What does Sup Forums think of Ayn Rand?

What does Sup Forums think of Ayn Rand?

I think that in the 21st century, all collective movements have degenerated into marxism and no longer offer anything of value to white people.

Therefore, the institutions that once made as prosper now hold us back and leech us through taxes to subsidise sub-humans and encourage their immigration and reproduction.

Hence, I think that we have to finally retreat to the last line of defense of the white man and western values, the individual. Now that every collective movement aimed at healing the west is destined to fail or get corrupted, it is the time to allow our self interest as individuals to guide us through this final stage of human history.

The mistake Ayn Rand made is believe that her philosophy was universally applicable to any period of human history. I am just proposing it as a strategy aimed exclusively at this terminal moment of western civilization.

Thoughts?

Other urls found in this thread:

enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/
youtube.com/watch?v=KItLRRg8hxc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Not even a philosopher, just some stupid "blah blah blah listen to the sound of my voice" dickhead who ended up living on handouts.

The majority of idiots here, (NEETSOC VIRGINS) will simply call her a kike.

She makes good points, but her premise and exaltation of individualism is misguided. Individualism arises through the successes of collectivism. Tribal success in war and industry beget the necessary soil wherein individualism can grow. Without the former, one may proclaim himself to be bound only to his will, but what does it matter if you live in squalor and your nation is overrun with sin?

So basically you're conflating her with varg

>no longer offer anything of value to white people.
Why are you concerned then?

Jokes aside, individualism is about as logical as making tulpas. Humans are social animals, cognition happens in groups, society of any kind depends on many people sacrificing and industrial society more so. Randian egotism might produce good results in a world full of turbo-rational autists, but that would come from them all individually choosing to pretty much emulate collectivism.

i think fountainhead is a great book concerning personal morals and values, although she describes the world and a value system that is thoroughly black and white, resulting in quite unconvincing characters.

not a big fan of objectivism, and it's infested with kikes, but i'd still say fountainhead and john galts speech can be quite useful to feed those you know who are starting to sense there is something quite off about socialism

The most pure fragment of jewish philosophy.

Stop promoting this bullshit.

>Individualism arises through the successes of collectivism
Exactly, but collective movements have already done all the good they could. They are exausted as a means to advance the interest of the white man. That's why I propose her ideology as a final strategy for this final segment of human history.

If we can't shine as nations, then let's at least shine as individuals.

sociopathic jew that ripped off her own family and jilled herself to the exploits of a serial killer
rational course of action is to hold the world's largest objectivism meetup and gas the entire event

>writes book about trains
>characters all lack personality and liveliness, almost robotic
>good characters have angular, straight features
>bad characters have rounded, soft features
>one character goes into an 80 page monologue (I'm totally serious)

She had autism. Her opinions are automatically invalid. Her works are primarily on social-sciences - which is the study and understanding of people. This is something autistic people are incapable of understanding as much as teaching a nigger to do maths.

Varg would hate her for obvious reasons, but I do, in a sense, by proposing giving a big fuck you to a system that has decided that it's time for the whit man to go extinct.

"You are all individuals!" --Ayn Rand
"We are all individuals!" --Objectivists (in unison)

>She had autism. Her opinions are automatically invalid.

DELET REEEEEEEEE

>Atlas Shrugged well written

is that nigger serious? It's horrendously written. I struggled to tell who was talking in scenes where there was no "he said she said" stuff. It's easily one of the most poorly written books I've ever read

Did nobody advise you to just read John Galt's speech and skip the rest of the novel?

>What does Sup Forums think of Ayn Rand?

She is beautiful and angular, and if she were a gas she'd be inert.

lmao based

Yes I actually gave up after awhile and skimmed until I got to Galt's speech and read that. The rest of the book was legitimately too frustrating to read because it was so terrible

Also, I've long been leaning towards Libertarianism to some degree, but her philosophy I don't accept. Particularly the part where selfishness is a virtue.

...

I habitually read that as "I'd gas her".

Atlas Shrugged is poorly written to appeal to stupid Americans who have never been able to grasp or understand decent literature. It's a solid concept drowned in unnecessary exposition to explain her philosophy to the nth degree in multiple ways so that anyone can understand it.

The rest of her work is pretty good, We The Living and The Virtue of Selfishness are top tier.

As for her philosophy, she's been proven right more often than Sup Forums.

oddly enough lavey was more conservative than most neocons nowadays.

Well, 'virtue of selfishness' is just a bait-and-switch that uses the term 'selfishness' for initial shock value. Rand's moral 'philosophy' is ultimately a mish-mash formed around Aristotle's eudaemonism (rational self-interest).

