A famous socialist advocates “humane” mass murder 59

In this video, the Socialist George Bernard Shaw advocates the gassing of people he regards as useless to society.

Shaw, an amusing and much acclaimed playwright, was highly sympathetic to the National Socialist Adolf Hitler, the Fascist Socialist Benito Mussolini, and the Dictators of the Union of Socialist Republics Vladimir Lenin and Josef Stalin.

Where does the idea that you need to justify your existence come from?

And with it the idea that the justification must only be according to what and how much you do for others? 

As a general moral theory, it was given birth to by Christianity. It is the very essence of Christian moral doctrine. It drives the Christian conscience towards self-sacrifice and martyrdom.

It was inherited by Socialism/Communism/Marxism/Progressivism. The Left. (Not by Hitler’s  National Socialism. Shaw was inconsistent there.)

We live in an age when the Left is so ungrateful for what the Enlightenment and capitalism have done for humankind, its minions so bent on destroying the great achievements of liberty and prosperity, that they deserve to lose the inventors, the doers and makers, the sustainers of our civilization – the Atlases who carry our world on their shoulders. Beware! Atlas can become exasperated. As he does in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. 

Ayn Rand has the characters who speak for her say:

We are on strike against martyrdom — and against the moral code that demands it. We are on strike against those who believe that one man must exist for the sake of another. We are on strike against the morality of cannibals, be it practiced in body or in spirit. We will not deal with men on any terms but ours — and our terms are a moral code which holds that man is an end in himself and not the means to any end of others.

And:

I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Like Adam Smith, she and all capitalists know (whether they express the notion or not), that the best way of earning a living is to provide other people with something – goods or services – that they will pay you for. The benefit is mutual.

We cannot live without others. We cannot help having an effect on them or stop them having an effect on us, and we are happy when the effect is beneficial. But we do not need to live for them.  

It’s surely hard enough sustaining your own life and the lives of your natural dependents. To think up a single formula for sustaining and ordering the lives of millions, as the Left does, is to be absurd or insane; and the implementation of it is tyranny and mass murder. No two lives are so exactly matched that the same conditions will affect them equally. Let them be free, each to choose his own path. He may be self-centered, he may be avaricious; he may be self-denying, he may be altruistic. He pursues his own happiness.

Because of her insistence that we do not live for the sake of others, Ayn Rand has been likened to Friedrich Nietzsche. (By, for instance, Steven Pinker in his book Enlightenment Now. See our post, Enlightenment, atheism, reason, and the humanist Left, April 12, 2018.)

Nietzsche was a weak, unhealthy, mentally deranged German philosopher who invented and adulated an imaginary super-strong Super-Man. The Super-Man would be above conventional morality. His existence would be far more important than the lives of the superfluous multitudes who are fit only to be trampled down. (A belief of his that was shared by Hitler.)

Ayn Rand’s philosophy is nothing like Nietzsche’s. Rather, it is close to that of the Epicureans. They were atheists (though to save themselves from contumely and attack they would wave the subject away by saying yes, yes, okay, there are gods, but they live very far from us human beings and have nothing whatever to do with us). They accepted that to live is to suffer, so the best way an individual can live his life is by finding ways to enjoy it as much as he can. To pursue his own happiness. As a school of thought they were not sybarites; they did not advocate living luxuriously, though they had nothing against anyone doing so if he chose. Their chief pleasure lay in intellectual exploration. They were not Atlases; they did not carry the world on their shoulders. But they saw no sense in creeds of self-sacrifice, whether to men or to gods.

 

(Hat-tip to Don L for the link to the video)

 

  • Don L

    The nominate for VA – gone

    Can I trust lawyer-to-client? Or, doctor-to-Doctor. GEEZ … Just got my bill!!!

  • Don L

    News this AM (4/28/2018) in America, Alfie died in the UK. Murder by STATE = Hillary’s notion of the “Village” in practice.

