I agree that burning the book was an unnecessary waste. It could have been used for toilet paper, assuming you'd want anything to do with Rand that close to your butt. It could have been used as a tire-stop, several coasters, a door prop, something to hit inbred "Libertarains" in the head with when they start drooling out "Austrian economics", and whining about how everything in the universe is "coercion". Could have saved it to feed to the same Libertarians once they became destitute. Wasteful
burning books, just like the fucking holy crusaders destroying centuries scientific knowledge because it was "blasphemy", luckily preserved by the muslims..
Could this be the greatest gift a leftist has ever given the right? Footage of liberals burning a book because it represents a perspective they reject - who would have ever expected to see such a thing? ; )
If chapter seven's meaning has not yet sunken in, the genius behind this video can be more than likely found in a tent at an occupy camp. No doubt sinking of urine and whining about those who have more than enough, but refuse to pay their "fair share".
@rheniumlake When did I say Ayn Rand was in favor of unions? In fact, when did I mention the hypocritical Mary Sue, anyway? We know she was about "individualism," i.e. "f*ck poor people until I'm one myself because I need assistance treating my self-induced lung cancer because my books don't sell well enough." What I was pointing out is, despite some Tea Partier screaming, "Hitler was a socialist!!!!" a million times doesn't mean they are correct.
@bobclark86 while i agree repeating something doesnt make it true, but i can see how one could call Hitler a socialist (even though its probably just to demonize socialism). I was pointing out Hitler provided a form of socialism to Germans at the expense of outsiders, similar to socialism in America through taxing the rich and foreign intervention. Im just reiterating Chomskys argument about political structure. Basically everything is more or less the same in varying degrees.
@bobclark86 claiming Rand was a hypocrite because she used the safety net of the government for its intended purpose, despite not being a fan of it is just as valid as me claiming you are a hypocrite if you hate greedy corporations yet enjoy your iphone.
@MrJohngalt2011: Hitler rounded up unionists and sent them to the camps, starting the party-controlled Gleichschaltung instead. Groups like IG Farben were well-known war profiteers and helped plan invasions (they told the Wehrmacht which factories in occupied countries to leave intact). 13 IG Farben officials were convicted at Nuremburg for this. Hitler hated socialism (that's why industrialists like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and the Rockefellers supported him). You are wrong.
@bobclark86 unionists are the antithesis of Ayn Rands libertarian values. She was more about individualism. She doesnt give a damn about big business the way Hitler did. He used it to fuel his political hold, whereas in Atlas Shrugged it was one of the things that brought the society down. Actually Chomsky believes that existing/old political systems of the world are more similar to each other and are not true to their corresponding theories. In many ways Hitler was a socialist towards Germans
couldnt you have just sold the book on ebay? you're inability to reason is probably why you couldnt appreciate the book even if you dont agree with it.
are they laughing as their economy and empire burn just the same? its funny, this was filmed in 2006, and what has happened since then? might be worth another read. oh wait, your childish ignorance destroyed the wisdom that could have helped guide you.
Nazis burned books.. This guy is a loser to say the least of his pathetic existence, The pain of knowledge is one that will fill the men and women capable of taking the chances, willing to take the risks, and most importantly recognize humility and victory when it confronts them, until this country is left with only those bearing open hands awaiting their voted messengers daily rations. Good for you sir, you've reminded 55 thousand viewers the power of destroying works of art.
Funny thing is they paid for it, thus contributing to the further printing of its great message. But they also burned it, thus contributing to global warming and littering, thus violating their own socialist scumbag beliefs. BTW I am the 1% and I'm shrugging.
It's not worth burning. Here's what you do: donate your copies to used book stores and flood the market so that they are worth $.01 a piece. That way they'll go out of print for lack of sales of new copies. Then when the cheap paperbacks find their way to the land fill in 10-20 years, someone will have to find a publisher to start reprinting, but they won't want to. So, it's the perfect solution-- hang Rand on the whims of the free market and let her ashes dissipate there...
@HypaSonicDeathMonkey You know that it is infact a book, yet you make the conscious decision to discard reason, and say otherwise. Brilliant. It is obvious why Rand was so angry with people such as yourself who intentionally choose to be ignorant, and then you wonder why that is, and criticize HER for it!
@12Hollywoodkevin HAHAHA true enough! I wonder, wouldn't it just be less wasteful and harmful to just send Rand's estate the $10 or so that the book cost?
First, I like how you resort to South Park for your intelliegent comment on this book. I enjoy that you would fit in very well with most the firemen from Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451. I love that I having nothing but contempt for all religion, yet I would never burn the Holy Bible or the Koran because I am a selfish, egotistical man who values the history in mankind's mistakes and what we can learn from it and how we can improve upon it. I am also amused by your typical uneducated lifestyle.
Interesting to note two things here. First, the mindless morons burning the book sound like uneducated, dull-thinking losers who will most likely spend their lives following every new fad, lame idea, and oppressive leader that comes up the pike. Heck, you can merely hear it in their voices. Second, I know I am correct about my first point since real intellectuals, and people of substance DO NOT burn books, otherwise they would NOT be people of substance at all,
@xexixk You can tell this guy never took any courses on logic or he wouldn't equ ate the U.S. with Nazi Germany based on both providing H.C. for citizens. His logic based on a false premise is identical to this:
@CJCMA some may be upset because it was depreciating her message but I think most of the people who are upset are mortified that a book was burned in a supposedly free thinking society.
@MrJohngalt2011 i agree. What bothers me more is that people with the ability to read and learn dont use it. And once they find something they assume is right, every thing else gets demonized by default. I cant tell you how many times i get personally attacked because of very uncontroversial issues. Im sure youve had your fair share?
its funny how libertarts react to ironic book burning ( we can do with our private property what we please, right ), like christians react to bible burning.. "NOO NOT OUR HOLY BOOK!"
@ddxt301 Exactly. It's a kind of animism where they apparently think that a book is imbued with a "soul" that mustn't be tampered with. There is nothing sacrosanct about a book qua book. Just because it's been bound in codex form and has writing on the pages doesn't make it a source of enlightenment or a crime to use it as kindling. Burning a single mass-market paperback copy of Ayn Rand isn't going to usher in an age of ignorance--if anything it would signal the arrival of an age of good taste.
@MrJohngalt2011 Liberals compared to NAZI Germany? LOL Funniest thing I've heard in years. This video is a couple of kids thinking they are funny, I don't like book burnings but a couple of kids on youtube burning a paperback book is a bit different from the state ordering book burnings.
@xexixk I would stop laughing and pick up a history book. You will see how the left supported Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Remember kids in this video who think it is funny to burn a book are the same ones that will follow orders to shove people into ovens. they have devauled anothers views to the point of trying to destroy that idea. it is a small step from this to other more horrific things.
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL "The left" supported Hitler? I guess that's why some of the first people rounded up after he came to power were suspected communist, trade union leaders. That's why the trade unions were done away with and collective bargaining prohibited. I guess that's why Hitler hated Stalin so much. I guess that's why big business and industry supported Hitler and backed him b/c they thought he was a lefty. As for history books, you should read some real ones, not propaganda.
@xexixk I looked very simply at the party platform of '39. it is a carbon copy of the current democratic party platform. I can also look at how left writers of the time spoke in glowing terms about Hitler., they spoke about what a wonderful man he was and how progressive and forward looking he was. Did you know Time Magazine even made him Man of the Year? The facts are well on my side, you can try to run from your history but it will catch up with you.
@MrJohngalt2011 You have no facts. The Dem platform is like the NAZI platform? Insane comparison. The left supported Hitler? Guess that's why his minions terrorized left leaning organizations before they even came to power. Time's man of the year is chosen based on who has had the biggest impact in the world, regardless if it's a good or bad impact, not b/c they think the person is a great person. You are either unaware of that or deliberately making it out to be something it wasn't.
@MrJohngalt2011 My true history? My grandfather served in WW II so fuck you. You are just another one of those political hacks who spreads the lie that all of the world's horrors have come from the far left but nothing bad has ever come from the far right. You still can't explain the persecutions of suspected communists, Hitler's close ties with big business and his protection of private property (not far left ideals). Congrats! You would make Goebells proud!
@xexixk You miss the point and you refuse to answer the obvious question that I put forth - Why was the left in this country in such high admiration of Hitler? Why did the Nation, New York Times and several other writers all praise Hitler? Why did Time Mag make Hitler the Man of the Year? You need to read the history from the 20's and 30's and you will see the roots of progressives just like today are from Hitler and his ideals. And my grandfather served in WW II for almost 4 years.
@MrJohngalt2011 I already addressed The Time's Man of the Year - they choose a person who has a major impact on the world - be it a bad impact or a good impact. They don't choose the person b/c they think they are a nice great person. As for your other claims of the left praising Hitler: false. Next you will be telling me the America First people were lefties. There was nothing "left" about Hitler. Still waiting for you to explain his hatred of communism and cozy dealings with industry.
