Ayn Rand died lonely and bitter, too
Serious question for the Ayn Rand fans. I’m not asking dyed-in-the-wool Objectivists; I’m asking others who call themselves “libertarian” (small l) or neo-libertarian or “conservative, with a libertarian bent.” Y’all know who you are.
WHY AYN RAND?
Seriously. So she said a couple things that made sense, I’ll give you that. But taken as a whole? I mean Tony Blair does some stuff that makes sense, but I wouldn’t say that’s someone I wanna emulate, like so many Rand-fans do. I don’t get it. A lot of y’all aren’t anything at all like Ayn Rand (THANK GOD).
You know who’s just like Ayn Rand to me? This worthless waste of oxygen. The most vile piece of shi’ite I’ve seen on the internets in quite a while. And yes, that includes shi’iteheads like Kos and the Kossacks, at least for today.
Here’s a little sample of Tacky Jackie Mackie Pukie, and you tell me if you can’t see Ayn F–king Rand* saying this shi’ite–and if you actually agree with it, I’m not sure I want to know. No, I am sure that I don’t wanna know.
Maybe there are women out there that have so little going for them otherwise that the opportunity cost of giving up their life isn’t that much. But my mother could have done so much more with her life – and instead she wasted it by doing a not-so-great job raising kids.
(Probably the sole correct phrase on her entire blog. Her mother must have done a crap job if she raised a heinous bitch like that. Too bad her mother “could have done so much more,” despite the fact that she had “so little going for her.”)
Why women “pretend” to love their children:
And I’m sure a big part of it is evolutionary instinct to prevent mothers from murdering their children. That’s why so many mothers are completely deluded about how great their babies and children are, too. Everyone thinks their kids are the best, even when they are ugly, stupid, horrible brats. These delusions may serve a functional purpose, but they’re still delusions. Whenever I hear a news story about a mother murdering her children I always wonder why we don’t hear these news stories a lot more often.
I’m sure that needs no commentary.
But wait! I thought women chose to have children because we’re stupid losers? Or is it all the fault of Evil Men?
…are men just clueless about how awful motherhood is for women… or are they selfish assholes that want to replicate their genes no matter how much it wrecks the woman’s life?
I suppose the next line would be “all sex is rape.” Also remember, this bitch isn’t a mother (thank God) so she doesn’t know shi’ite about motherhood, except to the extent that she disrespects her own mother and every other woman on the planet who has children (especially single mothers!).
Abortion: the right to kill in “self-defense:”
OK. So abortion kills a human being. Do I not have a right to kill in self-defense? Consider the damage that pregnancy and childbirth would do to my body. It is the physical equivalent of being poisoned for nine months, then brutally assaulted for several hours by an attacker who cuts up my vagina with a knife. I could also die (almost 600,000 women die from complications of pregnancy and childbirth each year). Don’t I have the right to use deadly force, if necessary, to protect myself against this assault?
Wait, how the hell would she know anything about what pregnancy and childbirth are like? Poisoned? Assaulted? Cut up? HARDLY. What a farking moron. I’m guessing that mother of hers who did a “not so great job” must have put some interesting ideas in that little pea brain of hers.
Ahhh yes, the Ayn F–king Rand Diet Plan again (previously seen here):
If you consume more calories than you burn, you will become fat.
You have 100% control over what you consume.Unless you are severely ill or disabled, you have 100% control over how much physical activity you get.
Thus, you have 100% control over whether you become and stay fat.
Good God.
Superficial? Oh, yeah.
Weight/appearance: How well a person takes care of themselves tells you a lot about them. These characteristics are largely within your control — I used to be overweight and ugly myself, but have turned that around in a multi-year, still-in-progress makeover project — and whether you choose to be fat and ugly or fit and attractive says at least as much about your character as it does about your genes.
[...]
I spent those years “slumming it” working, living, and socializing with members of the lower middle, working, lower, and even destitute (homeless) classes. So I have plenty of experience of what the people in those classes are like. Their lives are self-inflicted disasters.
Those people. Poor character, she says. Honey, the ugly never left you. As you said, character. And really, you’re definitely nothing to look at, either, despite your claims of being a “quality” woman girl. (How does it feel to be so despised?)
Oh, how about this gem!
…given that many of the people who join the army are lower class teenagers and young adults who often lacked good role models growing up, I can see how they could benefit from some basic life skills instruction.
I think my brain just exploded from the audacious stupidity of that statement. I just got bukkaked with stupid. I wonder if she’s ever actually known anyone in “the army.”
Speaking of Miss Wacky Jackie talking out of her ass,
Christians in particular really scare me. Based on the theology Christians believe, I think they’ve picked the wrong side. Right from the beginning God lied to Adam and Eve (he told them that they would die the day they ate from the tree of knowledge) and wanted to keep them in ignorance, whereas the serpent told them the truth and wanted them to have knowledge. God went on to do and command a whole bunch of really nasty things. Yet despite God’s lies, apparent evil, and pettiness about sending good people to hell, Christians still worship him and actively recruit others to join his team. Why???
Jackie, you ignorant slut. You obviously don’t know the first thing about Christianity or religion in general, outside the crap they feed you from the religion-hating segment of atheism. Anyway, I wouldn’t bother “recruiting” someone like you.
I can’t stand looking any more. I don’t like feeling such intense disgust at someone, and I’m sure if I were to keep looking it would only get worse. This is only a sample of the depraved shi’ite I found there, anyway, and this post is too long as it is (hey, I had to purge). And besides, the godawful spammy-looking poker ads all over the place make me cringe. (How much you wanna bet she’s a spammer?)
Now tell me: True, Ayn Rand wasn’t so appallingly stupid in how she formulated her arguments, and at least she was original, but really–isn’t what Tacky Jackie preaching the same basic ideas that Rand did? Even with the same overanalysis/”cost analysis” of every goddamned thing?
* Yes, I’m coming clean. Ayn Rand, the Original Narcissist, died bitter and alone for a reason. As will her little sycophant, Tacky Jackie.
See also: Ace, Beth Donovan, Venomous Kate, Annika, and the rest of the blogosphere.
(UPDATE, 8/22 @ 0700) I think John Hawkins just hasn’t been fully introduced to Miss Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey yet. He’s far too forgiving, at least right now. :razz:
Thank you, basil!
Tags: blogtards, Libertarians, idiots
Venomous Kate says:
Actually, their two perspectives are quite different.
The basis for Rand’s philosophy is the belief that there is an Absolute Truth (or Absolute Right, or Absolute Good… however you want to definite it), humans are capable of determining what it is, and adhering to it is in our own best interest.
The rest of her philosophy links peoples’ individual problems (e.g., dissatisfaction, frustration, inter-personal problems and even poverty) on: (a) not trying to determine what that Absolute Truth or Right is; (b) knowing what it is but deciding to do something else — and often rationalizing our actions; (c) preventing or deceiving others from adhering to Absolute Truth or Good; or (d) not bothering to think for ourselves and therefore substituting someone else’s opinions or decrees for our own discovery of Absolute Truth, Right or Good.
In that light, the cost/benefit analysis is actually a way to help us determine what really is Absolute Truth or Good in any given situation. Using it we can decide between two choices to determine which one helps us maximize our individual human potential. (Note that this is entirely different from saying “Which one makes me happier?” because it looks at a grander scale… not “What will make me happier TODAY?” but “What will most benefit and enhance my life and bring the best out in me over the long run?”)
As far as Ms. Mackey’s writing, I’m under the impression she was simply trying to justify her actions in rejecting one or more men she found undesirable.
As to her comparison of herself with some vague standard of “Women in general,” well, I don’t think that’s as much about a cost/benefit analysis as it is a sign she needed to publicly stroke her own ego because other people aren’t interested in doing it for her.
Aaron's cc: says:
Gotta read Steve H on JM
Beth says:
KATE -
Thanks for answering and not getting pissed at the question. I reeeeally needed to hear it from a non-asshole, because JMPP put me in a foul mood after reading all her hateful shi’ite.
