Corrupter: Ayn "Rosenbaum" Rand - Jewish Speed Freak

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon
The perverse allure of a damaged woman.
By Johann Hari
Posted Monday, Nov. 2, 2009, at 7:01 AM ET

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote lavish torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses"—her readers—were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live. Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the United States, still selling 800,000 books a year from beyond the grave. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue," she is the patron saint of the tea-partiers and the death panel doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?

Two new biographies of Rand—Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns and Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne Heller—try to puzzle out this question, showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life.* But the books work best, for me, on a level I didn't expect. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion.

Alisa Rosenbaum (her original name) was born in the icy winter of czarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St. Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, while her mother was an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children, and she kept them only out of duty. Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood," headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise."

But the Rosenbaums' domestic tensions were dwarfed by the conflicts raging outside. The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs—but it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father's pharmacy was seized "in the name of the people." For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where 5 million people died of starvation in just two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike."

The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to their relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family for the last time. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies—the America of skyscrapers and riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.

She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. He is "mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned." It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": The "only virtue" is "selfishness."

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins all her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer called William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker from her junior high school, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces. Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. ... Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy," shimmering with "immense, explicit egotism." Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them—through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living (1936), and in the early drafts her central character—a crude proxy for Rand herself—says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."

She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes for the audience to cheer on. All have the same core message: Anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor—not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the housing project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil government bureaucrats. He orders the jury to acquit him, saying: "The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!"

For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike to protest against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation—and said the United States would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages," "refuse," "inanimate objects," and "imitations of living beings," picking through rubbish. One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the higher taxes that made the attack necessary.

Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity: They insist they need no one, yet they spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.

As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people who believed she had found the One Objective Truth about the world. They were required to memorize her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" and "anti-life" by Rand if they asked questions. One student said: "There was a right kind of music, a right kind of art, a right kind of interior design, a right kind of dancing. There were wrong books which we should not buy."

Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her natural paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme as they pumped though her veins. Anybody in her circle who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in front of the whole group in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The workings of her cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was, think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.

In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower called Nathaniel Branden and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult's No. 2, and she named him as her "intellectual heir"—until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand's philosophy "taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement." So to be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person. She screamed: "You have rejected me? You have dared to reject me? Me, your highest value?"

She never really recovered. We all become weak at some point in our lives, so a thinker who despises weakness will end up despising herself. In her 70s Rand found herself dying of lung cancer, after insisting that her followers smoke because it symbolized "man's victory over fire" and the studies showing it caused lung cancer were Communist propaganda. By then she had driven almost everyone away. In 1982, she died alone in her apartment with only a hired nurse at her side. If her philosophy is right—if the only human relationships worth having are based on the exchange of dollars—this was a happy and victorious death. Did even she believe it in the end?

Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.

I don't find it hard to understand why this happened to Rand: I feel sympathy for her, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are people—large numbers of people—who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? What in American culture did she drill into? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this, the only great question about her.

Rand expresses, with a certain pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you any more! She then absolutizes it in an amphetamine Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.

This urge exists everywhere, but why is it supercharged on the American right, where Rand is regarded as something more than a bad, bizarre joke? In a country where almost everyone believes—wrongly, on the whole—that they are self-made, perhaps it is easier to have contempt for people who didn't make much of themselves. And Rand taps into something deeper still. The founding myth of America is that the nation was built out of nothing, using only reason and willpower. Rand applies this myth to the individual American: You made yourself. You need nobody and nothing except your reason to rise and dominate. You can be America, in one body, in one mind.

She said the United States should be a "democracy of superiors only," with superiority defined by being rich. Well, we got it. As the health care crisis has shown, today, the rich have the real power: The vote that matters is expressed with a checkbook and a lobbyist. We get to vote only for the candidates they have pre-funded and receive the legislation they have preapproved. It's useful—if daunting—to know that there is a substantial slice of the American public who believe this is not a problem to be put right, but morally admirable.

We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s: Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protected the lice of Main Street?

The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L. Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

Correction, Nov. 2, 2009: This article misidentified the author of Goddess of the Market as Gordon Burns. (Return to the corrected paragraph.)
Johann Hari is a Slate contributing writer and a columnist for the Independent in London. He was recently named newspaper journalist of the year by Amnesty International.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/

[sullivan]

5gopi1u8]

[sullivan]

The Palestinian Victims?
Monday, April 22, 2002
By: Robert Tracinski
Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

When a whole society lionizes terrorists and accepts them as its leaders--what right do they have to complain when their wish for blood and death is granted?

As Israel pulls out of the West Bank--a foolish move that will only allow Palestinian terrorists to regroup--the media is being flooded with piteous tales about Palestinian victims, who, we are told, are innocent civilians.

But a glance at the stories coming out of the West Bank gives us a flavor for this "innocence."

The bulk of the current news stories are coming from Jenin, a major center of Palestinian terrorism where Israeli troops encountered the fiercest resistance. A typical story is from Khadra Samara, who is quoted in at least three separate newspaper accounts. She complains that her family was forced to flee when the Israelis bulldozed her home. Her instant response: "I was so furious, I felt like committing a suicide bombing against the Israelis."

article continues

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Confirmed as  a Nut.

[Father Brown]

I remember having somewhat of a fascination with her writing as a young adult. But, I realized fairly early on that she was simply promoting another type of poison.

I am a true Conservative who has no use for such nonsense. I can't believe the amount of people who think she's the greatest thing since sliced bread in Ann Coulter's chat room. But, alas, they are also Christian Zionists. They are not wealthy, but have some kind of weird dream about one day being wealthy and worshipping Ayn Rand seems to fit into their world view. IMHO.

They're right that liberalism is destroying our country, but they don't realize that a gang is controlling both parties. And they refuse to see it. I also think there is a bit of racism in their praise of Rand. They live in that great middle ground between elitism and destitution, which of course is where most of us live. But, they think they are on the way up and could give a crap about the poor. Too bad, because chances are they will be joining their ranks.

[scorpio]

I have always found Rand's work to be rather boring, over-written and twisted.
She had quite a little cult going for a while.
It is quite ironic that she advocated smoking, because "it symbolized man's domination of fire"
and then died of lung cancer alone (other than a nurse), because no one could stand her power-tripping personality any longer.

Your Jew Corruptor series are some of the best threads here IMHO.
It gets right to the heart of the issue: The degenerative effects that Juuwish control has on our culture.  :evil:
Please keep them going.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Your Jew Corruptor series are some of the best threads here IMHO.
It gets right to the heart of the issue: The degenerative effects that Juuwish control has on our culture.  :evil:
Please keep them going.

Thanks Scorpio I definitely will.

IMHO, I think the Jews have corrupted the USA far more than other parts of Europe except for maybe England or Italy.
American TV is basically unwatchable these days because of Jew TV programming.  The US Newspapers are infested with shameless Jew Editorializing. The American People don't even recognize "Non-Jew" media anymore.... so the Corrupter Series continues to enlighten people on how Jewish corruption occurs   , how Jews advance their businesses with ripped off patents or inventions of the Goyim, how they advance by Scams foisted upon the Goy public, how they control with Crap laws, bribes and cheap whined threats,  how they preach corrupted ideals from their positions of power in society, etc.

They definitely need a massive "Calling out" here in America these days.  Are they "God's People" or just smarmy "evil" Chutzpahists?  Experience has only proven the latter for me.  Maybe in an earlier age, they would still have respect and decency... but now it is over the top.

As for the Idiot Jew Speed Freak "Ayn Rand",  so many good people have been duped by her fundamentally Talmudic J.S. that the corruption must be revealed as Jewish instigated  IMHO...  never enjoyed her books either... it felt like reading a Jew Communist pamphlet.  Same old Jew propaganda.
To think that Rush "Idiot Jew Spout from Goyim" Limbaugh worships her too...  :shock:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Taibbi covers the Jewish Speed Freak's effect on the USA...

----------
Taibbi: The Lunatics Who Made a Religion Out of Greed and Wrecked the Economy
By Matt Taibbi, The Guardian
Posted on April 26, 2010, Printed on April 28, 2010

http://www.alternet.org/story/146611/

So Goldman Sachs, the world's greatest and smuggest investment bank, has been sued for fraud by the American Securities and Exchange Commission. Legally, the case hangs on a technicality.

Morally, however, the Goldman Sachs case may turn into a final referendum on the greed-is-good ethos that conquered America sometime in the 80s – and in the years since has aped other horrifying American trends such as boybands and reality shows in spreading across the western world like a venereal disease.

When Britain and other countries were engulfed in the flood of defaults and derivative losses that emerged from the collapse of the American housing bubble two years ago, few people understood that the crash had its roots in the lunatic greed-centered objectivist religion, fostered back in the 50s and 60s by ponderous emigre novelist Ayn Rand.

While, outside of America, Russian-born Rand is probably best known for being the unfunniest person western civilisation has seen since maybe Goebbels or Jack the Ripper (63 out of 100 colobus monkeys recently forced to read Atlas Shrugged in a laboratory setting died of boredom-induced aneurysms), in America Rand is upheld as an intellectual giant of limitless wisdom. Here in the States, her ideas are roundly worshipped even by people who've never read her books or even heard of her. The rightwing "Tea Party" movement is just one example of an entire demographic that has been inspired to mass protest by Rand without even knowing it.

Last summer I wrote a brutally negative article about Goldman Sachs for Rolling Stone magazine (I called the bank a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity") that unexpectedly sparked a heated national debate. On one side of the debate were people like me, who believed that Goldman is little better than a criminal enterprise that earns its billions by bilking the market, the government, and even its own clients in a bewildering variety of complex financial scams.

On the other side of the debate were the people who argued Goldman wasn't guilty of anything except being "too smart" and really, really good at making money. This side of the argument was based almost entirely on the Randian belief system, under which the leaders of Goldman Sachs appear not as the cheap swindlers they look like to me, but idealized heroes, the saviors of society.

In the Randian ethos, called objectivism, the only real morality is self-interest, and society is divided into groups who are efficiently self-interested (ie, the rich) and the "parasites" and "moochers" who wish to take their earnings through taxes, which are an unjust use of force in Randian politics. Rand believed government had virtually no natural role in society. She conceded that police were necessary, but was such a fervent believer in laissez-faire capitalism she refused to accept any need for economic regulation – which is a fancy way of saying we only need law enforcement for unsophisticated criminals.

Rand's fingerprints are all over the recent Goldman story. The case in question involves a hedge fund financier, John Paulson, who went to Goldman with the idea of a synthetic derivative package pegged to risky American mortgages, for use in betting against the mortgage market. Paulson would short the package, called Abacus, and Goldman would then sell the deal to suckers who would be told it was a good bet for a long investment. The SEC's contention is that Goldman committed a crime – a "failure to disclose" – when they failed to tell the suckers about the role played by the vulture betting against them on the other side of the deal.

Now, the instruments in question in this deal – collateralized debt obligations and credit default swaps – fall into the category of derivatives, which are virtually unregulated in the US thanks in large part to the effort of gremlinish former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who as a young man was close to Rand and remained a staunch Randian his whole life. In the late 90s, Greenspan lobbied hard for the passage of a law that came to be called the Commodity Futures Modernisation Act of 2000, a monster of a bill that among other things deregulated the sort of interest-rate swaps Goldman used in its now-infamous dealings with Greece.

Both the Paulson deal and the Greece deal were examples of Goldman making millions by bending over their own business partners. In the Paulson deal the suckers were European banks such as ABN-Amro and IKB, which were never told that the stuff Goldman was cheerfully selling to them was, in effect, designed to implode; in the Greece deal, Goldman hilariously used exotic swaps to help the country mask its financial problems, then turned right around and bet against the country by shorting Greece's debt.

Now here's the really weird thing. Confronted with the evidence of public outrage over these deals, the leaders of Goldman will often appear to be genuinely confused, scratching their heads and staring quizzically into the camera like they don't know what you're upset about. It's not an act. There have been a lot of greedy financiers and banks in history, but what makes Goldman stand out is its truly bizarre cultist/religious belief in the rightness of what it does.

The point was driven home in England last year, when Goldman's international adviser, sounding exactly like a character in Atlas Shrugged, told an audience at St Paul's Cathedral that "The injunction of Jesus to love others as ourselves is an endorsement of self-interest". A few weeks later, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein told the Times that he was doing "God's work".

Even if he stands to make a buck at it, even your average used-car salesman won't sell some working father a car with wobbly brakes, then buy life insurance policies on that customer and his kids. But this is done almost as a matter of routine in the financial services industry, where the attitude after the inevitable pileup would be that that family was dumb for getting into the car in the first place. Caveat emptor, dude!

People have to understand this Randian mindset is now ingrained in the American character. You have to live here to see it. There's a hatred toward "moochers" and "parasites" – the Tea Party movement, which is mainly a bunch of pissed off suburban white people whining about minorities consuming social services, describes the battle as being between "water-carriers" and "water-drinkers". And regulation of any kind is deeply resisted, even after a disaster as sweeping as the 2008 crash.

This debate is going to be crystallised in the Goldman case. Much of America is going to reflexively insist that Goldman's only crime was being smarter and better at making money than IKB and ABN-Amro, and that the intrusive, meddling government (in the American narrative, always the bad guy!) should get off Goldman's Armani-clad back. Another side is going to argue that Goldman winning this case would be a rebuke to the whole idea of civilisation – which, after all, is really just a collective decision by all of us not to screw each other over even when we can. It's an important moment in the history of modern global capitalism: whether or not to move forward into a world of greed without limits.

 

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/146611

[scorpio]

BTW -  I just recently learned that Ron Paul's son 'Rand' was named after Ayn Rand.
Hmmm....makes you wonder  

[Negentropic]

This guy has some valid points but he hates Rand way too much to provide an 'objective' or balanced critique of Rand's vast influence for better or worse .

I personally never liked her novels but was an avid reader of her non-fiction critical essays back in high school and college. They cleared the fog in my head and got me thinking deeply about things by cutting to its essence. Despite being a mediocre novelist, there is no doubt that she possessed a genius level mind and an ability to put complex ideas into simple terms that the common people could understand. She wouldn't water it down, she would get to the essence of it, cut through all the bullshit like a laser.  

Now Rand was indeed a Russian Jew but there's no proof that she was anything but an atheist (like Rivero over at WHR) or connected to the Rothschilds or any such nonsense.  She was completely and thoroughly anti-communist (anti-Russian-Jew-Created and run Bolshevism) all her life.  Maybe it was because being a Russian Jew she had seen Bolshevism from the inside through possible friends and relations.

Her Philosophy is pro-laissez-faire capitalism not pro mixed-econoemy capitalism or goverment interference in the economy. She followed the Austrian economists (led by Mises who was Jewish but also in all probability the greatest economic mind of the century) in advocating and thoroughly popularizing those Laissez-Faire views which became the base of libertarianism. Libertarianism as we know it today would not exist without Rand even if she hated them for supposedly twisting and perverting her ideas which in the economic areas she had taken from the Austrians.  Harry Browne, the Libertarian candiate for President and ex-GCN host before he died came to libertarianism and Austrian economics through Rand. Daryl Bradford Smith, Michael Rivero, Jeff Rense, Alex Jones and many other so-called leaders of the 'truth movement' are libertarian in their beliefs. Ron Paul is libertarian in his economic beliefs and that's why he supports the gold standard in order to stop fractional reserve banking.  Greenspan, a disciple of Rand also advocated the Gold Standard way back in the 1960s before he got bought off.  Gold can be monopolized, of course, and its price manipulated but there needs to be a standard there and Gold and Silver have been the oonly durable standards in history.

There's not doubt that she had terrible taste in music : Tchaikovsky and Rachmaninov rather than Bach, Beethoven or Mozart, not much better taste in literature  Dostoevsky, Hugo and Spillane rather than Goethe, Tolstoy, Nabokov or Joyce, took doctor-prescribed speed her whole life and went pretty close to nuts as a result  later in life. And there's no doubt that Peikoff and some of her followers still around today are complete lunaticst. But without Rand's defense of capitalism the libertarian movement as we know it today would not exist.  So give credit when credit is due.  :eh:

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 25, 2009
Angelina Jolie: Now out as an Obama-hating Libertarian
 


It's been rumored for quite some time. With her interest in producing and starring in Ayn Rand's iconic Atlas Shrugs, and with her famous Tea Party supporting Dad Jon Voigt, many had pegged the actress as a closeted libertarian. The rumor just got one step closer to being confirmed.

