17 March, 2009
Ayn Rand Revival: Why?
Posted by Socrates in Ayn Rand, Fascism, individualism, jewed culture, libertarians, Marxism, Neocons, Socrates at 12:37 am | 
Permanent Link
Marxism, individualism, neoconservatism: Jewish ideas are surprisingly popular with gentiles. (Note how Jewess Rand comes off sounding fascist here):
17 March, 2009 at 2:39 am
On a related note, renowned academic, pundit, former Marxist, and Jew,Stanley Fish opines in the New York Times that academics should not boycott Israel.
Yes. I was as shocked as you are!
17 March, 2009 at 3:24 am
Check out Philip Weiss’ punchline to Stanley Fish’s claim that a boycott of Israel would be a “blunt instrument” that would harm the innocent as well as the guilty:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2009/03/ok-lets-admit-south-africa-and-israel-are-equivalent-moral-cases-says-stanley-fish.html
17 March, 2009 at 5:46 am
Just as jews split up as libertarians and communists, shouldn’t Whites split up as National-Libertarians (think Cernunnos, Tanstaafl), and National-Communists(think Nazbols etc.)?
17 March, 2009 at 6:54 am
This is a little off the topic but am I going nuts or are there less of the original posters commenting at VNN.
Is there someone watching the watchers or can I open the the lead lined window curtains around the house (yes it is not a trailer or barn) not that I have anything against either of them. In fact in one of them I have some very fond memories. But I digress.
I was bumped off ICH a while back and can only access that forum through alternative systems and I fear this site is heading the same way.
17 March, 2009 at 8:11 am
I am having difficulty accessing the forum. Yahoo, Google, and the link here all state that “the link appears broken” – and try to re-direct, but fail and then offer a cached page view.
17 March, 2009 at 8:43 am
Back to Ayn Rand:
Some Jews do not like her because her heroes are blondish Nordic types.
She has a lot to say about finding your passion and pursuing it with integrity.
She despised religion and identified it as the source of altruism, which, to her, is really a means of gaining control over others. Her works are a sort of relief from sappy “all you need is love” type of thinking.
She thought that women wanted to achieve, and should be achievers, but that they needed a man strong enough to sweep them off their feet.
NONE of her characters have children, or are even planning to have them. Family and Folk are absent from her works, which, to me, give them a rather sterile, clinical feel.
Going from Obama socialism to Rand’s vision of childless, Volk-less capitalism is a trap.
It must be quite sobering to get to late middle-age and realize that you have spent your life on your childless career, that the opportunity to have children is forever gone.
17 March, 2009 at 10:39 am
With white America having been intellectually Judaized for a long, long time, this topic is no surprise to the Jew wise. As some white ‘Famous Amos’ once opined: “There is no one more mentally enslaved than someone who thinks he’s free, when he’s not”.
White America is a captive nation in intellectual lock-down, and is clueless to the fact. The Jewish anti-race (Gegenrasse) orchestrating this national strip mining disaster, is, of course, for the most part, immune to its own toxin. What we have, as a result of the exploitative machinations of these mind-altering predators, is a gigantic national-racial cluster fuck, spiraling into genetic oblivion.
17 March, 2009 at 11:31 am
Libertarianism is a dead-end for WN. Our race is not going to survive unless it functions as a collective. Anyone who is aware of the history of libertarianism is brutally aware that it is a Jewish philosophy through and through.
The libertarian sect of Jewry promotes libertarianism because it is through the collectivization of whites in which Jews have been marginalized.
17 March, 2009 at 11:48 am
But we can have White Libertarians as sattelites.
17 March, 2009 at 12:11 pm
See Race and Groups: the Libertarian Blind Spot by John Bryant (himself a libertarian).
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Lbtn/Lbtn-LibertBlindSpot.html
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Index-Libertarian.html
Wrong, Pat, Wrong
By: Karen De Coster
Pat Buchanan has written a bestselling new book on immigration and its effect on American culture, The Death of the West. But in a recent column, he got the libertarian position on immigration wrong. It’s true that open borders lead to more statism. Indeed, it takes a massive state to maintain open borders. So Libertarian critics such as Steve Kubby are wrong, and Buchanan is right. Where he is not correct is in ascribing the open borders position to the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and to all libertarians. Indeed, conservative or “paleo” libertarians oppose open borders based on the idea of exclusive property rights.
Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Senior Fellow of the Mises Institute, has written extensively on this topic. He is the first theoretician to look at the immigration debate not through utilitarian concerns about increasing welfare in society, but from a rigorous argument focused strictly on property rights.
The increase of the immigration-fed welfare state aside, a fundamental right in any free society is that of property ownership as well as the right of exclusion pertaining to that property. After all, if I own land and buildings, and if I decide to exclude others from my property – whether they are immigrants or domestic residents – I surely must have that right. Hoppe points out that, because property owners have a right to exclude, then under the scenario where all land is privately owned, as it should be, “there exists no such thing as freedom of immigration.” Libertarianism proper, then, does not uphold some right to “freedom of immigration,” but rather the right of the property owner to decide whom to invite and whom to exclude.
