Lying Gary AKA Dishonest Johnson; Ayn Rand Hated Poors #5

Hoi polloi is an expression from Greek that means the many or, in the strictest sense, the majority. In English, it has been corrupted by giving it a negative connotation to signify deprecation of the working class, commoners, the masses or common people in a derogatory... sense ~ Definition via Wikipedia.

According to a new Gary Johnson ad, Bill Weld (his Libertarian VP pick) has deemed his running mate "Honest Johnson". In said ad he describes how Johnson is "one of the most honest people" he's met. Almost "painfully honest", he sez. (Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson").

But I agree with Progressive Talker Thom Hartmann, who, on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program, said (in regards to Gary and Bill) "they're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

For example, they use the words freedom and liberty a LOT. But what do they really mean when they use these words? Obviously (look at their platform) what they're talking about (primarily) is freedom from taxation. And, that's freedom for rich people to not have to contribute to funding the social safety net (DSB #44).

Proof of this is their stated objective of "we should eliminate the entire social welfare system" (Source: Official Libertarian Party Website). But, in spite of the f*cking platform, Lying Gary says "we can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without" (SWTD #343).

But we already have a safety net. We need to strengthen it, not "create" it. I assume Lying Gary says "create" because he's thinking the private sector is going to create a new one after the Libertarians (should they get their way) completely destroy the one we already have (their STATED objective).

Now Lying Gary KNOWS that's NOT the take-away the majority of people get from his message of "nobody goes without". Few people are thinking... YES, nobody goes without means we're going to completely dismantle the safety net (the one we have currently). By "eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest" (direct quote from the LP website).

Sure, all politicians lie (or shade the truth to some degree), but lying about what your freaking platform explicitly states? Me, I'd say the moniker "honest Johnson" ABSOLUTELY does not apply. If a nickname denoting how truthful Gary might be is what Bill wants, I say we go with "Lying Gary" or "Dishonest Johnson".

As for the "painful" part, YES, I think the dismantling of our entire safety net would be QUITE painful for a lot of people. Perhaps not for rich people (unless they have consciences). Although Libertarians believe that it's more morally objectionable to "steal" from people (i.e. tax them), so many (if not all) of them might be fine and dandy about their policies (if instituted) killing people.

I mean, it is a fact that the Ayn-Rand worshiping Libertarian considers the unwashed masses to be worthless trash (parasites and takers). As their heroine wrote "what are your masses of humanity but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it".

This being a quote from the original version of Rand's book We The Living. Although this quote was altered when the book was reissued years after its original publication (according to a poster on the Thom Hartmann message board as well as a number of other sources) [1].

Further proof that Rand hated poor people. Heck, I'd say she clearly and indisputably loathed them after reading this comment. Although if they're "fuel" that kinda belies her characterization of them as "moochers" and "parasites". Sounds to me like she's saying they're good (to take advantage of) for their cheap labor (a sentiment shared by many Libertarians and Republicans).

But that's NOT the reason Libertarians like Lying Gary will cite when they talk about eliminating the minimum wage. No, they'll spin BS about how no minimum wage is a GOOD thing, in that it will lead to higher employment. Self-serving baloney (in that it benefits the rich owners) which has been proven false. But that's what you get from Libertarians like Lying Gary (falsehoods that benefit the Oligarchs and hurt everyone else).

BTW, in regards to the "hoi polloi" definition at the top of this post... the Wikipedia entry also notes further synonyms (for the Greek term) that also express the same or similar distaste for the common people, including the great unwashed, the plebeians or plebs, the rabble, the masses, the dregs of society, riffraff, the herd, the proles (proletariat), sheeple, and peons.

Reminiscent of lice, moochers and parasites - the terms Ayn Rand used. Which goes to show that hating poors goes back a LONG way. The goal with this language being to justify the wealthy class having most of the wealth. They deserve it. And they deserve to get it by screwing lower classes. And disguising this fact (they're taking more than they deserve) by painting poor people as undeserving.

Although Rand was more or less honest about her hatred of the less fortunate. I mean, yeah, she denied it, and you might say she was more indifferent than seething with hatred... but you'd be wrong. Her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged being proof of that. In that she engaged in some serious mass casualty porn in her 1168-page doorstop. In that millions of worthless poors got their just deserts. By which I mean they died via starvation, train "accidents", etc. (SWTD #303).

That a similar die-off of the worthless eaters might occur under a Johnson administration is a no-brainer. Although he'd still have to contend with Congress. But, if Republicans controlled both houses? I think he could ram through quite a bit of his anti-poor and anti-middle class agenda. Anti these lower classes in that a Johnson administration would seek to push us further along the path to full blown oligarchy.

OK, so Lying Gary says "it's game over on any chance of winning the White House if he does not make it to the debate stage" and THAT is an honest statement. But it would also be game over is Gary got into the debates and then proceeded to tell the truth about the Libertarian platform.

Not that Lying Gary would stand a chance either way (in or out of the debates). Donald Trump locking up a larger percentage of the rube vote than Gary. And he gets it his fake populism (appeal to working people). Mostly by saying he's opposed to the TPP. While Lying Gary is in favor of it.

Point is, we've got populists running on both sides (or, that's how they're presenting themselves). Which is why it was game over from the get-go for a poor-hating, anti-populist, pro-rich stooge like Lying Gary Johnson. Even though Lying Gary is doing slightly better this time (due to support from Never-Trumpers and scarily uninformed Bernie Sanders supporters).

Video: Watch Out Honest Abe, Meet Libertarian Gary "Honest Johnson" (1:02).

Footnote
[1] Check Google and you can confirm the validity of this quote, although I first heard it from Thom Hartmann on his program, as broadcast on Free Speech TV on 8/11/2016. Thom also referred to Rand as "one sick puppy"; a sentiment I agree with 1000 percent. I also Googled it, and found a discussion on the Objectivism Online Forum.

SWTD #349, ARHP #5.

Libertarian Candidate 4 potus Gary Johnson Is A Despicable Colossal Liar

If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course ~ Ayn Rand (1/20/1905 to 3/6/1982) creator of the Objectivist theology and the inspiration for Libertarianism; commenting on the poor man.

The man futily running for potus for potus as a Libertarian, Gary Johnson, appeared on the 7/29/2016 airing of Comedy Central's The Nightly Show with Larry Wilmore. The following is an excerpt from Wilmore's interview of the 29th Republican Governor of NM (1995-2003).

Larry Wilmore: What is Libertarianism, and is Libertarianism as kooky as Libertarians? Gary Johnson: Libertarianism does reflect most people in this country. Keep government out of my pocketbook, out of my bedroom. Let's stop with these military interventions. Let's bring the world together with free trade and diplomacy. Non aggression principle. Look, don't use force unless force has been applied to you. Larry Wilmore: So it's... get out of the bedroom, get out of the wars, get out of my pocket. What do you get into? Gary Johnson: Liberty and freedom. Always come down on the side of choice. That we as individuals should always be able to make choices in our lives. As long as those choices don't adversely affect others. Larry Wilmore: What do you think about the three biggest issues that we're facing right now, and as a Libertarian candidate, how do you propose we address those issues? Gary Johnson: Well, government is too big. It takes too much money out of our pocket books. So, lower taxes, balancing... Larry Wilmore: Does lowering taxes itself reduce the size of government? I mean, that just reduces the ability of government to do the shit it's ineffectively doing right now, right? Gary Johnson: I think you hit on it. Do any of us believe government is running on all 8 cylinders? No. So, we're headed to a fiscal cliff if we don't address some really big issues. And that's going to be the entitlements. Look, we can do this effectively. We can still create a safety net. Nobody goes without. That's issue number 1. Issue number 2... just liberty. Personal freedom. A woman's right to choose. Marriage equality. Let's legalize marijuana. [discussion from this point concerns legalization of marijuana. Then Gary calls both Trump and Clinton polarizing, Gary thinks he's going to get voters both from the Republican and Democratic side and get in the debates, shrink government, get out of Afghanistan].

