Trump on The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

“It relates to business (and) beauty (and) life and inner emotions. That book relates to … everything.” - Trump on The Fountainhead

Ayn was my red pill, and glad to hear Trump has respect. Thoughts? Rants?

Other urls found in this thread:

nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/trumps-role-model-is-an-ayn-rand-character.html
discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237
rt.com/usa/george-soros-class-war-619/
washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/
secretservice.gov/contact/
fbi.gov/contact-us
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States
monadnock.net/whatis/rand.html
stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Ayn Rand is based.
If anyone understands the value of the Ego, it's DJT, but I see him more as a student of Nietzsche than Ayn. Which is fine. Nietzsche is also based.

The people that hate on Ayn Rand have never read Ayn Rand. They've been told what Ayn Rand thinks and never bothered to check.

Not that I doubt it, but I'd love to see a source.

Fucking Ayn Rand is my #1 reason I didn't become a typical Liberal Leaf.

Read Atlas Shrugged when I was 13 & devoured most of her other work before I finished High School.

The Fountainhead, We the Living, Anthem, The Romantic Manifesto, The New Left:The Anti-Industrial Revolution, etc.

Trump has good taste, The Fountainhead is one of my favorites. Especially where the MC rapes a chick, blows shit up & becomes one of the most successful men in NYC.

>not a student of max stirner

Neitzsche is great, he and Ayn are (stylistically) two sides of the same coin. Trump needed to channel Neitzsche more than Rand to win this election, and he did it flawlessly.

Sauce
nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/04/trumps-role-model-is-an-ayn-rand-character.html

She's a hypocrite with a hypocritical philosophy of selfishness.

The architect, Roark, in The Fountainhead bases his whole life around selfishness and supposed self-reliance yet he is an architect you designs buildings that require hundreds of other humans to build. Rand doesn't think those hundreds have any dignity and any real-world society of people that followed Objectivism would require a slave class. It's not realistic, just like Communism is not realistic.

Also, she could not even restrain herself from including her own rape fantasies in The Fountainhead. Just like the trashy romance novel authors, she was a hack.

>lolbertarians worshipping some Jewish nihilistic cunt

based Stirner

Ayn Rand has always been right
yaron brook explains objectivism way better than anyone alive
see youtube
thank me later

>getting redpilled by a kike
good goyim

Daily reminder ayn rand cucked her husband, shes a degenerate, like those who follow her.

>
The architect, Roark, in The Fountainhead bases his whole life around selfishness and supposed self-reliance yet he is an architect you designs buildings that require hundreds of other humans to build. Rand doesn't think those hundreds have any dignity and any real-world society of people that followed Objectivism would require a slave class. It's not realistic, just like Communism is not realistic.

Just how retarded are you? How is giving a manual laborer something to do stripping him of his dignity?

Nah that's bullshit

These niggas get it

...

Wow, nice sideways picture of a text in a book dood

The rest

The Fountainhead was the most boring political book I've read, pretty shit desu

Can't blame her for regretting marrying a cuck and taking action. Nathaniel Branden is a badass

lol

paul ryan, mark cuban, reagan,

none of you people know how to read philosophy.

lulz

it's just like when the protonazis usurped nietzschean philosophy for their own political gains and actually intellectuals have to defend him against accusations of misogyny, ammoralism, nihilism, etc.

my advice, start with plato/socrates. you will first learn that the aforementioned names are


sophists.

Gyroscopes don't always work right

There's always been a slave class in America, it's just that now you pay the slave class to smoke weed, riot and shoot police officers.

Same here. Read Anthem in 9th grade and quickly stormed through the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged shortly afterwards, though I skipped the last 40 pages of John Galt's rant because it was too fucking long and uninteresting.

>muh taxation is theft
Someone missed their Hobbes and Locke

>mfw the roads outside my house have such bad potholes they look like mortar shells have hit them

Ok.

So if everyone is a randist and stuff here WHY THE FUCK the anti immigrant hate?

Whatever happened to self ownership and the ability to sell your skills in willing, mutual consent transactions?

Frankly the impression as a lurker I have is that most of Sup Forums is collectivists, only remembering rand for when it comes to having an excuse as to why never to give to charity.

1/10 bait

Immigrants should stay in their own country. Our own government shouldn't sell out the people for corporate intersts. If they do then we shouldn't support them. In general immigration is bad for natives unless there's a labor deficit.

...

Mhm

And here was me thinking it was the liberals who every time they dont want to discuss something just pick a word off a basket.

