Ayn Rand, what a President she would have made....

"Poverty is not a mortgage on the labor of others-

misfortune is not a mortgage on success-

Suffering is not a claim check, and it's relief is not the goal of existence-

man is not a sacraficial animal on anyone's alter not for anyone's cause-

life is not one huge hospital." Ayn Rand.



I can't think of anyone who matches this woman's clarity...what if...

reply to post by nwtrucker


Clarity? She was an evil, vindictive, amoral, domineering hypocrite and frankly speaking, overrated. She used her stature (read control) to coerce a married man half her age, Nathaniel Branden, into an open affair, driving her own husband to alcoholism. When he could no longer stomach their relationship and broke it off, she had him banished from the Collective (her cultish group of followers). In her final years, suffering from lung cancer, she even collected both Medicare and Social Security.

It's funny how trendy it is among Republicans and hipster self-described Libertarians, who purport to hold traditional family values in such esteem, to venerate Ayn Rand simply because she's a wellspring of anti-altruism quotes.

It's common knowledge that Ayn Rand's novels greatly inspired Anton LaVey's Satanic Bible.

"I give people Ayn Rand, with trappings"
--- Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, 1970

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is an acknowledged source for some of the Satanic philosophy as outlined in The Satanic Bible by Anton LaVey. Ayn Rand was a brilliant and insightful author and philosopher and her best-selling novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead continue to attract deserved attention for a new generation of readers. I am a strong admirer of Ayn Rand but I am an even stronger admirer of Anton LaVey for the vital differences between the philosophies of Objectivism and Satanism.

Source - Church of Satan website

Did I mention that probably her most famous acolyte was Alan Greenspan, former Fed Chairman and architect of the recent financial meltdown? Hopefully there is some sort of afterlife and Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum (aka Ayn Rand) is rotting in hell.

As a socialist who thinks we have a duty to help others I hate her.
"Screw you jack Iam doing fine" is the worst view to have.
Plus her books are poor.

The fact she wasn't a Christian, would have ruled her out of any chance of being elected in America. The fact she was an athiest would have cemented that.

I'm sure the Conservative right can reconcile those facts and cherry pick from her beliefs as they do with the bible.

reply to post by theantediluvian


theantrdiluvian, LOL, I didn't say she'd make a good wife, just a good, if not great, president.

I don't hold her responsible for misinterpretations by others of her who subvert what she was saying into their personal agendas.(Greenspan included.)

She lived in a era when divorce was frowned upon to say the least. I won't judge her domestic issues assuming you can leave hers alone as you might already do with Clinton and J.F.K....

You see evil, I see her pointing out an evil.

A perpetual guilt trip on the successful for being successful. A perpetual it's "unfair" on those who aren't. Be those failures due to bad luck, poor to no education from society/parents, no inspiration/drive or whatever combination.

All she's saying is it's not the "successful" peoples fault! She is right.

As to our different views on this, I'd be glad to discuss it, but, as it's a long "discussion", I won't try to clarify it unless you want to...it could take weeks...LOL.

reply to post by boymonkey74


I don't see any comment by Rand saying screw you, implied or otherwise. If you can show me one then I'd appreciate it. I suspect that, again, it's nothing but a view the undercuts the fundamental of enforced "compassion" .

Freedom is senior to responsibility. More fundamental. Choice.

"Help" is perhaps the greatest of human traits. It is best served willingly. When enforced, it becomes that "cause" that Rand refers to in the above quote. Those enforcements gradually increase to a breaking point. That point is upon us now.

Socialism, again, just my view of it, has become a tool of oppression. Far worse than mere elitists manipulating world events.

A world-wide clampdown.

One educates, inspires, sets examples. That's the road to a true willingness to "help". Enforcement turns it into just another "ism". A tool for control, manipulation and centralized power to a select few.

A family unit, a small community/commune, et al, socialism works. It's even a requirement for long term survival. Basic education, road/bridge/dam projects, etc.