The number one issue is slashing entitlements (his platform calls for a 43% reduction of all federal government spending) and he says "nobody goes without"? Clearly that's a lie. First of all, "slashing government spending, including Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security" involves stealing from people. What they already paid in? You're not getting that back under a Johnson administration.

Fact is, Libertarians want to completely do away with the safety net according to their own platform.

Healthcare: We favor a free-market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want (if any), the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines. Retirement and Income Security: Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become even more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm. (Libertarian Party Platform, As adopted in Convention, May 2016, Orlando FL).

Also, the following from the same website (official website of the Libertarian Party).

End Welfare ... It is time to recognize that welfare cannot be reformed: it should be ended. We should eliminate the entire social welfare system. This includes eliminating food stamps, subsidized housing, and all the rest. Individuals who are unable to fully support themselves and their families through the job market must, once again, learn to rely on supportive family, church, community, or private charity to bridge the gap. (Poverty and Welfare).

So, under a Libertarian government, we'd phase out Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid... and end (completely) the "entire social welfare system" and end result will be that "nobody goes without"? Revising my prior comment concerning Johnson lying... That nobody is going to go without is clearly a HUGE lie.

The primary reason that people would go without is that the Libertarian "belief" that "members of society will become even more charitable" is total bullplop.

[Some say that] Charity can fill in any holes that develop [if government spending on welfare programs are cut]... But charity experts say that's a mathematical impossibility. ... Overall, the US government spends $105 billion annually on food programs to help the hungry [while] Feeding America, the largest food charity in the US (and one of the largest charities), moves $5 billion of food and funding to hungry people each year. But even that is a drop in the bucket compared with SNAP. "No charity in the history of the planet could come up with the $80 billion for SNAP", said Ross Fraser, director of media relations for Feeding America. "It doesn't make sense to talk about charity alone helping the hungry. It'd be like saying, why not let the military rely on charitable contributions". The total of US philanthropy is currently $300 billion... The amount represents all the money that people give away, most of it to churches and other religious institutions - 32%, or nearly $96 billion. A good deal of the rest goes to hospitals, universities and cultural institutions such as museums, noted Daniel Borochoff, president of CharityWatch... Just a small portion of those dollars goes to help the poor, noted Borochoff. "You have to think of charities as icing on the cake", he said. "They do not do the heavy lifting". Many activists say that if taxes are reduced, private giving will automatically increase. But history shows that's incorrect. For each of the last 40 years, Americans have given away the same proportion of money without change: roughly 2% of GDP. Even after the Bush tax cuts in the early part of the century, the rate of giving didn't rise, experts say... (Private charity no match for federal poverty aid, experts say by Alfred Lubrano. 5/20/2013 The Seattle Times).

I'll also point out that before Social Security, many people faced destitution in old age. The point is that Libertarians know private charity can't and won't meet the need that exists. Heck, even though we spend as much as we do on welfare (not enough even though it is significantly more than private sector charity) people STILL go without.

Feeding America reported the hunger and poverty facts and statistics in 2014; stastics that said that "46.7 million people were in poverty}, or 14.8% of US citizens. In addition, 10% of seniors (4.6 million people) live in poverty.

Yet this asshole Johnson said that if we SLASHED anti-poverty programs that NOBODY will go without. Because all the lazy Takers will get jobs and for those people who are genuinely needy, private charities will step up. That, or he's saying private charities will spend MORE than government is spending now.

Plus, we have to remember that Libertarians want to get rid of the minimum wage, which would affect the working poor, many of whom need these programs to survive (so Johnson wants to make their situations a LOT worse). Frankly I'm convinced that, when Libertarians like Gary Johnson say "nobody goes without", they mean NOBODY LEFT ALIVE goes without. That would be after millions starve to death.

This is a stated goal of the Libertarian heroine Ayn Rand, an evil woman who fantasized about the utopia that would emerge after the nation's poor died in great numbers (fantasies that took the form of a novel in which large numbers of moochers or "parasites" are exterminated when rich "Makers" go "on strike").

