We should have listened

I read the Fountainhead. I read Atlas Shrugged. I'm speaking about Ayn Rand.

I'd go one step further & say ethnically homogeneous society, granted that's essentially the same but at least with an ethno signifier you're less likely to have ethnically tribal groups using nepotism.

>typical rand support
Almost like the typical libertarian- it's important to remember that there is a range of competence in area.

Here is my favorite line from Atlas Shrugged, which there are many:

"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [wrongly impede her by order of authority]."

There are many such passages.

This is where my post, Marginal Morality, explains the issue: people aren't moral for principle's sake, but rather because it pays for trade instead of to pillage.

You're missing context.

A sexually depraved kike, nope, not even once.

It's like a more aggressive version of what Hoppe advocates, she was pretty avant garde for her time. I really should read her books one of these days.

O-ist here, why u shillen bruh...
Don't want waves of ((())) or ad hom threads in retaliation.

OPAR is by far the most comprehensive.

>more than Hoppe
Yes.
Those who hate her books seem to hate them because they make people confront political issues at their core. And they might believe Rand writes passages for no reason.

>It's a Jow Forums posts another meme philosopher thread.

Attached: 1543822152543.jpg (960x638, 52K)

>OPAR
Basic Principles of Objectivism is much better.
Peikoff is a brainlet who struggles with degrees/certanties.

Its a philosophically founded idea. Of capitalist love.

>Peikoff is a brainlet who struggles with degrees/certanties.
What do you think of 'critical fallibilism'? I've been meaning to read FOI by Deutsch

Thanks I'll look into those.
Anecdotal but I've always had the impression that capital L libertarians aren't big fans of actually using force & instead engender passivism in actual practice. I've seen a lot of them shit ob Rothbaed because he became "racist" & they act like SJWs when Hoppe or anything concerning race realism is brought up. I've always separated the "don't tread on me" confederate flag redneck militia "libertarians" from them even though they're often categorized the same by a lot of people, not sure what to call them.
Where can I read that? I googled it & didn't find anything besides a short article that vaguely resembled what your talking about.

>What do you think of 'critical fallibilism'?
Rand answered this, in an interview, regarding why she believes and acts in her belief:
"It's not faith, it's conviction."
That is, she has reason to believe, and acts on her beliefs.
She also said that the alternative is to "expound no theories, and die."

Libertarianism, just like Communism, has a uniquely Jewish quality to it. It all serves to undermine the natural state of tribal cohesion and make it easier for Jews to fit in, either by making everyone equal or by making everyone unequal. The idea that only some people are equal and work together to achieve something frightens them because that very concept excludes them.

Don't listen to OPAR.

Nathaniel Branden's lectures were approved by Rand, and Rand only disowned him because he jilted her- they were lovers.

Peikoff is a Canadian (isn't this reason enough?) who struggles with the smallest complexities.

>big l libertarians hate using force, thus hate Rothbard
The issue is that you must use force against those who use force.

The grey area is using force against those who naively oppose you.

Here is Rand, on this matter:
"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [wrongly impede her by order of authority]."

>where can I read Marginal Morality?
Google 4plebs Marginal Morality. It's very short, but the comments may be useful.

It's short, and I'm writing a much larger piece, encompassing NPC theory, cuckoldery, racial homogeniety.
I will post it here within a few weeks.

>tools can be bad
Tools aren't bad, only misused.

Oh I think we very well realize that the average isn't that way, maybe the average shouldn't rule. Or better we make an environment were this average dies out. Emotion and sentimentality, a root of altruism, it is time for pruning.

That is, to such ideas, Rand dismisses them (without disregarding them)- I find that many opponents tend to win by bogging you down in "what if?"....just like lawyers who want to win by wearing you down.

>Emotion and sentimentality, a root of altruism, it is time for pruning.
Altruism isn't the cause, nor is White guilt:

White Guilt isn't why Whites are distressed. Being extorted is:

"[I feel] the same as everybody else, only more consciously."
-Ayn Rand, Tom Snyder interview, 1979

The distress associated with Whites' acquiescence to extortion (Whites paying nonWhites to prevent them destroying) is
mistaken for White guilt, when the distress is actually proximity to minorities who coerce Whites.

While the emotion (distress) is the same, remedying this distress requires treating its actual source-- which is not White guilt, but rather proximity to nonWhites who coerce Whites.

Recognizing that White guilt cannot exist because guilt requires us (not have wronged another) does not free us from distress.
But recognizing the interplay (coercion and extortion) between Whites and nonWhites in close proximity does show us a rational cause of our distress, and the method by which to decrease it: more distance between Whites and nonWhites.