Most readers will not immediately accept this view without first understanding the underlying concept of the State vs. freedom. In a free libertarian society there can be no right of immigration. Individuals can move from one place to another so long as they receive permission from the owners of the property. But the right to “immigrate” does not exist because all movement of individuals is subject to the consent of the various property owners.
In fact, it is the mere existence of a State that gives meaning to the term “immigration” in the Hoppean sense. As Hoppe states:
“With the establishment of a government and state borders, immigration takes on an entirely new meaning. Immigration becomes immigration by foreigners moving across state borders, and the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted no longer rests with the private property owners or associations of such owners, but with the government as the ultimate sovereign of all domestic residents and the ultimate super-owner of all their properties.”
The current system of mass immigration allows for the trampling of private property by means of forced integration, and the harm done is immense. As it stands, property owners are limited by law from excluding individuals from their place of employment due to affirmative action and discrimination laws, and from their neighborhoods by civil rights legislation.
Immigration in that sense is forced integration, and according to Hoppe, when that is the case:
“The result of this policy of non-discrimination is forced integration: the forcing of masses of inferior immigrants onto domestic property owners who, if the decision were left to them, would have sharply discriminated and chosen very different neighbors for themselves.”
Forced integration is the result of the existence of a State and its mob-rules democracy. Bear in mind that a representative form of government will tend toward legislating ownership away from the rightful owners of property to give to the majority participants of a politician-bred welfare lottery. And all taxpayers support this lottery through the coercive means of financial repossession on the part of government and its paid agents.
Buchanan’s overall point about the damage done by mass immigration is correct. That is, the mass immigration to which U.S. residents have been subjected leads to a burgeoning State; props up multicultural madness; allows poor, unassimilated immigrants to garner massive amounts of welfare pork; leads to a rising class of tax consumers, as opposed to taxpayers; and has dumbed down the State-based educational system, providing even more impetus for politicians to toss additional taxpayers’ money into an already-failed system.
So therefore, hostility to immigrants is very much warranted not only because of the welfare state scenario, but also because of the intrusion of unwanted individuals onto private and restricted property. After all, the right to discriminate is inherent in the ownership of anything, whether it is land, a home, a proprietary business, or an automobile. Should we be forced to take others whom we dislike for a ride in our cars? Should we all be forced to have an open-door policy into our homes as well?
So we must ask ourselves why we allow such invasion of our land rights. The proper libertarian position is one that supports discriminatory action on the basis of private ownership and disallows the social-democratic position of the almighty mob voting away our individual sovereignty.
Contrary to what Mr. Buchanan suggests, the libertarian private property order does not enhance the State nor does it empower it, but instead, it strips away the State entirely, as the mere existence of this omnipotent body is a complete contradiction of private property. The Buchanan position, in effect, makes the mistake of ignoring this private property order. Rather, he takes the more authoritarian paleoconservative view that links the welfare state to immigration and gives the problem of The Great Welfare Giveaway as his basis for a closed-borders stance. He believes that limiting immigration is the way to restore welfare to its rightful, domestic recipients.
This view is not compatible with a true limited-government stance by any means. A limited government model does not suppose that we dole out welfare gifts to chosen beneficiaries, nor does it assume that the “right group of people” are in charge of government, and statism will therefore cease to be the existing condition. It is difficult to understand how Mr. Buchanan claims to be a limited government proponent, yet vilifies the 19th-century classical liberal position on statism. The classical liberal texts that he refers to are clear as to their opposition to all forms of statism and authoritarian control by elected “protectors”.
Consequently, how Mr. Buchanan can claim an absolute anti-statist agenda, yet fully support an authoritarian, social nationalist, protectionist government that is not at all “limited”, is somewhat contradictory, to say the least.
So yes, Pat, please do take another look at those 19th and 20th-century texts by Bastiat, Spooner, Nock, Mises and others who properly defined statism and its devotees.
http://www.karendecoster.com/archive.php?incfile=archives/2002/wrong_pat.html
17 March, 2009 at 2:09 pm
The idea of viewing humans as primarily individuals is valid only if the objective of all human events is the perpetuation of individuals. If it’s something higher, such as the perpetuation of intelligent life in the universe, which is a longer-term goal, then the 70-100 years that an individual lives is of little significance so what matters then is the individual’s relation to the group. Jewish socialism teaches that the weakest/neediest should be put first, but this goes against the longer-term interests of the perpetuation of intelligent life. There should be no disconnect b/w the morality that would naturally arise on an island and that of the larger island of our planet. The best should reproduce more, the dumber/weaker should not be given disproportionately high resources from their abilities.