  • The Burro

    When we talk of individual sovereignty and Ayn Rand, it is frequently with the images of the last say, one hundred years in mind. However, Capitalism, born somewhere in a form that we may recognize arose in perhaps the 1600’s and was very much in the same way an expression of individual decision but also a way of organizing a society – the old boy invisible hand. Through no coercive means, a society could organize itself to give the optimal use of resources and the best for its constituents by way of providing a messaging system called the price system. Capitalism is therefore a moral system as it gives the best to the most with the minimum.

    Any fool who reads Marx (Karl, not Groucho), and I am one of them who has survived the experience, recognizes immediately that his work is utter none-sense. It therefore qualifies as top-notch/ideal material for the left and Democrats. The political superstructure derived from the production base Karl rambles on about becomes the playground of dictators, who loot the system to their own gain as the state controls all and they control the state. The Clintons would feel right at home here.

    For your edification, see Venezuela, or Maduroville. People reduced to eating the zoo animals to avoid starvation in Caracas. A truly great Socialist State – see Jeremy Corbin of the UK. or the decline of Argentina – from wealthiest nation or close to it in the world in 1900 to a basket case, laughing-stock today (but still very nice I may add).

    My personal favourite, Zimbabwe, reduced to a shambles by Socialism and Great Leader Mugabe . Formerly the African state producing vast amounts of food now near starvation.

    And to make it personal, the UK National Health Service: it killed my mother. It is now utterly incapable of supplying any kind of assistance service to two young family members of mine with autism. These children are essentially left on the scrap-heap of life.

    The problem here becomes the subjects of the wonderful world of Socialism become dependents – exactly as Hayek demonstrated in The Road to Serfdom. In such a condition they lose that human ability to take care of themselves. How do we re-educate them fellow travelers?

    • liz

      “The invisible hand” – yes, in other words, what happens naturally when people are free from the oppressive manipulations and micromanaging meddling of dictators.

      • The Burro

        Hear, Hear, Liz!

    • Don L

      Hi Burro, you probably already know, but for others:

      Jillian recommended this book several years ago: “Karl Marx, the Red Prussian” by Leopold Schwarzschild.

      If one can find it (a few available on Amazon right now – relatively cheap; a few on eBay) and read it, it will be understandable why it has been out of print – IT DESTROYS ALL THINGS MARX. That cannot be allowed.

      Here is a review (better than mine):

      Anne De Bourg
      5.0 out of 5 stars

      The Best Ever Biography of Karl Marx

      March 27, 2015

      This is the best biography of Karl Marx ever written. How good it is to see that it’s available again! In the course of describing Marx’s extravagant and squalid family life, Schwartzschild supplies a criticism of his thought that is as brilliant as it is devastating. The overbearing character of Marx, his arrogance, his malice, his hypocrisy, his parasitism emerge from the narrative, not asserted but shown. Marx’s debt – in more than money – to his supporter and collaborator Engels will come as a surprise to those who have always assumed that Marx was the cleverer of the two. Engels was not only the better man, he was also a clearer thinker (though still dangerously wrong!). He had more of a sense of humor than Marx, who would take a joke that Engels tossed off and spin it out into a lengthy, labored treatise. And many of the shorter works that appeared under Marx’s name and are still attributed to him – such as the articles published in America – were, we learn from Schwartzchild’s research, actually written by Engels. But Engels was a natural follower, as Marx was a natural despot. (The book was written before it was known that Frederick Demuth, the illegitimate son of Marx’s maid, whose paternity was attributed by Marx to Engels – yet another burden that Engels took on for Marx – was actually Marx’s own son.) Marx lived out his last years in comfort, thanks to Engels. But he died disappointed that he had not made the impact on the world he had all his life longed to stir into chaos. We know, of course, that his terrible ambition was achieved within a few decades after his death, and for the better part of a century tens of millions of lives were destroyed in the name of the ideology he and Engels had launched into the world: Marxism.

