[Trent Harvey, Jr.]

This movie starts with an example of persecution framiliar to Christians: an archetect designs good libertarian buildings: random shapes of concrete with no windows. He faces persecution from university deans and employers, who I assume all work for the government or something. (Ayn Rand's a libertarian, so her bad guys work for the government.)

Then we see an example of the free market in action. An individual buys all the newspapers a newspaperboy has for sale, (he buys them the individualist way, by throwing coins all over a busy sidewalk) and then rips up the newspapers, throwing the pages all over the busy sidewalk. Hey, freedom means the freedom to spend your money however you want. Even to litter all over the middle of a crowded sidewalk next to a busy street.

Then the individual goes to an office, and smashes himself over the head or something, I missed this bit. Then somebody calls an Ambulance. Obviously a free-market ambulance, and not a government one.

Then our archetect gets a job, but his jewish banker employers want him to "compromise" on this whole individuality of style thing. So he argues with his employers. Then he turns down the agreement, saying he would rather work as a working class laborer than get rich for a building that's in a popular style he doesn't like.

See, poor people choose to be poor and are happy because they chose to be poor. Or they're poor because they argued with their employers.

Then the jewish bankers turn out to be all about giving the public the style of building they want. They have a phylisophical talk which leads me to conclude that giving customers what they want is like democracy and democracy is like communism, so giving the customer what they want is communism.

No wonder anti-trust regulations are examples of communism. They break up corporations to create competition, which results in the customers getting what they want, which is a crime against the indivuality of the corporate CEOs who only want the freedom to make the products they want, not what the customers want.

So far the philosophy is that business should be able to make the products they want and if customers (the "mob") disagree and try to buy something else, that's communist tyranny. In a libertarian free-market, people would buy only whatever the corporation wants them to buy, in the name of individuality and freedom.

This is boring so far, when do we get to the rape scene?

Oh, now we meet a woman who smashed a priceless ancient statue because the world isn't good enough for it.

"To want nothing, to expect nothing, to depend on nothing" is the definition of freedom given by the woman. What if you want freedom, expect freedom, Oh! Something just blew up!

Oh, they're starting construction now. Oh, the archetect is now a construction worker, building the conformist building that the jewish banker/mob customers chose instead of his. Oh wait, it's a granite quarry or something. Damn this is dull, there's going to be a car chase or something, right?

Now things are getting sexy, the woman walks around the quarry, with a whip. Then she complains that a guy is looking at her while she wanders around his dangerous worksite.

Now she's at home and smashing up her floor. This bit seems too deep and philisophical for me to figure out. Then she gets a worker to replace the smashed floor, and she stands over him and distracts him from his work just like she did with the guys at the quarry. The worker talks about how "the infiltration of foreign elements results in coloured streaks" in marble.

Then a worker from the quarry arrives, but it's some short, ugly immigrant, not the white ubermench. She is not happy with this! So she goes riding down the road and finds the worker and whips him in the face! Now that's individual freedom if you ask me! Rich whipping the working class, baby!

Now she's beating some guy, oh goody, the rape scene (I think. It's from 1949 and movies weren't very explicit back then).

Hey, it looks like our archetect just got a job. So he leaves the job at the quarry.

Now a liberal newspaper publisher wants to start a crusade against something. "Denounce the rich. Everyone will help you. The rich first" says an advisor. So the evil newspaper publisher plots a campaign against the building. Wow, he's evil. I guess he works for the government.

Now the building has been built.

Oh, here's a bodice ripper bit. She's willing to marry him as long as he gives up designing unpopular buildings that nobody wants to buy. he refuses. She marries someone else.

I just love this woman with her permanently upturned nose, and her stiff way of speaking. Reminds me of those old Japanese movies where the actors shout and shriek their lines. Such a pity moviemaking has gone downhill since the 40's and 50's. Man, I didn't know people used the word "shall" in everyday conversation back in the 50's.

The archetect ends up becoming a sucess, building lots of windowless concrete buildings all over the place.

Okay, another boring bit, let's recap the philosophy: capitalism is all about business making the products they like (ie, buildings with no windows), regardless of what the "mob" of customrs want (ie, windows). Businesses should not "subdue their genius for the tastes of the masses" or whatever. So if Ayn Rand had Henry Ford's job, she would have designed a concrete model T without windows, and screw the collectivist consumers and their opinion on what makes a good car. Cool.

Oh yeah, capitalism is also about littering and whipping working class chumps in the face.

Hey, the woman's name is "dominique". Like dominitrix. Hence all the face-whipping. As the only woman in the screenplay, I assume she's the mouthpiece of Ayn herself. Man, I would have loved to meet Ayn Rand in person.

He's offered a job to design a public housing project. He gets furious! Giving poor people something for nothing makes me a slave! Charity is slavery.

A proud homeowner says that before he owned a house, even though being a millionaire he was "public property, like a city billboard". Man, having lost kitten signs pinned into you all day sounds like a fate worse than death.

Now our beloved archetect is having his designed changed! Now the evil customers want balconies! BALCONIES!

And for some reason, despite the clear breach of contract, he can't sue. Must be the government's fault.

So now he plans the blow up the buildings. Hey, it's not like he's blowing up the pentagon, he's blowing up a housing project for the poor.

So Dominique sneaks into the project by convincing the guard to do her a favor. The stupid charitable slave ends up deserting his post.

Then we blow up the building.

So the public decides that the archetect is a criminal: not for blowing up buildings, but for being an individual.

Now Judas has betrayed our hero and looks like a crucifiction.

The publisher comes to our heros defence, so all his employees quit and people stop reading his paper. Wow. Who would have thought people get so angry about a few buildings being blown up?

Mobs are trashing kiosks that sell his paper. Pretty irrational since the papers are blank anyway since all the newspaper workers quit.

The publisher is devestated. "I didn't run the paper, they did, the men in the street" (his customers) he says, bitterly.

Finally, the publisher gives in, and publishes a retraction of his opinion. At least he's hard working, publishing a newspaper without any workers to do it. Well, Ayn Rand's point is that executives do all the work and that the working class just sit there and cost too much money, so this makes perfect sense.

Makes me wonder why CEOs and owners bother employing anyone a all.

Now there's another editorial. "His work, his creation, is the only goal of the inventor." (Our hero didn't get paid a penny for his work.) Seems this whole "profit motive" is also marxist lies.

"The creator stands on his own judgement." Worrying about anything else is "selfess joyless servitude" to customers and the profit motive.

So a true free-market doesn't need a profit motive...Okay, the verdict is in, it turns out it's legal to blow up buildings. However, he might get still get sued.

He doesn't.

Then there's a noble suicide. Wow, pro-capitalist Bushido, I love it!

The End.

Overview: Uncompromising opinionating, suicide, blowing up buidlings, and stone-faced chicks with whips. No wonder Ayn Rand's so popular with teenagers.

Two thumbs up!

[Pastor Isaac Peters]

May I add that anything by Ayn Rand should be watched or read only by True Christians™ who are strong in the faith (i.e., gold- or higher-level tithers). Miss Rand had some useful things to say about the economy, but she was an atheist and a harlot who thought that we should use reason instead of the Bible and who harshly criticized President Reagan for not giving his seal of approval to her reason-worshiping atheist harlotry.

[Bobby-Joe]

Originally Posted by Pastor Isaac Peters

May I add that anything by Ayn Rand should be watched or read only by True Christians™ who are strong in the faith (i.e., gold- or higher-level tithers). Miss Rand had some useful things to say about the economy, but she was an atheist and a harlot who thought that we should use reason instead of the Bible and who harshly criticized President Reagan for not giving his seal of approval to her reason-worshiping atheist harlotry.

Do you think Jesus was using this sex crazed un-beliver for His own ends? I mean who better than an atheist who is hellbound to tell it as it is to the unsaved; their scum, everyone hates them and stone faced mother figures should whip them across the face.

[SUV]

I don't know about this whole "Fountainhead" thing anyway; it sounds vaguely female-sexural

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

How many times did you watch that rape scene movie Brother Trent?

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

There's so much more to Ayn Rand, Objectivism and the libertarian party than Ron Paul's pro-terrorist hippie campaign. Here are two articles from the libertarian Capitalism Magazine:

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4367

Killing "Innocents" In War

A war is a conflict between nations, not individuals. During a war, the proper question is not, “Did this individual initiate force against that individual?” but rather, “Did this nation initiate force against that nation?” If the answer is yes, then the nation that was attacked should respond by retaliating against the aggressor nation in an effort to destroy that nation’s capacity and willingness to fight.

"The moral principle," writes Onkar Ghate, "is: the responsibility for all deaths in war lies with the aggressor who initiates force, not with those who defend themselves."

[Jeb: I agree with this 100%. Once someone attacks you, you have the right to kill and rape anyone you please, anywhere.]

Let me quote Ayn Rand’s answer and then expand on her formulation:

Q: What should be done about the killing of innocent people in war?

AR: This is a major reason people should be concerned about the nature of their government. If by neglect, ignorance, or helplessness, they couldn't overturn their bad government and choose a better one, then they have to pay the price for the sins of their government—as all of us are paying for the sins of ours.

That's why we have to be interested in the philosophy of government and in seeing, to the extent we can, that we have a good government. A government is not an independent entity: it's supposed to represent the people of a nation.

If some people put up with dictatorship—as some do in Soviet Russia and as they did in Germany—they deserve whatever their government deserves.

A right, according to Ayn Rand, is a right to action, not to the object of that action. The right to life, for example, is the right to take those actions necessary to support one’s life – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own. The same is true for man’s right to liberty. The right to liberty is the right to take those actions necessary to secure one’s liberty – the responsibility for taking those actions is one’s own.

When a man’s government steps beyond its proper bounds, when it violates his liberty, it is his responsibility to secure his liberty (either by working to change the government or by leaving the country). If he doesn’t, or can’t, he has to endure the consequences (just as he must endure the consequences if he won’t or can’t feed himself)...

No Apologies for Hiroshima and Nagasaki

"It is worth remembering too that in the reconstruction of Japan there were no insurgents, no Japanese roadside bombs killing our soldiers. One reason is that the United States had shown, in the clearest possible terms, our willingness to wage total war against our enemies. Our military strategists in Iraq could learn from those who, sixty years ago, decided to spare no means in bringing the Japanese nation to its knees."

About the Author: Dr. Brook is the president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

GOD BLESS AYN RAND AND CAPITALISM MAGAZINE!

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1117

Why and How to Conquer the Savages

"In America, an individual has the right to use force in self-defense, even if it means harming innocent bystanders. For example, a citizen has the right to shoot an attacker who is shielding himself with a hostage; that is why President Bush had the right to order that the passenger jet headed for Washington be shot down. Likewise, the American government has the right to use force in defense against individuals or nations that have attacked or threatened Americans, even if it means killing civilians in the attacking country. Indeed, the American government has the moral responsibility to do so; in America, the fundamental purpose of government is to protect the individual rights of Americans.

Once these principles are grasped, the seeming complexity of the current crisis falls away, and the proper course of action is made clear and simple.

It has been common knowledge for decades that the governments of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Afghanistan and other nations are murderous regimes. We need not--and should not--wait to find out which of them, if any, committed the latest murders. These governments are already guilty of prior mass murders and should have been exterminated long ago. Every moment we delay in using our military might, including our nuclear arsenal, to destroy them risks more American blood and the very survival of America. Our government's tolerance of these evil nations, in the face of the common knowledge that these nations are developing weapons of mass destruction, is a betrayal tantamount to treason.

We must destroy not only those governments that "harbor" terrorists in the future, but also those that have harbored terrorists in the past--which means all those mentioned above. Indeed, these nations have not merely "harbored" terrorism; they have systematically initiated terrorism. Focusing only on the future and thereby offering a "clean slate" to these mass murderers is suicide by insanity.

And we must not delay in order to build a "coalition." Any nation that does not support us in our moral action is not worthy of our friendship and should be cut off from trade with and military support from America. And some nations--such as Communist China, our future greatest threat, and Iran--that we are now courting are downright enemies as evil as those we claim to be fighting. Having them--and constantly trying to keep them-- on our side limits our military options, surrenders our national sovereignty, and obliterates our moral stand. How can we condemn some murderers while befriending other ones?

After our nuclear and other overwhelming attacks, we must demand the total surrender of these evil regimes. We must confiscate all oil properties of all Arab nations, even so-called moderate ones such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. These properties include the oil fields themselves plus all assets worldwide, such as real estate, bank accounts, and all other financial holdings. The oil fields were robbed--nationalized"--from Western oil companies. All of the Arab military and terrorist power comes from this stolen wealth. These people have lived--and died--as murderous savages for millennia, but were never a threat to anyone but each other until we let them rob our billions. If we take back our wealth and cut these savages off from any contact with the Western civilization they profess to hate, they will again be powerless. Some of them will learn to produce their own wealth by rational means, and they will choose to join the civilized world; the others will kill each other or starve to death, in keeping with their religious belief of forgoing this-worldly wealth in favor of an afterlife, and we will be rid of them.

The U.S. should confiscate the stolen oil properties, and "then return those properties to their rightful owners--Western oil companies--if those companies agree to pay the cost of waging this war. The U.S. could then continue occupying and defending these oil-rich territories if the oil companies agree to pay for this protection. And we must surround the evil nations to keep them absolutely cut off from Western civilization. Any short-term threats they pose before they starve should be met by our most deadly weapons involving the least risk to American soldiers and civilians. Our standard of value must be: The rights of one American, whether a soldier or a civilian, are worth more than the lives of all men, women and children in all these nations combined. Over time, pioneers, with the paid support of our military, can go into these isolated territories, subdue the remaining savages, install a civilized, colonial government protecting the rights of both the pioneers and the savages, and settle the land--as American pioneers subdued the savage, murderous American Indian tribes and settled America.

...But the deliverance to freedom of foreign savages must not be our purpose. Our purpose must be, in accordance with rational selfishness, the protection of the individual rights of Americans.

The issue is simple. Our problem began when we Americans, failing to defend our rational self-interest, put wealth in the hands of savages by letting them rob our oil fields. It will end when we use our might, including our nuclear arsenal, to crush their evil governments, take back our property, and isolate, colonize, and settle the lands the savages now roam."

I AGREE.

It is time to turn THIS:



Into THIS:



GOD BLESS AYN RAND AND CAPITALISM MAGAZINE!

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Originally Posted by Jeb Thurmond

GOD BLESS AYN RAND AND CAPITALISM MAGAZINE!

Brother Jeb, I do hope you're jesting. This Ayn Rand you seem to venerate was a Russian lesbian named Rosenbaum. While she may have had one or two good ideas (even a broken sundial is right once a day), please keep in mind that there is a word to describe any Russian who moved to America in the 1920's, changed her name, wrote politically charged novels, then gathered together a coven of fawning, Christ-killing, Canadian sodomites. That word is GODLESS COMMIE!

We don't need to invoke "rational selfishness" or any other Marxist doubletalk to justify our President's enlightened foreign policy. The self-evident fact that we're fulfilling the will of God is the best (nay, the ONLY) reason we need to stay the course of righteousness.

You can keep your Ayn Rosenbaum and all her Satanic followers. The only Jewboy I'm gonna turn to for moral guidance is Our Blessed Savior, Christ Jesus.

[SUV]

Originally Posted by Trent Harvey, Jr.

Then somebody calls an Ambulance.

Somebody should have called a Hearst on this DoG of a movie. I just saw it and after I mentioned it, Godly Brother Jeb was kind enough to link me back to this thread.

PS The female star was Patricia Neal, who God was kind enough to soon afterward Bless with a stroke for starring in this Abortion!

PSST Brother Trent, I apologize for taking a different view of it than you. Since you're a Man, your opinion will supercede mine anyway. Praise!

[xamanto (Quarantined)]

Originally Posted by Jeb Thurmond

I AGREE.

It is time to turn THIS:



Into THIS:



GOD BLESS AYN RAND AND CAPITALISM MAGAZINE!

Holy piffle lol you are crazy.