Was Ayn Rand /ourjew/?

>Extremely anti-communist
>Pro freedom
>Pro individual rights
>Objectivity is the only reasonable argument
>Married a goyim
>Literally ran away from soviet Russia
>Loved America even to her death
>Believed that individuals had the right to determine their future
>Loved white people

Attached: ayn rand.jpg (788x460, 41K)

Other urls found in this thread:

jewishracism.blogspot.cl/2008/01/ron-paul-ayn-rand-and-trust.html
lesswrong.com/posts/96TBXaHwLbFyeAxrg/guardians-of-ayn-rand
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, she was controlled oppostion all the time. That's the purpose of libertarianism

jewishracism.blogspot.cl/2008/01/ron-paul-ayn-rand-and-trust.html

Attached: bca983503e0cd072739732fe7ecefca4[1].jpg (846x600, 68K)

Yes

>promotes social alienation, materialism, degeneracy and cuckoldry
>/ourjew/

No.

Elaborate.
Social alienation is a non-existent argument, individuals have the right to decide their social involvement.

Materialism exists anywhere there are humans.

Degeneracy is subjective and indivuals have a right to decide what they will and will not enjoy.

Cuckoldry has never been advocated by Rand neither is it wrong for an individual to partake if they are a consenting adult.

Libertarianism does not equal objectivism and controlled opposition would imply she had a controller. She was a free agent advocating for free will and the choice to be your own master.

Because libertarianism is a dream. Your society will still be infiltrated by marxists and niggers. Capitalism (just like marxism) will always be international.

Attached: libertarianismproblems.png (1262x2094, 1M)

She had a great vision for the larger picture but failed miserably by being unable to understand how here clarity in that larger vision extended down into the management of her personal life which she screwed up massively. A shame, really.

None of those "rights" are objective. They can be given and take away by the acting powers.
Don't assume that because you have a particular moral system everyone else will go along with it. Calling the views of others "non-existent" won't get you very far in a debate.

>Social alienation is a non-existent argument, individuals have the right to decide their social involvement.
False
>Materialism exists anywhere there are humans.
False
>Degeneracy is subjective and indivuals have a right to decide what they will and will not enjoy.
Completely false
>Cuckoldry has never been advocated by Rand neither is it wrong for an individual to partake if they are a consenting adult.
False

you won't trick us into your talmudic bullshit shlomo, get the fuck out of here

Wow, we have a master debater here.

lesswrong.com/posts/96TBXaHwLbFyeAxrg/guardians-of-ayn-rand

>t. I don't know shit about Rand outside of stupid platitudes I heard in the media
and this applies to OP as well

Attached: hellobotsama.jpg (900x900, 62K)

The arguments in this post are even more convincing than in previous.
How does he do it?

Yes, she was.

I miss when this board was more anarchist instead of the half troll half statist mix we have now. People here used to unironically support Ron Paul

we'll march over you, fag. (And you'll be thankful it was us instead of organized goat fucking jihadists or a vicious brutal Aztec cartel cuts you open with a dull chainsaw after they invade your cute "individualistic" and "enlighetened" Atlantis populatede by Artiest, mentally deranged STD ridden trannies,).

Attached: 1503410355371.jpg (736x981, 339K)

She's probably the most important and influential modern philosopher. Definitely one of us

Rule of thumb, when you get to the part where you ponder about the existence of /ourjew/, stop. And then neck thyself.

Based leaf

>lack of morals is good

Usefull idiots that aren’t aware that they’re usefull idiots are the most usefull

>There is nothing wrong with cuckoldry
You heard it from the capitalist.