      • A good summary of the book, and I totally agree with the opinion. It is a book that needs to be read by every rising generation and ideally would never go out of print. But the author’s name is Leopold Schwarzschild (without the “t” in the middle) .

        • Don L

          It was a direct cut and paste from the Amazon page. I have made the correction in the body of the review. The header was right; took a “head scratch” to catch where the error was.

  • Don L

    Almost forgot:

    When doing background on Thomas Piketty, for the review of his book, “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” (see PAGES in upper left margin) I came across the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen”, article 1, which essentially gives “society”, ie the government, the right to determine a citizen’s value: “Social distinctions can be based only on common utility.”

    An additional thought: It seems to me, the theists and other leftists don’t really promote a god or social justice as much as they suppress self: selfless, what an immoral and vile notion

    • That’s a revelation – the French “Declaration” article 1.

      I have never read the document. Will now.

      No wonder the French revolution ended in terror and failure.

      • Don L

        Specifically, it is the 1789 code of the Declaration.

        Yet again, America is the unique and revolutionary idea: individual sovereignty and government by consent of the governed. Even our cousins are not citizens. The British are subjects – hence they can kill the kids to protect their socialist health system – they can’t allow another government to take care of their children … even when there is absolutely no cost to doing so.

        Oh, and in the middle of the revolution (French) Robespierre looked up and asked about feeding the people of Paris. He was surprised to learn “Paris is Fed” not by government. The people solve their own problems. Proving the principle that human design is not human action; it is human action that is the essence of prosperity and liberty.

        Hayek’s “path in the snow” 1947 story:

        A student in the Midwest in January trying to get to class quickly while avoiding the cold may cut across the quad rather than walk the long way around. Cutting across the quad in the snow leaves footprints; as other students follow these, they make the path bigger. Although their goal is merely to get to class quickly and avoid the cold weather, in the process they create a path in the snow that actually helps students who come later to achieve this goal more easily. (not by design but by action – action motivated by selfishness/profit))

    • Jeanne

      OMG! “Social distinctions can be based only on common utility.” What a horrible thought! It is an evil logic taken to its end point.

  • Don L

    Kennedy’s statement ought to have been,”Ask not what you can do for the country, ask what the government’s duty is to you!”.

    How many times do we hear this disgusting, “to serve something greater than yourself”, from the likes of say a John McCain. Incidentally, his favorite president was the Fabian/progressive socialist Teddy Roosevelt … the stooge of the J.P. Morgan/Rothchild Bank cartel; as was with the next one, Woody Wilson.

    You owe no duty to the USA. It owes all to you. That is the original Constitution … you are the governed to which the government was formed to protect. Only protect. Not to collect taxes in a redistribution scheme. The government isn’t even supposed to protect you from you … only to protect you from others and others from you.

    UK is currently using the death tables to kill some little kid. The Pope’s hospital said it would take the kid but the UK courts won’t allow it. What?

    When I was a youngster, long time ago, before I’d ever heard of Ayn Rand, I had come to the conclusion that two people getting together because they need each other was to invite perpetual battles as each tried to become the whole person at the expense of the other. Need and choice are not the same. I choose who I let into my life. It is a wholly selfish act! Yeah.

    This weekend, heard a bit that a serious effort is underway to outlaw the muslim brotherhood. Please! The same effort ought to be made about socialism. Both are anti-Constitutional and, by historical evidence, dangerous to humankind/individual sovereignty.

    But, here again, this all stems from those who believe they are actually smart enough to manage the economy and society. They tend to run for elected offices. They get away with it because … America has been Lulled, Gulled & Dulled for well over a century now. TELL THEM.

    By the way, by the progressive program, the blacks should be very nervous: on welfare and considered unable to care for themselves; according to the left’s programs.

    • liz

      Yes thats the second time I’ve heard of the UK government refusing to allow parents to take their child outside the prison of their Socialist healthcare system, even to save it’s life. The mask slips at these times and reveals the evil totalitarian death grip that the Brits are in.
      It’s stunning! I’m sure Shaw would approve.

