Reminder that Ayn Rand is based. The bar none greatest modern philospher that is essentially upgraded Aristotle

Reminder that Ayn Rand is based. The bar none greatest modern philospher that is essentially upgraded Aristotle.
youtube.com/watch?v=MAxj-o2T1n0
Conservatism and Libertarianism are both incomplete Objectivism in different respects.

Other urls found in this thread:

objectobot.com/?cat=184
youtube.com/watch?v=0AxVXM2Lts4
youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4&app=desktop
youtube.com/watch?v=vANA3AGs4Dg
youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
youtube.com/watch?v=g0XTgP5Lku4
dangerousminds.net/comments/ayn_rand_absolutely_hated_ronald_reagan
youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk
poal.me/u8ym3w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>(((Ayn Rand)))
Government leech.

You're a teenager, or you're so hopelessly retarded it's downright frightening.

fuck off kike, we reject all kikes.

closest ill go is HHH and even that's contingent on his helicoptering A LOT of ppl.

Only crypto-coms terrified of her and dipshit NatSoc larpers annoyed by her post like this.
Reminder that cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commies have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy.

The dreaded, horrible secret that academic philosophers face (and why they do not even allow the notion of Objectivism as a philosophy) is that Objectism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy. Hers holds the particular distinction of being the first ever formulated META-Philosophy. And psudeo-intellectuals the world over are perpetually butthurt over this incontrovertible fact. Yes fact, I do not exaggerate. Including it among their other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".

Reminder that all these smear attempts by commie, cyrpto-commie, and NatSoc shills of Ayn Rand are borne out of their gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. ALL of the andversaries she descibes in her novels are EXACTLY what Sup Forums describes as the sterotypical kike. Kikes exist but Rand is quite literally the most based jew to ever live. I do not exaggerate.

>helicopter
>failing to realize Ayn Rand is the most /helicopter/ philosopher to ever live

Myth btw.
objectobot.com/?cat=184

You got me interested in Rand. I am skeptic if her writing is all as great as you say it is, since I have read NONE. Still, even a huge shitpost would have a tinge of irony or a teasing tone - there has to be some truth in what you said. Where should I start? And also, what is her take on religion?

FUCK SLIDE THREADS

VOTER FRAUD !!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=0AxVXM2Lts4

GET IT ON ALEX JONES

GET IT ON HANNITY

WANT TO DO SOMETHING SPREAD THIS!!

VOTER FRAUD !!!!!!

youtube.com/watch?v=0AxVXM2Lts4
ELECTRONIC BALLETS? NO PROBLEM. ERASE THE EVIDENCE THE NEXT DAY !

Brother, fuck off. This is interesting, and in case you didn't notice, ANTI-COMMUNIST. Already a higher-quality thread than the average cesspools like you just mentioned. Shilling overload

>based jew
>preaches individualism
>hands over legacy to another jew
aint that the way it always goes.

I was a yuuuge fan of objectivism growing up, probably because it is rigid in its analysis of reality. But I have come to find 2 things to be true in life. 1. A jew will always preach individualism while practicing in-group preference. 2. Objectivism claims to be a harsh unbiased view of reality but fails to consider the aspects outside of pure rationality within man, as anything remotely valuable to man. It is a harsh philosophy that doesn't strive for balance and so it is relegated to the ivory towers of spergdom and shunned by the common man as it should be.

Reminder that cultural Marxists are terrified of Ayn Rand as she represents the American Constution completed; a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism that the US founding fathers lacked. The ONLY thing they lacked. Epistemologically validated, metaphysically defined, and ethically expanded, Objectivism is the greatest threat Commies have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy.
>The dreaded, horrible secret that academic philosophers face (and why they do not even allow the notion of Objectivism as a philosophy) is that Objectism is not -a- Philosophy but THE Philosophy. Hers holds the particular distinction of being the first ever formulated META-Philosophy. And psudeo-intellectuals the world over are perpetually butthurt over this incontrovertible fact. Yes fact, I do not exaggerate. Including it among their other disparate half formed, half actualized "philosophies", they find it eats everything it comes into contact with. This disrupts their vested interest in keeping a fanciful salad-esque collection of philosophies to catalog away and do nothing objectively meritous with it on their own terms. Despite what these sorts of people would have to say it isn't Ayn Rand but academia as it stands that is "the joke".
>Reminder that all these smear attempts by commie, cyrpto-commie, and NatSoc shills of Ayn Rand are borne out of their gut wrenching realization that Objectivism is the greatest threat they have ever encountered which is why they cannot even bear to have it discussed as a philosophy. ALL of the andversaries she descibes in her novels are EXACTLY what Sup Forums describes as the sterotypical kike. Kikes exist but Rand is quite literally the most based jew to ever live. I do not exaggerate.

>female
>Jew
>greatest modern philosopher

Kill yourself you brainlet faggot

>Ayn Rand
Fuck that kike bitch.
>Aristotle
Meme philosopher who didn't understand empiricism. Epicurus was based and right about everything.

Sure. I consider The Virtue of Selfishness and Philosophy: Who Needs It to be her underrated masterworks. Atlas Shrugged is only her magnum opus because of Galt's speech. youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4&app=desktop I recommend starting with this speech in audiobook, reading TVoS and PWNI (and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal for good measure) then going back and reading Atlas Shrugged. Look up Ayn Rand's first interview as well.

Objectivism is atheist btw.

I love you aussie, that was the cleverest shitpost I've ever seen

Oh but I have an iron-clad excuse faggot. youtube.com/watch?v=vANA3AGs4Dg
Protip: she'd actually agree with you and say it's a tragedy a man hadn't formulated nher Philosophy long before her.

Supporting Ayn Rand is supporting cuckoldry, she cheated on her husband multiple times and threatened to take all he had when he wanted her to stop
Are you a cuck user?

Aagh I hate this. I would *love* to read more but I can never get behind a philosopher who actively denies God. I'm sorry mate thanks for the effort in all your posts

I have come across people who have asserted that their beliefs are the one incorruptible truth. funnily enough they never seem to agree

Based

You fags need to stop go-nowhere echoesposting like the meme influenced tards you are and embrace the one doddamn thing that can save us: Objectivism.
Ayn Rand is the greatest modern philiosopher by miles and is essentially upgraded Aristotle. The bitch is hard-irrefutable and not in my opinion either. AND I'm not simply fanboying over her.
Objectivism is the greatest threat Marxism/Statist/Mysticism has ever encountered. Reminder that like how Marxism is simply Meta-Communism; Objectivism is Meta-Capitalism. And so much more.
If you fucking retards fall for that cyrpto-com nazi-larping meme that "Capitalism is just a shekel rubbing jooish scheme" one more time, I swear to fuck.
But no we just get shilled to oblivion by cryptos, kekistanis, and the underage while the left just whimpers us into irrelevance papercut by papercut.

"The sins of a philisophier does not a Philosophy disprove"
- some based fag I forget the name of.
Also it was an open relationship. Women are fickle creatures and will pull stuff like this if you don't put them in their place; my favorite philiosopher is no exception. Tough shit on her husband for being weaker than his wife.

This is going to sound arrogant and bombastic but Objectivists are literally and unexaggeratingly the first group in history for which it is true.

Since our resident Aussie is enjoying my pasta so much: have some more.

Ayn Rand's philosophy was the strongest attack on Communism, Fascism, and Statism ever witnessed. She is the formulator of the what I would posit is the first ever meta-philosophy. Her indentification of rational selfishness as a moral ideal is the best summation of the actual nature of existence into a concrete whole. Objectivism is the greatest threat Commie and Nazi Statists have ever encountered.
Capitalism is the only moral system ever devised. And the best. And even the kindest. The only reason there is ever any doubt about the wonders of Capitalism is because it lacked a defensible moral base at it's outset. Historically cuckservative Republicans have tried to justify it on the basis of Altruism. To which it is incompatible and, make no mistake, rest assured that Altruism is the great primordial evil of the world. Ayn Rand's arguments for why this is so are adamantine-clad and unassailable

>Do as I say, not as I do
So you support hypocrisy as well as cuckoldry
Objectively you sound like someone that will say and do anything to justify his actions instead of having the tiniest bit of courage to fully own them
Objectivism is a shield for the weak

I support neither you unspeakable dipshit. Finding day-to-day infallibility in a person practicing an ideology to which one subscribes is a patent absurdity you are trying to foist upon me and frankly should be embarrassed. Poor argumentation.

Try Galt's speech and see where it takes you friend.

Eda! Sums up nicely everything broken about Rand's Objectivism.

Hitler is generally fine to to be talked about by the left if only for historical interest and/or flaseflagging pearlclutching; but they generally want you to forget Ayn Rand ever existed.

I wouldn't be surprised if one of Sharblue's stealth directives from Soros is "suppress and mock all instances of Ayn Rand and Objectivism posting you encounter. Pretend to be al-right when you do it"

Objectivism is atheistic -- therefore rejected.

Rand was a jewwwwwww

>I support neither
>literally defending hypocrisy
>when called it just reeeeeees
Definitely underage

Skipper don't let the Jew's puppet religion control what you intellectualy injest.

I watched a video of her, and she sounded like a special ed student.

I can call Ayn Rand a dipshit for her distastful practices in her personal life and be a steadfast subscriber to her Philosophy without contradiction numbnuts. It is you who look underage my shortsighted friend.
I'll repeat it for your viewing as your obtuse stubborn ass has clearly failed to internalize it: The sins of a philisopher does not a Philosophy disprove.

You sure you know what a Russian special ed student sounds like my ad hominem employing protege?

"Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two, existence and consciousnes, are axioms you cannot escape. These two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it. To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was the greatest of your philosophers [he means Aristotle], has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

I was genuinely surprised she came across so simple.

Elaborate. What's to stop me thinking you're simplylying about this supposed impression?

Because the left wants to believe that just knowledge itself of hitler and his "evil" is enough to persuade you not to follow his ideology, however people might actually believe ayn rand if they are stupid and capitalist

Objectivism is the great irrefutable defense of Capitalism. Debate me.

its a defense of capitalism. Its like how the ontological argument is a great defence of god

God is a mystic inconcrete. Capitalism is perfectly concrete. No they are not alike.

You know, one of the greatest (albeit indirect) indicators that Ayn Rand is one of the best philosophers is the number of logical fallacies she coined.

>Stolen Concept Fallacy
Attempting to undermine the concept itself by attacking the hierarchial root(s) upon which it logically depends, or using a concept while denying the validity of its roots.

>Package-Deal Fallacy
The fallacy of failing to discriminate crucial differences. It consists of treating together, as parts of a single conceptual whole or “package,” elements which differ essentially in nature, truth-status, importance or value. A subset of the Composition/Division fallacies.

>Floating Abstraction Fallacy
When concepts are detached from existents, concepts that a person takes over from other men without knowing what specific units the concepts denote.

>Frozen Abstraction Fallacy (Context Dropping Fallacy)
Substituting some one particular concrete for the wider abstract class to which it belongs. To tear an idea from its context and treat it as though it were a self-sufficient, independent item.

>Reification of Zero Fallacy
Regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent.

>Rewriting Reality Fallacy (likely not particularly hers)
Attempting to alter the metaphysically given.

it is alike in that they are indefensible, so a philosophy that defends it is by default shit.

[spoiler]Also my router keeps IP hoping. OP here, different ID.

That isn't how you argue. *Why* is it indefensible? Not just *that* it is.

>jewish
>woman
>philosopher

fuck off, cunt.

>it asserts that the individual has property rights
>it asserts that wealth has an intrinsic value
>it asserts that humans are irreducible units
>it assumes humans are rational;
>it assumes rationality is possible
>it equates rationality with "self-interest" despite this "self-interest" being very narrowly and inaccurately defined as to not make the term completely meaningless
>it equates the worth of an individual with wealth

Read

Still a kike though. Anything she said was said better by someone else who wasn't a jew. Stop trying to have honorary human jews. You're identifying with the enemy.

Ridiculous. She was a crazy old jewess that wound up on welfare and medicare

Her prose is shit.

>proves using man's epistemology-derived condition why property rights are inseparable from individual rights
>no it doesn't, Objectivism denotes the difference between the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective
>No it doesn't only axioms are irreducible
>*Man has the choice to be ration or not; BUT rationality is man's only means of survival
>It proves it
>Self interest is defined as "Rationally demonstrable ethical egoism"
>Then why are her villians rich politically connected cronyists?

You haven't read a fucking word of Rand. Out of my sight. Start with The Virtue of Selfishness and btfo yourself please.

But did she have children? I don't think she had therefore she failed as a woman. That's all I need to know.

>Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two, existence and consciousnes, are axioms you cannot escape.
"Existence", like all other fallacious reifications, doesn't exist.

Then someone who wasn't a Jew should have did it dumbass.
Arguing with you unpleasable muh-illuminati tier dipshits perpetual wary of this half-misattributed monster you live in fear off gets tiring.
Or else, you know, this is just that cyrpto-commie tatic they used to render the right ineffectual.

Can't detect which you are.

>believes rights are things
>believes in the objective purely by assertion
>not understanding the point
>Nigga what the fuck is this supposed to mean
>Rationality is impossible to prove for multiple reasons
>You are going to have to explain what "Rationally demonstrable ethical egoism" is because that whole phase contradicts itself, essentially limiting "rationality" to a very strange category of actions
>Because like most capitalists she regards the ideal capitalist man as self made

Ayn Rand wrote shitty novels larping as a aryan stronk woman who successful aryan men lusted after

Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are glorified young adult novels that revolve around these twilight love triangles

Also why not call her by her real (((name)))?

>She was a crazy old jewess that wound up on welfare and medicare
>You're not entitled to welfare and medicare AFTER PAYING FOR 30 YEARS FOR IT
Kill yourself dumb plebbit kid.

This
>Government steals your fucking money
>I DONT LIKE THIS GIVE ME MY MONEY BACK
>here's a percentage of your money back goy
>FUCK YOU, IL TAKE THIS BUT IM NOT FUCKING HAPPY YOU STOLE MY MONEY
>(((WOW SHE USED SOCIAL SECURITY, SHES SUCH A HYPOCRITE)))
likewise
>You steal my wallet at gunpoint
>I don't like this
>You offer some of the money you stole back gun still pointed at my head
>Fine you fucking thief
>Oh wow see you aren't even mad you took the money

>“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence—when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness—he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both—he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero."

I love how hard-inescapable some Ayn Rand quotes can be.

>(((Ayn Rand)))
When will you learn

>>(((WOW SHE USED SOCIAL SECURITY, SHES SUCH A HYPOCRITE)))
Kek that got a laugh out of me.
Echoesposters in a nutshell.

libertarianism is most naive philosophy that exists.
however with education of the system that is sey up to obfuscate ittsself from everyone it has a chance.as long as a fair field is laid before people im for it cuz huge money always is tilting the field.
less govt allows for faster and more jewry to flourish.less regs for ruthlessly evil people.

>he doesn't know who curt doolittle is

She was a zionist kike pushing jewish libertarian individualism on whites while supporting her own collective interests. Just like the jew ben shapiro and countless other kike zionist libertarians.
youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

this is the problem talked about by people like Kant. Ayn Rand just dismissed it and said "what you see is what is objective because otherwise there is no way to find objectivity".

>"Things" implies existents. Rights are concepts and rights in a world where men wish to live in a world among beings of the same metaphysical nature is an objective necessity.
>I believe in the objective by proof, argument, and demonstration idiot. All things in reality subsumed under these concepts
>aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axioms.html
>aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/rationality.html
>The reasons?
>aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/self-interest.html aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/morality.html
>The *ideal* yes; not all. Inferior ""capitalists"" seek government help

Ayn Rand blasted wide open Kant's notions of Analytic/Synthetic dichotomy and his "Noumenal world"
She did not just dismiss him.

Even though I despise Kant the fact that you know to bring him up means I can step up my language and rhetoric a couple notches for you.

How many assertions can we make in a minute featuring ayn rand
1
2
3
4
>Look up Kant nigga
5
6
astonishing

no she fucking didnt. She simply made assertions

If Kant's conception of an analytic/synthetic dichotomy is wrong, as she and I would assert, then his view on the role of logic necessarily follows. An 'a-priori' proposition is one which, though it may be elicited by experience, is seen, when known, to have a basis other than experience. Objectivism rejects the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as false, in principle, at root, and in every one of its variants. An analytic proposition is defined as one which can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts.
The critical question is: What is included in “the meaning of a concept”? Does a concept mean the existents which it subsumes, including all their characteristics? Or does it mean only certain aspects of these existents, designating some of their characteristics but excluding others?
The latter viewpoint is fundamental to every version of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. The advocates of this dichotomy divide the characteristics of the existents subsumed under a concept into two groups: those which are included in the meaning of the concept, and thoseg which, they claim, are excluded from its meaning. The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.”
[P1]

The Objectivist theory of concepts undercuts the theory of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy at its root. Since a concept is an integration of units, it has no content or meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units, the existents, which it integrates including all the characteristics of these units. Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily fucking selected portions of existents. There is no damn basis whatsoever, neither metaphysical nor epistemological, for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups. One of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning. The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity or from the concept. A is A; existents are what they are, independent of the state of human knowledge; and a concept means the existents which it integrates. Thus, a concept subsumes and includes all the characteristics of its referents, known and not-yet-known.

See I know what you'll do next. Fundamental to the Kantian way of thinking; they always move the goalposts to what Kant's critique of pure reason constituted. It's their modus fucking operandi.
Go on... I'm waiting.
[P2]

>1 2 3 4 5 6
Embarrassing. What a dodge.