Hand in hand with capitalism, a balance. We had this to a large extent, (with flaws, yet, workable). Now? It's all about to come apart. Plenty of blame to go around and not the point of the thread, just a clear statement of what's been going on and a fundamental point articulated by a lady far smarter than me.LOL.

reply to post by woodwardjnr


Actually, it goes beyond not being a Christian. I believe she stated that there was "no God". I squirmed with that one as I don't see this as some accident.

But, I agree, that alone would have made it difficult, if not impossible, to elect her.

A politician would avoid the confrontational issues, make glib statements to appease. She spoke her mind. Exactly what is needed, and ironically, can never be elected.

Sigh.

reply to post by theantediluvian

P.S. Why shouldn't she collect both Medicare and Social Security? She paid into it like the rest of us. She was entitled to it.

Frankly, finding/inventing negatives without addressing the issues is a signal example of why there is a growing backlash against the diabolically uncompassionate left. The compassion is selective....

Ugh.

It is a true sign of the times we live in that Ayn Rand is looked up to.

Troubled times indeed.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


You have no idea the "trouble" that awaits you.....

nwtrucker
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

You have no idea the "trouble" that awaits you.....

Oh, I have a very clear idea of what awaits...what worries me is that so many dont understand that it has long since begun.

reply to post by theantediluvian




Absolutely.... she was an utter disgrace, A despicable human being.

reply to post by nwtrucker


ok - lets cut to the chase - what would her policy be - not soundbytes - but actual policy ?

reply to post by captaintyinknots


On that point, you have my agreement. It's been building for a long time...

reply to post by ignorant_ape


Her policy? Heck, I don't know. It would be nothing more than a guess.

Perhaps in light of today's situations we face, her view could modify.

I do agree utterly with the above quote and if that's her "core values" then I trust she'd adjust/apply them accordingly.

I trust she'd keep things within the Constitutional structure as a basic tenet.

As I am of limited education, although somewhat better read than many, and limited intelligence, my take may be as bad as others who have "quoted" her and twisted it to their own agendas.

The above quote resonates with the original documents of the U.S., from what I can see.

My personal view is Gov'ts are, by their nature, machines. They do not have "compassion" or a "heart" any more than the family car does. LOL.

Drivers of that car may have that compassion and perhaps some do, but without exception, the politicos proclaim compassion as their motive when, in fact, they con their "believers" into buying it.

It is nothing but power that motivates these guys. At least, the bunch that support the Constitution acknowledges the restraint intended by the founding fathers on the levels of that power.

Anything else, at this stage, is semantics.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Interesting responses.

With only one exception, all the replies have been to attack Rand. Calling her "evil"and "despicable"...

None have directly challenged her ideas with rebut or counter-argument. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised as that's the norm for the "compassionate" crowd-about as compassionate as a two-headed rattlesnake in August. LOL.

What I see in the above Rand quote is about as "liberal" as it gets. The potential con of "causes". The politics of compassion, of nationalism, of all the "isms".

This is a brilliant statement from a woman in an era where women generally didn't have the option of stepping outside the traditional roles accepted for women.

I don't have a problem with disagreement with her views and might have learned something from debate on it.

What I have learned, yet again, that by and large, the left is lacking in intelligent thought....see above.

If its debate about her ideas that you want, have a look:

abovetopsecret.com.samuru.com...

Funny, though, that you want people to debate her policies while you yourself refuse to state what those policies are.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


LOL, utter garbage, my friend. I don't know what her policies would be any more than you do. "Policies" are articulated by those who would run for office.

As far as I know, she never ran for office, nor had any intention to do so.

As far as "Links" go, I view it as nothing but a glib cop-out. I need not some left publication that I can't verify, debate or judge context.

I WILL discuss the pros and cons.

The only "refusal" is see is in any willingness to debate them from the detractors...not that I expected anything else......tick, tock...tick, tock,,,