      • Don L

        It’s Hillary’s “It takes a village” at work: parents have no rights – the STATE rules. The progressives are expert in the name game. It all sounds so pretty and it is all so horrid once in place.

      • Jeanne

        While I agree that the parents should be allowed to remove their child to any hospital willing to take him, it will not save his life. They should opt for Hospice care in their own home or at a Hospice facility. I understand the hospital wants to protect the child from continuing the pain and discomfort of futile treatment by allowing him to die, but the parents’ should have that choice of trying to continue treatment or offering end of life palliative care. This is a lose-lose situation for all involved. It breaks our hearts so because Alfie is an infant and not an elderly human being to which this is happening.

        • Don L

          In this case, the Vatican has agreed to pay for all of it. The UK court is basing their decision on a panel of bean counters. As was included in Obamacare.

          It is one thing for the state to pull the plug as to no longer paying. But these courts are going further and saying that no other option/choice is even allowable. Immoral insanity. And, I’m not sure they even care about suffering or pain for the child … or any patient.

      • Jeanne
        • It is mostly a good article, expressing what many of us think and feel. But how (as they show they do at the end) can they believe that praying will help? How can they speak of “God’s justice”? without feeling foolish? According to them, “God” knows what is happening to little Alfie and is not doing a thing about it. And if he is begged with their prayers, he still won’t do a thing about it. How odd that it never strikes them that their prayers do nothing, and that if their God exists, he is not beneficent. As has often been pointed out : if he is omnipotent – i.e. could relieve human suffering but doesn’t – then he is not beneficent; if he is beneficent – wants to relieve human suffering but cannot – then he is not omnipotent; and either way he is not the god they say he is. Why will it never strike them that “God” isn’t there at all? Because of his “mysterious ways”? So he has plans for little Alfie that are beyond the scope of human understanding? He wants Alfie to be an angel in heaven? Tinkle the bells, scatter the pretty flowers, sing hallelujah! Such kitsch fills the believers’ minds. Considering that a tiny child is being starved and dehydrated to death – his tongue will be cleaving to the roof his mouth and he will be experiencing the intense pangs of hunger – the pretty belief in the “saving” mercy of gentle Jesus frankly makes me want to vomit.

          • Jeanne

            Sorry, Jillian, I wasn’t paying close attention to the “God” stuff. I guess I sometimes just let it roll off when I am reading for information. It only makes sense if there is no God, but praying makes them feel more as if there is some power in control. Makes us want to vomit, but should it matter to us if people in despair need to believe? To me, whatever it takes for people to get through life. I figure most are doing the best they can.

            • Don L

              We don’t enable the alchy or druggy … god(s) isn’t any different than any other addiction. Shame them: “You are praying to the horrid thing that put your kid in this position?” … or, to the other addicts, “Why do you think more booze …?”.

            • Jeanne

              Nope, won’t do that, Don. I don’t shame people for doing what they feel they need to do to keep sane in a world that is not. I don’t shame people who are trying to do the best they can. I don’t shame people who, except for their deity belief, are a lot like I am, love their children like I love mine and work hard to keep hearth and home together. You do that if you want to, I prefer to live and let live as much as I can. I think that sort of sentiment is …shameful.

            • Don L

              An “Onward Christian Soldier” you may not be. But, you are definitely their stooge. “They’re just like me”; “…except for their…”: communist, fascist, progressive, theist belief. Marx loved his kids too. You might as well pray with them, given your myopic and emotional (They are against all I believe about liberty and freedom but live and let live?) nonsense. They may not have gotten you into their revival arena but they’ve moved you to the “they feel” sidelines and out of the game … sista love. That is shameful. I do not suffer fools.

              Empathy IS NOT rational thought.

            • Don L, I think by “fools” you mean “them” – not Jeanne? Jeanne is one of our most astute commenters. On the matter of sympathizing with the believers I have a difference of opinion with her. But I highly value her insightful, well-informed, and very well expressed contributions to our discussions – as you know I do yours.

            • Don L

              Absolutely. I have amended the post. No I do not think Jeanne a fool. And, I apologize for the unintended miscommunication.

            • Jeanne

              I accept your apology, Don. I empathize with your frustrations concerning the irrational belief of believers, but as we both have little choice but to share the planet with them, I like to keep friendship channels open, so that I can work against the more irrational beliefs and most certainly educate believers about the pitfalls of accepting gods. Currently, that education often takes the form of educating them about the threats to our collective liberty from Islamists. What I will never do is shame good people, especially when they need their faith the most.

            • Jeanne

              Thanks Jillian. There is a difference between sympathy and empathy, but both can be had together. There is also a time and a place for pushing back on their belief and faith. Above all, let us be reminded of the Ethic of Reciprocity, which we atheists claim we develop without the assistance of any divinity. If we fail to exhibit that ethic, then we might be considered to be hypocrites. And…I want engraved upon my urn; She was no hypocrite.

            • Jeanne

              No, Don, I am not their stooge. Whose stooge are you? Believers are not communist or fascists or progressives. Why do you think they are? What Kool-aid have you been drinking? Do you think I pray with my believing friends? I have spent a great deal of my adult life promoting non-belief, but more than that, I promote ethical atheism. I present myself as an example of an ethical atheist, who has been me for all my life, whether child or adult, christian or agnostic or material atheist of a deterministic bent. But what I am first is a compassionate human being. Empathy is one of our most important traits as humans. Without it, I believe relatively harmonious civilization would be as nonexistent as deities.

            • But are “they” doing the best they can? Couldn’t “they” think a more consistently and clearly? Of course, if an illogical superstition gives bereaved parents comfort, fine. We all take comfort where we can. It’s not the parents that we reproach, not those suffering directly for the loss. It’s the religious ethos of the multitude that “prays” uselessly and self-deceivingly for a dying child and his grieving parents that we deplore.

            • Jeanne

              Since believers cannot begin to accept that their faith in their deity is mistaken, there is no way that they can think outside the box. It is futile for any to attempt to sway that thought process during times of tribulation and to do so is unthinkably cruel. I abandoned American Atheists and aachat because that is the way they thought believers should be handled. I was labeled and “agnostic” and a troll and threatened with banning. Frank Zindler was the only member who spoke up for my point of view and my compassion.

            • liz

              There is a difference, though. Alcohol and drugs are known as bad things, so people who become addicted should know better, and therefore deserve shaming. Religion is perceived by most of our culture as a good thing. The tradition of our forefathers, ect.
              People who join religion normally do it because they want to be good, and they see religion as the path to that goal.
              Shaming someone for doing what they, and society, perceive as “good” is pointless at best, counterproductive at worst.

            • Don L

              Isn’t religion bad to anyone who thinks? And, this seems to be PC OK for +tians but not for slamists? Don’t the slams think they are doing it for peace and love from their perspective?

              Why do emotions, irrespective of degree of misery, excuse paganism? Feelings themselves being the source of the acts which in toto constitute collectivism: the antithesis of freedom and prosperity … no?

              Grief is a horrible emotion. Perpetuating the idea of seeking solace in magic/mystical things because the observer feels bad is too enable the enemy of conservativism. I DO NOT suffer fools and I don’t give them emotion-based excuses. It comes back to bite you.

              When I say shame, I do not mean walking into the hospital room and instigating a diatribe. The notion is that if asked or being maneuvered into joining in prayer, with the emotional parents, I would decline and if pushed I would not hesitate to explain how barbaric and meaningless prayer IS and that their time would be better spent fighting the collectivism that put the parents behind the socialist courts and/or that their deity is, per their own belief, the cause of their misery/grief/mourning.

              After all, I guarantee they will attempt to shame me, or you, or anyone who doesn’t accept or participate in their paganism.

