How is (((she))) not more talked around here?

How is (((she))) not more talked around here?
She was pro America, pro laissez-faire and admired capitalist for providing jobs and bettering the life of all.

Other urls found in this thread:

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Have you read Atlas shrugged? She definitely had autism

>Book about TRAINS
>Good guys had sharp angular faces and bad guys had rounded soft faces
>All characters had zero personality and are robotic in conversation. It really gets hard to tell who is talking in sometimes without the he said she said stuff.
>One guy breaks into an 80 page monologue

Actually yeah why isn't she more popular on this Cambodian Austism Forum

Atlas is the second most influential book in the us. Trump read the Fountain Head and many of his cabinet members also read ayn rand.
>Have you read Atlas shrugged?
I m reading it right now. Its not the story which matters but the moral she is trying to convey

Oh look, its that two faced loser that lost all credibility at the end of her life, because she sued the government to get a pension.

she did paid into the system against her will so its more than fair that she should get something out of it.
>someone steals your bike
>you see your bike on his lawn
>you "steal" it back
Oh look, its that two faced loser that lost all credibility at the end of his life, because he stole something while advocating for property rights.

Nice try, but she was a drug addict too.

Everyone has to outgrow the objectivist Jew someday. She's just controlled opposition, pushing (((individualism))) and decrying racism, tradition, and strong government.

She had autism her opinions on the social sciences were already invalid. Might as well try to reach a nigger maths and physics.

Stirner and Nietzsche are more fun on Sup Forums. She was on Sup Forums daily back in the early days of Sup Forums, though.

>One guy breaks into an 80 page monologue
That was like the epic rant climax of the whole book.

...

isn't it like 700 pages just to day muh free market?

Degenerate kike bitch would sell her own family for money. Not someone I would look up to

sorry fellow comrade but you are wrong. she was an avocate for white supremacist imperialistic capitalism. her entire life was spent saying that collectivorizm was bad and how we should privatize everything. she even made up lies about the soviet union. all the while making money from her books and basically exploiting poor low class people who are dumb enough to fall for the libertarian meme. in other words she avocated for capitalism and ending the goverment but never actaully ment it. she was okay with spreading the bloody wars of capitalism and keeping the working class down jsut so she can make a buck. the when she realized that capitalism will not help her or save her. she turned to the insitituions she was against' collecivized goverments. she is evil and had a hand in the deaths of milions of poor working class POCs around the world

fuckc her

Literally the greatest idol of Molymeme. Really makes ya think, doesn't it.

>Nice try, but she was a drug addict too.
so no counter argument? But yes she was a drug addict, but so are coffee drinker or smokers.
i remember when i first came to Sup Forums in 2013/14 that i saw here talked a lot but she was always mocked so i dismissed here. Big Mistake
yes but its 1200 pages and it goes a lot deeper than just that. You should reason at all time since its your only tool to comprehend and change reality. The left uses their feeling to change stuff and look how it turned out. Pic related.

Far too long story short: greed is a virtue and generosity is a vice. Truly dispicable with shit writing style,. InB4 Jew. Rand is the biggest Jew.

Reminder to ignore /leftypol/ D&C threads.

Look at that Churchill cuck. He just know that he is the weakest man in that picture.

She is pretty much the most redpilled philosophy.

There's a reason all commies hate the book.

John Galt gives a speech at the end that's literally 1/8th of the book, and literally 'muh free market thesis'. I skipped it but the story was really good

She was Russian. She worshipped power and strength.

Her ideology was nothing more than a bizarro mirror of Bolshevism.

She even mimicked the cult of personality.

She was traumatized by the communists that caused her parents to flee from Russia, but paradoxically she could never escape her cultural roots.

>fellow comrade
i choose the flag as joke, because that what marx was, a joke.
>/leftypol/
yeah you collectivist fuck are not better than a commie.
>greed is a virtue and generosity is a vice
how much of your paycheck belongs to me ?

