Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
11-21-2012, 09:14 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-28-2012, 04:23 AM by macfadden.)
Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum is "edukated" in social pedagogy at the premiere Soviet revolutionary institute of higher learning, trained in propaganda at State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad, given the code name "Ayn Rand", and then sent off to the United States.

Karl Marx and Frederich Engels agree, Ayn Rand has been a true "People's" champion:

Quote:Why Karl Marx Advocated Free Trade (Capitalism)

Peter Myers, Canberra, Australia, August 2, 2001; update January 7, 2003. My comments are shown {thus}. Write to me at contact.html.

Karl Marx advocated Free Trade, i.e. Capitalism, because (a) whereas Protection builds up the nation-state, Free Trade breaks it down, as a prelude to the creation of a world-state by the Capitalists (b) Free Trade breaks down traditional culture, as a prelude to the creation of a world culture © Free Trade exacerbates class warfare, and through this the Capitalists will lose control of the world-state - they will be defeated by the impoverished classes, with the help of their backers in the higher classes.

Free Trade -> Misery -> Social Revolution.

(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade (2) Frederick Engels on Free Trade (3) Trotskyists for Free Trade

(1) Karl Marx on Free Trade

Karl Marx's major statement about Free Trade was an address delivered to the Democratic association of Brussels, Belgium, on January 9, 1848, around the same time as he wrote the Communist Manifesto.

Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Volume 6, Lawrence & Wishart, London 1976:

{p. 450} Karl Marx


"But, generally speaking, the Protective system in these days is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade. " - Karl Marx

So Marx and Engels clearly knew that Free Trade would worsen the lot of the lower classes, but advocated it anyway, as a means to achieving a World State. They were prepared to endorse an evil means, to achieve what they saw as a worthy end.

(2) Frederick Engels on Free Trade

The text of Marx' speech was translated into English by Florence Kelley, and published with an Introduction (Preface) by Frederick Engels.

Engels wrote in the Introduction to Free Trade (published by New York Labor News Company, in one volume with another text titled Wage-Labor and Capital, 1902):

"That was the time of the Brussels Congress, the time when Marx prepared the speech in question. While recognising that Protection may still, under certain circumstances, for instance, in the Germany of 1847, be of advantage to the manufacturing capitalists; while proving that free trade was not the panacea for all the evils under which the working class suffered, and might even aggravate them; he pronounces, ultimately and on principle, in favour of free trade." (Free Trade, Engels' Introduction, p.6).

So Marx and Engels clearly knew that Free Trade might worsen the lot of the lower classes, but advocated it anyway, as a means to achieving a World State. They were prepared to endorse an evil means, to achieve what they saw as a worthy end.

The fact that this strategy was explicitly formulated and publicly expounded by Karl Marx 57 years before the birth of Ayn Rand, and that Ayn Rand was among the elite of the thoroughly 'edukated' Marxist Soviet citizenry lends enormous credence to the notion that Rand was in fact a Soviet plant, sent forth to American shores as an influence agent of "active measures" to promote and encourage the very same economic philosophy and political policies that Marx explicitly stated would eventually and inevitably lead to the destruction of capitalism and the establishment a world communist state.

Quote:The bourgeoisie - we read in The Communist Manifesto - cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them all the relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted distrubance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.

{so class war, rather than an essential feature of civilized society as Marx claimed, is specifically a feature of the capitalist i.e. Free Trade economy which Marx himself promoted as a means to achieve Communist Revolution: classwar.html}

And here she is, in her own words, confirming that she was well aware of Marx' prediction of the final Crisis of Capitalism that would inevitably lead to a people' revolution also confirming that she was well aware of the exact means and methods for hastening its advent. Rosenbaum aka Ayn Rand begins the talk posted below by expressly stating Marx's prediction and then for the remainder of the talk proceeds in good dialectical fashion to plant the seeds of capitalism's own destruction in the minds of all the little captains of capitalism gathered by encouraging them to be bigger, bolder, dirtier, sleazier, more unapologetic A-holes than ever before in all their exploitations of the deprived and all their capitalizations on privation. muahahaha....

11-21-2012, 05:56 PM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
Lets not forget Marxists think essentially in terms of linear evolution. They liked capitalism up to a point as it represented the highest form of social evolution at the time in their opinion. Part of why they felt their utopias didn't work was because many of the societies they tried to impose socialism/communism on hadn't undergone the capitalist stage of development so, in a way, capitalism was a necessary precursor to socialism hence the push to capitalise the world as it will apparently lead to world socialism.
11-22-2012, 08:44 AM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
If you're a 'plant,' you shill and if you're a shill, you plant - disinformation, the most poisonous of all plants. Icon_biggrin

The result is the same. The behaviors are what matter, not why a person engages in them.