              And, if the “…world that is not.” sane … excusing the very people/beliefs that make it so isn’t a wise idea, now is it?

            • Jeanne

              No, the Islamists are not doing what they do for peace and love, etc. They are doing it because their god demands submission to his will and the prophet has provided a blueprint of tactics that they are to follow or be counted among the apostates and slaughtered. We are most fortunate that christianity passed through a …shoot, what is that called? Ah…a reformation and even experienced the Enlightenment.

              I never pray, nor bow my head. If I am asked to do so, I say that I do not pray, period. I can sit still and listen for any message that speaks to me and appreciate that message as one of shared humanity, but I do not need to accept that any deity delivers it through humans.

              I would submit to you that for some humans keeping sane would be most difficult without the crutch of faith and I would rather have those so handicapped continue to use their crutch, than devolve into chaos for the lack of it. Is there a time when deity belief and the religions that support it are truly no longer needed for humanity to have some sort of harmony? God I hope so. Until then, let them have their crutch and let them control their baser impulses with it. How do we control the non-believer’s baser impulses? A crutch upside the head?

            • You are are in no way to blame, Jeanne. No apology is called for from you. Quite the contrary. You directed us to an excellent article.

            • Jeanne

              All is well, Jillian. Thanks.

            • Don L

              Jeanne, I apologize if in any way you read my “I do not suffer fools” as applicable to you. Jillian made me aware of my error of communication. I indeed meant those that pray, adhere to ideology over rationality, etc. When confronted. I speak out … notwithstanding the scenario. In that vein, I do not suffer fools.

              I’ve had to deal with a family member whereas I learned that empathy and emotional responses are their fuel. Tough love and rational thinking is the only solution. Anything else encourages the bad behavior.

              And, I do not go along to get along in the stupidity of, “They’re in a good place now” garbage. The memory will live but they are gone!

            • Jeanne

              Don, I accept your apology. Thank you. My son-in-law is a recovering Jehovah’s Witness, who was being groomed for a major position in the cult. Fools all of them and dangerous fools at that. He got himself out, his sister and his two best friends. He has a lot of issues, love his heart, but he is a good man, who fortunately is married to my daughter, who is the best person I have ever known, patient, kind, guiding and very intelligent.

              Everyone has their own idea of how to handle difficult situations, but sometimes we have to alter our ways of dealing with them based upon well considered empathetic reasoning and that ethic of reciprocity.

              He is very lucky to have her and to be loved by his extended family. She is a behavioral analyst and he has come a long way under her tough love disguised as compassion. You gotta watch those BAs.

              Don, I appreciate your honesty and straight forward thinking. That is the way I roll with it, as well.

  • An impeccable defense of individual sovereignty and rejection of the notion that we must justify our existence to society!

    Of course, we’ve all heard that socialists think capitalists are parasites who produce nothing. I’ve heard that over and over again back in my undergraduate days. However, I wasn’t aware of Shaw’s views. I did a quick search and found that he viewed anyone living off of investments as parasites, including renting of land or dwellings.

    It’s interesting that classical Marxists view those who do intellectual work as parasites (which would include Shaw). Mao and Pol Pot put that into practice. As the video shows, once you give the state the power to dispose of your neighbor’s life, you may find yourself whisked off to the gas changes, gulag, or killing fields. It won’t help to complain “but you got it wrong it’s the other worthless guy you should be killing.”

    My one complaint about the video is that Shaw’s request for a painless humane gas was in the context of warfare. I found the actual passage in a book. It wasn’t in the context of getting rid of parasites. The video is slightly misleading here. Of course, it doesn’t change the judgement about Shaw’s belief that the collective is entitled to dispose of inconvenient individuals.

    • Thanks for that, Jason P.

      Marx too did only intellectual work. Lethal work.