From USMagazine, Nov. 24:
Barack Obama does not have Angelina Jolie's seal of approval.

"She hates him," a source close to the U.N. goodwill ambassador, 34, tells the new issue of Us Weekly (on newsstands now).

"She's into education and rehabilitation and thinks Obama is all about welfare and handouts. She thinks Obama is really a socialist in disguise," adds the source.

"Angie isn't Republican, but she thinks Obama is all smoke and mirrors," the source says.
In reaction to the quotes attributed to Jolie, Billy Dennis at Peoria Pundit notes:
She's all for self-reliance and 2nd Amendment rights... sounds awfully libertarian to me.
Meanwhile AllahPundit at HotAir opines:
Not only did she famously call for the United States to stay put in Iraq in order to avert a humanitarian disaster but she was officially undecided on last year's election until fairly late in the game.
Finally, Left Coast Rebel Tim Daniels comments:
it is interesting and worthy of note to see her opining that she isn't a fan of the Obamanation. Even saying the *gasp* 'S' word. Say it isn't so! Let's be honest folks, being a Hollywood celebrity and even being mildly free-thinking/conservative/libertarian or otherwise is tantamount to having leprosy

[Negentropic]

The problem isn't Laissez-Faire on its own. If the entire economy was based on Laissez-Faire principles things would function very well like they did in the 19th century or the computer industry in the 80s and 90s. The problem is that in a mixed economy de-regulation as well as regulation both play into the hands of the people in power . That's why they'll first have Greenspan (probably as a useful idiot rather than direct agent) come in and de-regulate (wrongly thinking that he can do some good this way), make tons of money off it by being positioned right and then have Hussein Osama Omama Babajama come in and turn it back over to complete regulation and almost communist. You either do it pretty much across the board and physically kick the asses of anybody who tries any mess, Andrew Jackson style, or you don't do it at all. Tarpley has the right idea on de-regulation playing into the bankers' hand but his solutions of FDR Larouchist New-Dealism supposedly protecting the little guys also play into their hands. Tarpley obviously hasn't bothered to read Mises' magnum opus "Socialism" written nearly a hundred years ago. In that book, Mises basically proves step by step how and why all manner, degrees and forms of socialism cannot function in the medium and longer run to the overall greater benefit of anybody.

http://mises.org/about/3248

[scorpio]

Negentropic - One thing that you left out about Jon Voigt is that he is a rabid Zionist.
I once heard him on one of those kosher conservative talk shows whinning and moaning about how important Israel and how we must protect Israel at all costs.
His daughter probably is too, although I do not know that for a fact.

[Negentropic]

Fuck that freak Jon Voigt. He practially works in Israel being a Hollywood actor so whaddaya expect?  So many Jews in Jew-run Hollywood you might as well name it Israel-West. Plenty of liberals in Hollywood like Sean Penn and Clooney http://palestinianvoice.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/george-clooney-is-pro-palestinian-his-support-and-talks-with-obama/ who read Chomsky and Zinn and other gatekeepers like that are Pro-Palestinian. It's all a goddamn orchestrated charade with a bunch of people who are nice enough face-to-face advocating disgusting positions one way or another when it comes to world politics. You've met them in your day-to-day life, why should these Israel-West employees with Malibu-beach houses  be any different? I could never figure out what the fuck that Voight guy was all about. He used to even show up at April 24 Armenian Genocide recognition rallies in L.A. years ago and say how many Armenian friends he's always had and how much he always loved the Armenian people, blah blah. If you ask me he's evern more bat-shit crazy than his Billy-Bob-Thornton-screwing,  BDSM enthusiast, knife-collecting, ex-heroin-shooting daughter.  

I posted that little article because I was just trying to make a point there that so-called libertarianism, a bastard-child of Ayn Rand & Mises, has made big inroads in traditionally leftist Hollywood so much so that its biggest female star (who doesn't have an agent or publicist but stil has a Jew manager, of course, and is married to that non-acting hick obama-related idiot that actually agreed to do "Inglorious Basterds," maybe the biggest piece-of-shit and most disgusting hate-movie ever made; I threw my copies of "Pulp Fiction" & "Reservoir Dogs" right in the trash when I saw internet clips from that piece of manure) feels totally comfortable declaring herself one.

Why Rand herself was pro-Israel and called Arabs backwards? Why she called Jews the bastion of freedom surrounded by envious maniacs who wanted to destory them while at the same time having been solidly anti-Communist her whole life? Who the fuck knows?  She was also pro-Vietnam war because it was fighting the evil commies. Beyond a certain point, despite being a genius-level mind, she was just as confused as anyone else. I don't think she consciously was Zionist or Pro-Rothschild, she just wrongly thought Jews were more civilized than Arabs, having been around more Jews than Arabs her whole life and then talked out of her ass.  It takes more than a really sharp mind to figure out what the hell is really going on in the world and avoid being propagandized yourself. It takes hardcore conspiracy  'street knowledge."  Ezra Pound had it, Benjamin Freedman had it, Myron Fagan had it, Nesta Webster had it, Eustace Mullins had it later thanks to Ezra Pound, David Irving has it, Zundel and Faurisson have it, Rand didn't have it.  Working to keep America Capitalist when 90% of all other Jews were working to turn it communist was an uphill battle at that time, a heroic battle, no matter what her other faults, and it bore positive fruit and will continue to do so through other libertarians. Saying that the Rothschilds played both sides and planned it this way deliberately is a little ridiculous. There are plenty of social movements that they don't control or that run out of their control and then they have to do damage control and make best of it. What they are sinisterly brilliant at is damage control when things start to run out of their hands. Hitler is the perfect example. To assume that Hitler didn't know his money was coming from the Warburgs, etc. is ridiculous. To assume that Hitler was working for the Zionists is just as ridiculous. Hitler took money from whoever was stupid enough to give it to him, just like Irving says in that video Prothink has up on his revisionist page, in response to a question from an audience member at the end that sounds an awful lot like Eustace Mullins by the way:


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1154851922811076341#


Harry Browne towards the end on GCN sure as shit didn't believe the official 9/11 story anymore and he certainly never advocated bombing Iraq and Iran into oblivion the way some her other bat-shit crazy followers like Peikoff did.  Peikoff, looking like a wrinkled foreskin found in the desert,  makes O'Reilly look sane in this video here

[youtube:2dig9gph]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoAWCwm-UXw[/youtube]2dig9gph]

Roger Waters Refuses to be Another Brick in Israel's Wall
Press Release, PACBI, 19 April 2006
 

Roger Waters (RogerWatersOnline.com)

Ramallah -- Reiterating his opposition to the Israeli occupation and expressing his support for the Palestinian people in "their struggle to be free," the internationally renowned rock star Roger Waters has announced that he is relocating his Israel performance in recognition of the problematic nature of the previously planned Tel Aviv venue, particularly at a time when Israel is escalating its repression and apartheid designs to further dispossess, ghettoize and ultimately ethnically cleanse Palestinians from their homeland.

The former member of Pink Floyd and the writer of its timeless song "Another Brick in the Wall" called off his Tel Aviv gig, heeding an appeal by many Palestinian artists and cultural organizations and their supporters around the world who feared such a performance, particularly by a respected and progressive artist like Waters, would have given legitimacy to Israel's colonial Wall, condemned as illegal by the International Court of Justice at The Hague in July 2004.

Supporting the Palestinian letter to Waters, a group of Israeli refuseniks (conscientious objectors to service in the occupation army) also appealed to Waters to either cancel the Tel Aviv show or dedicate it explicitly to the struggle against Israel's military occupation.

Waters has been unswerving in his condemnation of Israel's Wall, which he blames for inflicting poverty and devastation upon the Palestinians in the Occupied Territory. In his press statement announcing this telling change of venue, Waters writes: "The suffering endured by the Palestinian people during the Israeli occupation of the last 40 years is unimaginable to us living in the west and I support them in their struggle to be free. I have moved the concert to Neve Shalom/Wahat al Salam as a gesture of solidarity with those voices of reason, both Palestinian and Israeli, that seek a nonviolent route to a just peace."

By calling off the Tel Aviv gig, Roger Waters has reconfirmed his commitment to freedom, equality and peace based on justice. Indeed, Waters's moral compass has proven to be not only live but pointing in the right direction as well.

Reacting to the news, Palestinian civil society has warmly saluted Roger Waters for his courage and for his valuable contribution to bringing down all walls of oppression and subjugation, Israel's Wall of shame included.



So then Waters goes in the mens room to take a leak. The bathroom attendant says "I hope you don't expect any special treatment here just because your famous"

Because "All In All your Just A-nother Prick In the Stall"

Waters & Floyd Jamming with Frank Zappa

[Bela]

http://mybigfatanti-zionistlife.blogspo ... -mole.html

Rand's entire inner circle was Jewish.  In her essay on tribalism, she refers to the Palestinians as "tribal" which is fairly ridiculous - and totally ignores the fact that the Jews are some of the most tribal people on earth.  Doesn't even give them a mention.  

The above article is a repost of a Bjerknes essay.  I never trusted Rand - she married some guy who was by no means "Galt" like, in a quickie Tijuana marriage, probably just to get a green card - I'm not so sure her parents didn't benefit from the Bolshevik revolution - we have no way of knowing since it's all her story.  She was pissed at her mother, and ended up getting even by giving women short shrift in her novels.  When it came to her, she practically demanded to be worshiped.   I've never been able to understand the big attraction to her books.  Never.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Negentropic,

Thanks for sharing. Keep in mind, she knew a lot more about the Financial Crimes of the Jews than she let on.  Imagine if she never left Russia? What would have happened to her?  I figure she would have dumped on the "Goyim" as much as most Jews did.  She replaces Jews "Marx-Engles-Lenin-Trotsky" with "Self-Rothschild-Jew Puppets like JP Morgan". She kicked off the Jew scammed "Globalism". Ever hear a comment from her on  Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn? Not a word that's easy to find and she read Russian quite well. I see her as a Jew Speed Freak, probably spilling too much "truth" in a Goy friendly way until some hidden letters from the local Rabbi "unwigged" her. She actually reminds me of the Jew Corrupter Sigmund Freud in the amount of adulation she received.   Genius? Hardly.  Speed Freak?  Yes,of course... just look at the fruit of her works... a Bankrupt USA based upon her Idiot Jew diatribes.  She did nothing to strengthen society.

Also, consider if she had been trapped in the USSR? What person would she have become?  I see her as a typical young Godless Jew Commie ranter...  Perhaps ratting her neighborhood Goyim for a trip to Siberia while she moves up in the Jew'd Hierarchy. She would be clever for Jew control at all times of course. Perhaps by the age of 28-30, she would have a "Dacha" to sip smuggled wine on.  She's Jew and can't escape it.  And in my book, I consider any "big" treatise writing by Jews, of whatever background, as Kol Nidres unless it is completely 100% on target and mentions Jews and their Anti-Christian, criminal, corrupting nature.

USA-USSR/ Jew Communism - Jew Globalist Capitalism  --- there's no difference in the parasite only in the fangs that bite.... You don't get Jew'd Banks unless you have Jew'd Politics.   It's that plain and simple.  Remember, she never mentioned Solzhenitsyn... what kind of whining Jew Speed Freak Drama is that? It's a sick Jewish one.

Over here, There's a Jew crying about Chinese Communism and tosses in "Atlas Shrugged" as some kind of Holy Book -- No mention of Jew Commissars or Lazar Kaganovich, he's just going off in a sad "a Chinese Victim is a Jew Victim" kind of way... Total B.S.:
 
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=2455

Jew'd US Professor not mentioning the Jew'd factor of Soviet Russia:

http://www.scottholleran.com/interviews ... mayhew.htm

If this Jew'd professor could see the entirety of the Jew Factor in Soviet Russia and wrote about it... they would make certain he lose his tenure... so he goes limp wristed on the Idiot Jews -- it's evil because it is Talmudic Jew Shetlism writ large for Russian "Goyim" :

What is We the Living's theme?

The individual versus the state—especially the evil of statism. I think that's how Ayn Rand talks about it in The Art of Fiction. It would never be the evil of Soviet Russia. That's why I think We the Living is so much more effective than something like Alexander Solzhenitsyn's The Gulag Archipelago, where you come away thinking the Soviets are evil, sadistic bastards but there's no sense of what is the alternative. In We the Living, it's clear why any dictatorship is evil. It's not just a critique of Soviet Russia. Solzhenitsyn, in effect, says Soviet Russia is evil—Ayn Rand says why it is evil.

What surprises people that read We the Living?

The tragic ending, the conflicted nature of [aristocrat] Leo [Kovalensky]—the hero with flaws—and the conflicted nature of [Communist] Andrei [Taganov], a villain who's in some sense heroic.

Did Ayn Rand consider a different ending to We the Living?

I don't know. When she was asked, in later years, she was very adamant that, given the theme, We the Living had to end that way—there was no other possibility. I don't know whether she ever tried to get out of that situation. I would be surprised if that were the case. It is interesting that [Ayn Rand's screenplay] Red Pawn, which is comparable to We the Living, has a similar theme but with a more positive ending. It's been suggested to me that that's because she was writing for Hollywood. I think Dr. Peikoff mentions that Ayn Rand started with the climax of the novel—the arrest scene—when she began writing We the Living. She wanted a plot twist on the sort of standard, trite plot like [Giacomo Puccini's opera] Tosca, where a woman sells herself to a villain to save the man she loves. Ayn Rand asked what if the villain turned out to be someone [with heroic qualities] like Andrei? That's a really interesting plot.

Did Kira have evidence that Andrei would have understood her dilemma and might she have been better off letting Andrei in on the secret?

I think her main concern was saving Leo, though, in a sense, Andrei does respond favorably when he learns what happened. It's Kira and Leo vs. 150 million people and Kira's main concern was what this [Communist system] would do to Leo. This was the only way of saving the person she loves and Andrei is glad of it because it affirms his values. Andrei actually offers to take Kira out of the country and Kira isn't even tempted—she's always trying to save Leo's soul, because he is her highest value.

Why do people respond to Andrei?

Because Ayn Rand does a wonderful job of making Andrei seem heroic and he describes Communism in terms that we know to be impossible in reality, so she manages to show he has integrity and he's heroic and passionate and he's responding to all the rights qualities in Kira. Ayn Rand regarded Andrei as an impossibility in a way.

Remember, Jew Politico writers are always dangling a "packet" of something "interesting" before they show needles hidden behind their "Kol Nidre" Backs... like Bankrupting, Lying, Jew Nation Wreckers like the NeoCons.   They collectively try to "airbrush" themselves out their crimes despite their obvious hands in the whole mess. A typical Jew in my book.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

"If only it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the dividing line between good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being,
 and who is willing to destroy his own heart?"

- Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Achipelago

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Taibbi On Goldman: Part Deux

The man who started it all, by boldly going where nobody else dared go before (with a few exceptions) and to singlehandedly rewrite the financial dictionary by introducing the concept of the bloodthirsty mollusc, by throwing out Goldman where it belongs, i.e, front and center, writes his follow-up narrative. What can we say: the man was right, to the chagrin of his numerous critics, and what's worse (or better), may have started an avalanche, which with the prodding of Senators like Ted Kaufman, could well destroy the Too Big To Fail concept once and for all. Now if only someone in the political blogosphere would do to Congress what Taibbi did to mainstream Wall Street, there actually may be hope for America yet.

Taibbi writes:

    Just under a year ago, when we published "The Great American Bubble Machine" [RS 1082/1083], accusing Goldman of betting against its clients at the end of the housing boom, virtually the entire smugtocracy of sneering Wall Street cognoscenti scoffed at the notion that the Street's leading investment bank could be guilty of such a thing. Attracting particular derision were the comments of one of my sources, a prominent hedge-fund chief, who said that when Goldman shorted the subprime-mortgage market at the same time it was selling subprime-backed products to its customers, the bait-and-switch maneuver constituted "the heart of securities fraud."

    CNBC's house blowhard, Charlie Gasparino, laughed at the "securities fraud" line, saying, "Try proving that one." The Atlantic's online Randian cyber-shill, Megan McArdle, said Rolling Stone had "absurdly" accused Goldman of committing a crime, arguing that "Goldman's customers for CDOs are not little grannies who think a bond coupon is what you use to buy denture glue." Former Wall Street Journal reporter Heidi Moore hilariously pointed out that Goldman wasn't the only one betting against the housing market, citing the short-selling success of – you guessed it – John Paulson as evidence that Goldman shouldn't be singled out.