@xexixk They made Hitler the Man of the Year - that is admiration! That is love. Sorry, read the article. What about Sanger's support and Shaw's support... Shall I go on. I can quote the articles in The Nation and New York Times that thought Hitler was a pretty good guy and his policies should be adopted here.
@MrJohngalt2011 No it is not admiration. You don't get it at all. Look at other people they picked as man of the year. It's some one who has affected the world - doesn't meean they had a good effect on the world or were a admirable person. You still can't explain Hitlers purging of actual socialist from the party, his persecutions of left wing groups and people, his hatred of communism (remember the Reichstag fire was blamed on communists and the excuse to persecute suspected communists).
@MrJohngalt2011 Sanger actually denounced Hitler's leathal eugenics program. As for the rest, turn off Glen Beck, put down the glass of tea and go read what real historians have to say - no propagandists.
@xexixk No she did not. She stated very clearly that her goal was to breed out the undesireable and mongrel races (her words). "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group (blacks, the poor, orientals) should be stopped." She spoke often of sterilizing the unfit and those who breed more than she thinks is appropriate. My god, any history book on this topic will show you are completely and totally wrong. Sanger adhored Hitler.
@MrJohngalt2011 She did not adore Hitler. She wrote against his LETHAL eugenics program. She didn't believe in killing people. First off her racial attitudes where not out of place in her day, most whites at that time unfortuantely thought other races inferior. Her eugenics was by birth control and limiting births, not by killing living people. You are the one who needs to read more.
@xexixk Read her writings. I suggest "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children" of 1934 She used Nazi techniques to force her collectivists view on American women. She wrote: "The Negro Project" in '39 which aimed at reducing and then eliminating blacks in America. She wrote: "Negroes are the least intelligent and least fit". Shall I give you even more direct quotes, direct examples to prove your ignorance? She loved Hitler, she sought to exterminate races she thought were inferior.
@MrJohngalt2011 1) She did not love Hitler. Find a writting by her hand where she says "I love Hitler." 2) Her racial attitudes were common at the time, most whites then thought other races were inferior, particularly blacks 3) She did not advocate killing living people, she advocated control via birth control 4) In the days before genetics and more advanced science many people thought physical and congenital defects could be controlled by preventing certian people from reproducing
@MrJohngalt2011 Abraham Lincoln also stated that blacks were inferior to whites as did Theodore Roosevelt. Their racial attitudes reflect the times in which they lived. So so you think Lincoln and Roosevelt were also like Hitler?
@xexixk Neither one ever advocated the extermination of any race or socio-economic group, so the answer would be no. I understand that we must view history through the lense of the time and not the mores of our time. But her views and many other progressives in the 20's and 30's were extreme and were perfectly in line with Hitler. Many admired Hitler and his progressive ideals he was putting into place in Germany. You need to realize and admit to this history that progressives have.
@MrJohngalt2011 There was nothing progressive about Hitler. They did not admire him. You still can't explain Hitler's persecutions of left leaning people and organizations. During Sanger's time there were a number of people who thought congenital defects and intelligence could be controlled by controlling who reproduced, that was in the days before modern genetic science. She never advocated killing people and never wrote anything favoring Hitlerl. Next you will claim neo-NAZIs are liberals.
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL social benefits existed in Germany long before Hitler, he also made it so that it was impossible for a person to leave a job w/o permission of their employer (so progressive), people were worked like dogs, vegetarianism has nothing to do with politics and his vegetarianism was related to his digestive problems, he was no environmentalist, the industrialists who supported him profitted nicely from his war, didn't take industry by force vast majority profited & supported him
@MrJohngalt2011 You still haven't explained Hitler's persecutions of left leaning organizations and people. Or why he purged the party of actual socialist before coming to power. Or why industrialists supported him and fianced him before he came to power. Sanger never advocated the killing of living people. She was a woman of her times and most whites at that time thought other races to be inferior but she never ever advocated the killing of living people.
@MrJohngalt2011 BTW are you saying that any country that has universal healthcare (how dare they ensure that all citizens have access to healthcare) is a potential genocidal nightmare in the making? Do I need to worry that the Canadians are going to try to kill me (they have national healthcare after all)?
@xexixk No. It was an example of his progressive ideals. I would go and pull up the Nazi party platform from '29 or '34 and you will see a huge, and I mean huge, commonality to today's democrats. very scary.
@MrJohngalt2011 Actually you've twisted everything to make it fit. Nothing in common with Dems and Hitler. The fear only exist in your paranoia, which only exist in your mind. You really think Nancy Pelosi is going to gas you? Where in the Dem platfrom do they scapegoat other races or peoples? (that sounds like the far righ wingers on the Rep side who are stirring up racial resentments and listing groups of people to scapegoat). You still can't explain why a "progressive" persecuted progressives
@xexixk nothing in common? really? Please tell me from my previous list where progressives and democrats of today differ from the Nazi party platform? I don't see a lot of disagreement.
@MrJohngalt2011 Tell me where American liberals are scapegoating other races, peoples of differing beleifs for all of the country's problems (oh wait that would be far right doing that). Did you know Hitler hated smoking and thought smoking was unhealthy? The American Cancer Society also believes smoking is unhealthy. Oh my god! The American Cancer Society must be NAZIS!!!
@xexixk I would stay well away from racism and democrats/liberals their history is vey intertwined. I am making the point that the roots of moden liberalism is one of facism and commonality of beliefs. This commonality is well proven and obvious to those that read the writings and understand the history. Just accept it.
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL The two parties are polar opposites of what they were many years ago. Don't lecture about history, you don't any aside from whatevery propaganda and hack writiing you've been reading. It isn't the Dems who are currently stirring up racial, ethnic and religious hatred trying to score political points.
@xexixk You need to be lectured on history as you seem to be so bereft of its knowledge. Modern progressives had their start in the Fascist era of Europe and America. The democrat party is by far on the most racists groups in America. If you doubt this last fact, please do some research before replying. you will be astounded and ashamed of the Dems and their long history racism.
@MrJohngalt2011 Like I said the parties have dramatically changed (it's called evolution). First with FDR, being from the north east and not the south, he was different than the southern dems, then with JFK even more changes. Hence the reason there are few dems in the south now. The parties are polar opposites of what they were. The Dem party of the civil war era is not the same as the Dem party now, nor is the Rep party of the civil war era the same as the Rep party now.
@MrJohngalt2011 You are trying to take the history of the Dem party that existed years ago and comparing them to NAZIs w/o aknowledging that the two parties are nothing like they used to be. Today its the far right that is in control of the Rep party, they are the ones today formenting racism, scapegoating whole groups of people and demogouging. Saying that Europe's fascist were "progressives" is disingenious as well. There was nothing progressive about them or those fascists in the US.
@xexixk My point is Progressive thought as it is roots in the facist era and shares many of the same tenets. The right of this country is not racist and is rather funny when you remember the history of the dems and how they continue to treat other races in this country. Dems will always seek to keep dependent large groups so they can keep power. The GOP and the Tea Party always seeks to make independent these groups so they can succeed, and flourish - not come to government for handouts.
@MrJohngalt2011 How the Dems continue to treat races? LOL Listen you don't get it: the two parties aren't what they were years ago they are the polar opposites of each other now in terms of what they were years ago. The Dem party of the civil war no long exist just as the Rep party of the civil war no long exist. They are completely different. The far right has no racism? What a joke, its the far right who propagandize immigration, society's problems, etc. with racism & intolerance
@xexixk You can not run from the history of the left and progressives in America. If you look into what actually was said you will see the racism and complete disregard for individual liberty. You can not run from this history. You think the Dems were only racists a hundred years ago but you don't remember your recent history. You know the truth - just accept that Dems are racists and will always be so.
@MrJohngalt2011 You haven't presented any history, just propaganda. Years ago racial attitudes were comepletely different you try to tie that to people today. Dems today racist? Let's see today it's the people like LImbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. who are stiring up racism and societal discord and the politicians fromt he far right doing the same. As for Dems. in the modern area: JFK, LBJ both passed sweeping civil rights legislation, integration, etc. You have no facts.
@MrJohngalt2011 Ah yes all of those old Dems before the parties flip flopped - hence why the Rep is the big party in the south now. Remember LBJ said the south would be lost but he pressed ahead. All of those Dems are now Rep.
@MrJohngalt2011 Then of course so called christian pastor John Hagee who said god sent Hitler to drive the Jews to Israel...I do believe he endorsed McCain. The Falwell who blamed 9/11 on 'pagans, homosexuals, femininst" and other groups that he hated. Pat Robertson comes out with similar stupidity. The nonsense and hate from Bryan Fischer.
