Galt's Gulch

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

    -
  • Posted by DaveM49 10 years, 5 months ago
    Bowe Bergdahl was, as far as I can see from press reports, the sort of person with delusions of grandeur who BELIEVES he has found himself in AS. He was, in fact, someone similar to one character at least--the security guard Dagny shot.

    I wonder if he also owned a copy of "The Catcher In The Rye"? Remember when that was the book which, for some inexplicable reason, turned up among the possessions of every "lone nut"? Perhaps it has deservedly gone out of fashion.

    I'll bet he had a Bible, too. And some magazines. And a phone book, How do we know one of those didn't set him off?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years, 5 months ago
    There's no doubt he is a deserter. Deserting in a war situation is the worst offense a soldier can commit other than actively turning against his country and fellow soldiers. Under the circumstances in which he found himself, desertion is an irrational act, and certainly is in no way the course of an objectivist. So, whatever he read or wrote must be weighed against what is an irrational mind..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 10 years, 5 months ago
    Tying Bergdahl to Atlas Shrugged and it's message is like tying mass murders to the NRA or gun ownership. Bergdahl took the concepts of freedom to do whatever he felt like doing when he deserted. He ignored his contract with the Army and his comrades, which in my book is treason, especially in an all volunteer Army.

    What confuses me is how 'they' can condone his desertion (a good thing), and in a another breath try to tie his desertion (a bad thing) to Atlas Shrugged (a novel that just happened to become non-fiction).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Snezzy 10 years, 5 months ago
    I've known several crooks and druggies who claimed to be Objectivists, including three sponsors of NBI lectures in 1967. "This is really good weed. You should try some."

    You can find immoral people in any large group you care to examine, especially if you define the group to include known bad guys. Republicans, for example, are cannibals, as we know from the example of Alferd Packer. The judge at his trial reputedly said, "... there was siven dimmycrats. But you, yah et five of 'em, goddam yah. ... Packer, you Republican cannibal, I would sintince ya ta hell but the statutes forbid it." (http://www.sangres.com/history/alferdpac... )
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 5 months ago
    Bergdahl is more like the "tribal lone wolf" rather than John Galt.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
      -
    • Posted by Bobhummel 10 years, 5 months ago
      Teri-A,
      There is a HUGE difference between taking a shrug job like John Galt and deserting your platoon and giving information to the enemy on weaknesses in their perimeter security to help the sheet-heads kill the very men who would give their lives to protect yours. THe Galt ones, were the men who honored their code of honor and fidelity to their oath. IMO, Bergdahl is a traitor. A really stupid traitor, but a traitor. He should stand the court martial and if found guilty, be executed. It is a long standing tradition. Especially for lone wolves that attack their own pack.
      Cheers.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        -
      • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 5 months ago
        Yes. I totally agree.

        As I understand, Ayn's description of "the tribal lone wolf" is one who seeks a tribe but never fits in psychologically. To be an individualist one must be able to stand alone on moral and philosophical principles, not constantly confuse morality and reality.

        Bergdahl should have asked for a leave or gone into the military as a CO. As it stands, he should be tried, found guilty and punished accordingly.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          -
        • Posted by Bobhummel 10 years, 5 months ago
          TA,
          Your "Tribal Lone Wolf" was dead on accurate.

          "With all of his emphasis on "himself"... the tribal lone wolf has no self and no personal interests, only momentary whims.... Observe that whenever he ventures to speak of spiritual (i.e., intellectual) values -- of the things he personally loves or admires -- one is shocked by the triteness, the vulgarity, the borrowed trashiness of what comes out of him.

          A tribal lone wolf feels that his "self" is dissociated from his actions, his work, his pursuits, his ideas. All these, he feels, are things that some outside power -- society or reality or the material universe -- has somehow forced on him.... To a tribal lone wolf, "reality" is a meaningless term; his metaphysics consists in the chronic feeling that life, somehow, is a conspiracy of people and things against him, and he will walk over piles of corpses -- in order to assert himself? no -- in order to hide (or fill) the nagging inner vacuum left by his aborted self. (49-50)"

          My one regret for that platoon, is that the officer and NCO leadership didn't identify his condition as something other than the normal, if there is such a thing, stress of being in a combat zone where your enemy, particularly the leaders, will order send wave after wave of human bombs, even sacrifice their own children to try and kill you. All for the promise of 72 virgins in the afterlife. IF they didn't have such a screwed up philosophy and actually did something to fix up the shit hole they live in now, maybe they could enjoy this life a little bit more and not be so anxious to get to the next one.

