positive answers to real problems of our real life that mischief starts. In a age like ours, in which a highly complex technological society is everywhere in a high state of instability, such answers however philosophic, translate quickly into political realities. And in the degree to which problems of complexity and instability are most bewildering to masses of men, a temptation sets in to let some species of Big Brother solve and supervise them. One Big Brother is of course, a socializing elite (as we know, several cut-rate brands are on the shelves). Miss Rand, as the enemy of any socializing force, calls in a Big Brother of her own contriving to do battle with the other. In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls "productive achievement" man's "noblest activity," she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau. She might object that she means much, much more; and we can freely entertain her objections. But in sum, that is just what she means. For that is what, in reality, it works out to. And in reality, too, by contrast, with fiction, this can only head into a dictatorship, however benign, living and acting beyond good and evil, a law unto itself (as Miss Rand believes it should be), and feeling any restraint on itself as, in practice, criminal, and, in morals, vicious— as Miss Rand clearly feels it to be. Of course, Miss Rand nowhere calls for a dictatorship. I take her to be calling for an aristocracy of talents. We cannot labor here why, in the modern world, the pre-conditions for aristocracy, an organic growth, no longer exist, so that impulse toward aristocracy always emerges now in the form of dictatorship. Nor has the author, apparently, brooded on the degree to which, in a wicked world, a materialism of the Right and a materialism of the Left, first surprisingly resemble, then in action tend to blend each with each, because, while differing at the top in avowed purposed, and possibly in conflict there, at bottom they are much the same thing. The embarrassing similarities between Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's brand of Communism are familiar. For the world, as seen in materialist view from the Left. The question becomes chiefly: who is to run that world in whose interests, or perhaps, at best, who can run it more efficiently? Something of this implication is fixed in the book's dictatorial tone, which is much its most striking feature. Out of a lifetime of reading, I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind, which finds this one natural to it, shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: " To the gas chambers— go!" The same inflexibly self-righteous stance results, too (in the total absence of any saving humor), in odd extravagances of inflection and gesture— that Dollar Sign, for example. At first, we try to tell ourselves that these are just lapses, that this mind has, somehow, mislaid the discriminating knack that most of us pray will warn us in time of the differences between what is effective and firm, and what is wildly grotesque and excessive. Soon we suspect something worse. We suspect that this mind finds, precisely in extravagance, some exalting merit; feels a surging release of power and passion precisely in smashing up the house. A tornado might feel this way, or Carrie Nation. We struggle to be just. For we cannot help feel at least a sympathetic pain before the sheer labor, discipline and patient craftsmanship that went to making this mountain of words. But the words keep shouting us down. In the end that tone dominates. But it should be its own antidote, warning us that anything it shouts is best taken with the usual reservations with which we might sip a patent medicine. Some may like the flavor. In any case, the brew is probably without lasting ill effects. But it is not a cure for anything. Nor would we, ordinarily, place much confidence in the diagnosis of a doctor who supposes that the Hippocratic Oath is a kind of curse. |
|
#17
11-09-2008, 04:04 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Peace and Love, Stephen |
|
#18
11-09-2008, 04:19 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
VR,
Quote:
He told Rand she was to smart not to believe in God. If you are going to quote it quote it right. Quote:
However do you not understand that all lost men are 100% selfish? Quote:
Let me state this again. Quote:
I have not ever worshiped this woman, nor have I read all of her works. I have read Atlas Shrugged and a few of her smaller books. The Fountainhead is just about worthless and a waste of time. As are some of her other books. I do not depend on Buckly, Rand Von Mises, Rothbard, Hazlitt or others for any Bible truth. Many were anti God or Catholic. I see being a Catholic just about as bad as being an atheist. Both deny the truth of God's word in one way or the other. I do think you can learn something from people. Sometimes you can even learn what will not work. When you know what you are looking for when reading books it make it easy to find. I do not look for Bible truth reading Murray Rothbard or Bill Buckley, nor should I. I'm look for economic truth. he and others have it because they understand human nature as it is. I'll bet both went to hell and were lost. I hope I am wrong about this. Atlas Last edited by atlas; 11-09-2008 at 04:30 AM. |
|
#19
11-09-2008, 04:28 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Stephanos,
Quote:
Even the news paper is full of philosophy, if you listen to the news you even get philosophy when you listen to the news. You can not even read the news without reading philosophy. Even economics is part of philosophy. Even when you read history it is full of philosophy. Go read any book about the Civil War and you will be reading about what happened because of the Politics of the day. How can you not read or study philosophy if you read anything watch or listen to anything? Atlas Last edited by atlas; 11-09-2008 at 04:54 AM. |
|
|
Linear Mode