At least Rand agrees with the latter part of the concept, though I’m not aware of her advocating the smartest/strongest to have the most offspring. Her individualized philosophy seems to ignore that humans are individuals only for a few decades until we naturally recombine to form others, and that we all come from prior recombinations, and that the genes of the mating group that preceded us matters a lot. She denies the importance of race, which should be the basis of any long-term philosophy for the perpetuation of intelligent life.
17 March, 2009 at 4:13 pm
In a nutshell, Rand’s philosphy was all about self-centered Jew capitalism and materialism. Race, Family, Blood and Soil meant nothing to that rootless cosmopolitan Jewess. She probably hated kids and dogs, too, that miserable old hag. The “heroes” in her books are one-dimensional and souless. They only care about their careers and feeding their ruthless ambition. Who’d want to be married to people like that, or be anywhere around them?
17 March, 2009 at 4:39 pm
Rand also spends quite a lot of time subtly demonsing and attacking the White male, even as she is busy lifting them up. When I had to read “Atlas Shrugged”, I decided the jewess had a severe case of “Aryan Envy” – vis a vis another jew quack “philosopher” and ideologist – Freud’s “Penis envy” observations.
17 March, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Libertarianism only promotes a raceless selfishness. It is a perfect system for jewish aims. A strong Folkish State is the only way to achieve a thriving Aryan civilization. It would combine central planning with market forces and promote eugenics, and a high level of culture. Art, architecture, music, etc would enlighten and uplift the people. A far cry from the niggerized and jewified trash culture of all White societies of today.
18 March, 2009 at 1:04 am
“It would combine central planning with market forces”
That is precisely what got us to this ghastly situation.
As an aside, i remember seeing a picture of Rand, standing next to a good looking, Aryan movie star (female). I asked myself- would it be remotely possible for a truly good looking person to write what Rand wrote?
Those of you who despise Rand or Mises- why don’t you quote their actual writings and tell us where they are wrong?
http://starshipaurora.com/images/ayn_rand.jpg
http://home.ca.inter.net/~grantsky/rand.jpg
18 March, 2009 at 5:12 am
To paraphrase John Donne, no Aryan is an island.
18 March, 2009 at 8:40 am
woe ism me…the writings, like a mix of I’m forever blowing bubbles & i shot an arrow into the air
18 March, 2009 at 4:56 pm
“Those of you who despise Rand or Mises- why don’t you quote their actual writings and tell us where they are wrong?”
Are you defending those two Jews and their philosophies? Finding relevant quotes to support an argument or citing specific passages from a book is a lot of work, you know, esp. when you consider that these posts will be read by only a handful of people for a day or two before being forever consigned to online Oblivion. However, I remember that Rand described Nazism as a form of “zoology” in one of her books, possibly The Fountainhead.
18 March, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Austrian Economics is a total fraud and a lie, which is what you would expect, since it’s nothing but a bunch of Jew economists.
The Austrians even lie about the origin of money and what money actually is! If they lie about something so basic to economics as that, then how can you trust them to tell the truth about anything else?
Wake up!
18 March, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Poor Austria…..The Jews have really done a number on that once proud Empire. Are there any White people who are nuttier and more self-loathing than the modern Austrians are?
19 March, 2009 at 4:15 am
SCIPIO’S REPLY TO SHABBOS: REGARDING THE JEWESS RAND
I have already provided critical commentary regarding the authoress Alysia Rosenbaum [Ayn Rand] on this board which you did not reply to despite my open invitation for a response. Did the cat get your tongue? Let us try it again, shall we? Here’s an overview of my earlier remarks, slightly amended to synchronize the commentary:
I have read most of Rand’s fictional and non-fictional works as well as listened to many of the college-level courses and lectures that the Ayn Rand Institute [ARI] sponsors through its subsidiary, the Ayn Rand Bookstore, formerly known as Second Renaissance Books. As a result, I am thoroughly acquainted with all aspects of her philosophy — metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics — as well as her disciples’ interpretation of her thought. I am also familiar with George Reisman’s “magnum opus” Capitalism (he’s a Jewish university professor of economics at Pepperdine University and former student of Ludwig Von Mises who was associated with the ARI until he was purged from the cult) and also an owner of his home-study program on the subject of political economy.
Obviously, Miss Rand greatly admired certain aspects of Western thought and culture as reflected by her embrace of Aristotle’s metaphysics and epistemology and as reflected in her esthetics. Nevertheless, her philosophical system still demonstrates a need to critique the West and its traditions in a manner similar to other radical Jewish intellectuals movements of the Twentieth Century. (See Kevin Macdonald’s The Culture of Critique for details.) This is especially true when it comes to her ethics, politics and economics — which are destructive. On that note, I refer you to Jeff Walker’s The Ayn Rand Cult which thoroughly documents the Jewish roots of her philosophical movement.
