Rand on feminism and the prospect of a female president:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKzdW7kVOIs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpzDdTrw5II

She has to be one of the most logical females that ever lived, and heterosexual at that. Still, nothing like seeing a proud white knight like Donahue scratch his head when an alpha female fires back, that shit is comedy

It's believed she had Asperger's. Which explains her very logical mind.

Reminds me of Esther Vilar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvnxvAwSu-0 (Talk with German ultra-feminazi Alice Schwarzer, English closed caption can be activated)

Well at least there is one women who understands and isn't blinded by propaganda. And this was during the heyday of feminism nonetheless!

Feminists hate Ayn Rand. She inspired a philosophical school of thought with Objectivism. Wrote one of the top 5 most influential books in history, Atlas Shrugged. She's written plays, novellas, and screen plays, but she is completely ignored by feminists because she wasn't a Socialist. If she would've embraced the almighty state she would have statues erected in her honor.

Her philosophy is the one I subscribe to. It's served me well.

Feminists hate her. One of my favorite quotes is when she is asked why doesn't she support women, she says something along the line of "I'm a male schovanist"

She understood the critical relationship between men and woman and the importance of men to BE men.

She is discredited by liberals exclusively and many conservatives. ALL of their arguments either have no logical basis or they misunderstand the concepts and apply them in a manner that is telling about their own immoral beliefs.

She is one of the only people that let her philosophy be carried out to logical conclusion in all levels of philosophy.

There are guys on the forum who claim to have "used to buy in" to her teachings but then they say why they won't work and it's clear that they never understood them to begin with.

Her stuff is gold.

I read The Fountainhead (which is my favorite book) and like others who have studied her, I said to myself "THIS is what I've known all along, THIS is how I think, I just never articulated it".

Then I read Atlas Shrugged and that book is simply prophetic. She observed the trends of the times and then predicted what would happen to the U.S. economically and socially just based on her logical conclusions.

Quote: (04-05-2013 07:53 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Her philosophy is the one I subscribe to. It's served me well.

Feminists hate her. One of my favorite quotes is when she is asked why doesn't she support women, she says something along the line of "I'm a male schovanist"

She understood the critical relationship between men and woman and the importance of men to BE men.

She is discredited by liberals exclusively and many conservatives. ALL of their arguments either have no logical basis or they misunderstand the concepts and apply them in a manner that is telling about their own immoral beliefs.

She is one of the only people that let her philosophy be carried out to logical conclusion in all levels of philosophy.

There are guys on the forum who claim to have "used to buy in" to her teachings but then they say why they won't work and it's clear that they never understood them to begin with.

Her stuff is gold.

I read The Fountainhead (which is my favorite book) and like others who have studied her, I said to myself "THIS is what I've known all along, THIS is how I think, I just never articulated it".

Then I read Atlas Shrugged and that book is simply prophetic. She observed the trends of the times and then predicted what would happen to the U.S. economically and socially just based on her logical conclusions.

Agreed. I may not be up to the task of debating objectivism, but there's no discounting that my basic understanding of her philosophy has helped me. And we're living close to the conclusion of Atlas Shrugged.

We've heard from Ayn's cheer squad, now will the dissenters take the floor. I want to weigh the arguments and decide wether to read her scratchings or not.

Not that I don't agree with some of the tenets of her philosophy, but Atlas Shrugged sometimes reads like self-insert porn.

Quote: (04-05-2013 08:14 PM)DLZ Wrote:  

Not that I don't agree with some of the tenets of her philosophy, but Atlas Shrugged sometimes reads like self-insert porn.

First Blood.
   

Quote: (04-05-2013 01:04 AM)megatron Wrote:  

It's believed she had Asperger's. Which explains her very logical mind.

She went for the gubmint money when she could get it though.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn...eeded_them

So I guess hypocrisy is ok, as long as you have the virtue of selfishness.

Epicurus is more interesting. And government does some things a LOT better than the private sector.

Would you rather work in a mine with government mine inspectors, or have the company "self-certify."

Quote: (04-05-2013 08:51 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2013 01:04 AM)megatron Wrote:  

It's believed she had Asperger's. Which explains her very logical mind.

She went for the gubmint money when she could get it though.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn...eeded_them

So I guess hypocrisy is ok, as long as you have the virtue of selfishness.

Epicurus is more interesting. And government does some things a LOT better than the private sector.

Would you rather work in a mine with government mine inspectors, or have the company "self-certify."

Hey Idon'tknowshit, she paid into social security, why shouldn't she try and get her money back?

CASE AND POINT with my earlier post.

The whole article is "and what I said, and then what she said". Even though it's all heresy it's written as factual occurrences.

Love the mangina with the mic explaining to a woman how women feel.

Quote: (04-06-2013 01:24 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2013 08:51 PM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2013 01:04 AM)megatron Wrote:  

It's believed she had Asperger's. Which explains her very logical mind.

She went for the gubmint money when she could get it though.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn...eeded_them

So I guess hypocrisy is ok, as long as you have the virtue of selfishness.

Epicurus is more interesting. And government does some things a LOT better than the private sector.

Would you rather work in a mine with government mine inspectors, or have the company "self-certify."

Hey Idon'tknowshit, she paid into social security, why shouldn't she try and get her money back?

CASE AND POINT with my earlier post.

We don't have to fight, Mr. Fisto;



I think she should get her SS, and me and you too!

Epicurus provided a synthesis which will keep Ayn Rand, libertarians, and pinkos like me happy. I will explain below.

Interestingly, I think she was hot, or at least striking and intelligent looking when she was young. (You have to take 15 years of below photo)

http://www.nndb.com/people/097/000030007/

Her personal history ( I read her biography) affected her hatred of any type of socialism, in my opinion to an excessive degree. While living in Russia at the time of the Revolution she saw the brutal Bolsheviks crush the nicer guys ( forget what they were called) who were going to rule Russia after the Revolution.

I think we'll all agree the Bolsheviks and the Stalinists were some pretty nasty creeps. Of course they called themselves "Socialists" but they were really more like fascists or cult leaders.

But selfishness and altruism don't really conflict. If you are trying to help someone else, like a Christian would want to, you ultimately are serving THEIR happiness. So happiness is still the ultimate goal.

If you are a hedonist ( basically what Rand argues for, the hope that everyone pursuing their own interests is the best social system) you are going after your own happiness.

So altruists and hedonists are all going after happiness just in different ways. Everything will be fine.

An example is your trip reports on SE Asia. You're going after what you want, and it's great reading for us who are trapped here in Manatee Land. Everyone wins.

"Can't we all get along,
if we just have a big enough bong"

-IKE

Quote: (04-05-2013 08:10 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

We've heard from Ayn's cheer squad, now will the dissenters take the floor. I want to weigh the arguments and decide wether to read her scratchings or not.

I used to be kind of a libertarian when I was a teenager but today I just find it immature politics. The problem with hyper-individualist ultra-rationalist ideologies is that most people are not that individualistic and not that rationalistic or at least not committed to any ideals like that even when not against them. Nothing will stop those people from grouping up and taxing the Randians no matter how much they whine about it. Any ideology that starts with the premise that you have to get the whole world committed to it or it will fail has already failed.

Libertarianism is the reverse of the left-wing anarchists that were plentiful in the 19th century: they imagined that tearing down the aristocratic governments would lead to a government-less bliss and allied with the socialist revolutionaries only to find out that once government had been torn down the replacement was another government - and one that was a lot worse for them as the Tsar had occasionally shown some mercy to dissidents while Lenin never had any.

Delete

Quote: (04-06-2013 01:50 PM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

Quote: (04-05-2013 08:10 PM)Kingsley Davis Wrote:  

We've heard from Ayn's cheer squad, now will the dissenters take the floor. I want to weigh the arguments and decide wether to read her scratchings or not.

I used to be kind of a libertarian when I was a teenager but today I just find it immature politics. The problem with hyper-individualist ultra-rationalist ideologies is that most people are not that individualistic and not that rationalistic or at least not committed to any ideals like that even when not against them. Nothing will stop those people from grouping up and taxing the Randians no matter how much they whine about it. Any ideology that starts with the premise that you have to get the whole world committed to it or it will fail has already failed.

Libertarianism is the reverse of the left-wing anarchists that were plentiful in the 19th century: they imagined that tearing down the aristocratic governments would lead to a government-less bliss and allied with the socialist revolutionaries only to find out that once government had been torn down the replacement was another government - and one that was a lot worse for them as the Tsar had occasionally shown some mercy to dissidents while Lenin never had any.

This is an old post from a banned poster, but the misconception in it seems widespread enough. So let's get that straight. Rand is neither an anarchist nor a libertarian. She was vehemently opposed to them.

Quote:Quote:

Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

Read more: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Quote:Quote:

Q
Why is the lack of government in Galt’s Gulch (in Atlas Shrugged) any different from anarchy, which you object to?
AR
Galt’s Gulch is not a society; it’s a private estate. It’s owned by one man who carefully selected the people admitted. Even then, they had a judge as an arbitrator, if anything came up; only nothing came up among them, because they shared the same philosophy. But if you had a society in which all shared in one philosophy, but without a government, that would be dreadful. Galt’s Gulch probably consisted of about, optimistically, a thousand people who represented the top geniuses of the world. They agreed on fundamentals, but they would never be in total agreement. They didn’t need a government because if they had disagreements, they could resolve them rationally.

But project a society of millions, in which there is every kind of viewpoint, every kind of brain, every kind of morality—and no government. That’s the Middle Ages, your no-government society. Man was left at the mercy of bandits, because without government, every criminally inclined individual resorts to force, and every morally inclined individual is helpless. Government is an absolute necessity if individual rights are to be protected, because you don’t leave force at the arbitrary whim of other individuals. Libertarian anarchism is pure whim worship, because what they refuse to recognize is the need of objectivity among men—particularly men of different views. And it’s good that people within a nation should have different views, provided we respect each other’s rights.

No one can guard rights, except a government under objective laws. What if McGovern had his gang of policemen, and Nixon had his, and instead of campaigning they fought in the streets? This has happened throughout history. Rational men are not afraid of government. In a proper society, a rational man doesn’t have to know the government exists, because the laws are clear and he never breaks them. [FHF 72]

Read more: http://aynrandlexicon.com/ayn-rand-ideas...anism.html

Rand's arguments there are sound. A shame that her ideas have been dumbed down and distorted, but such is inevitable.

I like Rand. She's a fine Jewish thinker. She was flawed for sure but she got many things right, and she got a gift for clear and powerful articulation. It's easy to get snobbish and laugh at Ayn Rand, as is common with philosophy professors nowadays. It's harder, and wiser, to learn what one can from her.

There is not a speck of nihilism in her, as far as I can tell.

It's interesting that this just popped up. I was into Rand big time back in the early to mid 1990's. That was when I was in my early 20's. I started out with her essays in Capitalsim: The Unknown Ideal.

Sad but true, many begin to lose interest when they start to interact with other people who are into Rand. That's when it happened for me. You'll meet a few good people, but a lot of these people just want to live in their own echo chamber.

And the women are often the most self-absorbed, narcissistic and passive-aggressive creatures you'll ever meet. Rand herself married her husband just to avoid deportation. She then cuckolded him when she got famous.

Red-pill men can learn a whole lot from Rand, but there are also pitfalls to be aware of.

Without doubt, the most famous Rand-influenced person out there is Jimmy Wales. He actually attended some of the same events I attended back in the 1990's. Today, he is known as a founder or co-founder of Wikipedia. I'm fully confident that he will never censor Wikipedia for anybody, because Rand didn't believe in compromising with wrong.

Here's a previous comment that might add to this discussion. It was in response to another guy saying how great Objectivism is...

For those who have no frame of reference regarding The Fountainhead, the relevant story is as follows.

Howard Roarke is a successful architect who becomes disillusioned with society’s valuation of architecture. Instead of bowing to societal pressure, he quits and goes to work as a manual laborer. While there he meets his boss’s daughter Dominique Francon. Francon is attracted to him but disregards him as beneath her.

Eventually, Roarke goes back to work as an architect and designs the greatest building the city has seen in quite sometime. At the party for the building’s opening, he again meets Dominique. This time, she is quite impressed. While alone, he tells Dominique how he thinks about society in general.

They then have sex.

She thinks he is wonderful, but doomed to failure because society will crush him. He pleads with her to stand by him, but she says no.

Roarke then goes about his life alone as an architect. Dominique marries a newspaper mogul, Gail Wyland, who bows to societal pressure and publishes articles which pander to the public.

Wyland is very wealthy and decides he wants to build a house and have it built by the best architect he can find, Howard Roarke. The moment Roarke walks in, it ignites the old emotions between Roarke and Dominique. In the meantime, Roarke begins to influence Wyland towards becoming a “rationally self interested” person.

Roarke is also tasked (in a round about way) with creating the next great project in the city. He designs the best building he can create on the condition that it is built to his exact specifications. The owners and financiers bow to public pressure to “dumb the design down.” In response, Roarke sabotages the construction. He is then put on trial for criminal acts. This entire time, Dominique and Wyland are growing closer to Roarke.

Wyland decides he must defend his friend and throws all his power behind Roarke. The public does not agree and all of Wyland’s social capital is spent. He views himself as ruined. In a moment of despair, he commits suicide, leaving Dominique a widow.

At the trial Roarke delivers an Oscar-winning speech and is freed.

