Why do leftists hate picrel so much?

Why do leftists hate picrel so much?

Because in Ann's world, you have to achieve to be worth something.
In the world of leftists, you are only valuable as the State's indentured servant.

motherfucking typos man.

because it's intensely right-wing to the point of almost being supportive of a kind of libertarian fascist society.

because the book explains how some people are worth more than others, and that whether or not this is 'fair' has nothing to fucking do with it, and tough shit faggot git gud, basically.

because the book says that the only thing the government should really be doing is running an army and managing some other small shit at the local level like water and roads. (yes, roads). she paints reliance on the government as a horrible corruption, where leftists want the government to be the only relationship a person has.

because the book laboriously and seriously extolls the idea of objective, absolute truth, and a reality that doesn't care about your perspective, which of course could hurt someones feelings. standards are strict rather than tolerant.

because the book says that people have no obligation to help someone that they don't care about, and says that 'self sacrifice' is a horribly immoral shit meme, because if a mother spends money on food for her child instead of a new hat, it's only 'self sacrifice' if she actually loves the hat more than she loves her child.

and, most importantly of all, because the book is written as myth, and characters are heroic or diabolical representations of ideas. this attitude of optimistic romanticism, or heroic drama, is an anathema to the nihilist 10-layers-of-irony dude-everything-is-a-grey-area losers. the brightness of the glory that ayn rand writes into the 'good' characters literally burns the nihilist lefties like holy water.

bump

Good post

thank you

>Ayn Rand took out the pension

Hypocritical Jewish bitch

it's not hypocritical.

she was forced to pay for the pension.

why shouldn't she use it? she paid for it.

>but she's against it, she should have refused to use it

and what would that accomplish, turning a partial loss into a complete loss? it would be pointlessly causing injury to yourself for no purpose.

People on the right who actually care about culture and normal human interactions hate it as well.

>libertarian fascist society.
Someone mind explaining to me how libertarian fascism works?
Always see some dumb fucking burger spamming about it, its probably you.

That's not really a thing. Neither libertarian or fascist have clearly defined meanings so libertarian fascist is double meaningless. He probably means minarchist which means exactly what he's describing.

Because it's more jew propaganda.

Because it encourages people to behave like selfish children.

it's not me.

but imagine a society so protective of freedom that they're freedom-nazis. it's not really a well formed idea, but the intent is that there would actually be an extremely strict and hard wall that you'd run up to in attempting to do many things that are stupid or harmful to society, despite the fact that legal technicalities, regulations, and government oversight are extremely sparse. the idea is that the spirit of the law would actually be a lot more disciplined and authoritarian than the letter of the law.

i've never understood this meme. it's just a book that emphasizes the idea that we should be good, noble people and do our best, and that we should steer clear of spiritual sickness borne of envy and hatred.

That's why leftists hate it but anyone with a brain hates it because it's simply a poorly written book. It constantly (yes, constantly) wastes the readers time with text that has nothing to do with the greater story (like a proto GRRM). I kind of liked her messages of independence but her writing and conceptualization of how things work is naive. In Anthem, the only thing she wrote worth reading imo because it's mercifully short, the guy makes a bow and arrows after being outside for 10 minutes. He's able to feed and clothe a family for years twanging squirrels out of branches. It's silly and if you look at her writing with more than a glance is all comes off as just dumb.

"Libertarian nationalist" can also be a thing too especially in the context of American nationalism where the concept of "America" has a very historically defined culture and way of life attached to it, and would also entail opposition to globalism which any minarchist society should be opposed to.

Yeah you're basically describing a minarchist society with very strict enforcement of the NAP.

It's a shitty book no matter what you believe in
Well, unless you are autistic enough to fall for libertarian meme

>it's just a book that emphasizes the idea that we should be good

It's less than that. Rand refuses to look at the importance of nuance and empathy. She wants to view life as emotionless (ironic considering her hatred for communism) and won't recognize the importance of the past and tradition in laying the foundation for the modern human to excel.

You should read a well written book with characters you both hate and love. Not ones that you love but should hate because of their cruelty to those around them.

So a state that only exists to enforce strong borders and kick scum out?
Not too well versed in libertarianism when you see all these fags advocating for open borders and other stupid shit like that.