Although Libertarians would take no responsibility for the consequences of eliminating the safety net. They place the blame entirely on poor people. "Not choosing to live" (as per the Rand quote) being "choosing" to not work. And "nature taking it's course" being starving to death and dying. Meaning, in the twisted and immoral mind of the true-believing Ayn-Rand-worshiping Libertarian, poor people are basically committing suicide (something many more Poors would undoubtedly do under a Johnson administration).

Something (committing suicide by not working) I imagine Libertarians like Johnson believe people should have the freedom and liberty to do. If they choose. In any case, we are definitely not "in this together", nor are we "our brother's keeper". This explains why Libertarians are atheist, I suppose. Although their ideology has been adopted by Satanists (the article Satanism and Objectivism from the Church of Satan website, notes that "Objectivism... is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey").

Which is why I say I am NOT unfairly judging Gary Johnson (as one supporter recently claimed). Not given my view (based on the stated objective of Libertarians to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" so that parasites will die) that Objectivism and Libertarianism are evil ideologies.

It's a shame that Larry Wilmore didn't call Johnson on his HUGE whopper ("We can still still create a safety net. Nobody goes without"). And note that, while he said he's opposed to "military interventions" he also said "don't use force unless force has been applied to you". Which is his out for continuing the fight against ISIS in the highly improbable event he's elected president.

I mean, I think the "foreign interventions" are over (we aren't going to topple any more foreign governments by sending in occupying forces). At least for a few generations. After Afghanistan and Iraq the American people are DONE with them. So he'd end the war in Afghanistan (which I'm strongly in favor of). But he'd continue the fight (boots on the ground) against ISIS. My point being him saying "let's stop with these military interventions" is meaningless. We already did them and aren't likely to do anymore (so he thinks he's taking a "stand" by saying he's not going to do something we aren't going to do anymore anyway).

Similar to how, when he ran for potus in 2008, he said that he was in favor of gay marriage. And that Barack Obama was chicken because he didn't come out in favor of it at that time. But the hypocrite Johnson, while governor of NM, didn't use his position to push for it. This guy seems to mostly take "principled stands" when taking the "stand" is meaningless. I mean, it wasn't like he had a chance of winning the presidency in 2008, so what the hell difference did it make that his position on gay marriage might have cost him votes?

"All politicians lie" is a criticism I hear often. Especially from Libertarians and the Right. But Johnson's lies concern the core principles of Libertarianism! He says "Nobody goes without", yet the fact that Libertarians want to "eliminate the entire social welfare system" is clearly stated on the official website of the Libertarian Party (this would be the party that Johnson is running as the potus candidate of)!

Oh, and Gary Johnson absolutely does share Ayn Rand's views when it comes to the "parasitical takers".

Gary Johnson: ...I view big government in the same way that the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand did - that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers. (Gary Johnson on Principles & Values. On The Issues) [1].

So, why isn't it "oppressive" to those who give to charity? If the money is going to "non-producers" (and surely it MUST, if NOBODY is going to go without). Apparently people will decide to voluntarily oppress themselves (via significantly more charitable giving).

Obviously Johnson's claim that "we can still still create a safety net" and that "nobody goes without" (under a Johnson administration) is a f*cking lie. Obviously the Takers who still refuse to work (at a job where they would earn a NON-Living wage, due to Johnson abolishing the minimum wage) would go without. And die, which is WHAT THEY WANT! (as stated by Ayn Rand).

The end result would be a huge increase in the working poor. We'd probably have to create a new term, as "working poor" won't come close to describing HOW POOR these people would be (slums and shanty towns would surely proliferate under a Johnson presidency). And death for those who "refuse to work".

Including many who can't find work (I seriously doubt Johnson believes he'd be able to magically bring about full employment. Or that he'd even want to, given the fact that a tight labor market causes wages to rise... and Libertarians want to keep wages LOW). And, many of the people who "refused" to work would be doing so due to health or disability reasons (don't forget that Social Security provides for many disabled people and Gary wants to "phase it out").

