@WhyMeMoFo Francisco and Ragnar also engage in terrorism and sabotage by destroying mines, port facilities and cargo ships. If the Occupy Wall Street people started to do that, Objectivists would call for their arrest and execution. I'll laugh if that happens and the perps post photos of themselves on the internet holding up copies of "Atlas Shrugged" as their manifesto.
Rand has become popular again, despite her nuttiness and confusions, because the progressive world view acts much like the way she portrays it and makes even less sense.
In a way, Randroids like the guy in the video with the speech impediment (and I can relate to that myself because I have trouble pronouncing R sounds in some words) engage in false advertising. I wish Rand really had written that knockout blow of a philosophy her cultists claim she did.
@WhyMeMoFo So running away and not doing anything is "the" rational action to be commited... something tells me you wouldn't be too good as an activist n.nU (that's another real life example :D)
I am not sure, but I am starting to think you didn't read the book, for it do explains how the situations were in their entirety... like almost at the end. But it's only an assumption.
@WhyMeMoFo Rioting was his way of action based on his moral impulse... pretty much the same impulse you have every time you call him "domestic terrorist".
@WhyMeMoFo ... Sure you got the idea that the book is fiction, right?
Doing his own thing sounds good, but I shall ask you, what would you have done if you were in his same position, seeing a group of people trying to impose their own views over everybody, including himself... I normally would have expected riots, don't you? Seeing his actions, it was his own way of rioting. He was going to show everybody where they were wrong, even if that meant driving them to despair.
@WhyMeMoFo I would require specification about Galt being a domestic terrorist... I just don't get what a domestic terrorist is supposed to be.
Anyway... I would say I am not the best qualified for discussing this... have read the book, but haven't entered any discussion rooms or anything related.
So the only thing I can say is... you only saw one side of the picture?
@WhyMeMoFo My, I have not claimed that the philosophy was right. Why are you changing the burden of proof to me? If I am not trying to convert you, there is no reason why I should try to prove it. If you want "Rand" to prove it, her books are for that reason. If you don't agree on what she said, it's your opinion and desition, not mine. But if you want to disprove or critizise it, please do it as any other "not proven" ideology or phylosophy: with arguments.
@WhyMeMoFo Let me repeat myself, and this time slllooowwllly... I said "Gimme an argument, like the rest of the world does, and then I'll listen to you". Instead you have been bashing the philosophy with hatred. Please, if you have nothing interesting to say, could you do me the favor of not answering me back? I'd really appretiate that.
@WhyMeMoFo Quite funny, the fact that you call it a cult, using the word with such disdain as if it was a religion. That single word is quite some good evidence in favor of the idea that you are emotionally attacking the philosophy, instead of, you know, using rational arguments like the rest of the world do, with emphasis on scientific studies.
@WhyMeMoFo Looong time ago... I started realizing that the ones who attacked Rand the most were even more emotional. It became easier to understand why she sounded so venomous o.o
Capitalism is essentially forceful. Capitalism only persists or endures by constant violence or threats of it, chronic intimidation, and relentless fraud and misdirection. AKA false consciousness.
Being contrary to human nature, capitalism has to use every form of survival enhancement it can grab.
(Americans have a Constitution that does not mention the necessity of enduring capitalism. Americans have the privilege, and duty, to achieve freedom from capitalism.)
@beesleeper I think you are talking about Corporatism, an affront to the Bill of Rights. Or are you one of those people that wants us to return to the pre-pong days?
Garbage. She was an insider that knew the ultimate plan. For people not to know the real story behind all of this shows how ignorant our people really are. She is just telling people what the strategies are that she knew about. Maybe we should worship her instead of Christ?
Totalitarian collectivist leanings come from a combination of the following:
1] Irrational existential terror.
2] Dominant atavistic 'herd instinct' gene in some folks, too strong to intellecually overcome.
For these folks, the universe is a malevolent madhouse filled with stuff that is just out to kill you, where survival and management of cold risk seems to often to depend on the undecipherable math of others.
With that worldview as an ethical basis, it is too easy to sell out freedom.
I see that some of you (ahem, eaodak) have no CLUE to the meaning of such concepts as capitalism, sacrifice, altruism, freedom, individual rights, etc. These terms and many more must be properly understood before even BEGINNING a conversation about political philosophy, much less any SPECIFIC philosophy such as Objectivism.
