I am new to reading and I see her getting hated on social media all the time

[Anonymous No.17146667]

Why is she hated?

[Anonymous No.17146672]

>>17146667
Because she is a meme.
She's not a serious person. Everything she wrote is retarded.

[Anonymous No.17146684]

>>17146667
She is a worse version of Nietzsche, which is already a worse version of Stirner. Plus, she's female and jewish.

[Anonymous No.17146686]

You ever see one of those breech-loading libertarian retards and think "What makes a person become like that?"
Alissa Rosenbaum is the answer.

[Anonymous No.17146704]

>>17146667
Her prose and under edited books, which are made worse by 30-40 page diatribes by protagonists. Atlas Shrugged is a mess, the Fountainhead is much better. Furthermore there is a total rejection of charity as a virtue, even extending to orphans and the elderly. Rand actually has a temple of the human spirit bought by an evil art critic in the fountainhead and turned into an orphanage, and this is viewed as another step in the death of good by the leech. It should be noted that Rand's parents lost everything to communists, so knowing that actually makes the book an interesting psychological profile.

>>17146684
This is astute

>>17146686
This is also a viable criticism, in that Rand is a slave to the excesses of her hatred.

[Anonymous No.17146768]

>>17146667
>I am new to reading
I don't think first graders should visit 4chan anon. Reporting for underage.

[Anonymous No.17146797]

>>17146768
No anon that's not what I really meant
See the thing is I was too busy shagging your mum and nan every night that's why I was not able to use my already learner skill of seeing words and processing knowledge, that is, reading. If it was not for the shagging, I would have read a lot more. But everytime I picked up a book your mum asked for more. What shall a man do in this case right anon?

[Anonymous No.17146806]

If someone told me that Ayn Rand was a Marxist accelationist, I’d instantly believe them

[Anonymous No.17146814]

She's a woman, Jewish, a supporter of the system that's ruined art and on top of all that she is a fucking libertarian. Also I hate how unromantic her view of the world is, she doesn't believe in anything outside of the material

[Anonymous No.17146829]

>>17146806
worse, she is a total pleb. She just looked at communism and said "this is shit. I will just rewrite the communist manifesto but with every word the opposite, and call it a philosophy.

[Anonymous No.17147030]

>>17146797
Nice try, teenager.

[Anonymous No.17147069]

>>17146667
Because he BTFOs poorfags. People want someone else to blame for their failings and she unambiguously supports an individualist viewpoint of self-determination.

[Anonymous No.17147079]

>>17146704
>Furthermore there is a total rejection of charity as a virtue
She was against the obligation to engage in charity, not the act of charity itself. If someone chooses to engage in charity of their own free will then there is no issue. It's when society forces wealthy people to look after the poor under threat of violence or through coercion that she has an issue.

[Anonymous No.17147113]

>>17146684
This. She’s a female, jewish, Americanized version of Nietzsche. How she was ever taken seriously is beyond me.

[Anonymous No.17147122]

>>17146667
She's libertarian and think people get what they deserve. Poor dumb people dont like being held responsible for being poor

[Anonymous No.17147210]

>>17146667
Points out how useless the people socialists obsess over generally are.

[Anonymous No.17147223]

>>17147210
Socialists hate the working class as much as they hate rich people.

[Anonymous No.17147224]

>>17147079
I get that, but by taxation you are sort of forced to support charitable initiatives. Im not a big govt liberal type, but I do think that there needs to be SOME safety net that is provided as part of the contract, esp when it comes to the mentally ill, abused children etc. Turning them out on the street because they cant pay the orphan bills is not that far from Rand.

[Anonymous No.17147241]

>>17147223
I never said anything about the working class.

[Anonymous No.17147252]

>>17146667
•The ideology is toxic and breeds toxic halfwits.
•Her fiction is not particularly good.
•Her "philosophy" is not rigorous or professional. It's as though Dr. Phil declared himself a philosopher.
•But really it's the toxic losers who take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.17147258]

>>17147241
What do socialists obsess over other than the working class and evil capitalist bogeymen?

[Anonymous No.17147287]

>let woman write book on philosophical human ideal
>extreme narcissism, greed, selfishness, egoism, hedonism, vanity, sociopathy, and solipism are actually a good thing
>t. XX Walking Vagina

Her books are interesting not for the prose or the surface level Libertarian ideology, but as a dark and terrifying insight into the Machiavellian female mind. Her books are a powerful case for Redpill and Blackpill social sexual theory.

All her books are about a Dark Triad hyper-ambitious Chad. The female love interests are always hypergamous and calculating. Look at the Fountainhead for example. Roark rapes Dominique but it’s ok because most women secretly have a rape fantasy as long as the man is tall, handsome, and masculine enough. Dominique also branch swings from man to man whenever one loses their social standing or another one reaches success. She literally sleeps around with rich men to social climb and secure resources with her pussy, and ends relationships whenever a richer man comes along that she thinks she has a chance with.

Female brains like to hamster away and create constructs and spooks to justify their actions, “I cheated because he wasn’t giving me enough attention, it’s not my fault, he is the bad guy and we had that one fight 3 months ago about which restaurant to eat at for our anniversary so actually he is emotionally abusive too.” This is because despite their solipsism, the average women might feel guilt on their conscience without such justifications, which they only care about because it is an uncomfortable feeling.

Ayn Rand is rare because she cuts away the bullshit and provides the naked truth of what is going on at the base level of a roastie’s mind.

[Anonymous No.17147312]

>>17147287
Big think.

[Anonymous No.17147377]

>>17147287
>Female brains like to hamster away and create constructs and spooks to justify their actions, “I cheated because he wasn’t giving me enough attention, it’s not my fault, he is the bad guy and we had that one fight 3 months ago about which restaurant to eat at for our anniversary so actually he is emotionally abusive too.” This is because despite their solipsism, the average women might feel guilt on their conscience without such justifications, which they only care about because it is an uncomfortable feeling.
Absolutely. Women rationalize their bad behavior to make themselves feel good, which is ultimately what they really care about.
Weininger was right. Women are not immoral. They are amoral. They cannot think morally because they do not think rationally, and morality is nothing but practical reason.

[Anonymous No.17147447]

As a totalitarian capitalist, I highly disapprove of Ayn Rand’s reformist drivel. She doesn’t even believe that all human interaction must be monetized. Truly a despicable act of compromise and treason.

That being said, I expect to receive a dollar from every single poster for the privilege of reading this post. Interest on this payment is 2% a day, if you don’t pay me, I will sue you for oppressing me and my flawless worldview. Have a great day

[Anonymous No.17147460]

>>17146667
because she's soulless and fails to understand the natural world but that doesn't matter to twitter they just hate her because she's right about socialism.

[Anonymous No.17147657]

>>17147377
>Weininger was right
Any recs for a translation of Sex and Character?

[Anonymous No.17147733]

>>17146667
appeals to a more insufferable fan base than even sam harris'

[Anonymous No.17147846]

>>17146667
She reminds the Neoliberals that equality is a joke, and that stepping up to the role of being masculine (Chad) is what women actually love in men.
Being a Chad is in great part genetic, so you can now start to see how being told to be one, when you don't have a choice on your genes, would make you start to delude yourself into thinking everything in life is made up social construct, so you can pretend its not real and escape from it.

Its the same reason why Liberals push stuff like fat women being beautiful, and why they always look so horrendous to look at.
Beauty is objective, and not attainable by everyone. Mix that fact with one of the most entitled generations that believes they are the queen of their own movie, and you can see clearer the madness going on at Universities in the US.

[Anonymous No.17147876]

The undisciplined and hedonistic leftist resents the industrious man that builds riches and manages to stay focused on his goals relentlessly. Its jealousy.

[Anonymous No.17147939]

>>17147846
This is completely right and is why (besides LARPing as a liberal since it is in my best interest currently) I push for transhumanism and possibly the extinction of the human race as a whole. I wouldn't be surprised if the ugly Jews in power have the same goal as well too. You will NOT win Chad. In the end, we incels and uggos will rule. If I can't win against nature, I will make it my personal goal to destroy it. This is no longer a war against Chads or Stacies, it is a war against nature itself.

[Anonymous No.17147965]

>>17146667
>why is a sociopathic parasite disliked???
Amerifats never cease to amuse

[Anonymous No.17147988]

>>17147965
you've never paired a meal with wine? same thing. he's not talking about literally putting the soda in the food you dumb eurotrash.

[Anonymous No.17148006]

>>17147988
>unironically comparing soda to wine
Have mercy on my sides, I beg you.

[Anonymous No.17148021]

>>17148006
they're just beverages you lunatic

[Anonymous No.17148025]

>>17147988
>you've never paired a meal with wine? same thing.
OH NO NO NO

[Anonymous No.17148030]

>>17148006
>>17148021
This, putting certain drinks as ''higher tier'' because of its associated use by Aristocrats is laughable

[Anonymous No.17148034]

>>17147988
>same thing
Anon, I...

[Anonymous No.17148100]

>>17147939
Trans-humanism is likely the only thing that has the potential to bring true equality, or at least lessen the gap. Though, like most utopic dreams, it is likely not going to happen like you want it to, or have some severe consequences that end up making things worse.
If you are an ugly incel, your best bet is self improvement in every aspect of your life to maxx what nature has given you, trans humanism as you imagine it might not come as soon as you wish. It might take 300 years for all we know.

[Anonymous No.17148152]

>>17148100
>or at least lessen the gap.
it will lead to even more division and war, the norms vs the altered humabs

[Anonymous No.17148343]

>>17148152
Probably, which is why I stopped caring about Transhumanism and now solely focus on self improvement, and staying away from niggers. No matter how much you want the world to be equal, it ins't, and your belief won't stop you from getting shanked by a nigger

[Anonymous No.17148360]

>>17147988
Based

[Anonymous No.17148382]

>>17148343
This is the correct path, we do our best when we strive to be our best perpetual navelgazing and vitimisation weakens you.

[Anonymous No.17148394]

>>17147988
While I am sure you've extensively tested whether Coke, Dr. Pepper, Pepsi, or Sprite pairs better with your favorite fast food tendies, the bigger issue here is that you're a poor, low-class retard who did not realize the problem with what you wrote. You had time to self reflect, delete this, then walk away. But you still posted this.
We never should have rejected outright classism as a societal virtue.