>it's just a book that emphasizes the idea that we should be good, noble people and do our best

Well, that's the part that's highly debatable isn't it? Who would be arguing with anything Ayn Rand said if that was all that her works entailed?

but leftists love jew propoganda.

and the idea, which you seem to have missed, is that 'selfishness' in the sense where one does not give to someone who does not deserve, and one does not take without paying, makes it easier for us to cooperate happily and peacefully.

have you ever been in a relationship where instead of being up front about what they want out of you as a partner, they equivocate about how they don't want to be selfish and instead worry about you, and so the relationship falls apart? selflessness failed.

have you ever considered that all of the worst things that have happened in the world through-out history, were done 'for the greater good', and that people were asked to 'selflessly' obey? yet the parts of the shit continents that are actually civilized, are the parts where europeans came selfishly to seek their own good.

perhaps you've failed to consider that selflessness is the exact mode by which leftists have subverted the western mentality into suicide; they have an allergic reaction to the concept of loving YOUR race simply because it's YOUR race, or loving YOUR family simply because it is YOUR family. No, that is selfish; the white race ought to selflessly suffer for the sake of all the starving niggers.

i've probably read more books than 99.9999% of people on the planet. learned to read before kindergarten and spent 12 hours a day reading if i could until about 16. i was reading at a college level in about 5th grade.

and i tell you that atlas shrugged is an exquisitely well written book. i've read it six times or so, it's really my all time favorite. i would listen to you give examples of specific paragraphs, sentences, plotpoints etc that you consider to be of low quality.

if you're hung up on some sort of explanatory inconsistency, i think you're missing the point of rand entirely. she doesn't seek 'realism' as 'literalism', she seeks the most beautiful, romantic vision of reality she can imagine.

>atlas shrugged is an exquisitely well written book
>I was reading at a college level in 5th grade

So you would put it in par with other literary classics? You're fucking delusional if you think anyone will buy your "larping since I was three" idea. You haven't read shit and your opinions are shit. I honestly despise people like you who think that Rand is some kind of notable author. She isn't and she only remains popular because her books are quasi religious handbooks that put man at the center of everything. Sweet irony, again, considering her hatred for communism. She hated it so much but couldn't stop emulating it.

that would make sense

>Rand refuses to look at the importance of nuance and empathy

not at all, in fact she's interested in freeing ourselves to be spontaneously generous and of good cheer. the distinction that she makes, is that you should help someone you think deserves it, or because you like them, or because they were kind to you. and so we find sincere generosity instead of begrudgingly.

>She wants to view life as emotionless

she makes it very clear that the hero's of her story actually had the most intense emotions out of anyone, and the villains were cold and lifeless inside. she specifically points out how the people who make the biggest show of emotions and wears them on their sleeve are typically the people with the least passion, because those who have blazing spirits have to learn early on how to control themselves.

in life you perhaps will learn that the people who are the least reactive, calmest, most stable, are actually the ones who have depth and intensity to their inner life.

as far as emotions role and purpose, she specifically said that emotions are like instruments on an aircraft; they can be trusted only if they are fed good information, and if they are properly calibrated. she believes that emotions are the force behind our will.

> won't recognize the importance of the past and tradition

you're actually right about that. this is an area where i think she was shortsighted and reactionary.

>characters you both hate and love

she sought to create the clearest, sharpest line between good and evil, love and hate, life and death, true and false. that's why it is technically classified as Heroic art; the characters are not meant to reflect a real person, but rather an ideal.

the constant dilution and muddying of the waters concerning virtue and morality in modern art is distasteful to me most of the time.

More than just leftists. It's poorly written, obsessively long with no real progression at times, and is basically written by a teenager who turned Uber capitalist due to growing up in a communist nation, like a kid in America being a commie. She cannot even defend her own ideals. The book, and ideals behind it, are nigger tier and took no effort to come up with

It's not about the money, user. It's about sending a message.

>Not too well versed in libertarianism when you see all these fags advocating for open borders

anyone who self identifies as XYZism is going to be an inherently incomplete individual. it's no surprise when they're retarded.

and it's not surprising anyways that different people think different things. maybe you should refer to leftist libertarians and right wing libertarians for clarity.

people disagree about how to go about being good.

she's by no means perfect but most often when i see people criticizing her in the typical fashion, they're taking some individual sentence or idea totally out of context. and of course, nothing is meaningful without proper context.

believe what you want.

as far as comparing atlas shrugged to classics, there are many books with superior prose and literary mechanics. this is a case where the particular content of the book is responsible for it's power and status. The content of Atlas Shrugged is so shockingly unique that anyone who thinks anything about it, thinks it very strongly. it inspires some people to literally regard it as the holy bible. this is not something which one accomplishes easily.

ayn rand is certainly a notable author. she's noted quite often. after all we discussing her right now, out of all people would could be discussing. the intense controversy that surrounds her would not exist if she was some third rate writer. no, her books and thoughts are shocking and unique and people flip out about it regularly. no one argues about shitty artists.

Putting man at the center of everything is the most fundamentally life-affirming attitude you can have, and the most right-wing. to do otherwise is nihilism. certainly it's not communism; in communism man is a resource, a means to an end. in the strong, vigorous philosophies of the greeks and rand, man is the end which all else serves.

i really disagree with you that she emulates communism, or collectivism, at all.

yeah, well, no ones listening in this case. it would be vain posturing.

posturing is when someone pretends to be willing to fight, but actually isn't. a bluff. in this case, all it does is gives more money to the person you're trying to spite.

i understand the fact that it's humiliating to be in this position but pretending that you have some sort of choice in the matter isn't going to make it less humiliating.