>I think that we have to finally retreat to the last line of defense of the white man and western values, the individual.

Individualism is a sign of the times for our dissolute modern age. The fact that individualism is now disappearing due to mass movements and consumerism isn't a bad thing. Inidividualism itself was a reaction to and negation of the earlier, Traditional system of types and persons. To put it briefly: "person" comes from the Latin "persona," which describes the mask an actor wore. Each being in a Traditional system presented himself to the world as a person, while sub specie interioratis his own being linked him to the transcendent. His person gave him a type, and this is linked to a concept which still exists vestigially among popes and kings, in which such people adopt a new name and identity upon being invested with spiritual or temporal authority. Thus in an organic system in which each part moves in tandem to form a cogent body, a multitude of persons existed, but not individuals. The concept of individual is a measure of quantity. An individual is one faceless numerical unit among others, and an individual can in no way integrate his own being or approach the transcendent and move beyond the contingencies of daily life. We are concerned with quality, not quantity.

Lavey Satanism is redpilled
he also believed in social darwinism

Interioris not interioratis

>I habitually read that as "I'd gas her"

We all have goals and dreams.

atlas shrugged is cringeworthy
havent read anything else
this idiotic thinking is just as bad as the marxists

The nuclear family should be the smallest unit of society, not the individual.

Appealing to the individual is how many of these selfish libertarian ideals rose to popularity. Many of these ideas sound "right" when considered from an individual's greedy perspective but are incompatible with a wholesome society.

You know that in "Ride the Tiger" evola advocated for the exaltation of individuality as a stance against the kali yuga right?

In fact he celebrated the end of patriotism and nationalism as an opportunity for the individual to search for a higher meaning outside of corrupted modern institutions.

What's the point in caring for society when every political options in the 21st century is destined to fail?

No, he didn't advocate individualism. See Chapter 16, The Dual Aspect of Anonymity. You're correct that he did celebrate the death of nationalism and patriotism, though.

>he didn't advocate individualism
I said individuality, not individualism. Not the same.

If you mean individuality as differentiation based on human types, I agree. My first post was talking about individualism as a social system of organization based on atomic units or individuals

>Objectivism works in a micro community built around an impossible free-energy machine.
Really makes you think.

>My first post was talking about individualism as a social system of organization based on atomic units or individuals
My point is that now that all collective solutions to western problems are a dead end, individualism might be a sound strategy for us to shine in a world plunged in darkness. All group movements in the 21st century always lead to a lose in virtue and morality (example: Trump supporting gays and jews).

In this day and age, we can only be virtuous as individuals. I do not support individuality as an ideology, but rather as a last resourse to go through this dark age.

Then you don't understand what is meant by selfishness and why its a virtue within the context of Objectivism philosophy.

In that sense I agree with you. There hasn't been a political movement that was authentically Traditional since maybe Codreanu, or some of the unsuccessful third positionist groups after WWII. We should keep ready, though, in case the impossible happens and a real organic, Traditonal movement founded in transcendent virtue appears (but I'm not holding my breath)

Anyone I've ever met that hated Ayn Rand's books either never read them, didn't understand them or couldn't handle the fact that when reading the books that they were mirrors of Rand's villains and had to see their own hypocrisy.

>We should keep ready, though, in case the impossible happens and a real organic, Traditonal movement founded in transcendent virtue appears
Indeed. Ride the tiger, but do it with a dagger in your hand and be ready to plunge in on it's neck in case the opportunity arises.

Yeah it's simplistic, but the third act of Atlas where everything starts to fall apart is pretty baller sci-fi. Also, her work gave a great platforms for more interesting wrtiters like Robert Anton Wilson and Philip K. Dick to make really funny jokes about it.

So, yeah, it's a good ego-strengthening excircise just don't treat it too seriously.

Ayn Rand was a pornographer who badly cribbed Nietzsche to disguise her disgusting fetish work as anything worth remembering.
Read Nietzsche instead.

>We The Living and The Virtue of Selfishness are top tier.

The best articles in "The Virtue of Selfishness" are Nathaniel Branden's though, to be honest with you my individual

The way I look at Ayn Rand as a person and Ayn Rand's message is different. The person part is easy to explain, she didn't go about her life as she often preached. She was fairly hypocritical and I lost a lot of respect for her because of that.

I've read Anthem and The Fountainhead. I really enjoyed both of them. This is what I took out of it.

1) Don't give a fuck what people think of you unless their opinion of you has a direct correlation on your success.
*This isn't how Roark operated, he wouldn't care how it affected success. But I look at it more as using those people to advance myself further to a point where I don't need their support anymore*

2) Think for yourself and don't join "a side" just to pick a side. You can have your own opinions and don't have to match up with a conservative or liberal platform completely.