[Anonymous No.17148402]

>>17148394
thank you for sharing your hand-me-down opinions with us, eurotrash. I bet you believe in terroir

[Anonymous No.17148403]

>>17147965
He's unironically right.
>>17148006
>>17148025
>>17148034
>>17148394
Cope.

[Anonymous No.17148434]

>>17148402
Is it all the sugar and subcutaneous fat that makes amerifats incapable of anything other than the same three insults?

[Anonymous No.17148461]

I don't know anything about her other than that reddit hates her, especially redditors on philosophy subreddits.

For that alone, she must be doing something right.

[Anonymous No.17148489]

>>17148403
I drink soda when I eat pizza, but cant compare it to wine since I dont drink any alcohol. Also to make this on topic ayn rand spent her whole life shitting on poor people and how it was their fault and died impoverished. The only reason people push her drivel is that she came from Soviet russia and defends rich people ignoring long term social and economic crises

[Anonymous No.17148500]

>>17148434
the problem is you don't understand true freedom. you need your life validated by aristocratic degenerates to the point of not even being able to enjoy meals without it. conformism runs in your very veins.

I'm going to enjoy a nice glass of Wallaroo Trail shiraz with my frozen raviolis and the next day I'll enjoy a nice hamburger with a glass of Fatnta and you can seethe in your tiny little car knowing that even the most famous sommeliers consistently fail blind tests and you're paying 5 times as much as I am for the same experience.

[Anonymous No.17148509]

>>17147988
>>17148021
>>17148030
The absolute state of Ameriggoids

[Anonymous No.17148511]

>>17146667
her novels are preachy and way too long but overall not too bad. she makes socialists seethe so she is mildly based.

[Anonymous No.17148650]

>>17148500
>true freedom is drinking Coca Cola™
>also it's everyone else who is conformist for not liking heavily marketed liquid sugar
America is a meme country.

[Anonymous No.17148671]

>>17146667
Because she's a terrible writed who wrote bloated, boring books, and her philosophy would lead to an absolutely awful society.

[Anonymous No.17148692]

>>17146797
>Implying my mum would shag a dimwit who as an adult has read less than 10 books and needs to ask 4chan what makes an author bad, because he can't read summaries of her thoughts and work it out for himself.

[Anonymous No.17148710]

>>17147069
Because her insisting that someone being poor is entirely their own fault due to lack of effort, rather than being strongly influenced by countless socio-political, economical, psychological and chance factors is naive and simple minded.

[Anonymous No.17148719]

ITT: amerifats seething

[Anonymous No.17149862]

The absolute ass-blasted seething in this thread has convinced me she's based beyond measure. Brb, immediately buying her best-sellers.

[Anonymous No.17150013]

>>17149862
Enjoy reading 1400 pages of a middle aged Jewish woman getting a wide-on over business men.

[Anonymous No.17150025]

>>17148710
>Because her insisting that someone being poor is entirely their own fault due to lack of effort
t. propagandized, strawman-regurgitating botnet

[Anonymous No.17150033]

>>17150013
Anon stop, I'm excited enough as it is.

[Anonymous No.17150037]

>>17146667
Find out for yourself
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHl2PqwRcY0

[Anonymous No.17150045]

>>17146797
Is this supposed to convince anon you're not a child?

[Anonymous No.17150062]

>>17150025
Don't worry anon, once you finish your studies I'm sure you'll become a millionaire!

[Anonymous No.17150087]

>>17146667
Reddit tells people to hate.

[Anonymous No.17150121]

>>17150087
People have hated Ayn Rand long before Reddit. She was never considered a serious thinker by academics or philosophers.

[Anonymous No.17150141]

>>17150037
God I love that interview. Absolutely mogs that lefty faggot.

[Anonymous No.17150154]

>>17146667
>describe the perfect man
>a robot who's never affected by emotions, no matter what
unironically sorry, but that's not a human m'lady; you reject life

[Anonymous No.17150161]

>>17146814
>she doesn't believe in anything outside of the material
also, t.

[Anonymous No.17150204]

>>17146667
Because the message she consistently spread was extremely atheistic, too atheistic even for most atheists, who still depend on the moral teachings of one religion or another. The only people atheistic enough to support her are certain types of Protestants and the odd Catholic like Paul Ryan. She told people that greed is good, that the heroes of the world are corporate executives. In short, she was trying to create hell on earth.

[Anonymous No.17150206]

>>17146797
Lmao nice, got three fags to reply butthurt because anon went aggro on ya for no reason other than to stroke his own ego. /lit/ has always been a board full of pussies

[Anonymous No.17150230]

>and I see her getting hated on social media all the time
Mostly because we live in a corporate-designed liberal monoculture. As bad of a writer as she is, none of the people you see hating her have actually read her, they're just repeating what they have been instructed to.

[Anonymous No.17150247]

>>17150230
Strangely enough Rand is the biggest exponent of the corporate-designed liberal monoculture.

[Anonymous No.17150270]

>>17150230

Don’t blame them, she is just another blowhard that wrote thousands of pages about her ideology, which had little to do with anything. All anybody ever cared about were her novels, which were just vehicles to glorify entrepreneurs.

