Altruism means "serve everyone but yourself" when the logical thing to do from the utilitarian perspective is to serve everyone including yourself.
The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value. Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others.
Ayn Rand meant selfishness in the sense of standing up for yourself. There are many real life examples of where the traditional roles of selfishness and altruism are overturned, where selfishness is good and altruism is evil. For instance if you're being bullied the altruistic thing to do would be to sacrifice your own personal gain for others, by sitting there and taking it like a little bitch. The selfish thing to do would be to gain pleasure at the expense of others, escape, tell your bros then jump them the next day, spraying them up with mace and beating them with phone books.
I don't agree with Ayn Rand on everything, I believe the "common good" as a concept has been abused, not that it is invalid. The common good should ideally be democratic concerning groups and include individual rights when the group is at odds with the individual.
However I have never heard anyone criticize Ayn Rand on these legitimate points and issues, only ever "hurr durr selfish randroids derp".
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-22 14:35
Because most people can't or won't separate the idea of selfishness with the idea of greed. They want to believe that living for yourself means stepping on everyone else and that capitalism means cutting throats when none of that matches up with anything Rand wrote.
I too have never heard someone actually present a convincing argument against Objectivism, you only ever see rhetoric and comments on her ability as a fiction writer. I would love it if opponents to her ideas addressed the substance of the philosophy, presenting clear, logical challenges but alas, all you get is rhetoric from the religious, communists, socialists, people who think mistakenly think you support the republican party and people who watch Fox news coverage of Ron Paul.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-22 15:31
Randism is only acceptable if you are disabled, as in quadriplegic disabled like a "Magikarp".
███████████████████████░████████▓░▒▒▒░▓█████████████████████
███████████████████████░░██████▓░░░░░░▓█████████████████████
███████████████████████░░░████▒░▒▒▒▒▒░▓█████████████████████
███████████████████████▒░░░██░░▒▒▒▒▒▒░██████████████████████
████████████████████████░▒▒░▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░██████████████████████
████████████████████████░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒█▒░░░░░▓██████████████
████████████████████████▓░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░░░████████████████
█████████████████████▓░░▓█▒▒▒▒▒░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█████████████████
██████████████████▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓█▓▓██▓▓▒▒░▒▒▒▒▓███████████████████
████████████▓▒░░░░░▒▒▒▒▓▓▒█▓▒▒▓▓█████▓▓█████████████████████
█████████░░░▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▒▒█▓▒▒▒▓▓▒▓████████████████████████
███████░░░▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒██▓██▒░░░▒▒▓█████████████████████
█████▒░▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▓█▒▒▓█▓▒▒▒░░░▒███████████████████
████░▒▒▒▒▒▒▓█░░░░░░░▓█▒▓▓▓▒▒█▒▓▒▒█▓▓▓▓▓▒▒░▒█████████████████
███▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░█▓░░░█▓▒▓▓▓▒█▓▒▓▒█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒████████████████
▓░░░▓█▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░▓▓░░░▒█▒▓▓▓▒█▓▒▒▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▓▒██████████████
███▓░▒█▒▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░▓▓▓▒▒▓▒██▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒█▒▒█████████████
█████░▓▓▒▓▒▓█▒░░░░░░▓▓▒▒▓█▓▓█████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████▓
█████░▒█▒▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▓█▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒░░▒▓▓█▓▓▓███████▓███▒
█████▓░█▒▓▓▒█▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▓█▓▓█▓░░░░░░░░░▒▒░░░▒▓▓▒▓█▓▓▓███▓▓██▓▒░░
█████▓░█▒▓█▓░▒█▓▒▓▒██▒▓█▒░▒▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒░░░▓█▓▒▒▓██▓▓▓██▒██▓▒░░▒▒
█████▒░█▓▒▒▓█▒░█▓▓▓█▒██▒▒▒▒░░░░░░░░░▒█▓▒▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒░
██▓▒▒░▓█▒▓▓▒▒█▓░█▒▓▒▓█▓░░▒░░░░░░░░░▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░░░
█▓█▓▒▓█▓▓▓▓▓▒▒█▓▓▓▒▒▒▓█▒░░▒▒▒▒░░░░▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░░░░
█▓███▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓█▒█▓▓▓▒▓▓█▓░░░░░░░░█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓█░░░░░░░░░░
█▓████▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓█░██████▓▓███▒░░░░▒█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓██░░░░░░░░░░
████████▓▒▓█▓▓▓█░▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓█████▓░░░█▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓███░▓▒░░░░░░░░
██▒███████▓▓▓███░▓█▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓███▓░█▓▓▓▓▓██▒▓███▓█░░█░░░░░░░░
███▓█████████▓▒█▒▓█▓▓▓██▓▓▓███▓▓███▓▓▓▓████████▓█▒░░▓▒░░░░░░
███▓████████████▒▓██████████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██████████████░░░▓▓░░░░░
████▓███████████▒▓██████████████████████████████▓█▒░░░▒▓▒░░░
█████▓██████████▓░█▓▓▓▓████████▓█████████████████▓█░░░░░▓▓░▒
██████▓██████████░▓▓▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒███████████████▓██░░░░░░▒█
████████████████▓▒▒█▓▓▓▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒░▓██████████████▓█▒░░░░░██
███████▓███████▓▓█░▓▓▓▒█▓▒▓▓▓▓▒▒░▒▒░▒██████████████▒█▒░░████
████████▒██████████░█▒▓██▓░▒▒▒▒▓▒░░░░░██████████████▓▓▒█████
████████▒██████████▓░██████▒░░▓██████▒▒█████████████████████
You look like a asshole if you attack a blind, drooling stump who owns the planet's gold.
>>2
I suppose hating on Ayn Rand is part of the general left wing versus right wing thing, it would be easier just to stick her name on the list of things the left wing are supposed to hate than to fund an organized attempt to discredit her ideas. Her name is also put on the list of things the right wing are supposed to worship, which possibly does more to discredit her ideas.
It is altruism that has corrupted and perverted human benevolence by regarding the giver as an object of immolation, and the receiver as a helplessly miserable object of pity who holds a mortgage on the lives of others—a doctrine which is extremely offensive to both parties, leaving men no choice but the roles of sacrificial victim or moral cannibal .
There are some mainstream evaluations of her work that are neither completely ignorant or fawning obsession though.
Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we’re only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else
Obama is either oblivious to the basics of Ayn Rand's philosophy and just repeated some rhetoric he heard somewhere or he is intentionally reinforcing the rhetoric.
>>3
Why would the quadriplegic Magikarp suffer if others believed in "randism"? Do you have any sources that can reveal to us what is wrong with Ayn Rand?
>>3
Why would the quadriplegic Magikarp suffer if others believed in "randism"? Do you have any sources that can reveal to us what is wrong with Ayn Rand?
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-24 11:58
>>5
I find it hilarious how often opponents use that "I read her work when I was 18 but now I know better! Herp derp", as if ideas such as self-respect, honest hard work and love based on merit are childish ideas. It's really amazing how often that non-arguement is repeated.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-24 12:58
>>6
If Gyarados if fucking up Magikarps, then the Magikarp will take longer to evolve, the trainers lose millions in Yen and the owner of the Gyarados is allowed to continue assaulting helpless Magikarps without any accountability.
It's sad that I have to explain this in Pokemon terms to get through to your autistic mind. I know these last two sentences will harden your heart to what I'm trying to tell you but you need to face the fact that not all Magikarp have the full set of 4 moves in their move set menu.
Name:
Anonymous2012-12-24 13:42
It is worse than that. The GOP, when faced with the Democrats agreeing with their stance, then moved the goal posts.
R: We won't budge unless you cut spending on this program.
D: OK
R: We won't budge unless you cut spending on this other program.
D: OK, we'll cut that too.
R: (getting flustered) We won't budge unless you... uh, agree to, uh... Oh, hell, I've got nothing. We just won't budge.
D: *Facepalm*.
>>8
I was just humoring you to maintain the flow of conversation, the truth is I have only very limited knowledge of pokemon and I'm having difficulting understanding the analogy now.
I assume you're saying we should be altruistic and stop Gyarados hurting Magikarp or Magikarp won't be a good worker and we will lose millions in Yen.
Well, if we lose millions of Yen by not helping doesn't that mean helping is an act of self-interest? That's not really a good argument against Ayn Rand.
We should be discussing situations where someone needs help but can't return the favor.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-04 21:37
>>7
It is almost as though the idea of thinking practically corresponds to their idea of being evil.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-09 14:26
Altruism is a path to human happiness, it's a drug that has no damaging side effects, only positive ones. Give it a try - it make take some getting used to the taste
Whether it's real altruism - true giving - or selfish altruism just to get a good feeling - is irrelevant. Either way it makes the world a much better place.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-09 17:02
>>13
Altruism is giving a fish to a hungry man everyday and then one to everyone else who turns up looking for free food. Altruism is starving to death because you gave everything away while having to listen to how it's your "duty" to serve those you feed if you try to eat something you caught yourself.
Objectivism is agreeing to trade your knowledge of fishing in exchange for a reasonable amount of fish that is fair and honest. Objectivism is hiring that man for regular produce, paying him a fair wage and then selling the produce for profit.
Name:
Mordekai Edelstein2013-01-10 1:26
hehehe... good goyim
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-27 6:32
>>1
Ayn Rand is a bloody Jewish harpy, full of zionaizms.
If you mean whose side one should be on, Israel or the Arabs, I would certainly say Israel because it's the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages who have not changed for years and who are racist and who resent Israel because it's bringing industry, intelligence, and modern technology into their stagnation. -- Ayn Rand, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-28 19:54
>>16
Would you prefer to live under Zionists or Islamic extremists?
Despite some complaints of discrimination against arabs there don't seem to be any major problems.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 10:30
>>17 extremists
Redundant. Zionists
Anything to sugarcoat shit, just say jewish next time you mean jewish. Zionist is a deferrence word.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-29 10:37
>>18
When you say "jews" you mean 100% of all jews, including the 150000 jews who fought for Germany in ww2, anti-zionist jews who dislike Israel, Alex Jones, Brother Nathanael and baby jews.
I'm not changing the wording of my question, you're just going to have to start distinguishing between cultural marxist jews and good wholesome upstanding jews.
>>19
Alex Jones is a shill for Israel and does anything to defer culpability from jews or if he ever implicates people who are jewish he refers to them by a number of even more deferential terms: banksters, mafiaso, bilderbergers, reptilians.