I give Miss Rand credit where credit is due. However, I am not a disciple of her philosophy which I regard as nothing more than a radical Jewish intellectual movement and if taken in its entirety, constitutes nothing more than a death-cult for any white nation that would come to embrace it. From her denunciations of “racism” as “barnyard collectivism” and her smearing of the name of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant as the paradigm of philosophical evil incarnate to her embrace of unfettered capitalism and unbridled greed, there exists in her writings and her philosophical system at large so many deficiencies that it becomes obvious to any reader who is not living in a world of floating abstractions that it constitutes nothing more than a giant rationalization scheme for her escapist fantasies.
I find the success of Atlas Shrugged very depressing given that it signals the beginning of the end of our civilization as it represents the triumph of the Levantine [Jewish] soul with its obsession with money-making and the accumulation of wealth over the Faustian [Western] soul’s quest for knowledge and its desire to explore and conquer the great unknown. Indeed, Atlas Shrugged raises industrialists to the level of saints and portrays the love of money as the highest of all virtues:
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of MONEY and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America..
…there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being: the American industrialist.” — ATLAS $HRUGGED
Now, I contend that a healthy Aryan not suffering from the Jewish-inspired spiritual petulance that has infected our civilization will respond to that passage with a feeling of disgust that emanates from deep within in his soul. It’s not an intellectual reaction but a visceral response to something that is alien to our race’s spirit.
Atlas Shrugged is nothing more than a hymn to the insane Jew-greed and emotional fixation for more, more, more! Its commercial success represents the triumph of Jewish, plutocratic anti-values over Western, aristocratic values — the values and spirit which our civilization was based upon — and will eventually culminate in the physical destruction of it.
If you want to better understand the kind of mentality that Atlas Shrugged has spawned, I refer you to an essay written by a passionate admirer of her ideas entitled The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness by Jack Wakeland. A few snippets from this piece should suffice:
“But in America – especially after the stockholder’s rebellion of the ’80s – business leaders do not regulate company profits to ’socialize welfare.’ They seek the highest stakes for themselves and the greatest profits for their companies. For them, nothing is ever good enough. They push for constant improvement. Theirs is a society of change, upheaval, and $100-million executive bonuses.”
“There is no where else on earth that quite has the ‘feel’ of America. The idea that it is okay to make money and to go out and get what you want – the acceptance of egoism – runs deeper here than anywhere on earth. The consequence – a feeling shared by a majority of people that life is open to them, that anything is possible, and that they’re in the middle of getting where they want to go – is unique to America.”
“It is an empire unlike any that has ever existed. The empire does not acknowledge its influence by changing the political borders of the world, but by making the old borders irrelevant. The Army has been used to protect it, but the empire does not advance by force. Business and investment have pushed it forward, but the empire’s “globalizing” business invasion is always just behind the advancing edge.”
“The frontier of the American Empire is in the mind of every man and every woman in every country, who wants a better life, here, on this earth. The best among them look to our nation as proof that it is possible. America is taking over the countries of the world from the inside, one mind at a time.”
“America is a supernova. As it becomes hollow at its core, here in the United States, the empire expands like a shock wave moving across the surface of the earth. It moves with the speed of the imagination – an imagination captivated by the vision of a people exercising their right to the pursuit of happiness.”
Get all that? Of course, by “pursuit of happiness” the author really means the “pursuit of money making” by ANY MEANS NECESSARY! America is praised as an “Empire” that is making “old borders irrelevant” via a globalizing “business invasion” that flows from the ideas that the JewSA promulgates and which no force can stop. The author praises a “society of change, upheaval, and $100-million executive bonuses” and the “feel” that this lust for money has produced. SCARY STUFF!
Ayn Rand is correct in identifying the power of ideas as a force for change, be it for good or evil. But I contend that her ideas, especially her ethics, politics and economics are wholly destructive given that they ultimately flow from an alien mentality that is foreign to our own nature.
If I may summarize, what I have learned from her is the importance of philosophy in shaping man’s life on earth and that her particular world outlook is certainly not one for the West to embrace given it’s warped Jewish nature and its value system which is at odds with what our race instinctively admires as truly great and noble.
PS: Sir Oswald Mosley sums up Ayn Rand’s philosophy in practice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjI_quv3qFU
Scipio Americanus
19 March, 2009 at 4:18 am
SCIPIO’S REPLY TO SHABBOS: REGARDING THE JEW MISES:
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com:80/?p=3032
Ludwig Von Mises was a former central banker and finance minister of Austria who oversaw the destruction of the Austrian economy back in the 1930’s and was forced to flee for his life when outraged Austrian patriots, seeking Aryan justice, arose against the Jew-directed puppet regime of Chancellor Dollfuss and his henchmen. No wonder Von Mises claimed that economics could not be verified or refuted by objectively examining observable data and demonstrable facts! To do so would lead any sane person to repudiate his theories which are so disconnected from reality that they led to the entire collapse of the Austrian economy!