          Thanks again for tutelage in the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I just bought Philosophy, Who needs it. I have read excerpts, but not the entire work.
          Cheers
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by teri-amborn 10 years, 5 months ago
            Philosophical wars or wars against an emotion (terror) can't be won...let alone against an enemy who lives to kill and to die. The platoon leaders are following ROE that are additionally suicidal.
            Our President is effectively ending our military. Prepare for the worst to happen in this country next.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              -
            • Posted by Bobhummel 10 years, 5 months ago
              I'm not attempting to hijack this string, but you make a very valid point on the insanity of the current ROE. It is very similar to the ROE in Vietnam under Johnson/McNamara, and in Yugoslavia in the 90's written by a moronic State Department under Madeleine "not so" Albright and interpreted by the likes of Janet Reno's DoJ and Gen Wesley "Ashley Wilkes" Clark. There are so many similarities in the strategic planning for total and complete failure that come from socialist, statist, liberal leaders, and yet they continue to be heralded as the only path to nirvana.
              Wars are won on offense, not defense. The ROE in OIF and OEF were offensive until 2008 and we had achieved the primary objective, eliminate the safe havens in Iraq and Afghanistan for Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But that discussion is for another string.
              The philosophical war that currently is raging in our nation, between the concept of free individuals being sovereign with inalienable rights and the concept that only the collective can make the best decisions for the society, can be won. It was won two centuries ago against a potentate, and must be won again against the Marx/Engels redistribution driven left.
              Choose any collectivist model, Plato's Republic, Hobb's Leviathan, Sir Thomas Moore's Utopia, or Marx/Engels Communism. They all fail. They are also a cancer on every free market economic system. All in the name of equality. Some pigs are more equal that others - Animal Farm.
              Thanks again Teri, i have enjoyed the exchange.
              cheers
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            -
          • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 5 months ago
            Bob, we had an opportunity ... ummm ... to use a
            drone to take out the Taliban plus their captive, if
            only by accident. "hard choices" anyone??? -- j

            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Bobhummel 10 years, 5 months ago
              I am sure that would be seen as the execution before the court martial. That was probably an effective choice 100 years ago. Plus, a 30-06 at Leavenworth is a lot cheaper than a hellfire missile in Afghanistan.
              Cheers
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years, 5 months ago
    If he did read Atlas Shrugged he apparently missed the "My word is my Bond" part.

    As a former Marine I am going to refrain from spewing any of the vitriol that springs to mind in reference to his conduct.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by johnpe1 10 years, 5 months ago
      isn't Bergdahl like Snowden and others who have
      gone against their word and harmed the U.S.? for
      some reason, our corrupt society celebrates these
      folks. sick. -- j

      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by johnmahler 10 years, 5 months ago
    You sure can tell who has and has not read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. Maybe there is a slight linkage, in a stretch, to "The Fountainhead" where the hero blows up the building the moocher crybaby architect "suck-hole" Keating built to please his clients. I am a Libertarian and try to live as a pacifist, so far as is prudent, but don't mess with my values. Yes, if Bergdahl had the backbone to have said he was leaving the war as many did in the Viet Nam era, he could be seen as a protestor! He didn't do that! He didn't even apply for "conscientious objector" status and retire to the mess hall. NO, this traitor wore the uniform, left his post, weapon, provisions except for water, learned the language of the enemy and took up the enemy religion of Islam. His father even greeted his son with the Islamic prayer of greeting on the lie that his son might have forgotten English. This is pure unadulterated aiding and abetting and this deserter, even claimed by his platoon mates, deserves UCMJ courtsmarshall and death! He could have done it right and been a hero of conscientious objection. Serving in the Mess hall would still have given him a honorable discharge and he could have claimed Susan Rice's liar credit, "He served with honor and distinction."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ brd76 10 years, 5 months ago
    Joining the military is a rational means to serve ones self interest when one considers that their self interest is to protect and defend the freedoms that made this country great. What is irrational about this lone wolf is that he fails to consider is own best interests in a logical manner. I truly do not believe that he could have read AS, taken it for its entirety, and used it to act. His convictions and bias are not in line with that which would serve him or his team or his country in the best possible way. I say the media is either grasping at straws or that this story is fabricated in its entirety.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 10 years, 5 months ago
    Maybe Bergdahl was brainwashed at camp to be a ASer in name only then given instructions to desert so MSM could try to destroy what is left of the "Tea Party".
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Danno 10 years, 5 months ago
    Many who read Rand A.S. and like it do not understand the book fully. They like the grandeur. The Grandeur of the Crony, The Grand Taker.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by RobertFl 10 years, 5 months ago
    I've noticed a trend of late that the MSM seems to be treating Republicans/Conservatives the same as Libertarians. Is that fair? What truly separates the two? Other than the fact that if a Libertarian had to chose between a Democrat or a Republican they're likely to go to the right.
    How would you explain the difference to someone?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by dcwilcox 10 years, 5 months ago
    Should Bergdahl be proven to be a deserter, look for Obummer to mention in a softball TV interview that Bergdahl never matured beyond an "adolescent admiration" of Ayn Rand.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo