I can't figure out if Ayn Rand was working with the Kikes or Not--

What's the deal?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MJ36CsSneeE
youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM
stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyna2nXqI
youtube.com/watch?v=lv3VkSwhhkU
youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/education--multiculturalism/POV-Ayn-Rand-Interviewed-on-the-Value-of-Education
youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

She was /our girl/.

She was an borderline ancap.

books are pretty good but she did help fracture the right. That being said, Hollywood wouldn't make movies out of her books the way that she wanted so she definitely wasn't fully aligned with (((hollywood)))

She says something along the lines of "if something doesn't make sense check your premises." It's pretty good advice

She was with the good kikes.
AKA the anti-commie kikes.

They've infested every movement, ideology, etc, except literal Nazism. They don't mind what form of control they have, whether it be big government or big capital. As long as you keep being a good goy they don't mind what you do.

>I will never hold supreme power in my hands
why live?

she was a jew and her inner circle was majority jewish

she identified with her jewish heritage and pushed for goyim to give up their identity while maintaining her own

kike being a rat, nothing to see here

she was okay, but she was part of the wave of jewish authors who made the right about libertarianism instead of tradition, so in that sense she's not /ourgal/.

How do I be a bad goy?

She was a strange looking lady.

this is a sense I get as well. So Non-Jew Tradition plus Individual Success Kills the Kike?

She had a Finnish name. Ayn comes from Aino.

reminds me of picrelated

>They've infested every movement, ideology, etc, except literal Nazism.
Israel is the closest example to Nazism since Nazism itself.
Nazism and Zionism are VERY similar.

youtube.com/watch?v=MJ36CsSneeE

Yeah I was thinking that. The oppressed become the oppressor.
>implying that happened
Yeah well. Everything's fucked, what can I say.

Something in the eyes.

so to the victor go the spoils, basically. I respect that. But what if the victor is a trickster?

Think she smoked cigarettes 24/7/365.

Ayn Rand is the kikes, silly.

Yeah...something Insect-like. Every time I see it I can't help but think of Kafka's metamorphosis. The beetles.

More than that--I think she was an actual amphetamine addict. So is Trump by the way. It's why he can't sleep at night.

Reminds me of cold black shark eyes.

I guess what I'm asking is if it's at all possible for a kike to be not be a bad kike. What say you?

That's what that chief editor was going on about on the Tucker Carlson show.

You're right...

Hahah yeah that kike's full of shit, but I believe him about that. >AAAAAAAAA MY WIFE'S HAVING SEIZURES!

>NOBODY'S FOOLED TUCKER!!

ahahahahhah

Go read Atlas Shrugged and make up your own mind.

Yeah that guy, the guy who brings binders of falsehoods with him to interviews.

well what do you think. That's my question..

Read Atlas Shrugged and tell me its Jewish propaganda. Yeah there might be tones of atheism there but you as a reader have to have discernment as to just its importance. The rest of the book stands nearly peerless.

The libtards hate her with a passion, that should tell you enough now go read.


youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

Which is funny, since her birth name in Russia was Alisa Rosenbaum. When she became an American, she wanted something severe and American-sounding.
I didn’t know she took it from Finnish.

Not even slightly.

> All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
-Rand

The first actual attack on religion comes in like 700 pages in.
Atheism is certainly part of it, but suggesting that AS is focused on either politics or religion is missing the point.
It's a philosophical sci-fi mystery novel.

Wow, young pre-meth Steve Buscemi is pretty hot.

I don't understand how anarchism is collectivist. Wouldn't that be the epitome as individualism as there is no state to bind anyone together?

>people ignoring this GET

Personally I enjoyed The Fountainhead more than Atlas Shrugged. The Fountainhead was more about the struggle of the individual's will against the establishment. Something that is very relevant today, particularly among the media and Hollywood.

checked

It's a respectable opinion.
Fountainhead was a drama with about 10 characters, each of which was extremely well-defined, and 4 main ones that the story revolves around. Those 4 are Rand's archetypes of humanity.
The narrative was tight, and the relationships were straight forward.

AS is more about the overall ideas. You've got like 30 characters on both the good and bad guys' sides, a few neutrals, and a narrative that jumps around in time and place.

FH was my first introduction to her work so I have fondness for it also because of that. It has been more 10 years since I last read it though but the ideas remain. I read a bit more of her work after that, but only managed to get a little over halfway through AS before other things interrupted my time. I still feel uneasy on her attack toward religion, and I wonder if that was a result of her growing up under state atheism.

I was reading through The Fountainhead before I got interrupted for the last 14 years--but yes...there is something 'off' about it...Like there was a scene where the narrator was looking out over an expanse of land and saw this typical white family going off in a convertible to enjoy a picnic, and the narrator was like "why do these humans enjoy being with one another engaging in pointless merriment." And I'm like what the fugg?

She didn't understand the importance of family.

Anthem is incredibly short (you can knock it out in a couple hours easy), and contains no attack on religion. If you just wanted to enjoy something by her without that particular controversy.

And you don’t have to agree with every position an author takes to appreciate what they get right. I’m a hardcore Lewisian Christian, but I’ve never felt threatened in all my readings of Rand. Her argument rests on axioms that I don’t share.
She was an expert on how Statism and Communism really worked, had a solid foundation in classical philosophy, and was a masterful communicator about why Capitalism is a moral good. Listen to her on those subjects.
You wouldn’t ask Einstein for fashion advice, so don’t go to non-experts like they know everything.

A classic American family enjoying a meal together?
That seems like the opposite of something Rand would say in that context.
And I've read AS and FH 3 times each.

I think you're mis-remembering that severely.

Also, there is no narrator. It might say "Roark thought '...'" but nothing like what you described.

she is still trying to deconstruct family, folk and faith.
also fun fact: she is a jew.

Rand was ethnicallly Jewish but probably one of the most pro-Western writers in recent memory. She came out against desegregation, opposed multiculturalism, and was against feminism. Lefties of all stripes come up with the most ridiculous smears about her than can be dispelled in five minutes of actually reading what she wrote.

She nailed the whole SJW movement decades ago and wrote a pretty chilling essay on how the left took over public education for the sole purpose of manufacturing brainless destroyers.

If you read nothing else by her, read this.

stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf

how do you 'construct' these then? Take up one of the 3 jew religions? It's fucking ennnnnndlesssss...hahahahh

> There is a level of cowardice lower than that of the conformist: the fashionable non-conformist. – Rand

Yeah, she nailed the hippy and SJW movements early-on.

Trashy romance novel yuck

will do--and checked.

Didn't happen. Closest thing I recall to what you're talking about was the scene where Roark saw a speeding car full of mindlessly jovial people, but the context was that Roark couldn't understand a life of directionless and purposeless hedonism.

Athem was great, I read it after finishing FH and wanting to learn more about her philosophy. I am like you I just look past her positions on religion. I always thought Athem would have been good to turn into a movie about the totalitarian state.

christianity is anti-jewish (Synagouge of satan), pro family, ensures a stable nation, and correctly describes consequences of moral degradation.

at the same time that it supports open borders, turning cheeks, miscegenation etc.

How is it possible to simply overlook her fundamental position "I am not my brother's keeper" ...

>supports open borders
>miscegenation
it recognizes the existence of nations and orders nations to remain separate

>turning cheeks
jesus turns the other cheek to show he is undamaged, above the petty violence. it tells you not to overreact over small things but to remain calm.

Because you are not responsible for his actions. You may help him out if you desire. It is not about not helping someone out, but more about not being forced to help someone out.

it's all about who wins and who's alive st the end of the day

While I agree with your position, it isn't Rand's. She would look at helping someone else out of a sense of responsibility for them as being a moral evil.

Well, to clarify, Rand wasn't advocating "might makes right." She was pointing out that when you're dealing with a group of savages that have no concept for the basic tenets of civilization, then it's appropriate to deal with them accordingly. Generally speaking, that's how native American populations behaved with a few minor exceptions.

She was very much against conducting dishonest and fraudulent transactions.

Well then it seems morality is implicitly out the window completely. Why bother making a 1000 page novel to say basically 'kick them if you wanna.'

>is a literal jew
>her philosophy glorifies selfishness and destruction
>she HATED Christians, never criticized Jews or Muslims
>her circle of jew "intellectuals" was comprised only of the kikiest kikes
It's impossible to know if she was working for the kikes or not....

It does none of these. These teachings are from heretical clergy purposefully and ahistorically misinterpreting the word.

Depends upon what you are doing to "help" them. An intervention may not look like help to an unemployed drug addict, but it is better than the family enabling him by giving him money. If you help them by lifting them up and guiding them to become great that is fine. But if helping them brings them nowhere except a self-repeating cycle it isn't real help. You don't have to accept everything she says as literal or as some libertarian guru but she does present many good ideas.

yeah whenever the topic of Modern Architecture or Art comes up I'm always thinking about the Jewish/Commie plan to destroy the arts, to destroy the image of man as the having been molded by the hands of God and so forth. Replacing romance architecture with monstrosities...Sculpture with cubes...Women pouring their menstrual blood over the head of a crucifix and so on. It makes you think.

That isn’t her fundamental position.

Her fundamental position is “Existence exists”. She wanted to call her philosophy “existentialism” but that was taken. Not even joking.
She then worked from that axiom on to the Virtue of Selfishness, which you have for some reason badly misquoted as a saying of Cain from Genesis.

>supports open borders
[citation needed]

>turning cheeks
Yes, when someone slaps you on the cheek. Which is a mere insult, not injury. Christ was not forbidding self-defense, or defense of others. He also commanded his disciples to sell their cloaks and purchase swords.

In modern terms “Don’t return insult for insult. Save violence for legitimate threats.”

>miscegenation
True, and most Christians abide by this. youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyna2nXqI

Honestly I don't think she really cared about people outside of herself. She died a lonely crone.

Same argument could be used against us. Retarded.

People like her are ne of the reasons we are losing our countries.

Rand promoted the concept of rational self-interest specifically because it is the only way to avoid destruction of not just yourself, but civilization at large. If your basic idea of the moral idea is to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others, then the basic unit of the entire society (the individual) is essentially eroded... leaded to a loss of the civilization. Rand wasn't against helping people, just harming yourself for someone else's sake out of a sense of self-sacrificial moral duty.

She also thoroughly criticized Muslims (calling them barbarian theocrats), denounced the state of Israel as being essentially collectivist, was against Jewish tribalism, and was wholly against the idea of multi-culturalism (she wrote whole essays against it).

If you're going to criticize Rand, at least be accurate about it.

That may be, but to dismiss her ideas simply out of her own selfishness as I see others put it oftentimes I feel is shortsighted.

>against desegregation
Fuck, I didn't know that. If only her modern fanboys like Paul Ryan had the balls to oppose Civil Rights.

No one that gets pissed about her views has ever actually read her works.

Because knows nothing and didn’t read Atlas Shrugged. That has nothing to do with Rand, and she would reject such an idea outright.

>is a literal Jew
Racially, yes. Not culturally or religiously.

>her philosophy glorifies selfishness
Yes, and this is not an argument. youtube.com/watch?v=lv3VkSwhhkU

>and destruction
She wrote a novel about LITERAL architect as a hero. Someone who builds and constructs. She adored creation over destruction.

>Hated Christians
False, several of her heroes were Christians (William F. Buckley Jr. and Victor Hugo come to mind)

>never criticized Muslims
Categorically false - youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Like all incredibly stupid people, she was only brought into popularity and served as a jew chess piece.

Well at least Ivan brought his game. I don't know man--Individualism, patriotism, individualism, patriotism...It's a tough call. It seems like if you're against the ''''collectivism'''' of nations and kingdoms, by default you're a globalist...or at least a globalist by proxy..

but what about this?:

kike lover fuck off

>Rand promoted the concept of rational self-interest specifically because it is the only way to avoid destruction of not just yourself, but civilization at large. If your basic idea of the moral idea is to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others, then the basic unit of the entire society (the individual) is essentially eroded... leaded to a loss of the civilization
Yet American Culture and economic policy which largely is based on capitalism is the tool used by the jews to cuck the entire west altogether.

well who is an incredibly smart person who wrote smart books? Please don't say Mein Kamph, Christ...please.

She wasn't against the idea that blacks should be able to attend the same schools as whites. The context was that desegregation was being forced upon communities, and she predicted that it would only worsen tensions between blacks and whites.

Her stated solution was that education should be privatized and if people want to only cater to specific groups, then that is well within their rights. She thought that if you wanted a white-only business, then you should be able to have one without government forcing you to deal with people you don't want to deal with.

Here's the interview where she discusses it.

ari.aynrand.org/issues/culture-and-society/education--multiculturalism/POV-Ayn-Rand-Interviewed-on-the-Value-of-Education

...

What about individualism for people AND cultures?

isn't 'tribalism' basically a synonym for collectivism though?

One of the things you'll take away from the writings of Rand and the works of other objectivists is that what is called "capitalism" today is not what she advocated. The cronyist, selling-out of the West was actually a major theme in Atlas Shrugged; the villains were politically-connected businessmen that were using government influence to whore out the nation and bleed it dry for the sake of immediate personal gain under the guise of "helping all those poor third world nations."

Seriously, read her stuff.

fuck off right back to africa

Eddie Willers was a good goy

Individualism and a love of your own nation's values aren't mutually exclusive. Rand was passionately in favor of protecting the U.S. against onslaughts against its values.

Even today, objectivists call the wave of Muslim immigration into Europe a Jihadist invasion, but they're tame compared to her. Rand probably would have called for taking up arms.

This is my problem though, the book blindly advocates for the rich over the poor in every single circumstance. The problem with society today aren't caused by "whoring out the wesT", they're caused by all of this individualism and consumerism which is caused by the richfags and kikes having no need to treat things morally since the society is based off of money and nothing else.

It's like life presents us with an enemy and that enemy is the jew. What would we do without them? Would we get lazy and die of happiness and then sloth? Do they not keep us on our toes?

youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw

If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders - What would you tell him?

Does Cuck Ryan really like Ayn Rand? I thought that was just a meme?

Good point. I assume you mean Roark’s adherence to “modern” architecture in The Fountainhead, and his disdain for creating new things in old styles (like giving banks Greek columns)

The difference is twofold-

>Roark rejected the description of his style as “modern”. He didn’t design out of hatred for antiquity, but because he regarded each job as a new challenge, and should be addressed as such. The Parthenon was good because it worked for that location, with those materials, and those building techniques. But we have different locations, better materials, and superior building techniques. We should use those.

>The book even says he excelled in his engineering courses over his design courses. He approached the problem as an engineer; seeking the most efficient solution. A line, for instance, has superior structural qualities over a curve in many cases.

Besides, Rand was VERY traditional in plenty of ways (she loved cooking for her husband, for example, and refused to allow him to cook for himself).
She just believed we shouldn’t be blinded by tradition when there are legitimate reasons to improve upon it. Which is what every sane person ever says.

This is basically the divide right here. It seems like Rand wasn't concerned with Society as Society--but only insofar as it incubated or had the potential to incubate Great Men i.e. men of Action...but the weird part seems to be that these people actually arose under conditions that were adverse to them in her novels--so the books seem pointless in a way.

It's still based though. Civil Rights were made more sacred than the Bible and MLK into a "model conservative" by Republicans in the decades after they were passed.

I think I'm gonna tell some Randroids I know about this and see what the response is just for keks.

...

Wat? No such claim is made in Atlas that the rich should "win out" over the poor. Several of the book's most prominent protagonist were poor, and several of the villains were wealthy and well-connected.

Rand argued in her day that there was very little individualism left in the West, and that what most people call "individualism" is actually short-sighted hedonism--which is antagonistic to individualism. You have to actually read her writing to understand what she was advocating. When she advocates selfishness, she's advocating a rational, long-term assessment of what your actions will ultimately lead to. And one of the major things she always warned against was how short-range "consumerism" (she called it hedonism) would lead to a dead end for not just individuals, but for the whole civilization.

The woman was fucking prophetic. But not for any mystical reason--she understood how ideas guide the actions of individual men, which ultimately lead to the courses taken by whole societies.

Another interesting book is by Leonard Peikoff called "The DIM Hypothesis." Pic related. He's also an objectivist and laid out a really fucking interesting take on how Western civilizations have been guided by a few different philosophic principles, how those principles guided the civilization, and where the West is currently headed. Worth a read... I think he makes a damned solid set of arguments and the approach is certainly unique. It's very, very Sup Forums-related and I'm surprised it's not discussed more since the guy predicted the multiculturalist-inspired Muslim invasion of Europe a long fucking time ago.

>if you're against these big collectives, then by default, you're a supported of the biggest collective of all.

Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds?

It's like saying "If you're against being overweight, you're a default advocate for morbid obesity"

Individualism for nations and the people therein?

...