>The dichotomy among propositions follows directly. If a proposition links the “included” characteristics with the concept, it can be validated merely by an “analysis” of the concept; if it links the “excluded” characteristics with the concept, it represents an act of “synthesis.”
This does not follow.. Because the concept itself is a categorisation that exists only in the mind. There is no proof of its existence outside the mind as we are incapable of properly interpreting it.

youtube.com/watch?v=g0XTgP5Lku4

>be cuckservative
>worship Rand
>hate atheists

dangerousminds.net/comments/ayn_rand_absolutely_hated_ronald_reagan

>be cuckservative
>worship Reagen and her politics
>worship Rand and her politics
>doesn't realize Rand hated Reagen and his politics

dodging assertions is really easy. You just call them assertions

kys REDDIT

Jesus was for some kind of egalitarian collectivism, was anti-elitism, and clearly disdained hoarding wealth.

If they had read Rand they would know that she all but uses the term "cuckservative" herself when she alludes to conservatives failure to defend Capitalism.
>"The so called defenders of Capitalism are worse than the liberals"

This is why I say Conservatism and Libertarianism is incomplete Objectivism in different respects. Watch this gem btw. youtube.com/watch?v=erytcpYpzRk

>Rand
>Welcome on leddit
What universe are you living in? Commie central basically.

>>“You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,”
That's a straw man. "Exist" is a verb, not a noun. It you want to prove such an hypostasised nominalisation as "existence" (or "truth", god, gravity, etc. for that matter) exists, you have to tell me how far it is away from the tree in my front yard.

Yes it does follow, that is Kant nigh-perfectly summarized. I would know as I ingested that drivel in preparation for tackling any Kantian I encounter.
>Because the concept itself is a categorisation that exists only in the mind.
That's actually exactly right. But that is exactly why it DOES follow.

>There is no proof of its existence outside the mind as we are incapable of properly interpreting it.
Says fucking who?
Pitty Kant got cucked by his age and didn't witness the advent of things like scanning-tunnelimg microscopes

No it doesnt because the interpretation of the "existent" by an individual could lead to different "concepts". Resulting in different analysis.
>Says fucking who?
Says the fact that you cant actually prove it other than via axiomatic assertions

also there could be more underlying concepts that you have not uncovered, which would invalidate your analysis. And there is no way of knowing whether there are any such underlying concepts. E.g hyperbolic geometry fucking with triangles

>One of which is excluded from the concept’s meaning. The fact that certain characteristics are, at a given time, unknown to man does not indicate that these characteristics are excluded from the entity or from the concept.
Actually it does. Otherwise the being itself become ill defined, a potentially infinitely large list of things that it might or might not be. Making analysis useless anyway as forming an analysis off of an infinitely large list of potential contradictions will result in know knowledge gained, as you are always unsure of what other things the being might be, especially as you have no purely rational way of proving that there are any underlying concepts that you have missed.

>There is no proof of its existence outside the mind as we are incapable of properly interpreting it.
It goes further. "The mind" itself doesn't exist. We use nouns instead of verbs and adjectives when the latter often better describe what's going and think we're talking about something real.

she'e an embarrassment to those she inspired

Libertarianism does not work as long as the majority of the population still carries genes responsible for a preference in communal social structure (Protip: highest prevalence of these genes in Asians, lowest in whites ... remnants of hunter-gatherer / pastoralist adaptuon). Google DED4-7R dopamine receptor variant, its influence on exploratory behaviour, political views (Singapore study) as well as general parameters like depression and nicotine addiction. Btw interesting that a recent study in Austria had shown that our right-wing voters are much more likely to be smokers ... even after calculating out socioeconomical factors and education level.

>DED4-7R

Should be DRD4-7R ... stupid typos...

Btw wild theory: Rand was a Jewess with an 'un-Jewish' dopamine receptor gene ... introgression of European genes into Jewish gene pool was a thing. Still could not escape her social conditioning completely.

St. Thomas Aquinas did objectivism better than Ayn Rand.

>The Virtue of Selfishness

lol, buying into a soviet spy planted to spread an ideology designed to speed up the destruction of capitalism.

psychopathic sociopathic pseudophilosophical crap.

based? No. Just selfish masturbation fantasy.

She got a lot of things right. Others, not so much. Her personal life was a train wreck. Not bad for “baby’s first red pill”. Don’t start worshipping statues of her.

What a moron. Read TVoS it's inarguable conclusions and ironclad premises (without contradiction) become clear. What just because she's from Russia means shes a spy against Capitalism? Idiot.

drinking soviet propaganda, not even once

>a rejection of the primordial evil that is Altruism

Didn't Altruism develop through evolution because it helped with social cohesion? Why is that an evil?

Which books by Ayn Rand have you read?
poal.me/u8ym3w
>poal.me/u8ym3w
poal.me/u8ym3w
>poal.me/u8ym3w
poal.me/u8ym3w
>poal.me/u8ym3w
>taking the bait