Scipio Americanus
19 March, 2009 at 4:21 am
SCIPIO’S REPLY TO SHABBOS: REGARDING KAREN DE COSTER
Karen De Coster: Self-described “theoretical Rothbardian” and “paleolibertarian” who laments the passing of the Articles of Confederation and regards government as “evil, immoral, corrupt, and unnecessary in a free society.” In other words, a standard, run-of-the-mill, middle-aged, unmarried, female anarchist with a walnut-sized brain and a cobweb-enshrouded womb who is completely intoxicated on Judeo-libertarian hooch.
Scipio Americanus
19 March, 2009 at 4:35 am
Even though he was a disgusting homosexual, John Maynard Keynes was nevertheless a very intelligent economist and thinker…and he was Jew-aware as well – “[Jews] have in them deep-rooted instincts that are antagonistic and therefore repulsive to the European, and their presence among us is a living example of the insurmountable difficulties that exist in merging race characteristics, in making cats love dogs … It is not agreeable to see civilization so under the ugly thumbs of its impure Jews who have all the money and the power and brains.” – http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/blog/2009/01/21/john_maynard_keynes_on_repulsive_impure_ugly__jews
19 March, 2009 at 4:55 am
That is why one must focus on essentials rather than isolated concretes. Nevertheless, take a gander at my reply to Shabbos [Goy] Shabazz for a few quotable quotes.
Scipio Americanus
19 March, 2009 at 5:02 am
Regarding Rand…she was just another bloodsucking, white-hating, nation-destroying Jew parasite as Scipio Americanus so eloquently describes above.
The degeneracy and depravity of Jews can easily be glimpsed in their ugly and disgusting rat-like faces which they are unable to hide from the world like they can with their immoral financial dealings; see for yourself in the case of Rand how degenerate she was, which is clearly evident solely by her spooky and shifty face: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&feature=related
The overall character of a person, group, or race is visible in the face – and in the case of Jews their degenerate and downright frightening ugliness is merely their inner-depravity projected outwardly.
19 March, 2009 at 3:22 pm
“Austrian Economics is a total fraud and a lie, which is what you would expect, since it’s nothing but a bunch of Jew economists.
The Austrians even lie about the origin of money and what money actually is! If they lie about something so basic to economics as that, then how can you trust them to tell the truth about anything else?
Wake up!”
What is Austrian economics? Oh- it’s wrong. Thanks for learning us right.
Austrian economics was founded by the Austrian gentile Karl Menger:
http://mises.org/etexts/austrian.asp
>>”This is especially true when it comes to her ethics, politics and economics — which are destructive.”
Maybe it’s too much to ask for a quote. What are her positions on the above? How are they destructive? This is just assertion on your part.
Rand’s views- ethics, rational self interest (like pursuit of happiness).
Politics- individual rights, property, contract, stressing FREE WILL.
Economics- voluntary trade.
“who is not living in a world of floating abstractions”
Hee hee “floating abstractions”, a term coined by Rand. . .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rand+floating+abstractions&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
“I find the success of Atlas Shrugged very depressing given that it signals the beginning of the end of our civilization as it represents the triumph of the Levantine [Jewish] soul with its obsession with money-making and the accumulation of wealth over the Faustian [Western] soul’s quest for knowledge and its desire to explore and conquer the great unknown. Indeed, Atlas Shrugged raises industrialists to the level of saints and portrays the love of money as the highest of all virtues:”
Never has a book (Atlas) been so misrepresented. You speak of ACCUMULATION of wealth, rather than PRODUCTION. Typical distortion. The “soul’s quest for knowledge” is not part of being an industrialist (inventor)? In a sense, industrialists ARE saints. What device are we all using now?
Here, we can all see what Rand says about money:
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
“I refer you to an essay written by a passionate admirer of her ideas entitled The Empire of the Pursuit of Happiness by Jack Wakeland”
How about something from the old bitch herself?
“Get all that? Of course, by “pursuit of happiness” the author really means the “pursuit of money making” by ANY MEANS NECESSARY! America is praised as an “Empire” that is making “old borders irrelevant” via a globalizing “business invasion” that flows from the ideas that the JewSA promulgates and which no force can stop. The author praises a “society of change, upheaval, and $100-million executive bonuses” and the “feel” that this lust for money has produced. SCARY STUFF!”
So Rand would endorse what we have today? You are psychotic, just like New America. (Banned poster).
“In other words, a standard, run-of-the-mill, middle-aged, unmarried, female anarchist with a walnut-sized brain and a cobweb-enshrouded womb who is completely intoxicated on Judeo-libertarian hooch.”
Just waiting for the ad hominems. The asshole is right on schedule.