[Anonymous No.17150276]

>>17148511
>she makes socialists seethe
If by "seethe" you mean "eyeroll.jpg" then ya

[Anonymous No.17150291]

>>17150247
She wasn't, she was just someone incredibly naive about the impact of capitalism on culture and society, and someone who couldn't grasp the relationship between economics and ideology, thinking of each of them as separate entities in a vacuum instead. She was just like you in that regard.

[Anonymous No.17150293]

>>17150230
oh no, I definitely read her. At 15. the book is pure ideology and I ate that shit up. this is the core audience for this book. 15 year old angsty boys. worst book i ever finished.

[Anonymous No.17150305]

>>17146667
read the fountainhead, liked it, and haven't read anything by her since

[Anonymous No.17150328]

>>17148710
>rather than being strongly influenced by countless socio-political, economical, psychological and chance factors is naive and simple minded.
Leftist cope

[Anonymous No.17150416]

>>17146667
Most people are failures, and Rand's ideology repudiates the value of people who are failures, so it follows that people would get assblasted over it.

[Anonymous No.17150439]

>>17150291
Virtually every unfavorable phenomenon people blame on capitalism is entirely attributable to the state and exploitation of its monopoly on violence.

[Anonymous No.17150450]

>>17150305
>read the fountainhead, liked it, and haven't read anything by her since

Same here. Thought it was pretty entertaining story and left it at that.

[Anonymous No.17150487]

>>17150439

This board is for adults kid, you need to get out before the cops see you in here.

[Anonymous No.17150572]

>>17147988
>mfw a random mutt on /lit/ accidentally explains why his kind worships Rand and her garbage

[Anonymous No.17151212]

>>17150439
Good thing that capitalism doesn't exist without the state's monopoly on violence.
Hint: two random guys exchanging vegetables isn't capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17151216]

>>17146667
That's a handsome man.

[Anonymous No.17152190]

>>17151212
>two random guys exchanging vegetables isn't capitalism.
yes it is, capitalism is literally just the free market

[Anonymous No.17152195]

>>17150037
What happened to america?

[Anonymous No.17152241]

>>17152190
No. Without state monopoly of violence, no money, without money, no capitalism. Me and my neighbor exchanging vegetables in our backyards to cook them for our respective dinner has nothing to do with "the free market", it doesn't involve a market at all, nor does it involve money. Feudalistic economies are not capitalistic, and neither were most local economies (ie most economies pre-500 bc) in history.

Note also that most capitalistic economies are antithetic to "the free market". Not only is the free market a pure fiction, it is a fiction whose spirit runs counter to how capital is accumulated in modern economies.

[Anonymous No.17152319]

>>17150037
Interesting, got linked an interview with Aldus Huxley.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alasBxZsb40

[Anonymous No.17153481]

>>17150328
It's of course true, and thinking otherwise is ideology not based in reality

[Anonymous No.17154375]

>>17152241
this is like the dumbest post I seen on this board so far
imagine thinking all property just vanished into thin air when the state collapses
the state going away means absolutely nothing, people still need to exchange goods and have their property protected

[Anonymous No.17154626]

>>17154375
If there is no state, then what is there to say what is who’s property? There is the property that people use, and things that aren’t being used, and with no state to enforce property laws, there is no such thing as property.

“Private Property” is a made up concept, it isn’t a physical entity that exists in reality, it only exists on paper. That paper must be backed by a state.

[Anonymous No.17154741]

>>17152241
>[exchanging vegetables in our backyards] doesn't involve a market at all
it does if the son can steal them and exchange them for sex from the feral girl hiding in the barn.

[Anonymous No.17154762]

>>17147988
This shouldn’t even be a hot take. Eating a burger while drinking a soda is a nice (albeit unhealthy) lunch.

[Anonymous No.17154788]

>>17147252
>toxic losers who take it seriously
Including - unfortunately - politicians.

[Anonymous No.17154806]

>>17147988
>wine
Literal piss that pseuds force themselves to drink to look wise and cultured

[Anonymous No.17154908]

>>17154626
What are you even using to define a state? People back up claims through force of armament.
Rand calls for as minimalist state as possible because the free market is most often a better regulator.

[Anonymous No.17155715]

>>17146684
Story as old as time: Jewish pussy got men acting strange. Total victims over 6 million.

[Anonymous No.17155841]

>>17154908
I’m asking how are you going to decide who’s property is who’s if you don’t have a state? The state is the only thing that upholds the contracts of private property, as it has a monopoly on the recognition of private property.

[Anonymous No.17155852]

>>17154908
>People back up claims through force of armament.

Then what’s to stop the people with the most guns taking everyone’s property when you don’t have the state to prevent it?

[Anonymous No.17156343]

>>17146797
Based

[Anonymous No.17156479]

>>17155841

For a group of people who seem so interested in the illegitimacy of states, it seems libertarians don’t exhibit any knowledge of the whole development of the modern state. The medieval period had much debate about jurisdiction and law, and it was largely because in the period where feudal relations were widespread there was much confusion about authority and who had right to what. Political authority was basically the property of lords and kings, but at the same time it had certain responsibilities that were commonly recognized which it could struggle to fulfill or outright neglect given the web of relationships building up out of disorienting claims made by parties against other parties. England was more stable than other areas on the continent, but even during the crusades you had the rise of the eyre system of circuit courts partially because knights were dying off in the holy land and confusion about inheritance was such a destabilizing problem that the King asserted his authority to have his law travel around the land and be the final arbiter of disputes. In less successful monarchies around Europe, this was not achievable and so turmoil over rights and jurisdiction prevailed.