3) Don't read and accept, read and think. This applies to these books as well. I'm not dumb enough to believe that objectivism and a lassez-faire capitalistic state would work. But too often people will read something and just regurgitate it as their own beliefs before they even stop to think about it for a second.

4) Non-conformists are just as bad, if not worst than conformists. Because they are just as equally affected by society and also happen to be annoying little pity seeking fucks.

5) Being selfish isn't a bad thing. Everyone just makes it seem like a bad thing and guilt trips you. Once you get past the idea that being selfish is bad then you'll be a lot happier and probably more successful.

6) Fuck communism, socialism, normies, and fuckers who dye their hair rainbow colors.

I would encourage anyone to read Anthem for a quick read or The Fountainhead if you have the time. I've heard Atlas Shrugged is a bit ranty, so I'd avoid that one unless you really enjoy The Fountainhead.

>reading female """""""""""Philosophers"""""""""""

>The person part is easy to explain, she didn't go about her life as she often preached.

Who does? Alan Watts, who popularized Buddhism and tried to talk hippies out of doing too much LSD, was an alcoholic and a womanizer who notoriously neglected his multiple children.

Do as i say, not as i do.

>Flag
exist books in your country?

>Brazil shittalking
Ironic desu ne

Individualistic societies aren't necessarily collectivist simply because individualists within are part of a collective. Individualism treats people pertaining to there individual merits and actions, allowing for individuals to self regulate as is their incentive to survive within a free society. collectivism judges and regulates the group, irrespective of the individuals who make it up. A communities psychology and way of perceiving the world, whether through natural prejudices or base desires, is always tempered by the demands put upon them by their situation in order to survive.
The cultures which developed monogamous relationships prospered more than polygamous cultures, as it lead to the breeding of more individual strains of DNA, creating larger work forces and not leaving out a large percentage of frustrated males without any biological stake in the future of their community.
It is a collective of individuals seeking their best interests which pushes man forward, and just because individual interests overlap and cause people to congregate in their collectives does not mean they ought to be judged as anything more than individuals.
That's individualism, not some fedora tier ideology of rejecting society.

>all collective movements have degenerated into marxism and no longer offer anything of value to white people
>white people

That racism essay is hers isn't it? And the one about those Mexican child traffickers compared to the modern liberal education system? That was chillingly accurate

It's been a while, I might have gotten VoS confused with Capitalism: The unknown ideal

I don't particularly remember those you mentioned, but i for sure liked her essay "The Monument Builders", still true to this fucking day. Branden's stuff still stood out to me more, very anti-degeneracy.

Fuck. Just realised I'm thinking of "The comprachicos" from The Anti Industrial Revolution.

Then you've clearly missed the most important point she tried to make, like 90% of the people who read her

1/2
Quite literally a philosophy for sheep.
It is not collective struggle which creates innovation, the hunter does nothing to aid the mechanic's invention. The mechanic invented something to out-compete other mechanics trying to sell products and services to various industry, benefiting himself. The invention came to being because of the mechanic's individual will to prosper, not the will of the collective, it just so happens that the collective will benefit, and him being in the collective benefits him as it provides him resources and clients.
It is not the hunter hunting, the butcher slaughtering, the librarian ordering or the gardener gardening that made the mechanic invent something which would further the collective, but their individual pursuits to sustain and uplift themselves by selling their products and services to the mechanic, so he could eat and sharpen his mind, is what accommodated his being as he was when he invented his new marvel. Should we judge the gardener for the genius of the mechanic? Or the mechanic for the prowess of the hunter? Or should they be able to earn the product of their crafts as individuals pursuing their own interests?

2/2
Tradition, while not necessarily incorrect in it's postulations, is simply the perception of the past exploits by a naive present. To call something tradition is to have forgotten why it was put in place originally and to see it only as an arbitrary orthodoxy. It wasn't collectives which built America, it was free men, bound by common interests, who, competing with each other, created the most prosperous nation on the planet.
By our own individual interests we form collectives, not for the sake of collectives but that of ourselves, when we start doing things for the sake of a collective and not ourselves, we are effectively subsidising an unnecessary group with our labour or even lives. Why go to church if not for the communal unity it generates within a spiritual gestalt? Why be part of a business enterprise if you are not making, or have any indication that you will make, a profit? Why be married to someone who is frivolous, a bad provider/carer, or who will actively sabotage your children's development because they themselves are not mature enough to raise a child? All because of your own personal interests. And if you are fighting for a collective without getting anything out of it, you are not being honourable, you are simply wasting your effort in the same way welfare is a waste of money, it simply destroys incentive for the individual and enslaves people to n economic responsibility to something with nothing to do with themselves.

