[mzp1]

(02-10-2019 12:12 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

Ok. So what's the path... fascism? I don't know where your affiliation lies but alt-right types should just say they endorse some form of fascism for whatever reason, and then at least we don't have to cloak the conversation in doublespeak.

We can talk about the merits of fascism, but what exactly sort of political system are you endorsing?

Rand was an individualist, which is one of the bedrocks of modern western thought...

I agree with Sherman, Rand is more a cult leader than a real philosopher, her work makes little sense on it's own, it is more an extreme justification for the American Individualistic Capitalism model vs Soviet Socialism, cultural themes of her times.

Rand is highly degenerate 'Philosophy', I advise bookburning and ritual purification for those having been exposed to her work.

Jewish faux-intellectuals are very good at garnering praise for mediocre or low-quality work.

[mzp1]

(02-10-2019 12:26 PM)Kid Twist Wrote:  

I liked your post based on the initial sentiment of individual within community (a paradox and thus truth about life), but how do you explain your assertion that she is part or similar to a "jewish cult," as you say. A modern rationalist cult? What's "jewish" about it?

Rand, Freud, Einstein, Friedan etc

All Jewish, all cult leaders.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 12:28 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:12 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

Ok. So what's the path... fascism? I don't know where your affiliation lies but alt-right types should just say they endorse some form of fascism for whatever reason, and then at least we don't have to cloak the conversation in doublespeak.

We can talk about the merits of fascism, but what exactly sort of political system are you endorsing?

Rand was an individualist, which is one of the bedrocks of modern western thought...

That sounds like playing by the enemy's rules, and choosing failure.

Not that I'm saying the Alt Right believes in fascism (I neither know nor care) but if they did, I'd tell them to make up a new name for it because the Left has tarnished the word fascism in a manner that truly belongs to communism.

I'm not sure what you mean by your first statement.

Most the alt-right appears to believe in fascism although there are certainly elements that are into neo-reactionary thought, monarchism, paleo-libertarianism, etc. The problem is that many of the more fashy parts of the alt-right just never say "we believe in this form of fascism, etc".

The problem with fascism, just like communism, is it's usually absolute shit for individual rights, and subsumes you into collectivism, where always some few number of individuals reap most the rewards, despite professing to care about the greater good. Whether that was Stalinist Soviet Union, or corprate-fascist Nazi Germany.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 12:30 PM)mzp1 Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:12 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 12:08 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

Libertarianism is the path to suicide when you are surrounded by a united enemy. The proper definition of liberty was that of the Romans and Greeks, i.e. you can be realized as an individual only within the context of a community. I have never been attracted to Ayan Rand because I am aesthetically repulsed by Jewish cults.

Ok. So what's the path... fascism? I don't know where your affiliation lies but alt-right types should just say they endorse some form of fascism for whatever reason, and then at least we don't have to cloak the conversation in doublespeak.

We can talk about the merits of fascism, but what exactly sort of political system are you endorsing?

Rand was an individualist, which is one of the bedrocks of modern western thought...

I agree with Sherman, Rand is more a cult leader than a real philosopher, her work makes little sense on it's own, it is more an extreme justification for the American Individualistic Capitalism model vs Soviet Socialism, cultural themes of her times.

Rand is highly degenerate 'Philosophy', I advise bookburning and ritual purification for those having been exposed to her work.

Jewish faux-intellectuals are very good at garnering praise for mediocre or low-quality work.

I get the cult of personality among some libertarians/objectivists with her, but how by definition can she be a cult leader if she’s preaching individualism. Cults by definition are collectivist by nature. Thus she can’t be a cult leader by definition.

To say Rand’s work just is about capitalism is overly simplifying what she’s talking about.

Tell me then, why did all the other jewish intellectuals, among others, reject her? Keep in mind academia is heavily marxist, and disproportionately Jewish.

[zigZag]

It's crazy how similar a lot of Democrats sound to the villains in Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand was like fucking Nostradamus. Everything she wrote is coming true. Atlas Shrugged is definitely one of my favorite books of all time.

[Aurini]

Great analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophy by the Distributist:

TLDW; there is no place for children in Rand's philosophy, nor do they appear in her novels, because their very nature is that of the parasites whom she reviles.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 01:10 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Great analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophy by the Distributist:

TLDW; there is no place for children in Rand's philosophy, nor do they appear in her novels, because their very nature is that of the parasites whom she reviles.