Therefore, ignorant insulting emotional ejaculations from people like eaodak should be dismissed without further discussion.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
If Ayn were around today, I would just think she was a huge bitch. If someone is drowning and one decides that it is not their problem, they are an asshole, pure and simple. She was, essentially, a hater of mankind; she used intelligence to convince humans to be selfish. If I am drowning, PLEASE brothers and sisters, someone save me.
Oh jeez, you understand nothing about Ayn Rand. No self respecting Objectivist says its wrong to save a drowning person. We only say if you are, make sure you aren't going to end up sacrificing yourself in the process. For example, if I can't swim, and I jumped in the water to save someone from drowning, I would be blindly sacrificing my life. That is immoral to objectivism. If the drowning person is a loved one, the risk becomes less important, depending on how irreplaceable that individual is
My advise would be to read the Virtue of Selfishness. Rand speaks at great length on the issue of "sacrifice". For the short answer, your not giving me enough information in your dilemma. If this helps however, I will say that Rand defines sacrifice as giving a higher value for a lesser value. So if you are ABLE to save the child, then it would be irrational to not save him (especially if you value him). If you are incapable of swimming, for whatever reason, then I ask you, how can you help
@Harikus Well, if the Objectivist has to sacrifice something he thinks is more important than a random drowning stranger, then it is immoral. Ergo, if there isn't enough time to strip down and saving the person means ruining an Armony suit, which is too high a cost for him to pay to save a stranger, then it's immoral to save the drowning stranger.
@SpazzzDog Doesn't mean that someone else will no value the drowning person's life. You forget about dealings which would make you value things, like for example, that the Armony suit is the last memory of your grandfather, who you loved. And no... loving someone is not against Objectivism, it just has to be a personal position, by personal reasons.
@SpazzzDog Doesn't mean that someone else will no value the drowning person's life. You forget about dealings which would make you value things, like for example, that the Armony suit is the last memory of your grandfather, who you loved. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to see why the suit would be that important. And no... loving someone is not against Objectivism, it just has to be a personal position, by personal reasons.
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu You guys really do go out of your way to convince everyone that you're just as moral as everyone else. Why not just call yourself altruists and get it over with?
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu I thought O'ists were morally objective, but ya'll are often emotional. Just watch Rand react emotionally to dissent. The problem I see are people become callous because Objectivism gives them a justification to be that way. Economic subjugation is justified by deferring to the authority of LFC. Environmental degradation is justified if the alternative is containing economic forces. So I guess it's not moral, but it's not objective either.
@SpazzzDog Many people call themselves Objectivists while believing only part of what Ayn Rand proclaimed. Yes, Ayn Rand was pretty emotional, mostly because she didn't value the moral positions that were confronting her. Environmental degradation is stupid, not objective. Ignoring consequences is neither objective, nor moral. That wasn't what Ayn Rand's proclaimed, not at all, but the morals of fighting for what you believed, and feeling proud about what you are able to do.
That's not what she believed in. After all, the cartoonish villains in her books also fought for what they believed and felt proud about what they did or what they were able to do, yet she considered the evil.
@NathanRomml Something funny to say is that most of the villians in Atlas Shrugged were what they were was because most of them contradicted themselves in what they believed. Either it was because they proclaimed something they didn't felt, did things that the result wasn't the one they proclaimed, or simply ignored any kind of risks towards themselves and others. If Rand didn't believe or didn't lived what she was saying, is another topic.
This is dead on.. Rand wrote the blue print.. Rand is a known associate of David Rockefeller and Atlas was THE book for their vision in the TC... I know, I was there..member of the 33
While I agree fully with Dr. Brook, I would add- Ayn Rand's philosophy is about much more than politics and economics; it is a philosophy for rational, joyful living. I suggest to the viewers of this video to look at XCowboy2's "This is John Galt Speaking" videos. His video series is a superb example of Rand's work brought to modern artistic expression.
My point is that gov't (the state) practice a "distorted" form of altruism therefore it's not really altruistic. "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (next comment)
Gov't doesn't "self-sacrifice" for the good of society, it steals from its citizens through coercive means and they "service" themselves and the politically well connected, they [gov't] are the beneficiary of its citizens altruism. It's all rhetoric to cover up their lies and deceit.
yes, Rush and his 20 million listening audience, one of the, top 10 or top 5 rated radio programs in the US, is crazy
and all of his listeners are crazy, you are the only one who is sane
The rest of us are crazy, and you can shut out all of our ideas, and you don't ever have to listen to any ideas that might conflict with any of your preconceived notions
The irony in all of this is that government preaches altruism to the masses, but they don't practice it themselves. And if they do it's always with other peoples blood, sweat, money and property for their personal gain.
@WhyMeMoFo Francisco and Ragnar also engage in terrorism and sabotage by destroying mines, port facilities and cargo ships. If the Occupy Wall Street people started to do that, Objectivists would call for their arrest and execution. I'll laugh if that happens and the perps post photos of themselves on the internet holding up copies of "Atlas Shrugged" as their manifesto.
MrAdvancedAtheist 4 months ago
Rand has become popular again, despite her nuttiness and confusions, because the progressive world view acts much like the way she portrays it and makes even less sense.
In a way, Randroids like the guy in the video with the speech impediment (and I can relate to that myself because I have trouble pronouncing R sounds in some words) engage in false advertising. I wish Rand really had written that knockout blow of a philosophy her cultists claim she did.
MrAdvancedAtheist 4 months ago
Marx is also selling more than ever.
kropotkinbeard1 5 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo So running away and not doing anything is "the" rational action to be commited... something tells me you wouldn't be too good as an activist n.nU (that's another real life example :D)
I am not sure, but I am starting to think you didn't read the book, for it do explains how the situations were in their entirety... like almost at the end. But it's only an assumption.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Rioting was his way of action based on his moral impulse... pretty much the same impulse you have every time you call him "domestic terrorist".
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo ... Sure you got the idea that the book is fiction, right?
Doing his own thing sounds good, but I shall ask you, what would you have done if you were in his same position, seeing a group of people trying to impose their own views over everybody, including himself... I normally would have expected riots, don't you? Seeing his actions, it was his own way of rioting. He was going to show everybody where they were wrong, even if that meant driving them to despair.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo I would require specification about Galt being a domestic terrorist... I just don't get what a domestic terrorist is supposed to be.
Anyway... I would say I am not the best qualified for discussing this... have read the book, but haven't entered any discussion rooms or anything related.
So the only thing I can say is... you only saw one side of the picture?
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo My, I have not claimed that the philosophy was right. Why are you changing the burden of proof to me? If I am not trying to convert you, there is no reason why I should try to prove it. If you want "Rand" to prove it, her books are for that reason. If you don't agree on what she said, it's your opinion and desition, not mine. But if you want to disprove or critizise it, please do it as any other "not proven" ideology or phylosophy: with arguments.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Let me repeat myself, and this time slllooowwllly... I said "Gimme an argument, like the rest of the world does, and then I'll listen to you". Instead you have been bashing the philosophy with hatred. Please, if you have nothing interesting to say, could you do me the favor of not answering me back? I'd really appretiate that.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Quite funny, the fact that you call it a cult, using the word with such disdain as if it was a religion. That single word is quite some good evidence in favor of the idea that you are emotionally attacking the philosophy, instead of, you know, using rational arguments like the rest of the world do, with emphasis on scientific studies.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
@WhyMeMoFo Looong time ago... I started realizing that the ones who attacked Rand the most were even more emotional. It became easier to understand why she sounded so venomous o.o
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 7 months ago
Capitalism is essentially forceful. Capitalism only persists or endures by constant violence or threats of it, chronic intimidation, and relentless fraud and misdirection. AKA false consciousness.
Being contrary to human nature, capitalism has to use every form of survival enhancement it can grab.
(Americans have a Constitution that does not mention the necessity of enduring capitalism. Americans have the privilege, and duty, to achieve freedom from capitalism.)
beesleeper 9 months ago
@beesleeper I think you are talking about Corporatism, an affront to the Bill of Rights. Or are you one of those people that wants us to return to the pre-pong days?
Solverwiz 9 months ago
Pseudointellectual bullshit.
Tanfeliz 9 months ago
Garbage. She was an insider that knew the ultimate plan. For people not to know the real story behind all of this shows how ignorant our people really are. She is just telling people what the strategies are that she knew about. Maybe we should worship her instead of Christ?
norfids 1 year ago
Totalitarian collectivist leanings come from a combination of the following:
1] Irrational existential terror.
2] Dominant atavistic 'herd instinct' gene in some folks, too strong to intellecually overcome.
For these folks, the universe is a malevolent madhouse filled with stuff that is just out to kill you, where survival and management of cold risk seems to often to depend on the undecipherable math of others.
With that worldview as an ethical basis, it is too easy to sell out freedom.
fredianoB 1 year ago
Once again, Dr. Brook has nailed it!
I see that some of you (ahem, eaodak) have no CLUE to the meaning of such concepts as capitalism, sacrifice, altruism, freedom, individual rights, etc. These terms and many more must be properly understood before even BEGINNING a conversation about political philosophy, much less any SPECIFIC philosophy such as Objectivism.
Therefore, ignorant insulting emotional ejaculations from people like eaodak should be dismissed without further discussion.
Aristotle1905 1 year ago
@Aristotle1905 Randism is an ideology, not a philosophy. Since you can't get that basic fact straight, nothing else you say need be considered. Dolt.
eaodak 1 year ago
It's a shame that we cannot resurrect Ayn Rand and bring her back from the grave.
I'd like nothing more than to see that ugly bitch executed in the public square. Evil should be exterminated in the public forum.
eaodak 1 year ago
Yes, this fucking dope is telling you to listen to Rush's advice....
I'll bet 'Doktor' Brooks had his degree conferred by the Ayn Rand Institute!
This loser is a bitch that has never done any real work.
eaodak 1 year ago
"Helwow, my name is Fwed and I wuv bwizness!"
I guess we can stop wondering what the Bishop from Princess Bride has been up to....
"Mawiage, oh mawiage!"
eaodak 1 year ago
Excellent video, succinctly presented. Thank you Dr. Brook.
prairieobjectivist 2 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If Ayn were around today, I would just think she was a huge bitch. If someone is drowning and one decides that it is not their problem, they are an asshole, pure and simple. She was, essentially, a hater of mankind; she used intelligence to convince humans to be selfish. If I am drowning, PLEASE brothers and sisters, someone save me.
treid100182 2 years ago
Oh jeez, you understand nothing about Ayn Rand. No self respecting Objectivist says its wrong to save a drowning person. We only say if you are, make sure you aren't going to end up sacrificing yourself in the process. For example, if I can't swim, and I jumped in the water to save someone from drowning, I would be blindly sacrificing my life. That is immoral to objectivism. If the drowning person is a loved one, the risk becomes less important, depending on how irreplaceable that individual is
Harikus 2 years ago 5
So if it is your kid that is drowning, then is it ok to sacrifice your life? or is it too immoral
kartikkiran 2 years ago
My advise would be to read the Virtue of Selfishness. Rand speaks at great length on the issue of "sacrifice". For the short answer, your not giving me enough information in your dilemma. If this helps however, I will say that Rand defines sacrifice as giving a higher value for a lesser value. So if you are ABLE to save the child, then it would be irrational to not save him (especially if you value him). If you are incapable of swimming, for whatever reason, then I ask you, how can you help
Harikus 2 years ago 4
@Harikus Well, if the Objectivist has to sacrifice something he thinks is more important than a random drowning stranger, then it is immoral. Ergo, if there isn't enough time to strip down and saving the person means ruining an Armony suit, which is too high a cost for him to pay to save a stranger, then it's immoral to save the drowning stranger.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog Doesn't mean that someone else will no value the drowning person's life. You forget about dealings which would make you value things, like for example, that the Armony suit is the last memory of your grandfather, who you loved. And no... loving someone is not against Objectivism, it just has to be a personal position, by personal reasons.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog Doesn't mean that someone else will no value the drowning person's life. You forget about dealings which would make you value things, like for example, that the Armony suit is the last memory of your grandfather, who you loved. Otherwise, it's pretty hard to see why the suit would be that important. And no... loving someone is not against Objectivism, it just has to be a personal position, by personal reasons.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu You guys really do go out of your way to convince everyone that you're just as moral as everyone else. Why not just call yourself altruists and get it over with?
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog Because calling ourselves altruists is not enough, for it has a connotation in comunication nowadays =P
And no... we never called ourselves moral, just objective, and the things you value by being moral, we can value by being objective xD
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu I thought O'ists were morally objective, but ya'll are often emotional. Just watch Rand react emotionally to dissent. The problem I see are people become callous because Objectivism gives them a justification to be that way. Economic subjugation is justified by deferring to the authority of LFC. Environmental degradation is justified if the alternative is containing economic forces. So I guess it's not moral, but it's not objective either.
