@islamiscrap8888 Funny you say that, she was once asked wether she would vote for a female candidate for president that also happened to be the best qualified for the job, and she said no, because she can't see women as leaders.
@TheStrangerInTheRye you have to keep in mind at the time women where not allowed to join the military. you would have a women commanding men to go and die for there county while women are not allowed to do the same, remember what she said ," to have women as COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the United States of American I find to be repulsive." It would have been lovely if they gave more time to answer but the question was asked at the end of the show.
@islamiscrap8888 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
Capitalism is simply seeing that we the non-nobles of the world demand the right to make wealth like the birth right of nobles had. He or she who owns the means of production, not a title (entitlement of aristocracy) gives us the right to be rulers of society. Thus capitalism is about democratizing aristocratic rule among those who own the wealth.
Heh.. I imagined reaching a state of "full moral certainty" by way of the empirical framework of reasoning. It might be possible if I were always a little intoxicated, but that would mean I was only deluding myself.
Despite the fact that Democrats are mainstream capitalists, and light years (that's a measure of distance, for you Christian Republicans, illiterate and aliterate) away from socialism, I'd like to ask, What is so great about capitalism ? And why are so many Republicans OLD and POOR? They had time to get rich under capitalism, and then didn't. What went wrong ? Just lame ? "God" hates them ? Weak and stupid ?
As am I. But using tradition and faith are terrible supports, as Ayn Rand was saying in this video. The reason I brought up monarchies is because we happen to live in a country that was set up by libertarians and secularists, but if it wasn't, I know I'd be libertarian all the same. And faith is just that, faith. No logic behind it. I think saying "donate to us and to charity or else you go to hell" isn't really consensual. And I don't care what you think about Jesus, I don't believe.
@wtfjaftw Never called anyone a liberal. Look your drippling all over yourself. Like I said before, no rational basis for your argument. Finance is not evil. It's merely a technology. Read some factual textbooks not conspiracy theories off the internet.
@wtfjaftw Guys, whether God exists or not has nothing to do with whether Ayn Rand was a nutter or not. Even if we evolved from monkeys, Ayn Rands philosophies are still the feces of said monkeys. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Ayn Rands existence is proof that at least one person evolved from a monkey. Considering the oval office today, I would contend that possibly several share such genealogy.
I mean, has she ever even READ the founding fathers? So often did they explicitly say that the principles of freedom were contingent upon a righteous god fearing nation that it becomes quite redundant in their works. Its even in the constitution and the declaration of independencem. "Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." yeah rand, religious conservatism TOTALLY violates american values....what an idiot!
@Porojukaha before you silly trolls mistake me for a religious conservative let me point out. I am not necessarily saying that modern religious conservatism is, in itself, very logical. Its actually pretty stupid for OTHER reasons. But regardless of that, the founding fathers DID found this nation in a deep seated belief in God. Whether God exists or not does not change their opinions on God nor does whether a belief in God is necessary to be moral nor does it change Rands mental retardation.
Rand was an Atheist its true, but she argued from the same side of our founders. Namely, that our "rights' are inalienable, not gifts from the state. Her philosophy is harsh and spiritually I disagree with much of it, but from a political point I agree 100% If you are going to criticize her, go after her ideas with a valid counter argument, otherwise your just joining the collectivist masses who use personal attacks rather then logical arguments.
Her point was that religious arguments, and arguments relating to tradition are not valid arguments to make for conservatism. And no matter how the founders came to the conclusions is irrelevant to the socio-economic revolution that the United States was. Sure the founders believed in God, and believed that Liberty comes from God. But that has nothing to do with what Rand was talking about. Its irrelevant.
I would contend that Rand attempts to justify capitalism on fallacious grounds. Her ideas are downright illogical. Now there are very good arguments in support of capitalism. She did not use them however. The sad thing is, she took Adam Smith and Nietszche to make her philosophies, but in doing so she took out all the most important parts of both philosophies to make something that is completely nonsensical.
@wtfjaftw You mad? You must be. You're quoting a 70's nut case that states that Atlas Shrugged is read by communists. A Christian nut case as well. I take it you are one as well. I'm not surprised since your type will believe anything. Happy Easter.
@wtfjaftw trololol! I am with the uploader. You have no idea what your talking about and you have no rational basis for anything you've said. So do yourself a favor, shut it.