Norman Finklestein would have been a better example.
Didn't know about this Brother Nathanael guy before, and he does speak a lot of poignant truth that would make brainwashed shabbos goy schiz out at the thought of since their programming can't compute it, however...
He seems a little off himself, like the only reason he's doing it is so that he can be considered a `Good Jew' among the growing number of awakened gentiles who reject the electric jew media and implant the difficulty of `not all jews are bad', while still probably doing plenty of child molesting and swindling himself. Maybe that air of criminality is just an unshakable trait of jewish genes, maybe he's what he's passing himself off as and just looks like he's doing shady shit underneath, but when it comes to a jew, it's guilty until proven innocent. Plus if he isn't yet another jewish sock puppet cleverly presented as a jew, why hasn't the mossad silenced him yet?
Tell me this, how many good gentiles have died in jewish ordered wars (which ww1 and 2 and vietnam all fall under, by the way) and on the street after being robbed by the jewish run economy?
Judaism is built about a pretense of equality in a sense isn't it? The belief in a `Grand Broker', so what would be wrong with the infantesimal number of `Good Jews' getting swept away with the rest of their multitudes of swindling counterparts? Anything else would be unfair and inequal and thus sacrilege. And anyways it'll happen either way once the civilization collapses. Jewry may be able to run amok in the pretentious `civilized' world, but strip away all that and they'll be first on the pillaging block among any constituency.
Name:
Anonymous2013-01-31 13:03
>>21
Why would Alex Jones do anything else? Alex Jones mainly targets the rich and powerful, so naturally he would not hate on every single jew.
He is an enormous jew and he is pointing out that it is hypocritical to use the holocaust as an excuse for israelis to brutalize palestinians. What's wrong with that?
How can all jews be part of the same hive mind working towards the same goals? Not sure if it is a giant conspiracy to create in people's minds a "good jew", or specific jew genes and/or jewish culture that cause this criminal behavior, Jones, Finkel and Nathanael would be shooting themselves in the foot if this were true.
According to this there were supposedly 1.5 million non-aryan jews and 300000 jews in Germany at the onset of the war and probably more in Austria and the Sudetenland, so of around 900000 males, 150000 fought for Germany in ww2, 15/90 = 16.7%.
The german aryan population in 1939 was 70 million, or 87.1 million including territories annexed during anschluss. The size of the german armed forces was 20 million, 20/35 = 57.1%.
You're right, that is a large discrepancy. Still, there is no need to be beastly towards the 150000 jews who fought for their reichsführer and their country, it is the remaining jews we need to look into.
He is an enormous jew and he is pointing out that it is hypocritical to use the holocaust as an excuse for israelis to brutalize palestinians. What's wrong with that?
I never said there was anything wrong with it, what I said is he's a much better example of what you were trying to put across, of jews who actually stand up to and expose totalitarianist jewry.
I spoke with him at a younger, more naive time, and asked him about America's culpability in the militarization of jews that enabled them to invade palestine and start it all. He said it didn't matter, and that israel held FULL culpability for it all, no ifs ands or buts. It was pretty confusing at the time because America was the obvious enabler, however now knowing that it was the jewish vices of power in America that enabled it, I have to say he was right.
You're only looking at ww2 and the german numbers, you're excluding the polish, japanese, chinese, french, british, american, russian, italian, and all other nations' casualties, especially civilian. Plus you're neglecting ww1, vietnam, iraq, afghanistan, libya, and now syria. And if jews get their way, soon iran and north korea.
>Still, there is no need to be beastly towards the 150000 jews who fought for their reichsführer and their country, it is the remaining jews we need to look into.
And what's the need for jews to believe in non jews as cattle and commit countless atrocities against them? There's a need for justice for all of those innocents who have been robbed raped tortured and killed for no reason other than "they're goyim" which is not a reason to begin with.
On top of that as I've said, the need rests in securing the future of humanity as a whole, because with jews humanity very obviously loses, as history and current events show.
And anyway if you really cared about saving jews then you should know that the only way to is to get them out of power, otherwise the civilization WILL collapse and with it goes every level of means to protect them.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-02 4:45
Hey guys, how about we judge individuals by their actions and use reason and logic to determine reality? Yeeeeaeah!
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-02 5:36
>>24
Yeah like the way you kikes judge people purely by whether or not they are jewish by halakal? And then rob rape enslave extort and murder non-jews and it's A-OK because they're "human cattle"?
Don't worry hymie, you are being judged by your actions, using real reason and logic and not your fucking hollywood electric jew spinstrel bizarro bullshit, just as you had been in the past, although they didn't have the foresight to exterminate you like the parasites you are. However this time we know better, and whether by the hand of order or by the absolution of chaos, humanity will be cleansed of its number one detractor, you.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-02 12:13
>>25
Arguing against the use of reason and logic. Fuck yeeeeaaah!
>>30
I'm saying you're a hypocritical jewish shill, you will be judged for your crimes.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-04 2:20
>>33
Which part of my statement makes me a Jewish shill exactly? All I've said so far is that people should be judged by their individual actions and that we should use reason and logic.
>>36
Not at all, just the jewish version that you are trying to paint as "reason" and "logic".
