VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum - The Fountainhead

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
February 24, 2018, 03:02:57 PM

Home Help Search Login Register
+  VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum
|-+  Arts and Culture
| |-+  Movies and Theatre
| | |-+  The Fountainhead
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: The Fountainhead  (Read 985 times)
IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« on: April 09, 2012, 11:30:19 AM »

A Classic.
Based on Ayn Rand's novel: The Fountainhead.
A cry for Individualism as against the anti-Nature, Christian/Communist disease of the mind.
 
http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/futurism/the-fountainhead---full-film.html
 
2012: Anno Zero!
Imperium
201204
Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« Reply #1 on: May 18, 2016, 08:50:26 AM »

https://mauryk2.com/2010/07/01/ayn-rand-vs-francis-parker-yockey/


Ayn Rand versus Francis Parker Yockey


Ayn Rand stood in the tradition of Classical Liberalism and Francis Parker Yockey stood against it. That’s the long and the short of it.

I was never a big fan of her novels though I thought she wrote better sex scenes than Mickey Spillane. As a Partisan of Francis Parker Yockey, I found myself opposed to her ‘stated’ philosophy on almost every point. But when I read Murray Rothbard’s 1972 diatribe against her, “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult”–available on the Internet–I developed enormous personal sympathy for her, while still disagreeing with her. This was helped along by the fact that I never thought too much of Rothbard. I consider him to be a malignant force, in fact, a Culture Distorter.

From a family that had been cleaned out by the Bolsheviks, she came to this country determined to be anti-Bolshevik in every way. In love with USA after having watched American films back in Russia, she enthusiastically embraced the business boosterism ideology that was dominant in the USA of the Twenties. When it crashed with the Stock Market in 1929, she tried to revive  it with her first writing attempts in the 1930s.

Last fall, Johann Hari in SLATE, wrote this wise summary of her attempt:

“Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism’s opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.”

Lawrence Auster, in his Blog “View from the Right”, wrote this:

“I have long said that Rand was a Communist turned inside out, a dictator for individualism.”

For my part, as I stated in a previous Blog, there is this running conflict in Rand, like an open sore, between her public affinity for Classical Liberalism, and her obvious underpinnings in Nietzsche. I mean, how to you square the Cult of the Superman with a stated fealty to the hoary old Constitutional order? The short answer is you can’t.

In the meantime today, you have Randroids spouting ‘libertarianism’ though she was contemptuous of the Libertarian Cult. When you criticize the functioning of Real, Existing Capitalism to a Randroid, they’ll say that’s not ‘real capitalism.’ When you ask what is, they reply about some utopian dribble which you’d expect from a pacifist or religionist.

When they ask me about how I’ll achieve my goals: I reply right to the point: Seize the Capital! Wipe out the Opposition! Start the Purge!

The Randroids–who I feel have little in common with the REAL Ayn Rand–then scurry off, probably to join the cesspool which is the Republican Party.

All of which brings us to Francis Parker Yockey. On June 17, 2010 in San Francisco, at a memorial dinner 50 years after Yockey’s passing, Michael O’Meara made these remarks. We close with excerpts:

“The anniversary of the death of this enigmatic figure–arguably America’s most brilliant anti-liberal thinker–is likely to go unobserved in his native land, for his legacy is still unclaimed.

“Unlike what Evola called the ‘false right,’ whose alleged anti-liberalism derives from essentially liberal premises (constitutionalism, free markets, bourgeois social forms and sentiments, etc.), Yockey’s thought derived from Prussian rather than Anglo-American sources.

-------------------


Read comments.
Where We of Imperium Europa diverge from Liberalism.
Imperium and Dominium.



00405
The Golden Dawn
Imperium
Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« Reply #2 on: July 19, 2017, 05:45:49 AM »

 
Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead still survives
 
 
Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead still survives
 
By Jon Rappoport
 
This may seem like a strange way to start an article about Ayn Rand, but...
 
Sociologists and psychologists and other pseudo-academics miss the boat on almost every analysis of human culture they perform. They're like surgeons reading the wrong X-rays before opening up the patient on the table.
 
For example, the "puppet factor" should loom large in studies of human endeavor. But it doesn't. Puppets not only obey orders from above, they find other puppets and commiserate. They form groups. They share. They devote themselves to each other, struggling to believe that "human bonds" will mitigate and surpass the grinding years, during which they carry out the same orders and functions over and over.
 
"It's not what you do in life, it's the people you connect with. It's expanding the sense of family."
 