Both Rand and Chomsky were Jews who shilled for the Jew power elite. Bobby Fischer and Benjamin Freedman were ethnic Jews who exposed the Jew power elite.

How did Rand and Chomsky shill for the 'German Death Cults' like that tool Jordan Maxwell ? LOL

They both never mention the words USURY and / or Rothschilds in any of their books and articles. Rand mentions fractional reserve counterfeiting but not USURY, the lending of the entire money supply of a country at interest.

And it goes without saying that anyone who qualifies to join the world's oldest and most powerful organized crime network should not be trusted under any circumstances.

I posted a whole bunch more on Rand aka Rosenbaum the speed freak, including Murray Rothbard's and David Duke's articles about her, over here:
11-22-2012, 01:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-22-2012, 01:53 PM by CharliePrime.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(11-22-2012, 08:44 AM)Negentropic Wrote: ...anyone who qualifies to join the world's oldest and most powerful organized crime network should not be trusted under any circumstances.

Ha! That was pretty funny.

I guess your ban was lifted. Did you agree to stop posting those multi-page walls of YouTube videos?
11-22-2012, 11:09 PM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(11-22-2012, 01:53 PM)CharliePrime Wrote:
(11-22-2012, 08:44 AM)Negentropic Wrote: ...anyone who qualifies to join the world's oldest and most powerful organized crime network should not be trusted under any circumstances.

Ha! That was pretty funny.

I guess your ban was lifted. Did you agree to stop posting those multi-page walls of YouTube videos?

No I did not. Me and Tadpole negotiated a settlement.

I keep it relatively tame with only a few images & videos on other people's threads so they don't go crying to their mommas that I'm 'hi-jacking' the thread.

On my own threads and on threads that are already image and media intensive I get to post whatever I want just like before and we put a [warning: load times] or Image Intensive (IMG INT) label in the title.

That's why most of my threads have IMG INT in the title now. So keep away from my threads, they might be hazardous to your hash-brown chompin,' mountain-dew guzzling health and that of every old, outdated gadget in your possession. LOL

[Image: ayn-rand-155.gif]
11-22-2012, 11:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-23-2012, 12:37 AM by R.R.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
Yo Negentropic, do you have any information/exposes on Nathaniel Branden? He was Rand's lover boy at one point and kicked off the self-esteem movement.
11-23-2012, 02:21 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-23-2012, 06:41 PM by Negentropic.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(11-22-2012, 11:51 PM)R.R Wrote: Yo Negentropic, do you have any information/exposes on Nathaniel Branden? He was Rand's lover boy at one point and kicked off the self-esteem movement.

The best source for that is Branden's (he was also a Jew, real name Nathan Blumenthal) own book "Judgement Day." I read it years ago and still have a copy in my library. He was married to another Objectivist Jewess named Barbara at the time he started banging Rand behind her back. He only banged Rand with his kosher stick because he respected the secret powers of her Russian-bred medula oblongata and felt sorry for her having a loveless marriage and then dumped her for a young, good-looking model and Rosenbaum the speed freak hit the roof and excommunicated his ass.

You can get it for 4 dollars used (1 cent book plus 3.99 shipping) at amazon

It's a good read if you're interested in the psychology of cult movements and a hilarious soap opera.

Greenspan (yet another Jew) was part of Rand's cult. He was brought into it by his girlfriend at the time and then briefly first wife Joan Mitchell. He later married Andrea Mitchell (Jew) who's a talking head propagandist / bullcrapper on TV

Quote:This article originally appeared in a newsletter: The Objectivist published in 1966 and was reprinted in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

"An almost hysterical antagonism toward the gold standard is one issue which unites statists of all persuasions. They seem to sense - perhaps more clearly and subtly than many consistent defenders of laissez-faire - that gold and economic freedom are inseparable, that the gold standard is an instrument of laissez-faire and that each implies and requires the other.

In order to understand the source of their antagonism, it is necessary first to understand the specific role of gold in a free society.

Money is the common denominator of all economic transactions. It is that commodity which serves as a medium of exchange, is universally acceptable to all participants in an exchange economy as payment for their goods or services, and can, therefore, be used as a standard of market value and as a store of value, i.e., as a means of saving.

The existence of such a commodity is a precondition of a division of labor economy. If men did not have some commodity of objective value which was generally acceptable as money, they would have to resort to primitive barter or be forced to live on self-sufficient farms and forgo the inestimable advantages of specialization. If men had no means to store value, i.e., to save, neither long-range planning nor exchange would be possible.

