The central problem with “Atlas Society”: they actually give a shit about Ayn Rand

“Objectivists” really should pay more attention to Scientology.

If they did, they would very quickly notice what amounts to a long-running dispute between the “Church” of Scientology, and the so-called “Freezone”.

As Wikipedia explains the whole fiasco:

The Free Zone, also called Independent Scientologists or Scientology Freezone, comprises a variety of non-affiliated independent groups and individuals who practice Scientology beliefs and techniques independently of the Church of Scientology (CoS).[1] Such practitioners range from those who closely adhere to the original teachings of Scientology’s founder, L. Ron Hubbard, to those who have adapted their practices so far that they are almost unrecognizable as Scientology.

What this amounts to is: The “Church “of Scientology = ARI.   “Atlas Society” = “The Freezone”.  BOTH organizations are abysmally, indefensibly stupid and irremediably corrupt — merely by virtue of having BOTH been derived from the half-lucid scribblings of an abysmally bad NOVELIST.

Quite frankly, that’s why I have never been able to take the “Objectivist movement” seriously: To paraphrase Jerome Tuccille: It usually begins — and ENDS — with Ayn Rand.

FAR too much time and effort are squandered attempting to rationalize stuff that Rand got blatantly wrong, or in trying to explain in /defend Rand’s idiotic little ‘tics” and affectations.

Quite frankly, any time during one of Peikoff’s tape-lctures  I hear him refer to “the crow”, I genuinely wish a real crow would peck his fucking eyeballs out of his head.

Objectivist “slang” is both idiotic, and inexcusable:

It is idiotic, because a movement predicated on recognizing the fact that “the individual is the unit of reality, and standard of value” has no excuse for reifying a “group” identity.

All of the “qua”, “blank-out”, “you asked for it, brothers”, “crow epistemology” bullshit jargon serves to obscure what Objectivists think they’re talking about, AND to serve as a “group identity” market — both of which should — in principle — be utterly indefensible to anyone who actually believed in “reason” or “individualism”.

So, yeah:  To the extent that “Ayn Rand” remains central to even the “heterodox” Objectivist movement, that “movement” amounts, in essence, to a mere “cult of personality”.







Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s