>yeah you collectivist fuck are not better than a commie

>how much of your paycheck belongs to me ?
Literally everything, if it goes to the common good of the Volksgemeinschaft. But you wouldn't understand, since you don't believe in anything higher than yourself, and that's not what NatSoc ever was anyway. It had private property rights and free enterprise.

Yeah, that's the biggest problem with Rand, she's an ideologue and easy to mock. Just turn to Stirnerite egoism instead and you can mock everyone with fun memes.

You have taken the brown pill.

based leaf. I have a rule in life. If everyone thinks alike i made it a habit of mine to really think about the opposite side. It works wonders.
so you agree ?
>common good of the Volksgemeinschaft
yes goy, pay gibs for the fuggies so they can rape your women or stab you in a mall. Very good.
>Stirnerite egoism
pls expand more, i m intrigued.

this

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

>es goy, pay gibs for the fuggies so they can rape your women or stab you in a mall. Very good.
Are you really this fucking retarded to not even understand the basic principle of Volksgemeinschaft? I knew you would do that, but desu I am still shocked and disappointed that you would go to this level of retardation.

Ein rand was a legend, let her sleep

You entire ideology is based on materialism there is nothing more pathetic than that. I have more respect for muslims.

Because her philosophy is retarded.

>She was pro America, pro laissez-faire and admired capitalist for providing jobs and bettering the life of all.
As I say, retarded.

Ayn Rand used to be Anne Frank. I actually compared their lives and teeth alignment and they match

>Actually yeah why isn't she more popular on this Cambodian Austism Forum
I actually think most of Rand's stories would make good anime. Tons of exposition, lots of cerebral asides, blunt allegory, abrupt plot twists - they have all the right stuff.

She was a statist shill.

>but the story was really good
No, it wasn't. As a novel, it was garbage. She should have stuck to purely philosophical works.

>She was a statist shill.
Mein neger. If you typed that with a straight face I would die from laughter.

okay i meet you halfway. How do you determine in your Aryan Volksgemeinschaft who deserves what/how much and who decides what you deserve ?
ayn doesn't say that you should aim to en masse as much stuff as possible. She is arguing that you should use your mind to stand on your own. You can be a writer or a musician and live in cardbox as long as you are happy doing it and don't depend on anyone else.
>statist shill.
yeah...no

she just knew how to pick the strongest horse to protect the greatest value: property.

I don't even like Ayn Rand don't even try to push me her philosophy. I probably stand closer to Stalin than her.

>muh freedom, muh a=a, muh collectivist is terrible
>oh wait, we need a government to monopolize the use of violence
I have to give credit where it's due, Rand got me into libertarianism. But it's pretty apparent that her ideas were inconsistent with her underlying premises, as is the case with all minarchism.

Atlas Shrugged involved a litteral pirate who seized socialist aide cargoes. Taking money from the system while working to pull it down doesn't contradict her philosophy.

> She is arguing that you should use your mind to stand on your own. You can be a writer or a musician and live in cardbox as long as you are happy doing it and don't depend on anyone else.
This is one reason why I dislike objectivism very much. Commercial property and capitalism are totally contrary to any ideals of independence and self-sufficiency. Your property depends on collaboration with others to decide who owns what and how this is going to be preserved, and capitalism depends on interdependent classes of workers who must sell their labour and capitalists who survive on the labour of their employees. It is not individualist at all.

A truly independent person would have no regard for the property or abstract rights of others, nor would a truly independent person have any means of asserting their property as that can only be done by engaging in collective society.

I'm not denying it just the term "statist" is funny to me.

>A truly independent person
this is a dead man

...

>How is (((she))) not more talked around here?
>(((she)))
>btfo of your own thread on the first post
Good work, OP.

so in an anarcho capitalist society who protects the country or your property ?
this guy gets it.
>Taking money from the system while working to pull it down doesn't contradict her philosophy.
if anything this helps to pull it down faster.
so if i get what you are saying. No one can/should own anything, you cant rely on the state and everyone should live alone as hunter or gatherer ?

Not at all, it is entirely possible to be free as our ancestors once were. It just requires self-sufficiency which our collectivist society makes it extremely difficult to achieve.