>angry monster
he's fucking mike wazowski

Nieztche was the anti-nihilist. he hated nihilism and spent his entire life thinking about how it could be overcome and studying it's progression and effects in society.

rookie mistake, man.

nobodies perfect, this kind of shit happens.

you can't just call people 'randists' because they happen to like rand and agree with her on a lot of stuff.

and you can't just pidgeon hole her beliefs according to whatever strawman mold you find conveniant.

ayn rand wasn't 'refugees welcome' in any way at all. she wasn't against charity, at all. she believed primarily in the importance of the best and the brightest, and she hated the sad shit that socialism produces.

her civic ethic can be summed up as a refutation of malignant egalitarianism.

Is the libertarian utopia possible? fuck no. but are the concepts at the core of a libertarian philosophy crucial to the promotion of excellence in society? absolutely.

and in her basic philosophy, she is pretty much irreproachable. Objectivism is the exact opposite of marxism - it's the idea that truth exists, and that we can know it.

Rand wasn't into biology. Whenever she says "individual", replace it with "my genes" and you have a huge red pill on your hands.

Individualism works way better than collectivism because individual interests are closely correlated with genetic ones.

Trump is a Randian hero through and through. He was born during that era and he's definitely read those books and takes inspiration from it.

Trump is a mover and anyone who has ever read Ayn Rand saw that from the get go. He was always destined to win because that's what movers do.

Which should I start with?

We are facing another Head of the Hydra, CTR, United We Dream, SPLC, BLM. These are all heads of the George Soros Hydra. Follow the money and it usually goes back to the same place.

discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

rt.com/usa/george-soros-class-war-619/

washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/16/black-lives-matter-cashes-100-million-liberal-foun/

They are pushing the Civil War psyop and want violence. DO NOT PLAY THEIR GAME, do not fall for concern trolling, race baiting, and calls to violence. If you see them calling for violence towards the President or any other official please contact the Secret Service or the FBI.

secretservice.gov/contact/

fbi.gov/contact-us

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threatening_the_President_of_the_United_States

We need to make this Operation #1 for Ameribros. Eurobros are busy with #MEGA/#MFGA. We are fighting the war on two fronts and need all Sup Forumsacks to report in. They are trying to divide us by flooding the site with concern troll type threads. Its very easy to get sucked in and forget about what the real issues are. We have A LOT of new people here now and need to keep the important threads at the TOP.

Please spread the word in concern troll threads and false flag threads. The battlefield is shifting and the war is still hot.

As for the immigrant thing, there's no way they could just hop into society like they do today as all the land would be privately owned and the owners could stop the trespassers as they see fit. People think that there are no borders in anarcho-capitalism when the truth is that every private lot has its own border.

Thank you. Well put.

i think it works better, because the tendency for people is, if they're shitty, they try to practice collectivism to gain power, but if a person is exceptional, they try to practice individualism in order to maximize their gain.

since the exceptional people in our society are more important than the sub-average people, we should promote conditions that favor the best and the brightest rather than the average and mediocre.

this is what ayn rand wanted.

basically the opposite of affirmative action. she'd say that 'well if white people are usually smarter and more competent, we should try to give them a greater advantage in society"

There is no such thing as "own" country. This is a collectivist concept and not part of the objective universe. Whereas "objective universe" in case you are wondering is that If the government burned your entry in their database that you are American, there is no scientific test and no "American" particle you could point at as "proof". Your own alt-rightist friends would laugh at your stories of having been a citizen as a lie.

There is only the Individual & Labour.

He who does it best, wins.

How hard is this concept?

The mere fact that the government monopolizes the service of providing a borders shows that people in a certain territory want a fucking border. The issue isn't with the service, it's with the monopoly.

>maintain society

lol fucking right

I have great book thoughts. I have the best words about Ayn Rand, okay? Believe me. Nobody knows books like I do. I thought it was a tremendous, quality and very successful book. Excuse me. Okay? Very successful believe me.

>So if everyone is a randist and stuff here WHY THE FUCK the anti immigrant hate?
>Whatever happened to self ownership and the ability to sell your skills in willing, mutual consent transactions?
Because the immigrants don't WANT that, they want free handouts from those that do.

Don't make me report you to the UK Internet Police for trying to hurt feelings.

This exactly.

Did I say anything about handouts dear?

Do I sound like someone who thinks thst even natives ought to have them?

But if this was about handouts then the debate ought to be about handouts.

The objectivist position I would think is very clear:

A native or immigrant gib, has less of a moral standing (or any right to interfere)

vs a native or immigrant who wants to just work.

Everything else is blah blah, or just using objectivism to be edgy & avoid charity as I said earlier.

>thinking that I'm a lolbertarian
Her importance as a philosopher is in her recognition of the ego as essential for the health of the human soul
Also blowing the fuck out of collectivists and communists and statists that build their delusions of expecting the strong to suicide by rejecting that truth.