Somehow, the tedium of puppethood can be ignored, because people become people-people...and that's sufficient, that's what love is all about...you judge your value by what you can contribute to other marionettes...and the degree of appreciation you can garner from them...   
 
I've written several articles about Ayn Rand and her work. No need to recapitulate my output here. Her 1943 novel still survives, as both the most hated and loved novel of the last three-quarters of a century.
 
Those who hate the book and want a hook for wounding it often say: the world Rand constructs isn't real; it doesn't and couldn't exist; the people aren't real, either.
 
How interesting. Novels are fiction, the last time I looked.
 
"Yes, but Rand is saying the world of her novels is the actual one."
 
No, she's saying her world is the underlying core of the real world. She's claiming to reveal what's percolating and boiling and steaming in back of mere social discourse and pretense and puppetry.
 
From people I've spoken to over the years, people who hate The Fountainhead, I would say they see themselves in a character in the novel, and they don't like what they see.
 
For example, somewhere inside themselves, they see a no-hold-barred impulse for success without compromise, or they see a surrender to the flaccid norms of society and culture---and in either case, they're disturbed.
 
Here is a sprinkling of quotes from Rand's book. They challenge cultural platitude with a visceral and intellectual stroke of electricity. And that's why The Fountainhead still lives, both for those love it or hate it:
 
Howard Roark (architect): "Every man creates his meaning and form and goal. Why is it so important---what others have done? Why does it become sacred by the mere fact of not being your own? Why is anyone and everyone right---so long as it's not yourself?"
 
Roark: "I've chosen the work I want to do. If I find no joy in it, then I'm only condemning myself to sixty years of torture. And I can find the joy only if I do my work in the best way possible to me. But the best is a matter of standards---and I set my own standards. I inherit nothing. I stand at the end of no tradition. I may, perhaps, stand at the beginning of one."
 
Roark: "I don't intend to build in order to have clients; I intend to have clients in order to build."
 
Rand: "Men hate passion, any great passion. Henry Cameron made a mistake: he loved his work."
 
Dominque Francon: "Ask anything of men. Ask them to achieve wealth, fame, love, brutality, murder, self-sacrifice. But don't ask them to achieve self-respect. They will hate your soul."
 
Roark: I don't make comparisons. I never think of myself in relation to anyone else. I just refuse to measure myself as part of anything."
 
Ellsworth Toohey (newspaper columnist and social engineer, who sees his ultimate nemesis as Roark): "Happiness is self-contained and self-sufficient. Happy men have no time and no use for you. Happy men are free men. So kill their joy in living. Take away from them whatever is dear or important to them. Never let them have what they want. Make them feel that the mere fact of a personal desire is evil. Bring them to a state where saying 'I want' is no longer a natural right, but a shameful admission. Altruism is of great help in this. Unhappy men will come to you. They'll need you. They'll come for consolation, for support, for escape. Nature allows no vacuum. Empty man's soul---and the space is yours to fill."
 
Roark: "...the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act---the process of reason---must be performed by each man alone."
 
Roark: "The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive."
 
Roark: "Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution---or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement."
 
Roark: "As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egoism and altruism. Egoism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism---the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self...Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal---under the threat that sadism was his only alternative."
 
These words are still capable of provoking thought---and not because they were merely intended to inflame or polarize.
 
And there are still people who will search for any reason under the sun to reject them---to avoid the need to read them, understand them, and make up their own minds about them.
 
 
 --------------

Every one of our Adherents should read Ayn Rand's: The Fountainhead.
Search and watch the film:
Roark's courtroom speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw5YACKiPAk

Ayn Rand is the High Priestess of Individualism.
The exact opposite to that idiotic Minister of Equality of ours.
Two irreconcilable views of Life: Positive, ascendant and strong - as against that negative Envy that animates every Squalid Socialist.

Search and watch the film - or read the Book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/261-1726306-3891528?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=the+fountainhead
Be Yourself - BE!



00507
The Golden Dawn
Imperium
Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« Reply #3 on: July 24, 2017, 07:20:26 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA1_vcqvoFs


 MONEY



00507
The Golden Dawn
Imperium
Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2017, 09:39:58 PM »

AYN RAND


Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

IMPERIUM
Norman Lowell
Global Moderator
Senior Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 15701


« Reply #5 on: February 07, 2018, 09:31:28 AM »

https://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20180207/opinion/Value-of-human-dignity-Andr-DeBattista.669965

Wednesday, February 7, 2018, 06:37 by André DeBattista

Value of human dignity - André DeBattista

States and governments can commit atrocious injustices. The past century reminds us that, if power is not restrained, governments become perpetrators of the most heinous crimes.