Wild animals are independent. Man is an animal, freedom just requires liberating ourselves from the bondage of civilization.

Exactly. Anime is the definition of autism. She obviously had autism

nah we are on a Vietnamese cooking web forum. I know my audience.
>self-sufficiency
how would you conceive/raise a child? Not at all ?

>you cant rely on the state and everyone should live alone as hunter or gatherer ?
Not necessarily. I think society should transition to small voluntary communes oriented around resource cultivation for use and raiding. Kind of like pre-feudal tribes.

I think this is the logical conclusion to any kind of society and its exactly what is going to happen when society collapses as it inevitably will.

>how would you conceive/raise a child? Not at all ?
With my penis?

It's because she's jewish so most of them automatically hate her.

She was a great writer but we can't fully embrace her because she had a tinge and a half of weirdo ideological autism.

Atlast Shrugged is objectively (heh) great for the first 1000 pages. Then it turns beyond palatable when she goes into ideooverdrive.

You don't have to be in her cult group to appreciate her positive aspects. But the fact that she went out and made herself a cult leader the way she did means we can't like her uncritically.

Her world would never work, but whose would.

That was an enlightening revelation.

>nor would a truly independent person have any means of asserting their property as that can only be done by engaging in collective society.
>collective society
>small voluntary communes
>not collective
user, is your head alright?

>small voluntary communes
>not collective
What's collective about it?

Is it collectivist to be friends with people?

>Is it collectivist to be friends with people?
O some of them are pushing the definition.

>collaboration with others to decide who owns what
The state is not the souce of rights or property. It is a mechanism for organizing punitive violence against wrongdoers, and acts only in special cases.

>depends on interdependent classes of workers who must sell their labour and capitalists who survive on the labour of their employees
This supposed class distinction is utterly arbitray. In a free market there is no clear distinction between "capital" and "labor" outside of specific transactions. Interdependence of this sort does cause the problems you imagine - the left just likes using it as a (non-sequitor) excuse to ignore rights (ties to their "needs"-trump-rights nonsense).

Literally all of this is wrong. The book/ideology is rubbish and only valid in a fairy tale society. Humans are social creatures and need to work together for a common good (see Volksgemeinschaft). The average individual is inherently flawed and, if left to their own devices, chaos would ensue. We need to live in a monoethnic society with a shared culture to get the most out of ourselves. Objectivism is no better than (((civic nationalism))) in most aspects and cannot be implemented.

>does NOT cause the problems you imagine

i personally think the whole cult thing is overblown. She just had small circle of friends.
>Her world would never work, but whose would.
True but her world view would improve the lives of all people. At the moment we are moving in the opposite direction.
where do you draw the line between collectivist and small communes ?
>The average individual is inherently flawed
And you know better than they? They need you to advance in live?

>the book is valid
>the book is not valid

>The state is not the souce of rights or property. It is a mechanism for organizing punitive violence against wrongdoers, and acts only in special cases.
I never said it is. In our society it absolutely is but it is not necessarily, there can be and have been other arbiters of who owns what.

However in any case property requires collectivist coercion, without a collective of people mutually agreeing to acknowledge that X person owns such and such property and that they will do Y to anyone who does not respect it property simply cannot be sustained. This is why I say my ideal of society should be partially oriented around raiding, if people are respecting property they are not free and if they do not respect property why not take the property of others when you can?

>In a free market there is no clear distinction between "capital" and "labor" outside of specific transactions.
But there absolutely is. There is one group of people who own commercial properties that are staffed by other people and so they can survive on the input of those people. Then there is the people who have no property and so must survive by selling their labour.

It seems perfectly well defined and applicable to our capitalist economic structures.

>. Interdependence of this sort does cause the problems you imagine - the left just likes using it as a (non-sequitor) excuse to ignore rights (ties to their "needs"-trump-rights nonsense).
There is no such thing as rights. "Rights" are a collectivist abstraction.

Atlas Shrugged is unique for two reasons:


1) it is one of the few books where a government that claims to be modern and moderately left-wing is evil because of incompetence, stupidity and moderately shitty people inside it

2) leftists constantly show what kind of intolerant spergs they are by attacking this with the fury of satan. I mean, fuck, it's just a book with a somewhat unusual plot, but it seems to drive some people absolutely insane.