Even back in antiquity the Christians, a persecuted minority of course, were at times quite pleased with the Roman Empire because they interpreted the pax romana as a divinely created scenario for the people of the world to hear the Christian message without the problem of disparate feuding cities and princes impeding it. There was a general desire for Roman Imperium to return throughout the post-collapse because of its perceived uniformity of law and order. The great interest in the rediscovered Roman Law by medieval scholars was because they wanted to resurrect the civil law code to bring some order to Europe, which many lords and kings were open to hearing because they too wanted order, but of course conditional on how beneficial it was to their position. Now that we have had order for centuries and all the benefits of it, you have moderns who believe the entire basis of it (the increasingly sharply defined state authority) is somehow the reason we don’t have Mars colonies.

[Anonymous No.17157178]

>>17155715
The Khazar milkers are cursed.

[Anonymous No.17157265]

>>17152190
No it isn't. As long as there are capitalists the market can't be free.

[Anonymous No.17157281]

Liberals hate being reminded that reality is objective, and that they fail to measure up to it.
Its easier to say reality is not real, than have to improve as a person.

[Anonymous No.17157539]

>>17157281
You have to be over 18 to post on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.17157556]

>>17150305
Exact same for me. Total mystery why anyone hates her. Well not really, I guess they just hate what they think is her ideology as told to them by secondhand sources.

[Anonymous No.17157599]

>>17157556
When I was around 18 I read Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Anthem and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. They blew my mind, I thought "This all makes perfect sense".

The more criticisms you read about her, even if they're from the left and you're rightwing, you begin to realise why so many people don't take her seriously in economic or philosophical circles.

[Anonymous No.17158082]

>>17147846
I agree with the majority of your post but the whole 'beauty is objective' shit is so obviously incorrect that I feel you are just baiting. If fat people are so horrendous to look at, and beauty is objective, then why do people have fetishes for fat fucks?

[Anonymous No.17158091]

>>17147252
So it’s like a lot of the writing that everyone in this place loves?

[Anonymous No.17158111]

>>17150062
Imagine thinking it's hard to become a millionare. Ever heard of assets, retard? Wait I forgot that your only goals in like are going viral on Twitter, not working hard, being financially responsible and setting up a future for you and your family. Kill yourself you faggot

[Anonymous No.17158149]

>>17151212
>Hint: two random guys exchanging vegetables isn't capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17158262]

>>17158111
And I'm sure once you finish your Business Studies degree you'll "work hard" and "acquire lots of assets" and become a millionaire too! I mean, you must be smarter and more talented than everyone else who isn't a millionaire, because you think you're going to be one.

[Anonymous No.17158421]

>>17158262
Do you even know what assets are, fuckwit? If you are married and own a house and two cars you are probably already at 750k (depending on where you live and the value of your house and the income of the two of you). On top of this, if you aren't a complete retard (which seems like you are) you should have some sort of retirement fund or a 401k that'll bring you closer to the goal. At that point, the rest of your assets are literally everything else you own, including computers, clothes, electronics, etc. It is not hard to be a millionaire, but unfortunately this country is infested with financially illiterate fucktards like yourself who probably got into hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt getting some stupid art degree no one gives a fuck about, buying the new iPhone or getting a brand new car every 5 years.

Let me guess and correct me if I'm wrong, but you are probably some 20-something year old who just got out of college, probably unemployed due to the pandemic or working somewhere shitty like Starbucks. You have no useful or marketable skills other than bringing food to the table, and you think it's the government's responsibility, and not your own, to become financially healthy and expect handouts at every turn. Your parents were probably as financially retarded as you were so you know have this defeatist, woe is me attitude that you'll never have any amount of wealth.

Stop being a fag, learn a useful skill, learn how to balance your budget, and get the fuck out of debt. Since you're on /lit/, read The Total Money Makeover and Everyday Millionaires, it'll probably change your life. But I know you won't do that. I know you won't take any responsibility for your own life, nor your finances, and find it easier to just shitpost on social media about how bad capitalism is, how Biden should cancel all of your student debt and landlords are evil and rent should be cancelled. Please either grow some balls or kill yourself you complete fucking waste of oxygen, I hope you drown in all your fucking debt while I'll be reaping the rewards of my assets, my Roth and my hard work while you depend on food stamps and social security in your golden years.

[Anonymous No.17158628]

heartless jew

[Anonymous No.17158632]

>>17158421
>Let me guess and correct me if I'm wrong, but you are probably some 20-something year old who just got out of college, probably unemployed due to the pandemic or working somewhere shitty like Starbucks.


I'm 26, 4 years graduated from an Econ degree, (with a year of placement). I work in key accounts for a medium size pharmaceuticals with a £41k salary. I have a house (mortgaged, obviously) and I drive a company car, (3 series). I contribute the minimum I can to my pension because I have a vanguard fund that I put a couple of grand a year in, it's at about 34k at the moment, (24% increase since account opened, mostly invested in the Life strategy 60). I'm doing fine.