      • liz

        I was going to say that too, about Marx. The funny thing is that although they probably make an exception for him, he actually WAS a parasite, who mooched off of others his whole hypocritical life.
        Even his ideas weren’t original, but he took credit for them, the creep.

        • Don L

          And the boils. Marx, as you know, was hospitalized quite often for boils … near death on, I believe, at least one occasion. Ugh. A filthy beast (beast is too good for him).

    • Jeanne

      Glenn Beck was talking about death panels today and referenced that the original gas chambers, which may at first have been the backs of large trucks to which hoses were attached from tail-pipe to within, were used by hospitals to “humanely murder” those who were deemed no longer worth caring for by their fellow humans. That idea was already in use and perhaps inspired Shaw’s desires to promote the idea. Is the Fabian Society still functioning? Are we still being “molded to their desires?”

      • Jeanne

        Well…shoot, I am replying to myself. Here is a site about The Fabian Society: https://theweathereye.wordpress.com/2010/06/27/the-fabian-society/. Just as “Hippie” told us; everything is a conspiracy.

        • liz

          Thanks for the link! Very informative. Sounds like Soros and his minions. Worse than creepy, because it’s not just an interesting look at history, its happening now.

        • Excellent article your link takes us to, Jeanne. Thanks.

      • Don L

        Government-funded, ideology-driven, politically-influenced, union-managed compulsory-schooling – everyone who has attended school, for more than a century, has been influenced – we start every class with an anti-constitutional pledge that is never questioned. The union was a voluntary and divisible union – states, not SCOTUS, determined constitutionality. Who authored the pledge of allegiance? And, did you know it was originally given while saluting:

        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/eb5a8b288c28a1b5d947fe32f2f1b17696cbba0931a859c49baaad4ab5590ee3.jpg

  • liz

    Interesting how one can start off fairly reasonably, but come to such horrible conclusions. Shaw began by reasoning that people who are not “pulling their weight” shouldn’t expect to be kept alive by the government. This would be a reasonable introduction to an argument for abolishing the welfare state.
    But he then veers off to the tyrannical conclusion that they should be killed!
    He accepted the absurd Socialist premise that people are incapable of running their own lives – therefore the government should control them.
    Rand viewed man as “heroic” – not as “Superman” – but as an individual capable of thinking and living for himself rather than for the state.
    Free to support his own life and pursue his own happiness.
    It’s sad and pathetic that so many supposedly sophisticated atheist thinkers of our time (such as Sam Harris) fall for the same leftist drivel Shaw did.
    Rather than actually make the mental effort to understand her premise – that it is reasonable (not “selfish”) to act in ones own rational self interest, which is only possible to do when one is free of authoritarian control – they lazily accept the altruist creed of living for others – for the “greater good”, and the straw man caricature of Rand as a “selfish” ogre for rejecting self-sacrifice.

  • Athrin

    Gas the leftist before they do it to you its just that simple.

    • Yikes, Athrin! What sort of a world would it be if your advice were to be followed?

    • Don L

      It is my first preservation instinct, too. BUT, better to argue in courts to outlaw them and arrest and imprison if they persist. And, not as a political movement, but as a proven ant-constitutional and murderous conspiracy: RICO -Mafia (socialism, islam, MS13 and all gangs).

      • Jeanne

        I sort of have that gut reaction at times. Why wait until TEOTWAWKI to rid civilization of human garbage? Of course, giving into my guts kind of hastens the end of civilization, so…

        • Don L

          The End Of Time ????? Huh? Yeah, to learn something new.

          • Jeanne

            Not the end of time, Don. The End Of The World As We Know It. REM song? Rawlsian prepping? Survivalists? The Walking Dead?

            • Don L

              Ah.. OK, Thanks!. New to me.

        • liz

          Ok, I haven’t heard that one, what’s it stand for?

          • Jeanne

            Ooh…interesting. Liz, it is a whole different mindset. You probably do know of it, just not that anacronym.

            • liz

              Ok, had to think about awhile, finally got it. … I hate those things.