SpazzzDog 1 year ago
@SpazzzDog Many people call themselves Objectivists while believing only part of what Ayn Rand proclaimed. Yes, Ayn Rand was pretty emotional, mostly because she didn't value the moral positions that were confronting her. Environmental degradation is stupid, not objective. Ignoring consequences is neither objective, nor moral. That wasn't what Ayn Rand's proclaimed, not at all, but the morals of fighting for what you believed, and feeling proud about what you are able to do.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu
That's not what she believed in. After all, the cartoonish villains in her books also fought for what they believed and felt proud about what they did or what they were able to do, yet she considered the evil.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
@NathanRomml Something funny to say is that most of the villians in Atlas Shrugged were what they were was because most of them contradicted themselves in what they believed. Either it was because they proclaimed something they didn't felt, did things that the result wasn't the one they proclaimed, or simply ignored any kind of risks towards themselves and others. If Rand didn't believe or didn't lived what she was saying, is another topic.
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
@AkaiTsukiShimitsu
Indeed. For form your description of them villains came a quite realistic image of Ayn Rand herself.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
This is dead on.. Rand wrote the blue print.. Rand is a known associate of David Rockefeller and Atlas was THE book for their vision in the TC... I know, I was there..member of the 33
Blit67 2 years ago
Gweed.
Ha ha.
pookiehohn 2 years ago
what is the point of your comment?
ytpyay 2 years ago
If you really understand what yaron speaks about you are ahead of the serfs in the wolf pack.
PureAdrenaline97 2 years ago
While I agree fully with Dr. Brook, I would add- Ayn Rand's philosophy is about much more than politics and economics; it is a philosophy for rational, joyful living. I suggest to the viewers of this video to look at XCowboy2's "This is John Galt Speaking" videos. His video series is a superb example of Rand's work brought to modern artistic expression.
Objectivist2112 2 years ago 4
what a strange accent......
whitelacestrange 2 years ago
what a strange speech impediment you mean?
JRStheTruth 2 years ago
same shit smartass
whitelacestrange 2 years ago
not quite. thanks for the angry hill billy authoritarian reply though, champ.
JRStheTruth 2 years ago 2
ok , i was grossly wrong, and your correcting me was tremendously important.
whitelacestrange 2 years ago
He's Jewish.
I wonder what you would sound like speaking Hebrew, Chinese, or Japanese
saladin435 2 years ago 2
I'm part jewish, i have jewish family, a lot of them speak Hebrew and I've never heard an accent like his.
anyway i agree with him 100%, nothing against him he just needs to take a speech lesson.
whitelacestrange 2 years ago
My point is that gov't (the state) practice a "distorted" form of altruism therefore it's not really altruistic. "The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value." (next comment)
DolphinFilms 2 years ago
Gov't doesn't "self-sacrifice" for the good of society, it steals from its citizens through coercive means and they "service" themselves and the politically well connected, they [gov't] are the beneficiary of its citizens altruism. It's all rhetoric to cover up their lies and deceit.
DolphinFilms 2 years ago 2
Rush Limbah? Isn't he a nut case?
pookiehohn 2 years ago
If you're going to insult someone, spell their name correctly.
8daystillmonday 2 years ago 4
In regards to social issues, yes. He is tolerable in economic issues.
Raykak 2 years ago 6
yes, Rush and his 20 million listening audience, one of the, top 10 or top 5 rated radio programs in the US, is crazy
and all of his listeners are crazy, you are the only one who is sane
The rest of us are crazy, and you can shut out all of our ideas, and you don't ever have to listen to any ideas that might conflict with any of your preconceived notions
You have permission to not think
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago 4
I know the gov't is altruistic, they just practice it with other peoples blood, money and property. That's my point.
DolphinFilms 2 years ago
Amen.
5stars
SouthernContrarian 2 years ago 7
The irony in all of this is that government preaches altruism to the masses, but they don't practice it themselves. And if they do it's always with other peoples blood, sweat, money and property for their personal gain.
DolphinFilms 2 years ago
A bold video that speak the truth.
steveszkircsak 2 years ago 6
Cause of the economic recession: altruism.
Koutetsu 2 years ago 6
*ding *ding *ding. Thats the crux of the matter.
Bigturns33 2 years ago 6
@Koutetsu The cause of the economic recession.. CAPITALISM! Capitalism is an evil and sociopathic system of looters and the lazy.
As George Carlin would say, "Business people are just the worst kind of criminal cocksuckers you could ever come across...."
Carlin would have wiped his ass with Rand....
eaodak 1 year ago
@Koutetsu
I'd rather say that the wrong state policy is.
NathanRomml 1 year ago
Spot on.
bakukenshin 2 years ago 6
Bullseye
aarythmic 2 years ago 6
Terrific presentation, Dr. Brook. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago 6