The new age of Ayn Rand: how she won over Trump and Silicon Valley

Oh gods. RAND?

As if we need to teach more people about her bullshit and creepy cult.

As I recall wasn't Ron Paul quite the devotee of hers?
Named his son after her.

indeed.

No. I challenge you to find one single lover of Marx that has actually read his manifesto. Just one. In 4 years of university, sharing space with literal communists, I couldn't find one. These people don't read.

shit, I fucked up. I didn't check to see it was actually the one that NAMES the bitch…

You mean the communist manifesto?
I think a better work to question them on would be Das Kapital.
Engels was such a terrific editorial influence on Marx, making the manifesto legible.
No such pleasure is to be had with Das Kapital where Marx was free to prattle on as much as he wished.

Nope.

I mean sure, Das Kapital is a fucking train wreck worth skimming through, but do you expect someone who wont read a 52 page pamphlet to sit down and read that thing?

Meant to reply to

Having read The Fountainhead, I love Howard Roark. I interpret her philosophy to mean "being truly selfish means also being selfish when it comes to wanting to take care of one's own people. A devoted user of pure willpower takes care of his world by being the best he can be, and in doing so will want to take care of his own too. A good and accomplished person cannot feel satisfied unless he is also selfishly taking care of those he loves."

Now, I'm well aware kikes and their ilk who love Rand do not take selfishness to mean anything along those lines whatsoever. To them, selfishness is only to serve the internal self. However, this is not what I have taken away from her ideas at all. Check out this clip, it's a really great one. I'd like to hear what user thinks of this interpretation, especially in the context of this clip here.

This is horseshit.

Nationalists like Bannon reject Rand with their support of things like trade tariffs and loyalty to the nation not profit.

Globalists like Kushner reject Rand with their support of the Talmud.

This is some made up shit, a couple people read rand and it's a huge influence? I hate rand but at the moment I wish Trump was closer to that then what he's doing.

Yeah I've heard that claim before.
But no. He's named after Rand.
Because Rand is not a name used as a forename by white people. Does anyone?
Dunno. Point is fuck the lies.

It's a train wreck that would have benefited massively from a decent editor.
Marx for his many flaws in solutions was pretty good at diagnosing problems in the capitalist system.
But my god the man can not write in an accessible manner. Must have been a major league autist or something.
Whats weird is how common that writing style is among Marxist/Communist thinkers.

It was trash. Ayn Rand has no racial awareness at all and she has never once named who the bankers or corrupt politicians actually were in her shitty books. She self inserts as a whore. Atlas Shrugged was trash.

Bullshit, rand and people like her (trump) just use nationalism and the front of caring for their people to advance their own desires and retards like you fall for it.

Well yes. Rand was Jewish.

It's mentioned in the article..

The third age of Rand came with the financial crash and the presidency of Barack Obama that followed. Spooked by the fear that Obama was bent on expanding the state, the Tea Party and others returned to the old-time religion of rolling back government. As Rand biographer Jennifer Burns told Quartz: “In moments of liberal dominance, people turn to her because they see Atlas Shrugged as a prophecy as to what’s going to happen if the government is given too much power.”
In that context, it seemed only natural that one of the success stories of the 2012 presidential campaign was a bid for the Republican nomination by the ultra-libertarian and Rand-admiring Texas congressman Ron Paul, father of Senator Rand Paul, whose insurgent movement was a forerunner for much of what would unfold in 2016. Paul offered a radical downsizing of the federal government. Like Ayn Rand, he believed the state’s role should be limited to providing an army, a police force, a court system – and not much else.
But Rand presented a problem for US Republicans otherwise keen to embrace her legacy. She was a devout atheist, withering in her disdain for the nonobjectivist mysticism of religion. Yet, inside the Republican party, those with libertarian leanings have only been able to make headway by riding pillion with social conservatives and, specifically, white evangelical Christians. The dilemma was embodied by Paul Ryan, named as Mitt Romney’s running mate in the 2012 contest. Ryan moved fast to play down the Rand influence, preferring to say his philosophy was inspired by St Thomas Aquinas.

This is true, but at least Rand appeared to hate kikes. In her writings kikery was indeed evil, which leads me to believe that Rand was an autistic kike that understood what real value was and how to earn it, just didn't know how to defend against kikery thought. Too much autism I suppose.

I actually found myself nodding my head when Marx discussed the dynamics of the 19th century, where capitalists overtook monarchs and nobles during the industrial revolution and peasants became factory serfs. It's fine until he goes full kike and introduces his solutions, such as the dictatorship of the proles and expecting a totalitarian regime to transition into a stateless yid utopia.

Fucking did it again

...

JESUS FUCKING CHRIST

THIS IS AUTISM

Adam Curtis did a documentary partly about Ayn Rand, about her influence and the people who championed her. It's fascinating and very educational. One of my all-time favorites.

There was some video where she said

Women have no place in politics

no

jews, man

read non-jewish stuff from that era, marx wrote nothing new or insightful

I'd post up that action philosophers comic.
But its on my other hard drive.

Still thats the hilarious thing about Marx. He understood a lot of the problems and their causes.
But he couldn't fix them if you gave him a god damned manual
Trying to force your way through Das Kapital is a good idea. Just once in your life.
Anything more than that is just masochism.

Here's a non-niggered upload:
https:// thoughtmaybe.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/
It's a classic.

hes right, ya know

Proudhon was definitely the superior 19th century socialist and was one of the writers that brought me to natsoc. He synthesized anarchism with a nationalist, agrarian spirit and was openly anti-Semitic. In the 1840s he wrote:

Dumpfle and Jews; A love story.

Ayn Rand was one of my biggest redpills.
After learning about her, I realized that most jews thought like this and they should be shoah'd. A better title for Atlas Shrugged would be "A Goy's Guide to Acting Like a Jew".
When Nationalism and Socialism join forces, humanity will finally have a chance to break free from slavery under the Jews.

That's what makes the book great.

...

Ayn Rand popularity peaked about a decade ago, if not longer. These kikes are totally behind the times. Youth trends have moved on past libertarianism, they've seen it's failings and are now turning to fascism.

...

hi leftycuck

Atlas Shrugged is awful. Rand isn't as bad an author as people sometimes claim, but Atlas Shrugged is all the worst parts of her writing cranked up to 11. The Fountainhead is better, and We The Living is actually quite good.

Isn't his actual name Randall?

(checked)

Hot take: they're fully aware that Ayn Rand/libertarian youth hype is behind the times but are trying to revert back to an age when which the Goyim Didn't Know.

That's wrong she was lifetime supporter of israel despite whining about tribalism and nationalism her entire life. I wonder why…

Man, they actually managed to find three fucking SC notables who said positive stuff about Rand/Objectivism/Libertarianism! That totally means these ideologies have a grip on Silicon Valley despite the place being a singularity of smug shitlibism who import H1B Pajeets largely as a fuck you to native STEM workers.

Although I actually expected this delusional shitpiece to be written by one of the Pando/exiled shitbags like the serial rapist dou Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames, not some flunky at the Graunidad.

as if those things don't deserve to be destroyed

There's a good book in there somewhere. It badly needs editing though. It could be made into a pretty cool premium miniseries (hbo/showtime style) if it wasn't so thoroughly hated by lefties. They probably wouldn't be able to stop themselves from sabotaging it, even if they did decide to make it. It has a really comfy train theme going on, plus a '40s kind of scifi and mystery feel.

I have to agree. I once read some article where the author claimed that it was about doing 'anything to make a dollar'. I remember laughing because they had obviously never read it.

You "horseshoe" theory retards never learn.

I think it could be read as all the jews dissapear from society, secrectly going to israel, while the rest of the world collapses without them because they're so awesome.

Bingo. Rand is just as spiritually Jewish as actual kikes.

Beware kike journalists who recognize the rapid rise of right-wing nationalism, and are trying to co-opt us into supporting kosher civnat, free market lolberg policies developed by kikes like (((Rand))), (((Friedman))) and (((Mises))). They're panicking that people on the right will embrace race realism and discover the truth of jewish treachery, so they actually want to promote the growth of the right-wing, so long as nationalism can be subverted to believe all races are equal and never address the jewish problem.

is this leftypol serious?

Howard Roark is a rapist

This whole theme of the article screams "Followers of ideologies ignore critics" to me. I think this is actually a fine piece of projection, given how much enlightened individuals claim Marx is absolutely right and communism is destined path for humanity.

She wanted it.

Agreed, pic related got me to look into Ayn Rand snd libertarianism

Rand never named the jew. But she did describe them perfectly. Ellsworth Toohey is the archetype of leftist media jews. Reading him plan the destruction of culture, you can't help but imagine him rubbing his hands together.

ASK FOR A RAISE MOISHE

Ayn Rand, the new-ager from satan.

Ayn Rand is the "acceptable" alternative.
It's OK to rebel goy as long as you stay inside the lines if acceptable though.

...

Why are people posting articles from The Guardian or Vice as if we're supposed to them seriously? The Guardian doesn't like libertarians because they're socialists and because they don't like Trump they want to associate him with Ayn Rand and Libertarianism. This isn't worth a thread.

I really wish I could have gotten to speak with Rand before she died and gotten her full input on the Jews. It was an open secret that she disliked them since her books excluded them from any protagonist roles and depicted the only Jew in any of her books, Ellsworth Toohey, as a massive kike who was eating society alive from the inside out using typical Marxist tactics. By comparison, every Celt, Nordic, and Anglo character in her novels were shining moral and physical examples of the Ubermensch with superior philosophies that kept them healthy both as egos and as humans. Most people would obviously see this as an example of crypto-kikery since she was, in actuality, a Jew who's always been interpreted as the self-loathing type…but I'm not too certain of that. I, myself, was a proponent of Israel up until a few years ago since I perceived it a Western-allied bulwark that helped to keep the Mudslimes at bay. Now, of course, I know better. The question for me is how she would react to the information we have presently–especially since that info ties Israel to the Bolsheviks, who she hated.

I'm always going to give her a lot more credit than most people here since she was one of the first real critics of cronyism, corporatism, and libertarians–regardless of what the Friedman types say, she despised them and called them the "hippies of the right". Her influence upon me is why I still identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist even though I acknowledge the unarguable success of fascism as imagined by National Socialists–also, I believe in God. The reason I still hold her definition of capitalism to heart is because the common strand that runs through both Rand-type Laissez Faire Capitalism and Hitlerian National Socialism is the emphasis upon cultural maintenance and public consciousness. The delusion suffered by Friedman-obsessed libertarians is that a free market qualifies as a culture unto itself that guarantees societal cohesion and functionality when, in reality, business without a culturally conscious moral compass only serves to deconstruct the society that adopted the market as a means of prosperity. In which case, the prosperity of a free market in, say, the US translates into Chinese capitalization upon Americans rather than Western improvements–not to mention the aforementioned cronyism that Rand was so critical of in Atlas Shrugged.

The reality here is that if it weren't for the Rothschilds co-opting the industrial revolution via the banking cartel established at the turn of the 1800s, then very few people here would still be critical of the free market since it would still primarily be a Western phenomenon run by people with Western interests.

I acknowledge the truth of 's observation that she was something of an aspiring whore since the characters as whom she self-inserted herself were promiscuous as fuck (Dagney should have stayed with Rearden dammit!). However, taking the full preponderance of her character and its flaws into mind, I simply interpreted that as her own faults and confirmation bias bypassing her true philosophy. In Atlas Shrugged, she had four pages devoted to delineating and criticizing degeneracy in women, so she clearly disliked sluts, but her cognitive dissonance clouded her ego so severely that she couldn't see that she was a trollop herself. That quality of her character is not easily overlooked, but I can get past it and see the profundity of what she wrote.

Regardless of any of the antecedents, The Fountainhead is a wonderful book, and still my favorite above all else. It gave me the first glimpse into the inner workings of exactly how society is socially conducted into decline through the implementation of mediocrity as an enforced philosophical principle. I understand why most Holla Forumslacks will dislike Atlas Shrugged, but no one here has any reason to dislike the Fountainhead.

Wait, are we Socialists?
I haven't taken the socialist redpill yet. I thought Hitlers version of Socialism was different than Commie Socialism.

Ahahahhaha hohohoho hehehehhehe huehuehuehue! Yes the faggots who work directly with the tyrannical police state to monitor every human being on the plant 24/7, who whored themselves out to one of the most brutal, oppressive governments in the history of the world; the Chinese, are big fans of Ann Rand.

Oh, now it makes sense.

Anthem is also pretty good

The only thing these faggots take from Rand is the extreme libertarian ethos of "do whatever the fuck i want and call myself a demigod who builds society".

Then you have interpreted her philosophy entirely wrong. Rand argued that there is no room for racial consciousness in society, and her philosophy aimed to break down and eradicate racial consciousness. A completely selfish person should care for no one but themselves; thus, one following Rand's principles would feel no duty nor responsibility to one's people. Further, according to Rand an individual has no reason to discriminate based on race, because the race of the 'other' has no impact on individual liberty, and is thus of no consequence. Rand was a strong advocate for open borders and the dissolution of the nation state - excepting Israel, of course, for whose sovereignty she argued strongly. Typical kike hypocrite.

...

Source?

I don't recall any lectures or essays from Rand regarding race, but as far as selfishness is concerned, the key point she always made was that the word "selfish"–like many other terms in the English language–had been hijacked by postmodernism and assigned a colloquial definition that meant to step on other people to get what you want. Virtue of Selfishness reestablished that being "selfish" simply meant to operate with regards to yourself and toward your own ends. Suppose for a moment that you involved someone else in the pursuit of your goals without a fair and honest exchange of services and/or goods, then you're involving more parties than merely the "self". As such, rather than selfish, you'd be "selfless". Howard Roark's character was her means of getting this point across in novel format. And her ascription to Capitalism was meant to identify an appropriate framework in which people would reside where a community of individuals could interact without stepping on each other socially or economically (this is opposed to Communism where is no framework, but rather just a huge square enclosure where people pile on top of another according to their capacities and/or positions of authority).

It's similar to the libertarian misconception of what constitutes "liberty". In their mind, "liberty" simply means for anyone and everyone to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't clearly affect the people around the party in question. What libertarians are ignorant of, or simply uncaring toward, is that fact that everything a person does within the matrix of a society affects everyone whether there's involvement in the behavior or not. Drugs are the most prevalent example: too often do I meet libtards who say that other people's drug addictions are irrelevant to them since they're not the ones consuming the poison. But the community ultimately must interact with those degenerate addicts, thus compromising the moral fiber of the citizenry or, at the very least, creating a hostile atmosphere with their inebriation and hallucinatory sperg outs.

Her conclusions are missing some important details that make society functional with respect culture, but she was on the right track–her hypothesis was certainly more developed than Friedman's (incidentally, he criticized her ontological observations).

Not even just racial consciousness, but ethics in general. It was a post-industrial kind of "divine right of CEOs" or something. People like Ron Paul make up about 2% of her fanbase. The rest are just dicks that want total freedom from moral judgement.

Are you sure you read it? Why does Daphne Tagwell draw a huge dollar sign on the front of the People's Bank of New York with crimson lipstick?

Ayn Rand was a fraud and a cuckhold. She cucked her husband FOR YEARS with another man, and when that blew up, trued to ruin her ex-lover's marriage to get him back. Later, when she was old, ugly, aline, and dying of cancer, she signed up for THE VERY SAME SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS she'd spent her entire career railing against.

Cant believe that anyone who posts on Holla Forums would even consider supporting a lying, thieving Jewish whore like Ayn Rand.

Blow your brains out.

...

Toohey was good at inventing nicknames for people - kind of like Trump. What about Gail Wynand? Jew or not?

She was also a hardcore atheist, on top of being a whore, a Jew, and a hypocrite

I can mostly agree with this. My biggest problems with the book were John Galt and Francisco D'Anconia. Both of them suffer heavily from Rand's tendency to have characters launch into massive ideological tirades that are sometimes barely relevant to the context, and John Galt has the added problem of never being seen in normal society. The most interesting conflicts with Rand's ideal heroes come from them struggling to live in a world that's hostile to them, and you never get that with John Galt. He just tells the world to fuck off and then proceeds to win in every conflict with it. That's not interesting. Roark getting kicked out of school, working shit jobs, getting hired to work on a scam, ending up in court because his clients don't like his work, all that is interesting.
I'm not sure editing it down would be enough to fix this, because really I think the best way to fix Atlas Shrugged would be to rewrite it without John Galt. This has a lot of benefits–Dagny is less of a whore, the other heroes don't get overshadowed by this guy whose only character trait is "perfect", and you can recast the long-winded speeches as D'Anconia just being kind of a pompous ass instead of Rand being unable to control her verbal sphincter.
The premise also doesn't allow for very good villains, and I'm not sure that can be fixed. Toohey was so compelling in The Fountainhead because he's good at what he does. The villains in Atlas Shrugged are incompetent by necessity, with the exception of Robert Stadler. Toohey comes off as demonic, while the villains in Atlas Shrugged come off as animalistic. That fits better with Rand's philosophy, but it's a less interesting story.

I like it for the well written hate-characters. I think Rand hated normalfags with a beyond/pol/ intensity. (Because she never got much male attention.) The tunnel scene where she explains why each individual deserves to be gassed is awesome, how could any user hate that.

I want to hear a conversation between Rand and Elliot Roger.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. John Galt would have been been better as a shadowy figure that set everything in motion but they find out he's dead now. Or if he fucked off to that utopia and never left. His 3 hour radio speech was so pointless because it just recapped everything that had already been said. And this is not even touching on the totally pointless viking pirate captain. I agree about the villains as well. Someone more formidable and interesting was really needed.

I like her protagonists because of their take-no-shit attitudes and fashy demeanors, but her philosophy is dogshit, and she is WORDSWORDSWORDS incarnate. It makes viruscomix look like a fucking picturebook by comparison. Fountianhead is alright taken soley as fiction, anthem is babby's first teenage purplepill. There is no legitimate reason Atlas Shrugged should have been a thousand fucking pages long.

(checked and kek'd)
/thread

Yeah, that was good. You don't get to see that kind of open, unapologetic hatred often in fiction, which makes it immensely satisfying when you do find it.
Given Rand's admiration for William Hickman that could actually be interesting.

I think it's more complicated - her characters are nonracial whytes - she bought into the midcentury dynamic that Jews would just dissolve into white America. Ellsworth is a very waspy name. I think Rand really hated the Jeb! style cucks, which are a wasp subtype. Her heroic characters seem to have the drive, chtuzpah, and rage of a jew with the nobility of an aryan.

You're close. Enlightened self-interest is 100% Holla Forums approved (most on Holla Forums would disagree because they are poorly read on the subject), but Rand fucked this concept up. Instead of following her own logic, she swerved off into this idea of "individualism" that has no basis in reality when a single layer is peeled back.

It isn't about satisfying materialistic cravings or pursuing hedonistic interests… (Rand would agree) nor is it about considering yourself in a vaccum as a totally independent individual (Rand would be suspicious) but about acknowledging your duties as a human being in a historical continuum and choosing virtue and rejecting vice (Rand would object). It is no different than "know thyself" which means understanding who you are and what your place in history is. It means understanding that as a European man you descend from a rich hard fought and won ancestry. It means acknowledging all relevant facts, which includes all of the above, in shaping (really discovering) your value system. A truly enlightened self-interested man achieves the enlightenment that his existence is currently only possible because of the civilization that has enabled it, which was enabled by traditions of achievement and struggle to do better for our children than was done for us.

Then all of the familiar vices that subvert the generative cycle of passing on the heritage we've been gifted become apparent again… though not in the language of christian ethics. Lust, gluttony, sloth, wrath, etc…

t. Holla Forums who studied Objectivism for over a decade

True. She was a kike and this definitely limited what truths she was willing to consider. Racism isn't a subject she spent a lot of time on. She dismisses it as "collectivism" but doesn't really grapple with any of the civilizational conflict shit… and in typical Jew fashion… was a zionist who denounced racism in white countries.

She hated communism, but never connected the dots on communism being political judaism. I think it's a bit generous to think she hated kikes… being one and all… complete with her own personal holocaust story of the evil communists confiscating her fathers property. In the late 19th century kikes in Russia were using any excuse they could to immigrate to the states… it's no cooincidence she got her start in the U.S. as an actress and screenwriter… along with all the other kikes from Russia who built hollywood.

Not really… it's more of "A Goy's Guide to how we want you to act" … because these "Hero" archetypes are all basically workaholic childless slaves to material achievement. It is an ethical framework with any mystical spiritual expression completely eradicated. So… the things we enjoy here… like synchronicity… unexplainable signs and coincidences that we can't explain but enjoy being baffled by simply because it leaves open possibilities of adventure and discovery… and adds a playful layer to otherwise sanitized intellectualism. The systematized rejection of the significance of this mode of experience is stiffling in that it attempts to transform the organic mind into a machine.

It is effectively the dehumanization of and spiritual gutting of the goy.

It's heavily dependant on when you read the book for the first time. If you haven't read it my like the 22/24 mark you're not going to get nearly as much from it. If you read it after you've lived a little and think you've figured some shit out you'll be much less receptive to it. If you're me and you read it at 17 it will change your life… and you'll spend years pouring through the non-fiction because you can FEEL that there is truth to be discovered there. To be honest there is a lot of truth there… but you'll spend the next 5-8 years deconstructing and rediscovering which bits are bullshit and which bits are gold.

Among the gold bits:

The shit bits to be aware of

And that is not an argument

Keep in mind she romanticizes these "heros" as people who actually physically pour their blood sweat and tears into building their own companies… which is admirable, though bullshit. Take for example Hank Rearden who… when he had an accident at his steel plant… battled solo to the point of passed out collapsing exhaustion throwing clay balls to seal up cracks in his vats to stop his plant from being ruined. If these people built and EARNED their CEO status it isn't a divine right… but these empty suits are all just kikes in real life. So you can't infer from the book that Rand would consider a CEO of todays companies as being worth a fuck. As a matter of fact Atlas Shrugged opens talking about how a bus driver is expertly driving, and spends a lot of time tbroughout the book emphasizing that no matter what job you're doing there is a pride within your reach of expert execution and achieving excellence in that task… which is VERY Hitler-esque in her explicit appreciation of the American Worker and acknowledging that value.

Her writing in response to the christcuck meme of "Judge not, lest ye be judged." was… "Judge and be prepared to be judged." CEOs today don't give a fuck about judgement… when it carries no consequence.

Basically your shit is all wrong and fucked.

Remembered another gold bit.

Rand will unjew your spiritual situation if you're a christian. It helped me a lot after growing up as a southern baptist. After 4 or so years of study I was able to completely purge the guilt inherent in the christian concepts of unworthiness and imperfection. I stopped feeling like a wretch, and embraced the aesthetic romanticism and admiration of western civilizations achievements, respect for ancestry, and a better comprehension of its total impact on all of us.

nationalvanguard.org/2017/04/ayn-rands-radical-capitalism-and-individualism-definitely-not-the-solution/

TL;DL Anarcho-Capitalism (aka Objectivism) is an idea of elietism that fails to work as it ignores certain central concepts that are a part of the natural order, much like Marxism does. It teaches that everyone is capable of reaching the same level of merit if given the chance. Furthermore it proposes an impossible system of the state seprate from economics.

"[…]he reason it is impossible is that the moment the capitalists apprehend that it is to their advantage to enlist the coercive power of the state in their pursuit of their own selfish interests, and have the power to do so, they will not hesitate."

Already wrong.
No, it doesn't. Eddie Willers is included in Atlas Shrugged specifically to contradict this idea. He has the same morality as the heroes, but not their intellectual and creative ability. He's capable of contributing in his own way, but ultimately his fate depends on the actions of his betters. Of course, the obvious conclusion from this is that radical individualism is not enough for ordinary people–they need a social structure that they can fit into and contribute to, they can't do everything on their own. Rand doesn't go there, though. You could argue that's because she thought of herself as only writing for the Howard Roarks of the world and not for ordinary people, but given how wildly popular her works have been that seems unlikely. More likely, she just hadn't thought that far.

I'm all for criticizing Rand, but giving bad arguments against her is counterproductive and will only encourage Objectivists.

You don't belong here.

This. In the same way the refugee crisis killed no-borders lolbergism, it also ultimately undermines many of objectivisms conclusions about individualism.

Alyssa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum reduces humans to animals that care for nothing other than their own personal gain. Typical of a hideous Jew. It's this selfish individualism that keeps humanity blind to the Jewish conspiracy and it's antidote - folkism. Ms. Rosenbaum poisons that ideals of hard work and self-sufficiency with the idea that there is nothing beyond your physical needs that should concern you! Yes the Jews love nothing more than to be opposed by unorganized and materialistic egoists!

nor ask another man to live for the sake of mine.” — John Galt

Problem is, this is sometimes hard to see. A lot of libertarian/Objectivist types will attribute the problems of multiculturalism solely to low IQ, and not acknowledge that nonwhites tend not to behave as individualists even when their IQs are relatively high. Chinese, Jews, and Indians all act like collectivists and prioritize their coethnics over others, only whites ever believe the idea that those ties shouldn't matter.

Is it any surprise that Objectivism and Libertarianism comes from Jews?

Ayn Rand
Ludwig Von Mises
Murray Rothbard
Milton Friedman
Stefan Molyneux
etc.

kevinalfredstrom.com/2014/02/american-dissident-voices-liberty/
^^^^^^^
Why Liberterianism doesn't work from a National Socialist point of view.

My experience has been that even people who ATTEMPT to believe this fail (including myself long ago). All that needs to be done to help start bringing these people into the fold is to point it out to them. Individualism is an incredibly trivial thing to reduce to absurdity.

Fail in terms of how their actions contradict their stated beliefs.

Not true. She expands a lot on "Enlightened" self-interest and contrasts it with hedonism. …but, this is a common misunderstanding even among younger objectivists.

Is the fat lolberg /ourguy/?

I would say that was actually one of the major points of the book. Dagny held on to whatever scraps of that social structure she could find. After they had all been stripped away, she tried to go it alone for a while, and just couldn't.

Her whole philosophy just seems to inconsistent to me. If I should only care about myself, what keeps me from stealing?

This is a fucking shill thread you fucking kike shill fuck off.

Fucking learn to read dammit!

→

I'm not going to tell Holla Forums that it should accept Rand's philosophy with open arms. Especially since she was an atheist. But all of you fucks keep making erroneous observations of her philosophy that are based on libcuck conventions of what qualifies as "selfishness".

Theft nullifies the underlying premise of a principally selfish lifestyle. That was her point, and that's why she was so controversial. This claim was her primary means of fighting postmodernism.

Fuck off.

Alfred Rosenberg is far superior to this dumb bitch.

Not an argument.

There are many things to hold against Ayn Rand. The Virtue of Selfishness isn't one of them.

...

Yeah this is common knowledge. Watch some documentaries for fuck's sake.

Bunch of slackjawed newfaggots posting all the time makes me hate this place.

Actually the two are not comparable. Alfred Rosenberg isn't a jew, and his understanding of history far surpasses Rand (in my opinion). The theory of the racial soul and how miscagenation and how multiculturalism have been repetitive cyclic degenerative destroyers of civilization is radically different from Rand, who really focused primarily on anti-communist ethics/politics. Rand differs in that she focuses on philosophical principles instead of integrating the sum total of know civilization. In a way it is less advantageous because if you can't integrate collective past experience, a philosophical principle can be logically true and yet practically worthless. Such is the case for "individualism" I would argue, and quite a bit of her political theory. In Rands framework, if the Ethics have problems the political framework falls as well because her philosophy is heirarchically dependant on lower concepts. HOWEVER I think she hit an absolute home run philosophically in three areas.

These three things are the core of objectivism, and Rosenberg really has nothing to compare to it in his work. As a person who has studied Rand a long time and recently discovered Rosenberg I have no trouble integrating them because they don't overlap and conflict.

Being a Randian/Jew only works in a country of Chrisitians. If you have different Christian groups scratching your back because you bitch about how hitler gassed your limbs, but you don't scratch back, you can get far. It doesn't work in places like Africa where everybody is a Randian.

How about being selfish and cutting off that aid to Israel? Oy Vey!!!

If youre complaining about post quality because its not exactly what you want to see, doesnt that mean you basically want a hugbox/echo chamber? Seems like ylure part of the problem

Literally Who?

You are, but it discredits you entirely: You're no longer the champion of your cause, you're a fraud. You're a lie.

i read the communist manifesto for keks. it was boring as shit reading some old twat's government fantasy.

That's like, pretty deep man

damn

leftypol thread

Every time we think there's a "based jew," we get stabbed in the back. Better to assume all kikes who SEEM to share our point of view are liars, as all kikes are liars.

...

My dad worked in (((finance))) and I realize now why he LARPed as a shabbos goy.

...

YOU ARE FUCKING BRAIN DEAD
The only nationalism she supported during her life was unsurprisingly jewish and she was rightly called a hypocrite.
Go get a gun and defoo your head.

this

SJWs are not 'left', they're anti-white conservatives. Rand is leftism because Capitalism is leftist egalitarian "we're all individuals and not people."

Capitalism/Classical Liberalism is only conservatism for the rich. As that rich is increasingly Jews, cucks and non-whites - that's what they're conserving.

That's unfair to Rand. Her exact words describing society were "We are a community of individuals."

She didn't like the word "people", but that doesn't mean she was in denial of them, even if she kept a philosophical distinction between "people" and "individuals".

Are you retarded, mate?

T.B.H., "Capitalism" is a straw man invented by Communists who wanted something to argue about. Basically they yell "Greed" at everything. That's why Mrs Rand would be a Libertarian (or libertardian) and not a "Capitalist," since the latter doesn't exist.

taxation really is theft, I am a natsoc but if even half of liberitarianfags ideology was put into motion it would give my heart a lot of joy.

I'm a redcoat, not a brownshirt, but yes probably we both agree that if a state taxes at more than 10% rate, then it is putting itself at a higher importance than even God. But to care about something like that, you'd have to first care and believe in God, and that's something Libertardians won't do.

Different groups and different interests, but yea I think I like you guys a bit more than the libertarians. If you christians actually went christian orthodox modo and went "well god doesnt want the races to mix because he unmixed them with violence in Babylon" then I would liek you even more.

Holla Forumsacks fled to Holla Forums, then? they certainly aren't on Holla Forums anymore

Not that user, but a sliding income scale between 5% - 15%, and 2%- 3.5% sale tax tax would be ideal for me.

What do you mean by this? Coming from a country with almost 50% income tax and 14% sales tax

Why do we need a global tax for everyone anyhow? We have computer systems now, you could basically allow people to invest into gov projects, and with shares perhaps they could reap benefits? Have a very minimal consumer tax perhaps. Allow different companies to kickstart projects, allow others to invest. Let that the be tax.

Could be possible I have no doubt but what if something is direly needed and people choose to fund rocket boots instead? Waiting on others generosity doesn't seem ideal.

Minimal tax, minimal government but that would still mean tax and government.

isnt that the freedom though? To be stupid and to fuck up your live the way you want it to be?

but the way I see it would probably have somethign to do with

I may not agree with the message in the book entirely, but within the book is brilliance. Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead should be required reading for anyone here. Not as a gospel, of course.
If someone is going to usher in a white ethnostate, they need to mimic closely but not exactly the "randian" hero. Someone with a certain psychopathy. A Promethean figure.

"Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die,
fair fame of one who has earned"
-Havamal, 75

This is where I deviate partially from the government of Nazi Germany.
Their economic system is unsustainable. Creation of a national currency not managed by a privately run central bank, being backed by labor and not debt, along with the confidence of the people that was brought from the freeing of the shackles of the Weimar republic resurrected their economy. But it was unsustainable.
Once we rescue our economy, once we free ourselves from Jewish banks, we will need to readjust further (but not entirely) from socialistic economic policies.

Gee, I wonder why! Only Jew to name the Jew as Benjaman H. Freedman and they've completly slanderized him to turn him into something completly different than what he was. If you ask a conservative who Freeman was, they (if they know the name) might say an Anti-Communist Conservative. He was an Anti-Zionist Apostie Jew who funded Neo-Nazi groups who refered to him as a "Zionist Whistleblower". No sympathy for Rand. If she wanted to name the Jew she was too much of a coward and therefore is not worth my time.

Has Richard actually become redpilled on religion? Doubt he became a NS, but the idea of him realizing that he fucked up is still amusing.

Yes it is but people need to improve a lot more before I want freedom for everybody around me. First school needs to go back to actually making the general populace smarter and some form of 'ethnic morality' needs to be put in place.

Minimal tax and minimal government seems like a trade off, where if you are actually smart you could have 100% freedom as well but some would have to earn absolute freedom through, work, creativity etc.

/Pol is lost.

Oh boy, here we go again…

?

Gas yourself fucking now.
Money is and was backed by labor. Debt was something only a drunkard or a gambler would find themselves in.

I'm not implying we need money backed by debt you fucking retard.
where do you live where your currency is backed by labor? Your money is probably backed by debt, which is a DISASTER.
Fuck you are one dumb piece of shit, please step in the oven and dont look back.

The phrase "We are a community of individuals" sounds like something from the Kalergi plan.

We are National Socialists. What you have to understand is that the term has become something very different than the marxist interpretation. To give a very simplified version it contains both state control and personal ownership/profit, but both done in a way with the emphasis on the people of the nation. Everyone must sacrifice both the rich and the poor for the preservation of the nation. There are TONS, probably most, of Hitler speeches you can watch on this to give you a general overview. International communists and international communists are two sides of the same coin, protecting the interests of the few at the expense of the folk.

*the term originally meant something other than the marxist interpretation