Yeah I thanked both of you since he started the "thread" that lead to you suggesting the other book, just added it to my Amazon cart for next time I order something. I'll definitely keep my eyes peeled for that in the days ahead, that sounds very interesting. Thanks again.

all problems in the world are due to a lack of intelligence. if everyone had 150 IQ everything would turn out just fine. We have the ability to make everyone have 150 IQ, just use genius sperm donation.

Enjoy it.
The last thign I'll say on it, is that Natheniel's lectures are audio downloads, and that he is much more compelling. And his were delivered in the presence of Rand.

Kill all Jews.

Attached: 7834687534534.jpg (1200x723, 67K)

>if everyone had 150 IQ everything would turn out just fine.
By current standards, you mean.

The average IQ is always 100.

And no, so long as there is a spectrum of intelligence, the dumb will always profit more from theft than from production.

That quote may mean he opposes Rand.

And by his actions, who knows?- he may simply be bought and paid for, perhaps blackmail, as most are to some extent.

I think to a certain degree he's right, particularly in the case of women but that's rather specific to be fair. For men / society at large I'd agree, still I have to wonder how much of men being feminized by overexposure to estrogen & our anti masculine culture has an effect on those views as well.

I don't see how that is possible in any situation. The average Joes will always be there, and in libertarian's dream society they would eventually band behind some demagogue who promises them gibs and other nice things.

Noted, I do enjoy me some lectures so I'll look into that as well.

>to a degree he's right
>hormones
Altruism is a rational decision, and is influenced by how we feel when we do certain actions- but hormones/neurochemicals don't do any of the thinking.

>culture
While I agree that people do a mixture of mimicking & deciding (following and leading), even mimicking is mimicking someone who is leading- and thought about why he acts altruisitic.

You say that they will always be there. But to remove those people or the sentiment is not impossible. Evolutionary pressures, genetic alteration, socialization, there are ways. When the majority is not this average, they will fall in line, because sheep like to follow the majority.

Agreed, that's why I like Charles Murray's living wage idea of giving everyone just enough money to survive but not thrive or perhaps have the amount received tied to GDP to keep things in scale. That way no matter how many industries get destroyed by new tech everyone who's left out still has a livable wage. It also changes the culture by removing the possibility of guilt, if you piss your money away that was your own fault versus our current system of incentivizing people to stay on welfare forever.

this dumb bitch understood absolutely nothing about philosophy or politics and if you think she did then you understand even fucking less than she did.

your fucking stupid, man. what I'm saying is irrefutably correct. Smarter is always better.

>give in, rather than fight
Giving in never wins in the long run.

Libertarianism requires people to defend what's theirs- it's not a passive way of life.

And while it's easy to give in a little, in the long run giving in always hurts more.

>what I'm saying is irrefutably correct. Smarter is always better.
I don't agree. And I don't believe we can know this.

America has the most corruption by $ because we're the smartest and most productive.

Other nations are more currupt by % of economy, but we win by $ amount.

>Rand was an outsider
Nice appeal to authority, pleb.

What is stopping them to keep demanding a higher wage? And in turn to have the people that really create worth, have to give in more and more.

nothing you have written has any relation to my post

>j-j-just agree with me
The cope is real.

But surely you recognize that women are wired differently & have different hormones? Also that there's not only differences between male/female brains but conservative/liberal/libertarian brain structures? I mean as an example birth control radically alters a woman's ability to love, oxytocin affects people's ability to recognize threats etc surely unnatural overexposure to hormones has an effect especially when it's as widespread as it is today.

Check your premises.
>why are premises?
Exactly.

Attached: aynRandLeaning.jpg (300x168, 4K)

you're not saying anything to agree or disagree with,

I pointed out a bird singing on a branch and you showed up with a bicycle helmet on screaming about tortoises and are now upset at me for what you imagined I said about tortoises.

the funny thing is that cuck Ryan makes all of his interns read through Atlas Shrugged while they work in his office, only to see him completely shit on everything Ayn Rand holds near and dear.

I don't care much for Ayn Rand, and I say that as a libertarian. Her ideas are good but her writing style is monotonous and drags on. Fuck Paul Ryan tho

>I don't care much for Ayn Rand, and I say that as a libertarian.
Are you a Hoppean lib?

I mean unless we have a eugenics program in place or some guaranteed low IQ work there's seemingly always going to be low IQ masses who will never be able to compete & will always be better off with gibs. Not to mention the brain structures I mentioned earlier, the liberal brain will always be hostile to freedom. Those people will always be an ever present threat to society, that plan at least takes them into account. Also if we're to be entirely free market then it's inevitable that most industries of old will collapse & most of the population will be reduced to working services jobs at best. I have a hard time seeing such a future as anything more than a repeat of medieval times with rich capitalist lords & the rest poor proles with the advent of automation taking over so many once stable career paths.