    The truth is that what Goldman is alleged to have done in this SEC case is even worse than what all these assholes laughed at us for talking about last year.

Did we mention Matt has a way with words? And he goes on:

    Prior to the "Bubble Machine" piece, I had heard rumors that Goldman had gone out and intentionally scared up toxic mortgages and swaps in order to get short of them with sucker bookies like AIG. But – and this seems funny in retrospect – I foolishly dismissed those tales as being too conspiratorial. I thought it was bad enough that Goldman was shorting the subprime market even as it was selling toxic subprime-backed securities to chumps on the open market. The notion that the bank would actually go out and create big balls of crap that would be designed to fail seemed too nuts even for my tastes.

    In the year since – and this, to me, is the main lesson from the SEC case against Goldman – the public has quickly come to accept that when it comes to the once-great institutions of modern Wall Street, literally no deal that makes money is too low to be contemplated.

And our favorite punchline (Taibbi has a nasty habit of putting quite a few of them in each piece);

    There is more fraud out there, and everyone knows it: front-running, manipulation of the commodities markets, trading ahead of interest-rate moves, hidden losses, Enron-esque accounting, Ponzi schemes in the precious-metals markets, you name it. We gave these people nearly a trillion bailout dollars, and no one knows what service they actually provide beyond fraud, gross self-indulgence and the occasional transparently insincere public apology.

One would almost get the impression Matt was reading Zero Hedge. That, of course, would be as ludicrous an assumption as the one that Joaquin "Jenny Craig" Almunia blasted in January, and was on the verge of beating the living shit out of the Bloomberg reporter who was interviewing him, i.e., that Greece may need a bailout: now that is truly ludicrous.

Oh and by the way, with Greek 2 year spread about to plunge tomorrow (somehow we foolishly assume that the Greek and German people, who both don't want the bailout, will actually vote for it) guess what will happen to Portuguese and Spanish ones? Has anyone at the IMF ever heard of the law of Communicating Bankrupt Vessels?

But back to Taibbi: his conclusion:

    The Goldman case emerges as a symbol of all this brokenness, of a climate in which all financial actors are now supposed to expect to be burned and cheated, even by their own bankers, as a matter of course. (As part of its defense, Goldman pointed out that IKB is a "sophisticated CDO market participant" – translation: too fucking bad for them if they trusted us.) It would be nice to think that the SEC suit is aimed at this twisted worldview as much as at the actual offense. Some observers believe the case against Goldman was timed to pressure Wall Street into acquiescing to Sen. Chris Dodd's loophole-ridden financial-reform bill, which probably won't do much to prevent cases like the Abacus fiasco. Or maybe it's just pure politics – Democrats dropping the proverbial horse's head in Goldman's bed to get their fig-leaf financial-reform effort passed in time for the midterm elections.

    Whatever the long-range motives, the immediate effect of the lawsuit is to put Wall Street's crazy fraud ethos on trial in the court of public opinion. For now, at the end of the first quarter, Goldman and most of the other big banks are still winning that case. But the second quarter might be a different story.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/taibbi ... -part-deux

[Negentropic]

Ever hear a comment from her on Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn? Not a word that's easy to find and she read Russian quite well. I see her as a Jew Speed Freak, probably spilling too much "truth" in a Goy friendly way until some hidden letters from the local Rabbi "unwigged" her.

You can find out a lot more detail about her views on different authors and topics by reading the collections of her newsletters

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivist-1966-1971-Ayn-Rand/dp/1561141488/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272879287&sr=1-2

http://www.amazon.com/Objectivist-Newsletter-Volumes-1962-1965/dp/B0013FPOPC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272879333&sr=1-4

She did read Solzhenitsyn and liked him in the beginning but as soon as she found out Solz was advocating going back to Russian Christian theocracy she turned dead set against him because she said it's not just another form of collectivism but one of the worst kind and if he was really an honest man he would advocate, you guessed it, individual rights and  Capitalism!  She'd be against Khanverse advocating Muslim brotherhood theocracy also, for exactly the same reasons.

Rand was pro-abortion all her life by the way, a position Ron Paul would be scared to adopt. She liked Reagan but as soon as she found out he was anti-abortion she put him on her shit list. She condsidered the right to have an abortion a woman's most fundamental right to her own body and if that right was violated then there was nothing else to say.

As far as what would have happened to her in Russia. She already lived in Soviet Russia a few years before she was able to get away. She hated it there and would have ended up one of the dissident Jews rounded up like Ossip Mandelstam

http://www.amazon.com/Hope-Against-Memo ... 751&sr=1-1

I understand you trying to be super-vigilant CSR but not all Jews are working for the enemy Zionists all the time.  Some even work for them for a while and then come over on our side. Rand was on our side for a good long while. She wasn't pretending, she geniunely was. She struggled for years and took a lot of crap for holding the positions that she did for as long as she did, when she did. That's why she's so popular with non-Jewish Americans to this very day. If she was controlled opposition she sure wasn't a conscious one. The Neo Cons have nothing to do with her. Her real legacy is the libertarians, a bastard child movmenet that she irrationally disowned. So blame Ron or Rand Paul, Murray Rothbard, Alan Greenspan, Harry Browne  or Justin Raimondo on her but the Neo Cons are Straussian Trotskyites masquerading as Randians.  

There is no question that she had her positive side. If not for the positive aspects of her Philosophy no one would bother reading her trashy novels 50 years after they were written. And there is also no question that she had her negative side, I mean just looking at the asshole Jew she picked to be her heir proves that beyond any shadow of a doubt. I just don't think she  consciously went over to the dark side and started working for talmudists. Her philosophy just turned into a personality cult and imploded. Nathaniel  Branden,  The Jew who would have been her heir had she not kicked him out of the movement for dumping her old ugly ass for a much younger much more beautiful woman is a libertarian and the opposite of Peikoff.  In fact, he laughs at Peikoff and what the movemment has turned into.  He's a registered libertarian and about 10 times saner than Peikoff.  Unfortunately, like Ron Paul, as of the following 2004 interview he was against the war in Iraq but still out after Al Queida


http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog ... e_rad.html

So screw Branden in the nose too unless he's changed his views since then. He must be retarded if he thinks Al Cia-da did those demolitions.

Basically I just disgaree with you that Rand was all bad for the USA and was working to destroy it. Unless you have hard evidence, of course, at which point I might reconsider

What are these 'letters to rabbis' that you're talking about? Can you post a link?

[Negentropic]

Actually, screw Branden in the nose & the eye, twice, since in the same interview he claims that Israel has been a good ally to the United States but taking money from the USA is bad for Israel because they won't learn to become self-sufficient !!!  What is this guy retarded?  There's no way this foozball can be this naive!

And this is supposed to be their elder statesman their wise elder of the movement?  Excommunicated by Rand?  These people must be beyond retarded to think this way!  These idiots will do anything to think in the black-&-whites of so-called objectivism with no knowledge of what's actually going on in the world, based on common everyday MSM propaganda. They want everybody to think this retarded that's why they say what they say and pretend to think this way. There's no way they don't know what's up at this late point in the game. You mean to tell me that this Branden fuck has been living for 75 years and still doesn't know that Israel screws the US over all the time?   :sick:

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Ayn Rosenbaum was a typical Name Changing Jew.  I see her as no different than other Jew Corrupters such as Kissinger, Greenspan or Javiks who attended the same NY high school -- that is why she is part of the popular "Jew Corrupter" series.

Speed Freak and Jew Corrupter who managed to sell her Anti-Goyim screeds.  Surprisingly, of all people, Bjerknes appears to nail her Jew Lies to the Wall.  :shock:

Total, Jew "Rothschild" Mole in my book. Probably hepped up with a with a white line from top of the Protocols.... --The CSR

-------

Thursday, April 29, 2010
Soft Peddling Jewish Supremacism: Is America Now Russia 1905. . . or 1917?

http://www.jewishracism.com

The Jewish subversive Ayn Rand was a part of "The Trust" and an agent of the Rothschilds. She pretended to be anti-Communist so as to infiltrate and control any authentic opposition to the Communists (read "Jews") and turn it pro-Communist (read "pro-Jew") by means of deception and subversion. Her influence is felt strongly in the Jewish "Libertarian Party" which is as great a threat to our liberty as were the Jews of 1905 and 1917 Russia, who promised the Russians freedom and prosperity if they helped the Jews murder the ruling class.

Knowing that ruse would not work in America the Jews created what is called "Cultural Marxism" to soft peddle Jewish supremacism to America and Libertarianism is of this same class of deception.

The "Tea Party" movement would be useful to us if we could find a celebrity to speak for us and coopt this movement for our POWER PARTY. As things stand, the Jews have their representatives Ron Paul, Jon Voight and Sarah Palin, among others, seeking to dominate and define this movement. Recall that Ron Paul wants to put us on a gold standard so that his Jewish banker sponsors can sell us electronic gold credits for gold that does not exist and reinvigorate and reinvent their old fractional reserve banking scam with modern technology, and privately control the money supply of each region of the globe. Jon Voight is as pro-Israel as John Hagee and Sarah Palin put the Jewish bankers' puppet Barack Obama in the White House.

The Von Mises and Libertarian agenda is clear. Make it as easy as possible for the Jews to rule by the advantage of their wealth. Destroy the culture with absolute selfishness, drug abuse and neglect. Divvy up America into mutually hostile nations. Loan the Goyim gold which does not exist at interest and contract the money supply so that all wealth flows into the hands of the Jews.

The non-Jewish elements of the "Tea Party" crowd and the Libertarians could be ours, especially if we can find a famous spokesman, or woman. As things stand, they are repackaged Bolsheviks, who will call for strikes, shut down industry, and destroy America in the name of saving it, just as the Jews did to Russia, all according to the plan spelled out by the Jewish subversive Ayn Rand, who was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum--funny how many Jewish communists change their names.

posted by Christopher Jon Bjerknes at 8:18 AM

[Negentropic]

Bjerkness talks too much. He makes all kinds of conjectures and goes off into wild conspiratorial theory tangents without offering direct proof.
On the one hand on the Armenian genocide issue he offers detailed knowledge of events and backs everything up as best he can.  Then he turns around and throws accusations around about everything else being also a banker run playing all-sides conspiracy without offering any proof or logical argument. He starts jumping to conclusions with non-sequiters as if we're supposed to know the mysterious logical chain he used to arrive there.  "Rand was a secret communist," what?!!!  Prove it! Where's the proof Bjerkness?  Mises was only working to make it easy for Jews to rule?  What a laugh!  Jews were already ruling and they were trying to turn America more and more socialist and then communist so they could rule it even better. Mises stood up against this his whole life and was not rewarded with prestige, position or money.  But he only did it to make it easy for the Jews! What a laugh. If Bjerkness hadn't written that Armenian Genocide book, I wouldn't even bother reading the nonsense he's written about this. That's what established his conspiracy 'street cred' so that then he can come in and confuse and mislead everyone on a whole bunch of other issues.  If he keeps going like this, he's the one that'll be outed as the 'agent,' not Rand and Mises.

Mises and Rand were not funded by even common everyday rich Jews, much less uber-rich bankers.  Rand made a ton of money by becoming a self-made best-selling author.  Mises never made much money at all. Because of his anti-welfare-state anti-socialist, pro classical liberal, pro capitalism stance Mises couldn't even get a University post in the USA after having written 4 or 5 huge scholarly books in Europe! The Dean of the Austrian School whose student Hayek later would win the Nobel prize in Economics and he couldn't even get a job teaching! If the people from behind the scenes were pulling the strings don't you think they would have given him at least a University chair or a paid position in one of their think tanks?


Unlike Bjerkness, Mises was a hardcore economic scientist who set out and systematically proved everything he asserted. Rand just popularized some of the same ideas through "Atlas Shrugged" & "The Fountainhead." Mises did not hang out with Rand or Rand's group although he did admire  "Atlas Shrugged"


http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_4/21_4_3.pdf

Rothbard, on the other hand, who was also a hardcore economist and later wrote the Libertarian manifesto "For A New Liberty" loved "Atlas Shrugged" and thought it was one of the greatest artistic works ever (refer to the same link above for copies of letters Mises and Rothbard wrote to Rand).





It was this same Rothbard and his followers, the  newly coined "Libertarians" who were later rejected wholesale by Rand as total scum and even worse than the collectivist commies for 'plagiarizing' her withot credit.

  Also you're not supposed to have a gold standard with gold that doesn't exist! If the gold doesn't exist anymore then it can't be the standard can it?  Gold has proven throughout history to be the ideal store of value but if there's no gold or silver, then other stores of real value will come to take its place. The point is to HAVE A STANDARD, that way fractional reserve banking is prevented and  sane economic calculation becomes possible again since any notes now represent real value as opposed to nothing.  Notes become receipts fully redeemable in gold or Silver or whatever else. That's the whole point of having a real money standard.  if the standard can be monopolized then you pass a law preventing it or use a standard that cannot be monopolized but there has to be a standard, a point of reference with real value that serves as real money, not just paper floating around.

Bjerkness obviously hasn't read too much Mises or Rothbard. Both of these guys are completely against Mixed-Economies and Welfare States of any kind.  Mises wants a small central government that is constitutionally prevented from interfering in the economic sphere. Rothbard does not believe that is possible and advocated no government period. In his model consumer-advocacy for-profit groups from each state take the place of a so-called non-profit parasitic government. The states keep their independence.  Bjerkness is assuming they did all this so that it would fail on purpose and a mixed economy 'capitalism' would result with government enforced privileges to favor the Jews. But that is ridiculous on its face. They already had a mixed economy !! They don't need Mises and Rothbard to give them more freedom to rob because  that also gives the little guy more freedom to compete; the more Libertarian policies get instituted, the more potential competition they'll have.  That's why they'll always turn it back towards socialism after they use it to their advantage for a while. The fact that the elite use a charade of fake mixed-economy libertarianism to give the American people false hope and then turn it back to socialism again through that Peanut-Head liar does not in the least prove that that was the intention of Mises and Rothbard.



Bjerkness needs to go listen to some audios here:  

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&Id=424

This Woods is the same guy that DBS linked to yesterday. A guy from the Mises institute.  I told you  guys DBS was libertarian and it's good that he is. Rafeeq also advocates real capitalism as opposed to the fake one operating today. That's because, unlike Tarpley and Bjerkness,  DBS and Rafeeq understand economics. They can separate libertarian economic principles that are valid from having been logically proven from the political aspect of the  movement itself which might advocate some Ron-Paul-type  idiot who still believes the official fable of 9/11 or pretends to believe in order to be allowed access to the MSM.


To assume that they spent 40 years in obscurity steadfastly defending free-market capitalism in the face of establishment-funded welfare-statist Keynsians all over place pushing like an avalanche in the other direction in order to help the Rothschilds stay on top of the whole planet 80 years down the line (when they already were there) is maybe the wildest, most unsubstantiated conspiracy theory I've heard yet.  And this coming from a guy who previously specialized in conspiracy facts meticulously researched!  He must really think we're idiots.

[Negentropic]

The same Rothbard who wrote that gushing letter (linked in the previous post) to Rand about Atlas Shrugged in 1957 (and felt depressed because he felt his independence was being threatened by Rand so he couldn't be around her) wrote this in 1972 about the Ayn Rand Cult:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult
by Murray N. Rothbard



Written in 1972, this was the first piece of Rand revisionism from the libertarian standpoint.

In the America of the 1970s we are all too familiar with the religious cult, which has been proliferating in the last decade. Characteristic of the cult (from Hare Krishna to the "Moonies" to EST to Scientology to the Manson Family) is the dominance of the guru, or Maximum Leader, who is also the creator and ultimate interpreter of a given creed to which the acolyte must be unswervingly loyal. The major if not the only qualification for membership and advancement in the cult is absolute loyalty to and adoration of the guru, and absolute and unquestioning obedience to his commands. The lives of the members are dominated by the guru's influence and presence. If the cult grows beyond a few members, it naturally becomes hierarchically structured, if only because the guru cannot spend his time indoctrinating and watching over every disciple. Top positions in the hierarchy are generally filled by the original handful of disciples, who come to assume these positions by virtue of their longer stint of loyal and devoted service. Sometimes the top leadership may be related to each other, a useful occurrence which can strengthen intra-cult loyalty through the familial bond.