@xexixk The of course there are all of the so called Christian leaders to day Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Bryan Fischer, etc. all stirring up hatred and division among the people. Again far right. They certainly aren't libs or dems.
this bill was passed by the GOP! NOT THE DEMS. Shall I continue? I can post pages and pages and pages of specific exmaples and will continue to show you as being completely incorrect
@MrJohngalt2011 You are incorrect you are talking about things years ago. Like I said the parties have flipped flopped and both are the exact opposites of what they used to be. You fail to mention that Thurmond later became a Republican when the parties changed. You of course fail to mention Goldwater who was a Republican at the time who opposed much of the civil rights legislation.
@MrJohngalt2011 Byrd was years ago, the others you are nit picking. Why are you not listing those on the Rep side who have and are stirring up divisions? Jesse Helms's racist TV campaign ad about affirmative action, Tancredo, Bachmann, the Tea Party people with their crazy racist signs and language, the guy in the CO legislature who referred to Mexicans as peasants, etc. The right wing loud mouths on TV & radio, Limbaughs racist language, so called Christian leaders...you haven't mentioned them
@MrJohngalt2011 Byrd was years ago, the others you are nit picking. Why are you not listing those on the Rep side who have and are stirring up divisions? Jesse Helms's racist TV campaign ad about affirmative action, Tancredo, Bachmann, the Tea Party people with their crazy racist signs and language, the guy in the CO legislature who referred to Mexicans as peasants, etc. The right wing loud mouths on TV & radio, Limbaughs racist language, so called Christian leaders...you haven't mentioned them
I can't believe the faulty logic of johngalt! As you say, Lincoln reflected his times, if he was here in 2011, his views would not have been thus:
''All men are created equal,' he would say, on the authority of the Declaration of Independence, only to add: 'I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.' He opposed allowing blacks to vote, to sit on juries, to marry whites, even to be citizens."
@onesmartgal What's even funny is he is trying to make so much out of these two kids burning some paper back copy of Atlas Shrugged. Like it's the only copy out there or that they have some evil intention, they are just being silly. It's not like there are mobs of people out there sweeping the country burning libraries and archive collections. Just two silly kids.
@MrJohngalt2011 We already went over this my dear. They weren't liberals, stop drinking the tea and reading the propaganda. You've got two kids here acting silly, not a mob of people burning a library. You still can't explain Hitler's persecutions of left leaning organizations, round ups of suspected communists, the party purge of actual socialists, etc. Your logic is like this: France and Sweden have universal health care, therefore the French and Swedes are NAZIS.
@xexixk I never said that Liberals were exactly like Nazis. I said Liberals have their roots in the same era as the Nazis. Liberals share many of the ideals of Nazis as I have proven. Look at the writings of people like Sanger, HG Wells, Shaw, Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, Keynes, Aldous Huxley. You will see their roots. You need to read their writings, listen to their speechs. The simularity is undeniable. Just accept the facts.
@MrJohngalt2011 You havn't proven any thing and you have no facts. Here's another example of your facts: Oh my god the UK has universal health care, therefore the UK are a bunch of fascist NAZIs!!!
@xexixk 'Sanger actually denounced Hitler's leathal eugenics program. As for the rest, turn off Glen Beck, put down the glass of tea and go read what real historians have to say - no propagandists.'
ROFL, where do these folks get their info? That's rhetorical of course, we know the misinformation, disinformation, distortions, lies are abundantly shared via FoxTV, Limbaugh - radio, Heritage, Cato and a bunch of GOP PR productions.
@xexixk 'I think this guy has been reading too much of Jonah Goldberg's drivvel and taking him seriously as a "historian".'
I really think some of the population is of a different origin than the majorit of us. The bizarre beliefs they imagine to be true based on the revisionist histories the right produces are truly sad and frightening as well. We can only hope their children, if the children are so unfortunate to be born to them, get good educations and reject their parent's ideologies.
@onesmartgal Indeed. If Hitler was a "socialist/Marxist" as he claims. I want to know why he persecuted left leaning groups and people. Why Hitler hated Stalin and communism. Why was private property not abolished under Hitler. Why did private industry support Hitler and benefit from that support (read up on IG Farben). He won't address any of those issues.
@onesmartgal This guy even claims that Time magazine naming Hitler as man of the year was an admiration of Hiter. Time chose people who had an impact on the world - regarless if it was good impact or a bad impact. If one reads the article in time it's clear that it was full of anticipating doom, it did don't praise him. To come to a conclusion that article was praising Hitler one would have to have poor reading comprehension skills and no ear for nuanced language or just be flat out twisting it.
I don't think the johngalt feller is worth your time and energy - it's a sock acct, just opened - he's probably one of the nutcases we've been "debating" for a long time. Someone so rigid in their belief system they find proof liberals supported the most evil men in history is not likely to ever be open to actual facts. He will live and die believing lies. C'est la vie!
@lthom33 Good point, but I heard that might have been an internet hoax, so I am not sure. But if that was true, then shame on her!
Books should never be burned, locked up, or restricted. We need to have a free flow of all ideas no matter how stupid and let the marketplace of ideas sort the wheat from the chaff.
Also Ms. Palin will never be president. She hurt herself too much by leaving early to make money on Fox. She had a duty to perform and she left early.
@MrJohngalt2011 The Anchorage Daily reported that Palin spoke w/Librarian Mary Emmons 3 times about banning "objectionable books" if the need arose. It sounds like banning books was definitely on Palin's mind & it was Ms. Emmons who first reported these conversations to the Frontier. It wasn't a hoax. I agree that books should never been banned, as everyone has the right to write what they want & people have the right to read what they want. Palin left to cash in on her 15 mins of fame
@MrJohngalt2011 The Anchorage Daily reported that Palin spoke w/Librarian Mary Emmons 3 times about banning "objectionable books" if the need arose. It sounds like banning books was definitely on Palin's mind & it was Ms. Emmons who first reported these conversations to the Frontier. It wasn't a hoax. I agree that books should never been banned, as everyone has the right to write what they want & people have the right to read what they want. Palin left to cash in on her 15 mins of fame
@MrJohngalt2011 Are you stupid? You need to read about Hitler's support of and from big business, as well as rampant racism and censorship. You will see Hitler was far from a liberal.
@bobclark86 I would ask the same. Hitler promoted vegetarianism, animal rights, union rights and a removal of all war profiteering. I demanded profits from companies be paid back to workers, he also wanted universal healthcare and paid for pensions and a safety net that would make LBJ swoon over.
I would strongly suggest you read the Nazi political platform and you will it is an almost carbon copy of the Democratic Platform of today. Hitler was far from right, he was a complete liberal
@bobclark86 The fact that his party's name when translated was the "National Socialist Workers Party" tells you that it is left wing, and liberals are left wing. It is hard to get into power without big money from big business - he probably promised a few groups some kickbacks, like every other politician in the world does in order to become leader. It would however be fallacious to declare that all leftists are Hitler, in the same way that not all people with a moustache are Hitler.
@theredscourge Hitler shut down all unions the day after Labor Day and had their leaders arrested. He opposed communism and demonized Jews. He supported private ownership (as long as it served the needs of the state). All of these are marks of a fascist movement, not a socialist one. The party name was simply an easy way to attract supporters.
Lenin also shut down unions and forbade strikes...... but then again who need unions or strikes in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? :)
@reginaldgoldthwaite Correct, but there are many types of fascism. That of Hitler was built upon a primary foundation of nationalism; one of its remaining features the ECONOMIC safeguarding of sovereignty. He was rabid as to foreign loan capital and that, to this day even, has served German industry well; even America is no such anomaly. It is vastly different and really not subject to comparison at all. It has simply became a police state, albeit fascist, sociologically and demographically
I don't agree with burning books. It's funny though. I get a kick out of all the objectivists, it's like a snobby intellectual philosopher talking about the height of their academic achievements was reading "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and advocating it as a moral rule system.
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT LOL I agree. I've never understood how someone could hold up such a terribly written book as some great guide to life. The characters, for example, are these one dimensional archetypes - almost like comic book characters where the hero is always good looking and has no flaws but the villian is always physical repulsive and has nothing but flaws. Real people are more complex than that.
@pulsatingremedy And Harry Potter, Twilight, and whatever else the fundies have convinced themselves will lead to Satan worship. Mind you, they also include J.R.R. Tolkien in their demonology, so there will be *some* quality works to be read.
@mortalisk At least pace yourself, so that you don't have to deal with two overlong works back-to-back that are written as if they've been delivered from on high.
Seems rather embarrassing to post something like this. Were you drunk or something? You sound like a really stupid person? Even if I hated Ayn Rand, I couldn't post something like this online
They have the perfect right to burn any book they choose. Though, it show his lack of intelligence or money making genius considering the number of views, over 50,000. I'm thinking the user might be revenue sharing enabled?
if you think 'Atlas Shrugged' will do a better job at running this country than President elect Obama with men like 'John Galt' give a thumbs up. I highly doubt these baboons really actually read this book and if they did they did not understand the message in its entirety.
@chase22knuts Just once I would like some Randroid to be specific about what is that others "did not understand". It's not like we're talking about Finnegan's Wake here; this an utterly unimaginative, simpleminded polemical screed. It's about as difficult to read as the Dick and Jane series. So what do you imagine is the 'esoteric' core of this book that somehow people just don't understand?
@Nullifidian Not sure what you're talking about? Be specific about what? What are the "Randroids" suppose to be specific about? You seem to be very unspecific yourself? So, please be specific in your criticism. Then, others could have intelligent discussion with you about it.
@ftsmallwood Are you kidding me? I couldn't have made the sense of my words plainer if I had hired out an airplane and put it in skywriting. I always hear from Randroids that critics have "misunderstood" Atlas Shrugged. I find this completely improbable because Atlas Shrugged is a simplistic polemic, so I would like to know what it is that these critics have "misunderstood". What is the 'esoteric' core of Atlas Shrugged that remains shrouded in mystery to the uninitiated?
@Nullifidian Well, you're trying to reply to "other" people it seems? I don't see anyone here in the comments that suggests that Atlas Shrugged is misunderstood and neither am I. It means what it says and advocates. I stand by virtually all of it as a great book with only a couple of possible disagreements. So, if you wish to attack the book directly go right ahead. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about?
@ftsmallwood Of course I'm responding to another person. I was responding to chase22knuts, as you could have seen if you had bothered to look at my original message. And yes, he did claim that the people who posted this video either did not read or did not understand the book. As far as I could tell, there was no reason for this claim aside from the fact that they evidently didn't like it. Likewise, I've been told I 'misunderstood' the book simply because I found it to be the worst novel... cont
...that I'd ever read, and nothing I've read since then has been quite as bad.
And I'm not really interested in attacking the book directly. I've done that before, and been told that I misunderstood it, even when making *aesthetic* judgments about the writing that were incidental to the meaning. But if you want to know my main complaints: descriptive language that obscures rather than illuminates, one-sided characters, and 'philosophical' passages that consist of mere assertions and no thinking
@Nullifidian I must have misunderstood it to then lol, as it is a terribly written book - obviously written by a person who had no true talent for fiction written of any sort (literary fiction or pulp fiction).
I'm all for opponents of objectivism purchasing Atlas Shrugged (the greatest story ever told) and burning it. In doing so they have given money to Ayn Rand's estate. And for those of us who have read the book and remember Francisco D'Anconia's speech at James Taggart's wedding...the value of that monetary exchange is a much greater symbol than the burning of a book.
Atlas Shrugged and liberty are things the weakest human beings doesn't understand. Nazis burned books and hey they are socialists. People that are statist minded usually don't think by themselves. They are too busy stealing entrepenours' money through taxes.
That's a great comment!! Most kids go to government run schools which refuse to teach phonics resulting in kids that can't spell. Fortunately, I went to one of the few government run schools that still taught phonics back in the early 70's. It's pretty universal now for most government schools to teach the look say method. That's why most kids can't spell anymore. In the old days, people could spell. So, good luck finding any spelling errors in my comment!! It's too bad kids for kids.
@naadde Ah yet another spreading misinfo and outright historical lies. The NAZIs were not socialists, explain their purging of real socialists from the party and persecutions of left leaning groups and people. Since the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" has the word democratic in its name, do you tink there is really anything at all democratic about the Congo? As for thinking for oneself, you obviously aren't doing much of that.
@Yupiyeahs It is one book, his own property. He can do whatever he fucking wants with it. It's not like he has bought up, purposefully, a large percentage of all copies in existence and torched them? Jesus Christ, fucking Randroid wankers, can't fucking stand you.
@MyMeatYearns4Andrea And what exactly would the difference be between him burning one book he owns and a million books he owns? They're his own property, as you've said before. Where do you draw the boundary?
Burning books is a sign of a very poor taste. I couldn't care less whether he's burning Atlas Shrugged, The Bible, Gulliver's Travels or Mein Kampf. If you dislike some idea enough to take action, promote the opposite point of view instead of acting like a complete cretin.
@Yupiyeahs "[W]hat would the difference be between him burning one book he owns and a million books he owns?"
Sigh. I drew the boundary perfectly clearly at preventing the dissemination of someone's ideas. Burning your own personal copy is nothing when others can freely buy their own. It's not like he owned the last existing copy of the thing for gawd's sake.
The logical conclusion of your view is that every copy of every book ever printed should be preserved forever.
@MyMeatYearns4Andrea The logical conclusion of my point of view is that we shouldn't destroy books just to show our disregard for their contents. It's a sign of weak character. It's not cool.
it was easier for them to burn it on the ground since thier knuckles are still dragging there...
TheFjord9999 5 hours ago
HAHAHA DISRREGARD THAT I SUCK COCKS
kropoktinbeard1 6 days ago
Comment removed
clemonsx90 1 week ago
I agree that burning the book was an unnecessary waste. It could have been used for toilet paper, assuming you'd want anything to do with Rand that close to your butt. It could have been used as a tire-stop, several coasters, a door prop, something to hit inbred "Libertarains" in the head with when they start drooling out "Austrian economics", and whining about how everything in the universe is "coercion". Could have saved it to feed to the same Libertarians once they became destitute. Wasteful
kropotkinbeard1 1 week ago
burning books, just like the fucking holy crusaders destroying centuries scientific knowledge because it was "blasphemy", luckily preserved by the muslims..
and fuck socialism
rw1993n64 2 weeks ago
The creators of South Park are libertarians!
r29 3 weeks ago
you have just joined the ranks of Christians and Nazis...
ChasingCharles 4 weeks ago
Comment removed
ChasingCharles 4 weeks ago
Do you realize that the people who burn books are generally the idiots of the world? LOL... Your actions reflect on your character.
LucyQUSA 1 month ago
This video is brilliant and creative too. Who the hell would ever think to destroy a book by burning it? Bravo.
BillofRightsBrutus 1 month ago
Could this be the greatest gift a leftist has ever given the right? Footage of liberals burning a book because it represents a perspective they reject - who would have ever expected to see such a thing? ; )
vNorilor 2 months ago
If chapter seven's meaning has not yet sunken in, the genius behind this video can be more than likely found in a tent at an occupy camp. No doubt sinking of urine and whining about those who have more than enough, but refuse to pay their "fair share".
gee556 2 months ago
Lol nice one
Pawkit 3 months ago
@rheniumlake When did I say Ayn Rand was in favor of unions? In fact, when did I mention the hypocritical Mary Sue, anyway? We know she was about "individualism," i.e. "f*ck poor people until I'm one myself because I need assistance treating my self-induced lung cancer because my books don't sell well enough." What I was pointing out is, despite some Tea Partier screaming, "Hitler was a socialist!!!!" a million times doesn't mean they are correct.
bobclark86 3 months ago
@bobclark86 while i agree repeating something doesnt make it true, but i can see how one could call Hitler a socialist (even though its probably just to demonize socialism). I was pointing out Hitler provided a form of socialism to Germans at the expense of outsiders, similar to socialism in America through taxing the rich and foreign intervention. Im just reiterating Chomskys argument about political structure. Basically everything is more or less the same in varying degrees.
rheniumlake 3 months ago
@bobclark86 claiming Rand was a hypocrite because she used the safety net of the government for its intended purpose, despite not being a fan of it is just as valid as me claiming you are a hypocrite if you hate greedy corporations yet enjoy your iphone.
theredscourge 3 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011: Hitler rounded up unionists and sent them to the camps, starting the party-controlled Gleichschaltung instead. Groups like IG Farben were well-known war profiteers and helped plan invasions (they told the Wehrmacht which factories in occupied countries to leave intact). 13 IG Farben officials were convicted at Nuremburg for this. Hitler hated socialism (that's why industrialists like Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and the Rockefellers supported him). You are wrong.
bobclark86 3 months ago
@bobclark86 unionists are the antithesis of Ayn Rands libertarian values. She was more about individualism. She doesnt give a damn about big business the way Hitler did. He used it to fuel his political hold, whereas in Atlas Shrugged it was one of the things that brought the society down. Actually Chomsky believes that existing/old political systems of the world are more similar to each other and are not true to their corresponding theories. In many ways Hitler was a socialist towards Germans
rheniumlake 3 months ago
couldnt you have just sold the book on ebay? you're inability to reason is probably why you couldnt appreciate the book even if you dont agree with it.
rheniumlake 3 months ago 2
are they laughing as their economy and empire burn just the same? its funny, this was filmed in 2006, and what has happened since then? might be worth another read. oh wait, your childish ignorance destroyed the wisdom that could have helped guide you.
smudgeservices 3 months ago 3
Nazis burned books.. This guy is a loser to say the least of his pathetic existence, The pain of knowledge is one that will fill the men and women capable of taking the chances, willing to take the risks, and most importantly recognize humility and victory when it confronts them, until this country is left with only those bearing open hands awaiting their voted messengers daily rations. Good for you sir, you've reminded 55 thousand viewers the power of destroying works of art.
lowsycockski 3 months ago
Funny thing is they paid for it, thus contributing to the further printing of its great message. But they also burned it, thus contributing to global warming and littering, thus violating their own socialist scumbag beliefs. BTW I am the 1% and I'm shrugging.
57thcory 3 months ago 2
It's not worth burning. Here's what you do: donate your copies to used book stores and flood the market so that they are worth $.01 a piece. That way they'll go out of print for lack of sales of new copies. Then when the cheap paperbacks find their way to the land fill in 10-20 years, someone will have to find a publisher to start reprinting, but they won't want to. So, it's the perfect solution-- hang Rand on the whims of the free market and let her ashes dissipate there...
pastafarianprophet 3 months ago
Where men burn books, soon they will burn men.
12Hollywoodkevin 4 months ago 10
@12Hollywoodkevin
Naw. I'd also be hesitant to class Atlas Shrugged as a book.
HypaSonicDeathMonkey 3 months ago
@HypaSonicDeathMonkey You know that it is infact a book, yet you make the conscious decision to discard reason, and say otherwise. Brilliant. It is obvious why Rand was so angry with people such as yourself who intentionally choose to be ignorant, and then you wonder why that is, and criticize HER for it!
northcottmichael 3 months ago
@northcottmichael
Spoiler: Because she couldn't fucking write. Calm down and learn to spot sarcasm, big boy.
HypaSonicDeathMonkey 3 months ago
@12Hollywoodkevin HAHAHA true enough! I wonder, wouldn't it just be less wasteful and harmful to just send Rand's estate the $10 or so that the book cost?
northcottmichael 3 months ago
too bad she didn't end like this....
zentopia7 4 months ago
First, I like how you resort to South Park for your intelliegent comment on this book. I enjoy that you would fit in very well with most the firemen from Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451. I love that I having nothing but contempt for all religion, yet I would never burn the Holy Bible or the Koran because I am a selfish, egotistical man who values the history in mankind's mistakes and what we can learn from it and how we can improve upon it. I am also amused by your typical uneducated lifestyle.
Laxanii 5 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
@start12poop I don't think anyone will read it
lthom33 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@start12poop I don't think anyone will read it
lthom33 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Oh ya, seems to me there was an organized group of book burners in Germany from the 1920s through the 1940s. Hmmmmmm, now who could they have been?
sickofyou60 5 months ago
Comment removed
sickofyou60 5 months ago
Interesting to note two things here. First, the mindless morons burning the book sound like uneducated, dull-thinking losers who will most likely spend their lives following every new fad, lame idea, and oppressive leader that comes up the pike. Heck, you can merely hear it in their voices. Second, I know I am correct about my first point since real intellectuals, and people of substance DO NOT burn books, otherwise they would NOT be people of substance at all,
sickofyou60 5 months ago
@xexixk You can tell this guy never took any courses on logic or he wouldn't equ ate the U.S. with Nazi Germany based on both providing H.C. for citizens. His logic based on a false premise is identical to this:
Horses are four-legged animals.
My dog has four-legs, thus:
My dog is a horse.
onesmartgal 6 months ago
@onesmartgal Good point! He also evidently skipped history.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk
LOL! :)
onesmartgal 6 months ago
randroids lol
fyadcorp 6 months ago
@natritious1 Are we that much in decay that ppl praise the mindfucks of an old russian hag with no more contribution than Scientology xD?
CJCMA 6 months ago
@CJCMA some may be upset because it was depreciating her message but I think most of the people who are upset are mortified that a book was burned in a supposedly free thinking society.
rheniumlake 3 months ago
@rheniumlake The ability to think for one's self often goes unused. Hence citizens like this who must destroy what they can not understand.
MrJohngalt2011 3 months ago 3
@MrJohngalt2011 i agree. What bothers me more is that people with the ability to read and learn dont use it. And once they find something they assume is right, every thing else gets demonized by default. I cant tell you how many times i get personally attacked because of very uncontroversial issues. Im sure youve had your fair share?
rheniumlake 3 months ago
@rheniumlake Me too. I do like to read opposing viewpoints often.
MrJohngalt2011 3 months ago
tools
natritious1 6 months ago
Why would you have entered a contest to win a prize you didn't want? You fuckers probably shoplifted it.
Vladivostok3701 6 months ago
its funny how libertarts react to ironic book burning ( we can do with our private property what we please, right ), like christians react to bible burning.. "NOO NOT OUR HOLY BOOK!"
ddxt301 6 months ago
@ddxt301 Exactly. It's a kind of animism where they apparently think that a book is imbued with a "soul" that mustn't be tampered with. There is nothing sacrosanct about a book qua book. Just because it's been bound in codex form and has writing on the pages doesn't make it a source of enlightenment or a crime to use it as kindling. Burning a single mass-market paperback copy of Ayn Rand isn't going to usher in an age of ignorance--if anything it would signal the arrival of an age of good taste.
Nullifidian 6 months ago 7
Lol Atlas Lol !
Rofl Ayn Rand Rofl !! !
CJCMA 6 months ago
@CJCMA this statement is the pinnacle of achievement in the western world
natritious1 6 months ago
liberals burning books again... just like Germany in '33. They must destroy physically what they can not defeat with words.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Liberals compared to NAZI Germany? LOL Funniest thing I've heard in years. This video is a couple of kids thinking they are funny, I don't like book burnings but a couple of kids on youtube burning a paperback book is a bit different from the state ordering book burnings.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk I would stop laughing and pick up a history book. You will see how the left supported Hitler and Stalin and Mao. Remember kids in this video who think it is funny to burn a book are the same ones that will follow orders to shove people into ovens. they have devauled anothers views to the point of trying to destroy that idea. it is a small step from this to other more horrific things.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL "The left" supported Hitler? I guess that's why some of the first people rounded up after he came to power were suspected communist, trade union leaders. That's why the trade unions were done away with and collective bargaining prohibited. I guess that's why Hitler hated Stalin so much. I guess that's why big business and industry supported Hitler and backed him b/c they thought he was a lefty. As for history books, you should read some real ones, not propaganda.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk I looked very simply at the party platform of '39. it is a carbon copy of the current democratic party platform. I can also look at how left writers of the time spoke in glowing terms about Hitler., they spoke about what a wonderful man he was and how progressive and forward looking he was. Did you know Time Magazine even made him Man of the Year? The facts are well on my side, you can try to run from your history but it will catch up with you.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You have no facts. The Dem platform is like the NAZI platform? Insane comparison. The left supported Hitler? Guess that's why his minions terrorized left leaning organizations before they even came to power. Time's man of the year is chosen based on who has had the biggest impact in the world, regardless if it's a good or bad impact, not b/c they think the person is a great person. You are either unaware of that or deliberately making it out to be something it wasn't.
xexixk 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 My true history? My grandfather served in WW II so fuck you. You are just another one of those political hacks who spreads the lie that all of the world's horrors have come from the far left but nothing bad has ever come from the far right. You still can't explain the persecutions of suspected communists, Hitler's close ties with big business and his protection of private property (not far left ideals). Congrats! You would make Goebells proud!
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk You miss the point and you refuse to answer the obvious question that I put forth - Why was the left in this country in such high admiration of Hitler? Why did the Nation, New York Times and several other writers all praise Hitler? Why did Time Mag make Hitler the Man of the Year? You need to read the history from the 20's and 30's and you will see the roots of progressives just like today are from Hitler and his ideals. And my grandfather served in WW II for almost 4 years.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 I already addressed The Time's Man of the Year - they choose a person who has a major impact on the world - be it a bad impact or a good impact. They don't choose the person b/c they think they are a nice great person. As for your other claims of the left praising Hitler: false. Next you will be telling me the America First people were lefties. There was nothing "left" about Hitler. Still waiting for you to explain his hatred of communism and cozy dealings with industry.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk They made Hitler the Man of the Year - that is admiration! That is love. Sorry, read the article. What about Sanger's support and Shaw's support... Shall I go on. I can quote the articles in The Nation and New York Times that thought Hitler was a pretty good guy and his policies should be adopted here.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 No it is not admiration. You don't get it at all. Look at other people they picked as man of the year. It's some one who has affected the world - doesn't meean they had a good effect on the world or were a admirable person. You still can't explain Hitlers purging of actual socialist from the party, his persecutions of left wing groups and people, his hatred of communism (remember the Reichstag fire was blamed on communists and the excuse to persecute suspected communists).