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-04 18:06
>>37
At what point did I paint a Jewish version of anything? I simply made a general statement inviting everyone to use logic and reason. Then you shit the bed.
>>39
Oh we're back to this again? No, come on. Answer the question.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-05 1:36
>>40
That's right, you got shalom'd, probably a member of the jewish internet defence force who has come to show you his appreciation for being a good shabbos goy in the service of Israel.
>>42
So again, you admit that you reject all reason and logic. Not that this wasn't clear from the beginning.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-05 18:16
>>43
So again, you try and fail to put words in my mouth with your jewish spinstreldoctoring. Not that this wasn't clear from the ALwAYS.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-06 1:00
>>44
I'm merely accurately summarizing your position. Promoting reason and logic apparently is enough evidence for you to conclude that I must be Jewish, therefore you must consider reason and logic itself Jewish constructs and reject it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-06 22:46
This is all the result of collectivism.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-07 23:44
>>45 I'm merely accurately summarizing your position.
For the readers at home: Even he knows that it isn't what he's doing at all, but the jew is very good at putting on a face for lying. I bet you all were convinced he really believes what he's saying here. See how easily the jew can fool you?
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-08 2:26
>>47
Yes, you wouldn't want the Jew to trap by making you use reason or logic. You'll never fall for that trick!
>>47
It's self-evident that your position from the past year of postings on this board essentially boil down to if one uses reason and logic and simply if they disagree with you that means that they're a Jew. I hope you at least enjoy this nice little bubble that you've constructed for yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-09 3:00
Sorry, but your talmudic spin on "reason and logic" do not apply to both reality and the position you're arguing it from, as it is completely and utterly hypocritical. Would you hooknosed retards like to try something different for once, or continue parroting nothing?
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-09 5:00
>>50
But I'm not promoting any kind of spin at all. I'll say it now, I don't believe in a special kind of logic, only that you should use reason and logic only to determine objective reality.
>Would you hooknosed retards like to try something different for once, or continue parroting nothing?
The irony, it burns.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-09 12:17
>>51 I don't believe in a special kind of logic
except when it concerns jews and mainting their grip on power.
Yes, your irony does burn, a hot fire under my ass that maintains my vigilance, knowing that everyday millions of people are fooled with this wool you pull over their eyes.
>>52
So posting on /newpol/ is going to "awaken" the masses and we're here to keep you down simply by disagreeing with you? I think you heavily overestimate the influence of these boards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-09 14:23
>>52
>except when it concerns jews and mainting their grip on power.
Even though, once again, I point out that all I suggested was to judge people on their actions as individual and use reason and logic to determine reality? Can't see how anything in that statement pertains to Jews at all.
I invite you again to point out which, exactly, specifically, is the Jewish bit of my original statement. Maybe you'd like like to try something different for once, or continue parroting nothing?
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-10 13:56
>>53
If there's nothing to worry about, chaim, if nothing I say is going to affect anything, then why are you and shlomo wasting so much time reading it and firing everything you've got at it, day in an day out? The great thing I have to my advantage is how much you underestimate your audience and how much they really know, and how much you actually know.
>>54
Because all you're doing is spouting a direct quote from the vile racist jew cunt rosenberg herself. It seems you're the only one who is unaware that anyone with half a brain sees it the moment you posted it in the first place. I recommend you take a page out of your own playbook and switch tactics.
>>55
I could ask of you the same thing about you posting antisemitic crap day in and day out. What is the place except being a large waste of time regardless? I like to waste time arguing on these boards. Me and others arguing against you ≠ silencing you.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-10 16:06
>>14 Altruism is giving a fish to a hungry man everyday and then one to everyone else who turns up looking for free food. Altruism is starving to death because you gave everything away while having to listen to how it's your "duty" to serve those you feed if you try to eat something you caught yourself.
You're conflating short-sightedness with altruism, that doesn't have to be the case.
Sure the person is being altruistic there, but they are also being stupid in how they carry it out.
A smart altruist would give their knowledge of fishing away rather than fish to everyone everyday.
Altruism doesn't have to be giving away that which is easiest and immediate, in fact the opposite is often the `most altruistic' (in that giving knowledge and skills is a lot more difficult than material things).
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-10 17:02
>>55
>why are you and shlomo wasting so much time reading it and firing everything you've got at it, day in an day out?
Because we're actually interested in talking about politics and without fail, day in and day out, you get in the way and derail the thread with insufferably irrational posts.
Here's an analogy of the situation here: the thread is a train on at track and you are a car parked on the fucking tracks. The train doesn't lay down new tracks so that it hits you, you make yourself an obstacle and then wonder why you got hit by a train.
>Because all you're doing is spouting a direct quote from the vile racist jew cunt rosenberg herself
Even if that was true, and I invite you to post the source of this "direct quote", what relevance does that have to the actual content of the quote? If a Jew thought being alive was a good idea would you shoot yourself in the face?
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-10 19:06
>>57
Since he went through so much trouble figuring out how to fish and was intelligent enough to succeed, should he not receive the full market value of his intellectual labor and use that to gain respect from his fellow villagers allowing him to rally them together to conduct more beneficial economic activities? If the society is particularly backwards and primitive, wouldn't this mean keeping it a secret for a while and trading fish for favors?