The goals of the cult leadership are money and power. Power is achieved over the minds of the disciples through inducing them to accept without question the guru and his creed. This devotion is enforced through psychological sanctions. For once the acolyte is imbued with the view that approval of, and communication with, the guru are essential to his life, then the implicit and explicit threat of excommunication – of removal from the direct or indirect presence of the guru – creates a powerful psychological sanction for the "enforcement" of loyalty and obedience. Money flows upward from the members through the hierarchy, either in the form of volunteer labor service contributed by the members, or through cash payments.

It should be clear at this point in history that an ideological cult can adopt the same features as the more overtly religious cult, even when the ideology is explicitly atheistic and anti-religious. That the cults of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao are religious in nature, despite the explicit atheism of the latter, is by now common knowledge. The adoration of the cult founder and leader, the hierarchical structure, the unswerving loyalty, the psychological (and when in command of State power, the physical) sanctions are all too evident.

The Exoteric and the Esoteric


Every religious cult has two sets of differing and distinctive creeds: the exoteric and the esoteric. The exoteric creed is the official, public doctrine, the creed which attracts the acolyte in the first place and brings him into the movement as a rank-and-file member. The quite different creed is the unknown, hidden agenda, a creed which is only known to its full extent by the top leadership, the "high priests" of the cult. The latter are the keepers of the Mysteries of the cult.

But cults become particularly fascinating when the esoteric and exoteric creeds are not only different, but totally and glaringly in mutual contradiction. The havoc that this fundamental contradiction plays in the minds and lives of the disciples may readily be imagined. Thus, the various Marxist-Leninists cults officially and publicly extol Reason and Science, and denounce all religion, and yet the members are mystically attracted to the cult and its alleged infallibility.

Thus, Alfred G. Meyer writes of Leninist views on party infallibility:


Lenin seems to have believed that the party, as organized consciousness, consciousness as a decision-making machinery, had superior reasoning power. Indeed, in time this collective body took on an aura of infallibility, which was later elevated to a dogma, and a member's loyalty was tested, in part, by his acceptance of it. It became part of the communist confession of faith to proclaim that the party was never wrong.... The party itself never makes mistakes.1

If the glaring inner contradictions of the Leninist cults make them intriguing objects of study, still more so is the Ayn Rand cult, which, while in some sense is still faintly alive, flourished for just ten years in the 1960s; more specifically, from the founding of the Nathaniel Branden lecture series in early 1958 to the Rand-Branden split ten years later. For not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person's individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.

Virtually every one of its members entered the cult through reading Rand's lengthy novel Atlas Shrugged, which appeared in late 1957, a few months before the organized cult came into being. Entering the movement through a novel meant that despite repeated obeisances to Reason, febrile emotion was the driving force behind the acolyte's conversion. Soon, he found that the Randian ideology sketched out in Atlas was supplemented by a few non-fiction essays, and, in particular, by a regular monthly magazine, The Objectivist Newsletter (later, The Objectivist).

The Index of Permitted Books

Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold. The Catholic Church maintained an Index of Prohibited Books; more sweeping was the ancient Muslim cry: "Burn all books, for all truth is in the Koran!" But cults, which attempt to mold every member into a rigidly integrated world view, must go further. Just as Communists are often instructed not to read anti-Communist literature, the Rand cult went further to disseminate what was virtually an Index of Permitted Books. Since most neophyte Randians were both young and relatively ignorant, a careful channeling of their reading insured that they would remain ignorant of non- or anti-Randian ideas or arguments permanently (except as they were taken up briefly, brusquely, and in a highly distorted and hectoring fashion in Randian publications).

The philosophical rationale for keeping Rand cultists in blissful ignorance was the Randian theory of "not giving your sanction to the Enemy." Reading the Enemy (which, with a few carefully selected exceptions, meant all non- or anti-Randians) meant "giving him your moral sanction," which was strictly forbidden as irrational. In a few selected cases, limited exceptions were made for leading cult members who could prove that they had to read certain Enemy works in order to refute them. This book-banning reached its apogee after the titanic Rand-Branden split in late 1968, a split which was the moral equivalent in miniature of, say, a split between Marx and Lenin, or between Jesus and St. Paul. 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. After the split, any Rand cultist seen carrying a book or writing by Branden was promptly excommunicated. Close relatives of Branden were expected to – and did – break with him completely.


Interestingly enough for a movement which proclaimed its devotion to the individual exertion of reason, to curiosity, and to the question "Why?" 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.

Steel-Hardened Cadre Man

Frank Meyer writes, in his The Moulding of Communists,2 of the series of crises that Communists repeatedly go through in their career in the Party. From his account, it is clear that the rank-and-file member joins the party from being attracted to the official or exoteric creed; but, as he continues in the Party and rises through its hierarchical structures, he is confronted with a series of crises that test his mettle, that either drive him out of the party or convert him increasingly into a steel-hardened cadre man. The crises might be ideological, say, justifying slave labor camps or the Stalin-Hitler pact, or it might be personal, to demonstrate that one's loyalty to the party is higher than to friends, family, or loved ones. The continuing pressure of such crises leads, unsurprisingly, to a very high turnover in Communist ranks, creating a sea of ex-Communists far larger than the party itself at any given time.

A similar but far more intensive process remained at work throughout the years of the Randian movement The Randian neophyte typically joined the movement emotionally caught by Atlas and impressed by the concepts of reason, liberty, individuality, and independence. A series of crises and growing inner contradictions was then necessary to gain power over the minds and lives of the membership, and to inculcate absolute loyalty to Rand, both in ideological matters and in personal lives. But what mechanisms did the cult leaders use to develop such blind loyalty?

One method, as we have seen, was to keep the members in ignorance. Another was to insure that every spoken and written word of the Randian member was not only correct in content but also in form, for any slight nuance or difference in wording could and would be attacked for deviating from the Randian position. Thus, just as the Marxist movements developed jargon and slogans which were clung to for fear of uttering incorrect deviations, the same was true in the Randian movement. In the name of "precision of language," in short, nuance and even synonyms were in effect prohibited.

Another method was to keep the members, as far as possible, in a state of fevered emotion through continual re-readings of Atlas. Shortly after Atlas was published, one high-ranking cult leader chided me for only having read Atlas once. "It's about time for you to start reading it again," he admonished. "I have already read Atlas thirty-five times."

The rereading of Atlas was also important to the cult because the wooden, posturing, and one-dimensional heroes and heroines were explicitly supposed to serve as role models for every Randian. Just as every Christian is supposed to aim at the imitation of Christ in his own daily life, so every Randian was supposed to aim at the imitation of John Galt (Rand's hero of heroes in Atlas). He was always supposed to ask himself in every situation "What would John Galt have done?" When we remind ourselves that Jesus, after all, was an actual historical figure whereas Galt was not, the bizarrerie of this injunction can be readily grasped. (Although from the awed way Randians spoke of John Galt, one often got the impression that, for them, the line between fiction and reality was very thin indeed.)


Her Bible

The Biblical nature of Atlas for many Randians is illustrated by the wedding of a Randian couple that took place in New York. At the ceremony, the couple pledged their joint devotion and fealty to Ayn Rand, and then supplemented it by opening Atlas – perhaps at random – to read aloud a passage from the sacred text.

Wit and humor, as might be gathered from this incident, were verboten in the Randian movement. The philosophical rationale was that humor demonstrates that one "is not serious about one's values." The actual reason, of course, is that no cult can withstand the piercing and sobering effect, the sane perspective, provided by humor. One was permitted to sneer at one's enemies, but that was the only humor allowed, if humor that be.

Personal enjoyment, indeed, was also frowned upon in the movement and denounced as hedonistic "whim-worship." In particular, nothing could be enjoyed for its own sake – every activity had to serve some indirect, "rational" function. Thus, food was not to be savored, but only eaten joylessly as a necessary means of one's survival; sex was not to be enjoyed for its own sake, but only to be engaged in grimly as a reflection and reaffirmation of one's "highest values"; painting or movies only to be enjoyed if one could find "rational values" in doing so. All of these values were not simply to be discovered quietly by each person – the heresy of "subjectivism" – but had to be proven to the rest of the cult. In practice, as will be seen further below, the only safe aesthetic or romantic "values" or objects for the member were those explicitly sanctioned by Ayn Rand or other top disciples.

As in the case of all cults and sects, a particularly vital method for moulding the members and keeping them in line was maintaining their constant and unrelenting activity within the movement. Frank Meyer relates that Communists preserve their members from the dangerous practice of thinking on their own by keeping them in constant activity together with other Communists. He notes that, of the major Communist defectors in the United States, almost all defected only after a period of enforced isolation. In short, they had room to think for themselves (e.g., being in the army, going underground, etc.). In the case of Randians – particularly in New York City, where the movement was largest and Rand and the top hierarchy all lived – activity was continuous. Every night one of the top Randians lectured to different members expounding various aspects of the "party line": on basics, on psychology, fiction, sex, thinking, art, economics, or philosophy. (This structure reflected the vision of Utopia outlined in Atlas Shrugged itself, where every evening was spent with the heroes and heroines lecturing to each other.)

Failure to attend these lectures was a matter of serious concern in the movement. The philosophical rationale for the pressure to attend these meetings went as follows:

Randians are the most rational people one could possibly meet (a conclusion derived from the thesis that Randianism was rationality in theory and in practice);
You, of course, want to be rational (and if you didn't, you were in grave trouble in the movement);
Ergo, you should be eager to spend all your time with fellow Randians and a fortiori with Rand and her top disciples if possible.
The logic seemed impeccable, but what if, as so often happens, one didn't like, even couldn't stand, these people? Under Randian theory, emotions are always the consequence of ideas, and incorrect emotions the consequence of wrong ideas, so that therefore, personal dislike of other (and especially of leading) Randians must be due to a grave canker of irrationality which either had to be kept concealed or else confessed to the leaders. Any such confession meant a harrowing process of ideological and psychological purification, supposedly ending in one's success at achieving rationality, independence, and self-esteem and therefore an unquestioning and blind devotion to Ayn Rand.

One incident of suppressed doubt of Randian tenets is revealing of the psychology of even the leading cult members. One top young Randian, a veteran of the movement in New York City, admitted privately one day that he had grave doubts on a key Randian philosophic tenet: I believe it was the fact of his own existence. He was deathly afraid to ask the question, it being so basic that he knew he would be excommunicated on the spot for simply raising the point; but he had complete faith that if Rand should be asked the question, she would answer it satisfactorily and resolve his doubts. And so he waited, year after year, hoping against hope that someone would ask the question, be expelled, but that his own doubts would then be resolved in the process.


In the manner of many cults, loyalty to the guru had to supersede loyalty to family and friends – typically the first personal crises for the fledgling Randian. If non-Randian family and friends persisted in their heresies even after being hectored at some length by the young neophyte, they were then considered to be irrational and part of the Enemy and had to be abandoned. The same was true of spouses; many marriages were broken up by the cult leadership who sternly informed either the wife or the husband that their spouses were not sufficiently Randworthy. Indeed, since emotions resulted only from premises, and since the leaders' premises were by definition supremely rational, that top leadership presumed to try to match and unmatch couples. As one of them asserted one day: "I know all the rational young men and women in New York and I can match them up." But suppose that Mr. A was matched with Miss B and one of them didn't like the other? Well, once again, "reason" prevailed: the dislike was irrational, requiring intensive psychotherapeutic investigation to purge oneself of the erroneous ideas.

Psychological Hold

The psychological hold that the cult held on the members may be illustrated by the case of one girl, a certified top Randian, who experienced the misfortune of falling in love with an unworthy non-Randian. The leadership told the girl that if she persisted in her desire to marry the man, she would be instantly excommunicated. She did so nevertheless, and was promptly expelled. And yet, a year or so later, she told a friend that the Randians had been right, that she had indeed sinned and that they should have expelled her as unworthy of being a rational Randian.

But the most important sanction for the enforcement of loyalty and obedience, the most important instrument for psychological control of the members, was the development and practice of Objectivist Psychotherapy. In effect, this psychological theory held that since emotion always stems from incorrect ideas, that therefore all neurosis did so as well; and hence, the cure for that neurosis is to discover and purge oneself of those incorrect ideas and values. And since Randian ideas were all correct and all deviation therefore incorrect, Objectivist Psychotherapy consisted of (a) inculcating everyone with Randian theory – except now in a supposedly psycho-therapeutic setting; and (b) searching for the hidden deviation from Randian theory responsible for the neurosis and purging it by correcting the deviation.

It is clear that, considering the emotional and psychological power of the psychotherapeutic experience, the Rand cult had in its hands a powerful weapon for reinforcing and sanctioning the moulding of the New Randian Man. Philosophy and psychology, explicit doctrine, social pressure, and therapeutic pressure, all reinforced each other to generate obedient and loyal acolytes of Ayn Rand.

It is no wonder that the enormous psychological pressure of cult membership led to an extremely high turnover in the Randian movement, relatively far more so than among the Communists. But so long as he was in the movement, a new Randian Man emerged, a grim and joyless figure indeed. For a while the Randians would discourse at length on "happiness," and on the alleged fact of their perpetual state of being happy, it became clear on closer examination that they were happy only by definition. That in short, in Randian theory, happiness refers not at all to the ordinary language meaning of subjective states of contentment or joy, but to the alleged fact of using one's mind to the fullest (i.e., in agreement with Randian precepts).

In practice, however, the dominant subjective emotions of the Randian cultist were fear and even terror: fear of displeasing Rand or her leading disciples; fear of using an incorrect word or nuance that would get the member into trouble; fear of being found out in the "irrationality" of some ideological or personal deviation; fear, even, of smiling at an unworthy (i.e., non-Randian) person. Such fear was greater than that of a Communist member, because the Randian had far less leeway for ideological or personal deviation. Furthermore, since Rand had an absolute and total line on every conceivable question of ideology and daily life, all aspects of such life had to be searched – by oneself and by others – for suspicious heresies and deviations. Everything was the object of fear and suspicion. There was the fear of making an independent judgment, for suppose that the member was to make a statement on some subject on which he did not know Rand's position, and then were to find out that Rand disagreed. The Randian would then be in grave trouble, even if the only problem were that his language was a bit differently nuanced. So it was far more prudent to keep silent and then check with headquarters for the precisely correct line.

Check With Headquarters

Thus, one time a leading Randian attorney was giving a speech on Randian political theory. During the question period, he was caught short by being asked how he could reconcile Rand's support for the compulsory subpoena power with the Randian political axiom of non-initiation of force. He hemmed and hawed, and then said that he had to think about this – a code phrase for hurriedly checking with Rand and the other leaders on the proper answer.

Part of the continuing need to check with headquarters came from the fact that Rand, though considered infallible by her disciples, changed her mind a great deal, particularly on concrete personalities or institutions. The fundamental line change on Branden is a glaring example, as well as the line change on other formerly high-ranking Randians who were expelled from the movement. But far more frequent if less important were changes of position on show business folk whom Rand might have met. Thus, the "line" on such people as Johnny Carson or Mike Wallace (prominent TV personalities) changed rapidly – largely because of Rand's discovering various heresies and alleged betrayals on their part. If the Randian member was not attuned to these changes, and happened to aver that Carson was "rational" or had a benevolent "sense of life" when he had already been designated as irrational or malevolent, he was in for serious trouble and inquiry into the rationality of his own premises.


Driven by their conception of rational duty, every Randian lived in – and indeed was himself – a community of spies and informers, ready to ferret out and denounce any deviations from Randian doctrine. Thus, one time a Randian, walking with a girl friend, told her that he had attended a party at which several Randians had made an impromptu tape imitating the voices of the top Randian leaders. Stricken by this dire information and after spending a sleepless night, the girl rushed to inform the top leadership of this terrible transgression. Promptly, the leading participants were called on the carpet by their Objectivist Psychotherapist and bitterly denounced in their "therapy" sessions: "After all," said the therapist, "you wouldn't mock God." When the owner of the tape refused the therapist's demand to relinquish it so that it could be inspected in detail, his doom as a member of the movement was effectively sealed.

No Randian, even the top leadership, was exempt from the all-pervasive fear and repression. Every one of the original cadre, for example, was placed on probation at least once, and was forced to demonstrate his loyalty to Rand at length and in numerous ways. How such an atmosphere of fear and censorship crippled the productivity of Randian members may be seen by the fact that not one of the top Randians published any books while in the movement (all of Branden's books, for example, were published after his expulsion). The only exception that proves the rule was the authorized exercise in uncritical adulation, Who Is Ayn Rand? by Barbara Branden.