All of which leads me to conclude that, not only would would the safety net be significantly harmed (causing MANY more people to go without), but that we'd quickly deteriorate into a 3rd world hellhole with one of the greatest divides between rich and poor on the planet. Not that we're doing great in that regard anyway. But under an improbable Johnson presidency (one under which Congress worked with him, which, given the fact that Libertarians and Conservatives both hate Poors, they likely would), extreme poverty would assuredly increase astronomically.

Footnote
[1] Wikipedia: On the Issues is an American non-partisan, non-profit organization providing information to voters about candidates, primarily via their web site. The organization was started in 1996, went non-profit in 2000, and is currently run primarily by volunteers.

Image: Gary Johnson wants a government that's big enough (and taxes enough) to pay for a "strong defense", which I would assume includes fighting ISIS. And he's also for a regressive consumption tax. According to Brookings "if you move the tax from income to consumption, you're raising the relative burden on low savers, which are low and moderate income households, so almost any revenue neutral shift from the income tax to a consumption tax will be regressive in that manner".

See Also: Gary Johnson, Libertarian Fraud (DSD #26).

8/17/2016 Update: In regards to Gary Johnson and his VP nominee William Weld, Thom Hartmann (on the 8/17/2016 airing of his program) said "They're not honest in the presentation of their positions. They use weasel words and slogans to lie about what they actually mean".

SWTD #343, ARHP #4.

The Day The World Ended

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine ~ Lyric from the REM 1987 song with the same title.

You probably aren't aware of it, but the end of the world has come and gone. The world ended on 3/6/1982. It was a Sunday. The significance of this day is that this is date on which a mentally ill lunatic named Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (AKA Ayn Rand) died.

Tom Snyder: I kind of think of this as ongoing, that there is an eternity, and that we are going to be a part of that eternity, that we aren't just corpses in graves when we die. Ayn Rand: But we are not corpses in graves. We are not there. Don't you understand that when this life is finished, you're not there to say "Oh how terrible that I'm a corpse". What I've always thought is a sentence from a Greek philosopher, I don't remember, unfortunately, who it was, that I read at 16, and it's affected me all my life. "I will not die. It's the world that will end". (Interview is from the 7/02/1979 broadcast of Tomorrow with Tom Snyder. As per Wikipedia, "unique one-on-one exchanges were common to the program").

Rand is clearly talking about the END of the world and not just the end of the world "as she knows it" (to paraphrase REM). And, I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure the world continued on after 3/6/1982. 34 years (plus 2 months and 21 days) have passed since Rand kicked the bucket. Longer since the day her most loyal acolyte Alan Greenspan (one of the primary architects of the bush recession) placed a "floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign" near her casket [1]. Which was strange, given the fact that Rand wasn't there. Seeing as she WASN'T a corpse in a box buried under the earth, it surely was a pointless gesture.

Also pointless was the fact that Rand left a will. Wikipedia says Rand's will "named Leonard Peikoff the heir to her estate", but I'm thinking this info must be erroneous and she did NOT leave a will. Given the fact that Leonard Peikoff ceased to exist the second Rand bit it. Why the hell would Rand leave a will if she knew the world was going to end when she died?

Obviously Rand was nuts. One of the manifestations of her mental illness being her sociopathic belief that the universe revolved around her and that when she died that was the end. Not just for her, but for everybody. A fact Liberal Talker Thom Hartmann commented on during the 5/24/2016 broadcast of his program.

Thom Hartmann: This [Snyder/Rand interview] gives you a glimpse into the mind of a sociopath. Sociopaths genuinely believe that when they die the world ends. That the only life that matters in the world is their life. [The sociopath believes that] in my life, I have no obligation to future generations.

This is why Objectivism, the philosophy devised by Rand, is (as George Monbiot put it) "a manifesto for psychopaths". Under this brain-diseased ideology greed and selfishness are virtues, and poor people are parasites and moochers that should be exterminated. Or, as Rand put it, "nature will take it's course". By which she meant that the parasites will die when the social safety net is completely eliminated (as Rand strongly believed it should be).