If that convinces you, so be it, but certainly rational reason is the only way to really determine what is right. Tradition is not something to say something used to say something is right. Europe has a tradition of totalitarian monarchies, so should they go back to an inherited kingship? And "faith" may be all well and good for you, but how can you convince anybody else you're right? I certainly don't believe it. And even if I believed in God, 'bible says Jesus was pretty socialist.
@wtfjaftw That would be because you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no rational basis for any of those claims. They all require circular reasoning, logically fallacious statements/arguments, or faith which is not a reasonable criteria for anyone to base their beliefs upon. It is great that you disagree, but your opinion doesn't mean anything unless you have some extremely substantial evidence to back up your claims.
@wtfjaftw That would be because you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no rational basis for any of those claims. They all require circular reasoning, logically fallacious statements/arguments, or faith.
I'm catholic and conservative. I care for the prosperity of people and voluntary giving. I don't care if it's capitalism or some form of it. But socialism and communism is fundamentally opposed to my religious beliefs.
@LogicalThinker667 I'm sure there are. Christianity has 2 billion people. But communism has been solemnly condemned by previous popes including Pope St. Pius x in 1907 and before that Freemasonary was condemned even before Pope Leo xiii's encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Just saying.
Is that how you want to convince OTHER people that socialism and communism are bad? I don't think thats a good way to do it. And i think that is the point of Rand's statements.
@bobdole57 No I'm just trying to say I'm open to whatever brings us prosperity whether that's capitalism or some form of it. Just stating a fact; communism has been condemned by the Catholic Church since forever. I've closed the door on that option.
Well thats good and all, but if somebody is arguing for communism, that argument is not going to convince them. Its good for you, but in persuading others it is much less effective. I have arguments for capitalism (personally I favor it) and against socialism, not all work on all people. the arguments that convince me might not convince anyone else.
@bobdole57 Mine might convince other Catholics that have fallen into apostasy. Other than that I like to start with the premise that noone has the right to my money. And that govt is force. Therefore, more govt is more tyranny. But if you go into specifics it would have to depend on the subject but ultimately it's about freedom.
Ohh she is so close, so close to reality. I choose the arguement from maximum freedom. To government that can dictate what a man does with what is his can truly allow for liberty. no state that can dictate what a man does with his own body can truly allow for freedom. And no nation that can dictate what a man says can truly allow for reason.
Excellent, as always. Lucid and clear as a bell on the kind of thorny issues that catch others up in contradictions. Not Ayn Rand. What an amazingly prescient and brilliant woman. Like her in person even better than in her books.
Old school conservatives like Hayek and Buckley were sceptical of "reason" because they feared the belief in perfect rationality could lead to an unlimited government and all kind of social-engineering and experiments - like communism. They defended Christianity out of their desire to restrain political power, not because they wanted to substitute reason with "faith". I am a big fan of Rand however I just can't agree with her take on religion and atheism.
@Akatam0t0ma Akatam0t0ma = worthless in intellectual discussion.
You call me stupid, for making the 100% accurate description of Ayn Rand's real roots as Alisa Rosenbaum, a jew.
Be more of a freak paranoid jew-lover, seriously. Anytime someone gives a legitimate critique of Jews people emotionally plunge off the deep end, rendered incapacitated as far as being intellectually sound of mind and spoken thought.
She was born a Jew and by your logic that automatically makes her a Marxist. You ignore the fact that she fled communist Russia and dedicated her life to exposing the evils of communism and collectivism. She was also an Atheist.
Thats right Dubscheckem. She and her family did not practice Judaism at all. Her last name is Rosenbalm. It would be like a black man with the sir name of Gordon in America, "Is he Scottish" Ofcourse not. The logic is silly. Your name does not show who you are or your character. Rand was a Atheist in the complete sense.
@dubscheckem1 Better informed? You are naive, and gullible. How many Russian jews would end up becoming CRITICAL SPIES FOR THE USSR THAT CHANGED HISTORY?
Like the "American" Jews Julius & Ethel Rosenberg that gave the USSR the a-bomb, which then gave us Mutually Assured Destruction, igniting the korea/vietnam war?
Cry me a river, and pretend jews are above criticism. You only make yourself out to be an emotional train-wreck.
What has any of that to do with Ayn Rand? Again, you generalize all Jews into a collective group ignoring the fact that people are individuals. You're the only one here who cares that she happened to be born into a Jewish family.
Again, become informed before typing racist nonsense.
@dubscheckem1 No, I don't, there are plenty of good jews out there, Benjamin Freedman, Alfred Rosenberg, Emil Maurice. You are falling back on the "racist" mantra because you are uneducated.