Holy shit she looks just like Janet Yellen

I agree with much of what Rand says, but she isn't a very good author or a philosopher. I think the main problem in her philosophy are 2 false premises she makes. That man requires rationality to survive and that things such as honesty are beneficial to a man seeking self-interest. No matter how hard she preached about logic and rationality over feelings, it's clear that she was driven to objectivism because it felt right.

Reading Stirner is the biggest spook in all of philosophy

Yeah read those Ayn Rand books, you can learn a lot from them.

>Its a social contract that you didn't sign
>you're just a party to it... because

The state must be truly voluntarily consented to, if you wanna use imaginary concepts like contracts, let alone social contracts to justify every act of violence of the state.

I read Ayn Rand first and now I'm reading Nietzsche. I agree.

This very much.

Holy fuck is this real????
Trump is redpilled as fuck. This is amazing

Wrong, one of the side characters that helped Roark build was a blue collar tradesman who took great care and perfection a randian archetype

Mike Donnigan

/lit/ would like a word with you

I think she is under appreciated as an author, her shit can be fucking beautiful

Example:
monadnock.net/whatis/rand.html

In other words she failed totally at jumping the is-ought gap. Her morality is a giant non-sequitur.

And her hyper-aristotelian consideration of man as the "rational animal" completely categorically separate from "irrational" animals is also wrong and autistic.

No she's russian and all russian writers are garbage.

From Lenin to Rand they suck. I read her books and their boring. Great ideology, terrible Russian writer.

plebs

She was great as a philosopher but shitty as a economist

She never said that man was incapable of irrationality, she said he should aspire to be rational, but the only action (and goal of objectivism) required was development of concept formation, which is unequaled by what we would generally term as an "animal". The less we strive for the conceptual, and instead strive for the perceptual, the more irrational we are.

>From Lenin to Rand they suck
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAH
literally kys

She was in the school of Von Mises.

That's not what I meant. Rand considered man to be a supremely special being with the fully unique faculty of rationality which isn't shared by animals. Whereas in reality the difference between human and animal cognition is largely a matter of degree.

She severely downplayed the influence of instincts and many inherent properties of the human brain. She was actually sort of the mirror image of a Marxist blank slatist (and many other Jewish intellectuals). She would have a shit fit if she ever discovered the current state of evolutionary psychology. It totally btfo's her.

Anthem was shit

You are right, she held the conviction that man was born tabula rasa. But I do think she held bodily instinct as important and the bodily "selfish" link to the mind. The instincts of the body and the necessity for concept formation of the mind are held as being completely integrated and interdependent. She fought against the premise that the two are or should be divided in goal.

Good goy! Yes! Go for Randism instead of christianity

Please tell me more about the virtue of selfishness.

Anthem. It's short and will give a good feel for her writing style.

"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine"

Total independence and recognition of right to independence in others.

(I am OP btw)

I've read both Rand and Stirner, and the former makes the latter look like a sniveling amateur. She made multiple, fundamentally new arguments in both epistemology and morality, while Stirner essentially regurgitated the ideas of others in a piecemeal fashion while slapping his own style on top of it.

The overwhelming majority of people who criticize Rand have never read a single word she wrote, and are spewbots for talking points they've gleaned from the likes of Jezebel and Slate.

She was starkly against desegregation; against the U.S. entering WW2; denounced Israel as a fascist state (but still superior to barbarian sandniggers); was against open borders; was vehemently against multiculturalism and egalitarianism; and denounced Libertarians as moral subjectivists.

If you want to read something chilling, check out her treatise against the Progressive education system, and how it has turned whole generations of children into unthinking, useful idiots for the Leftist agenda. It's like Yuri Bezmenov on steroids.
stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/RandAyn-The-Comprachicos.pdf

>Whereas in reality the difference between human and animal cognition is largely a matter of degree.
This isn't true. We have no evidence whatsoever that any animals besides humans are capable of concept formation in the way that Rand described. We've observed animals with a high degree of perceptual awareness, but none have demonstrated the human ability of reason.

>She severely downplayed the influence of instincts and many inherent properties of the human brain.
There is no evidence whatsoever that any aspect of instinct plays any part at all in human concept-formation. In other words, all human values, beliefs, and knowledge are formed through a purely voluntary method of cognition--and all human action There is absolutely zero evidence of inborn ideas, which is the primary means of human survival, and that is what Rand meant by "tabula rasa."

>Stirner essentially regurgitated the ideas of others

Can you give examples?

Please reply. Don't ignore this post.

Precisely, "stimulus" and "instinct" are not the same, for example, hunger is not an instinct. (Not deep of me but, but distinctions must be made)