/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2036531]

What is it about her, or her writing, that seems to inspire such vitriol in the literary/philosophical world?

Not a troll thread, simply looking for reasoned arguments in favour, or against, her thinking.

[Anonymous No.2036535]

she's just kinda a cunt is all

[Anonymous No.2036536]

>implying not a troll thread
>implying not reported for rule violation

[Anonymous No.2036540]

>>2036536

>Implying serious discussions can't be had due to rules
>Why make rules?
>What are you afraid of?

[Anonymous No.2036541]

>>2036536
people on /lit/ are such cunts. you do know that if you don't like a thread, and no one posts in it, it will get deleted automatically when it reaches the last page right?

[emoisntdeadiguess No.2036546]

i hate this bitch. I remember, when i was 8 or so, when wikipedia was still nupedia, or when it had merged with wikipedia, my cousin told me to edit her wiki page to just say huge asshole.

[Anonymous No.2036547]

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Sounds good to me.

[Anonymous No.2036549]

>>2036541
>implying a thread has ever 404ed on /lit/

[Anonymous No.2036552]

Some people are scared of contrarianism, the contrary; having their thinking challenged by another mode of thinking that is as deeply held as their's.

I am not some people.

[Anonymous No.2036567]

she has a tendency to give soap box speeches in her books through her characters

[Anonymous No.2036570]

good literature asks questions
bad literature offers ideological solutions

[Anonymous No.2036574]

>>2036552
Wjoa why would you post that picture! IN fact why do you even have that picture!!! Weirdo!!!

[Anonymous No.2036581]

>>2036552
That may be the only futa on loli manga I've seen.
Source is "Take me to Ariake"
Good times.

[Anonymous No.2036584]

>>2036574
>weirdo
>4chan
Did you truly expect non-weirdos?
Are you a non-weirdo.
You don't belong.

[Anonymous No.2036586]

>>2036581
>That may be the only futa on loli manga I've seen.

The only? Well it seems like you need to spend more time with this hobby of yours

[q2 !!YII/XfOIyAE No.2036588]

there are 2 types of people who hate ayn rand:

1. poor people
2. people who played bioshock and all they know about objectivism comes from that game and the wikipedia entry on the philosophy

[Anonymous No.2036591]

20 adjectives for every 1 verb in her books makes reading them an awful experience

[Anonymous No.2036594]

>>2036570
>>2036552

Good literature asks if loli futa is okay, but then negates any answer in leaving us wondering upon the inevitable thought that everything (including morals) is subjective.

Bad literature says that loli/futa is not okay.

Ayn Rand says that loli/futa is not okay.

[Anonymous No.2036620]

There was a good documentry on recently that featured rand heavily in its first episode.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C17zbTTYVME

suprised it didn't cause a minor shit storm when it came out. enjoy!

[Anonymous No.2036622]

>>2036594
Good literature tells us whether futa is ok, and why. Bad literature just tells us whether futa is ok.

[Anonymous No.2036628]

I won't say anything about her philosophy: that would be argument from ignorance.

I will, however, say that she espouses her philosophy in ridiculous fantasy worlds instead of the real world or well-known myths.

[Anonymous No.2036630]

She can write interesting action scenes, just saiyan

[Anonymous No.2036634]

>>2036586
Yes. Not loli futa on loli futa.
Specifially, an adult futa on a non-futa loli.
I can't think of any others off the top of my head.
Excluding doujins. I meant manga only.

[Anonymous No.2036640]

could the judge from blood meridian be considered a typical randian 'hero' ? seems to me he ticks all the boxes

[Anonymous No.2036641]

>>2036634
*disclaimer: I don't go to /d/ or related.

[Anonymous No.2036643]

Objectivism usually get paired with Capitalism. That combo dosen't work.

As for Objectivism itself. Whatever floats your boat. If everyone was an Objectivist, no one would be happy. The flaw in the method is that if you needed to complete a task that required someone elses help. No one would help you, because everyone is an Objectivist, and everyone wants their own thing. Thus, your happiness can not be achieved.

[Anonymous No.2036650]

unless you're male, american, under 22, middle-class, white, enrolled in or looking to enroll in college.... she's of very little relevance to you.