[Anonymous No.17158646]

>>17158421
What books would you recommend?
I am on a path to study Mech Engineering, but I might end up changing to do Econ/business or Finances, seems like the money is there

[Anonymous No.17158660]

>>17158421
>>17158632

and I didn't read the rest of your post, but I saw the word Biden. I live in the UK. Keep being a bootlicker and keep pretending that wealth is only the result of hard work and not the result of countless decisions you don't get to decide. The absolute minimum of society should be much higher than it is, and I don't care what some boomer mentality busy body who thinks working a lot is a virtue above all else says.

[Anonymous No.17158681]

Liberals in general have a deep hatred for the industrious, self disciplined and organised man. They want to be free to explore aesthetics and thoughts without any boundaries, responsibilities, deadlines or stress, like a child. This makes them more creative, but also less able to create anything of their own without some structure put in place by others.

Their hatred towards Rand is mostly a reminder that most women get wet for CEOs, and don't give much of a shit about your queer paintings

[Anonymous No.17158696]

>>17158660
Its Ok, you can continue to be poor and seethe

[Anonymous No.17158700]

>>17158421
>>17158646
both of you are fucking retarded
you shouldn't invest into a roth ira or any other pension scam, no matter how attractive the tax breaks or government top-up may be.
you most definitely shouldn't put your money in a life strategy fund, since they not only charge higher fees (due to management and turnover), but, given your age and stability of income, you have a great opportunity to take on an enormous amount of risk; you could put that money towards something far riskier, or at least some emerging markets index fund, and reap a much higher reward in the long-term

both of you come across as naive witless cowards - i suggest you both kill yourselves

[Anonymous No.17158733]

>>17158696
I bet you're either still in uni or live with your parents waiting on your big break.

[Anonymous No.17158759]

>>17157599
I've not read her work so I'm curious what it is you're alluding to?

[Anonymous No.17158762]

>>17158700
I have some money in an emerging market bond fund, emerging market all cap, and global market small cap for riskier investments and they're all doing shit compared to my life strategy and global all cap. I'm pretty risk averse generally, especially when it comes to investment funds.

[Anonymous No.17158777]

>>17158733
Neither, I am also not the guy you were talking to. Just felt like chiming in.

[Anonymous No.17159100]

>>17158660
>YOU'RE A BOOTLICKER BECAUSE YOU'VE SET GOALS FOR YOURSELF

Lmao, you're fucking funny bong. What decisions that you don't decide for yourself prevent you from being wealthy? Sure, maybe if I was born with no fucking hands or eyes you're probably right, but for the vast majority of normal people like you and me, it's absolutely an achievable goal. I could understand your persistent denial that these goals are unachievable if I said I wanted to become a billionaire - that's a huge fucking stretch - but 1 million? It's totally fucking achievable. And I don't mean a million dollars in my bank account, I mean the total combined value of my assets being worth more than a million dollars. You are 26 years old, you have 30 more years to work and save, which is more time then you've even been alive let alone working and you still have this pansy-ass 'noooooooo it's impossible :( the deck is stacked against me' juvenile attitude even when you have 34k to your name, on top of your 41k a year salary.

>Working a lot isn't a virtue, it should be easy to make a lot of money!

I think that tells me everything I need to know about the kind of person you are.

[Anonymous No.17159227]

>>17159100
Anon, I'm not saying it's incredibly difficult for ME or YOU to be a millionaire, (I highly doubt I will, but I value other things over earning lots of money, having free time being one of them), my point is that there are lots of OTHER people who have the chips stacked against them in huge ways.

If you think someone who grows up in rural Wyoming, or with parents who didn't really care about education, or have an attention disorder so have never been treated in an appropriate way by authority figures, or made a mistake early on in life, has the same chance as being a millionare as someone living in LA with parents who are middle class and care about their kids education, as long as they work really hard, you're simply missing the mark.

We have kind of got off the point here, but my original point is that becoming a millionaire comes down to a lot more than personal determination. Probably more than half of the US or UK have a giant uphill battle to become a millionaire because of where they where born, the way their parents raised them, the income of their family and neighbourhood, and the type of friends they developed with as a teenager. I still don't like having to work a job and there are million things I would prefer to do than talk to people on the phone all day about biosimilars and doing VLookups on Excel, regardless of how much it pays.

[Anonymous No.17159449]

>>17159227
>my point is that there are lots of OTHER people who have the chips stacked against them in huge ways.

Well, such is the case with everything. Not everyone can be a millionaire, not everyone can be a hot up and coming rock star, not everyone can be a professional athlete, not everyone can get that dream job they want, etc. But my personal philosophy, which is perhaps where you and I differ, is that even if the deck is stacked against you that doesn't mean your goals are impossible. Sticking to the topic of discussion, becoming a millionaire, unless you are the child of rich parents or collect an inheritance is an inherently difficult task. But plenty of people have been able to persevere through their difficult circumstances and come out successful on the other side. The way I see things is that if you go through life with a defeatist attitude of 'the deck is stacked against me, i am a victim, i cannot better my circumstances' then that is probably how the rest of your life is going to go. For me, it's better to go through your life with an 'I can' attitude, rather than 'I can't'. Now, am I suggesting for a second that just having the right mindset is enough to make all of your goals easily attainable and realistic? Nah, I'm not one of those 'law of attraction' type retards, but if you actively try to set goals for yourself and work through your circumstances you have a higher chance of being successful rather than just throwing your hands up and saying "i'm fucked". Persevering through adversity isn't impossible, and it's not easy either, and it's certainly not a guarantee, but nothing in life is.Plenty of people throughout history have become more successful then you or I probably ever will be and have had the chips stacked against them in huge ways and people will continue to do so in the future.