People can be more equal, we can get it to the point where no one has to live in poverty and everyone is secure and prosperous, however this cannot be accomplished without first acknowledging that there are exceptional people out there and that in this case it is not justified to drag them down to the lowest common denominator in the name of equality like crabs in a bucket.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-12 1:09
>>56
You're right, it isn't silencing me, it's a very big attempt at it though. >>58
Your anology doesn't apply, the train does lay down new tracks, and it isn't even a train, I'm the train, you racist subversion propaganda spreading nazionist niggers are the car parking in my way.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-12 1:27
>>57 >>58 >>60
This is not the line of conversation I had in mind.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-12 14:38
>>61
Can't even keep your shill ducks in a row eh isaac? Tough times to be a jew. Oy vey it's a real HOLLOWCOST over here, the CHUTZPAH of dese goyim.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-12 15:28
>>62
The genius of Ayn Rand is far more important than your silly conspiracy theory.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-12 16:27
>>63
The Jewish genius is always far more important than anything else.
>>66
When the US developed nuclear weapons the soviet union did not say "well, those evil capitalists came up with this idea so I'm not going to adopt it", they knew they were behind the curve and this was the quickest way of catching up.
You can only stand to benefit by taking Ayn Rand's teachings to heart. Anyway she wasn't a jew, her parents were non-observant jews and she was totally apathetic, not that it matters.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-14 4:42
>>69 she wasn't a jew she was totally apathetic
explain >>16
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-14 13:52
>>70
What's to explain? That's what she thought. You should also note that she was firmly against religion as an irrational construct for the weak and stupid, Judaism included.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-14 15:16
>>70
She is of jewish descent and here she is supporting Israel, I'm not a sucker so I can see how that is suspicious.
She clearly states that she opposes US military intervention in favor of Israel, she wasn't even prompted to comment on that, she stated it on her own initiative. She only supports Israel because from her perspective it is the lesser of 2 evils in the region, according to her ideals Israel is merely a dysfunctional and corrupt democracy while the surrounding regimes are outright tyrannies.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-14 19:29
>>71
But Israel is a fundamentalist religious state + some racism (i.e. you must be born from a Jewish mother to qualify for citizenship).
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-14 19:32
>>72 lesser of 2 evils in the region
Good persons don't support evil.
Arabs were citizens at the time, Israel was violating Palestinian property rights and their Arab-Israeli brothers were impotent to prevent it being a minority in a democracy, Ayn Rand would have understood these problems well. She was discussing this in the context of the arab-israeli war however not Palestinian settlements.
I will concede that the "Ayn Rand institue" has been hijacked by zionists.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-15 5:03
>>74 A pox on both your houses.
Except you don't have as much power over Israel and Palestine as the Prince of Verona had over the Capulets and Montagues.
In the real world the good people are those that make tough decisions and get shit done.
>>60 it's a very big attempt at it though.
An "attempt" would be me trying to get on IRC and telling one of the mods to ban you and/or delete your posts. That's not going to happen because 1) I support freedom of speech and 2) the mods stopped giving a fuck about this place for quite a while now. Stop saying that people disagreeing with you = attempts at silencing you, it makes you sound like a self-righteous Fox News-tard.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-22 19:06
I love Ayn Rand.
I want to help people out of poverty but how can I when I can barely look after myself with all the restrictions and controls placed on me? I just want a few million dollars then I will live a modest middle class lifestyle and use the rest of the money to be a nice guy helping people out and stuff. What's wrong with that?
Just stay out of my way.
Name:
Anonymous2013-02-22 21:45
>>77
No thanks, I'll continue to say it because it's true.
>>79
Well, you're entitled to be delusional. I won't stop you there.
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-03 0:30
Ayn Rand is an anachronism, to me
much better and well though philosophies now exist that dont include being scummy to your fellow human!
Objectivism was pretty much laughed at even at the time, libertarians distanced themselves from it. Rand was mostly popular during the anti-soviet/macarthyist hysteria and is now for students that want to seem edgy and those that like their philosophy easy to understand.
I watched “All Watched over by Machines of Loving Grace”: some piece of bullshit against cybernetics that somehow manages to mention Objectivism, and they confirm trough interviews of people close to Ayn Rand that a cult was dedicated to her… What’s funny about them is that they think that all capitalists are Objectivists, they must not get in the way of the British Crown and gubamint, I suppose…
I meant the guys who made the documentary, not the people close to Ayn Rand, they weren’t even asked about that.
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-03 17:37
>>82
You really have to laugh at the very idea of a Randian cult because it would be a cult based on a philosophy that teaches rationality, self-respect and holding your own mind as a reliable authority. If even one of these values were upheld then the cult would instantly collapse in on itself. Anyone involved would immediately identity the fallacy and if told to leave probably would just get up and go as a matter of self-respect.
A Randian cult is a contradiction, like a supreme monarchy that decrees all royalty be rejected.
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-04 18:18
>>84 If even one of these values were upheld then the cult would instantly collapse in on itself.
Not that cultists disobeying their own nominal messiahs, is anything new.
For starters, I fail to see where the Bible ever outlaws alcohol, polygamy, slavery or, for that matter, rock music. But all have large crowds of people citing precisely the Bible for reasons to have all of them banned.