[Anonymous No.2036654]

>>2036643
But if no one's happiness could be achieved alone because everyone is an objectivist, then logical because an objectivist believes in RATIONAL self-interest, they would rational help others to their mutual benefit, thus everyone's* happiness would be assured.

*everyone is defined as: everyone in the objectivist in-group

[Anonymous No.2036679]

how is her fucking writing for christs sake?

[Anonymous No.2036688]

>>2036679
its shit.

download one of her books or look at an excerpt from google books or amazon or smoeshit.
lazy

[Anonymous No.2036689]

>>2036679
Real Fucking Bad

She's not very good as a novelist, because all her books are incredibly didactic and unrealistic for the sake of ideology. Some are worse than others (Fountainhead isn't bad, Atlas Shrugged is abominable) but yeah we're talking about her philosophy because she was a bad novelist.

[q2 !!YII/XfOIyAE No.2036692]

>>2036689
>insulting fiction by calling it unrealistic

[Anonymous No.2036698]

>>2036588
lmfao

[Bothersome !!eGkiP4WrjdR No.2036703]

>>2036692
There's a difference between unrealistic and logically inconsistent. Rand is surely of the latter.

I don't know why I even bother replying.
Who knows what tripcode you use anymore as much as you get banned all the time.

Could be some random person trying to make you look bad. Not that would be any different, as bad as you make yourself look on your own.

So it goes.

[q2 !!YII/XfOIyAE No.2036704]

>>2036703

[Bothersome !!eGkiP4WrjdR No.2036717]

>>2036704
I'm aware.
We had this discussion already.
It's not my problem if you can't remember any conversations you have with people.

[Anonymous No.2036728]

Her characters are all completely one-dimensional and unrelatable - her heroes are essentially just boring perfect mouthpieces for her ideology and her villains are all the complete opposite of the spectrum in order to prove how right she is.

Also, her actual philosophy is full of holes and would never work in society.

[Anonymous No.2036918]

Proto-Neocon, except crypto-Stalinist instead of apostate Trotskyte.

[Anonymous No.2036932]

her fiction is boilerplate, ideological ranting with nothing in it, literally nothing

ive never read anything so shitty and pointless

she constructs characters, plots, and the rest like shes still in high school

how she ever got published, ill never really know

[Anonymous No.2037259]

She puts an amazing amount of venom in her writing, and spends a lot of time going over how liberals are dirty little shits at best, deluded morons at worse. Needless to say, they don't care for that. You here a lot of writing today in vitirolic conservative writers, such as coulter, etc.

It is kind of funny that there is only a conservative market for these types of books, as liberals are functionally illiterate.

[Anonymous No.2037265]

I dislike her for the same reason I dislike celebrities. I don't give a fuck about her, yet she is constantly shoved in my face like a socially awkward and autistic man waving his dick in my face.

>>2036549
lololol

[Anonymous No.2037275]

>>2036654
These counter arguments of rationality have never and will never work, as they take a distorted view to the actual thinking progress of a person.

When asked for help, one does not think to themselves: AIGHT MOTHERFUCKER, HOW WILL HELPING THIS PERSON MOST BENEFIT ME!? HERE IS A LIST OF ALL OF THE ADVANTAGES!
What they actually think is: do I like this person, do they deserve my help, and am I capable of helping without massive effort on my part that I'm not willing to give?
inb4 helping others makes us happy, therefore it is still consistent. If the philosophy is to include any other person at all, it wouldn't be fucking objectivisim.

[Anonymous No.2037282]

>with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life,
For one who had set happiness as their MORAL PURPOSE in life she sure turned out miserable.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2037302]

>mods delete literature lottery thread
>ignore the Ayn Rand trolling garbage

[Fauve !!FWH1V1k3dzn No.2037310]

>>2037302
>Truman doesn't realise it was deleted so the guy could make a new and improved version of the thread.
Other Voices, Other Rooms was mediocre.

[Anonymous No.2037318]

>>2037310

Is that the bird from the Scroobius Pip video?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037321]

Once more -
As a writer she is a mediocre novelist
As a philosopher she is a mediocre novelist

Objectivism isn't a philosophy because Rand didn't understand the fundamental errors in her thinking. Like her writing?

[Dr. Seussicide (SLAF) No.2037329]

>>2037318
>Not knowing Paloma Faith
>Watching Scroobius and Pip videos yes, yes she is

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2037333]

>>2037310

>my post before the explanation for posted, perfectly rational to assume the thread was 404'd by mods
>my point still stands
>other voices, other rooms was exceptional for a debut novel by a 22 year old author.

[Anonymous No.2037338]

>>2037329

I knew it was Paloma Faith - just in my mind she's famous for being that bird out of the Scroobius Pip video.

[Fauve !!FWH1V1k3dzn No.2037341]

>>2037333
Eeeee Eee Eeee was exceptional for a debut novel by a 24 year old author.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037342]

>>2037338
They made a video of a poetry reading?

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2037343]

Also I don't really hate Ayn Rand, it would be difficult for me to hate anybody who supports individual freedom, rationalism etc.

Her philosophy is too simplistic to be taken seriously by real intellectuals.

The reason her philosophy is so hated is rather because of her braindead republican supporters. Also, she's a really awful writer.

[Anonymous No.2037344]

>>2037342

Yeah, only they put some music on there as well and called it hip hop. It's a kind of popular music that the young people are listening to these days, I think.

[Anonymous No.2037345]

>>2037341

Eeeee Eee Eeee is vacuous hipster bullshit.

[Fauve !!FWH1V1k3dzn No.2037348]

>>2037345
What's the matter, upset because he's been picked up by a large publisher for his third novel while you sit at home doing nothing with your life?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037349]

>>2037344
Oooooooh. YOUNG people.
Like the ones that keep walking on my lawn?

[Anonymous No.2037350]

Her philosophy is basically misanthropic and used by terrible people to legitimise their selfishness. It's the opposite of what we need. I don't know whether it's coherent - it would be reprehensible regardless.

[Anonymous No.2037352]

>>2037341

Le Soleil Était Encore Chaud was exceptional for a debut work by an author who retired by the time he was 21

[Anonymous No.2037355]

>>2037349

I think that when they get to the stage of walking onto your lawn, they've evolved into whippersnappers, and you're allowed to shake your fist at them.

[Anonymous No.2037356]

>>2036588

Wait, how does the stoner guy take the statement that work, relationships, and school should be separate, and derive from that the idea that work should be prioritised over the others? It could have just as easily meant that work should be separated for organisational reasons and that work would improve if it were properly planned around relationships rather than arbitrarily tangling them together.

[Anonymous No.2037357]

Existence exists.
A = A

[Dr. Seussicide (SLAF) No.2037358]

>>2037345
Your misuse of the term hipster and the fact you used it at all tells me that you hate Tao Lin solely on the fact he's everything you are not.
If it helps, you do have somethings in common, he's also autistic.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.2037360]

>>2037348

Why would I want to dedicate for something so fucking vapid and worthless, even within a cultural context?

I'd rather die than live such a hollow existence.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037404]

>>2037355
And I do!

[Anonymous No.2037412]

>>2037357
whoa stop the presses

[Anonymous No.2037413]

I don't think she should be disregarded for not necessarily viewing "selfishness" as a bad thing. After all, if we were truly selfless, there would be no self. Surely this is obvious. We can care about others insofar as there would be no repercussions for us, but I think when it comes down to it, we can only ever realistically come close to being truly "selfless" in making the ultimate sacrifice for those whom we love. Simply put, liberals are often terrified of the prospect that people might put themselves before others (thus rendering the likes of revolutions highly unlikely), and will therefore slander and make a pariah of anyone and anything that preaches it.

[Anonymous No.2037421]

>>2037413
>After all, if we were truly selfless, there would be no self. Surely this is obvious.

No, it's inane gibberish.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037424]

>>2037421
you beat me to it

[Anonymous No.2037438]

>>2037421

>Simply put, liberals are often terrified of the prospect that people might put themselves before others (thus rendering the likes of revolutions highly unlikely), and will therefore slander and make a pariah of anyone and anything that preaches it

Does /lit/ have a penchant for shooting itself in the foot?

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037450]

>>2037438
just the ayndroids

[Anonymous No.2037463]

Her books are emotional screeds with 2d characters, unrealistic heroes, all to support this unfasifiable utopian idea, which is basically an Ubermensch in a suit. She's a shitty version of Nietzsche, and he already was a terrible philosopher.