From the Atlas Society (Objectivist/ Randian think tank) on children and mainstream objectivist legal and ethical views on the subject:

Quote:

In the Objectivist view, the rights of human beings arise from their rational faculty and their ability to live as independent producers and traders. All rights, including rights like free speech and property, are consequences of—and can ultimately be reduced to—the one basic, fundamental right: the right to be left free from the initiation of physical force.
Rights in this sense do not apply directly to children. While it is difficult or impossible to distinguish the precise moment that a child matures beyond the state of non-rational dependence, all children must pass through such a period of development. If the basic right is freedom from coercion, this is the exactly the right that children—for their own sakes—must be denied. Children must be made to eat their vegetables, get their rest, go to school, etc., and children often demonstrate impetuous unwillingness to complete these and many other important tasks. In fact, applying rights principles to children could cause them outright harm. Imagine if one had to wait for a baby’s consent before feeding it or changing its diaper!
Ethically, Objectivism is opposed to any unchosen or undeserved duties. In this context, however, Objectivists generally acknowledge that parents, in creating (or adopting) a dependent child, choose for themselves the obligation to raise that child to a healthy adulthood with the power to exercise his rational faculty (if he so chooses). This obligation implies that the parents must undertake certain tasks at least to some minimal standard, including feeding and clothing the child and providing him with a basic education.
The legal implications of children’s lack of rights are more difficult to discover and define. If children have no rights, doesn’t that leave parents or even perfect strangers free to harm or kill them?

While children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected.

Various Objectivists have developed theories on this subject. Generally, these theories hold that while children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected, in virtue of their status as biologically independent human beings with the potential to develop into fully rational and socially independent adults.
One of these theories is by William R Thomas, and is available on the internet if you want to read more about it. Thomas has crafted a legal theory that affords some protection for children based on tort damages, without relying on the dubious claim that they possess rights. (See here .) Thomas points out that one’s right to file a tort lawsuit does not demand that one was in full command of reason when the relevant harm was inflicted. One has the right to demand compensation for damage wrought—even while asleep or unconscious—that persists into periods of wakeful alertness. Moreover, in such cases, the police should not allow an aggressor to continue to abuse a victim, since it would only add to the victim’s suffering once he regains consciousness. Some crimes, including murder, even preclude the possibility that the victim will file suit against his aggressor. For these cases, criminal laws ensure that offenders cannot escape justice by preventing their prey from filing civil suits.
This applies to children because, though their full exercise of reason may be years in the future, they nevertheless possess such a potential throughout childhood. In stalling a child’s physical or intellectual development, parents would inflict harm on a person who one day could come to possess rights, including the right to sue for torts. They could also starve him to death before he ever reaches the age of majority. Legal authorities should not permit abuse of children (whether by parents or others) to continue, and criminal laws specifying the grounds for police intervention are appropriate.
So it is true that Objectivism denies that children possess “rights,” in the full sense of the word. Some may find this viewpoint disturbing, but it is the recognition of the truth about rights and children’s nature. Still, Objectivist scholars have amply demonstrated that, within such a framework, there are still ethical and legal guidelines one should follow in raising one’s children.

TLDR: Objectivists have fairly reasonable views about children, all things considered. Views that would not be out of place among the general public. Just as the law recognizes that children aren't rational adults, so does objectivism. Objectivism gives minimal legal and ethical standards for raising children-- parents are required to care for their children because it's an obligation they took on. Children are not adults... Simple enough.

[Aurini]

(02-10-2019 01:54 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 01:10 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Great analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophy by the Distributist:

TLDW; there is no place for children in Rand's philosophy, nor do they appear in her novels, because their very nature is that of the parasites whom she reviles.

From the Atlas Society (Objectivist/ Randian think tank) on children and mainstream objectivist legal and ethical views on the subject:

Quote:

In the Objectivist view, the rights of human beings arise from their rational faculty and their ability to live as independent producers and traders. All rights, including rights like free speech and property, are consequences of—and can ultimately be reduced to—the one basic, fundamental right: the right to be left free from the initiation of physical force.
Rights in this sense do not apply directly to children. While it is difficult or impossible to distinguish the precise moment that a child matures beyond the state of non-rational dependence, all children must pass through such a period of development. If the basic right is freedom from coercion, this is the exactly the right that children—for their own sakes—must be denied. Children must be made to eat their vegetables, get their rest, go to school, etc., and children often demonstrate impetuous unwillingness to complete these and many other important tasks. In fact, applying rights principles to children could cause them outright harm. Imagine if one had to wait for a baby’s consent before feeding it or changing its diaper!
Ethically, Objectivism is opposed to any unchosen or undeserved duties. In this context, however, Objectivists generally acknowledge that parents, in creating (or adopting) a dependent child, choose for themselves the obligation to raise that child to a healthy adulthood with the power to exercise his rational faculty (if he so chooses). This obligation implies that the parents must undertake certain tasks at least to some minimal standard, including feeding and clothing the child and providing him with a basic education.
The legal implications of children’s lack of rights are more difficult to discover and define. If children have no rights, doesn’t that leave parents or even perfect strangers free to harm or kill them?

While children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected.

Various Objectivists have developed theories on this subject. Generally, these theories hold that while children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected, in virtue of their status as biologically independent human beings with the potential to develop into fully rational and socially independent adults.
One of these theories is by William R Thomas, and is available on the internet if you want to read more about it. Thomas has crafted a legal theory that affords some protection for children based on tort damages, without relying on the dubious claim that they possess rights. (See here .) Thomas points out that one’s right to file a tort lawsuit does not demand that one was in full command of reason when the relevant harm was inflicted. One has the right to demand compensation for damage wrought—even while asleep or unconscious—that persists into periods of wakeful alertness. Moreover, in such cases, the police should not allow an aggressor to continue to abuse a victim, since it would only add to the victim’s suffering once he regains consciousness. Some crimes, including murder, even preclude the possibility that the victim will file suit against his aggressor. For these cases, criminal laws ensure that offenders cannot escape justice by preventing their prey from filing civil suits.
This applies to children because, though their full exercise of reason may be years in the future, they nevertheless possess such a potential throughout childhood. In stalling a child’s physical or intellectual development, parents would inflict harm on a person who one day could come to possess rights, including the right to sue for torts. They could also starve him to death before he ever reaches the age of majority. Legal authorities should not permit abuse of children (whether by parents or others) to continue, and criminal laws specifying the grounds for police intervention are appropriate.
So it is true that Objectivism denies that children possess “rights,” in the full sense of the word. Some may find this viewpoint disturbing, but it is the recognition of the truth about rights and children’s nature. Still, Objectivist scholars have amply demonstrated that, within such a framework, there are still ethical and legal guidelines one should follow in raising one’s children.

TLDR: Objectivists have fairly reasonable views about children, all things considered. Views that would not be out of place among the general public. Just as the law recognizes that children aren't rational adults, so does objectivism. Objectivism gives minimal legal and ethical standards for raising children-- parents are required to care for their children because it's an obligation they took on. Children are not adults... Simple enough.

And yet, none of her novels contained children. That reads more like a 'patch' on a system that is failing in one particular area. Furthermore, if that document were adopted, would it prevent the exploitation of the Little Sisters in Bioshock? It seems to me that it would justify it; they're free from undue harm, they're clothed, fed, and provided for, they're even granted powerful protectors who have a strong emotional bond with them.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 02:17 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 01:54 PM)Heuristics Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 01:10 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

Great analysis of Ayn Rand's philosophy by the Distributist:

TLDW; there is no place for children in Rand's philosophy, nor do they appear in her novels, because their very nature is that of the parasites whom she reviles.

From the Atlas Society (Objectivist/ Randian think tank) on children and mainstream objectivist legal and ethical views on the subject:

Quote:

In the Objectivist view, the rights of human beings arise from their rational faculty and their ability to live as independent producers and traders. All rights, including rights like free speech and property, are consequences of—and can ultimately be reduced to—the one basic, fundamental right: the right to be left free from the initiation of physical force.
Rights in this sense do not apply directly to children. While it is difficult or impossible to distinguish the precise moment that a child matures beyond the state of non-rational dependence, all children must pass through such a period of development. If the basic right is freedom from coercion, this is the exactly the right that children—for their own sakes—must be denied. Children must be made to eat their vegetables, get their rest, go to school, etc., and children often demonstrate impetuous unwillingness to complete these and many other important tasks. In fact, applying rights principles to children could cause them outright harm. Imagine if one had to wait for a baby’s consent before feeding it or changing its diaper!
Ethically, Objectivism is opposed to any unchosen or undeserved duties. In this context, however, Objectivists generally acknowledge that parents, in creating (or adopting) a dependent child, choose for themselves the obligation to raise that child to a healthy adulthood with the power to exercise his rational faculty (if he so chooses). This obligation implies that the parents must undertake certain tasks at least to some minimal standard, including feeding and clothing the child and providing him with a basic education.
The legal implications of children’s lack of rights are more difficult to discover and define. If children have no rights, doesn’t that leave parents or even perfect strangers free to harm or kill them?