The Shoah, planned and executed by Nazi Germany, was responsible for the death of approximately two-thirds of the Jews living in Europe. Other victims included ethnic Poles, Slavs, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Catholics who opposed the murderous Nazi regime.

Other victims of state crimes are not commemorated. Communism and its offshoot ideologies are also responsible for the deaths of millions. For 80 years, those representing this form of socialism created gulags and death camps. They were responsible for appalling economic mismanagement which resulted in widespread famine and death.

Individualism is often seen as the antidote to the use of absolute power by the state. As a result, individual choice has become a quasi-religion and a guiding principle of public policy.

In her novel Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand sums up the prevailing attitude. She views man as “a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute”. Inadvertently, Rand creates novels which are dystopic and devoid of humanity. They aimed to inspire. Alas, they read like a cry for help.

Selfishness is elevated to the status of a virtue; society is a tool for subjugation, the community is a destructive force, the non-productive man is useless, and the natural environment serves no purpose for it fails to showcase man’s ‘creative genius’. In one devastating review, Whittaker Chambers famously wrote that, from every page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice could be heard commanding: “To a gas chamber – go!”

The antidote to an all-encompassing state and rampant individualism is to think the concept of both individual and state afresh.

Contemporary mainstream political discourse often packages policy options as consumer products.

All decisions – from something as ordinary as choosing your favourite tub of butter to life-altering bioethical decisions and voting in elections – are reduced to mere consumer choices.

Thinking of ourselves as emancipated individuals with unlimited choice was meant to free us from the shackles of an all-encompassing state. Regrettably, it chained us to soulless, cynical materialism.

The human person is not a mere consumer. Nor is his worth limited to productive output. By viewing individuals as persons, we acknowledge the more complex aspects of human nature – the emotive needs for family and community, their intelligence and free will, their artistic sensibilities and need for beauty, their foibles and weaknesses and their capacity for altruism. Respecting these aspects and meeting these needs should be as important to policymakers as productivity and consumption.

Choices that do not take into account ethical and moral dimensions are a source of division and injustice
Nor are the choices of individuals devoid of social consequences. Choices that do not take into account ethical and moral dimensions are a source of division and injustice. Moreover, the social context shapes how we make decisions and what criteria we adopt when making our choices.

Governments cannot micromanage nor should they adopt a laissez-faire attitude on matters of common concern. Neither can the state be an enabling institution which encourages dependent client-patron relationships between politician and citizen.

The role of public policy should primarily encourage and respect the value of every human person while being mindful of the common good. When considerations, other than human dignity, take over, there can be no peace and no equity and, thus, no justice.

Peace, when understood solely as the preservation of a balance of powers, becomes subject to geopolitical considerations, economic concerns and trade interests. This may derail it from its primary aim – that of protecting the safety and welfare of the human person.

Likewise, in our society, when politics turns into the appeasement of special interest groups, injustices are committed to those who have neither the power nor the influence to voice their concerns.

Similarly, equality is often mistaken for equity thus preventing people from being treated justly, fairly and impartially. The voices of those who have no lobby group to champion their cause are drowned by the loudest and most obnoxious crowds.

When the value of the human person is reduced to the ability to be productive, the position of totalitarianism and extreme individualism becomes almost indistinguishable. The horrific attitudes of totalitarian regimes towards the disabled, the elderly, and the terminally ill are now repackaged as ‘mercy’ and ‘choice’.

To expect politicians to force a change in attitude is to overestimate the influence of politics itself. The political arena is, after all, a reflection of the values and attitudes which prevail in society. Perhaps we find ourselves in the rather uncomfortable position where we must admit that we would much rather be consumers than human persons.

André DeBattista is an independent researcher in politics and international relations.

-----------

A good article balancing Individualism and Collectivism.
Ayn Rand (Randburg, a Jewess from St. Petersburg) vs Stalin and the murderous Jews around him.
Read previous comments and:
http://www.vivamalta.net/VMforum/index.php?topic=4191.msg178272#msg178272



00602
The Golden Dawn
Imperium
Report to moderator   Logged
Boycott The Times and The Sunday Times.
Do not post there, do not buy a copy of either, do not advertise.
Hurt Them in the only way they understand.

BOYCOTT THE TIMES
 Imperium 1107

Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
 
SMF 2.0.12 | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2012

VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum, The Fountainhead - Theme by Mustang Forums