[Anonymous No.2037481]

She sucks. Her "philosophy" is shit. Her "writing" is shit. A failed screenwriter who took refuge by creating a movement loved by picked on teenage boys plotting their revenge.

Alan Greenspan followed her until the crash 2 years ago when he disavowed this Russian turd.

[Anonymous No.2037482]

Didn't D&E say he liked her stuff?

[Anonymous No.2037491]

The hate for something is directly proportional to the love for it. If Rand was only kinda sorta enjoyable, nobody would hate it with a passion. It's only when people THINK IT'S THE GREATEST BOOK EVER that people must be very clear that they are not of the same opinion and FUCKING HATE THAT BITCH. Irrationality breeds irrationality.

If you say "yeah it's pretty good" I will say "ehh it's not for me." But if you say "I LOVE it" I'll say "I HATE it"

[Anonymous No.2037504]

>>2036531
She has no clue what she is talking about in regards to so many things it isn't even funny. All she is, is a troll of the highest order and never knew she was a troll.

[Anonymous No.2037524]

>>ITT Ayn Rand, Truman Capote, Tao Lin, Scroobius & Pip, and the obligatory Rimbaud

Summer's sure going out with a bang on /lit/

[Anonymous No.2037543]

In High School I knew this kid who had the biggest boner over Ayn Rand. He was the biggest asshole I've ever met. I've just come to assume all Ayn Rand fans are like him, Overly privileged white kids who got picked on.

[Anonymous No.2037563]

>>2037413
Why do conservatives do this thing where they try to attack the psychological/emotional mindset of the liberal, talking about their fears and self-entitlement and comparing them to children or whatever? All liberals do is broadly generalize conservatives as hicks and evangelicals.

also liberals don't want revolution (just some more government intervention and some whales saved), that's communists and communists do want a very particular kind of self interest promoted, that is, class interest.

[Anonymous No.2037567]

>>2036531
She's a hack both in the writing (purple prose, masquerading political tracts etc) and philosophy department. (ripping off Stirner and claiming it's new and groundbreaking)

[Anonymous No.2037568]

Normally she'd just be ignored like all other subpar people but the really stupid kind of American seems to have a fondness for her.

[Anonymous No.2037570]

>>2037568
Like the Tea Party?

[Anonymous No.2037580]

Objectivism is philosophically moronic.
Pic related is an Optical Illusion.
According to Ayn Rand there is no such thing as an optical illusion.
Which is why she insisted that she had seen UFO's among other such niceties.

[Anonymous No.2037594]

Most of her work is vacuous.
Her supporters are really annoying.
And she was by all accounts a horrible human being.
What more do you need?

[Anonymous No.2037596]

>>2037570
Pretty much exactly like that.
The Tea Party loves her as well.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037606]

>>2037563
Liberals and Conservatives *both* do this. If I have to pout up with one more liberal talking about how conservatives have some sort of mental illness i am going to lock Kos in a cage with Beck

[Anonymous No.2037610]

>Liberals
>Conservatives
>Pot
>Kettle

[Anonymous No.2037622]

Ayn Rand loves reason and doesn't afraid of anything.

[Anonymous No.2037627]

>>2037622

[Anonymous No.2037642]

Ayn Rand was part of the conservative glitterati, along with William F. Buckley.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037650]

>>2037642
And yet they loathed each other. Buckley was much more a Social Conservative while Rand was a Fiscal Conservative, a difference that has only grown over time

[Anonymous No.2037651]

She wholeheartedly supports the ideology that says a Bill Gates with 60 billion dollars has worked 1,200,000 times harder than a construction worker with a 50,000 dollar salary, and absolutely refused to support the idea of special regulations and high taxes on these disproportionately wealthy people.

Meritocracic society is erratic and horribly exploitable under a free market, and they can't exist together without regulation because when they do we become no better than the feudalists.

[Anonymous No.2037652]

>>2037622
Velicity Von? Awesome.

[Anonymous No.2037656]

Pushing objectivism in a place like this full of value golums and life leachers is bound to be ... useless.

[Anonymous No.2037657]

>>2037651
>they can't exist together without regulation because when they do we become feudalists.

Fix'd your anus with Ayn Rand's tongue.