What medium of exchange will be acceptable to all participants in an economy is not determined arbitrarily. First, the medium of exchange should be durable. In a primitive society of meager wealth, wheat might be sufficiently durable to serve as a medium, since all exchanges would occur only during and immediately after the harvest, leaving no value-surplus to store. But where store-of-value considerations are important, as they are in richer, more civilized societies, the medium of exchange must be a durable commodity, usually a metal. A metal is generally chosen because it is homogeneous and divisible: every unit is the same as every other and it can be blended or formed in any quantity. Precious jewels, for example, are neither homogeneous nor divisible. More important, the commodity chosen as a medium must be a luxury. Human desires for luxuries are unlimited and, therefore, luxury goods are always in demand and will always be acceptable. Wheat is a luxury in underfed civilizations, but not in a prosperous society. Cigarettes ordinarily would not serve as money, but they did in post-World War II Europe where they were considered a luxury. The term "luxury good" implies scarcity and high unit value. Having a high unit value, such a good is easily portable; for instance, an ounce of gold is worth a half-ton of pig iron.

In the early stages of a developing money economy, several media of exchange might be used, since a wide variety of commodities would fulfill the foregoing conditions. However, one of the commodities will gradually displace all others, by being more widely acceptable. Preferences on what to hold as a store of value, will shift to the most widely acceptable commodity, which, in turn, will make it still more acceptable. The shift is progressive until that commodity becomes the sole medium of exchange. The use of a single medium is highly advantageous for the same reasons that a money economy is superior to a barter economy: it makes exchanges possible on an incalculably wider scale.

Whether the single medium is gold, silver, seashells, cattle, or tobacco is optional, depending on the context and development of a given economy. In fact, all have been employed, at various times, as media of exchange. Even in the present century, two major commodities, gold and silver, have been used as international media of exchange, with gold becoming the predominant one. Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange. Since the beginning of World War I, it has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange. If all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's divisions of labor and specialization. Thus a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) which act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend credit and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks). But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security of his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: he has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion. Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy's stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a world-wide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold the economies of the different countries act as one-so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital. Credit, interest rates, and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled. Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off, and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.) It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World Was I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly reestablished a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline-argued economic interventionists-why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely-it was claimed-there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of twelve regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but in fact government sponsored, controlled, and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government. Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper reserves") could serve as legal tender to pay depositors.

When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage. More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: if the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those in Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates. The "Fed" succeeded; it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world, in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market-triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a world-wide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930's.

With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) But the opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes. A substantial part of the confiscation is effected by taxation. But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale.

Under a gold standard, the amount of credit that an economy can support is determined by the economy's tangible assets, since every credit instrument is ultimately a claim on some tangible asset. But government bonds are not backed by tangible wealth, only by the government's promise to pay out of future tax revenues, and cannot easily be absorbed by the financial markets. A large volume of new government bonds can be sold to the public only at progressively higher interest rates. Thus, government deficit spending under a gold standard is severely limited. The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets. The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that this loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

Alan Greenspan

[Image: young-alan-greenspan.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_C...9858067378]

[Image: ayn-rand.gif]
11-29-2012, 08:14 AM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
Quote:Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum, February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 - March 6, 1982) was a Russian-born philosopher and individualist, founder of the school of objectivism. Objectivism is a popular political philosophy in the American classical liberal tradition.

Ayn Rand herself is a controversial figure, being the only known example in history of someone who was completely self-made.

She didn't need anybody at all.


For anything.

Ayn Rand gave birth to herself in Czarian Russia, just to show that she was tough enough. Born at the age of zero, Ayn immediately set about teaching herself Russian-- considered a difficult task at any age. At first, Ayn subsisted on milk stolen from local cattle before moving on to directly killing them. The local farmers referred to her as "el asesino pequeños," the "cattle hacker." Or something.

Ayn was known for her ability to make her own clothes from raw materials. At the age of 2, she was able to not only make the blanket she was coddled in, but to coddle herself: the beginning of a destructive life-long habit. Living far away from civilization, Ayn began her tutelage under Ayn Rand, the Russian-born philosopher and individualist, founder of the school of objectivism.

Ayn's solitary life came to an end when she was forced by the new communist government to share her individuality with the state. Ayn did not like this.

She did not like this at all. And by "this" I mean sharing.

Sharing is something learned by the time a normal child enters kindergarten.