>America
>smartest
doubt.png

>I mean unless we have a eugenics program in place or some guaranteed low IQ work there's seemingly always going to be low IQ masses who will never be able to compete
IMO the problem is thinking we could live in the same communities.

People need to recognize, and be allowed, to segregate.

>population will reduce

There will always be work for them to do.
However, most of them will dislike their pay- and will rebel instead of improve their skills.

not traditionally jewish enough?

>>America
>>smartest
>doubt.png
The Whites in America are 100, city folk being 102.

Not the smartest, but at least the top 40%

No. It was about non degeneracy- but not defined well.

seriously rand was the greatest female thinker in the 20th century. if you havent read the second best seller to the bible, atlas you should.

>bible
>atlas shrugged
IMO close to the same books, if you read them both correctly.

Attached: atlasShrugged - Copy.jpg (410x292, 43K)

Nothing I suppose, even my country's supposedly untouchable constitution has been shredded, ultimately its the stock of the people who will decide that fate. I just see it as an inevitability that if left unchecked the most competent people will dominate everything until it becomes so lopsided that regular people end up where we are now. I say that only because of automation, if population could be drastically reduced I suppose it'd be a non issue. There would still be low IQ people who couldn't find work without eugenics, I suppose they could just go third world & return to basic farming & live in isolation.

Daily reminder that every ist or ism originates from das juden.

Any system which results in a racially homogenous, one law (and everyone who doesn't like it gets the rope) and has a balance between community and capital, strength and warmth, masculine and feminine etc... Is a good society.

If a bunch of niggers band together in Africa to create a real life wakanda and it works and it keeps them away from us..

I tip my hat

>even my country's supposedly untouchable constitution has been shredded

Constitutions don't grant rights:
Rights are freedoms (like free speech) whose violation (like censorship) will result in violence.

Constitutions simply declare the
rights that citizens have always been willing to defend with
violence.

"Let your neighbors know what kind of ammo (hollow-points) you use, so that they know what kind of neighbors (polite, respectful) to be."
-Jefferson

>any systems of thought are jewish
Spoken like a true mutt.

>even my country's supposedly untouchable constitution has been shredded

Of course. A constitution is just a piece of paper. In order for it to even exist it needs to live in the minds of the people of the country. If it doesn't, it will be lost.

Conservatives in the U.S talk about dem damn libruls comin' foh muh guns, but the reality is that in 50 years nobody is going to believe in the 2nd Amendment anymore and they are going to talk about the past when everyone had a gun the same way people talk about slavery and Jim Crow today.

You're a retard
Rand claimed her "objectivism" was different from Mises' austrian school
Objectivism is capitalism with Jewish characteristics

Jow Forums will hate her because she's a Jew, but if you're smart enough to overlook some glaring errors in her largely excellent body of work, you can really benefit.

Most Objectivists end up being cult like because they can't separate wheat from chaff.

Bad:
Family values
Abortion
Homos / Degeneracy

She's 100% right about the slavishness of US conservatives.

Attached: Brit2.jpg (386x500, 50K)

>There would still be low IQ people who couldn't find work without eugenics, I suppose they could just go third world & return to basic farming & live in isolation.
This. And the issue is providing sustenance, made available by the high IQ, to the retarded.
It's like a healthy body giving nutrients to cells that fight the body- low iq people, in the presence of high iq people, are cancer.

I am aware but the point still stands that in actual practice I have very few constitutional protections because the wider collective of people don't give a shit. I'm spied on, my right to own guns is steadily being eroded, police can confiscate my property, I can be assassinated by my government & held indefinitely without the ability to see a lawyer- all without due process. I can defend myself but that's a literal death sentence in practice, again, because the people at large would side with the tyrants. It is the community or society at large that decides what your rights are in actual practice.

>Objectivism is capitalism with Jewish characteristics

You've not read anything she's written.

Attached: Anime wtf.jpg (499x500, 29K)

I don't just hate her because she's a Jew I hate her because she's a Jew who praises Israel and Jewish solidarity but pushes radical individualism and selfishness on the her goyim followers.

>but if you're smart enough to overlook some glaring errors in her largely excellent body of work, you can really benefit.
IMO it's not about being smart, but understanding context.

Just like most libertarians think that the goal of libertarianism can be achieved without the actoins of libertarianism.