[Anonymous No.17161189]

poverty is the foundational state of humanity

[Anonymous No.17162551]

>>17147223
Wow very deep

[Anonymous No.17162929]

>>17146667
>I am new to reading

If you're going to recycle threads, anon, at least fix the mistakes that others have pointed out to you.

Your post says you are new to reading. Thus, you are pre-pubescent, or for some were illiterate into adulthood.

[Anonymous No.17162967]

>>17146667

>anon A asks why Rand is hated
>other anon B gives perfectly satisfactory, straightforward answer
>anon A goes "But that doesn't make seeeense, no reallyyyy, whyyyyy"

Every. Time.

[Anonymous No.17163388]

>>17158082
Same reason people have fetishes for bathing in shit, gore, snuff, rape, being eaten alive, or cutting off their own limbs. They are dysfunctional. I would not take the fetishes of some outliers as a reference to what is truth for the common, seemingly functional human in society.

The same way I wouldn't describe someone with down syndrome as the normal kind of intelligence you should expect from your average human being.

[Anonymous No.17163414]

>>17163388
That was just an easy, off the top of my head example. Surely you know there contemporary and historical examples of cultures that find fat being attractive. I'm not for a second arguing that it is okay to be fat, or even obese, I purely have a problem with your notion that beauty is objective. You, me and every reasonable person can see fatties for the hambeasts they are, but the fact that there are examples otherwise, whether it be the fetishes of outliers or dead/shitty island cultures still proves that your idea is wrong unless you think everyone who disagrees with you is dysfunctional which I think is a stupid way of looking at things.

[Anonymous No.17163424]

>>17163414
Yeah, but where are these cultures now?

[Anonymous No.17163447]

>>17163424
As I said it doesn't matter, there are examples to the contrary. Do you know what objectivity means? Even if the cultures are dead and gone it still makes what you said about beauty incorrect. It's like saying emus never existed because they aren't here anymore, even though they /objectively/ did. Plus there are modern examples as I mentioned.

[Anonymous No.17163451]

>>17158091
Pretty much. Incidentally, the first week of /lit/ was all consumed by Rand posting, so much so that she was banned for a time.

[Anonymous No.17163463]

>>17163447
I disagree, it was objectively beautiful back then because they didn't have anything else to go by, people and culture grow more complex, and so does their biological organs, thus letting them achieve a higher resolution antenna for beauty, so to speak.

If what you say was true, then most races wouldn't find Asian and European women as the most beautiful, and you wouldn't see Blacks finding their own females (alongside all the other races) as absolutely hideous

[Anonymous No.17163493]

Well the most annoying thing with Ayn Rand is that she actually is a Social Darwinist and a fascist, she just didn't have the balls to say it. Wanting a society where only a small number of people win and get to rule everything is the same as wanting Fascism, the people who want Fascism are just being honest about it.

[Anonymous No.17163498]

>>17163493
But we already live in such a society tho

[Anonymous No.17163508]

>>17163463
If it was all they had to go on, then that clearly proves beauty is subjective. If there was an entire culture of fatties, and all the males objectively thought that skinny girls were the only hot ones, then they would never fuck them, let alone create sculptures of them. You also keep saying back then, but refuse to acknowledge the contemporary examples (Samoan, Melanesian, off the top of my head) . They're usually cultures with high rates of fatties, but to that I refer back to point one. Objectivity isn't concerned with waiting for people to 'achieve higher resolution antennas for beauty) or whatever it is you are talking about, I feel you are just doubling down on being wrong which is just weird man.

Now anon I am going to go to bed, so do not think me giving you the last word means victory for you. Surely it does not, I have provided ample evidence to support my claim and you have thus far been proven to be incorrect. That's one point for me, and zero points for you. My ego is now satisfied, and your's a bit wounded (which is probably why you'll respond with disagreements even though you have been thoroughly and clearly been shown to be wrong). Any further attempts in this discussion will prove futile because you are wrong. I win this one, pal. LOSER! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Anonymous No.17163523]

Was Rand right
https://youtu.be/C1-0XKYAZII

[Anonymous No.17163539]

>>17163508
>Be a kid
>Play PS1
>Be impressed by the graphics
>Grow up
>Play PS5
>Be impressed by the graphics

>>>This means beauty is not subjective because you found PS1 graphics beautiful back then

The highest level of beauty at any given time, is what you'll have as reference, until an even more beautiful entity comes along and makes you realise the flaws of that which you used to praise. If this wasn't true, then our ancestors would have found their females too ugly to be fucked, and as they evolved and became more beautiful, they'd have found our modern ones too ugly to be fucked again.

Have you never played a videogame you used to think looked amazing?

[Anonymous No.17163559]

>>17163498
Maybe, but why write as if you actually give a shit about capitalism and markets, when what you actually want is for the strong and heroic to rule? Every single one of her characters in her books are fascistic romantic heroes and not at all pictures of ingenious capitalists.

I mean, most ingenious capitalists in real life are manlet nerds who haven't lifted a weight in their life, who found a way to rent-seek the government for funds, financially manipulate stocks and bonds, or achieved monopolies in their fields. They are not like Howard Roark or John Galt.

[Anonymous No.17163568]

>>17146667
She's all around terrible, one of the most psychologically blind writers out there. However her ideology is good for controlling the proles

[Anonymous No.17163578]

>>17163559
Its the fine line between admitting in-between the lines (Which is exactly how women communicate) that the strong, heroic and fascist male is what get her pussy wet, but also her existential dread as a female of not wanting to be outright with it.
Because the last thing a woman wants is society collapsing after all the gamma, delta and beta males seethe against nature itself for not blessing them with the genetics to be a handsome, tall and high IQ chad, and end up just out right raping women.
As many, many incels in this dare dream to do.

I doubt she even is consciously aware of this, most women aren't.

Truly, when looked objectively, liberalism is not fight against conservatism, but a fight against reality itself for being the way it is, unfair, cold, unforgiving and uncaring.
Its the political screech of the genetically weak.

[Anonymous No.17163579]

>>17146667
Because she shows communists for what they truly are and that makes degenerate western society seethe.

[Anonymous No.17163649]

There is not a single person who provokes more bland criticism than Ayn Rand. The mere mention of her name completely possesses people to vomit their derangement uncontrollably and unsuccessfully.

[Anonymous No.17163668]

>>17163649
Likely related to Ernest Becker, the Denial of Death. Aynn Rad cuts through the cope from which many people build their identities, this skinning of the ego is nothing short of psychological terrorism.

You force people to suddenly have to face 20+ years of identity, shattering apart, and having their inner child be faced with the darkness of the Universe itself with zero protection. Social darwinism takes over from there.
You either are strong enough to face it, become stronger and thrive. Or you go insane, and anhero like many philosophers trying to deal with their own existential dread have gone through.

[Anonymous No.17163695]

>>17163493
>she just didn't have the balls to say it.
Well, what did you expect from a woman?

[Anonymous No.17163724]

>>17163424
America

[Anonymous No.17163742]

>>17163724
Twitter is not the real world, American people do not find fat-asses attractive, and never will, no matter how much fat acceptance propaganda the Mainstream media force feeds the masses.

[Anonymous No.17163750]

>>17163649
She provokes bland criticism because she is bland herself. You can't expect powerful criticism if you're not a powerful thinker.

[Anonymous No.17163755]

>>17163750
Bland people get ignored, not criticised

[Anonymous No.17163769]

>>17163755
Well she does get ignored by people who matter in the field of philosophy.

Besides, she was never respected because of her thinking, she just had a popular following because she wrote extremely romantic novels, and people like Romanticism.

[Anonymous No.17163779]

>>17163769
People usually ignore women unless they are beautiful

[Anonymous No.17163784]

>>17163779
>>17163769
Which Aynn Rand is not, I'd still bang her however. Because if she was more beutiful, she'd be a thot

Thank you

[Anonymous No.17163791]

>>17163779
>People usually ignore women unless they are beautiful

Sorry but this also applies to men.

[Anonymous No.17163799]

>>17163791
Yeah right, cause Stephen Hawking was a rolling model.
Kek

[Anonymous No.17163809]

>>17163493

You're simultaneously describing communism, as it has been tried (it has).

[Anonymous No.17163814]

>>17146797
based retard posters are the remedy we need for pointless fight-pickers in threads

[Anonymous No.17163821]

>>17163799
>having to use people with degenerative neurological diseases as a counterargument

Clearly you don't understand how this basically proves my point.

[Anonymous No.17163828]

>>17163821
Oh right, because Albert Einstein, who looked like a troll, was a handsome man.

[Anonymous No.17163832]

>>17147988
I’ve never seen someone BTFO themselves so hard, bravo!

[Anonymous No.17163841]

>>17163828

[Anonymous No.17163842]

>>17163828
No clearly there are exceptions, just like there's exceptions with women, but most men who actually are handsome and tall immediately command more respect and attention from other people regardless of their gender than ugly balding manlets do, the fact that you deny this makes you look like a fucking dumb-dumb.

[Anonymous No.17163845]

>>17163842
Yes, you are right, but it is easier to be taken seriously as a man when it comes to academia. Which is Ok cause women should be in the kitchen anyway

[Anonymous No.17163849]

>>17163845
And that's because when you're a member of the elite, other elites take you seriously, which trickles down to the plebs.

If someone as smart and well-read as Einstein never went to university, nobody would listen to a word he said.

[Anonymous No.17163860]

>>17163849
>If someone as smart and well-read as Einstein never went to university, nobody would listen to a word he said.
Correct, which proves academia is fucking garbage and should be burnt down.

[Anonymous No.17163874]

>>17163860
If academia didn't exist, it would soon be invented. Every society has an elitist sorting mechanism.

[Anonymous No.17163917]

>>17163874
True, the cycle is inevitable. On a more interesting topic.
How tight do you think Aynn Rand pussy was?

[Anonymous No.17164855]

She's boring

[Anonymous No.17164884]

>>17146667
Her idea of the law of causality is contrary to her libertarian position on freewill. Also the proposition that egoism must always lead someone to act in a way most people consider virtuous (except for altruism) is retarded.