Ayn was granted a visa in 1925 to visit her relatives in Chicago and never returned to Russia. The "flying contraption" she created over that weekend out of sticks, held together by borscht, to fly the 10,000+ miles was the prototype used for our stealth bombers today.

Rand decided to enter the world of writing in her early 20's without ever having actually talked to a human being. Her early fiction, especially her second novel, "YES," was centered around the ideas of Ayn Rand, but was also semi-autobiographical. Most of her early works used ideas made by herself and shared by no one else.

Ayn's early writings made basic assumptions about humanity, such as their weaknesses and their base habits. She only needed to study humans for a month before she began using them in her stories. Her fiction began to take on a life of its own after that point.

Rand, who did not believe in democracy, was unwillingly pulled into it. In the 1940s, after allowing a man to marry her, she wrote her first true novel, "the Fountainhead," a story about a guy who kills people living in the houses he himself constructed because the government said they couldn't be as kewl as he wanted them to be. The novel also features clues to the whereabouts of Rand's twelve murder victims.

Rand, who still survived off the land and lived in a cave during this time, started the philosophical movement called "objectivism": So called because it is objective and level-headed... not like those OTHER philosophies. Ayn Rand herself thought of objectivism as the responsible son in a family of "total retards. Just... just total retards."

Ayn did not like retards.

Rand's objectivist utopia, exemplified in her best known novel, Atlas Shrugged, revolves around "John Galt," a middle manager who rose through the ranks at a local television station without any help from anyone, ever, at all. The novel was written before television became irrelevant, and modern objectivists usually replace "television station" with the more contemporary "internet station."

Galt and the others at the station are being taxed for creating exceptional programming such as "Child Doctor," "Child in Charge," and many other blockbuster child-themed shows.

The dystopian vision of a government which provides a social safety net for the poor is the central contention in the book. John Galt continues his rise through the ranks until he becomes rich... or something... and then he blows up some houses.

The book is interspersed with 8-page diatribes, popular with jackasses.

Ayn appreciated diatribes and jackasses.

Ayn Rand believed people who enjoyed sharing would also enjoy complete slavery. In Atlas Shrugged, the punishment for sharing was instant and complete slavery. According to Rand, because sharing actually lessens the amount of a good available to you, it is bad.

Sharing means less good.

It bad.

Bad, sharing! Bad.

Poverty is a punishment from society for being lazy. Rand herself said, "Why are those poor people so lazy? Look at me, I'm rich, white, and I have no mental handicaps, all because of what I've accomplished."

When Ayn first came to America, her first sight was of the New York skyline: a testimony to the capitalist spirit of America. At the time of construction, it was possible to send one's children through college by being a construction worker.

Thank god THAT'S not true anymore.
11-29-2012, 03:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2012, 04:04 PM by CharliePrime.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(11-22-2012, 11:09 PM)Negentropic Wrote: That's why most of my threads have IMG INT in the title now. So keep away from my threads, they might be hazardous to your hash-brown chompin,' mountain-dew guzzling health and that of every old, outdated gadget in your possession.

Frankly, I would not have unbanned you because your "style" harms the cause of exposing Jewish crimes more than it helps, but your agreement with FTP sounds like a fair compromise.

The IMG INT tag does help. I appreciate it. I'm taking you off 'ignore' because I actually like your 'normal' posts. I had you on ignore because I got sick of having to slog past 40 screens of the same vids and images day after day.

Welcome back you crazy mutterficker. Eatdrink007

R.R., this morning Washington's Blog posted a really good summary of Rand's Zionism and hatred of Libertarians...

Best article I have ever seen on the cultish nature of "Objectivism" is Rothbard's 1972 essay here:
11-30-2012, 01:40 AM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(11-29-2012, 03:53 PM)CharliePrime Wrote:
(11-22-2012, 11:09 PM)Negentropic Wrote: That's why most of my threads have IMG INT in the title now. So keep away from my threads, they might be hazardous to your hash-brown chompin,' mountain-dew guzzling health and that of every old, outdated gadget in your possession.

Frankly, I would not have unbanned you because your "style" harms the cause of exposing Jewish crimes more than it helps, but your agreement with FTP sounds like a fair compromise.

The IMG INT tag does help. I appreciate it. I'm taking you off 'ignore' because I actually like your 'normal' posts. I had you on ignore because I got sick of having to slog past 40 screens of the same vids and images day after day.

Welcome back you crazy mutterficker. Eatdrink007

R.R., this morning Washington's Blog posted a really good summary of Rand's Zionism and hatred of Libertarians...