[Anonymous No.2037659]

>>2037650

Yes. Buckley hired the great Whittaker Chambers to write a review of "Atlas Shrugged" which anyone calling themselves a conservative should be obliged to read.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037661]

>>2037651
How DARE you malign Feudalists in such a manner!
Seriously, though, laissez-fair Capitalism != meritocracy. At all. And 'Feudalism' is less well-defined than Fascism!

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037663]

>>2037656
'that's 'Gollums" and 'leechers'

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037664]

>>2037659
Yup - second-best takedown of that novel ever

[wait for it...]

[Anonymous No.2037665]

>>2037659
And here is a link to that (excellent) review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback

[Anonymous No.2037669]

>>2037664

If that's the second-best, so what's the best takedown of the novel? I'd be curious to read it

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037671]

>>2037669
Thank you!
John Rogers on Kung-Fu Monkey said:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037672]

>>2037671
OK, OK, that was more a put-down.
Here is a very concise explanation of why Objectivism isn't philosophy:
http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm

[Anonymous No.2037674]

>>2037671
Wiki attributes it to Paul Krugman, just fyi

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037675]

>>2037674
Nah, Krugman just quoted it.

[Anonymous No.2037679]

Buckley was an arrogant asshole.

Just look at his debate against Chomsky, who wipes the floor with him civilly.

[Anonymous No.2037685]

>>2037596
Which is interesting, because you would think her rather vehement anti-religious sentiment would be a turn-off to the social conservatives. That is, if they were looking for ideological consistency.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037703]

>>2037679
>>mfw anyone takes Chomsky seriously

Chomsky is worth millions of dolalrs, much of it because of his very lucrative contracts with...
The Department of Defense
He rants about the rich not paying their 'fair share'...
and has his own great wealth in a tax-free trust
He repeatedly calls the Pentagon a center of evil....
while his wife spent years as a rather well-paid Pentagon contractor
He calls America a horribly racist nation of class warfare....
and when forced busing arrived he moved his family to a virtually all-white neighborhood with homes that were in the upper 2% of cost at the time.
A self-described anarcho-socialist that hates Capitalism, Chomsky's $1.2 million dollar vacation home is in the midst of a state park to avoid development that would lower property values

He is a con man and a hack that says whatever he needs to to get his books sold in classrooms (the copyrights are in his trust, so the royalties are tax free!) and him booked to speak at universities ofr %50k an appearance

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037705]

>>2037685
There is a growing rift between social cons and fiscal cons and it has been accelerating recently, IMO.

[Anonymous No.2037711]

>>2037703
What's any of that got to do with W.F. Buckley's shitty rhetoric?

I don't think either are good examples of political experts but Chomsky sure is at least a whole class ahead of Buckley.

[Anonymous No.2037718]

>>2037711
nah, bro. they're both about on the same level wrt their respective ideological stances. don't hate on william f buckley just because he's looks good, because he's got the finest suits, the finest rolex watches, the finest women! he can't help it that he's custom made! WOO!

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037732]

>>2037711
Well, Buckley had the advantage of actually living in accord with the values he argues for and about. Chomsky is a guy that may argue well about Socialism Good/Capitalism Bad (and that is a point open for discussion) but he obviously doesn't believe it *himself*.
in other words, in that debate Buckley may come across as arrogant, but Chomsky comes across as a hypocritical liar.

[Anonymous No.2037735]

>>2037732
I don't think judging his lifestyle is a valid criticism. If the society doesn't support a socialist state, then how can one man do so within that society?

More importantly, if his end goal is to inform and educate others with his ideas, which process is more efficient: to live those ideas outside the system and have access to nobody, or to live contrary ideals inside the system and have access to everybody?

He's a scholar, not a revolutionary. You can't subvert a system like capitalism as a revolutionary.

[Anonymous No.2037737]

>>2037735
Yeah, but you can still participate in the capitalist system without being quite so assiduous about it. I mean, you can get access and then use the money to fund further education instead of a wealthy lifestyle. And certainly you can refuse to make money off the DoD and be complicit with that part of the system.

[Anonymous No.2037739]

>>2037737
Yeah, but now we're arguing the semantics of how much money is too much. I could counter and say that the continued existence of Chomsky as a scholar is far more important than the 1-2 schools he could build with his salary. I'll admit that there's probably a line where one man's wealth is ethically unjustifiable, but less than 10 million probably isn't it.