But if the Randian lived in a state of fear and awe of Rand and her leading disciples, there were psychological compensations; for he could also live in the exciting and comforting knowledge that he was one of a small number of the elect, that only the members of this small band were in tune with reason and reality. The rest of the world, even those who were seemingly intelligent, happy, and successful, were really living in limbo, cut off from reason and from understanding the nature of reality. They could not be happy because cult theory decreed that happiness can only be achieved by being a committed Randian; they couldn't even be intelligent, since how could seemingly intelligent people not be Randians, especially if they commit the gravest sin – failing to become Randians once they were exposed to this new gospel.

Excommunications and Purges

We have already mentioned the excommunications and "purges" in the Randian movement. Often, the excommunications – especially of important Randians – proceeded in a ritual manner. The errant member was peremptorily ordered to appear at a "trial" to hear charges against him. If he refused to appear – as he would if he had any shred of self-respect left – then the trial would continue in absentia, with all the members present taking turns in denouncing the expelled member, reading charges against him (again in a manner eerily reminiscent of 1984). When his inevitable conviction was sealed, someone – generally his closest friend – wrote the excommunicate, a bitter, febrile, and portentous letter, damning the apostate forevermore and excluding him forever from the Elysian fields of reason and reality. Having his closest friend take the leading part in the heresy proceeding was of course important as a way of forcing the friend to demonstrate his own loyalty to Rand, thereby clearing himself of any lingering taint by association. It is reported that when Branden was expelled, one of his closest former friends in New York sent him a letter proclaiming that the only moral thing he could do at that point was to commit suicide – a strange position for an allegedly pro-life, pro-individual-purpose philosophy to take.

The break with the apostate – even if once closest friends – had to be uncompromising, permanent, and total. Thus, a woman, very high in the Randian hierarchy, once hired a Randian girl to be her assistant in editing a magazine. When the woman was summarily expelled from the movement, her assistant refused to talk to her at all, except strictly in the line of business – a position steadfastly maintained despite the obvious tensions at the office that had to result.

As is true of all witch-hunting groups, the greatest sin was not so much the specific transgressions of the member, but any refusal to sanction the heresy-hunting procedure itself. Thus, Barbara Branden reported that her greatest sin was held to be her refusal to attend, and therefore to sanction the legitimacy of, her own trial, and other purgees have had similar tales to tell.

It should come as no surprise to learn that, in contrast to most other psychotherapies, the Objectivist Psychotherapists served as stern moral guardians for the troops. "Immoral" patients were expelled from therapy, a practice that reached its apogee when patients of Objectivist Psychotherapists were expelled for simply asking their therapists the reasons for the Rand-Branden split.

Thus, kept in ignorance of the world, of facts, ideas, or people who might deviate from the full Randian line, held in check by adoration and terror of Rand and her anointed hierarchy, the grim, robotic, joyless Randian Man emerged.

For the moulding processes of the cult did succeed in creating a New Randian Man – for so long as the man or woman remained in the movement. People were invariably transformed by the moulding process from diverse, often likeable men and women to grim, tense, hostile poseurs – whose personalities could best be summed up by the word "robotic." Robotically, the Randians intoned their slogans, generally imitating the poses and manner of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, and further, imitating their common cult vision of heroes and heroines of the Randian fictional canon. If any criticism of Rand or her disciples were made, or any arguments were pressed that they could not answer, the Randians would adopt a tone of high offense: "How dare you say such a thing about her?," turn on their heels and stomp off. No smile, nor many other human qualities, managed to shine through their ritualized façade. Many of the young men managed to look like carbon copies of Branden, while the young women tried to look like Barbara Branden, replete with the cigarette-holder held aloft, derived from Ayn Rand herself, that was supposed to symbolize the high moral standards and the mocking contempt wielded by Randian heroines.

Son of Rand

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." A Randian girl, with a Polish name beginning with "G-r," announced one day that she was changing her name the following week. When asked deadpan, by a humorous observer whether she was changing her name to "Grand," she replied, in all seriousness, that no she was changing it to "Grant" – presumably, as the observer later remarked, the "t" was her one gesture of independence.

If looking and talking and even being named like the top Randians was the most "rational" way to act, and seeing them as much as possible was the most rational form of activity, then surely residing as close as possible to the leaders was the rational place to live. Thus, the typical New York Randian, upon his or her conversion, would leave his parents and find an apartment as close to Rand's as possible. As a result, virtually the entire New York movement lived with a few square blocks of each other in Manhattan's East 30's, many of the leaders in the same apartment house as Rand's.

If continuing an intense psychological pressure was in part responsible for the extremely high turnover among Randian disciples, another reason for this turnover was the very fact that the movement had a rigid line on literally every subject, from aesthetics to history to epistemology. In the first place it meant that deviation from the correct line was all too easy: Preferring Bach, for example, to Rachmaninoff, subjected one to charges of believing in a "malevolent universe." lf not corrected by self-criticism and psychotherapeutic brainwashing, such deviation could well lead to ejection from the movement. Secondly, it is difficult to impose a rigid line on every area of life and thought when, as was the case with Rand and her top disciples, they were largely ignorant of these various disciplines. Rand admitted that reading was not her strong suit, and the disciples, of course, were not allowed to read the real world of heresies even if they had been inclined to do so. And so the young convert – and they were almost all young – began to buckle when he learned more about his own chosen subject. Thus, the historian, upon learning more his subject, could scarcely rest content with long outdated Burkhardtian clichés about the Renaissance, or the pap about the Founding Fathers. And if the disciple began to realize that Rand was wrong and oversimplified in his own field, it was easy for him to entertain fundamental doubts about her infallibility elsewhere.

Rational Tobacco

The all-encompassing nature of the Randian line may be illustrated by an incident that occurred to a friend of mine who once asked a leading Randian if he disagreed with the movement's position on any conceivable subject. After several minutes of hard thought, the Randian replied: "Well, I can't quite understand their position on smoking." Astonished that the Rand cult had any position on smoking, my friend pressed on: "They have a position on smoking? What is it?" The Randian replied that smoking, according to the cult, was a moral obligation. In my own experience, a top Randian once asked me rather sharply, "How is it that you don't smoke?" When I replied that I had discovered early that I was allergic to smoke, the Randian was mollified: "Oh, that's OK, then." The official justification for making smoking a moral obligation was a sentence in Atlas where the heroine refers to a lit cigarette as symbolizing a fire in the mind, the fire of creative ideas. (One would think that simply holding up a lit match could do just as readily for this symbolic function.) One suspects that the actual reason, as in so many other parts of Randian theory, from Rachmaninoff to Victor Hugo to tap dancing, was that Rand simply liked smoking and had the need to cast about for a philosophical system that would make her personal whims not only moral but also a moral obligation incumbent upon everyone who desires to be rational.

If the Rand line was totalitarian, encompassing all of one's life, then, even when all the general premises were agreed upon and Randians checked with headquarters to see who was In or Out, there was still need to have some "judicial" mechanism to resolve concrete issues and to make sure that every member toed the line on that question. No one was ever allowed to be neutral on any issue. The judicial mechanism to resolve such concrete disputes was, as usual in cults, the rank one enjoyed in the Randian hierarchy. By definition, so to speak, the higher-ranking Randian was right, the lower one wrong, and everyone accepted this Argument from Authority that might have seemed not exactly consonant with the explicit Randian devotion to Reason.

One amusing incident illustrates this decision-by-hierarchy. One day a dispute over concretes occurred between two certified and high-ranking Randians, both of whom had been dubbed as rational by their Objectivist Psychotherapist. Specifically, one was a secretary to the other. The secretary went to her boss and demanded a raise, which she rationally intuited was her just dessert. The boss, however, checking his own reason, decided that she was incompetent and fired her. Now here was a dispute, a conflict of interest, between two certified Randians. How were all the other members to decide who was right, and therefore rational, and who was wrong, irrational, and therefore subject to expulsion? In any truly rational group of people, of course, it would not be incumbent upon anyone but these – the only ones familiar with the facts of the case – to take any position at all. But that sort of benign neutrality is not permitted in any cult, including the Randian one. Given the need to impose a uniform line on everyone, the dispute was resolved in the only way possible: through rank in the hierarchy. The boss happened to be in the top rank of disciples; and since the secretary was on a lower rank, she not only suffered discharge from her job, but expulsion from the Randian movement as well.


The Pyramid

And the Randian movement was strictly hierarchical. At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions. Branden, her designated "intellectual heir," and the St. Paul of the movement, was Number 2. Third in rank was the top circle, the original disciples, those who had been converted before the publication of Atlas. Since they were converted by reading her previous novel, The Fountainhead, which had been published 1943, the top circle was designated in the movement as "the class of '43." But there was an unofficial designation that was far more revealing: "the senior collective." On the surface, this phrase was supposed to "underscore" the high individuality of each of the Randian members; in reality, however, there was an irony within the irony, since the Randian movement was indeed a "collective" in any genuine meaning of the term. Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan's sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden's expulsion; Barbara's first cousin, Leonard Piekoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. Alan Greenspan's familial relation was more tenuous, being the former husband of Joan Mitchell. The only non-relative in the class of '43 was Mary Ann Rukovina, who made the top rank after being the college roommate of Joan Mitchell.

These were the disciples before the publication of Atlas. After that, Branden began his basic lecture series, which soon evolved into the Nathaniel Branden Institute, the organizational arm of the movement. Eventually, NBI was established in Rand's symbolically heroic Empire State Building, although it resided unheroically in the basement. In New York City, the various lectures and lecture series were put on in person; outside New York, each city or region had a designated NBI representative, who was in charge of putting on performances of the lectures on tape. The NBI rep was generally the most robotic and faithful Randian in his particular area, and so attempts were made, largely though not always totally successfully, to duplicate the atmosphere of awe and obedience pervading the mother section in New York. Determined efforts were made to translate Rand's mass readership of her best-selling works into faithful disciples who would first subscribe to The Objectivist, and then keep attending NBI taped lectures in their area, thus being inducted into the movement. If a flow of magazines, tapes, and recommended books went out from NBI to the rank-and-file members of the movement, a flow of money and volunteer labor inevitably traveled the reverse path, not excluding payments for psychotherapeutic services.

It has been evident throughout this paper that the structure and implicit creed, the actual functioning, of the Randian movement, was in striking and diametric opposition to the official, exoteric creed of individuality, independence, and everyone's acknowledging no authority but his own mind and reason. But we have not yet precisely focused upon the central axiom of the esoteric creed of the Randian movement, the implicit premise, the hidden agenda that insured and enforced the unquestioning loyalty of the disciples. That central axiom was the assertion the "Ayn Rand is the greatest person that has ever lived or ever shall live." If Ayn Rand is the greatest person of all time, it follows that she is right on every question, or at the very least, will far more likely be correct at any time than the mere disciple, who grants himself no such all-encompassing greatness.

Typical of this attitude was a meeting of leading young Randians attended by a friend of mine. The meeting turned into a series of testimonials, in which each person in turn testified to the overriding influence that Ayn Rand had been in his own life. As one of them explained: "Ayn Rand has brought to the world the knowledge that A is A, and that 2 and 2 equal 4." When a top Randian, on hearing that a notoriously refractory member who was in the process of leaving the movement had written a parody in the Randian philosophical manner, a "proof" that Ayn Rand was God, the Randian, in genuine puzzlement, asked: "He's kidding, isn't he?"

There was a generally consuming concern with greatness and rank among the Randians. It was universally agreed that Rand was the greatest person of all time. There was then a friendly dispute about the precise ranking of Branden among the all-time all-stars. Some maintained that Branden was the second greatest of all time; others that Branden tied for second in a dead heat with Aristotle. Such was the range of permitted disagreement within the Randian movement.

The adoption of the central axiom of Rand's greatness was made possible by Rand's undoubted personal charisma, a charisma buttressed by her air of unshakeable arrogance and self-assurance. It was a charisma and an arrogance that was partially emulated by her leading disciples. Since the rank-and-file disciple knew in his heart that he was not all-wise or totally self-assured, it became all too easy to subordinate his own will and intellect to that of Rand. Rand became the living embodiment of Reason and Reality and by some quality of personality Rand was able to bring about the mind-set in her disciples that their highest value was to earn her approval while the gravest sin was to incur her displeasure. The ardent belief in Rand's supreme originality was of course reinforced by the disciples' not having read (or been able to read) anyone whom they might have discovered had said the same things long before.

Ejection From Paradise

The Rand cult grew and flourished until the irrevocable split between the Greatest and the Second Greatest, until Satan was ejected from Paradise in the fall of 1968. The Rand-Branden split destroyed NBI, and with it the organized Randian movement. Rand has not displayed the ability or the desire to pick up the pieces and reconstitute an equivalent organization. The Objectivist fell back to The Ayn Rand Letter, and now that too has gone.

With the death of NBI, the Randian cultists were cast adrift, for the first time in a decade, to think for themselves. Generally, their personalities rebounded to their non-robotic, pre-Randian selves. But there were some unfortunate legacies of the cult. In the first place, there is the problem of what the Thomists call invincible ignorance. For many ex-cultists remain imbued with the Randian belief that every individual is armed with the means of spinning out all truths a priori from his own head – hence there is felt to be no need to learn the concrete facts about the real world, either about contemporary history or the laws of the social sciences. Armed with axiomatic first principles, many ex-Randians see no need of learning very much else. Furthermore, lingering Randian hubris imbues many ex-members with the idea that each one is able and qualified to spin out an entire philosophy of life and of the world a priori. Such aberrations as the "Students of Objectivism for Rational Bestiality" are not far from the bizarreries of many neo-Randian philosophies, preaching to a handful of zealous partisans. On the other hand, there is another understandable but unfortunate reaction. After many years of subjection to Randian dictates in the name of "reason," there is a tendency among some ex-cultists to bend the stick the other way, to reject reason or thinking altogether in the name of hedonistic sensation and caprice.

We conclude our analysis of the Rand cult with the observation that here was an extreme example of contradiction between the exoteric and the esoteric creed. That in the name of individuality, reason, and liberty, the Rand cult in effect preached something totally different. The Rand cult was concerned not with every man's individuality, but only with Rand's individuality, not with everyone's right reason but only with Rand's reason. The only individuality that flowered to the extent of blotting out all others, was Ayn Rand's herself; everyone else was to become a cipher subject to Rand's mind and will.

Nikolai Bukharin's famous denunciation of the Stalin cult, masked during the Russia of the 1930's as a critique of the Jesuit order, does not seem very overdrawn as a portrayal of the Randian reality:

It has been correctly said that there isn't a meanness in the world which would not find for itself and ideological justification. The king of the Jesuits, Loyola, developed a theory of subordination, of "cadaver discipline," every member of the order was supposed to obey his superior "like a corpse which could be turned in all directions, like a stick which follows every movement, like a ball of wax which could be changed and extended in all directions"... This corpse is characterized by three degrees of perfection: subordination by action, subordination of the will, subordination of the intellect. When the last degree is reached, when the man substitutes naked subordination for intellect, renouncing all his convictions, then you have a hundred percent Jesuit.3

It has been remarked that a curious contradiction existed with the strategic perspective of the Randian movement. For, on the one hand, disciples were not allowed to read or talk to other persons who might be quite close to them as libertarians or Objectivists. Within the broad rationalist or libertarian movement, the Randians took a 100% pure, ultra-sectarian stance. And yet, in the larger political world, the Randian strategy shifted drastically, and Rand and her disciples were willing to endorse and work with politicians who might only be one millimeter more conservative than their opponents. In the larger world, concern with purity or principles seemed to be totally abandoned. Hence, Rand's whole-hearted endorsement of Goldwater, Nixon, and Ford, and even of Senators Henry Jackson and Daniel P. Moynihan.

Neither Liberty Nor Reason

There seems to be only one way to resolve the contradiction in the Randian strategic outlook of extreme sectarianism within the libertarian movement, coupled with extreme opportunism, and willingness to coalesce with slightly more conservative heads of State, in the outside world. That resolution, confirmed by the remainder of our analysis of the cult, holds that the guiding spirit of the Randian movement was not individual liberty – as it seemed to many young members – but rather personal power for Ayn Rand and her leading disciples. For power within the movement could be secured by totalitarian isolation and control of the minds and lives of every member; but such tactics could scarcely work outside the movement, where power could only hopefully be achieved by cozying up the President and his inner circles of dominion.

Thus, power not liberty or reason, was the central thrust of the Randian movement. The major lesson of the history of the movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune.