xexixk 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Sanger actually denounced Hitler's leathal eugenics program. As for the rest, turn off Glen Beck, put down the glass of tea and go read what real historians have to say - no propagandists.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk No she did not. She stated very clearly that her goal was to breed out the undesireable and mongrel races (her words). "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group (blacks, the poor, orientals) should be stopped." She spoke often of sterilizing the unfit and those who breed more than she thinks is appropriate. My god, any history book on this topic will show you are completely and totally wrong. Sanger adhored Hitler.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 She did not adore Hitler. She wrote against his LETHAL eugenics program. She didn't believe in killing people. First off her racial attitudes where not out of place in her day, most whites at that time unfortuantely thought other races inferior. Her eugenics was by birth control and limiting births, not by killing living people. You are the one who needs to read more.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Read her writings. I suggest "Code to Stop Overproduction of Children" of 1934 She used Nazi techniques to force her collectivists view on American women. She wrote: "The Negro Project" in '39 which aimed at reducing and then eliminating blacks in America. She wrote: "Negroes are the least intelligent and least fit". Shall I give you even more direct quotes, direct examples to prove your ignorance? She loved Hitler, she sought to exterminate races she thought were inferior.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 1) She did not love Hitler. Find a writting by her hand where she says "I love Hitler." 2) Her racial attitudes were common at the time, most whites then thought other races were inferior, particularly blacks 3) She did not advocate killing living people, she advocated control via birth control 4) In the days before genetics and more advanced science many people thought physical and congenital defects could be controlled by preventing certian people from reproducing
xexixk 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Abraham Lincoln also stated that blacks were inferior to whites as did Theodore Roosevelt. Their racial attitudes reflect the times in which they lived. So so you think Lincoln and Roosevelt were also like Hitler?
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Neither one ever advocated the extermination of any race or socio-economic group, so the answer would be no. I understand that we must view history through the lense of the time and not the mores of our time. But her views and many other progressives in the 20's and 30's were extreme and were perfectly in line with Hitler. Many admired Hitler and his progressive ideals he was putting into place in Germany. You need to realize and admit to this history that progressives have.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 There was nothing progressive about Hitler. They did not admire him. You still can't explain Hitler's persecutions of left leaning people and organizations. During Sanger's time there were a number of people who thought congenital defects and intelligence could be controlled by controlling who reproduced, that was in the days before modern genetic science. She never advocated killing people and never wrote anything favoring Hitlerl. Next you will claim neo-NAZIs are liberals.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Hitler was very progressive: He advocated or created:
Universal Healthcare
Lowered the work week
Vegetarian and discouraged the eating of meat
Environmentalist
banned war profittering
limited compensation of executives
nationalized many companies in order to deliver profits to the people
And I think you are still missing some of Sanger's writings and quotes. She sought to exterminate races she felt inferior.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL social benefits existed in Germany long before Hitler, he also made it so that it was impossible for a person to leave a job w/o permission of their employer (so progressive), people were worked like dogs, vegetarianism has nothing to do with politics and his vegetarianism was related to his digestive problems, he was no environmentalist, the industrialists who supported him profitted nicely from his war, didn't take industry by force vast majority profited & supported him
xexixk 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You still haven't explained Hitler's persecutions of left leaning organizations and people. Or why he purged the party of actual socialist before coming to power. Or why industrialists supported him and fianced him before he came to power. Sanger never advocated the killing of living people. She was a woman of her times and most whites at that time thought other races to be inferior but she never ever advocated the killing of living people.
xexixk 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 BTW are you saying that any country that has universal healthcare (how dare they ensure that all citizens have access to healthcare) is a potential genocidal nightmare in the making? Do I need to worry that the Canadians are going to try to kill me (they have national healthcare after all)?
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk No. It was an example of his progressive ideals. I would go and pull up the Nazi party platform from '29 or '34 and you will see a huge, and I mean huge, commonality to today's democrats. very scary.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Actually you've twisted everything to make it fit. Nothing in common with Dems and Hitler. The fear only exist in your paranoia, which only exist in your mind. You really think Nancy Pelosi is going to gas you? Where in the Dem platfrom do they scapegoat other races or peoples? (that sounds like the far righ wingers on the Rep side who are stirring up racial resentments and listing groups of people to scapegoat). You still can't explain why a "progressive" persecuted progressives
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk nothing in common? really? Please tell me from my previous list where progressives and democrats of today differ from the Nazi party platform? I don't see a lot of disagreement.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Tell me where American liberals are scapegoating other races, peoples of differing beleifs for all of the country's problems (oh wait that would be far right doing that). Did you know Hitler hated smoking and thought smoking was unhealthy? The American Cancer Society also believes smoking is unhealthy. Oh my god! The American Cancer Society must be NAZIS!!!
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk I would stay well away from racism and democrats/liberals their history is vey intertwined. I am making the point that the roots of moden liberalism is one of facism and commonality of beliefs. This commonality is well proven and obvious to those that read the writings and understand the history. Just accept it.
MrJohngalt2011 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 LOL The two parties are polar opposites of what they were many years ago. Don't lecture about history, you don't any aside from whatevery propaganda and hack writiing you've been reading. It isn't the Dems who are currently stirring up racial, ethnic and religious hatred trying to score political points.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk You need to be lectured on history as you seem to be so bereft of its knowledge. Modern progressives had their start in the Fascist era of Europe and America. The democrat party is by far on the most racists groups in America. If you doubt this last fact, please do some research before replying. you will be astounded and ashamed of the Dems and their long history racism.
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Like I said the parties have dramatically changed (it's called evolution). First with FDR, being from the north east and not the south, he was different than the southern dems, then with JFK even more changes. Hence the reason there are few dems in the south now. The parties are polar opposites of what they were. The Dem party of the civil war era is not the same as the Dem party now, nor is the Rep party of the civil war era the same as the Rep party now.
xexixk 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You are trying to take the history of the Dem party that existed years ago and comparing them to NAZIs w/o aknowledging that the two parties are nothing like they used to be. Today its the far right that is in control of the Rep party, they are the ones today formenting racism, scapegoating whole groups of people and demogouging. Saying that Europe's fascist were "progressives" is disingenious as well. There was nothing progressive about them or those fascists in the US.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk My point is Progressive thought as it is roots in the facist era and shares many of the same tenets. The right of this country is not racist and is rather funny when you remember the history of the dems and how they continue to treat other races in this country. Dems will always seek to keep dependent large groups so they can keep power. The GOP and the Tea Party always seeks to make independent these groups so they can succeed, and flourish - not come to government for handouts.
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 How the Dems continue to treat races? LOL Listen you don't get it: the two parties aren't what they were years ago they are the polar opposites of each other now in terms of what they were years ago. The Dem party of the civil war no long exist just as the Rep party of the civil war no long exist. They are completely different. The far right has no racism? What a joke, its the far right who propagandize immigration, society's problems, etc. with racism & intolerance
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk You can not run from the history of the left and progressives in America. If you look into what actually was said you will see the racism and complete disregard for individual liberty. You can not run from this history. You think the Dems were only racists a hundred years ago but you don't remember your recent history. You know the truth - just accept that Dems are racists and will always be so.
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You haven't presented any history, just propaganda. Years ago racial attitudes were comepletely different you try to tie that to people today. Dems today racist? Let's see today it's the people like LImbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, etc. who are stiring up racism and societal discord and the politicians fromt he far right doing the same. As for Dems. in the modern area: JFK, LBJ both passed sweeping civil rights legislation, integration, etc. You have no facts.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Here are some recent examples of Dems as racists (of course I have exact examples and exact quotes, while you have supplied - zero)
List of 1/2 of the Democrats that Fillabustered, Opposed and spoke out against the Civil rights act of '64:
- Hill and Sparkman of Alabama
- Fulbright and McClellan of Arkansas
- Holland and Smathers of Florida
- Russell and Talmadge of Georgia
- Ellender and Long of Louisiana
- Eastland and Stennis of Mississippi
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Ah yes all of those old Dems before the parties flip flopped - hence why the Rep is the big party in the south now. Remember LBJ said the south would be lost but he pressed ahead. All of those Dems are now Rep.