I have enough of her work to know that Ayn Rand was a hypocrite who staunchly supported Israel
Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique proven yet again

>She's 100% right about the slavishness of US conservatives.
IMO most libertarians/conservatives don't recognize the root of their emotions- leaving them unable to see the problem.

And the belief in instincts has people say "I couldn't have done otherwise, my instincts made me do it."

Really, instincts are another false God.

>Objectivism is capitalism with Jewish characteristics

No, it's capitalism with autism and methamphetamine-like characteristics.

Yep, it's gonna be an old relic of huwhite supremacy someday. I have no hope that anyone besides rural rednecks & Mormons will actually stand up to the government when they officially strip it. Unfortunately that's probably not gonna be enough to stop it, most of the country will likely be Mexican by then & it'll be the white man's last stand.

IMO it's not a crime to go with the flow, when you know your country is failing.

Too many libertarians think they should sacrifice themselves in order to prevent the smallest injustice- but then I usually ask why they're still living- and then they say "but I had no part in X," when obviously they did- albeit indirectly.

>Just like most libertarians think that the goal of libertarianism can be achieved without the actions of libertarianism.
>without the actions of libertarianism.

What does that mean? Do you mean on a personal level as Molymeme advocated? Or do you suggest some libertarian approach to political "revolution?"

She hated all savages. She gave similar scathing critiques about Native Americans as she did vs. Palestinians. On a purely aesthetic level she's right, but the effect on our politics is regrettable.

Attached: Question7.png (736x598, 564K)

>IMO most libertarians/conservatives don't recognize the root of their emotions- leaving them unable to see the problem.
unz.com/isteve/libertarianism-is-applied-autism/
Libertarians are autistic jew

Hey fucktard. If you "removed the average", there'd always be a new average, and that average would become problematic in your view as well. In a directed society similar to NatSoc, there would be a number of benefits and exemptions to encourage middle class births and discouraging the lower class from creating more welfare suckers. The average is your people and instead of hating and wanting to prune them you should want to take down the forces taking advantage of them.

>but pushes radical individualism
Individualism doesn't mean to act alone, only to not use collective power to bully others.

Peterson uses the word wrong, as do many people.

>unironically reading ayn rand's verbal diarrhea
>unironically following objectivism
>unironically thinking ayn rand was nothing less than a kike whore
you fucking retards lmfao

Attached: 134091076048.png (237x250, 98K)

>methamphetamine-like characteristics
Kek, this is accurate AF.

I would love to see Adderall use on her fans vs. general population.

Attached: Physically Remove Hoppe.jpg (630x621, 15K)

People think that the positive emotions (peace, from not stealing from others) can be achieved without stealing from others (taxes).

>molymeme
Used to listen, but contradicts himself too often.
Plus, seems to be as confused as Peikoff.

That said, I believe Moly is positive for the world.

She wrapped that argument up in an almost Neoconservative way, which I thought was hilarious. I remember she said something about when the civilized man is fighting the savage, always support the civilized man. It's very reminiscent of Neocons saying Israel is the only civilized democracy in the Middle East & thus we need to show solidarity & support them.

Collective power is important in competing with other collective powers, its the reason the Chinese will outcompete us in this century. Again Israel very much uses collective power over its own people.

youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y

Just look at how her eyes flutter around in this interview, and how mechanically she explains her philosophy.

She either has brain damage, or she was full of meth.

>Collective power is important in competing with other collective powers

Again, "individualism" and "collevtivism" have definitions political definitions, that are different than the ones you're using.

She was on amphetamines all the time.

>saying Israel is the only civilized democracy in the Middle East & thus we need to show solidarity & support them.
Support them to defend them. That said, from Rand to Hayek, they were all told lies about the nature of the conflict in Europe.

The reason it doesn't fall into the typical jew double standard though - she applied the argument equally to Native Americans, praising the white man for destroying them out.

Typical double standard Jew wouldn't do that.

I'm not saying she is right about Israel, but she doesn't fall into the stereotypical Jew category that Jow Forums has done such a good job of bringing to light.

Attached: Salute3.gif (416x414, 1.63M)

>She was on amphetamines all the time.
This. They were sold in pharmacies

Yeah she was prescribed it by a physician during her writing of Atlas Shrugged to combat fatigue.

Such things were done at that time.

Nevertheless she did a great job during that interview. I'd be too nervous to even sit properly and would probably Sperg out Sargoy style.

Attached: Brain.jpg (600x604, 52K)

>I'm not saying she is right about Israel, but she doesn't fall into the stereotypical Jew category that Jow Forums has done such a good job of bringing to light.
Exactly. Pol has a position to push.