He goes on to be a great architect……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….with Dominique as his new wife.

----

What did Rand’s fantasy do to the male (Wyland) who began as an your “misanthropic alpha,” began a conversion towards Rand’s “rational self-interest,” and found out “rational self-interest” is not all roses?

What did Rand’s fantasy do with the female who completely disregarded her values in favor of materialism and societal approval? She fucks the “rationally self-interested” male, marries the wealthy “misantropic alpha,” and within a short span the “misanthropic alpha” is removed from the picture so she can begin her life with the newly society-approved “rationally self-interested” male.

Again, this was Rand’s fantasy that “should have positive sense of life!”

------

Since Objectivists are atheists and allergic to any forms of collectivism; here is, literally, Rand's "ultimate value":

"But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."

I read the fountainhead a long time ago, like when I was in my early twenties, but the number of pages in atlas shrugged scared me off. Yes she did have it right in terms of a cure to the modern diseases of dumming down schools and unis, making it untrendy to be ambitious and driven, and encouraging welfare loafing. Still when I read it I felt there was a tiny bit too much individualism. Wonder if that means I'm like some tiny percentage left-wing. No that's a filthy thought in this degenerate age one needs to maintain purity of political ideology. Yes, fountainhead was a good read I kind of wish I could turn up my own ambition just a few notches further to be like the main character.

Very pleased to hear in the comments that Ayn Rand was NOT libertarian. I met someone who smoked weed and I seemed to share a lot of political opinions with him such as general conservatism but that libertarian thing just didn't seem right, well not as right as Ayn Rand seemed. I think someone called it "childish" below and that's what I sort of felt. I haven't got the time or energy to study the definitions of these obscure -isms but somehow it seems more correct for the government to impose a few things and have a few rules and punishment for breaking them but I get the impression the so-called libertarians have a general gripe with any kind of rule.

^ The excess of individualism you feel was evident in her life and how she died -- childless. She had no family-mindedness.

She was a complete sexual degenerate or possibly even monster. She married, and then when she met a guy she wanted to fuck more, she somehow used her superior moral brow-beating to force her husband to stay and remain a cuckold. Horrible story.

Individualism becomes excessive when you cease to recognize you are a generational link in a chain, and instead see your life as an isolated little island that you enjoy until you die. That's meaningless, and I argue Rand breached one of her central ethics ("the moral code of life" versus "the moral code of death" [leftism]) by failing to reproduce and be part of an actual family.

Quote: (09-19-2016 09:51 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

I argue Rand breached one of her central ethics ("the moral code of life" versus "the moral code of death" [leftism]) by failing to reproduce and be part of an actual family.

No one since Rand has skewered losers, deadbeats, freeloaders, leftists and politicians so effectively. However, she is guilty of creating unrealistic worlds. Her heroes and heroines are unencumbered by children. She apparently didn't like children and/or thought parenting was too altruistic.

Quote: (09-19-2016 09:51 PM)Phoenix Wrote:  

She was a complete sexual degenerate or possibly even monster. She married, and then when she met a guy she wanted to fuck more, she somehow used her superior moral brow-beating to force her husband to stay and remain a cuckold. Horrible story.

As her biographies reveal, her personal life was a train wreck. She had no maternal instinct and was a lousy friend, applying purity tests even to musical tastes. At least she got her commuppance when her lover became disgusted with her sexually as she aged out of his demographic. She went bunny-boiling apeshit.

I'm about 200 pages into Atlas Shrugged. So far, it's the best book I've read by a female author. I generally can't stand most female authors and about 95% of the books I read are non-fiction written by men.

Even though I'm not yet a third of the way through the book, I really like her writing style. It's descriptive and elegant; it reminds me of the class and sophistication sorely missing in my millennial generation. The sex scenes so far are inherently female in nature, and while I can't stand any sort of romance novel, these scenes are a great look into the female mind. They describe female attraction to the tee.

Yes @Phoenix I think there's a warning in there for some of us.. Sort of can see in myself a fight between individualism as pick-up obsession and the wish to be normal and reproduce.. Interesting to note that some women do really lack the maternal instinct, there's something in that for some of us re partner choice too.

OK well that confirms that that relative of mine who loves her and smells of psychopathic individualist probably is one although a friend of mine who used to post disrespectful memes about the white race and atlas shrugged on social media is simply an SJW which is worse.

"But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy of life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself."


This is an undercover female solipsism as far as it can go, and maybe explanation why asceticism has never had such an appeal for women as it has for men. A woman always wants that a man will conceive himself through her.