Why didn’t you address what she said about private property and trespassing?
“she was just another bloodsucking, white-hating, nation-destroying Jew parasite as Scipio Americanus so eloquently describes above.”
More name calling. Where in Rand’s writing does she (implicitly or explicitly) hate Whites?
After the Bible, Atlas Shrugged is the most influential book in America. It has influenced many in the (real) patriot movement.
The intellectual level must be raised to the highest level.
I am not an objectivist. I just want a voluntary society. A large gated community, with a strong fence. That fence will act as a biological filter, filtering out all poisons, including fractional reservists and all other gooks.
Those believing that “Objectivism” must be 100% accepted, or totally rejected, will suffer greatly.
20 March, 2009 at 5:22 am
SHABBOS GOY SHABAZZ:
Unbelievable! I have already provided quotes from the authoress (which you conveniently ignored) and yet you have the audacity to ask for more? You are one of the most inherently dishonest commentators ever to post on this board, Shabbos Goy — your response is simply to ask for quotes instead of replying thoughtfully in kind.
Furthermore, my purpose it not to offer a critique of her entire “philosophy” (she is not a philosopher given that she never attempted to systematize her thoughts into a cohesive, non-fictional work) but rather to point out several serious shortcomings to the readers of this board and the consequences that her ideas have wrought.
Here’s one of the quotes that I posted earlier (which you conveniently ignored) as taken directly from Atlas $hrugged, which best summarizes Rand’s world view:
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of MONEY and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America. . .
. . . there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being: the American industrialist.” — ATLAS $HRUGGED
It is my contention that no Western society can long survive when plutocratic values (as exemplified by the mercantile/business class which always reverts to exploitative practices without an aristocratic class above it to regulate and intermediate its relationship with the rest of society) which she worshipped come to eclipse aristocratic values and the spiritual passions that are innate to our race — high ideals such as personal honor, loyalty, fidelity, courage on the battlefield, fairness, manly compassion, intellectual integrity, chivalry, respect of womanhood, et cetera. Businessmen, in general, lack these qualities for they tend to temper their insatiable lust for profits which is not good for the “bottom line.”
Instead of aristocratic values, Ayn Rand taught that selfishness is a virtue via her book The Virtue of Selfishness and that sacrifice is a vice while mocking ‘duty’ as “one of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy.” Likewise, her politics and economics (political economy), as exemplified by her fanatical support of unregulated, unrestrained laissez faire capitalism, which itself is a Jewish internationalist scheme [the term ‘capitalism’ was coined by the Jew Karl Marx] designed to obliterate concepts such as race, nation, and national sovereignty, is well documented in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. How is “free trade,” “open borders” and Third World immigration, which she fanatically supported, not destructive to our nation? Likewise, how is her condemnation of ‘racism’ as “barnyard collectivism” not destructive to our race? Discerning minds would like know, Shabbos Goy.
PS: More to come later old boy . . .
Scipio Americanus
20 March, 2009 at 6:53 am
Scipio says: I find the success of Atlas Shrugged very depressing, given that it signals the beginning of the end of our civilization, as it represents the triumph of the Levantine [Jewish] soul with its obsession with money-making and … wealth over the Faustian [Western] soul’s quest for knowledge and its desire to explore and conquer the great unknown. Indeed, Atlas Shrugged … portrays the love of money as the highest of all virtues.
[in] her embrace of unfettered capitalism and unbridled greed, there exists in her writings and her philosophical system at large so many deficiencies that it becomes obvious to any reader…that it constitutes nothing more than a giant rationalization scheme for her escapist fantasies.
……………………………………
It certainly seems like a rationalization scheme for such conscienceless plunderers as Bernie Madoff et al. I wonder what she would have thought of him/them. Before he got caught, he would doubtless have been one of her saints. (“Greed is good!”) Indeed, I wonder what HE thinks of HER. What are the roots of his greed? He could very well be one of her disciples.
20 March, 2009 at 7:12 am
SHABBOS GOY SHABAZZ:
Wrong old boy.
ETHICS: The Virtue of Selfishness. Me me me me me me me — and to hell with everyone else! On this one, Ms. Rosenbaum certainly practiced what she preached given her outlandish sexual escapades with her protege Nathan Blumenthal — better known to the world as “Nathaniel Branden” — while forcing her humiliated goy-husband Frank O’Conner to retire to his favorite watering hole to drink away his sorrows en route to becoming an alcoholic while she and her boy-toy engaged in rough sex twice a week in her husband’s own bed — for years!!!! — while simultaneously demonstrating typical Jewish hypocrisy by rationalizing her sordid behavior and outrageous treatment of her loyal husband as something he approved of!
How is this “morality” of selfishness good for a society at large, my dear sir?