>where do you draw the line between collectivist and small communes ?
Notice how I said small voluntary communes. You are under no obligation to stay within a commune to be on your own or join with another you like more, and if a commune starts to put the needs of "the people" (as if there is any such thing" above the independence of participants then leaving is precisely what anyone should do.

Jesus she is boring as fuck. It took 5000 pages to get that point across you goofy fucking cunt?

>if anything this helps to pull it down faster.
Good I can't wait for the system to fall so we can go around shooting race traitors like you Rand worshiping crypto-kikes

>And you know better than they? They need you to advance in live?

It may sound conceited, but I believe that in most cases I make more rational decisions than the average human. I believe that morality and ethics are objective and once we can establish an objective set of morals and ethics we say that one person knows better than the other. If we have a unified code in a monoethnic society with a single culture we can move past the archaic notion that one person cannot "know better" than the other.

Can I get a book on strasserism please?
Can't find any.
Also syndicalism and falangism

based swede

>if we permit a chaos of interests it will lead to a world of civilization
Lol

She was a fucking Jew. Listen, I like Ayn Rand in principle, but you can't deny that she was a fucking kike and she acted like one.

I'm a woman. It's actually ironic that there is ONE major female philosopher and it was Ayn fucking Rand. She was a crazy person. I mean this literally, look at her personal life. I'm a big-league fuckup and even I haven't screwed over as many people as Rand did. I'm actually impressed by her more than anything, she was a legendary cunt and that's no small achievement for women. Also, when was this, 50 years ago? She was a bigger fuckup than I was back when our society was still stoning faggots to death. I don't even know how this is possible.

Rand was actually living proof that the Jew will never win in the end. It's historic destiny. I'll bet Marx would've had something to say about this shit, it was dialectic. Rand HAD to lose. There was no version of her story that worked except her ultimately accomplishing nothing. I have my own theory, my theory is that God is real and he writes comedy. All of human history follows basic comedic laws. I can't write comedy for shit but I can sure recognize it, and history is funny as balls. You want comedy, look up Sulla and Marius. Funniest shit I've ever read. Rand is the same way, she was like a walking comedy routine, but completely oblivious to it. I'll bet that's why she got so much D, she was unintentionally the only funny woman alive.

>Humans are social creatures and need to work together for a common good
Working together is often useful, but humans need to cultivate independent strength in order to form healthy relationships, and need to exercise discretion - not all possible relationships are beneficial. The "common good" is a delusion. You should not (and really cannot) try to form a single many-to-many relationship with a group of people you mostly don't know individually. People shouldn't regard themselves as having automatic obligations to aid all humans, everyone who speaks the same language, everyone who shares a certain set of phenotypical traits, etc. Not all people in any of those groups make good friends. Many of those potential relationships cost more than they are worth, and a rule that says you must form them anyway creates pressures that will increase the number of unfavorable cases.

Great, now go down and give me twenty blowjobs :^)

Calling her philosophy "Objectivism" is akin to "/thread"ing your own post.

Post tits

I married a HUWHITE man, fuck off Achmed.

I don't own a camera because I'm not retarded. It's common knowledge that any internet connected device can be accessed by the CIA, and the CIA as we know is full of retards. If they can do it so can anybody. I do not and will not ever own an internet-connected camera or microphone. Neither should you.

>Ahmed
When it's a burger roastie from 52% white. lmao

Don't speak, subhuman. Every German died between 1942 and 1947. You're not even a person. Whites in this state have a positive birthrate, which is more than can be said for your people. In 100 years "Germany" will be a great mountain of 80 IQ shitskin meconium festering atop a pile of overtaxed Poles and sniveling Algerians blubbering in French for reduced austerity. Utah will still be whiter than the Argentinian village Hitler escaped to, because the only people here are Anglo-Saxons, the only actual kind of white person.

Your daring is niggerish. It's like a coon trying to speak in court. Who are you even? Never post again. Go back to playing forklift simulator you drone.