Bibliographical Note

Of the several works on Randianism, only one has concentrated on the cult itself: Leslie Hanscom, "Born Eccentric," Newsweek (March 27, 1961), pp. 104–05. Hanscom brilliantly and wittily captured the spirit of the Rand cult from attending and reporting on one of the Branden lectures. Thus, Hanscom wrote:

After three hours of heroically rapt attention to Branden's droning delivery, the fans were rewarded by the personal apparition of Miss Rand herself – a lady with drilling black eyes and Russian accent who often wears a brooch in the shape of a dollar sign as her private icon....

"Her books," said one member of the congregation, "are so good that most people should not be allowed to read them. I used to want to lock up nine-tenths of the world in a cage, and after reading her books, I want to lock them all up." Later on, this same chap – a self-employed "investment counselor" of 22 – got a lash of his idol's logic full in the face. Submitting a question from the floor – a privilege open to paying students only – the budding Baruch revealed himself as a mere visitor. Miss Rand – a lady whose glare would wilt a cactus – bawled him out from the platform as a "cheap fraud." Other seekers of wisdom came off better. One worried disciple was told that it was permissible to celebrate Christmas and Easter so long as one rejected the religious significance (the topic of the night's lecture was the folly of faith). A housewife was assured that she needn't feel guilty about being a housewife so long as she chose the job for non-emotional reasons....

Although mysticism is one of the nastiest words in her political arsenal, there hasn't been a she-messiah since Aimee McPherson who can so hypnotize a live audience."4

At least as revelatory as Hanscom's article were the predictable howls of overkill outrage by the cult members. Thus, two weeks later, under the caption "Thugs and Hoodlums?", Newsweek printed excerpts from Randian letters sent in reaction to the article. One letter stated: "Your vicious, vile, and obscene tirade against Ayn Rand is a new low, even for you. To have sanctioned such a stream of abusive invective...is an act of unprecedented moral depravity. A magazine staffed with irresponsible hoodlums has no place in my home." Another man wrote that "one who has read the works of Miss Rand and proceeds to write an article of this caliber can only be motivated by villainy. It is the work of a literary thug." Another warned, "Since you propose to behave like cockroaches, be prepared to be treated as such." And finally, one Bonnie Benov revealed the inner axiom: "Ayn Rand is...the greatest individual that has ever lived." Having fun with the cult, Newsweek printed a particularly unprepossessing picture of Rand underneath the Benov letter, and captioned it: "Greatest Ever?"5

Notes

1. Alfred G. Meyer, Leninism (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962), pp. 97–98. A particularly vivid expression of this communist faith was put forward by Trotsky, in a speech at the 1924 Congress of the Soviet Communist Party:

Comrades, none of us wishes to be or can be right against the party. In the last instance the party is always right, because it is the only historic instrument which the working class possesses, for the solution of its fundamental tasks.... One can be right only with the party and through the party because history has not created any other way for realization of one's rightness.

In Isaac Duetscher, The Prophet Unarmed. (New York: Random House, 1965), p. 139.

On all this, see in particular Williamson M. Evers, "Lenin and His Critics on the Organizational Question," (unpublished MS.) pp. 15ff.


2. Frank S. Meyer, The Moulding of Communists: The Training of the Communist Cadre (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1961).

3. Nikolai Bukharin, Finance Capital in Papal Robes: A Challenge (New York: Friends of the Soviet Union, n.d.), pp. 10–11. Also see Evers, "Lenin and his Critics," p. 15.

4. Newsweek (March 27, 1961), p. 105.

5. Newsweek (April 10, 1961), pp. 9, 14.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), the founder of modern libertarianism and the dean of the Austrian School of economics, was the author of The Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty and many other books and articles. He was also academic vice president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.

[asianlion7]

The following is a testimony from John Todd ( Lance Collins ), high ranking Satanist turned Christian.

http://www.kt70.com/~jamesjpn/articles/ ... i_plan.htm

"The Conspiracy for world takeover is as old as man himself. The Illuminati, in recent history, has twice tried to control the world --- in Napoleon's day and during World War I.

Only about 5,000 people in the entire world know the true purpose of the Illuminati and its conspiracy to rule the earth. Their plan was written down in code, as a fictional novel, in 1957.

In the mid-1950's Philippe Rothschild ordered one of his mistresses, Ayn Rand, an established authoress and philosopher, to undertake the writing of this code to the witches of the world. This novel, Atlas Shrugged, was never intended to be a best seller, although it turned out to be one.

The main characters of Atlas Shrugged are code names for individuals or companies. The code is as follows:
John Galt --- Philippe Rothschild
Dagny Taggart --- Ayn Rand
Dagny's brother --- The combined Railroad System
Ellis Wyatt --- David Rockefeller
Hank Rearden --- U.S. Steel, Bethlehem Steel
Francisco D'Anconia --- Combined Copper Mines
Galt, D'Anconia, and the Pirate --Rothschild Tribunal

The Tribunal in the book went around convincing certain major corporation presidents of their philosophy and plan, getting them to bankrupt their own businesses. The owners of these companies would then vanish and leave with either Galt or D'Anconia to a retreat area in the Colorado mountain regions. "Colorado" is the code name for the "Bermuda Triangle", the place where the key figures of the Illuminati will be when the world crashes.

There are six areas of society in which the Illuminati intends to rule:
1) Religious   4) Educational
2) Political   5) Military
3) Economic   6) Social

On August 1, 1972 Philippe Rothschild sent some papers to a meeting of the Council of 13 by State courier to San Antonio, Texas. Besides the usual pay-off notes and progress reports, the papers included a projected takeover plan. It read as follows:
1) Remove the President and Vice-President
2) Republican Successor throws election to Democratic
3) Democratic President gets following laws enacted:
a) Federal gun law taking weapons away from citizens.
b) Removal of tax exemption from churches (This is House Bill 41)
c) Genocide Act -- Making it a crime equal to murder to convert a person from one religion or faith to another.
d) Presidential Martial Law Act -- This allows the President in time of "National Emergency" to suspend the Constitution, Congress, and the economic system. The President, in essence, becomes dictator of America.
e) Anti-Hoarding Act -- This makes it a felony to have more than 30-days supply of food, fuel or medicine stored up at one time.
f) Anti-Business Acts Equalization of Opportunity Act Fair Share Law Directive #10-289

President Carter was able to get some of these laws enacted before leaving office.

Plans for America: Make every person totally dependent of the government by:
1) Creating a pseudo-fuel shortage and food shortage.
2) Confiscate all guns.
3) Calling for "Helter Skelter" (All trucks, trains, planes, and ships, except Military, will stop. An army of some 200,000 white prisoners and motorcycle gang members will create mass insanity in the streets by bombing church buildings, raping, murdering, and other fear tactics.)
4) Declaring Martial Law. Activate the National Guard to keep order, after the public cries out for any kind of help. There will be one policeman to every 5 people. Once this "National Emergency" is declared, it will never be cancelled.

All countries except America will be sent against Israel for oil. The use of neutron bombs allows destruction of people while leaving all buildings, natural resources, and croplands intact. When the war is over, the world is to be ruled from Jerusalem.

In addition:
90% of the population of the US supposedly is to die in the 1st half hour of WWIII.
3,000 missiles are to hit the US within the first hour.
Most industrial cities are to be destroyed.
Russian missiles placed in major US Lakes and Rivers (up to ten Nuclear Warheads/Missile); put there with American Government knowledge and approval.

To date, approximately 90% of the Conspiracy plan has been fulfilled on schedule."

[Negentropic]

Only about 5,000 people in the entire world know the true purpose of the Illuminati and its conspiracy to rule the earth. Their plan was written down in code, as a fictional novel, in 1957.

In the mid-1950's Philippe Rothschild ordered one of his mistresses, Ayn Rand, an established authoress and philosopher, to undertake the writing of this code to the witches of the world. This novel, Atlas Shrugged, was never intended to be a best seller, although it turned out to be one.

Your post is completely absurd but I had a few good laughs reading it.

One of his mistresses?  Proof?  DNA evidence?  Witnesses?  Newspaper articles?  Nothing? Just a link to some paraoid guy's blog? HA HA HEE HEE  :lol:


The Fountainhead was already a multi-million selling best-seller made into a movie with Gary Cooper, so how could a dumb-ass like Rochschild not have figured out that Atlas would have been at least as popular as its predecessor?   HEE HEE HA HA HA  :lol:


No Trucks and no Food and enforced anti-hording would be a real bitch but most of the doomsday scenarios are deliberately promoted to scare the shit out of people so they can be controlled better. Why?  Because fear sells, that's why.  You can make money off people while you're putting them in chains by letting them have light slacks in their leash without undoing the leash.. The only people that will be gulaged are the ones who don't conform to the system. Useless conformists will probably just be sterilized. Useful conformists will help the system stay in power both here and abroad.  Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with any of this crap.  Atlas Shrugged is about 'the Men of the Mind," the 'individual individualist creators' going on strike against an encroaching collectivist state and stopping the engine of the world. It's not about the 'Illuminati' forcing anybody to do anything.  And it certainly isn't about some parasite non-producing banker like Rotchschild disguised as John Galt, Rand''s symbol for the ultimate producer and morally 'selfish' incorruptible man.

Jesus Christ the lunatic stuff some people come up with !  :lol:

And all this because she was a Jew?  What the fuck?  Can't good & bad ever be separated in a morally grey person if the J stamp is on them?  It was precisely because her good stuff was so strong that her bad stuff becomes consequently that much more disastrous. Chomsky is her mirror parallel on the left. It's preceisly because of Chomsky's good stuff that his bad stuff becomes disastrous (support of an almost communistic Marxism. the oxymoron of social-libertarianism and dismissal of 9-11-truth  as irrelevant).

The way I see it: She helped freedom fighters and protectors of invidividual rights everywhere about 60% of the time. That's a hell of a good average. The other 40% of the time she was irrational and damaging and self-sabotaging.  Take what's good just like the Libertarians, dump the rest in the toilet.  It's about as useless to condemn Rand in toto for her despotic paranoia in later years  as it is to condemn Chomsky in toto for his 9-11  and Marxist positions


You can call them traitors but whatever valid stuff they wrote in the past still stands on its own despite the loss of credibility for having been associated with them.  The ideas expressed and developed take on a life of their own and eventually combine with other similar ideas to effect good or bad results in the real  world. There's no harm in good ideas if they were processed by someone along the way who also had certain other bad ideas as long as they can be identified and separated from the bad or half-baked or straight out crazy and  harmful ideas.  In fact, a lot of good ideas in themselves teach discernment.  A lot of Rand's good ideas teach a discernment against a lot of her own bad ideas!  That's why the Libertarians were able to use quite a few of her own better ideas to discredit her cult of personality and the bad ideas stemming from it, as perfectly demonstrated in that Rothbard essay previously posted.




"Trying to explain everything is a fool's errand" - Vincent Bugliosi

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

A Sense of Life: Ayn Rand and White Nationalism


The story is clichéd. A teenager discovers a book. It challenges his religion. It rips apart his morality. He radically changes his behavior within days. The path of his life is forever altered. As Jerome Tuccille titled his book about the libertarian movement, It Usually Begins with    Ayn Rand.

Even a casual glance at the American scene shows Rand's influence is growing. Sales of Atlas Shrugged are brisk, and Rand's magnum opus is consistently ranked in polls as one of the most influential books in Americans' lives, just behind the Bible[1].

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is unapologetically selfish. Rand proclaimed "greed is good" well before Gordon Gekko. Family, religion, nation, and race were all collectivist "mysticism" that a free man must ruthlessly wipe aside. Objectivists heaped scorn upon the very concept of race, declaring that the individual holds no allegiance to anything except those loyalties that are freely chosen. Background is an accident; heritage an irrelevance. The Russian Jewess Ayn Rand (real name Alisa Rosenbaum) seems a bizarro version of Emma Goldman designed to wean the American Right away from White racial nationalism. Objectivism, in theory, is a mortal threat to White racial identity — another rabbit hole for White Americans to fall down in their never ending quest to pursue every ideology, party, or platform except the ones that might allow them to take their own side. In fact, Objectivism denies that they have a side at all, or even that there is a "they."

And yet, despite it all, for a surprising number of White advocates, it usually begins with Ayn Rand. The journey from the world of the heroic architect Howard Roark to Jared Taylor or even Julius Evola is not uncommon. Strange as it seems, the writings of an anti-racist Jewess have real value to White nationalists even beyond serving as a stepping stone to greater truths. A closer examination of Rand's life and work reveal that some of the assumptions behind Objectivism can lead to White advocacy. It may seem contradictory to interpret Alisa Rosenbaum as some kind of proto-White nationalist. However, as Francisco d'Anconia said in Atlas Shrugged, "Check your premises. Contradictions don't exist." The answers we find might surprise us.

* * *

To answer the question, "Who is John Galt?" one must first know "Who is Ayn Rand?" Alisa Rosenbaum was destined to create a philosophy of deracination, as her own roots were shallow. She was the daughter of a pharmacist in St. Petersburg who nursed a quiet hostility for Bolshevism. The Rosenbaums, middle class Jews in the midst of tsarist Russia, were an oddity, and the young Rosenbaum had an economically comfortable but isolated early life, with no participation in Jewish religious life, the resentment of the peasantry, or the Orthodox Russian upper class whose glittering existence she could only glimpse. Rand's family was non-observant but even the ultimate individualist had to be aware of a distinction between her Jewish family and the Orthodox masses of Holy Russia.

Rand, even at an early age, was recognized for her fierce intelligence and aloof attitude towards those she considered intellectually beneath her. Family was never terribly important to Rand, with even a real relationship to her father dependent on intellectual agreement. It is also not surprising that Rand despised what she saw as the "mystical" soul of her Orthodox homeland and looked west, especially to England and America, for a place that fit what she called her "sense of life." Perhaps reading into the Anglosphere what she wanted to see, she viewed the English-speaking world as a bastion of reason, liberty, and science in contrast to the Oriental despotism of Russia. She was proud of her westward looking home city of St. Petersburg, calling it a "monument to the spirit of man." Rand supported the downfall of the Tsar and the rise of a parliamentary regime, identifying her first hero in Alexander Kerensky. Unfortunately for Rand and for Russia, the Kerensky regime was only a placeholder for the more disciplined and dedicated Bolsheviks.

The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed what order existed in Rand's world, with her "bourgeois" father's wealth confiscated and his shop destroyed. Rand genuinely respected her father and saw with shock how the work of a lifetime was destroyed in the name of revolution. Rand's life was a nightmare world of grinding poverty, constant hunger, and creeping terror that at any time she would be denounced or arrested. Rand was also forced to study Marxist ideology as part of her education. The Revolution became the formative experience of her life. Rand could justifiably state that she thoroughly understood Communism as both theory and practice.

Rand's unique background combined with her oppression at the hands of the Bolsheviks provides the key to understanding her work. Rand's Jewish heritage and scorn for Russian culture prevented her from conceiving of the Communist Revolution as a hostile or "foreign" movement. Rand could not identify with any resistance to the Bolsheviks couched in terms of traditionalism, Orthodoxy, or Russian patriotism or identity. However, Rand's "bourgeois" background ensured that she also did not conceive of the Revolution as liberation or as revenge for anti-Semitism that she never experienced. She and her family suffered horribly at the hands of their supposed co-ethnics amidst the Bolsheviks, a persecution she could only explain as a product of class hostility divorced from considerations of race or religion.

Rand's forced education in the historical dialectic also affected her interpretation of Bolshevism. Rand boasted that she had never been affected by Marxist propaganda and "learned in reverse" by critically analyzing everything she was taught and formulating reasons as to why the Communists were wrong. The dialectical method of education emphasized the interplay of philosophical principles with economic and social factors that led to "inevitable" conclusions. Thus, Rand viewed history as the conflict of abstractions in the real world. She created her own dialectic, in which "values" determine the success or failure of societies and individuals. Rand absorbed much of the Marxist method — she just changed the conclusions. For a society — or a person — to succeed, it was simply necessary to have the correct principles and all else would follow, systematically and inevitably.

Thus, because of her background and education, Rand did not view the Russian Revolution as an ethnic struggle between Jews and non-Jews, the byproduct of a poorly waged war, the victory of professional revolutionaries or even the end product of a host of complicated factors. Instead, it was the inevitable result of mistaken philosophy, the real world manifestation of an abstract ideological battle. Indeed, decades later, Ayn Rand would say to the graduates of West Point, "politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas."[2] Hence, Rand would later say that the "most evil man in history" was not Marx, Lenin, or Stalin, but Immanuel Kant.