It's not "Anti italian" to call the mafia italian (even though in reality it is jewish), yet if you call Communsim jewish people get upset, even though it was invented and led by jews.
Your emotional reaction is something you've been trained for all your life. Good job sheep.
Nonsense. The only emotional one here is you. Again, how is Rand a Marxist? Because she happened to be born into a certain ethnicity, thereby making her of the wrong political identity?
@dubscheckem1 Listen to her own words. The ends of her politics leaves people worthless and base selfish degenerates. There are many roads to bolshevism. Anarchism, Liberalism, Socialism, Democracy, anything that is not traditionalist or nationalist is susceptible to bolshevik infiltration.
FDR's close advisors Alger Hiss, and Dean Acheson were both convicted soviet spies. All because whiny little worms cry when nationalists do us true justice by pointing out the traitor within.
Advocating freedom is not the road to Bolshevism. However, advocating any form of collectivism is, whether it be racial or religious or social. It seems that you are more on the side of socialism than anyone else if you make such sweeping statements about an entire group of people based only on the arbitrary circumstance of birth.
Also nonsense. Pure free market capitalism can't be susceptible to Bolshevism or Marxism AS THERE IS NO MEANS TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT IT. WITHOUT THE POWER OF THE STATE (THAT YOU LOVE) IT CAN NOT HAPPEN. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So get your facts right.
@bobdole57 America was "Pure free market" capitalism, and now the government owns over 30% of the economy.
Looks like all your huffing and puffing doesn't change the truth. Unless an anti-marxist pro-nationalist stance is ingrained in the nation, it will always fall apart from within.
America was never pure free market capitalism. It always had the force of the state which allowed the state to steal and regulate. The mistake is the State itself. Your fascist state can evolve into communism just as easily, over 200 years. Only a stateless society without voting, without monopolistic power can prevent the use of illegitimate force by Government that is Communism.
Nationalism will devolve into despotism and marxism.
@bobdole57 Never has a Fascist state in history even touched Marxism, in fact they were the only group on Earth to join in a war against marxism, what you say is literally the opposite of what history tells us.
Nationalism is the only real unifying force with human beings.
Groups that preach statelessness, end up being merged with communists, like the anarchists/leftists in spanish civil war, or anywhere where communists succeed, you lie to say Nazi's = Communism, Nazis invaded USSR
I suppose all that Hitler and Mussolini stuff ended real well. And Germany today has no Marxist tendencies at all. No Fascist state has ever touched Marxism? Show me a Fascist state period! None of them exist for very long, and when it all falls apart they become Marxist socialists.
Nazis invaded the USSR, sure, and eventually the Communists invaded Germany. Thats called equivalence.
@bobdole57 Francisco Franco signed the Anti-CominternPact, and merged the Fascist/Monarch parties into one Nationalist party. Spain's king still controls the military, and a majority of the Spanish populace still hold Axis world-view.
The USSR turning DDR into puppet state is not a good argument even from the spiteful brat standpoint of "Haha you lost ww2". The Germans constantly rose up all the time and even the DDR propaganda press blamed it on "Fascists". Foot = in your mouth.
I'm not talking about east germany, i'm talking about Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Germany today, and most of Europe today. these countries are all falling into marxism, just as you claim the US is.
And my bit about the Nazi's loosing world war 2 isn't a spiteful one, its a practical one. Nationalism has a tendency to end that way, its just how it goes. In the same way socialism brings poverty and misery, Nationalism fails and brings on communism and collectivism.
@EuroAmericanReich "Never has a Fascist state in history even touched Marxism" I guess that's why it was called the 'National Socialist German Workers' Party'
@dubified89 Socialism wasn't associated with marxism back then, Hitler's speech in Munich 1922 he even says "It was only the Jew using the media associated the term with Marxism, he has succeeded in divorcing the social idea from the national."
In principle, the Government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property... ~ Adolf Hitler. Berlin, Reichstag -- Speech of March 23, 1933
Only INDIVIDUALISM can prevent collectivism and marxism. INDIVIDUALISM is the ANTITHESIS of Marxism, Nationalism is congruent to it. nationalism suffers the same faults, flaws and will arrive in a situation where the question is no longer whats best for the State but what is instead best for the common, collectivist good. And you will have your Communism.
@EuroAmericanReich Actually Julias and Ethel did you a favour. Can you imagine how dangerous a world with just one nuclear armed state would be, able to hold all the others hostage?
In fact, the more nuclear armed countries there are, the safer the world is.
@theredraven Yes, that is the backwards jew logic that they used themselves. Too bad the fact is, Mutually Assured Destruction ignited the Korea and Vietnam wars, so looks like you and the fried jews are wrong.
No, I didn't call you stupid for pointing out Ayn Rand's real name, which is well known to everybody who has bothered to read the first line of her Wikipedia biography. However, if you think you made any sort of astonishing discovery by pointing this out, then yes, you are indeed stupid. And yes, if you claim a person advocates Marxism just because of his ethnic origin, even when he doesn't, then yes, you ARE stupid. You are not even remotely trying to be logical.
There are no legitimate critiques of "jews" as you put it. If you haven't noticed, people are INDIVIDUALS. And people like you who lump them into groups and create class warfare and racial warfare are no different from the likes of Joe Stalin or Fidel Castro. As long as your will is imposed on those around you its all good, right? Wait till its someone else's will. Wait till somebody has a problem with your race, or religion, Fascism.
@Bigturns33 Do you? Because she is. The term 'left" includes Classical Liberals i.e. Libertarians as well as Anarcho-Capitalists on the far left spectrum. The left you are considering is a more new idea of Progressive Liberals, which are socialistic, largely different from the Classical, which are Libertarian. I implore you to research this yourself, you will find it to be true.
@EuroAmericanReich You are clearly sick in the head seeing everybody who criticizes you as Marxist and anybody born of Jewish ancestry as Marxist too, even the twentieth century's most ardent anti-Communist. It is difficult to imagine how it is possible to be more wrong. But then again somebody who chooses to identify himself as a Nazi is clearly more interested in appearing shocking than having a political discussion with anybody. Troll off, loser.
Nazism and Communism are fundamentally and inherently collectivist philosophies, which reject individual rights in favor of the collective, which makes them far more similar than their brain-dead adherents would like to admit, regardless of any political strifes they may have had with each other. The enmity between Nazism and Communism weren't over major differences on a philosophical level, but rather on cosmetic differences of how to implement their sick utopian fantasies.
@Akatam0t0ma Sorry bud, your amateur analysis remains worthless.
Nazism rejects equality in favor of freedom and order, and Communism rejects freedom in favor of equality.
What you said is hollywood fairy tale nonsense, something reminiscent of 1984. Nazi's had more personal rights, and more business rights. Than Americans do today. In fact the Nazi gestapo only had 1 officer for every 2000+ Germans. Americans have more spies on their own populace in peace time.
"Nazism rejects equality in favor of freedom and order"
No, it didn't. Order was imposed top-down, by a total state, which to say was "in favor of freedom" is to violate the law of non-contradication. After all, Nazism wasn't called National SOCIALISM for nothing.
"Nazi's had more personal rights, and more business rights. Than Americans do today."
Even if that is true(which coming from a self-styled Nazi is highly doubtful), how would that in any way would prove the...
@Akatam0t0ma LOL you are now using the "National SOCIALISM" argument?
Hitler from his speech in Munich 1922. "NATIONAL and SOCIAL are IDENTICAL CONCEPTS, it was only the JEW through hijacking the SOCIAL ideal and associating it with Marxism thus representing the NATIONAL and SOCIAL ideals as UTTERLY CONTRADICTORY".
You just aren't learned enough about the times Hitler was around in, and the vocabulary. Nazi Germans had Gun Rights, and private economy. Things USA takes away.
@Akatam0t0ma Also kid, as an American Nazi I have a different view on some things as German Nazi's or Japanese Nazi's etc. A Nazi is simply someone who defends their nation and culture from International Communism (George Soros, Andy Stern, Abraham Foxman, Mark Potok) or International Zionism (Rahm Emmanuel, Ben "Shalom" Bernanke, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Murray Rothstein, Rupert Murdoch)
Fools like you would let these criminals keep looting us from within for another half century.
...validity of Nazism? Of course, it doesn't. If anything, it would only prove how far America has distanced itself from the ideal of individual freedom. And since the Nazi state crushed any dissent, confiscated people's property based on their ethnic origin and eliminated personal freedom, your claim that it respected freedom is a lie. Freedom, in order to work, need to be extended to ALL people, regardless of their race and ethnic origin. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless.
So as a person who doesn't believe in individual rights, but only in collective rights, based on people's ethnic origin and skin color, any attempt of your to lecture anyone about freedom ends up as a laughable farce and irony of the highest order,and your utter lack of sense of humor only serves to amplify that irony.Please,don't try to insult anyone's intelligence here by claiming that you support freedom, if you want to be taken seriously,let alone hope to convince anyone.