[Anonymous No.2037747]

I am not in agreement with objectivism but I have great respect for Ayn and I think she should be touted as proof that women can be brilliant and rational thinkers.

Ayn Rand was the smartest woman to live in the 20th century.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.2037751]

>>2037735
Chomsky makes a fortune writing books and giving speeches where he explains how people who avoid paying their taxes are evil, destructive, and an indictment of Capitalism itself - AND he has his wealth in a tax shelter so he, himself, pays no taxes! That is *not* 'subverting the system'!
He isn't a scholar, he is a huckster
[OK, he is actually a good linguist, but when it comes to politics and economics he is a huckster]

[Anonymous No.2037929]

>>2037751
No. His whole point is that the problem is systemic, not personal. He believes that you can't shift the responsibility onto a personal level, that the system itself must be changed to accomplish anything.

[Ghostbitch !7H7AES8gfg No.2037930]

>>2037929

Yeah yeah yeah, sounds like he's making up bullshit to cover up hippocracy.

[Anonymous No.2037931]

>>2036536 here

I told you all

[Anonymous No.2037933]

>>2037930
The "bullshit" came before the "hippocracy," so no.

[Anonymous No.2037936]

>>2037930

[Anonymous No.2037943]

every rand thread is a troll thread

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.2037947]

I give OP 10/10 for originality and excellence in trolling.

[Anonymous No.2037949]

>>2037947

The secret to trolling /lit/ - Ask a perfectly legitimate, neutral question regarding Ayn Rand.

>Watch the in-fighting begin!

[Anonymous No.2037975]

I will never understand why Ayn Rand is constantly referenced by Libertarians while more established philosophers like Robert Nozick are usually ignored.

Nozick's arguments are very difficult to refute, Rand's ideas are very easy to dismiss.

[Anonymous No.2037981]

The problem with Objectivism is that it heavily relies on people acting rational when humanity is inherently irrational.

[Ghostbitch !7H7AES8gfg No.2037992]

>>2037975

,Maybe it is because Nozick doesn't put his ideas in the form of cutesy easy to read stories that make Rand so appealing.

[Anonymous No.2038005]

>>2037992
I dunno I find reading Rand pretty painful myself

[Anonymous No.2038008]

>>2037992
Easy to read? That thing bored me until i cried blood.

[Anonymous No.2038116]

>>2037975

Get off 4chan. Most of the major libertarian policy writers, economists and even respected bloggers will mention Nozick more than Rand. The Rand cult is an entirely different subset, they're kind of like the LaRouchies of the right wing.

[Anonymous No.2038136]

>>2038116

You do realize that the Lyndon LaRouche and Ron Paul platforms share many planks—both oppose abortion, the Federal Reserve Bank, and environmentalist causes.

[Anonymous No.2038316]

I don't think her work deserves the name philosophy. It's more like aggressive ideological rattling. Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but her view of the world is extremely narrow and distorted. Whatever doesn't fit her world view doesn't exist or matter, which is the case with all extreme ideologues.

For starters: people are not rational, people do not use logic/reason most of the time and the world isn't black and white.

And for god's sake the word "altruism" has completely different meaning than that which she uses.

[Anonymous No.2038322]

>>2037975
Agree. I think Rand is an embarrassment to libertarianism as are anarcho-capitalists.

[Anonymous No.2038335]

We are raised in a socialist world.

We are told that the team we beat will get a trophy just for participating.

We are sentenced to a prison of 12 grades of shit where the 20-40% gradient of intelligence is what is taught.

At some point someone tells us we should read the fountain head or atlas shrugged. Sure its boring, but there is an itch in our brains that we cannot scratch so we keep reading.

Eventually we realize that the nihilism that we have been feeling after dealing with years of communist bullshit that implies that our proficiencies must be harvested to feed the mouths of the ticks fleas and rats of this world in order to allow them equal standard of living as to equal the champions of innovation and achievement we realize that 99% of what we have been taught is complete bullshit meant to create a docile underclass that will continue to prop up the rich and subsidize the parasites.

At this point the quality of the literature drops from mind and we grow as humans embracing the characters (the characters are insanely well developed whatever you may say of the rest of it) as us if we had truly gone for that goal that we had dreams about as adolescents and delve into the world of personal responsibility and rational thinking rather than religious socialist poppycock.