Oops — my bad! As a “libertarian” you do not even consider the concept of ‘society’ to be valid — that would be an example of wicked “collectivism,” right? After all, only individuals exist; society is simply an artificial construct. I guess that makes me an evil “Nazi” for attempting to raise such an issue. Naughty naughty on yours truly for asking such a loaded question in the first place. Shame on me . . . shame on me!
POLITICS & ECONOMICS: Unregulated, unrestrained, dog-eat-dog, laissez faire capitalism with everything that it entails — open borders, free trade, open immigration and the granting of “individual rights” to every white-hating, discolored pithicoid on the planet who should be welcomed with open arms by the stupid goy population in order to take advantage of a newly formulated Capitalist Shangri-la.
Any Aryan who disapproves is simply smeared as a “collectivist” and a “racist.”
Actually, Rosenbaum was clueless regarding political theory (among many other things) and simply morphed politics and economics together under the term ‘capitalism’ while simultaneously demanding a complete separation between state and economics.
While she claimed to admire our Founding Fathers, she must not have been acquainted with their writings and thoughts given that they were ardent racial nationalists who upheld white supremacy and the belief in the innate differences between the races — they applied the political concept of ‘inalienable individual rights’ only to white men and not to non-whites whom they did not consider eligible for citizenship and were naturally regarded as racial enemies.
In other words, they were not “libertarians.”
Likewise, they upheld protective economic tariffs, restrictions on usury, and an independent foreign policy. They certainly would have rejected support for the bastard-state of Israel which Ayn Rand regarded as a “slice of the West” and worthy of foreign aid despite being opposed to foreign aid as such. [This is just one of many contradictions that litter her thoughts and writings.] The $64,000 Question: Why? I dunno. . . maybe because Israel is a Jewish state and she was a Jewess? Nah, that can’t be it. After all, she denied the concept of race altogether. As the late Robert Frenz used to say, “Bullshit baffles brains” — especially “libertarian” ones!
Ayn Rosenbaum is no friend to America. Indeed, she is the antithesis of the original American principles that made this country great.
Scipio Americanus
20 March, 2009 at 8:26 am
When Rand and Branden wanted to have their affair, they first consulted their respective spouses, to get their “approval.”
Would to God that Frank O’Connor had busted Branden in the mouth, when he heard what he wanted to do!
Would to God that Barbra Branden had jumped on the old bitch, hissing, screaming, and pulling her hair out!
But no.
Mrs. Banden and Mr. Rand ended up walking the desolate New York streets together, while their spouses had their tussle.
Gigantic egos, such as Rand and Branden, seem to attract those that have low levels of self-esteem.
(Branden was also having an affair with one of HIS students behind Rand’s back. When Rand found out, she smacked his face, hard. Then she explained their split by telling her synchophants that he tried to “fleece” her. )
I also find it amazing that no one ever told Rand that she stole her ideas about personal integrity and the pernicious nature of altruism from Neitzsche, without even a mention.
That this pathetic person, with her rantings (the last one hundred pages of Atlas Shrugged in just one continual bitching rant) could garner such followers . . . as Kevin Macdonald said, Jews always organize movements around a central authoritarian figure.
A true philosopher, or a medieval scholastic, could make quick work of an imposter like Rand.
20 March, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Right on, Scipio, another grand slam! That, any white person would take Rosenbaum’s ludicrous dissimulation seriously, is why they are known as gullible Goy ‘im (that’s the Semitically correct two syllable pronunciation, go ahead and say it boys & girls, Goy-eem!).
21 March, 2009 at 11:03 pm
The whole of her work teaches Whites to worship “secular” jews – their attitudes, their anti-values, their wealth. It’s a sort of double training manual: jews who read it are taught to act more secular and crypto ; Whites reading it are trained to be more jewy. And to be sterile. And to be failures (the image of Roark sitting alone in an office, waiting for customers to discover him and come to him on their own…).
Any White who tries to act like her characters is simply committing slow suicide.
The self-destructiveness of jews is evident in her inadvertently leading so many Whites to more Nazi-like views! Consider her student Peikoff’s book Ominous Parallels. It contains an extensive description and condemnation of Weimar anti-culture (and tries to blame it on Kant). Yet, everything hateful about Weimar is clearly JEWISH. Hitler hated it – and Germans hated it – for this reason. So Ominous P is a smokescreen: “The cause of Hitler wasn’t us – it was an old German philosopher!” Yet how many future White Nationalists would have even heard of Weimar, if not for Peikoff/Rand’s rants? A noticeable number.
The older I get, the more ghastly and pathetic her “philosophy” is to me. It doesn’t bear analysis because it is a gigantic classic confidence trick. Freedom and heroism get you into the tent, then you learn you must be a peon worshiping rich jews and Israel – and that racial awareness is the lowest evil – and that IQ is phony, but can be increased by 50 points through willpower (so stated in a Q&A reproduced in “Ayn Rand Answers”). Embarrassing.