A central premise of Rand's worldview is control. Rand tried to "name her path, to grasp it, to conceptualize it, and, most important, to put it under her conscious control."[3] The moral man guides himself through the dispassionate application of his reason to his chosen goals, sweeping all else before him. He is therefore successful. If a person neglects to choose any particular course and simply follows everyone else (a profoundly immoral act in Rand's view), he will be condemned to flail wildly throughout his life, a victim of circumstance and the machinations of "collectivists" and "mystics" that seek to exploit him. The immoral, irrational man will be a failure.

Of course, Rand's own life was heavily affected by the uncontrolled. Her own intellectual outlook was at least partly a product of her background. The fact that she was able to get an education only occurred because the Communist Party spared "bourgeois" students in her school years while purging them the next year. She also was fortunate in securing her escape from Russia. Her family randomly received a letter from relatives in America in 1925. Seizing the opportunity, Rand announced her intention to leave Russia and stay with her relatives, thus beginning a nearly impossible bureaucratic struggle to obtain the proper paperwork from Bolshevik authorities. Her family also raised the necessary money for the journey, an almost insurmountable obstacle in its own right. Rand lied on her paperwork and was not caught, and also noticed a minor clerical error that would have prevented her from leaving. Only through luck, unchosen family ties, and the sacrifice of others was Alisa able to emigrate from Russia.

Her parents were not so lucky — they would never obtain permission to leave Russia and died in the Siege of Leningrad. However, this narrow escape did not seem to affect Alisa Rosenbaum's emerging worldview, nor did it challenge her conception of herself as entirely self-made. Her American relatives were perturbed at her seeming indifference to their existence and lack of gratitude, and she quickly moved to Hollywood where she worked as a screenwriter and costume designer. She also began her writing career, formally adopting the nom de plume Ayn Rand, breaking even in name from her Russian past and Russian family.

Rand's first novel, We the Living, is an autobiographical tale of a young woman trying to survive in the new Soviet Union. In many ways, it is her best work, with complex characters and plot details that can only come from someone who has lived the experience. The heroine, Kira, falls for a free-spirited bourgeois man named Leo. Ultimately, the relationship collapses under the harsh reality of life under the Bolsheviks. Intriguingly, the most admirable character in the book is probably Andrei, a loyal, honest, and dedicated Communist who falls in love with Kira. Kira, who values him as a friend, becomes his lover in order to secure treatment for Leo's tuberculosis. In the end, the book ends in tragedy, as Leo abandons Kira to become a gigolo, Andrei commits suicide, and Kira is shot while trying to escape Russia.

Anthem, a dystopian novella, is about a collectivist future in which even the word 'I' is banned. Uniquely for such a novel, technology has degenerated and the world is far more primitive than our own. A man named Equality 7-2521 rediscovers electricity but is punished by his society for doing so. Escaping from his society and joined by a woman he loves, he finds books that contain the word 'I'. Inspired, he prepares to chart a new cause for humanity.

The Fountainhead is the work that made Ayn Rand a household name. It focuses on Howard Roark, an architect of genius who struggles to find work in a world ruled by compromise and cowardice. He falls in love with Dominique Francon, who is so disgusted by the world that she would rather destroy greatness than see it corrupted. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic, manipulates the culture to defeat Roark because he does not want to see greatness survive anywhere. Gail Wynand, a newspaper owner, had the potential to be a great man, but pursued power and is defeated when he finds that such a path leads to him being ruled by the masses, instead of ruling. In the end, Roark triumphs through the force of his genius.

Finally, the monumental Atlas Shrugged is about a strike by "the men of the mind." As America sinks into socialism, men of ability around the country are mysteriously vanishing. Dagny Taggart, a beautiful female railroad tycoon, struggles to hold her railroad together. Eventually, she meets John Galt, Rand's ideal man, a scientific genius who is deliberately withdrawing the men of ability from the country in order to collapse the collectivist system. In reality, though Taggart and Galt share the same values, they are enemies, as Taggart fights to keep the country going, and Galt wishes to see it destroyed in order to be reborn. In the end, Taggart admits Galt is right, and the country collapses as the lights go out in New York. The novel ends, however, on a note of hope, as the men of ability prepare to return.

Rand presented her worldview through her work. However, are her novels really "Objectivist?" Ayn Rand's early experiences show a clear tendency on her part to reinterpret her experiences and views in order to be consistent with her abstract ideology. As Objectivism crystallized, Rand ultimately put more demands for obedience on both her readers and ideological followers, outlining the correct moral choices on matters such as politics, architecture, music, and even sex.

Few of these choices can be justified purely through reason, as Rand's own life would later demonstrate when she would try to rigorously apply her philosophy to her life. Rand married a bit actor named Frank O'Connor. However, in order to fit into her own self-conception, she ludicrously proclaimed that O' Connor was not a failed actor but a misunderstood hero "on strike" against the world. Actually, O'Connor allowed Rand to dominate the relationship, reversing what Rand held to be the ideal. Later, the much older Rand began a sexual affair with the already married Nathaniel Branden, her chosen intellectual heir. Because sex was held to be an inevitable outgrowth of deeply held metaphysical principles, Rand forced the affair to be approved by O'Connor and Nathaniel's wife Barbara.

Of course, it ended in disaster. Branden's marriage was destroyed and O'Connor desperately cried out that he wanted to leave Rand but he had been so beaten down he couldn't. When Nathaniel could no longer maintain his sexual attraction to a much older woman and began a relationship with someone younger, Rand interpreted the rejection as intellectual betrayal, expelled Nathaniel from all Objectivist organizations, removed the dedication to him in Atlas Shrugged, and practically gutted the emerging "official" Objectivist movement, a sad consequence of the attempt to subordinate sex to ideology.

A careful reader can see the premises that contradict Rand's own ideology even within her own books. Even though the novels are often castigated as being simply collections of speeches by characters who serve as either Objectivist mouthpieces or collectivist straw men, the truth is more sophisticated and complex. Of course, as Francisco d'Anconia of Atlas Shrugged, tells us, "Check your premises. Contradictions don't exist." Rather than adopting a premise and using reason to arrive inexorably at one corollary after another, Rand's approach is more akin to arriving at a desired conclusion and then retroactively rationalizing the philosophic steps needed to get to that point. In her fiction, it is actually the world presented, not the rationalizations created to get there, that are attractive to so many readers. Let's check Ayn's premises. The result actually shows that Rand might have more to teach White nationalists than libertarians.

A term often used by Ayn Rand to describe herself, her followers, and her enemies was "a sense of life." This refers to the value judgments and emotional responses that a person has to the things he encounters. Ultimately, these derive from the philosophical principles a person implicitly believes or consciously chooses. "A sense of life" is a Weltanschauung as observed through the prism of Objectivist theory and the premise that such reactions can always be determined by rational choice. Hence, if a piece of music, a book, or another person created a positive or negative emotional reaction in someone, one could analyze that person's deepest beliefs and character according to those likes or dislikes. If we accept this premise, we find Rand's sense of life is similar to what would one expect for any White nationalist.

Rand's first literary hero was the character Cyrus from an adventure story called "The Mysterious Valley." Cyrus was a handsome, dashing British officer who foiled a plot by superstitious Indian natives to overthrow the British Raj and ravish a young blonde English girl. Cyrus rescues the girl and uses dynamite to blow up a dam, flooding the natives and killing them all. Cyrus triumphs through daring, intelligence, and courage, easily outsmarting the colored masses and laughing in his victory. One can compare Cyrus to John Wayne fighting Indians, the stories of Rudyard Kipling, or even to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If Edward Said, author of Orientalism, read this story, he would surely grind his teeth in rage.

However, Rand was thrilled by the story and later told a biographer, "the kind of feeling I had for [Cyrus], it still exists, it's in essence everything that I've ever felt for Roark, Galt... or all my values." Barbara Branden comments, "Howard Roark in The Fountainhead was Cyrus, John Galt and Hank Rearden and Francisco d'Anconia in Atlas Shrugged were Cyrus."[4]

Rand's hero-worship of the Aryan peoples had much to do with simple aesthetic appeal. One of the most important experiences in Alisa Rosenbaum's life was when she saw a young girl named Daisy Gerhardi from England, who wore stylish clothes and played tennis, which was unheard of for young Russian girls. She would later say, "It amazed me. ... it was a creature out of a different world, my idea of what a woman should be. I can still see her today, a very active, tall, long-legged girl in motion."[5]

It is therefore not surprising to us, but surprising to those who accept Rand's individualist rhetoric at face value, that all of the heroes of Rand's novels are clearly, even comically Nordic. Howard Roark, the heroic architect of The Fountainhead, is described as having "hair neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind" and "a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into plains."[6] His great love, Dominique Francon has grey eyes and pale gold hair.[7] The great love of the hero of Anthem is simply referred to as "The Golden One."

In Atlas Shrugged, the heroine Dagny Taggart , has grey eyes and brown hair.[8] The heroic steel plant owner with whom she has a torrid affair, Hank Rearden, is described as having eyes with "the color and quality of pale blue ice" and ash-blond hair, with prominent cheekbones.[9] Ragnar Danneskjold, the Scandinavian pirate who raids foreign aid ships in order to fight against the collectivists directly, has "gold hair and a face of... shocking perfection of beauty."[10] John Galt, the ultimate hero of Atlas Shrugged, the scientific genius and ideal man, has "chestnut-brown" hair, "the loose strands of the hair shading from brown to gold in the sun... his eyes were the deep, dark green of light glinting on metal."[11] He has "angular planes" for cheeks, once again, suggesting a Nordic phenotype.

There is one possible non-Aryan hero in Atlas Shrugged — Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d' Anconia. However, even here Rand writes, "Nobody described his appearance as Latin, yet the word applied to him, not in its present, but in its original sense, not pertaining to Spain, but to ancient Rome. ... His features had the fine precision of sculpture. His hair was Black and straight, swept Black. The suntan of his skin intensified the startling color of his eyes: they were a pure, clear blue."[12]

Most revealingly, Rand inserts herself into the book in an Alfred Hitchcock-like device. In Atlas Shrugged, the heroes that oppose socialism have a secret hideaway called "Galt's Gulch" where they live "on strike" from the rest of the world and wait for it to collapse. As John Galt and Dagny Taggart walk by, a "writer who wouldn't be published outside [Galt's Gulch]" looks up at them. "She wore slacks, rolled above the knees of her bare legs, she had dark disheveled hair and large eyes." As she looks at Galt, her glance contains "hopelessness, serenely accepted."[13] Though this worship was rationalized by Rand, clearly the Objectivist "sense of life" prizes the Aryan physical ideal — an ideal the Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum could worship, but never possess.

In contrast, rather than the Aryan supermen cum corporate overlords that are the heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand's villains are some of the most brutal character sketches of the liberal elite ever written. Howard Roark's antithesis in The Fountainhead is Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who has a "thin little body" like that of a chicken just emerging from the egg, in all the sorry fragility of unhardened bones". A great forehead dominated the body. The wedge-shaped face descended from the broad temples to a small, pointed chin. The hair was Black, lacquered, divided into equal halves by a thin White line... the nose was long and thin, prolonged by the small dab of a Black mustache. The eyes were dark and startling."[14]

Toohey is an architectural critic but is also much more. He organizes writers, architects, artists and others into various councils which do nothing but mouth leftist pieties. His writings promote equality and human rights, but in a witty, ironic, self-deprecating way that communicates that everything should be mocked and nothing should be taken seriously — except the destruction of the dissenter. Toohey is a murderer who never lets his victims see what it is that has destroyed them. He explains, "Don't you find it interesting to see a huge, complicated piece of machinery, such as our society, all levers and belts and interlocking gears, the kind that looks as if one would need an army to operate it — and you find that by pressing your little finger against one spot, the one vital spot, the center of all its gravity, you can make the thing crumble into a worthless heap of scrap iron?"[15]

It is impossible for White nationalists to not laugh at the portrait of respectable society that Rand draws. Toohey states, "Mr. Alvah Scarret [a worker at an anti-socialist paper], the college professors, the newspaper editors, the respectable mothers and the Chamber of Commerce should have come flying to the defense of Howard Roark — if they value their own lives. But they didn't."[16] Replace Howard Roark with White advocates, and you have the situation today.

Similarly, the best scenes of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged take place in the drawing rooms and cocktail parties of polite society. Empty headed society women honor postmodern literature and new age spirituality for seemingly no other reason than fashion — fashion created by culture distorters such as Ellsworth Toohey. Meanwhile, men of genuine accomplishment and serious works of literature, art and music are destroyed, not through real criticism, but through mockery and the refusal of the average person to even comprehend what is being done.

In defiance of the egalitarian parasites she portrays, Rand advances a proudly inegalitarian creed. Her heroes are described as "ruthless" with "contemptuous mouths" that react to difficulty with suppressed emotion. Randian heroes are classic Nordic character types in both appearance and behavior. If the primary virtue of the Left is to be defined as "equality," the works of Ayn Rand firmly maintain that men are not equal and that human lives are not of equal value.

According to Objectivism, no man has the right to initiate force against the use of someone else. Despite Rand's supposed condemnation of force, her books show that her definition of "initiate" is somewhat flexible. Rand argues that not intervening to help the less able, even to save their lives, is a moral necessity. The entire plot of Atlas Shrugged focuses on the men of ability withdrawing their talents from an immoral society, condemning millions to starvation or violent death. Even if the argument of "sin by neglect" is rejected, the first edition of her 1936 novel We the Living has the heroine proclaim, "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" Though this was removed from a later edition, it is questionable whether there was actually a real transformation in Rand's thought. When Dagny Taggart attempts to rescue John Galt from a government prison near the end of Atlas Shrugged, she calmly murders a guard because he can't make up his mind what to do.

Rand's views on the non-White world are also quite clear. She heaps scorn upon the idea that anyone owes the Third World anything. Angelina Jolie claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand, but she obviously missed John Galt speak on how "random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world demand a higher standard of living. Demand — of whom?"[17] In Jean Raspail's classic The Camp of the Saints, the activists who hurry to welcome invading immigrants cry, "We're all from the Ganges now!" In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt asks, "Which is the monument to the triumph of the human spirit over matter: the germ-eaten hovels on the shorelines of the Ganges or the Atlantic skyline of New York?"[18]

Most critically, Rand outlines an important concept — the sanction of the victim — that all White nationalists would be wise to adopt. In John Galt's climatic speech, he outlines again and again the incredible accomplishments of the modern world and asks who makes it possible. Since it is obviously not the liberal literati or the champagne socialists, why are they able to direct the vast majority of the energy and wealth of the world, as well as determine the culture? According to Rand, it is because the productive have let them. "Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love — the endurance that carries their burdens — the generosity that responds to their cries of despair — the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs... in the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, don't exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs."[19]

Such words can easily be directed at the Whites who serve the armies of an America that despises them, who pay the taxes to fund welfare programs for non-Whites, and who keep America going while receiving nothing but scorn in return. Who cannot think of the acceptance by Whites of the catch-all explanation of "racism" for every racial discrepancy in crime, education, income, or intelligence? Regardless of the Jewish media, White Americans are in the situation they are in today because they have given "the sanction of the victim." Who makes this world possible? Like Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, White Americans have to say, "We do."

It is an obvious point to state that Rand's world of capitalist Übermensch, like libertarianism in general, is premised upon a White world, a world where uniquely Western values such as individualism, the rule of law, and limited government are taken for granted. Rand does not address how such a world of rugged individualists would survive in a country besieged by millions of hostile ethnics who practice ethnic solidarity. Nor does she explain how her childless heroes will build a world that could last more than a generation. Of course, oppressed White individualists could "go Galt" and withdraw their productivity — but as the example of Zimbabwe shows, the new non-White rulers probably don't care. It is also obvious to point out that Rand's rejection of the reality of race or the importance of unchosen, immutable genetic characteristics or facts of background blinded her to any real understanding of the world.

That said, the greater truth here is that Ayn Rand's "sense of life" is deeper than her own superficial ideology. It assumes not just a White world, but an Aryan code of achievement, appreciation of hierarchy, and a robustly defended philosophy of greatness. Rand lays out a forthright defense of excellence as opposed to equality, not just in the realm of economics but throughout all human existence. Rand's heroes are intelligent, productive, courageous, taciturn, admirable and attractive — and they are all obviously of Aryan heritage to boot. While White nationalists often look to past warriors, the Randian heroes show how Whites at their best could act in a peaceful, modern world.