While children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected.

Various Objectivists have developed theories on this subject. Generally, these theories hold that while children do have the full rights of adults, they deserve to have their right to live and not suffer violent attack respected, in virtue of their status as biologically independent human beings with the potential to develop into fully rational and socially independent adults.
One of these theories is by William R Thomas, and is available on the internet if you want to read more about it. Thomas has crafted a legal theory that affords some protection for children based on tort damages, without relying on the dubious claim that they possess rights. (See here .) Thomas points out that one’s right to file a tort lawsuit does not demand that one was in full command of reason when the relevant harm was inflicted. One has the right to demand compensation for damage wrought—even while asleep or unconscious—that persists into periods of wakeful alertness. Moreover, in such cases, the police should not allow an aggressor to continue to abuse a victim, since it would only add to the victim’s suffering once he regains consciousness. Some crimes, including murder, even preclude the possibility that the victim will file suit against his aggressor. For these cases, criminal laws ensure that offenders cannot escape justice by preventing their prey from filing civil suits.
This applies to children because, though their full exercise of reason may be years in the future, they nevertheless possess such a potential throughout childhood. In stalling a child’s physical or intellectual development, parents would inflict harm on a person who one day could come to possess rights, including the right to sue for torts. They could also starve him to death before he ever reaches the age of majority. Legal authorities should not permit abuse of children (whether by parents or others) to continue, and criminal laws specifying the grounds for police intervention are appropriate.
So it is true that Objectivism denies that children possess “rights,” in the full sense of the word. Some may find this viewpoint disturbing, but it is the recognition of the truth about rights and children’s nature. Still, Objectivist scholars have amply demonstrated that, within such a framework, there are still ethical and legal guidelines one should follow in raising one’s children.

TLDR: Objectivists have fairly reasonable views about children, all things considered. Views that would not be out of place among the general public. Just as the law recognizes that children aren't rational adults, so does objectivism. Objectivism gives minimal legal and ethical standards for raising children-- parents are required to care for their children because it's an obligation they took on. Children are not adults... Simple enough.

And yet, none of her novels contained children. That reads more like a 'patch' on a system that is failing in one particular area. Furthermore, if that document were adopted, would it prevent the exploitation of the Little Sisters in Bioshock? It seems to me that it would justify it; they're free from undue harm, they're clothed, fed, and provided for, they're even granted powerful protectors who have a strong emotional bond with them.

It’s clear why her novels didn’t contain children, the philosophy of objectivism (philosophy for rational individuals, ie not children) is expounded mainly her in novels, but also in other works (read: straight philosophy books, pamphlets) which maybe you’re not familiar with her purely philosophy works. There are written comments she made on children as well as interviews out there too, I’m too lazy to find them. In Anthem, she talks about children.

Atlas Shrugged:

Quote:

The recaptured sense of her [Dagny's] own childhood kept coming back to her whenever she met the two sons of the young woman who owned the bakery shop. . . . They did not have the look she had seen in the children of the outer world--a look of fear, half- secretive, half-sneering, the look of a child's defense against an adult, the look of a being in the process of discovering that he is hearing lies and of learning to feel hatred. The two boys had the open, joyous, friendly confidence of kittens who do not expect to get hurt, they had an innocently natural, non-boastful sense of their own value and as innocent a trust in any stranger's ability to recognize it, they had the eager curiosity that would venture anywhere with the certainty that life held nothing unworthy of or closed to discovery, and they looked as if, should they encounter malevolence, they would reject it contemptuously, not as dangerous, but as stupid, they would not accept it in bruised resignation as the law of existence.

Her big novels, fountainhead and atlas shrugged are just a portion of her work. Children wouldn’t be the focus of her novels because her novels are outlining objectivism— objectivism is for adults, children are not adults. It’s like focusing on something that has little relevance to her arguments.

I have no clue about bio shock, but it has nothing to do with Ayn Rand, if anything it is a derivative work, and if that’s where you’re getting you arguments against objectivism, I don’t know what to tell you. It has no place in the Objectivist canon of works. It's a game.

I linked mainstream objectivist opinions on children in my above post, largely in line with what Rand would think.. You didn’t respond to any of the relevant stuff I bolded.

I will repeat: objectivists believe children aren’t rational, parents have an obligation to care for them because it’s an obligation imposed on them when they chose to have children, children have the right to life and not to suffer. And that to become rational children have to develop first, ergo they are not rational at that point.

Also, I don't understand your problem with objectivism. "Video game bioshock has children not being taken care of, thus objectivism is bad"? That seems like what you're saying.

[monsquid]

She never had kids of her own. She is pathologically incapable of showing empathy, a quality that is essential to being a parent.

With that said she works as a great tool for advancing capitalism from a merit based system. But realize that under her construct race doesn't matter. The only that matters is your ability to produce and be a net positive value member of society. This narrative supports global corporatism and against national identity.

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 02:52 PM)monsquid Wrote:  

She never had kids of her own. She is pathologically incapable of showing empathy, a quality that is essential to being a parent.

With that said she works as a great tool for advancing capitalism from a merit based system. But realize that under her construct race doesn't matter. The only that matters is your ability to produce and be a net positive value member of society. This narrative supports global corporatism and against national identity.

Quote:

I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims.

Source: Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand . Playboy, March, 1964

Some small percentage of women don't want children, Ayn Rand is one of those people. She had romantic relationships, and she had proteges too. Her philosophical output isn't invalidated because she didn't have children. Do you see the double standard there? If a man doesn't have children we don't invalidate his contributions. Rand thought more like a dude anyway, very atypical for a woman, and that's necessarily something I hold against her.

On racism, I'll quote her, because she's real simple about it and identity politics, and the inherent issues that arise:

Quote:

Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.

Racism claims that the content of a man’s mind (not his cognitive apparatus, but its content) is inherited; that a man’s convictions, values and character are determined before he is born, by physical factors beyond his control. This is the caveman’s version of the doctrine of innate ideas—or of inherited knowledge—which has been thoroughly refuted by philosophy and science. Racism is a doctrine of, by and for brutes. It is a barnyard or stock-farm version of collectivism, appropriate to a mentality that differentiates between various breeds of animals, but not between animals and men.

Like every form of determinism, racism invalidates the specific attribute which distinguishes man from all other living species: his rational faculty. Racism negates two aspects of man’s life: reason and choice, or mind and morality, replacing them with chemical predestination.

Source: "Racism", The Virtue of Selfishness, 126.

Quote:

Today, racism is regarded as a crime if practiced by a majority—but as an inalienable right if practiced by a minority. The notion that one’s culture is superior to all others solely because it represents the traditions of one’s ancestors, is regarded as chauvinism if claimed by a majority—but as “ethnic” pride if claimed by a minority. Resistance to change and progress is regarded as reactionary if demonstrated by a majority—but retrogression to a Balkan village, to an Indian tepee or to the jungle is hailed if demonstrated by a minority.

Source; "The Age of Envy," Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 142.

Quote:

Like every other form of collectivism, racism is a quest for the unearned. It is a quest for automatic knowledge—for an automatic evaluation of men’s characters that bypasses the responsibility of exercising rational or moral judgment—and, above all, a quest for an automatic self-esteem (or pseudo-self-esteem).

Source, "Racism," The Virtue of Selfishness, 127

As I see it if you have a problem with Rand, either A) You're probably collectivist, thus your opposed to her thought, which we'll call largely individualist, B) You probably reject her conception of epistemology, or that is, her position on how knowledge is acquired and validated.

[Abelard Lindsey]

I consider myself an objectivist for the most part. I do part with Rand on two significant issues. The first is that she considered money to the measure of all value. Of course I reject this, as would anyone who has "normal" relations with others as well as "normal" well-rounded interests (e.g. outdoor sports, travel, other things you cannot define in terms of money only). The second is that Rand did not consider pioneering to be a value in and of itself. I, on the other hand, believe that true spirituality is based exclusively on pioneering and consider all non-pioneering cultures to be inherently dysfunctional.

Rand's views on idividualism, productive accomplishment, and in particular, her derivation of free market capitalism from merit and individual liberty to be 100% spot-on. I especially agree with her concept of epistemology, not for the least of which I came up with the same concept while in high school having no knowledge of either Rand or libertarianism at the time.

The idea that libertarianism is incompatible with community is completely false. Individuals are free to associate with and form communities (e.g. network) with whomever they want. They are even free to exclude others from whatever communities they choose to form. However, they are not free to prevent others from exiting any community if such individuals freely choose to. The freedom of exit is inherent to the freedom of association. As members of what is essentially a dissent movement, alt-right, the understanding of such should be completely intuitive to you.

[Abelard Lindsey]

(02-10-2019 02:17 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

And yet, none of her novels contained children. That reads more like a 'patch' on a system that is failing in one particular area. Furthermore, if that document were adopted, would it prevent the exploitation of the Little Sisters in Bioshock? It seems to me that it would justify it; they're free from undue harm, they're clothed, fed, and provided for, they're even granted powerful protectors who have a strong emotional bond with them.

People like to obsess over the fact that Rand's novels did not feature kids. This is a silly and meaningless obsession. The vast majority of novels published, as well as those I read, do not feature children at all. Nearly all hard SF novels as well as spy/covert op/thriller novels do not feature children at all. Have you ever read a Robert Ludlum novel that featured children? Or say Grainger's "November Man" novels? I haven't

[TigerMandingo]

You guys do realize she was a mentally ill jewish degenerate, right? I can't belive there's a whole movement centered around this crazy bitch.

[Stonk]

TigerMandingo.

And how did your psychic ass learn she was a "mentally I'll Jewish degenerate"?

[Heuristics]

(02-10-2019 04:55 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

You guys do realize she was a mentally ill jewish degenerate, right? I can't belive there's a whole movement centered around this crazy bitch.

This sounds like the most original thought I have read on the forum today, including even the politics section.

[TigerMandingo]

(02-10-2019 06:12 PM)Stonk Wrote:  

TigerMandingo.

And how did your psychic ass learn she was a "mentally I'll Jewish degenerate"?

First things first, just look at her. I'm a big believer in physiognomy. Does she strike you as the type of person we should be listening to or taking sound economic advice from?

Michael Prescott, who used to be an Objectivist, has pretty good info on Rand and her life on his blog. She had a weird fascination with serial killer William Hickman, and called him a "real man". Then based several characters on him, including John Galt. Rand was just a total fucking mess. People here think Jordan Peterson is bad

[Leonard D Neubache]

Children are possessions. They are no more a parasite than your dog or cat. You own them because you want to, though hurrdurr levels of libertarianism go beyond the pale when they suggest that like a dog or cat you can have your child "put down" if you so please. They also fall flat regarding nonsense like who really owns the child. Solely the mother? We've seen how well that works out.

Rand's ideological leanings are laughable. Two generations into her own system of belief and little baby Rand would be produced by a slave mother and sold when grown to a useful size as a commodity, maybe for industrial work or sex slavery or to fight dogs for sport. She has been coddled by an ethics-driven society for so long that she has utterly no idea how women would fare in a cut-throat free market environment.

Just another spoiled cunt with delusions of the ability of women to survive on their own in a man's world. No red-pilled man should look at Rand's visions of a utopia with any response but gut-busting laughter.

[ilostabet]

I got about half-way through Atlas Shrugged a long time ago - I was still a libertarian at that time, btw. I don't know if Atlas did, but at that point I shrugged myself and put the damn book back on the shelf. It was painfully boring and cheesy (not to mention dated). Maybe it turns around after that and becomes an incredible book, but to me it was a preachy soap-opera, in which dialogue is not used to advance the story but to serve as philosophical pamphlets. The characters are one dimensional, cookie-cutter villains and heroes, or mere furniture to the real heroes or villains.

Given her philosophy is one of the most autistic ever devised (in a literal sense of being unable to empathize with another human being), the book becomes unbearable as every other page has a character preaching about something. Give it a rest. The only thing I could appreciate was people smoking all the time, and waxing poetic about it. But even then, a bit cheesy.

As others have noticed, she was also kind of a terrible person in real life - which to me it does come through in the words.

She might have been intelligent in a conventional sense, but that just goes to show IQ can only do so much. She was good at exposing the horrors of the soviets, everything else is intellectual masturbation - and she didn't even have a dick, it was masturbation with a stolen dildo. Worst case of penis envy I've ever seen.

[911]

(02-10-2019 08:14 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 06:12 PM)Stonk Wrote:  

TigerMandingo.

And how did your psychic ass learn she was a "mentally I'll Jewish degenerate"?

First things first, just look at her. I'm a big believer in physiognomy. Does she strike you as the type of person we should be listening to or taking sound economic advice from?

Michael Prescott, who used to be an Objectivist, has pretty good info on Rand and her life on his blog. She had a weird fascination with serial killer William Hickman, and called him a "real man". Then based several characters on him, including John Galt. Rand was just a total fucking mess. People here think Jordan Peterson is bad

2/10 WNB

[911]

(02-10-2019 04:55 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

You guys do realize she was a mentally ill jewish degenerate, right? I can't belive there's a whole movement centered around this crazy bitch.

[BBinger]

(02-11-2019 12:54 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

Children are possessions. They are no more a parasite than your dog or cat. You own them because you want to, though hurrdurr levels of libertarianism go beyond the pale when they suggest that like a dog or cat you can have your child "put down" if you so please. They also fall flat regarding nonsense like who really owns the child. Solely the mother? We've seen how well that works out.

Rand's ideological leanings are laughable. Two generations into her own system of belief and little baby Rand would be produced by a slave mother and sold when grown to a useful size as a commodity, maybe for industrial work or sex slavery or to fight dogs for sport. She has been coddled by an ethics-driven society for so long that she has utterly no idea how women would fare in a cut-throat free market environment.

Just another spoiled cunt with delusions of the ability of women to survive on their own in a man's world. No red-pilled man should look at Rand's visions of a utopia with any response but gut-busting laughter.

I'm not so sure open cry auctions aren't the worst way to dispose of the worst children. I have a business acquaintance who wrote a piece proposing a more meritocracic/feudal implementation of something similar. The gist is free schooling, kids so what they are told, when the opportunity for legal majority comes around the kids take a test. Bottom third is auctioned, junk males neutered. I have re-read the piece several times over the years and with each re-reading it sounds like a better idea.

(02-11-2019 06:30 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  

I got about half-way through Atlas Shrugged a long time ago - I was still a libertarian at that time, btw. I don't know if Atlas did, but at that point I shrugged myself and put the damn book back on the shelf. It was painfully boring and cheesy (not to mention dated). Maybe it turns around after that and becomes an incredible book, but to me it was a preachy soap-opera, in which dialogue is not used to advance the story but to serve as philosophical pamphlets. The characters are one dimensional, cookie-cutter villains and heroes, or mere furniture to the real heroes or villains.

Given her philosophy is one of the most autistic ever devised (in a literal sense of being unable to empathize with another human being), the book becomes unbearable as every other page has a character preaching about something. Give it a rest. The only thing I could appreciate was people smoking all the time, and waxing poetic about it. But even then, a bit cheesy.

As others have noticed, she was also kind of a terrible person in real life - which to me it does come through in the words.

She might have been intelligent in a conventional sense, but that just goes to show IQ can only do so much. She was good at exposing the horrors of the soviets, everything else is intellectual masturbation - and she didn't even have a dick, it was masturbation with a stolen dildo. Worst case of penis envy I've ever seen.

Ayn Rand's problems is that between Woodrow WIlson and FDR the US went insane. That Rand's writings imported some sanity is the root of her appeal. The problem with Rand is she also imports a lot of old woman insanity. This manifests itself in a number of ways, but mostly in her retreat to idealism and ideal things.

She proposes the men she lacked to foresight to attach to when she was younger were supermen because of some sort of communion with ideals and so long as these men communed with her idealism while going about the world and doing, intentionally or not. Then in Rand world everyone is equal and deserving of justice in proportion to how well they commune with her ideals.

It's a sort of Harry Potter Industrialist fanfic.

[Oberrheiner]

(02-11-2019 09:32 AM)911 Wrote:  

(02-10-2019 04:55 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

You guys do realize she was a mentally ill jewish degenerate, right? I can't belive there's a whole movement centered around this crazy bitch.

Makes you wonder how long he had to practice his scary pose in front of the mirror ..

It's not that easy to pull off when you basically have dumbo's ears, the photographer did a good job putting white books behind them so you don't notice them as much.

But ok I'll give him an extra point for the snake, that's a nice piece of peacocking ..

[puckerman]

(02-10-2019 10:17 AM)Heuristics Wrote:  

edit: as another poster said she's anti-feminism, anti-victim politics. She was ahead of her time by decades.

That video is worth a rep point. I don't think I have ever seen it before.