George Monbiot, a British writer, known for his environmental and political activism, expressed his thoughts on Objectivism in a 2012 article.

[Objectivism] has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the post-war world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. ... Objectivism... holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. Apart from the police, the courts and the armed forces, there should be no role for government: no social security, no public health or education, no public infrastructure or transport, no fire service, no regulations, no income tax. ... Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. (A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot. 3/5/2012).

Obviously the world would end for a LOT of people if Rand's philosophy were instituted at a governmental level. In that they would die. Alan Greenspan, when he instituted Randian ideology in his capacity as chairman of the Fed (laissez faire capitalism/deregulation), almost killed our economy. Although what he did afterward (going along with bailouts) is where he parted with Randian ideology (or Libertarians will tell you, at least). Rand would have said our economy should be allowed to crash and burn.

Not that I agree with how the bailout were constructed. Instead of rescuing the fatcat banksters, I believe the banks should have been nationalized and the homeowners bailed out. But the way it was done benefited the rich and powerful while many others (members of the middle and lower classes) suffered. Which is one aspect of this crisis that surely would have made Rand smile.

According to the British Journal of Psychiatry "a dramatic spike in suicides between 2008 and 2010 can be linked with the economic crisis" (More Than 10,000 Suicides Tied To Economic Crisis, Study Says). So maybe Rand wouldn't have smiled. Not because people died, but because NOT ENOUGH people died (given how much she hated poor people and wished them dead).

In any case, the world clearly goes on, despite Ayn Rand's departure. Although the world is surely a worse place due to the fact that her sociopathic ideology is "sorely needed right now"... or so Republican politicians like Speaker Paul Ryan believe.

And the Randian goal of maximizing income inequality would surely lead to the world ending for a LOT more people. As, in addition to the 2008 economic crisis driving 10k people to take their own lives, Republican economic policies in general have this effect (Conservative Policies are Driving Americans to Suicide).

Unfortunately for us all Ayn Rand, while she did die and most assuredly is a corpse in the grave, the sociopathic Objectivism lives on. Given that it spawned the political ideology Libertarianism [2], as well as infecting the Republican Party (OST #61).

Which is why I say it's time to make Objectivism/Libertarianism a figurative corpse in the grave. By sending it to the the trash heap of history where it belongs.

Footnotes
[1] Once in government, Greenspan applied his guru's philosophy to the letter, lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and repeal the laws constraining the banks, refusing to regulate the predatory lending and the derivatives trading which eventually brought the system down. ...as Adam Curtis's documentary showed last year, the most devoted member of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan. Among the essays he wrote for Ayn Rand were those published in a book he co-edited with her called Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. Here, starkly explained, you'll find the philosophy he brought into government. There is no need for the regulation of business... as the greed of the businessman or, more appropriately, his profit-seeking ...is the unexcelled protector of the consumer. (Excerpted from A Manifesto for Psychopaths by George Monbiot).
[2] Even though "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence on the libertarian movement, particularly in the United States and many libertarians justify their political views using aspects of Objectivism", Ayn Rand said (of Libertarianism) "I do not join or endorse any political group or movement. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives". (Libertarianism and Objectivism & The Ayn Rand Lexicon: What was Ayn Rand's view of the libertarian movement?).

Video: Writer/Author & philosopher, Aynd Rand & broadcast legend, Tom Snyder discuss the subject of death, dying, and the soul, during this brief clip from Rand's interview with Tom Snyder" (3:17).

SWTD #335, ARHP #3.

Additional Evidence Supporting The Hypothesis That Ayn Rand Hated Poor People

The poverty of our century is unlike that of any other. It is not, as poverty was before, the result of natural scarcity, but of a set of priorities imposed upon the rest of the world by the rich. Consequently, the modern poor are not pitied... but written off as trash. The twentieth-century consumer economy has produced the first culture for which as beggar is a reminder of nothing ~ John Berger (dob 11/5/1926) English art critic, novelist, painter and poet. Berger's essay on art criticism, Ways of Seeing, written as an accompaniment to a BBC series, is often used as a university text.