Rand also shows the depravity of the left wing elite, showing their motivation, appearance, and operations. While she obviously doesn't address the question of Judaism, her novels remain one of the most powerful portraits of America's parasitic rulers ever created.

Finally, Rand, through her concept of the "sanction of the victim" identifies the key moral precept that keeps White Americans in chains, and suggests that withdrawing it could blow apart the entire system that mandates our genocide.

Because of Rand's background and personality, this essentially healthy worldview was turned into a universalistic abstraction. Nonetheless, a heretical kernel of a White nationalist "sense of life" endures in her novels. As with libertarianism in general, it remains for White advocates to "check Rand's premises" and take her ideas to conclusions she could not have expected, including White identity and racial nationalism. In the end, the closest thing to Rand's valley of heroes, "Galt's Gulch," might be found in the White Republic of the future.

1. "'Atlas Shrugged' 50 Years Later," Christian Science Monitor (March 6, 2007). [Link]
2. Ayn Rand, "Philosophy: Who Needs It." Lecture given at West Point, 1974. [Link]
3. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand (New York: Doubleday Books, 1987).
4. Branden, 12.
5. Branden, 9.
6. Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (New York: Signet, 1996), 3.
7. Ibid, 105.
8. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Plume Reprint Edition, 1999), 20.
9. Ibid, 34.
10. Ibid, 690.
11. Ibid, 643.
12. Ibid, 114.
13. Ibid, 660.
14. Rand, The Fountainhead, 231.
15. Ibid, 356.
16. Ibid, 357.
17. Ibid, 955.
18. Ibid, 963.
19. Ibid, 979.
avatar
Gregory Hood

Gregory Hood is the pen name of a writer and activist on behalf White people and their culture.

http://www.toqonline.com/blog/a-sense-of-life-ayn-rand/

[FrankDialogue]

Quite an interesting thread, as I learned quite a bit about Ms. Rosenbaum.

Now, I haven't had the misfortune of reading any of her books; I did see the movie about her starring Helen Miron, and that was quite enough.

Her philosophy, along with the rest of the 'ismists' goes into the 'dustbin of history'.

As far as a comment made about 'gold being the best store of wealth', I would more agree with Hitler, who at least initially, believed that the productivity of a nation is the real store of wealth'

I was looking for some mention as to if she really used methamphetamine!    

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Quite an interesting thread, as I learned quite a bit about Ms. Rosenbaum.

Now, I haven't had the misfortune of reading any of her books; I did see the movie about her starring Helen Miron, and that was quite enough.

Her philosophy, along with the rest of the 'ismists' goes into the 'dustbin of history'.

As far as a comment made about 'gold being the best store of wealth', I would more agree with Hitler, who at least initially, believed that the productivity of a nation is the real store of wealth'

I was looking for some mention as to if she really used methamphetamine!    

Yeah Frank she had a prescription addiction.  

I heard that Rand was addicted to speed. Is this true?

As with many claims about Rand, this one is rather exaggerated. According to the most reliable information available on the matter, Rand had an ongoing prescription from a doctor for a diet drug that included dextroamphetamine as one of its active ingredients. She took two pills per day until the early 1970s, when another doctor told her to stop taking them. If you refer to any and all amphetamines as "speed," then she did take "speed," although it is probably not accurate to say she was addicted to it. She certainly did not take the street drugs to which the term 'speed' is more commonly applied.

The documentary evidence on this subject is limited. Nathaniel Branden mentions the matter very briefly in his memoirs. All he says is the following:

    I did not attach significance to the fact that, since her late twenties, she had been taking amphetamines daily for weight control, on the advice of a physician. I do not think the discovery had yet been made that a protracted use of amphetamines can precipitate paranoid reactions.

In a magazine interview, he expounded only slightly more on the topic:

    She was taking a relatively small quantity of a drug called Dexedrine which in those days doctors were prescribing very freely for people who wanted to control their appetite. Today of course Dexedrine has a bad name and it's no longer recommended. But it was recommended to her, I think, when she was only twenty-eight years of age, and she had been taking two pills a day, I believe almost as long as she lived. I don't think she took heavy doses.

Barbara Branden discusses the matter with more detail in The Passion of Ayn Rand. Her discussion in full is as follows:

    It was during this period of nonstop work on The Fountainhead that Ayn went to see a doctor. She had heard there was a harmless pill one could take to increase one's energy and lessen one's appetite. The doctor, telling her there would be no negative consequences, prescribed a low dosage of a small green tablet which doctors had begun prescribing rather routinely. Its trade name was Dexamyl. Ayn took two of these pills each day for more than thirty years. They appeared to work: she felt that her physical energy had increased, although it was never high, and her weight stayed under reasonable control. In fact, medical opinion today suggests that they soon ceased to be a source of physical energy; their effect shortly became that of a placebo.

    Dexamyl consists of two chemicals: an amphetamine and a barbiturate. It was not until the sixties that researchers investigated the effects of large doses of these chemicals. They found that extremely high doses were harmful, sometimes even resulting in paranoid symptoms; but to this day, there is only the most fragmentary and contradictory scientific evidence to suggest that low doses such as Ayn took could be harmful. As one pharmacological specialist has said: "Perhaps they hurt her, and perhaps they didn't."

    In the early seventies, when for the first time she became seriously ill, her doctor took her medical history, and, quite innocently, she told him about the Dexamyl. Disapproving, he ordered her to cease taking them at once. She never took another.

    I include this discussion only because I have learned that a number of people, aware that she took this medication, have drawn ominous conclusions about Ayn's mental health; there is no scientific basis for their conclusions.

When Barbara Branden refers to "this period of nonstop work," she is talking about the time between Rand signing the publishing contract for The Fountainhead in December 1941, and the due date for the finished text, which was January 1943. This indicates Rand would have been in her mid-thirties, not her late twenties as stated by Nathaniel Branden. Absent some other clarification, the exact timing of Rand's initial prescription and the exact drug she took (Dexamyl or Dexedrine) remain minor mysteries for future Rand biographers.

Also noteworthy since it is related to a major idiot scamming J-Triber:

4.6 Who is Alan Greenspan?

Alan Greenspan was born in New York City on March 6, 1926, just a couple of weeks after Ayn Rand's arrival there from Russia. The two first met in the early 1950s. The introduction came because Greenspan was briefly married to a childhood friend of Barbara Branden. Although initially skeptical of Rand's ideas, he eventually became a lecturer for the Nathaniel Branden Institute and a contributor of articles to The Objectivist Newsletter. He received a Ph.D. in economics from New York University in 1977. After serving on various commissions and councils for Presidents Nixon, Ford and Reagan, Greenspan was appointed by Reagan in 1987 to be chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He was repeatedly re-appointed to this position by succeeding presidents, until his retirement in early 2006.

• The significant events of Greenspan's life are recounted in the ORC's Alan Greenspan Timeline.

For many years it was not clear to what extent Greenspan still accepted Rand's ideas. Some reports suggested he was still loyal to the beliefs he held in the 1950s and 60s years ago, but many critics said his work at the Federal Reserve was incompatible with Rand's political and ethical philosophy.

• In his 2007 autobiography, Greenspan wrote that although "the broader philosophy of unfettered market competition [is] compelling," he believes there are contradictions within Rand's ideas, and therefore he agrees with them only with "qualifications."

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/bio/biofaq.html

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Looks like this Romanian Jew created the first "speed"... figures:

Lazăr Edeleanu (Romanian pronunciation: [ˈlazər edeˈle̯anu]; 1861, Bucharest - 1941) was a Romanian chemist of Jewish origin.[1]

He was the first chemist to synthesize amphetamine at the University of Berlin and the inventor of the modern method of refining crude oil.

His childhood and studies

Edeleanu, son of Jewish turner Shaye Edeleanu, was raised in Bucharest and in the town of Focşani. As he showed an early aptitude for science, was sent at the age of 12 to study in Bucharest at the prestigious St. Sava College. Lived in poor housing conditions, in a basement room and earned his living through giving private lessons. [2] So could he receive his baccalaureate in 1882. After ending high school, he worked hard as worker in order to go on and study - chemistry - at the Berlin University with A.W. Hofmann, C.F. Rammelsberg and H.L. Helmholtz.

In 1887, he received the title of Doctor in Chemistry with the thesis "On the derivatives of fatty phenylmethacrylic and phenylisobutyric acids" (original title in German: "Ueber einige Derivate der Phenylmethacrylsäure und der Phenylisobuttersäure"), in which he described phenylisopropylamine, a nervous system stimulant also known as amphetamine or benzedrine.

His research activity in England and Romania

After receiving his doctorate, Edeleanu worked for a time at the Royal College of Artillery in London as lecturer and assistant to professor Hodgkinson. During this period he collaborated with C.F. Cross and E.J. Bevan to create a type of artificial fireproof silk and with R. Meldola to create oxazine-based dyes. Back in Romania, he was hired by chemist Constantin I. Istrati as assistant, and then lecturer, at the Faculty of Sciences in Bucharest, Organic Chemistry Department. In 1906 he was appointed Head of the Chemistry Laboratory at the Geology Institute (founded that year) and director of Vega Refinery near Ploesti (refinery owned at that time by German company Diskont). In 1907 he co-organized the Petroleum Congress in Bucharest and co-authored a monograph on Romanian crude oil's physical and technical properties with Ion Tănăsescu.

1908 was the year of his most significant invention, the Edeleanu process, in which petroleum is refined with liquid sulfur dioxide to selectively extract aromatic hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, xylene, etc.). The procedure was first applied experimentally in Romania at the Vega Refinery, then at Rouen, France, in Germany, and subsequently throughout the world.

[FrankDialogue]

Well, as God put everything here for a good purpose, I don't necessarily oppose the use of drugs, except they are subject to abuse when used by frail humans...Certainly, it is better to avoid the dangers of this abuse, as a healthy life itself can provide most of what we need.

A bit off topic, but I would note that the German Bayer Company, which introduced aspirin to the Western world, in the same time period synthesized heroin, which, like aspirin, was available in tablet form over the counter at your local pharmacy, and was available in America until the FEDs banned it around 1910...There was never a reported addiction problem, as most who used it were in pain, elderly, suffering from arthritis and other chronic debilitating conditions...Children did not take these tablets, nor teenagers...Only after the ban did powder heroin appear on the scene.



Ms.Rosenbaum in a cute hat (note the eyes!)



Bayer Heroin, also available in lozange form

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Looks like Ayn Rand's books were promoted by this famed semi-Crypto Jew Bennet Cerf. This Jew and his partners have done a lot of damage over the years. Interesting the Wikipedia cut off the Jew family background info from the most recent entry:

-----------------

Bennett Cerf

Bennett Cerf was born and brought up in New York City in a Jewish family of Alsatia and German descent.   (note this appears recently edited out--CSR)   His father, Gustave Cerf, was a lithographer, and his mother, Frederika Wise, was an heiress to a tobacco-distribution fortune.

Cerf attended Townsend Harris High School, the same public school as composer Richard Rodgers, the publisher Richard Simon, and the playwright Howard Dietz, and he spent his teenage years at 790 Riverside Drive; this apartment building in Washington Heights was home to two other friends who became prominent as adults, Dietz and the Hearst newspapers financial editor Merryle Rukeyser. He received his B.A. from Columbia University in 1919 and his Litt.B. in 1920 from its School of Journalism. On graduating, he worked briefly as a reporter for the New York Herald Tribune, and for some time in a Wall Street brokerage, before becoming vice president of the Boni & Liveright publishing house.

In 1925, Cerf formed a partnership with his friend Donald Klopfer. The two bought the rights to the Modern Library from Boni and Liveright and went into business for themselves. They made the series quite successful and, in 1927, commenced to publish general trade books which they had selected "at random." Thus began their formidable publishing business, which in time they named Random House. It used as its logo a little house drawn by Cerf's friend Rockwell Kent.

Cerf's talent in building and maintaining relationships brought contracts with writers such as William Faulkner, John O'Hara, Eugene O'Neill, James Michener, Truman Capote, Theodor Seuss Geisel, and others, who were among the greatest writers of the day and who supported Random House just as Random House supported them. He published Atlas Shrugged, written by Ayn Rand. Even though he vehemently disagreed with her philosophy of Objectivism, they became lifelong friends.

In 1933, Cerf won United States v. One Book Called Ulysses, a landmark court case against government censorship, and published James Joyce's unabridged Ulysses for the first time in the United States. Critical reviews of the book were pasted into a special copy, which was duly imported and seized by U.S. Customs. Cerf later presented the book to Columbia University.

In 1944, Cerf published the first of his collection of jokebooks, Try and Stop Me, with illustrations by Carl Rose. A second book, Shake Well Before Using, was published in 1949.

In the early 1950s, while maintaining a Manhattan residence, Cerf managed to acquire inexpensively an estate at Mount Kisco, New York, which became his country home for the rest of his life. Cerf married actress Sylvia Sidney on October 1, 1935, but the couple divorced on April 9, 1936. He was married to former Hollywood actress Phyllis Fraser, a cousin of Ginger Rogers, from September 17, 1940 until his death. They had two sons, Christopher and Jonathan.

In 1959, Maco Magazine Corporation published what has since become known as "The Cream of the Master's Crop." This groundbreaking compilation of jokes, gags, stories, puns, and wit became recognized, in time, as the essence of Bennett Cerf and his humor.

Cerf began appearing weekly on What's My Line? in 1951 and continued until the show's CBS network end in 1967. Cerf continued to appear occasionally on the Viacom syndicated version with Arlene Francis until his death. Cerf was known as "Bennett Snerf" in a Sesame Street puppet parody of What's My Line?. During his time on What's My Line?, Cerf received an honorary degree from the University of Puget Sound.

Late in life he suffered the embarrassment of an exposé, written by Jessica Mitford, and published in the June 1970 Atlantic Monthly, denouncing the business practices of the Famous Writers School, which Cerf had founded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennett_Cerf

The Virtue of (Jew) Selfishness (in a Gentile Society)

The idea of creating a collection of Rand's essays initially came from Bennett Cerf of Random House, who had published two of Rand's previous books, Atlas Shrugged and For the New Intellectual. Rand proposed a collection of articles to be titled The Fascist New Frontier, after a Ford Hall Forum speech she had given criticizing the views of President John F. Kennedy. Uncomfortable with Rand's comparison of Kennedy to Adolf Hitler, Cerf asked that Rand choose a different title essay. She rejected this request and dropped Random House (as well as ending her friendship with Cerf), choosing New American Library as the publisher for her new book. The Virtue of Selfishness not only bore a different title, it did not even include her piece on Kennedy. He had been assassinated before it was released, making the point of the essay moot.[2]

The book became one of Rand's strongest-selling works of nonfiction, selling over 400,000 copies in the first four months of its release,[3] and over 1.25 million copies by 2008.[4]

Use of the term 'selfishness'

Rand's characterization of selfishness as a virtue, including in the title of the book, is one of its most controversial elements. Philosopher Chandran Kukathas said Rand's position on this point "brought notoriety, but kept her out of the intellectual mainstream."[5] Rand acknowledged in the book's introduction that the term 'selfishness' was not typically used to describe virtuous behavior, but insisted that her usage was consistent with a more precise meaning of the term as simply "concern with one's own interests." The equation of selfishness with evil, Rand said, had caused "the arrested moral development of mankind" and needed to be rejected.[6]

Critics have disputed Rand's interpretation of the term. Libertarian feminist writer Sharon Presley described Rand's use of 'selfishness' as "perversely idiosyncratic" and contrary to the dictionary meaning of the term, Rand's claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Presley believes the use of the term has caused Rand's arguments to be frequently mischaracterized.[7] Philosophy professor Max Hocutt dismissed the phrase 'the virtue of selfishness' as "rhetorical excess", saying that "without qualification and explanation, it is too paradoxical to merit serious discussion."[8] In contrast, philosophers Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen described Rand's response to the question of why she uses the term as "neither antagonistic nor defensive, but rather profound."[9] Philosopher Chris Matthew Sciabarra said it is "debatable" whether Rand accurately described the meaning of the term, but argued that Rand's philosophical position required altering the conventional meanings of some terms in order to express her views without inventing entirely new words.[10] Philosophy professor Stephen Hicks wrote in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy that Rand's "provocative title" was matched by "an equally provocative thesis about ethics."[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness