What is Your Opinion of Ayn Rand?

[EQ Fighter]

Indeed. A. Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf" that during WW1 the Germans didn't get their propaganda right, because while the English were fighting for "Freedom", Germans were fighting for "Duty", I'm not really sure whether he was right, because one cannot deny the accomplishments of the German military, and their sense of sacrifice.
Yet, it is surly strong propaganda, as is exemplified through the seemingly majoritarian consent here, that my quote of Schopenhauer somehow implied embracing "loneliness" or "being alone" as a superior state of mind, while it was in fact a simple, pragmatic conclusion.
The truth is that humans give up freedom for the sake of community and belonging, even by biological determinism, and that "freedomism" in the Anglo-Western sense is thus illusive, then again being self delusional to cope seems very (sub-)human as well.
Hitler himself was pretty clear though:

I would say that "Duty" begins with oneself, then ones family, then friends, local clan, and finally the state comes in dead last.

And then only assuming the "Nation State" is beneficial to the people that are creating it in.

The problem being that once you get groups of people over certain sizes, then you end up with disorganized idiocy, as corruption works its way in.

And in that since Nazi Germany, were no difference than the US or the Soviet Union in the context they were trying to build a Germanic imperialism.

I'm pretty sure that the way forward is not with large centralized corrupt governments, which have plenty of holes for Jew/Bolshevik shysters to make their permanent homes.

[SaxonCeorl]

As I said, I didn't really like Atlas Shrugged and I find her a bit arrogant, but she is brilliant in this interview discussing religion and reason.

Ayn Rand on Religion and Reason

What she says about God and religion giving men permission to behave irrationally is brilliant. That is perhaps my biggest criticism of religion (and I have many). It allows people to neglect responsibility for their own actions. We are alone in this world, and we are the sole powers. We have to deal with the consequences of that.

And here is Ms. Rand telling it like it is about the Arabs:

Ayn Rand on Arabs

I'd say that's a pretty spot-on account of them Whoever posted the video has a pro-Arab agenda, but I think Rand's words speak for themself.

[Jäger]

I would say that "Duty" begins with oneself, then ones family, then friends, local clan, and finally the state comes in dead last.

"Duties" are the antipoles of "rights", your duties are with those who grant you the rights you need/want, there is no hierarchy of duties, since a duty is a duty is a duty

The problem being that once you get groups of people over certain sizes, then you end up with disorganized idiocy, as corruption works its way in.

Yes, the problem of anonymity is tremendous, that's why A. Hitler (re-)introduced the genius Führerprinzip

I'm pretty sure that the way forward is not with large centralized corrupt governments, which have plenty of holes for Jew/Bolshevik shysters to make their permanent homes.

I agree. A small, centralized, leading elite (which implements this idea recursively), is enough. NS was pretty progressive here

[Elessar]

Ayn Rand on Arabs

I'd say that's a pretty spot-on account of them Whoever posted the video has a pro-Arab agenda, but I think Rand's words speak for themself.

You realize Rand is a jew right? Of course she hates Arabs and promotes Zionism.







Oh Yes! Arabs are dirty savages and Israel is the shining gleam of hope and peace for the Middle-East. (I left out the more grotesque photos of maimed and bloodied Palestinian women & children for decencies sake.)

The only reason Israel is "more techonologicaly advanced" is because it's the bastard child of the developed Western world, with all its technology and weapons funded and created by the US, Germany, etc etc.

I don't believe that tripe for one second.

[SaxonCeorl]

I know she was Jewish. That doesn't invalidate her assessment of Arabs.

[Elessar]

What I'm trying to get at here is that she is predisposed to praise Israel and vilify Arabs. Neither are so pious that they're better than one another. Israel carpet bombs Palestinian settlements while bulldozing houses where entire families live (sometimes bulldozing them in the process, or any Anti-Zionist activist). Many Arabs are good people, in fact share more in common with us than the Jews. How you could defend such a ridiculous person is beyond me.
The Zionist occupiers of Palestine are the real terrorists. What would you do if someone was squatting on your land and claiming it theirs because they're holier than thou, while you're the savage? (Keep in mind they're backed by the most rich and powerful nations in the world)

[Ward]

I would say that "Duty" begins with oneself, then ones family, then friends, local clan, and finally the state comes in dead last.

A primary reason why America is such a basket case is precisely because Americans elevate their duty to themselves above all else. We have an anti-folkish national culture that has been shaped by a political ideology that is concerned with protecting the Constitution (i.e. private capital and profits), not the American people. Our Constitution does not acknowledge the critical role of heritage and ethnic character in determining the fate of individuals; rather, it puts forth the implicit view that Americans citizens are simply a collection of interchangeable humans bound together only by superficial contracts and legalism. In short, America is a great place for Jews, bankers, lawyers, and international corporations, but a horrible place for anyone with folkish sensibilities.

As for the question of "freedom," we need to remember that all societies, by definition, require individuals to sacrifice a good deal of their individuality as they adjust their behaviors to fit within the parameters of social convention. That's how societies function, and this holds true with even the most basic social interactions; whenever someone else is in our presence, we have to adjust our behaviors accordingly. Therefore, as Schopenhauer keenly observed, we are only "free" in any meaningful sense of the term when we are alone—when we are free from the strictures of social convention.

So in politics, the term "freedom" is truly just an empty rhetorical device used to attract the support of people who don't think. We need to look past such fluff and analyze political ideologies on the specifics of their policies. For example, if we critically analyze the general platform of Libertarians, we can see that all the talk about freedom is but a a ruse to concentrate more power into the hands of the ultra-rich. Sure, Libertarians might oppose programs like affirmative action, but they equally oppose racial segregation laws. Their only real concern is making obscene amounts of money for themselves. Not surprisingly, the chief intellectual architects of this internationalist-minded ideology are, as with Marxism, overwhelmingly Jewish (Rand, Rothbard, von Mises, Friedman, Krugman, etc).

And then only assuming the "Nation State" is beneficial to the people that are creating it in.

No argument here. However, internationalists have the most to gain with the demise of the nation state. For instance, if you know anything about orthodox Marxism, true Communism is only attained when the state withers away.

The problem being that once you get groups of people over certain sizes, then you end up with disorganized idiocy, as corruption works its way in.

In that case you'll just end up with decentralized corruption and national disorganization, with a greater vulnerability to larger, better-organized foreign predator states.

I'm pretty sure that the way forward is not with large centralized corrupt governments, which have plenty of holes for Jew/Bolshevik shysters to make their permanent homes.

What about the free-market shysters?

[EQ Fighter]

You realize Rand is a jew right? Of course she hates Arabs and promotes Zionism.

Yes I we/I Realize she is a Jew.

It is not that, I agree with her, it is that on some points she agrees with me.


And not that I agree with her totally, but that, I do not agree with the core of socialist Altruism.

Which is now, and always will be, BS propaganda composed by what ever "Nation State" is in power at anyone time.

[Jäger]

And not that I agree with her totally, but that, I do not agree with the core of socialist Altruism.

I am not sure if "socialist Altruism" is just a pleonasm, or if you refer to it in a sense of an organized implementation.
For the latter, if human egoism deserves state organization, then so does human altruism. It only gets problematic if one forgets any of these two in his organizational structure.

[jackyg]

To me Atlas Shrugged is more of interest.We have never seen the consequences when people with intellect/abilities go on strike.No new ideas;no new business ventures; no planned travels to outer space.I think the world has a lot to learn .We expect people to create new oppertunities,so that it creates jobs and wealth.We blame when it makes excessive fortunes never thinking that it has a snowball effect that helps the rest of us to create our own successes/survivals.If looking at some countries today the lights are dimmed and the railways are no longer relaible those where the consequences she described in her book 1950'.I do believe it is deserved if people economically blackmail .Never taking ownership of their own lives just insisting that morally they deserve to be uplifted and looked after like children .Still these same people insist on making their own choices but the results which are mostly a failure are never acknowledge as being their fault.