xexixk 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Then of course so called christian pastor John Hagee who said god sent Hitler to drive the Jews to Israel...I do believe he endorsed McCain. The Falwell who blamed 9/11 on 'pagans, homosexuals, femininst" and other groups that he hated. Pat Robertson comes out with similar stupidity. The nonsense and hate from Bryan Fischer.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk The of course there are all of the so called Christian leaders to day Pat Robertson, John Hagee, Bryan Fischer, etc. all stirring up hatred and division among the people. Again far right. They certainly aren't libs or dems.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Here's the other half of the list:
- Ervin and Jordan of North Carolina
- Johnston and Thurmond of South Carolina
- Gore Sr. and Walters of Tennessee
- H. Byrd and Robertson of Virginia
- R. Byrd of West Virginia
this bill was passed by the GOP! NOT THE DEMS. Shall I continue? I can post pages and pages and pages of specific exmaples and will continue to show you as being completely incorrect
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You are incorrect you are talking about things years ago. Like I said the parties have flipped flopped and both are the exact opposites of what they used to be. You fail to mention that Thurmond later became a Republican when the parties changed. You of course fail to mention Goldwater who was a Republican at the time who opposed much of the civil rights legislation.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk Years ago? OK how about these:
- House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, former affiliate of a St. Louis area racist group
- Robert Byrd, former Ku Klux Klansman known for making bigoted slurs on national television
- Rev. Jesse Jackson, Democrat keynote speaker making anti-Semitic slurs
- Rev. Al Sharpten, Democrat activist, known for inciting anti-Semitic violence in New York City
- Sen. Ernest Hollings, known for use of racial slurs against several minority groups
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Byrd was years ago, the others you are nit picking. Why are you not listing those on the Rep side who have and are stirring up divisions? Jesse Helms's racist TV campaign ad about affirmative action, Tancredo, Bachmann, the Tea Party people with their crazy racist signs and language, the guy in the CO legislature who referred to Mexicans as peasants, etc. The right wing loud mouths on TV & radio, Limbaughs racist language, so called Christian leaders...you haven't mentioned them
xexixk 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrJohngalt2011 Byrd was years ago, the others you are nit picking. Why are you not listing those on the Rep side who have and are stirring up divisions? Jesse Helms's racist TV campaign ad about affirmative action, Tancredo, Bachmann, the Tea Party people with their crazy racist signs and language, the guy in the CO legislature who referred to Mexicans as peasants, etc. The right wing loud mouths on TV & radio, Limbaughs racist language, so called Christian leaders...you haven't mentioned them
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk
I can't believe the faulty logic of johngalt! As you say, Lincoln reflected his times, if he was here in 2011, his views would not have been thus:
''All men are created equal,' he would say, on the authority of the Declaration of Independence, only to add: 'I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.' He opposed allowing blacks to vote, to sit on juries, to marry whites, even to be citizens."
onesmartgal 6 months ago
@onesmartgal What's even funny is he is trying to make so much out of these two kids burning some paper back copy of Atlas Shrugged. Like it's the only copy out there or that they have some evil intention, they are just being silly. It's not like there are mobs of people out there sweeping the country burning libraries and archive collections. Just two silly kids.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk Yes, just silly kids like those in Germany in '33. They were "kids" also. Why did liberal condone book burnings?
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 We already went over this my dear. They weren't liberals, stop drinking the tea and reading the propaganda. You've got two kids here acting silly, not a mob of people burning a library. You still can't explain Hitler's persecutions of left leaning organizations, round ups of suspected communists, the party purge of actual socialists, etc. Your logic is like this: France and Sweden have universal health care, therefore the French and Swedes are NAZIS.
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk I never said that Liberals were exactly like Nazis. I said Liberals have their roots in the same era as the Nazis. Liberals share many of the ideals of Nazis as I have proven. Look at the writings of people like Sanger, HG Wells, Shaw, Beatrice Webb, Harold Laski, Keynes, Aldous Huxley. You will see their roots. You need to read their writings, listen to their speechs. The simularity is undeniable. Just accept the facts.
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 You havn't proven any thing and you have no facts. Here's another example of your facts: Oh my god the UK has universal health care, therefore the UK are a bunch of fascist NAZIs!!!
xexixk 5 months ago
@xexixk 'Sanger actually denounced Hitler's leathal eugenics program. As for the rest, turn off Glen Beck, put down the glass of tea and go read what real historians have to say - no propagandists.'
ROFL, where do these folks get their info? That's rhetorical of course, we know the misinformation, disinformation, distortions, lies are abundantly shared via FoxTV, Limbaugh - radio, Heritage, Cato and a bunch of GOP PR productions.
onesmartgal 6 months ago
@onesmartgal I think this guy has been reading too much of Jonah Goldberg's drivvel and taking him seriously as a "historian".
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk 'I think this guy has been reading too much of Jonah Goldberg's drivvel and taking him seriously as a "historian".'
I really think some of the population is of a different origin than the majorit of us. The bizarre beliefs they imagine to be true based on the revisionist histories the right produces are truly sad and frightening as well. We can only hope their children, if the children are so unfortunate to be born to them, get good educations and reject their parent's ideologies.
onesmartgal 6 months ago
@onesmartgal Indeed. If Hitler was a "socialist/Marxist" as he claims. I want to know why he persecuted left leaning groups and people. Why Hitler hated Stalin and communism. Why was private property not abolished under Hitler. Why did private industry support Hitler and benefit from that support (read up on IG Farben). He won't address any of those issues.
xexixk 6 months ago
@onesmartgal This guy even claims that Time magazine naming Hitler as man of the year was an admiration of Hiter. Time chose people who had an impact on the world - regarless if it was good impact or a bad impact. If one reads the article in time it's clear that it was full of anticipating doom, it did don't praise him. To come to a conclusion that article was praising Hitler one would have to have poor reading comprehension skills and no ear for nuanced language or just be flat out twisting it.
xexixk 6 months ago
@xexixk
I don't think the johngalt feller is worth your time and energy - it's a sock acct, just opened - he's probably one of the nutcases we've been "debating" for a long time. Someone so rigid in their belief system they find proof liberals supported the most evil men in history is not likely to ever be open to actual facts. He will live and die believing lies. C'est la vie!
onesmartgal 6 months ago
Comment removed
onesmartgal 6 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 A good example of Germany in '33 burning books here in the US is when Sarah Palin tried to ban books in the local Library.
lthom33 5 months ago
@lthom33 Good point, but I heard that might have been an internet hoax, so I am not sure. But if that was true, then shame on her!
Books should never be burned, locked up, or restricted. We need to have a free flow of all ideas no matter how stupid and let the marketplace of ideas sort the wheat from the chaff.
Also Ms. Palin will never be president. She hurt herself too much by leaving early to make money on Fox. She had a duty to perform and she left early.
MrJohngalt2011 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 The Anchorage Daily reported that Palin spoke w/Librarian Mary Emmons 3 times about banning "objectionable books" if the need arose. It sounds like banning books was definitely on Palin's mind & it was Ms. Emmons who first reported these conversations to the Frontier. It wasn't a hoax. I agree that books should never been banned, as everyone has the right to write what they want & people have the right to read what they want. Palin left to cash in on her 15 mins of fame
lthom33 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 The Anchorage Daily reported that Palin spoke w/Librarian Mary Emmons 3 times about banning "objectionable books" if the need arose. It sounds like banning books was definitely on Palin's mind & it was Ms. Emmons who first reported these conversations to the Frontier. It wasn't a hoax. I agree that books should never been banned, as everyone has the right to write what they want & people have the right to read what they want. Palin left to cash in on her 15 mins of fame
lthom33 5 months ago
@MrJohngalt2011 Are you stupid? You need to read about Hitler's support of and from big business, as well as rampant racism and censorship. You will see Hitler was far from a liberal.
bobclark86 3 months ago
@bobclark86 I would ask the same. Hitler promoted vegetarianism, animal rights, union rights and a removal of all war profiteering. I demanded profits from companies be paid back to workers, he also wanted universal healthcare and paid for pensions and a safety net that would make LBJ swoon over.
I would strongly suggest you read the Nazi political platform and you will it is an almost carbon copy of the Democratic Platform of today. Hitler was far from right, he was a complete liberal
MrJohngalt2011 3 months ago 2
@bobclark86 The fact that his party's name when translated was the "National Socialist Workers Party" tells you that it is left wing, and liberals are left wing. It is hard to get into power without big money from big business - he probably promised a few groups some kickbacks, like every other politician in the world does in order to become leader. It would however be fallacious to declare that all leftists are Hitler, in the same way that not all people with a moustache are Hitler.
theredscourge 3 months ago
@theredscourge Hitler shut down all unions the day after Labor Day and had their leaders arrested. He opposed communism and demonized Jews. He supported private ownership (as long as it served the needs of the state). All of these are marks of a fascist movement, not a socialist one. The party name was simply an easy way to attract supporters.
reginaldgoldthwaite 2 months ago 5
@reginaldgoldthwaite
"fascist movement, not a socialist one"
The same thing under a different rethoric.
Lenin also shut down unions and forbade strikes...... but then again who need unions or strikes in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat? :)
LibertyRealm 1 month ago
@reginaldgoldthwaite Correct, but there are many types of fascism. That of Hitler was built upon a primary foundation of nationalism; one of its remaining features the ECONOMIC safeguarding of sovereignty. He was rabid as to foreign loan capital and that, to this day even, has served German industry well; even America is no such anomaly. It is vastly different and really not subject to comparison at all. It has simply became a police state, albeit fascist, sociologically and demographically
BillofRightsBrutus 1 month ago
I don't agree with burning books. It's funny though. I get a kick out of all the objectivists, it's like a snobby intellectual philosopher talking about the height of their academic achievements was reading "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" and advocating it as a moral rule system.
THEINVENTABLETHREAT 7 months ago 5
@THEINVENTABLETHREAT LOL I agree. I've never understood how someone could hold up such a terribly written book as some great guide to life. The characters, for example, are these one dimensional archetypes - almost like comic book characters where the hero is always good looking and has no flaws but the villian is always physical repulsive and has nothing but flaws. Real people are more complex than that.
xexixk 6 months ago
You just submitted a piece of writing worth 9 dollars to the Ayn Rand Institute.
JOBGG16 7 months ago
Any book worth burning must be worth reading!
mortalisk 7 months ago
@mortalisk
Then prepare to read every book ever written that focuses on atheism.
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@mortalisk
And a shitload of Korans and Bibles*
pulsatingremedy 7 months ago
@pulsatingremedy And Harry Potter, Twilight, and whatever else the fundies have convinced themselves will lead to Satan worship. Mind you, they also include J.R.R. Tolkien in their demonology, so there will be *some* quality works to be read.
Nullifidian 7 months ago
@Nullifidian Ok, you convinced me. Not all burned books are worth reading, for sure :p It depends a lot on who is burning it, I guess.
mortalisk 7 months ago
@pulsatingremedy I would say that those are at least worth reading, and I will definately read both Atlas Shrugged and the Bible in the near future.
mortalisk 7 months ago
@mortalisk At least pace yourself, so that you don't have to deal with two overlong works back-to-back that are written as if they've been delivered from on high.
Nullifidian 7 months ago
@Nullifidian I already started the Bible some years ago. It is a SLOW read for sure.
mortalisk 7 months ago
@mortalisk exactly. I had some friends burn a bible, and I'm an atheist but it just made me feel uneasy
natritious1 6 months ago
Seems rather embarrassing to post something like this. Were you drunk or something? You sound like a really stupid person? Even if I hated Ayn Rand, I couldn't post something like this online
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
Intelligent people don't burn books. Even if you don't agree with the book, you can always study it to analyze or disprove it's theories.
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
They have the perfect right to burn any book they choose. Though, it show his lack of intelligence or money making genius considering the number of views, over 50,000. I'm thinking the user might be revenue sharing enabled?
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
Wow retards at work maybe you should have read it you are a NAZI
strassercaster 7 months ago
looter
TheCikada 7 months ago
Even if the book you burn is Mein Kampf, you're still being more Nazi than anti-Nazi
hatchbx 7 months ago 3
if you think 'Atlas Shrugged' will do a better job at running this country than President elect Obama with men like 'John Galt' give a thumbs up. I highly doubt these baboons really actually read this book and if they did they did not understand the message in its entirety.
chase22knuts 7 months ago
@chase22knuts Just once I would like some Randroid to be specific about what is that others "did not understand". It's not like we're talking about Finnegan's Wake here; this an utterly unimaginative, simpleminded polemical screed. It's about as difficult to read as the Dick and Jane series. So what do you imagine is the 'esoteric' core of this book that somehow people just don't understand?
Nullifidian 7 months ago
@Nullifidian Not sure what you're talking about? Be specific about what? What are the "Randroids" suppose to be specific about? You seem to be very unspecific yourself? So, please be specific in your criticism. Then, others could have intelligent discussion with you about it.
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
@ftsmallwood Are you kidding me? I couldn't have made the sense of my words plainer if I had hired out an airplane and put it in skywriting. I always hear from Randroids that critics have "misunderstood" Atlas Shrugged. I find this completely improbable because Atlas Shrugged is a simplistic polemic, so I would like to know what it is that these critics have "misunderstood". What is the 'esoteric' core of Atlas Shrugged that remains shrouded in mystery to the uninitiated?
Nullifidian 7 months ago
@Nullifidian Well, you're trying to reply to "other" people it seems? I don't see anyone here in the comments that suggests that Atlas Shrugged is misunderstood and neither am I. It means what it says and advocates. I stand by virtually all of it as a great book with only a couple of possible disagreements. So, if you wish to attack the book directly go right ahead. Otherwise, I don't know what you're talking about?
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
@ftsmallwood Of course I'm responding to another person. I was responding to chase22knuts, as you could have seen if you had bothered to look at my original message. And yes, he did claim that the people who posted this video either did not read or did not understand the book. As far as I could tell, there was no reason for this claim aside from the fact that they evidently didn't like it. Likewise, I've been told I 'misunderstood' the book simply because I found it to be the worst novel... cont
Nullifidian 7 months ago
...that I'd ever read, and nothing I've read since then has been quite as bad.
And I'm not really interested in attacking the book directly. I've done that before, and been told that I misunderstood it, even when making *aesthetic* judgments about the writing that were incidental to the meaning. But if you want to know my main complaints: descriptive language that obscures rather than illuminates, one-sided characters, and 'philosophical' passages that consist of mere assertions and no thinking
Nullifidian 7 months ago
@Nullifidian I must have misunderstood it to then lol, as it is a terribly written book - obviously written by a person who had no true talent for fiction written of any sort (literary fiction or pulp fiction).
xexixk 6 months ago
I'm all for opponents of objectivism purchasing Atlas Shrugged (the greatest story ever told) and burning it. In doing so they have given money to Ayn Rand's estate. And for those of us who have read the book and remember Francisco D'Anconia's speech at James Taggart's wedding...the value of that monetary exchange is a much greater symbol than the burning of a book.
RaspberrySwirl63 8 months ago
@RaspberrySwirl63 Fuck off, you callous wanker. If there is a Hell, that shrivelled old hag is burning there, screaming her lungs out.
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 7 months ago
@RaspberrySwirl63 Actually, I think your foundation is giving them away as free propaganda.
Yupiyeahs 7 months ago
Atlas Shrugged and liberty are things the weakest human beings doesn't understand. Nazis burned books and hey they are socialists. People that are statist minded usually don't think by themselves. They are too busy stealing entrepenours' money through taxes.
naadde 8 months ago 6
@naadde You can't even spell 'entrepreneur', dipshit.
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 7 months ago
@MyMeatYearns4Andrea
First of all my native language isn't English. For the second that is most certainly not the point since even trash like you understood me.
naadde 7 months ago
That's a great comment!! Most kids go to government run schools which refuse to teach phonics resulting in kids that can't spell. Fortunately, I went to one of the few government run schools that still taught phonics back in the early 70's. It's pretty universal now for most government schools to teach the look say method. That's why most kids can't spell anymore. In the old days, people could spell. So, good luck finding any spelling errors in my comment!! It's too bad kids for kids.
ftsmallwood 7 months ago
@naadde Ah yet another spreading misinfo and outright historical lies. The NAZIs were not socialists, explain their purging of real socialists from the party and persecutions of left leaning groups and people. Since the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" has the word democratic in its name, do you tink there is really anything at all democratic about the Congo? As for thinking for oneself, you obviously aren't doing much of that.
xexixk 6 months ago
Fahrenheit 451... assholes
dukatz1 8 months ago 2
what an idiot, Read the book and think for yourself.
gbhammers1 8 months ago
What. An. Idiot.
TheLarryDownes 9 months ago
I sincerely despise Rand myself, but burning books isn't the way to go.
Yupiyeahs 9 months ago
@Yupiyeahs It is one book, his own property. He can do whatever he fucking wants with it. It's not like he has bought up, purposefully, a large percentage of all copies in existence and torched them? Jesus Christ, fucking Randroid wankers, can't fucking stand you.
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 7 months ago
@MyMeatYearns4Andrea And what exactly would the difference be between him burning one book he owns and a million books he owns? They're his own property, as you've said before. Where do you draw the boundary?
Burning books is a sign of a very poor taste. I couldn't care less whether he's burning Atlas Shrugged, The Bible, Gulliver's Travels or Mein Kampf. If you dislike some idea enough to take action, promote the opposite point of view instead of acting like a complete cretin.
Yupiyeahs 7 months ago
@Yupiyeahs "[W]hat would the difference be between him burning one book he owns and a million books he owns?"
Sigh. I drew the boundary perfectly clearly at preventing the dissemination of someone's ideas. Burning your own personal copy is nothing when others can freely buy their own. It's not like he owned the last existing copy of the thing for gawd's sake.
The logical conclusion of your view is that every copy of every book ever printed should be preserved forever.
MyMeatYearns4Andrea 7 months ago
@MyMeatYearns4Andrea The logical conclusion of my point of view is that we shouldn't destroy books just to show our disregard for their contents. It's a sign of weak character. It's not cool.
Yupiyeahs 7 months ago 2
This is a disgraceful waste of a perfectly good pile of toilet paper.
fraggle1jock 9 months ago 3
Your IQ must be astronimical.
GBautist 9 months ago