:mrgreen:
Jane says:
What an idiot. I had a “big career” and left it for a bigger career, raising my kids, which is actually much harder and yes more rewarding. To each his own but dont trash me you twat Jackie.
BCrago66 says:
I’ll admit I merely skimmed your post, but I got the sense of it. As someone who has studied philosophy (I don’t mean this as an argument from authority; philosophy, like law, is available to all intelligent laymen) and read pretty much everything Rand wrote, I’ll share my thoughts.
If you discovered that Einstein was really a rat bastard who murdered people for fun, would that make you doubt E = Mc squared? If you discovered that Darwin tortured puppies, would you count that as an argument against evolution? My point here is that you’re already treating philosophy as an emotional enterprise, as something you believe because it makes you feel good to believe it, as against a subject with potentially demonstrable factual assertions. And if philosophy is just an emotional thing, then I guess the fact that Rand died miserable is pertinant.
The same goes for that part of philosophy which is ethics or morality. Let’s take - for purposes of analogy - a more delimted normative subject, nutrition. Nutrition is normative because its theories are contructed relative to a goal - health. Let’s say you use your powers of reason and find a paper on nutrition to be correct. Than you discover that the paper was written by Chris Farley, who was something like 400 lbs when he died. Does that change your assessment of the paper and the theories therein? No. It might change your accessment of Farley, as not just fat, but also a hypocrite. Now the reason that it doesn’t change your assessment of Farley’s paper is because you’ve already made the assumption that nutrition is a factual discipline; it’s not a matter of feelings or role models, etc.
Now there’s a more charitiable interpretation of the policy of using a philosopher’s life to refute his ethical theory, which would be the argument:
1 -Ethics is about living a good or happy life.
2 -The author of X ethical theory practiced what he preached and was miserable.
3 -Thus, ethical theory X is false (this is a reductio-style argument.)
This argument fails for a couple reasons.
1) As I alluded to earlier, the author could just be a hypocrite who didn’t practice what he preached.
2) There are different levels of ethical theory, and there’s also psychology. Someone can get it right on the most general meta-ethical question, What is the Good, and still get it wrong on the particulat virtues required to realize the good. Or: Someone can get it right on both the Good and the virtues, but still fail on the psychological technology required to realize the virtues. If you read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, you know his idea that virtue is largely a matter of habit; it’s not as if passive intellectual contemplation of The Good will get you anywhere.
I know that Rand supports have tied together their personal worship of Ayn Rand with the supposed truth of her theories. Thus, it’s natural for opponents to respond that ha!, she was a miserable bitch, therefore…etc. But the truth is that her life is not relevant to evaluating the truth or falsity of her theories.
I know I’m long-winded, but I’ll add a couple more paragraphs, and there’s a 3% chance that someone will read it.
Both religion and the modern secular view share the idea that moraility cannot be rationally grounded; it’s a matter of faith, so if God id dead, all is permitted. Philosophy 101 tells us about David Hume, who cannot find the idea of morality in the sense-data floating before him, etc. Rand’s insight - and certainly there antecedents in the history of philosophy in Aristotle, Spencer, and others (ther’s even the germ of this idea in Ray Bradbury’s Martian Chronicles, I think) - is that metaphysically the phenomenon of values is a consequence of life, and moral values the consequence of human (rational) life. This “biocentric” view leads to man’s life being the standard of value. Outside the context of the complete argument, I know this sounds like gibberish, but the argument is there in Rand’s essay the Objectivist Ethics, in passages in Galt’s speech in Atlas Shrugged, and in the works of serious academic philosphers like Tibor Machan, Doug Rasmussen, Tara Smith, and others. These are people actually trying to work on these issues, and they don’t rest their claims on an emotional attachment to Rand as a great (or even good) person.