Best article I have ever seen on the cultish nature of "Objectivism" is Rothbard's 1972 essay here:

My 'style' harms what ? LOL

Is that why the two longest posts on the thread with the most views on the entire site, 126,000 and rising, were posted by me in the exact style that you consider harmful ?

What's your style ? Two lines to two paragraph information 'bombs' ? LOL

See if you can catch up to that thread anytime soon or the 20,000 views on the Hitler thread or the 30,000 views on the No-Planes / Media Fakery thread and the 5000 views on the Fetch thread and the 13,000 on the individualism vs. collectivism thread and the 13,000 on the currently listening music thread & if you do, THEN you can criticize my 'style.'

So put your lazy ass to work or shut it and I couldn't care less how 'busy' you think you are at your slave job. Icon_biggrin

[Image: rothschild-vs-humankind.jpg]
12-01-2012, 04:22 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-01-2012, 04:25 AM by R.R.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
CharliePrime Wrote:R.R., this morning Washington's Blog posted a really good summary of Rand's Zionism and hatred of Libertarians...

Thanks. This quote was interesting:

Quote:In a development eerily reminiscent of the organized hatred directed against the arch-heretic Emanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984, Rand cultists were required to sign a loyalty oath to Rand; essential to the loyalty oath was a declaration that the signer would henceforth never read any future works of the apostate and arch-heretic Branden [Rand's number 2]. After the split, any Rand cultist seen carrying a book or writing by Branden was promptly excommunicated.


Cultists were required to swear their unquestioning belief that Rand was right and Branden wrong, even though they were not permitted to learn the facts behind the split. In fact, the mere failure to take a stand, the mere attempt to find the facts, or the statement that one could not take a stand on such a grave matter without knowledge of the facts was sufficient for instant expulsion. For such an attitude was conclusive proof of the defective “loyalty” of the disciple to his guru, Ayn Rand.

Interesting because it reminded me of a book called The Drama of the Gifted Child by Alice Miller. In that book she questions the motives of many psychoanalysts for choosing to become psychoanalysts. She basically came to a similar conclusion regarding the psychoanalyst and their own need for admiration and ego gratification - or in modern times what is known as narcissistic supply. It interlinks with the idea of a cult of personality and how the cult leader requires admiration from people that they paradoxically find beneath them anyway.

Soviet plant or not, I agree that she was 'sent' out for propaganda purposes. Nathaniel Branden (bRANDen - Brand N[athaniel]) puts out a load of work on 'self-esteem' (ideas that were dumbed down and promoted further by the new age movement) and Rand seemed to be promoting 'individuality' - yet the legacy of both is the highly selfish and immature personality type we see all around us - the dumbed down mass man of modern consumerist society. Rand perverted the concept of individuality and the self-esteem movements cater to this perverted version.

CharliePrime Wrote:Best article I have ever seen on the cultish nature of "Objectivism" is Rothbard's 1972 essay here:

How interesting:

Quote:Some Randians emulated their leader by changing their names from Russian or Jewish to a presumably harder, tougher, more heroic Anglo-Saxon. Branden himself changed his name from Blumenthal; it is perhaps not a coincidence, as Nora Ephron has pointed out, that if the letters of the new name are rearranged, they spell, B-E-N-R-A-N-D, Hebrew for "son of Rand."
12-02-2012, 07:36 AM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
Quote:"There was her 30-year use of amphetamines, beginning with Benzedrine in 1942, as she was rushing to complete The Fountainhead, and continuing with Dexedrine and Dexamyl into the 1970s. Until now it has been described as a two-pill-a-day prescription for weight control, but evidence in Heller's book indicates that it wasn't seen that way by everyone. As early as 1945, her then-close friend, journalist Isabel Paterson, was berating her in letters with passages such as, 'Stop taking that benzedrine, you idiot. I don't care what excuse you have — stop it.' Heller presents other evidence that Rand had periods of heavy use in the 1950s and '60s. But the exact extent of her dependence on amphetamines is peripheral here to the broader self-delusion. As anyone who has had the experience knows, a good way to get a really, really distorted sense of reality is to swallow a couple of Dexedrines. If you want to take them anyway, don't go around bragging that you never 'fake reality in any manner.'"

Quote:Ayn Rand's Pseudo-Philosophy

David Bentley Hart, writing in First Things, skewers Objectivism:

And, really, what can one say about Objectivism? It isn’t so much a philosophy as what someone who has never actually encountered philosophy imagines a philosophy might look like: good hard axiomatic absolutes, a bluff attitude of intellectual superiority, lots of simple atomic premises supposedly immune to doubt, immense and inflexible conclusions, and plenty of assertions about what is “rational” or “objective” or “real.” Oh, and of course an imposing brand name ending with an “-ism.” Rand was so eerily ignorant of all the interesting problems of ontology, epistemology, or logic that she believed she could construct an irrefutable system around a collection of simple maxims like “existence is identity” and “consciousness is identification,” all gathered from the damp fenlands between vacuous tautology and catastrophic category error. She was simply unaware that there were any genuine philosophical problems that could not be summarily solved by flatly proclaiming that this is objectivity, this is rational, this is scientific, in the peremptory tones of an Obersturmführer drilling his commandoes.

One of the many hilarious things about Rand is her philosophical crankery. I didn't get into this issue in my review about Randism, because the point of the piece was to focus primarily on her political impact, but her fraudulence in this realm is pretty striking. She was a true amateur who insisted on seeing herself as the greatest human being who ever lived because she was almost completely unfamiliar with the entire philosophical canon. A pulp screenwriter who had read a tiny bit of philosophy -- about as much as an average undergrad at a liberal arts college -- she developed wild delusions about her place in intellectual history, delusions that managed to seduce the members of her cult.

Quote:Why Do Philosophers Ignore Ayn Rand?

Because Ayn Rand was not a philosopher.

When people talk about Rand's "philosophy," they're using that word only as a euphemism. What Rand developed through her books and presented to the world was an ideology, a complex set of beliefs, opinions, metaphysics, and ethics. Philosophy is basically about the appreciation of wise thoughts, not the development of new ones. It isn't simply a set of assertions, no matter how superficially logical.

Internal consistency isn't enough. What's necessary is a rhetorical process that grapples with the philosophical questions of the day and addresses the strengths and weakness of the various solutions. It also requires a literary dialogue with philosophers of the past.

Unlike physics, which exist apart from academia, philosophy is inherently academic. There's a reason that the highest degree granted (in the United States, at least), a PhD, is called a doctorate of philosophy. At a high enough level, all academic work is partially philosophical. When you remove that from the living philosophical tradition stretching back hundreds of years, what do you have? Nothing.

When you dismiss the philosophical establishment altogether to start over with a blank slate, you're not doing it right. Yes, you can say that most of Rand's work was in the field of ethics, but you can say that about Pat Robertson, too. It doesn't make them philosophers. What they have to say is hard to combine with the academic tradition because it's poorly defined relative to it.

Philosophical books, papers, and classes may discuss the contributions of non-philosophers, but they're under no obligation to. Time is limited in every course; space is limited in every book; attentions spans of students are, of course, also limited. Since Rand's ideology is basically self-contained, there's little lost by excluding it from the philosophical curriculum, and little gained by trying to bolt it on.

It might show up in a broad survey course, or on a special class like "Philosophy and Ayn Rand." Otherwise, it won't. And until and unless Objectivists become as prominent in general population as Christians or as prominent in academia as Marxian theorists, I don't see that changing.

"one of the chief problems for the critic of Objectivism is the complexity of Objectivism's confusions!"
The Essential Subjectivity of Objectivism

Quote:Ayn Rand's views on causation contradict her views on free will. The reason is very simple: her views on causation are those of a determinist; her views on free will, however, make her a libertarian (as we will see below). And those two positions are, by definition, incompatible. But there is another serious mistake in Rand's theory of causation, one that is even worse because it is more fundamental.

Before proceeding, it might be a good idea to define the terms "determinism" and "libertarianism". Determinism is the view that the future is closed to all but one possibility, or, as Rand might have put it, that "everything in the future is already pre-set and inevitable" (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 122). Libertarianism is the view that we have free will and that, since free will is incompatible with determinism, determinism is false. This is the standard meaning of libertarianism (see, e.g., Free Will, ed. Robert Kane, 17).

Rand is, in a sense, a determinist because of what she says regarding the relationship between causation and the laws of logic. Rand has the unusual view that the law of causation is a corollary of the law of identity. Thus, for her, it is necessarily true that everything has a cause. Leonard Peikoff explains the point as follows: "Every entity has a nature; ... it has certain attributes and no others. Such an entity must act in accordance with its nature. The only alternatives would be for an entity to act apart from its nature or against it; both of those are impossible. ... In any given set of circumstances, therefore, there is only one action possible to an entity, the action expressive of its identity. This is the action it will take, the action that is caused and necessitated by its nature." (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 14.)

Now, some Objectivists believe that Peikoff sometimes misrepresents Rand's views in this book (which was written after Rand's death), but they cannot reasonably claim such a thing regarding the above, for Peikoff made essentially the same point in "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy", an article that was personally approved by Rand:

"As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no 'facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise'... Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 333.)

The only important difference between the two passages is that in the latter Peikoff specifically points out that this does not apply to human actions. We will return to this below. Apart from human actions, however, Rand believed that every event was determined in the sense that, at any given moment, only one outcome was possible — nothing that happens could have happened otherwise. Peikoff uses the example of a helium-filled balloon to clarify the issue: if, under the same set of circumstances, it were possible for a balloon to act in more than one way — if it could rise or fall — then the law of identity would be violated. "Such incompatible outcomes would have to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity's nature. But there are no contradictory aspects. A is A." (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 14-15.) Objectivists often make this point in arguing against the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which states that there are truly random events in the physical world.

According to Rand, then, the law of identity implies that everything has a cause, and this in turn implies that, at any given moment, there is only one way that anything can act — only one outcome that is possible. This is causal determinism. A rather bizarre type of causal determinism, since it is based on nothing more than the law of identity, but causal determinism nonetheless.

But Rand also believes in freedom of the will, and believes that it is incompatible with determinism. In other words, she is a libertarian. Again, in Peikoff's Rand-approved words: "Because man has free will, no human choice — and no phenomenon which is a product of human choice — is metaphysically necessary. In regard to any man-made fact, it is valid to claim that man has chosen thus, but it was not inherent in the nature of existence for him to have done so: he could have done otherwise." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon, 180.) So when it comes to any man-made fact, it might not have been. Something else might have been instead. But this obviously contradicts what Peikoff said above regarding there being "in any given set of circumstances... only one action possible to an entity".

Now, as already pointed out, in "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy", Peikoff explicitly leaves human action out of this determinist picture. It might therefore seem that there is no contradiction: the deterministic view applies only to non-human reality. But this will not do — unless Peikoff means that the law of identity does not apply to human beings. Remember that the whole point is that determinism (that is, that only one outcome is possible at any given time) is supposed to be entailed by that law of logic. On Rand's view, then, if a human being is free to either do A or not do A in a given situation, then the human being must not have a specific nature.

Of course, we all know that Rand did not really believe such a thing. She obviously believed that the law of identity applied to human beings as much as to anything else. But that's not my point. My point is that, if we accept what she says about the relationship between identity and causality, and also what she says about human volition, then we should conclude that human beings are exempt from the law of identity. And that is obviously ridiculous.

Objectivism attempts to avoid this contradiction by claiming that, in the case of human beings, acting in accordance with one's nature does not imply that there is only one action possible at each moment. It is part of human nature, according to Rand, to have the ability to choose from among more than one course of action. "The attribute of volition", she says, "does not contradict the fact of identity... [Man] is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness." (Ibid.) Or in Peikoff's words: "The law of identity... tells us only that whatever entities there are, they act in accordance with their nature... The law of causality by itself, therefore, does not affirm or deny the reality of an irreducible choice. It says only this much: if such a choice does exist, then it, too, as a form of action, is performed and necessitated by an entity of a specific nature." (Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, 68-69.)

But this changes things. Now it no longer is the case that "acting in accordance with a specific nature" implies that there is only one possible way of acting. According to Rand, human beings act in accordance with their nature, and thus in accordance with the law of identity, and yet they are able to choose from among more than one possible course of action. So the law of identity does not, in fact, mean that only one outcome is possible for an entity at any given time.

And in fact, that is exactly right: the original claim was simply wrong. Determinism (whether of human or non-human entities) simply does not follow from the law of identity. To suppose that it does, whether for human beings or for any other entity, is an obvious confusion. But now Rand's view of causation can be seen for what it really is: it means absolutely nothing. All Rand's "law of causation" tells us is that entities act in accordance with their nature. But that tells us nothing about how any given entity must act. It merely says that they act the way that they act.

John Hospers apparently pointed this out to Rand, saying that her claim that an entity must act in accordance with its nature "is guaranteed by the meaning attached to the word 'nature'." (Letters of Ayn Rand, 528.) Judging from her reply, she seems to not have understood the complaint. His point, I take it, was that because her statement is true by definition, it is no more than an empty truism. That every entity always acts in accordance with its nature tells us nothing about how it will in fact act, including whether or not there is more than one possible way for it to act. It does not, for instance, rule out the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics: all one needs to say is that it is in an electron's nature (for example) to behave unpredictably. Nor would it be contradicted by a helium-filled balloon that fell. If a balloon ever acted this way, then that would merely show that such behavior is part of its nature. Or, in other words, no matter how anything acts, it is by definition acting in accordance with its nature.

To sum up: Rand's view that the law of identity implies determinism contradicts her view that human beings have free will. Furthermore, it is simply false that determinism follows from the law of identity.

Quote:"Ayn Rand and the Is/Ought Problem"
Over at we find Patrick M. O'Neil's detailed breakdown of Objectivist ethics, and despite Rand's claims to the contrary, exactly how it fails to overcome Hume's problem. The result is what he calls the "essential subjectivity of Objectivism.":

"...It is at this stage in her argumentation, at the very point of seeming triumph over subjectivity, that Rand loses the battle. She takes aim at the Humean disjuncture of the prescriptive from the descriptive and fatally wounds the pretentions to objectivity of her own systematic ethics: "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought'"("The Objectivist Ethics"). In these two sentences, Rand reveals a serious misconception of the nature of the Humean is-ought gap and introduces a dangerous potential for self-contradiction into her own ethical system.

In his work A Treatise of Human Nature, the Scottish philosopher David Hume challenged the basis of all objective systems of morality:

"I can not forbear adding to these reasonings an observation, which may, perhaps, be found of some importance. In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for sometime in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God. or makes observations concerning human affairs: when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not. I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new revelation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether
inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it."

Clearly, Rand thinks that Hume denied a connection between facts and systems of morality. This error is not uncommon, and forms the basis for A. C. MacIntyre's revisionist reinterpretation of Hume's famous paragraph. Claiming that Hume could not have meant to establish a total divorcement of facts from values because Hume uses facts in his own ethical system, MacIntyre interprets Hume to be assaulting only theologically-based morality. In fact, there is nothing in the Humean formulation of the problem which hinders the simple integration of facts and values. The sole difficulty arises over the derivability of values from facts...In conclusion, then, Ayn Rand's system of Objectivist ethics does not provide the basis for a solution to the Humean dilemma of the is/ought gap; nor have attempts by a new generation of natural law ethicians to rework her system succeeded in subduing that central ethical difficulty. Since no ethical system has been demonstrated to have solved the is-ought problem, it may be thought a minor flaw in Rand. It is her specific claim to have overcome this difficulty that magnifies its importance in regard to her system."

12-03-2012, 08:49 PM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?

12-06-2012, 01:46 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-06-2012, 01:54 PM by Infinite.)
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
You guys are a bunch of communists promoting lies and bullshit. 'Protectionism' means licking government boots. That I can't make a trade with someone who lives in another part of the world without paying a fee to someone called 'government' that has nothing to fucking do with it. And your theory is asinine, Marx was an idiot who didn't know what the hell he was talking about and his system was and always will be an absolute disaster. Yet you take him word for word on his 'analysis' of capitalism? The guy was talking out of his ass. Fuck Karl Marx, fuck protectionism and fuck government. You can't be against conspiracies unless you oppose the conspirators, not inviting them to run your life for you because you feel you're too weak and stupid to do it. Yes, free trade might be responsible for breaking down some old traditions. If that's the case it's because people don't like those particular traditions and don't want to take part in them any more once they're not forced to. Yes a free market of ideas is the natural result of a free market society. People are free to actually pursue their own interests and discover their own values rather than have a pre-set fate shoved down their throats by control freak psychos who think they know what's best for everyone.
12-06-2012, 02:10 PM,
RE: Ayn Rand a Soviet Plant?
(12-06-2012, 01:46 PM)Infinite Wrote: You guys are a bunch of communists promoting lies and bullshit.

Ad hominem attacks and filthy language detract from your argument. It would be better to strengthen your argument.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Rainbow Rand Paul Woos U.C. Berkeley CharliePrime 0 675 03-22-2014, 03:15 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
  What If US Collapses? Soviet Collapse Lessons Every American Needs To Know Solve et Coagula 0 922 08-22-2011, 10:09 AM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
Tongue Drug-crazed Rand Paul kidnapped woman in reefer frenzy joeblow 6 2,753 08-11-2010, 03:53 AM
Last Post: hilly7
  Duck hunters shut down nuke arms plant. Ctrl 0 570 01-18-2010, 03:24 AM
Last Post: Ctrl
  The Occult in Russian and Soviet Culture By Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal Solve et Coagula 0 673 04-25-2009, 04:21 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  Iran counts on Russia for September launch of nuclear plant --- 1 821 03-12-2009, 02:07 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Former Soviet Agent Poisoned In London dam0 0 798 11-19-2006, 10:39 PM
Last Post: dam0
  One In Four Is On The State Payroll In Uk 'soviet Blocs' 0 534 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)