(Inb4 strawmen: I'm not calling for legalizing of slavery or somesuch bullshit, I'm saying to have _actual_ reasons for banning stuff. Otherwise you're just taking potshots at your own foot.)
>>82 Murray Rothbard has to say about Ayn Rand
One kikes talks about other kike.
Why cant we just kill them and nationalize their capitals? I'm sure Rothschilds own capital more than US debt. Just kill all Jews and there will be no problems, no communism, no liberalism, no monotheism, no crap.
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-29 4:45
I heard she's a fag
Name:
Anonymous2013-03-29 8:03
>>87
>One kikes talks about other kike.
All you do is talk about Jews...
>>92
I decide that you're an "uninvited invader", I then decide that I want to kill you. How would you feel towards this hostility? Not very well, I'd imagine.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-06 13:00
>>92
You're the very definition of an uninvited invader. You've invaded this board with your constant shit posting and guess what? No one invited you.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 5:25
>>93
But I'm not a criminal-banker and don't posses significant to capital to justify killing me. Besides, I live in my own country, while Jews live in every country and leverage country's security breath to Jewish profit. Jews also refuse to accept hosting country traditions and pledge any loyalty.
>>94
This is an open board. You're free to create some password-protected board. IIRC, http://0chan.hk/ allows creating personalized boards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 6:11
>>95
>This is an open board.
So? You're still an uninvited invader and by your own logic you should be killed.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 8:25
>>96
To kill me, you need an army, which you don't have, kike. Israeli army are pussy-ass cowards, Israel is alive just because America protects it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 8:47
Jews are so cowardly, Jewish soldiers hide behind their woman.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 14:37
Nobody is an altruist. Absolutely nobody. It's never been fashionable. How's that been working for the world? You're not "unique" or "rebellious" for espousing Ayn Rand's beliefs.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-07 17:29
>>99
In modern society self-sacrifice is still considered the highest virtue but altruism has never been fashionable? Reality check, please.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-08 11:54
>>99 Nobody is an altruist. Absolutely nobody.
Then who helped Ayn Rand, when she arrived in America as a poor emigrant? Who gave the little Jewish girl her Hollywood screenwriting job, when she barely spoke English?
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-08 11:57
>>101
For example, I (http://vk.com/antisemitic) can't get a programming job, because I'm antisemitic and have no degree, despite I know programming relatively well.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-08 12:06
>>102
Maybe it's because your unemployable? Your profile picture shows exactly how professional you appear.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-08 12:15
>>103
I doubt programmer's appearance is that important. I'm not applying for salesman or marketing job - I want to work with computers, not with peoples.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-08 12:29
>>104
I also have imageboard mentality, so I see nothing wrong with child porn or sexist jokes.
>>109
You're not asked to be a harlot, you're being asked to be a professional, something you're apparently incapable of being at age, lol, 27.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-10 18:55
The problem with Ayn Rand is that she labeled herself a philosopher without doing any of the actual work of a philosopher. Her ethics have a built-in paradox in them: If ethically I am only responsible for my own happiness and non-lasseiz fare economics improve my life and make me happy, then am I not ethically allowed by Objectivism's own principles to fight against a 100% completely free market?
She sure judges a lot of people despite her own ethics essentially having a basis in... pretty much nothing. There's precious little she actually justifies. Essentially she just trumpets herself and assumes that if you're not an Objectivist, you may as well be thrown in jail for theft.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-10 22:13
>>104 I doubt programmer's appearance is that important
It appears you have a lot to learn about corporations, young padawan.
For starters, they're made up of human beings. Whom you're gonna have to work with.
Also, the company's doing business with human beings. And one of those is gonna see your picture, and recognize your name from that company, and they're gonna think "Jeez, are they really hiring that kind of clowns over there?"
Which is why, when your boss finds out, the next thing you'll see, is the Russian equivalent of a pink slip.
For starters, they're made up of human beings. Whom you're gonna have to work with.
Most communications would be through IM anyway. So no-one would care if I take a bath once a month.
And one of those is gonna see your picture, and recognize your name from that company, and they're gonna think "Jeez, are they really hiring that kind of clowns over there?"
Why would a company publish a list of neckbeards on its front page?
Besides, social networks hold personal pages, so on facebook you have no responsibility to follow some corporate ronald mcdonald dress code, just because you happen to work at McDonalds.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-11 10:49
If I wanted people to think I am unique or edgy I would join one of those fully mainstream "non-conformist" sub-cultures, develop a certain taste in music, wear silly shit, get a piercing and a tattoo, many people would actually believe I am edgy and it would take a minimum of effort. The last person anyone who wants to look edgy does is support someone mocked by the media and establishment.
I don't agree with everything Ayn Rand says, but equating good and evil with altruism and selfishness is illogical, I agree with Ayn Rand on this point and I don't care about society's hysteria over Ayn Rand. Whenever faced with the choice between what is socially acceptable and the truth I choose the truth.
What is so difficult to understand about this? More importantly when are you going to begin espousing Ayn Rand's views? It would result in people thinking about what it means to be good and giving their charity money to cancer research instead of cat shelters. It would make people think twice about their status as rightful recipients of other people's altruism or whether they are not really oppressed downtrodden victims and maybe it is up to them to help themselves so welfare can go towards those more needy than them.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-11 11:13
>>115
>Most communications would be through IM anyway
Have you... never worked before?
