PDA

View Full Version : Atlas Shrugged [Rand]



nicholas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 12:21 PM
"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".

After reading John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged I am wondering what your views are on objectivism, i.e. using reason as a method of living.

This book spoke to me the way few others have. I've heard some say ayn rand was nuts but her books speak to m mind and heart like few others have.

If I choose to be an objectivist and use reason then I will have to change my life in drastic ways that are needed.

Anyone here ever read Atlas Shrugged? What are your thoughts? opinions?

Jack
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 01:18 PM
"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".

After reading John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged I am wondering what your views are on objectivism, i.e. using reason as a method of living.

Using reason to form one's ethics and being an Objectivist are two different things. Rand was severely erroneous about a few things. ;)


This book spoke to me the way few others have. I've heard some say ayn rand was nuts but her books speak to m mind and heart like few others have.

If I choose to be an objectivist and use reason then I will have to change my life in drastic ways that are needed.

Anyone here ever read Atlas Shrugged? What are your thoughts? opinions?

I read it, on average, 3 times a year, and I've done so for the past three years. I own all of her fiction. She's a powerful writer, sure.

Someone will doubtless soon enough scream 'She's a JEW!', which she is, ethnically, but I don't take that into account when I'm discussing philosophers (or those who pretend to be).

Man is not an 'individual'. He is a... dividual agent. He is a member of his race, his civilization, his ethnoculture, his social class, his occupation, his family, his subculture/clique, etc. These various elements of his identity combine to form his own self-perception, his identity. Some, of course, rank higher than others. Ask yourself: who are you? A Randroid (I've taken to the anti-Objectivist slang used to refer to Objectivists) can answer 'me'. But that's tautological, and says nothing.

Once you've defined yourself, or at least developed a functioning self-conception - then you are in a position to ask yourself: how can I live my life best? Which is in fact the question of ethiics.

Screw Rand, read Aristotle if you want some serious philosophy. And Nietzsche, and Heidegger, and Foucault.

nicholas
Thursday, March 23rd, 2006, 01:29 PM
What strikes me the most is how eloquently the position is stated that no one has any right to demand another persons sacrifice, nor be expected to sacrifice oneself for others.

As far as belonging to a group...I've really never had that, and few times I did there was no loyalty to me yet loyalty to others was expected of me.

One thing I am annoyed by in regards to both Rand and Neitzsche is that they seem to disregard the paranormal and supernatural which in my mind is only that in nature which we as humans do not understand.

I have much inner work to do.

celticviking
Sunday, April 8th, 2012, 09:46 PM
There is a movie about this:




Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart
Grant Bowler as Henry "Hank" Rearden
Matthew Marsden as James Taggart
Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt
Edi Gathegi as Edwin "Eddie" Willers
Jsu Garcia as Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia
Michael Lerner as Wesley Mouch
Jack Milo as Richard McNamara
Ethan Cohn as Owen Kellogg
Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden
Christina Pickles as Mother Rearden
Neill Barry as Philip Rearden
Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin
Sylva Kelegian as Ivy Starnes
Jon Polito as Orren Boyle
Michael O'Keefe as Hugh Akston
Geoff Pierson as Midas Mulligan
Armin Shimerman as Dr. Potter
Paul Johansson as John Galt (only in Part 1 as silhouetted figure wearing a trenchcoat and fedora




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged:_Part_I

Sehnsucht
Sunday, April 8th, 2012, 10:05 PM
I wondered what it was about so I read this. (http://sites.google.com/site/atlassucked/part-1) I think I'll pass.

Lady Vengeance
Sunday, April 8th, 2012, 11:51 PM
Using reason to form one's ethics and being an Objectivist are two different things. Rand was severely erroneous about a few things. ;) Man is not an 'individual'.
Right on. We're not "free individuals", we are born into living communities. Unless you're a teenage sperger who believes in Ayn Rand's sociopathic objectivism, you'd know that humans never lived single lives. For better or worse, we have always been a social species.

The biggest flaw in the Randroid worldview is the totally shallow view on human nature. Nobody is "born free" as the shut-in libertardians want to believe, actually a human is born as a helpless and naked mass of meat, depending on his parents and their civilization to fully become a human being. Without our collective (family, friends, society), we wouldn't have the exact personalities that we have. I wouldn't be Lady Vengeance if not for the human collective around me.

Objectivism is always about ME ME ME, and fuck everyone else. And yet, many grown-ups embrace this sperger crap. Why the libertardian loons are so incapable of thinking of anything in terms outside themselves is totally beyond me. They seriously think everything in a society should be bought and sold and owned "privately" by the heroic "self-made man", including even the government and national defense. Which is just retarded.

(I'm actually an individualist weirdo in my real life. I really despise the majority of people, the stupid masses, and part of me would love to be an all-powerful superwoman who doesn't need to give a shit about anything or anyone. So, in that way, I'm against all forms of mindless collectivism. However, I admit that we're social animals and ethnic collectivism is our nature. For better or worse.)

Todesritter
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 12:16 AM
I am in the top 1% physically (height & strength) & mentally (IQ) according to my home country's statistics: in a small hypothetical village of a hundred or so people, it would follow I would likely be the biggest, strongest & most intelligent.

In this hypothetical village, would my duty best be described as 'having my way with the whole village & community' (taking/'owning' whatever I want/am capable of getting away with) or 'being all the more obliged to support & help my village by virtue of my blessings which implicitly make me stronger than any other individual <though not the collective>'?

-----------
I would choose the later answer, making me implicitly the servant & friend of my inferior neighbors & kin to the degree my virtues oblige me, though I'd wager Rand would not approve :)

I view the randian ideal as delusional & myopic in theory, and parasitically sociopathic in practice.

In America, I see these types all the time 'cherry picking' which social benefits & which individualistic benefits they would have, though ascribing them all to being 'self made men', ignoring that what wealth they may have was been built on commerce dependent on roads & an economic structure others have sacrificed for. In essence, the subtext of their ideology is calling any of us who've sacrificed to build the structure upon which they acquired their wealth 'suckers'.

It is a sociopath who comes to a potluck, enjoying the hospitality of the community, while offering nothing in return or as little as they can get away with, and despising those who contribute.

While I might build the walls of my home, and the fence around my yard, their strength & value only come as a function of my neighbors' respect, and for their homes & yards only through my reciprocation of this respect.

Storm Saxon
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 01:53 AM
Objectivism is a philosophy that tells you to be your own man, think independently, and be free of the stupid masses that can't think for themselves. It makes a lot of sense, in that way.

On the other hand, ethnic solidarity with your own folk is also important. So I'm very ambiguous about the whole super-individualist idea overall.

Todesritter
Monday, April 9th, 2012, 11:35 PM
Perhaps germane:

'Niceness' / Pro-Communal Generosity Gene higher among Europeans http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1166723#post1166723 (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=1166723#post1166723)

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 01:27 AM
Right on. We're not "free individuals", we are born into living communities. Unless you're a teenage sperger who believes in Ayn Rand's sociopathic objectivism, you'd know that humans never lived single lives. For better or worse, we have always been a social species.

The biggest flaw in the Randroid worldview is the totally shallow view on human nature. Nobody is "born free" as the shut-in libertardians want to believe, actually a human is born as a helpless and naked mass of meat, depending on his parents and their civilization to fully become a human being. Without our collective (family, friends, society), we wouldn't have the exact personalities that we have. I wouldn't be Lady Vengeance if not for the human collective around me.

Objectivism is always about ME ME ME, and fuck everyone else. And yet, many grown-ups embrace this sperger crap. Why the libertardian loons are so incapable of thinking of anything in terms outside themselves is totally beyond me. They seriously think everything in a society should be bought and sold and owned "privately" by the heroic "self-made man", including even the government and national defense. Which is just retarded.

(I'm actually an individualist weirdo in my real life. I really despise the majority of people, the stupid masses, and part of me would love to be an all-powerful superwoman who doesn't need to give a shit about anything or anyone. So, in that way, I'm against all forms of mindless collectivism. However, I admit that we're social animals and ethnic collectivism is our nature. For better or worse.)


LOL!
You are taking it a bit to the extreme arenít you?
I mean no one really would expect Babies to fend for themselves.

velvet
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 01:57 AM
LOL!
You are taking it a bit to the extreme arenít you?
I mean no one really would expect Babies to fend for themselves.

As much as I could get from the review Sehnsucht linked (really couldnt read that drivel, not even as a negative review about it, it's all the shit that makes me flip, however), for Rand a baby therefore is a despicable creature, because it is helpless and dependent. Just as is anyone despicable who doesnt step ruthlessly over others to get what one wants.

Luckily Randroids (good word creation there, LV) have an inbuilt die-out mechanism, they just dont reproduce. Which imho is good, there's really no need for these kinds of psychopaths. :shrug

EQ Fighter
Tuesday, April 10th, 2012, 02:30 AM
As much as I could get from the review Sehnsucht linked (really couldnt read that drivel, not even as a negative review about it, it's all the shit that makes me flip, however), for Rand a baby therefore is a despicable creature, because it is helpless and dependent. Just as is anyone despicable who doesnt step ruthlessly over others to get what one wants.

Luckily Randroids (good word creation there, LV) have an inbuilt die-out mechanism, they just dont reproduce. Which imho is good, there's really no need for these kinds of psychopaths. :shrug

Well I cant say Iím an expert on Rand, but as far as the "Atlas Shrugged" Idea as I understand it is more or less a take on what happens when the producers of society dump the responsibility onto the none productive of society. IE the Welfare State.

And for the most part this seems to play in the real world pretty much that way. Where as "Government" is more or less a ceremonial crutch in the modern world, the Corporate Industry is the only real source of production. Without them the society dies or is defeated by outsiders.

Realistically though Babies, as I can see would more or less represent potential, to society. Dumping them would mean a dead society. I have not read any of Rands Views on babies though? So I cant validate what she thought about them.

On the other hand I think one issue we have here is an old one, and that is the way American's see economics vs the Way Europeans see it. So I think this could be part of the disagreement here.

Sehnsucht
Wednesday, April 11th, 2012, 02:00 PM
Well I cant say I’m an expert on Rand, but as far as the "Atlas Shrugged" Idea as I understand it is more or less a take on what happens when the producers of society dump the responsibility onto the none productive of society. IE the Welfare State.

The welfare state can include health care and increase the quality of life for those not at the helm of a company where the money is. A healthier workforce makes a more productive and healthier society. The ill are often a temporary out of action resource and there is always a pool of unemployed in a capitalist society. If these oh so great 'producers of society' can not distribute work and money well enough, there is a need for state taxes in the modern world. Mainly I am talking about the ruling and management classes here.


And for the most part this seems to play in the real world pretty much that way. Where as "Government" is more or less a ceremonial crutch in the modern world, the Corporate Industry is the only real source of production. Without them the society dies or is defeated by outsiders.

Not necessarily, industry can be nationalised. And looking at the capitalist west now, the Chinese are catching up fast and the western lands filled with immigrants and migrant workers.


Realistically though Babies, as I can see would more or less represent potential, to society. Dumping them would mean a dead society. I have not read any of Rands Views on babies though? So I cant validate what she thought about them.

In that review it explains how babies are dependent on their parents at the beginning of life, and how this goes against Rand's delusional idea of individual greatness. Rand is basically an elitist of the worst kind. In Atlas Shrugged she ignores that people do not create great industries by themselves, and that others make a contribution. Babies are not present in the story as there is no way they would fit in with this ultra-individualistic world view.


On the other hand I think one issue we have here is an old one, and that is the way American's see economics vs the Way Europeans see it. So I think this could be part of the disagreement here.

No. The disagreement is that Ayn Rand is a delusional nutter. I don't see the western elite as truly great, but wolves in sheep's clothing.

Sigyn
Saturday, April 14th, 2012, 08:47 PM
I tend to believe in a "golden middle way". Too much authoritarianism and state-controlled economy isn't the right solution, but neither is complete individualism and "free market as religion" a good thing for any society. Rand clearly does have some good ideas (that the majority of people in a welfare state are useless, and depend on a few creative minds), but her ideology taken as a whole isn't something I agree with.


Realistically though Babies, as I can see would more or less represent potential, to society. Dumping them would mean a dead society. I have not read any of Rands Views on babies though? So I cant validate what she thought about them.
I suspect Rand's books don't feature babies or families, because that goes against her objectivist, libertarian, hyper-individualist outlook on life.

Neophyte
Sunday, April 15th, 2012, 05:34 PM
Rosenbaum's (i.e. Rand's) objective was to teach us that Jews have unalienable rights in our nations.

Sigyn
Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 08:38 AM
Rosenbaum's (i.e. Rand's) objective was to teach us that Jews have unalienable rights in our nations.
I read somewhere that Ayn Rand's hatred of collectivism was because of the Russian Revolution, which her family escaped from. Being from a wealthy Jewish upper-class family, she looked down upon the collective. Ironic, since Jews were also overrepresented among the Bolsheviks. :P

Neophyte
Tuesday, April 17th, 2012, 05:38 PM
I read somewhere that Ayn Rand's hatred of collectivism was because of the Russian Revolution, which her family escaped from. Being from a wealthy Jewish upper-class family, she looked down upon the collective. Ironic, since Jews were also overrepresented among the Bolsheviks. :P

Or so she said. But remember that she, somehow, managed to get an exit visa from USSR and, unlike so many others, could leave the country legally. No Gulag for that little Jewish girl.

If you google Ayn Rand and Israel, you will see her come down on the predictable side. No surprises there.

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 03:18 AM
I tend to believe in a "golden middle way". Too much authoritarianism and state-controlled economy isn't the right solution, but neither is complete individualism and "free market as religion" a good thing for any society.

I think it is less a Religion and more the fact that Human beings are naturally driven by their self interest. Sometimes those self interest have positive effects, and some times they donít. I will assure you though the "State" has less control over the market than the Market has over the state.

Mexican Drug Lords have never had a problem with the "State" if the "State" gets out of hand they simply kill them off and replace them with more palatable individuals.



Rand clearly does have some good ideas (that the majority of people in a welfare state are useless, and depend on a few creative minds), but her ideology taken as a whole isn't something I agree with.

It is more like a few, criminal minds that have the motivation to dumb down the other 99% of the population so the real "Creative Minds" as you have it do not create a Revolution and remove them from their post.



I suspect Rand's books don't feature babies or families, because that goes against her objectivist, libertarian, hyper-individualist outlook on life.

I have only read a few of Rands Essays, and from those what I can say is her interpretation of "Government" is pretty much dead centre.

1) Human Beings are born greedy and selfish little bastards, form the time they are in the crib, to the day they are in the coffin. The only ones on the planet are worth a dam are the ones that through personal effort perfect themselves.

2) Guberment is now and always been a Racket to lift resources and support from the rest of the unsuspecting society for the "Common Good" which when translated means the Fat SOB's the run the Oligarchy.

3) Which ruffly means All forms of government are organized crime syndicates. The only real option is to create and maintain a dynamic system of checks and balances on power. And for those in power that cant understand the above provide for them a clear one way path to a dirt nap. :thumbup

EQ Fighter
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 03:22 AM
Luckily Randroids (good word creation there, LV) have an inbuilt die-out mechanism, they just dont reproduce. Which imho is good, there's really no need for these kinds of psychopaths. :shrug

Ok maybe I missed something here.

How is Rands writings connected with "Dieing Out" or have a built in die-out mechanism?

Sehnsucht
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 03:56 PM
I think it is less a Religion and more the fact that Human beings are naturally driven by their self interest. Sometimes those self interest have positive effects, and some times they donít. I will assure you though the "State" has less control over the market than the Market has over the state.

Surely the Free Market should be left to do what it likes! Problem solved! :blueroll: Humans are driven by their self interest? Surely the collective should be part of their interest or something is terribly wrong with society.


Mexican Drug Lords have never had a problem with the "State" if the "State" gets out of hand they simply kill them off and replace them with more palatable individuals.

A bit like the 'great men' who hold the money and power. Our corrupt elites.



It is more like a few, criminal minds that have the motivation to dumb down the other 99% of the population so the real "Creative Minds" as you have it do not create a Revolution and remove them from their post.

Woah, I sort of agree with you on something! And a lot of the 'useless' people are on welfare due to a broken society and system. It is easier to tar all the unemployed and ill with the lazy, useless and scum than fix any problems.


1) Human Beings are born greedy and selfish little bastards, form the time they are in the crib, to the day they are in the coffin. The only ones on the planet are worth a dam are the ones that through personal effort perfect themselves.

2) Guberment is now and always been a Racket to lift resources and support from the rest of the unsuspecting society for the "Common Good" which when translated means the Fat SOB's the run the Oligarchy.

3) Which ruffly means All forms of government are organized crime syndicates. The only real option is to create and maintain a dynamic system of checks and balances on power. And for those in power that cant understand the above provide for them a clear one way path to a dirt nap. :thumbup

1) Not true. And Western society and 'values' reinforce selfish behavior and attitudes.

2) And Libertarianism will solve this? Seems to me like it would reinforce and strengthen it.

3) Thomas Sankara's government was pretty good, despite it's flaws, until his French supported murder. Although I know he is a Marxist which might make him the route of all evil or something around here. :thumbsup

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara#Personal_image_and_popula rity

Neophyte
Wednesday, April 18th, 2012, 07:43 PM
Rand's views on government and collective interests is exactly what a Jew wants them to be for a non-Jew. She teaches that we have no collective interests, only personal interests, and that the free markets are the solution for all problems. The government and the courts will be restricted to guard our physical security in the narrowest sense and to the enforcement of contracts.

If so, please explain how the free markets will clear Europe of immigrants.

The very moment that you acknowledge that you and someone else, whom you do not know, have common political interests based on blood, you have invalidated Rand.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 12:58 AM
Rand's views on government and collective interests is exactly what a Jew wants them to be for a non-Jew. She teaches that we have no collective interests, only personal interests, and that the free markets are the solution for all problems. The government and the courts will be restricted to guard our physical security in the narrowest sense and to the enforcement of contracts.

If so, please explain how the free markets will clear Europe of immigrants.

The very moment that you acknowledge that you and someone else, whom you do not know, have common political interests based on blood, you have invalidated Rand.

As far as I can see the "Free Markets" did not bring in the immigrants it was the EU and European Lap Dog governments that did that. Am I not right?

As for myself I can say that as an American I can get just about any need and most wants fulfilled and most of that comes directly out of Market System innovation. Iím not saying there needs to be NO Government, just a small and focused one.

Also that does not mean that I support "Corporatism" which in reality is more or less a form of Leveraged Government, passed off on the business world. Small Business is where the innovation is and, it is where the Innovation will always be.

But here is one for you, How exactly, or exactly what plan does the Swedish government have for dealing with the Immigrants?

EQ Fighter
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 01:37 AM
The welfare state can include health care and increase the quality of life for those not at the helm of a company where the money is. A healthier workforce makes a more productive and healthier society. The ill are often a temporary out of action resource and there is always a pool of unemployed in a capitalist society. If these oh so great 'producers of society' can not distribute work and money well enough, there is a need for state taxes in the modern world. Mainly I am talking about the ruling and management classes here.

Only Problem here is the "State" distributes wealth way worse than the most greedy corporation does, out of shear inefficiency.

I will agree with you on one point and that is Heath Care should, or the basics of it, should be to some degree socialized. But here again we come with a problem.

That problem is called the US Democratic Party, who have repeatedly used "Health Care" as a tool for power. Once again the "State" cannot be trusted to do its job correctly, or even half ass.

So MOST Americans are NOT Stupid enough to let them have any control until they can clean up their act. Which I think is NOT going to happen.



Not necessarily, industry can be nationalised. And looking at the capitalist west now, the Chinese are catching up fast and the western lands filled with immigrants and migrant workers.

The Chinese are every bit as Capitalist as the US or the other So Called Western countries. Might I also add the "West" has taken on all sorts of social disease, that they will not let lose from for "Moral Reasons". What ever economic system you put them under, they will fail.




In that review it explains how babies are dependent on their parents at the beginning of life, and how this goes against Rand's delusional idea of individual greatness. Rand is basically an elitist of the worst kind. In Atlas Shrugged she ignores that people do not create great industries by themselves, and that others make a contribution. Babies are not present in the story as there is no way they would fit in with this ultra-individualistic world view.

Ok first and foremost I'M NOT an apologist for Rand, but Iím also not a lap dog for the "Anti-Market" Kooks. And I hate to tell them Markets are going to be here for a long, long time. And the point about the "Drug Lords" is the "State" here in the US has been fighting them with military grade weapons for years, and I think we know who is winning that one.

The Crooks all know the "State" is a scam, and sooner or later they will exploit its weakness. The "State" as it currently exist is a loser prospect, no matter how high the ideals, it will go under. And even at its best it is Arbitrary Bull Shit that is decided upon by people that most likely never understood the problem in the first place.

velvet
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 02:03 AM
As far as I can see the "Free Markets" did not bring in the immigrants it was the EU and European Lap Dog governments that did that. Am I not right?

The "free markets" imported slaves to America, today (illegal) immigrants fill that role. It was the Liberal/Libertarian view point that an employer can do whatever maximises profits and the govt doesnt have to mess with that. Immigrants are ALWAYS cheaper, whether it's a Mexican or Chinese working for a Dollar/h in a restaurant in America, or a German immigrant 2-star cook immigrating to Switzerland. Again it was the Liberal/Libertarian opinion that work contracts are their thing alone, that govt doesnt have to mess with that, and that the Unions and the socialistic Governments of Europe "hinder" free market with protecting the wage level. In America the Unions are seen as the arch enemy of America. Everyone somehow believes that, and then points at the government - that same government that doesnt have to mess with anything private people do or not do - and whine that they let the immigrants in. Errr, yeah..... right :scratch



Oh, thanks (not!) for "exporting" this nonsense to Europe. We could have lived well without that :)

EQ Fighter
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 03:45 AM
Oh, thanks (not!) for "exporting" this nonsense to Europe. We could have lived well without that :)

I think the Germans were already engaging in a market system even back to the Roman period.

So maybe you guys exported it to us :P

In any case the "Salves" were imported by imperialist hundreds of years in the past, and for the most part it was a corporatist enterprise. And official Libertarianism had not even been invented at the time.



Immigrants are ALWAYS cheaper, whether it's a Mexican or Chinese working for a Dollar/h in a restaurant in America, or a German immigrant 2-star cook immigrating to Switzerland.

Not really because when you start adding up the cost, you have to factor in all the extra expenses that you get with extra people. In reality it is almost always cheaper to Do It Yourself, and that goes for the individual as well as the nation.

In the modern era with Mechanization machines can do practically everything cheaper and at higher quality than any human, emigrant or not.

On the other hand, for a Government and especially interest groups that want to overturn the existing population then importing "Immigrants" in the name of Cheap Labour are an ideal option to get instant support.

What we should be discussing here is not how bad the market system is, but how to move things to the next phase. And that would be how to decentralize production, and open up the business world so corporations do NOT OWN everything.

IE get rid of Patent Law copyright law. Farm out R&D to small development groups. Then Allow the end result to be sold and produced in multiple communities.

IE a Practical Option as opposed to a Imaginary Option.

I think these things can be done even against the will of the Globalist.

Oh and Labor Unions were NOT Arch Enemies in the US until they were taken over by Ass Wipes like the Democratic Farm Labour organization. Or the modern Democratic Party in the US.

Oski
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 04:49 AM
To me, race is the natural collective, not the state. Individuals comprise this race and the extreme individuals create its culture. The big debate should be between the state and the individual.

Should the state be able to oppress an individual of your race if they have harmed none?

Does the state define your race and culture or do the individuals?

If you were the head of state, would you oppress the individuals that have not harmed your race because of petty disagreements?

To me, statism exists to empower itself, and to destroy my race, the state is this selfish child with a utopian dream.

EQ Fighter
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 05:02 AM
To me, statism exists to empower itself, and to destroy my race, the state is this selfish child with a utopian dream.

That pretty much sums it up!

Bittereinder
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 06:15 AM
She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Once von Mises referred to Rand as "the most courageous man in America," a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said "man" instead of "woman." Rand also developed a friendship with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned the well-informed Paterson about American history and politics long into the night during their numerous meetings and gave Paterson ideas for her only nonfiction book, The God of the Machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Rand was a fan of people known for seminal works such as Individualism and Economic Order; Man, Economy, and State Etc.

Helen Zille and many other diaspora jews took their que from this behaviour, With links to george soro's open institute’s and the like, always in activism, journalism and the running of political parties. It is unlikely that this behaviour originated with Rosenbaum.

Interesting that she would stage her story in the milieu of the Greek deities to weave her lie around, the society she speaks of is the one to which we are regressing because of the work that she and her ilk have been working toward so diligently, it is South Africa as it is today:


However, rather than do anything like that, she constructs a totally bizarre world in which the vast majority of people are total morons, barely capable of feeding themselves, while a very small number of elites know everything, can do anything, and are the only adults in a nation of toddlers.

This setup simply creates a straw man for Rand to blast away at, telling us that the prime movers of her fantasy world are identical to people in our own world, who are "victimized" by the unwashed masses because of their "greatness." But even Rand understood that the people of her own time were nothing like this, which is why she pulled all of her characters and situations from a mythic bygone era, relying on America's cultural memory to give them any credibility and relevance in the modern age

From the link Sehnsucht posted: http://sites.google.com/site/atlassucked/part-1

She is so fixated on her hate for her enemy, Amalek AKA Roman/Christian/Germanic/Latin influenced west that she defecates over one of the oldest myth’s in the “western” world, she makes it a tool for spreading their agenda. The church used pagan symbols to aid conversion so that some people’s heads where spared from being lobbed off in the end. The west is a construct which was first recognised by jews because they needed to identify their target market, and since that day it has been promulgated in the “west”.

Sigyn
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 06:21 AM
Or so she said. But remember that she, somehow, managed to get an exit visa from USSR and, unlike so many others, could leave the country legally. No Gulag for that little Jewish girl.
Thanks, I didn't know that. I'll google it.

Still, this doesn't mean she didn't believe in her own extreme-individualist politics, just that she hypocritically had a tribal loyalty to her fellow Jews. Many people are able to hold contradictory beliefs in their heads at the same time.

Neophyte
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 01:46 PM
As far as I can see the "Free Markets" did not bring in the immigrants it was the EU and European Lap Dog governments that did that. Am I not right?

Well then... Just disband the Border Patrol, let the police focus on providing physical security and leave it to the free markets to deport all your illegal aliens. I'm sure that all the Mexicans would be out of Texas by the end of summer.


As for myself I can say that as an American I can get just about any need and most wants fulfilled and most of that comes directly out of Market System innovation. I’m not saying there needs to be NO Government, just a small and focused one.

Pool boys, cheap housemaids, gardeners. Yes, the Holy Market provides.


But here is one for you, How exactly, or exactly what plan does the Swedish government have for dealing with the Immigrants?

Oh boy, you really do not see the woods for the trees. Ask not what your government is doing for you, but what you can do about your government.

velvet
Thursday, April 19th, 2012, 07:24 PM
I think the Germans were already engaging in a market system even back to the Roman period.

Maybe you, along with most of your fellow Americans, should actually have a look into the difference between (random) market systems and Liberal Free Market Capitalism, and understand what this "liberal free" in there actually means.

It's really tiresome to discuss a topic with defendends of a system that they dont even understand, or deny what it generates in the real world.

For a start, NS Germany was, China and Japan are "capitalist" nations, but they are not "liberal free market capitalist" nations. There's giant difference.



In any case the "Slaves" were imported by imperialist hundreds of years in the past, and for the most part it was a corporatist enterprise. And official Libertarianism had not even been invented at the time.

But it's been the same people who pinned down the Liberal / Libertarian ideology. In order to not have the nations, the people, the govt mess with their profit. It's these same people who invented (and really literally invented) the atomised individual and its "inherent natural enmity" to its own nation.



Not really because when you start adding up the cost, you have to factor in all the extra expenses that you get with extra people. In reality it is almost always cheaper to Do It Yourself, and that goes for the individual as well as the nation.

Thanks to Liberal Free Market Capitalism, extra costs, or even the real costs of a product are not factored, and this is really the only reason why societies (as the collection - not collective - of individuals who happen to share a living space) still exist, to make them pay for these costs in order to maximise profits for the corporations.



On the other hand, for a Government and especially interest groups that want to overturn the existing population then importing "Immigrants" in the name of Cheap Labour are an ideal option to get instant support.

It's interesting that we, Germany, after WWII, when the US had "liberated" us and had enforced "liberal free market capitalism", that our govt wanted to pin down strict rules for guestworkers, so that they'd leave after max 2 years, and the Turks no one wanted, not the govt, not the people, not the companies, not the unions, no one. It was the US that enforced that we take them in. And it was the US that then enforced their stay on grounds of "human rights". And it was the "human rights" proxy that enforced "freedom of religion".

It is, btw, the most retarded argument that a govt would profit from (illegal) immigrants. Illegals cannot vote, so there is no way to gain any support from illegals. And legal immigrants, of the non-western extraction, reject democracy and dont go voting even if they can. So it's utter BS.

Maybe in the US illegals can vote? I dont know.



What we should be discussing here is not how bad the market system is, but how to move things to the next phase. And that would be how to decentralize production, and open up the business world so corporations do NOT OWN everything.

IE get rid of Patent Law copyright law. Farm out R&D to small development groups. Then Allow the end result to be sold and produced in multiple communities.

Aha, and who is going to enforce decentralisation, when private corporations already own everything - including the government (everything must be privately owned in liberalism/libertarianism, there's even talk about privatising the courts and prisons in America!) - and would never in their dreams think about giving up their Patent Laws (which is a pivotal point of Liberalism to protect the interests of the inventor and get rid off competitors), and even more, right now introduce SOPA / PIPA and ACTA to protect their inventions and products world wide?

You see, capitalism, when left unchecked, ie liberal free market capitalism, will ALWAYS - and MUST - propell towards Monopolies, it's inbuilt. It's not a "flaw" of the current implentation, it is an inbuilt mechanism.

You call that "competition", where the "bigger" eats the "smaller" competitor, and eliminates the competitor with that. In that process, concurrenting inventions, which regularly represent the better product, vanish in drawers forever so the products of the winning competitor dominate the market while the better products never see the light of day. When you want to generate maximum profits, it's not in your interest to produce products that last forever, the Light Bulb Mafia f.e. invested millions to find out a way that light bulbs would die after 1000 hours usage, because the original Wolfram light bulbs lasted literally forever. There's one still lighting a fire station in America, it recently celebrated it 100th anniversary. That's not very profit oriented, now is it?

Mass production is only profitable with low quality products. Or rather, low quality is a precondition for profit generation. So "competition", since it is reduced to price and profit, ie the financial aspect, is inherently opposed to quality.



IE a Practical Option as opposed to a Imaginary Option.

Again, who is going to enforce this practical option against the corporate interests?




To me, race is the natural collective, not the state. Individuals comprise this race and the extreme individuals create its culture. The big debate should be between the state and the individual.

"Extreme" individuals do not create culture, they are anti-social and usually consider themselves to stand above profane things like "culture".

But when you think that race is a natural collective, and this natural collective comprises a nation, do you imagine that this nation-collective has no right to organise it's culture into a political entity, ie a state?

Look at the Indian Nations in your country what happens when your "nation" is merely a recognition of ethnicity, but that they further have no rights to claim their own territory, where their laws rule, where their culture is dominant and the governing culture etc. They cease to exist. Because they have no means to protect themselves.


The kind of fantasy of an anarchic, self-governing people is a fantasy of the stone age, when humanity around the globe consisted of maybe a million people world wide and there was basically no contact between races. Yet, we know that tribes did protect their tribal territory against other tribes, even back then. And they had chieftains and a council of elders looking over and governing the tribe.

A nation, as the recognised entity within international law today, comprising the ethnicity AND their nation's territory with recognised borders is a necessity in a world with hundreds of tribes/ethnities claiming self-governance for themselves. The state, as the political organisation of that ethnicity is likewise a necessity both for internal and external representation and communication with other nations.

It is on very same plane natural to form an organisation as the collective is natural that comprises the nation.

The government is a product of that collective.

Then came Liberalism (in the 18th century, btw, read up on Locke), created the "anti-social individual", teached that anti-social individual that is has rights that exceed the rights of its collective nation as a whole, and also didnt forget to teach the anti-social individual that the state, therefore, is its arch enemy wanting to cut the imaginary rights that exceed the rights of the collective, that allegedly "natural" collective, and created the "hostile government" as the product of the anti-social individual.


Which is the most unnatural seperation of individual<->nation that could possibly have been invented.



Should the state be able to oppress an individual of your race if they have harmed none?

So you think, because it doesnt do direct harm to anyone, that individuals should be allowed to import cheap labor (aka immigrants) or products that, although they dont do harm to other individuals directly, but to the collective (through making jobs superfluous because the products imported are "cheaper" to produce elsewhere than inside the nation), because that individual has the right to generate profit regardless of the side effects this has on the collective?

And is is a collective, that takes care of its interests as a whole, "oppressive" to an individual that breaks the collective's rules and laws and undermines its self-interests in favor of that individual's egoism and greed?

Is a collective "oppressive" when it enforces its rules and laws, or can the individual do whatever it pleases with no regards to rules and laws and the collective interests?




If you were the head of state, would you oppress the individuals that have not harmed your race because of petty disagreements?

When it endangers the functioning of the collective society with its ideas, workings, writings, ideas, products and employment conditions, isnt it rather my job, as the head of my nation-state, to enforce the protection of my race-nation against pity, egoistic desires of an anti-social individual?

EQ Fighter
Friday, April 20th, 2012, 01:40 AM
Well then... Just disband the Border Patrol, let the police focus on providing physical security and leave it to the free markets to deport all your illegal aliens. I'm sure that all the Mexicans would be out of Texas by the end of summer.

Honestly man we have a volunteer group here called the Minutemen, and they have done a far better job then the well paid "Border Patrol".

The real issue here is the Texas, Arizona, and California border is hundreds of miles wide. If you doubt me check it out on Google earth. In some places all you need to do is drive across in a four wheel drive vehicle.

The US Federal government is virtually worthless at patrolling any of this, and attempts to control the flow of drugs by "Law Enforcement" basically works as a artificial scarcity on the supply of Drugs. So this Law drives up the price and makes it very lucrative to push drugs. So much to the point that when the Cops do show up they are facing down Drug Dealers that armed like a military complete with Humvee with top mount .50 caliber machine guns.

To make matters worse the BATF and CIA are themselves more or less and organized crime syndicate, and have been since the Vietnam war.

My point here is there MUST ALWAYS be some sort of oversight of government or else you have a crime syndicate. The BECOME the criminals.




Pool boys, cheap housemaids, gardeners. Yes, the Holy Market provides. Florida maybe, not Texas.

And to be honest the first Immigrants in Texas were white and mostly from Germany brought in by the Mexican Government to "Settle the Land".
Battle of San Jacinto From Wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_San_Jacinto)


During the early years of Mexican independence, numerous American immigrants had settled in Mexican Texas, then a part of the state of Coahuila y Tejas, with the Mexican government's encouragement.[3] In 1835 they rebelled against the Mexican government of Santa Anna because he rescinded the democratic Constitution of 1824, dissolved Mexico's Congress and state legislatures, and asserted dictatorial control over the nation.[4] After capturing military outposts and defeating the Mexican army garrisons in the area, the Texans drove the remaining Mexican forces from Texas after a siege and a major confrontation in San Antonio.[5] Texans then formed a provisional government and drafted a Declaration of Independence.[6]



Oh boy, you really do not see the woods for the trees. Ask not what your government is doing for you, but what you can do about your government.

Sounds like a JFK Quote, sorry man that was a bit before my time and he was a democrat, so not a party I support.

In any case I will restate the question, Do you have any hope of the Swedish Government or for that mater any government, market forces or otherwise will take action and correct any immigration problems.

I personally would think not.

In fact they are probably not even capable of it. And if they were it would be against "Multiculturalism" which is a dynamic which they feed on. Do not expect the dog to give up his food bowl without taking your hand off.

Immigration is a cultural problem, NOT a government problem, the only real solution is to offset the incoming with the internal. IE to have your own people as place keepers in the system. If a native is in the seat then a Immigrant cannot fill the seat.

One final thing, there seems to be some misinterpretation about Mexicans here, in comparison to say Arabs who are the primary invaders in Europe.

Mexicans are brown and so are Arabs, but beyond that there is not much they have in-common. I think Arabs are driven to far more of a degree, than say the Mexicans, who are driven by self interest. Granted there are things I do not like a about Mexicans or Mexican culture, but the same could be said about some of white culture.

Another point here, is that even though you have Mexican and say German communities in Texas, there has never been a problem with the "Multicultural stuff until the post war 1960's era. That is the Shit ideology that brought in the the social disease that has swept the face of the earth. That is the disease that needs to be cured.

Oski
Friday, April 20th, 2012, 04:47 AM
But when you think that race is a natural collective, and this natural collective comprises a nation, do you imagine that this nation-collective has no right to organise it's culture into a political entity, ie a state?


If that were to happen (a racial state, a racial republic) you could, with a proper constitution, protect the individual's natural rights and the nation as a whole from from racial aliens immigrating. What you end up with is a germanic country with its people free from a government that oversteps its boundaries.


So you think, because it doesnt do direct harm to anyone, that individuals should be allowed to import cheap labor (aka immigrants) or products that, although they dont do harm to other individuals directly, but to the collective (through making jobs superfluous because the products imported are "cheaper" to produce elsewhere than inside the nation), because that individual has the right to generate profit regardless of the side effects this has on the collective?


When it endangers the functioning of the collective society with its ideas, workings, writings, ideas, products and employment conditions, isnt it rather my job, as the head of my nation-state, to enforce the protection of my race-nation against pity, egoistic desires of an anti-social individual?

Sounds egoistic :silly

If the immigration of non germanic people is considered harmful by the constitution, then that solves the whole immigration issue when it comes to the topic of individual and the state.

I'm talking about a germanic america with a constitutional republic form of government that has no racial-others, whats so wrong about that?

solkorset
Saturday, April 21st, 2012, 07:50 PM
I read Ayn Rand's (Alicia Rosenbaum's) books many years ago and came under her spell. Looking back I think I can make out what attracted me to her. I grew up in a social democracy which discouraged young people to develop their potential and excel. Gifted and clever youngsters striving to achieve something were resented, ignored, obstructed and bullied. The social atmosphere was a cult of the weak, miserable and depraved. Society so to speak approved of failures. We were expected to drive around in cars playing noisy rock music, drinking and smoking dope, engaging in indiscriminate promiscuous sex, being generally silly and primitive. Those of us who weren't comfortable with such a lifestyle were looking desperately for a spiritual leader who could confirm our moral worth.

I hated the political and cultural climate in that society. It was crassly materialistic and denied everything beautiful and noble in life. It denied the importance of an upright character and a moral life. A bold and radical voice to support me in that distress was nowhere to be found - until I chanced on this jewish witch. After all the intellectual cowardice I had seen I felt liberated by her fearless and confident radicality in an anti-marxist direction. It wasn't difficult in this newfound bliss of hope to shut my eyes to her ugly doctrines. I suppose I unconsciously reinvented her in my imagination.

I contacted a group of socalled "objectivists" and attended a meeting. It was an eyeopener; I woke up from my idyll. They hadn't had any new members for twenty years. For all the rhetoric about reason and rationality they were utterly closed to my attempts to discuss Rand's ideas. They laughed at everything I said and rejected it out of hand like so much baby babble. They didn't discuss anything among themselves either, they listened to recorded lectures and when they were finished they didn't even express any thoughts or feelings about what they had heard. The lectures were dry, abstract, simplistic and boring. Later I read about other groups and Rand herself and her disciples. There probably never was a more tyrannical sect guru. She deprived her disciples of all personality, reacting aggressively, even furiously, at the least departure from her barren thought matrix and any expression of personal character. Those who didn't get out became timid empty shells, keeping silent and doing what they were told and asking the timid questions she sort of put in your mouth.

Being used to being an independent minded outsider I got out before I ever properly got in. I had occasion to speculate on the fascination of her novels and the nature of her ideas. What attracted me to her was her hero worship, her celebration of the strong independent courageous man sacrificing everything for his convictions, fearing nothing. This she had picked from various germanic authors like Ibsen, Shakespeare and Victor Hugo. It was a powerful antidote to social democracy. But when I tried to justify her doctrines about ethics and politics I could not. Much as it ran counter to the prevailing social system - at which I rejoiced! - it wasn't tenable either, in fact it was indefensible.

My understanding of Rand now is this: She used some germanic ideals as a carrot to lure young germanic men frustrated with cultural marxism and liberalism into her trap. Her doctrines are actually an unabashed statement of ugly jewish character pretending to be an ideal! She celebrates egoism and antisocial ruthless brutal coldhearted ambition. All her "heroes" in the novels are sociopaths, isolated persons hating humanity, having no family and rarely friends. Children do not exist in her world. Love and compassion are completely absent. Sex is almost always rape! Trying to live according to her ideas would be utterly destructive to germanic community and heritage.

Rand always pretended to be anti-communist, but I wonder. Her personality and doctrines are strikingly similar to bolshevism. I guess it's the jewishness that they have in common. Just about every jewish woman in politics is a feminist, atheist, communist, sexual "liberator" etc. What's the difference between Emman Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, Golda Meir and Alicia Rosenbaum? I think if you study them closely you'll find an essential unity.

An interesting question is whether she was sent to America as a soviet agent. Could well be. And she cooperated with powerful New York jews. She claims that she took the name Rand from her type writer, but the Rand Corporation has been busy with mind control technology. See f.ex. http://www.whale.to/b/tav.html#RAND_RESEARCH_AND_DEVELOPMENT_C ORPORATION__ where we read: In Educating for the New World Order, B.K. Eakman tells of a training manual for "change agents" developed for the U.S. government by Rand Corporation: " ... for the purpose of exploring ways to 'freeze' and 'unfreeze' values, 'to implement change,' and to turn potentially hostile groups and committees into acquiescent, rubber-stamp bodies by means of such strategies as the 'Delphi Technique.' ... BRAINWASHING remains the primary function of RAND

Is it possible that Rosenbaum was working in a Rand Corporation project? The founder of this corporation was a fellow jew, Herman Kahn.

Anyway, the main target of her agitation was Germany. She hated everything german, not just the NS party. She hated german thinkers (notably Immanuel Kant) and poets and musicians (Beethoven). She got hysterical by the mere mention of Germany. Her most important novel, The Fountainhead, was published during the war, and one should suspect that it was part of american war propaganda. As already suggested she takes some of the most appealing aspects of the german spirit, of National Socialism, and gives them a jewish packaging, a venomous potion dished out as propaganda for America. In this way she rounds up those americans who might harbour sympathies for National Socialism and makes them an instrument of jewish capitalism and the rule of money.

EQ Fighter
Sunday, April 22nd, 2012, 06:03 AM
I had occasion to speculate on the fascination of her novels and the nature of her ideas. What attracted me to her was her hero worship, her celebration of the strong independent courageous man sacrificing everything for his convictions, fearing nothing.


I would say this was for sure not something invented by Ayn Rand. But a great ideal, and has been a great Ideal, for Germanic men for a very long time.

I can say that is the thing that attracted me to some of her stuff as well, but I have never really been any sort of follower in the true since of the word.

Oski
Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 06:32 AM
I look at this forum as the ultimate example and voluntarist form of ethnic and racial collectivism on the internet. No one if forcing us individuals to be here. Individuals can do do this in real life without displacing another collective of humans or oppressing our own collective with violent statism. We can have a race without crushing our member's individuality, this forum is proof. For example: You can be pro-germanic and contribute to us constructively and peacefully for the advancement of our race, or you are free to leave. If you initiate hostilities towards individuals of merit or towards our race as a whole, you can be banned.

velvet
Wednesday, April 25th, 2012, 02:40 PM
I look at this forum as the ultimate example and voluntarist form of ethnic and racial collectivism on the internet. No one if forcing us individuals to be here. Individuals can do do this in real life without displacing another collective of humans or oppressing our own collective with violent statism. We can have a race without crushing our member's individuality, this forum is proof. For example: You can be pro-germanic and contribute to us constructively and peacefully for the advancement of our race, or you are free to leave. If you initiate hostilities towards individuals of merit or towards our race as a whole, you can be banned.

But isnt this ultimately oppressive on the banned individual? Dont we enforce a certain standard by banning someone?

Yes we do. Because we consider the standard of pro-Germanicism to be more important than the whims of a random individual.

So in fact, Skadi is a benevolent dictatorship, in which only those individuals enjoy freedom who comply to the standard of pro-Germanicism.

While your joining is volunatary, your continued membership depends on your compliance to the standard. The community and Skadi's expressed pro-Germanicism will always trump the individual's whims. The moment you transgress the standard, your individual voluntarism ceases to have meaning.


It's simply an Illusion that a community, whether virtual or a real life one, works solely on voluntarism. Either it enforces standards, or it becomes the mess we find in the real world because standards=discriminatory to the whims of egotistic individuals.



If that were to happen (a racial state, a racial republic) you could, with a proper constitution, protect the individual's natural rights and the nation as a whole from from racial aliens immigrating. What you end up with is a germanic country with its people free from a government that oversteps its boundaries.

If you have a powerless state that cannot enforce standards, because you think that this is overstepping its boundaries, it can also not uphold the constitution, or any law for that matter. It can also not protect the borders, because you deny the state to have military personell to do so.

You see, America's problem is that individuals rallied for 200 years against a "strong government", 100 years ago your government became a private corporation over which you no longer have control as the voting sheeple. Your constitution has become a worthless piece of paper. Your law bases on "contemporary interpretations", not on written words. Americans take pride in that fact, because it makes the law "flexible" and "progressive". In truth this means that "law" doesnt exist. It is a reflection of fashion of the thoughts of the judges. America had a law that prohibited immigration of Eastern Europeans (and specially their Jews), today America houses more Jews than live in Israel. Why? Because the one in charge just ignored it, and an established fact overrides law, the law adjusts to the whims and indeed lawbreaking of individuals. There is no one, because there is no government that could possibly protect its standards, who could prevent this from happening.

Long story short: if you dont enforce standards and dont have the power to enforce standards, standards simply dont exist. Everyone does how he wants and any try to enforce standards is rejected with hinting on the "individual rights" to do whatever you want to do.

America has exactly the government it wants. A private club powerless to enforce standards, but beside that free to do whatever it wants. So what do you whine about? You have all the freedom you want. Everyone can do how he pleases. Import cheap products, import cheap labor, no one oppresses poor individuals who just look for a better life in the American Nightmare, you're free do run whatever business you want (provided you can stink against the corporations that rule the sector) or you can decide to live under the radar and log out of the system and no one will come to get you back in.

You dont want standards, and even less you want that standards get enforced.

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 01:38 PM
Ayn Rand's novels are like reading Nietzsche repackaged for dolts, after being filtered through US culture with its very different kind of individualism. Rand was too intelligent and educated to believe it herself and she even called her inner circle a collective.

Objectivists seem to have died down since the early noughties when they were a regular feature on debate boards. But they are still worth listening to. Nowadays the same people are drawn to Molyneux's paranoia.

SpearBrave
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 04:02 PM
Having read Atlas Shrugged and Fountain Head I think she was a powerful writer, but as far as her objectivism theories go I find a lot of contradiction even in her books. She does a great job of exposing crony capitalism where big corporations hold sway over government policy (USA). But she fails to explain true individualism.

Rand in both her writing and personal life had no sense of dedication to others. She was a hedonist with both the characters in her books and real life. Her characters had extra material affairs and so did she with members of her inner circles. Sorry, imo but a person that cheats is not a person of high moral character and should not be trusted.

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 04:09 PM
If people cannot explain or define true individualism that's maybe because the individual is a phantom. It is. Absurd to consider any one individual apart from their habitus. Individualist theory (if it can be called that) ignores evolutionary biology, sociology, social anthropology, psychology and probably countless other things. It appeals because we all get frustrated sometimes with social impositions: some people take this to an unhealthy degree.

SpearBrave
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 04:16 PM
I don't think there is such a thing as individualism when it comes to political or social theories. However a person can go their own way within society and create and build a life for themselves without governmental or social structures. So, the term should not be used to describe any sort of movement or ideology.

Catterick
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 07:59 PM
I don't think there is such a thing as individualism when it comes to political or social theories. However a person can go their own way within society and create and build a life for themselves without governmental or social structures. So, the term should not be used to describe any sort of movement or ideology.

The Western emphasis on individualism as most would understand it is deeply related to Liberalism in its various forms, and is maybe the only thing that unites them. Kita Ikki was thinking of liberalism when he described Individualism in negative terms; J Evola used the word "Americanism" with which it has become synonymous.

SpearBrave
Saturday, February 11th, 2017, 08:54 PM
The Western emphasis on individualism as most would understand it is deeply related to Liberalism in its various forms, and is maybe the only thing that unites them. Kita Ikki was thinking of liberalism when he described Individualism in negative terms; J Evola used the word "Americanism" with which it has become synonymous.

I don't think so, at least not in the present times. I think the days of the so called "American Individualism" are a thing of the past in America. I think much of that went away with the frontier land being settled.

Sure one can still be a self made person by following his own path outside of the norms of society, but that is exactly what they will be is outside of society. In many cases that is the story of my own life. I really don't know or associate with many of the people in America. I don't watch TV, follow sports, have kids in the local soccer league or even have the same dress or customs of my surroundings. Sure I function and even prosper to a degree, but I'm not really part of the community. It is a very lonely life and it is good sometimes and bad others. Given all that I would not call it an ideology in the sense of the word for politics or social reasons. If anything it is anti-social and anti-political.