In a prior commentary (SWTD #303), I hypothesized that because Ayn Rand killed large numbers of fictional moochers in her massive tome (Atlas Shrugged), she hated poor people. Bolstering this case, I believe, was the fact that her "hero", John Galt, called for other wealthy individuals such as himself to take actions that resulted in the deaths of millions of citizens of the oppressive Socialist dystopia that Atlas Shrugged took place in. And, in regards to these deaths, Rand pontificated on how the dead deserved to die due to their support for the Socialist state.

Of course Rand denied that she hated the poor, but I think her writings speak for themselves. A commenter on my blog, when I asserted that the evidence shows hate, asked if I could "point to any statement made by Ayn Rand that she hated the poor". Because Rand never SPECIFICALLY said "I hate poor people"... if I look at other things she said or wrote and conclude that these writings show she hated poor people... that's just my opinion.

Perhaps, but I still contend that the evidence is pretty solid. And I will continue to assert that Rand did indeed hate poor people. The facts I presented in my prior commentary back that up. But those writings I pointed to do not represent the totality of words from Rand that show (IMO) how much she hated poor people. Which is reason for this commentary... to present additional proof of Rand's hate for the less fortunate.

The following concerns Rand's take on money and those who don't have a lot of it.

Rand called the United States a "nation of money", and she meant it as a compliment. "The words to make money hold the essence of human morality", she wrote in a famous passage in her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged. In Rand's hierarchy of virtue the American industrialist is "the highest type of human being" and the needy are rabble. "Parasites, moochers, looters, brutes and thugs can be of no value to a human being", Rand wrote in 1963. "Nor can he gain any benefit from living in a society geared to their needs, demands and protection, a society that treats him as a sacrificial animal and penalizes him for his virtues in order to reward them for their vices, which means: a society based on the ethics of altruism". (Ayn Rand - Paul Ryan's Moral Heroine - Instructs Johnny Carson on the Virtue of Selfishness, 1967 by Mike Springer. Open Cluture 8/14/2012) .

Obviously, given that poor people have less money, they must be less moral (according to Rand). If an individual is less moral as well as a parasite, a moocher, a looter, a brute or a thug; and if they are of "no value"... well, it's clear that Rand's opinion of such people (the poor) was exceedingly low. Heck, sounds like she thought the poor aren't even human, as they are of "no value to a human being". My guess is that the "human being" she refers to would be a rich person.

So, rich people are the only real humans beings, while the poor are nothing but parasites. Of course parasites are creatures that, if they afflict humans, are exterminated. Rand's idea for how the extermination should be accomplished? Eliminate all socialist safety net type programs. Society should not be "geared to their needs", after all. Obviously such a policy would obviously result in some, if not many deaths. Or, as Rand said (in regards to a hypothetical poor man) "if he does not choose to live [by having enough money to do so], nature will take its course [and he will die]".

In other words, "die you evil parasitical scum!". Or, I will sit by and watch you die. And call it "immoral" if anyone suggests help should be provided. Is this hate? You can judge for yourself, but I think more people will say YES than NO. In my opinion. Although it is possible that Rand simply wrote the poor off as trash and did not give them any further thought. However, given how many moochers she killed off in Atlas Shrugged, I doubt it. I mean, she was pretty clear (in AS) that she thought the world would be better off with significantly fewer looters. And fantasized about how to off large numbers of the hated parasitical moochers.

Video: Ayn Rand appears on the Tonight Show, 10/22/1967. According to Rand, a mixed economy (such as we have here in the US) leads to war. Social safety net programs designed to help the less fortunate are "immoral", as are the moochers who utilize them. Given these facts I ask... how could Rand NOT hate the poor, given the evil they represent? (26:37).

SWTD #310, ARHP #2.

Ayn Rand Took Great Delight In Killing Large Numbers of Fictional Moochers In Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society... To justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil ~ Gore Vidal (10/3/1925 to 7/31/2012) a political commentator, essayist and novelist who identified with the liberal politicians and the progressive social causes of the Democratic Party.

I think that this, the killing of worthless moochers and takers in her 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged (AS), shows that when Rand claimed (see video below) that she did not hate the poor, she lied. Haters usually deny that they're haters. Often they even deny it to themselves. So, even though Rand lied (to herself as well as the public) her writings show she hated poor people. People she referred to as "lice", "looters", "moochers", "parasites" and "takers".

For the record, I have not (nor do I ever intend to) read any of her fiction doorstops (or other published works). What follows are excerpts from articles I found online wherein the article author describes (and comments on) Rand's mass killings of fictional moochers.

when a railway worker in AS decides to punish the wicked socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist government that is being justly punished... [one victim was] an elderly school teacher who spent her life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is the only standard of good and evil..." And so endlessly on, through over a dozen deserving victims. "There was not a man aboard the train who did not share one or more of their ideas", she notes - so let them burn. (excerpt from a 3/10/2009 HuffPo article by Johann Hari).

But this killing of an entire train full of moochers is just the beginning! The death toll rises considerably when the evil Galt character (the "hero") withdraws to his gulch, from which he encourages other rich a-holes to engage in acts of terror in order to overthrow the socialist government.

Calvin Atwood runs a monopoly for electrical power, and his "going Galt" cuts off the electrical supply for a solid third of North America. Thomas Hendricks' new surgical technique was pushed to the forefront due to government support, resulting in other methods of stroke prevention being ignored, and undeveloped, so when he "went Galt" he directly murdered thousands of people as a result. Atlas Shrugged is littered with these people. Ayn presented them as heroic figures, the same way in which Osama Bin Laden presented the 9/11 hijackers. In the end, these were common terrorists, common criminals, with John Galt at their head. The blood of millions stained theirs, and John Galt's, hands. (excerpt from John Galt Is A Terrorist by Nathaniel Downes. Addicting Info 12/29/2012).

Millions of looters dead, huh? Perhaps the "non productive people" deserved to die, given the fact that "society damned the wealthy for being productive by expropriating the fruits of their labor". Taxed them too much, in other words. Perhaps we should be thankful that the Koch plutocrats are only trying to buy the presidency and install their Wanker puppet, instead of hatching a plan to kill a significant number of people in order to stop society from cruelly damning them with a relatively low tax rate? (As the rich become super-rich, they pay lower taxes. For real).

In the video below, Rand says (re poor people) that we shouldn't "tailor everything for their convenience". "Convenience" being "the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty". Yeah, it isn't difficult being poor at all. Even though it should be. We don't want the poor to get too comfortable in that social safety net hammock, right?

This would be the hammock that Paul Ryan referred to when he said "we don't want to turn the safety net into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people to lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives". However, as Paul Krugmann points out in his article The Hammock Fallacy, "Mr. Ryan and colleagues outright misstate what the research says" and that "the reason so many Americans remain trapped in poverty isn't that the government helps them too much; it's that it helps them too little".

Rand did not want to help poor people AT ALL, and so "opposed all forms of welfare" (Ryan's Ayn Rand obsession). If that isn't hate, it surely is total indifference and a complete lack of empathy.

But, as Rand gleefully killing large numbers of moochers in Atlas Shrugs shows, her disdain for the parasites clearly rises to the level of hate. "The best way to help the poor is to not be one of them", Rand says (quoting prosperity theologist Reverend Ike). She also wrote that if a man "does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Poor people who starve, freeze to death in the winter, or croak due to not being able to afford medical treatment have surely CHOSEN not to live, since it's possible (in Rand's view) to chose to not be poor.

So... there should be no welfare (at all) and if poor people choose to be poor nature will take it's course and they will die.

Video: Did Ayn Rand hate the poor? My verdict? Yes, she absolutely loathed them (1:14).

SWTD #303, ARHP #1.