>>115 Most communications would be through IM anyway
In the real world, however, words like "meeting" still feature prominently in corporate dictionaries. And "meeting" still means that a group of people are physically present in the same (physical) room at the same time.
Why would a company publish a list of neckbeards on its front page?
They don't, but that's beside the point; Even when you're not even on their web site in the first place, someone sees your page, recognize where they've seen you working, and makes the connection.
So what if it's your boss that sees it first, he's gonna go ballistic with paranoia. And not (entirely) without cause, either.
Thing is, most (if not all) businesses rely on a reputation of having a professional staff ("professional" here meaning attitude, sense of discipline and public image, at least as much as how much you know).
Which is how, whether you like it or not, you end up representing your workplace damn near every time you're anywhere public. Including your facebook page, which (for all intents and purposes) is public 24/7.
But srsly; Do you really need to be told all this? Do schools in your country suck that hard?
Over here, just about any work-related school these days has stuff like this at some point, under "customer relations" or somesuch. Even the news media feature "watch what you put on facebook and here's why"-type sections from time to time, like slow news seasons.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-11 17:10
>>118
>No. My mom supports me.
This explains everything. You've never worked, never stopped being breast fed and never entered the real world. No wonder your views are so skewed.
Stop trying to look tough giving the internet the finger from your mom's living room, take a bath, clean up your profile and go get a job, any job.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-11 17:34
>>119 But srsly; Do you really need to be told all this? Do schools in your country suck that hard?
I've never attended school. Got my education from teh Internets.
Even the news media feature "watch what you put on facebook and here's why"-type sections from time to time, like slow news seasons.
I don't watch TV. I get most news from imageboards.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-11 18:42
>>120
Shalom hymie, there's nothing skewed about any of his views, they are so much more succinct and poignant than your jewish propaganda bullshit, Nikita is more informed than 99% of the world. Eat a dick and fucking die you dirty kike.
>>105 I also have imageboard mentality, so I see nothing wrong with child porn
That's funny, because before you railed against child porn when you first came around these boards. A little slip in consistency for your paid character act, perhaps? Yes, you came here as a paid forum disruptor because legitimate anti Zionist postings have been going on here for years, and you've been placed her to make the common person equate that with outright and unashamed antisemitism. I see right through your scheme, Nikita (if that's even your real name).
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 5:32
>>125
1. I just find it silly to protest against bits and bytes, especially when they expose the problem.
2. If you want to stop child porn - kill Jews, who make it and abuse kids. And that isn't joke, because child porn producers are real Jews (some with Israeli citizenship), having surnames ending in -sky and -berg. Stop treating symptoms - start "treating" Jews.
3. If child porn would be easily available to pedophiles, there would be no black market and Jews would lose money.
4. You should ban normal porn too, because by your logic it increases number of rape incidents.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 10:00
>>126
Only jews are pedophiles, you would just be abusing children for the benefit of jews.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-12 10:01
>>126
Just a thought, you seem to be defending child abuse, so you must be a jew. Yes?
>>118,121
That explains rather neatly why you never had a job, and most likely never will. Thread over.
n00bguide: Whether you like it or not, this world is made up of human beings. You need to be able to socialize with them, in person (not just over tha webz).
Which is the main reason home-schooling is generally a bad idea: You don't get to form much of a social network, much less those connections and friendships that is the real driving force in society.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-13 10:23
>>130
I will become a serial killer, raping lolies. That way I will get my revenge, and if police catches me, they will have to keep me alive for the rest of my life.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-13 22:58
>>129 >>131
I find it laughable you choose to live like this.
>>129
Ah, Loli-chan. People kind of dislike her new pics, but I think she filled in nicely, to be honest.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-15 5:11
Why are all these trolls trying to derail this thread?
The fact remains, criticism of Ayn Rand is warranted however Ayn Rand was in fact right about quite a lot of things that upset middle class sensibilities and the establishment to some extent.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-15 5:41
>>136
No trolling here, but Loli-chan is definitely sexier than your Ayn Rand.
Name:
Anonymous2013-04-15 10:12
>>137
You're trying to steer the conversation away from Ayn Rand with a controversial topic.
>>140 Does she looks good or is she now an ugly landwhale?
I think she still looks good and still has that charm about her, although it's not *quite* the same as before due to the fact that she's now older, but no complaints from me. Her new pics were posted somewhere on Chansluts last time I visited there.
>>141
I'll readily admit that this is due to my own bias, but seriously, fuck Ayn Rand. Her ideology has been responsible for influencing Reagan/Thatcher, right-wing dictatorships, military juntas and neoliberalism run amok. Seriously, no. Also, this thread has outlived whatever usefulness it had and whatever point needed to be made about Rand have already been over and done with.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-01 7:14
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others"
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-01 9:43
>>143
Hence the question the thread was supposed to be about:
Why do people still —to this day— seem to think she's some kind of genius guru?
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-01 16:43
>>145
The public transport corporation over here makes more money punishing fare-dodgers than by selling tickets. Which explains why they don't do more to get more passengers to pay up.