The last thing I’ll say is, Ayn Rand was more of a traditionalist than you might think. She was a system builder who has a traditional Aristotlelien metaphysics, a distinctive epistemology (including her novel theory of concept-formation in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology), a view of man, of ethics, politics, and art. This might not seem like a big deal, but at the time she wrote her stuff and in the decades afterwards, philosophy retreated to linquistic games, to Wittgenstein, to contentless doctrines like reletivism and skepticism. So many poeple who ultimately reject Rand’s particular conclusions are still grateful for her for introducing them to philosophy in the old-fashioned sense, and there’s a lot of these folks now doing work on Aristotle, on Aquinas, on Locke and Mill, and on other philosophers who actually say something.
So there’s more to Ayn Rand than the “Ayn Rand cult.” But because the cultists have tied thier evaluation of the philosophy to the person of Ayn Rand, it’s not surprising that those who dissent would not look at the philosophy itself, but merely point out deficiencies in her character.
And, to quote Mr. Gump, that’s all I have to say about that.
Venomous Kate says:
No problem. The bill’s in the mail ‘cuz, you know, all us Rand fans are only interested in the money. :razz: Just kidding.
But, hey, while I’m playing with your b-quote button…
Which is a much fancier way of saying the same thing I’d mentioned.
With one important caveat that gets all-too-often overlooked… it’s very easy to mistake immediate gratification with what is actually life-affirming.
Just watch any two-year-old kid given free-rein with a bag of candy: they’ll polish it off and be happy as hell, but we all know that it wasn’t good for them. If that kind of behavior becomes a habit (i.e., if the child thinks candy=happy) we all know what’s going to happen: weight gain and hunger cessation but inadequate nutrition. The child’s desire for sweets will be gratified but his/her body will be lacking and thus deprived of a chance to reach its full potential.
So to draw it back to JMPP’s screed: after writing it she may feel all warm and fuzzy about herself in comparison to some vague Average Woman but if she decides to content herself with being merely above average on some criteria — as she’s evidently convinced of — she’s not likely to notice the rest of the areas in which she’s slacking off from reaching her full potential.
Besides, statistical comparisons are neither going to keep her warm at night. Judging from her decisions to run personal ads in search of love, I’d say she’s got her values — but not the rest of her — rather well screwed.
raz0r says:
So carrying her thought process, if I can prove that women like her increase the suicide rate among men, can a single male (who meets her qualifications, of course) kill her in self defense? Provided, of course, that he stays at least for the one night stand.
Wild Thing says:
Beth you did a fantastic job on this. You hit the nail on the head about Tacky Jackie too. Bravo!
Beth says:
BCrago66:
No, definitely not; my thinking is rarely based on emotion, at least in the abstract (such as this). Anyway, I don’t discount everything she said because she “died bitter and lonely,” all I’m saying is that the way she lived her life had to have something to do with it. Whether she actually practiced what she preached, is something I can’t answer. But you are right about the “cult” making an impression on me–and I don’t count the regular Rand fan as part of the “cult,” obviously.
Basically, though, I think there comes a point when one can overthink life in general. And I don’t think the Einstein and Darwin examples apply well, because their “theories” are scientific, not philosophical (OK, that’s probably debatable to scientists, but you get the point.) But I’m not going to argue philosophy, because I’ll lose! I know my own personal “philosophy,” and I guess I just look at things differently than Rand/objectivists do–although Kate’s description is far more palatable than what I see from true-blue objectivists (or Rand cultists, whatever you wanna call ‘em).
And that’s kinda the point about JMPP–her cold, overanalytical way of seeing the world is just nauseating (and I thought I was overanalytical at times!). She ASSumes, for example, that most people in the military (or as she irritatingly says, “the army”) are there because they’re not competent, not capable of doing “better.” I want to kick that bitch’s ass for that statement alone–even without the other hateful crap. She finds it impossible to believe (or at least understand) that in fact, there are many people in the military who are intelligent and well-educated, financially well-off, and have plenty of other options–but CHOOSE to join the military because they want to serve a higher purpose. One could easily argue that it’s not in that person’s “best interest,” but that’s only looking at the balance-sheet view. Same with those who go into the clergy (for which she would no doubt have even more derision). I joined the military, but I had a National Merit scholarship for college and I know I’ll never be poor. I stayed in for almost 12 years, because of that “duty, honor, country” thing. I guess that’s where I differ so sharply with Randian thinking, and that, combined with Jackie’s other crap (as in the post) smacked of that cost/benefit analysis that eliminates all sorts of intangibles.