America is a great mountain of 80IQ shitskins right now.

lmao, you are trying way too hard, roastie

As an Amischwein who lives in Germany for uni I can say that any German who criticizes Germany for % of shitskins or immigration policy is a fucking idiot and your post genuinely made me chuckle. It's like you don't even know where you live

>60%
>90%

Btw, speaking of the Eternal Anglo

Yeah okay doubleposter. Obviously we're on the same page regarding the apodictic righteousness of Adolph Hitler but don't bring "muh 50%" memes into it. The USA is not a country, it's 50 countries of varying degrees of cuckery. The reality? Except for California no state is on as direct a trajectory for niggerdom as Germany or Sweden. We're actually fighting.

Meanwhile what are the German people doing, is the AfD surging? Lolno. Your literal Communist prime minister is going to win another term and continue to get your peoples' bellies sliced open.

You can meme about whatever, but the reality is that I'm not going to die screaming with my belly ripped open with some 70 IQ shitskin running his fingers through my intestines. You probably are. Your country is going to be South Africa tier in both of our lifetimes, and both of us know it. Your response? Nonexistent. Germans only care about their fucking welfare. You people are more pathetic than the French, at least the French have the excuse that their population never recovered from World War I.

I argue this with other women daily. Who the fuck do you argue it with, do genders still exist in your country? Or are you proud not to be proud. Fag-enabler.

F I F T Y S I X
I
F
T
Y

S
I
X

>property requires collectivist coercion
It does not. Rights involve coercion only in response to actual or attempted violation, and neither justify nor require anything broader or more proactive. An individual can do some degree of such violence, if it comes up, alone, as you acknowledged. A group of people acting in coordination can potentially do more, but there will still be limits. This is merely a matter of degree, and even if you choose to work with others to do this, your group cannot realistically be universal (or even pan-"racial" or national) . You will end up dealing with either internal or external violators of the rules, or both. Collectivism doesn't fix this.

>if people are respecting property they are not free
Honoring the rights of others is not slavery. You might as well claim murder is necessary for freedom. You are free in the only sense that is worth caring about when you are not being controlled through actual or threatened rights violations by others.

>one group of people who own commercial properties
>there is the people who have no property and so must survive by selling their labour
All people own at least their bodies, which are a form of capital. Those who own other capital always end up doing some sort of labor (not necessarily physical) if they want to make profits from it. In our current society, partial ownership of businesses or other profitable external resources can be had for the value of tiny amounts of labor. Anyone can be a "capitalist" on some scale, none charity cases or infants can entirely escape from acting as "labor". The distinction is indeed arbitray. You're trying to imagine capitalists as if they were feudal lords empowered to tax serfs granted to them by the state, as those influenced by Marx so often do. The reality doesn't match that image.

She's just some bitch who needed a good fucking

>who protects the country or your property ?
The country doesn't exist, so that concept would make no sense. As for property, a system of competing security/defense companies. Or if you are a stronk independent ancap who don't need no police, you are free to defend it yourself, or with your neighborhood, or with any other possible arrangement of voluntary interaction.

The notion of an organization (ie. the state) to defend your property against thieves and attackers, that in order to do so violently monopolizes the security market and derives its revenue from compulsory taxation, is a self contradiction. In any other circumstances, we call it a protection racket.

Allow my man Spooner to elaborate:

"The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a “protector,” and that he takes men’s money against their will, merely to enable him to “protect” those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful “sovereign,” on account of the “protection” he affords you. He does not keep “protecting” you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave."

Yeah and it was reddit incarnate.

Her mind was fucked by socialism so badly that she became retarded. Her libertarian society imaginings in reality consist of robber barons and rent seekers.

...

Who is this absolute semen demon?

"She" was a jew

most of us are fascists, and the libertarians and ancaps have good heads on them and certainly aren't near so blistering dullard as you'd like to paint them

Murray (((Rothbard))) himself was part of her group for a while, and he called it a cult. Maybe you should study up on the ideology you want to talk about before you start a thread, newfag.