Now I see where they got that idea.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-05 20:59
i guess the problem i have with these might is right / new age Machiavellism. is that its mostly bullshit and like a lot of things the good is found some ware in the middle. if you go to far to the right of this, selfishness idea you get social Darwinism, and Hitler. to far to the left of the altruism, and you get nothing, nothing at all, and become a door mat. i cant really think of historical example of this. cuz i think true altruism is also bullshit and no human would practice it. thus the reason for no example.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-06 16:12
>Her ideology has been responsible for influencing Reagan/Thatcher
I don't think Rand can take credit for the longest serving prime minister ever, since Thatcher was more conservative than libertarian but okay.
>right-wing dictatorships, military juntas
lolwut? How do you even? You might want to read this book Rand wrote, she's got some pretty strong opinions on dictatorships and military juntas.
>neoliberalism run amok
This is retarded. You wouldn't blame a champion of socialism for North Korea, you'd blame the people actually responsible for North Korea.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-06 17:24
>>150
(not >>143, but I see you missed a few vital spots) Rand influenced Reagan/Thatcher I think not, Thatcher was more conservative than libertarian
You don't have to keep a gun to someone's head and make them march to precisely the same drum as you, to influence them; it's enough that you say something they like. Just saying.
right-wing dictatorships, military juntas nope neoliberalism run amok This is retarded
So you're saying you don't have expressions like "more Catholic than the Pope" where you're from?
So $REVERED_GURU leaves behind a legacy, said legacy takes off, and some people take the legacy to its logical extreme. Only then it's somehow not the Revered Guru's fault. Hmm.
I'm not saying $REVERED_GURU holds all blame, I'm saying to look at inspiration and where it leads (and who it is that takes it there). This is how Jesus gave us the Inquisition, Marx gave us Soviet¹, and social Darwinism gave us Hitler.
(¹ I vaguely remember something about Marx feeling it would do more harm than good for some backwards place like Russia to be the first place to pick up on his ideas. Hard to argue that one in hindsight…)
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-07 12:15
>>151
>Only then it's somehow not the Revered Guru's fault. Hmm.
Yeah, it's a funny idea but I tend not to blame people for things they didn't do. It leads to all sorts of stupid shit that belongs in the dark ages like, sons being blamed for the debt of their father.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-08 22:11
>>150 she's got some pretty strong opinions on dictatorships and military juntas.
Yeah, and it entirely depends on whether or not said dictatorships and military juntas are jew-run and gentile-subjugating.
Fuck off dirty kike.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-10 18:01
>>152
Between «be-all-end-all-Messiah that can do no wrong» and «be-all-end-all-Satan-Judas than can do nothing right», there are a few little things called «nuances». Just saying.
Like «This guy's got some good points, maybe we should listen to him. Just keep your head on, he's still only human.»
If it gets easy to take your teaching to logical extremes and end up in NK, then there are flaws in it, and you should add a caveat or two.
«Not a religion, do not worship!» would be a good place to start.
Name:
1432013-05-15 4:16
Haven't been around in a while to reply, here goes.
>>147 Why do people still —to this day— seem to think she's some kind of genius guru?
People who are massively uninformed (sadly, the majority of the population in any given country) think that someone who is seemingly non-conformist is some kind of genius, irregardless of whether or not their ideas are actually good or not. There's this fixation with some people where they need to be part of a bandwagon and worship an idol. I never understood such silliness, honestly.
>>150 Thatcher was more conservative than libertarian but okay.
They're more or less cut from the same cloth (similar spectrum of thought) Libertarians do like the "progress" that Thatcher had made, but often criticize that she didn't go far enough. Thatcher and Reagan were bad enough, we don't need to go further in the direction of insanity. lolwut? How do you even? You might want to read this book Rand wrote, she's got some pretty strong opinions on dictatorships and military juntas.
Rand may not have directly advocated such things, but her philosophy and idea were put into place via undemocratic means. Chile under Pinochet is a good example of this. You wouldn't blame a champion of socialism for North Korea
Depends. Like libertarianism, socialism comes under a spectrum of moderation and extremism. I certainly wouldn't blame a common social democrat for NK, but certainly would have some words to say for a Marxist-Leninist/Maoist especially one who defends North Korea no matter what (even though the DPRK doesn't follow Marxism-Leninism anymore and replaced that ideology with "Juche").
I have yet to find anything that works better in practice than non-neoliberal mixed economies, and while they're not the best, there's literally nothing better that doesn't require a complete distortion/destruction of the democratic order, followed mostly likely by a massive body count. As for the rest, >>151 & >>154 pretty much nails it.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-15 5:37
>>155 someone who is seemingly non-conformist is some kind of genius,
Rand was very conformist. It is just that Rand's conformist expresses as the loyalty to Jewish community, which greatly profits from wrecking nations. I.e. if Rand succeeds with her propaganda, America gets destroyed and consumed by some rival state (like China or Europe), which has stronger army and economy (remember Might is Right).
In fact, it was likely that Rand served USSR and had hidden agenda of deregulating American economy, so that USSR could have easily attacking America. I.e Ayn Rand was a secret commie.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-20 14:56
Looks like you ran out of argument for this >>156 one too, what a surprise. Keep failing hymie.
Name:
Anonymous2013-05-20 21:29
>>157
oy vey! the chutzpah of these goy! it's like a second shoah on newpol!