I think she was incredibly arrogant and refused to acknowledge the works of philosophers that had clearly influenced her, claiming to have come up with everything herself (with some credit given to Aristotle). She also didn't care to actually study the work of people she so furiously criticized. Her critique of Kant is atrocious, she clearly hasn't understood what Kant was actually saying. This is why she isn't respected in academia.

That said, I remember reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and feeling incredibly inspired. I sympathise with her ideal. I think the heroic characters in her novels are what we should aspire to be.

>dismissing the ideas of people based on identities they cannot control

BRUTE COLLECTIVISM

Francisco's Money Speech was the only thing of value I ever got out of Rand,

Reading John Galt's speech in "Atlas Shrugged" is like trying to ride a unicycle through West Texas on Interstate 10.

Read this:
enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/

Thanks, hadn't seen this before. Going to give it a read before bed.

Any Ryand
>individualist
An authoritarian individualist cunt.
You want anarchism
>subsides subhumans immigration and reproduction
You mean subsidize the industries bombing them and stealing their land, forcing them to lose their home and immigrate?
It's bad enough being racist but having this poor of an understanding of what is happening is cancer, and why you are racist in the first place.

Her problem isn't individualism
It's individualism and capitalism, doorling on the floor retarded. How can you have individualism and the private ownership of capital? It would devolve into feudalism in 5 minutes, capitalism needs some type of authority to maintain its power structure, a state, private armies, ect

Capitalism isn't a form of government, it is an economic system devoid of violent coercion, whether through regulation or otherwise. when there is an authority claiming to "maintain the power structure" all that said authority is going to be gained by, is people who will use it to offer legislative privileges to some and regulations to others. Capitalist power structures are those which serve to produce the best products and services at the best possible price, those which do not, those which try to collude, will be invariably out-competed by those who don't.

>It is a collective of individuals seeking their best interests which pushes man forward
It is individuals for whom their best interest is the interest of the people closest to them who push man forward, individuals mindful of themselves and the collective at the same time.

>just because individual interests overlap and cause people to congregate in their collectives does not mean they ought to be judged as anything more than individuals.
No, the nature of the collectives themselves means they ought to be judged as more than individuals. Individuals create the collective which creates individuals. Remember that the minimum number of individuals it takes to create a new one is two, and that the collective shapes the thoughts, will, and action of each new member.

You can't reduce this to "individualism" or "collectivism."

Just because an individual's interest lies within a collective doesn't make them any less an individual. The collectivist is the one who invests more labour into a collective against their individual interests, (investing in a failing business with no hopes of returns for example) effectively subsidising it.

Just because the influence of the collective upon an individual may cause said individual to succeed in one way or another does not give the collective a right to the product of an individual's craft or labour. One of the greatest benefits church offers individuals, is it nurtures a solid community which will transmit common values upon one's offspring without the need of constant surveillance and education. It is not then the right of the church to the success of the child, but the child's incentive to reinvest their own children into the community of the church so that they may reap the same benefit.

>Just because an individual's interest lies within a collective doesn't make them any less an individual.
Of course not. And just because a collective is composed of individuals does not make it any less a collective.

>The collectivist is the one who invests more labour into a collective against their individual interests
You can't always know where your individual interests lie. Drawing on collective knowledge, or tradition, is a good way to hedge.

>Just because the influence of the collective upon an individual may cause said individual to succeed in one way or another does not give the collective a right to the product of an individual's craft or labour.
Depends on how you define "right." For example, in
>It is not then the right of the church to the success of the child, but the child's incentive to reinvest their own children into the community of the church so that they may reap the same benefit.
are you saying the church may not thus forcefully take from the child, or that the church should not try to make the child feel bad about not giving?

She was a mentally insane jewess welfare queen that supported Israel.

She makes good points, her premise and exaltation of individualism is spot-on. Collectivism arises through the successes of individualism. Personal success in entrepreneurship and industry beget the necessary soil wherein collectivism can grow. Without the former, groups may proclaim themselves to be bound by their will, but what does it matter if you live in squalor and your nation is overrun with sin?

>Now he's shilling for nihilism.

>What's the point in brushing your teeth when you're going to die someday

Ayn Rand didn't like degeneracy, besides laveyan satanism is just a big meme

youtube.com/watch?v=KItLRRg8hxc
She's beginner-tier. She has her merits, but wasn't the brightest in Bill Buckley's circle of intellectual peers.

Although I think her philosophy is flawed and she had personal flaws as well, I can completely understand where she was coming from given her background coming out of soviet Russia.