21 March, 2009 at 11:06 pm
(Correction: s/b “Yet how many future White Nationalists would never have even heard of Weimar, if not for Peikoff/Rand’s rants? A noticeable number.”)
Once someone reaches adulthood and has an actually independent mind based on years of life-experience, if he is Aryan, he feels deeply uncomfortable with this cult and the people in it. If not, he is probably a jew himself.
22 March, 2009 at 9:34 am
Excellent posts, Scipio and sgruber.
I first began questioning Ms. Rand when she praised tap-dancing in the Romantic Manifesto (or something like that) and attributed it to African-American origin.
The “clogging” of the Irish, English, and Scottish that had been going on since at least the industrial revolution, and is amazing to see, was not even mentioned.
I suppose the negroes just came over here and started tapping.
(A Celtic clogger can make a negro tapper look careless and sloppy.
Cloggers hold the world record for the most taps per second [40]).
Anyway, little things like that became bigger, and I began to see that Ayn Rand was a jewish theoritician with no familiarity with reality, regardless of all her talk about epistemology.
What a bag of wind.
The pity of it is that certain of our people, myself included, look for an overarching theory of life, and her “philosophy” is the thin gruel that is served up to us.
24 March, 2009 at 1:38 am
PS: Sir Oswald Mosley sums up Ayn Rand’s philosophy in practice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjI_quv3qFU
Scipio Americanus
That was really an amazing speech. Thank you so much! Mosley was truly an unheeded prophet. A Cassandra to whom no one was listening. Every world he spoke there was true, and has come true. Too late now!
25 March, 2009 at 5:42 am
Rand a great Jewish philosopher? HA! That’s impossible because THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ONE.
Jews lack the idealism/spirit, honesty, integrity, and deep + broad-thinking needed for philosophy…hence there has NEVER been a truly great philosopher who was also an ethnic Jew. They may have come close with Spinoza (who was actually a rather mediocre philosopher), but of course Spinoza rejected Jews/Judaism entirely and was officially excommunicated (cut off) from the Amsterdam Jewish community of his time because of his views.
Nope, there is no such thing as a Jewish philosopher or Jewish philosophy – not possible with them. It seems they are fated to be dime-a-dozen journalists, petty novelists, inconsequential academics, and of course inflammatory pamphleteers who promote ridiculous, decadent, and untenable political (Communism), economic (Marxism + Plutocratic Capitalism), and religious (the Bible) ideas.
25 March, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The so-called Objectivist Ethics (“It is only the concept of “life” that makes the concept of “value” possible) was “borrowed” from Hillel.
Branden claimed this to be the greatest ethical insight of all time, which “has cut through the Gordian knot of all past ethical theorizing.”
Rand claimed that, at a lecture, a listener asked: “can you explain your philosophy while standing on one foot?” See where that came from.
Who was Hillel?
Hillel was one of the greatest of the Jewish Sages. He was the head of the Sanhedrin during the transition from the period of the Pairs (Zugot) to the time of the Tannaim. He lived from approximately 90 BCE to 10 CE. His descendants held the position of Nasi, or Ethnarch, for a number of centuries, and were the heads of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel.
He is famous for several statements, but two of these are the most well known. One was said when a prospective convert came to him and demanded that he teach him the whole Torah while standing on one foot. This person had previously tried the same thing with Shammai, a contemporary of Hillel, and had been chased away for his presumption. Hillel’s reply was later distorted by the authors of the Christian Bible, and in its warped form is known as “The Golden Rule”. Hillel’s original was:
Ma d’sani lakh, l’chavrakh al t’avid
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow
http://www.starways.net/lisa/essays/hillel.html
25 March, 2009 at 7:46 pm
On one foot, she gave, as I recall, three short answers. That’s all she had time for.
I am surprised she didn’t topple over, seeing as how she had a distinct aversion to any sort of physical exercise, or culture.
She talked a lot about self-respect, but I find it curious that she let her physical being go the way of all flesh, without any effort at all.
Her balancing performance must have been clumsy and pathetic, her militant answer trying to divert attention away from her retarded physical abilities.
Laissez-faire for the flesh does not work. It must be supervised and commanded.
As Eireanngoddess says, Rand is just jealous of Aryans, but doesn’t have the will power of the Aryan Greeks to sustain physical fitness, much less Greek philosophy.
Sad.
25 March, 2009 at 9:19 pm
The reason for my post is to accuse Rand of plagiarism.
I think jews try to establish love/hate relationships. You can love them, you can hate them but YOU MUST BE OBSESSED WITH THEM.
Jesus Christ
Karl Marx
Ayn Rand (Malice Rosenbomb)
Albert Aynstyn
The top, the best, the most noteworthy, the most controversial, must be jewish, and if not true, jews will “make” it “true.”
It is “against the law” not to be obsessed with kikery. . .