Honestly, I sorta wish I hadn’t combined the two subjects in the same post, but there it is. I definitely don’t think Kate and many others who “like” Rand are like that bitch Jackie at all, but I guess that’s why I asked the question.
raz0r:
So carrying her thought process, if I can prove that women
TOUCHÉ!!!
Dave in Texas says:
I was told there would be no math on this exam.
Dave in Texas says:
oh, and hi Kate! Been forever. How are the teefes?
JD says:
Damn.
Just…damn.
I’ve been married to my wife for 11 years, dating for 4 before that. And never, once, has the C-bomb entered my thinking.
Is it permissible to dust off the C-bomb and use it on this, er, lady?
And FWIW - my wife makes young Jackie look like Olive Oyl.
Martin says:
Beth. I’ve oft drifted towards libertarianism, and am a member of the party. which was a protest (pointless) against the crazy spending my elected Republican representatives have engaged in since assuming office. But they are FECKLESS in so many respects that I always vote Republican in elections that count.
I would say, therefore, that I lean Libertarian philosophically, but when all is said and done, they aren’t a serious option.
Sugar Rush: Quick Links for August 21st, 2006 - from The Zero Boss by Jay Andrew Allen says:
[...] Featured: You think Pandagon was hard on Jacqueline Mackie Paisley Passey? Shi’ite, dawg, not EVEN. Beth of MY Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy lights up a Molotov can of whoop-ass, incinerates Passey, and takes a wizz on her ashes. If you’re in the mood for a piss-and-vinegar rant sparked by an apparently innocent question about Ayn Rand, you’ve found the blog of your dreams. [...]
Susan B. says:
Just wanted to say you did a great takedown of that annoying, vapid bimbo Tacky Jackie! :twisted:
MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy » If you’re so perfect, why do you need personal ads? says:
[...] Ayn Rand died lonely and bitter, too [...]
Beth says:
Thank you!
I’m still glowing from the Zero Boss saying “lights up a Molotov can of whoop-ass, incinerates Passey, and takes a wizz on her ashes.” Now that’s an honor! :mrgreen:
Still Stacy » THE DOGPILE says:
[...] Here’s a few other places that did pieces on her: Beth, Ace, Electric Venom, Hog On Ice, Annika, Agent Bedhead, and the list goes on and on. I have been laughing my ass off at all of these places reading the comments. I believe my favorite comes from Gino on Agent Bedhead’s site yeah, that photo of hers is really a best case scenario. check out her photo albums, and see the real deal. [...]
Susan B. says:
This whole subject continues to be a hoot! :lol: JMPP’s ex-brother-in-law has some fun facts about her here and here (found via here). His first comment was posted in the wrong post on Mark Shea’s blog, but here’s what he said:
Melissa says:
Ayn Rand’s personal life is relevant if only because it is a discreet case study for the beliefs she espoused.
Richard Doczy says:
What evidence is there for the claim that Ayn Rand died bitter, etc.? She probably wasn’t overjoyed as she was dying, but then few people are (unless they have deluded themselves into thinking they are “going to a better place.” And, in any case, what does it matter? (Wittgenstein was pretty bent out of shape most of his life yet on his death bed he told Normal Malcom, “Tell them I had a wonderful life.” Having a happy or wonderful life does not mean being giddy or cheerful all the time, especially at its end. But, anyway, this doesn’t bear on whether Rand’s ideas are sound, which are and which are not, etc. :smile:
Frank Harper says:
The wonderful contribution of Ayn Rand involves the conveyance of a somewhat difficult philosophy into the novel form. Certainly at the time, if not still much so today, a philosophy abhorring altruism for the indolent and/or spoiled is not a particularly easy message to deliver. Many would read Rand that would never read Neitze. The ideas of the great philosophers are, indeed, something to rave about! A good writer, who could equally enliven the ideas of any great philosopher, might easily develop a similar following.