@Akatam0t0ma Listen, clearly you are an emotional trainwreck and incapable of dealing with the facts on hand without going on one of your Political Correctness Tel-Avivision rants I'll be quick.
Did you not hear a word I said? Nazi's favored FREEDOM over EQUALITY. Nazi's were HEAVY on the value of the INDIVIDUAL. Hitler said "It is not the mass that thinks or invents but ONE man the individual".
Collective rights was something that you made up in your head, and then tried to present as fact.
I don't give a damn about political correctness, and again, as someone who calls the one of last century's most ardent anti-Communists a "Marxist" by virtue of ethnic origins, you are in no position to lecture anyone about logic. The historical FACT is that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian COLLECTIVIST state, just like the Soviet Union. If Nazis were "HEAVY on the value of the INDIVIDUAL", they shouldn't have looted the PRIVATE property of its Jewish citizenry.
@Akatam0t0ma Jewish citizenry? That is a contradictory statement, Jews hold Dual Citizenship, and jews have been the MOST CRITICAL SPIES FOR THE USSR IN THE USA.
What kind of RACIST demand is it to say that EVERY WHITE EUROPEAN NATION MUST ACCEPT JEWS?
Since they did, to say that they were "pro individual" is a futile attempt to insult a person's intelligence. Now, if you want to "defend your nation and culture", go right ahead, so long as you don't do that by engaging in aggressive violence against those who disagree with you, either directly, or by using the coercive state apparatus. Otherwise, you are just fighting a futile war of trying the same ideas that made Nazism the biggest political failure of the last century.
So while pro-freedom people will, as they should, support your right to hold your views, vile as they are, if you try to impose your putrid and intellectually bankrupt philosophy using the guns of the state, you and your ilk will be opposed fiercely. So, do you support leaving people alone to pursue their individuals ends, regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin and views? If not, then please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of those who know better.
@Akatam0t0ma Look bud, I'm already opposed fiercely, by Communists, and Zionists.
Read the Naturalization law of 1790. The founding fathers would agree with me. I respect any race that respects MY culture and MY national borders. I will do the same. However white people deserve our racial homelands that we died creating out of nothing.
Like I said, Naturalization law of 1790, and no more emotional whining please, enough already, facts at hand, thank you.
@Akatam0t0ma Look at your channel! You are so full of it! You are prattling on about "regardless of race, ethnicity etc" While your channel you are talking all this crap about Islam and muslims. If someone says the same thing about Jews, you all of the sudden put on this fake mask of tolerance and brotherhood.
Why are you such a worthless hypocrite with zero morals or any concrete values?
So because Rand is jewish and argues against Socialism and Communism, is pro-capitalism and rational self interest means she's a marxist? Wow, you really need a better argument than that. its so incredibly ridiculous.
To borrow from John Lennon (whom I'm sure you hate) : But if you go carrying pictures of der Fuhrer.
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.
You'll never get anyone to agree with you if you spout nonsense like you do.
@EuroAmericanReich isn't that a slippery slope fallacy, also Hiter Backed Franco in the war, and Ayn Rand was not a Marxist, like I said if she's a Marxist then Hitler's a communist and Dawklins a creationist, and Hovind's an atheist
@LogicalThinker667 The republicans sent the gold of the entire Spanish Empire to the USSR. Just because Hitler backed Franco that makes him bad?
Consider this, Hitler backed Franco, which immediately supports Franco as a positive force in history.
Spain's destiny was not to become a soviet puppet state, sorry bud. Also, how is Hitler bad anyway again? Looking back Nazi policies actually made an extremely unified and comfortable society.
@EuroAmericanReich well what about other societies, many countries in Europe embrace the left, and guess what there still Democratic, Also I never said Franco was bad, I just said Hitler backed him that is it. You are riddles with a slippery slope fallacies if you think the left someone how leads to Marxism
@LogicalThinker667 It does lead to marxism, every left party ended up under Communist military leadership in Spain, the "Democratic" Government sent the Spanish gold to the USSR. Many FLED to the USSR to live. Talking about riddles and slippery slopes adds nothing.
Hitler was elected democratically, so what of it? Why did you bring up democracy and other nonsense? I was talking about the left always ending up in military control of communism, and look what you went on about.
I suppose black people equal the easter bunny. You Fascists fall for all the same bullshit as Communists, you just don't realize it. More state power, more control. You just think its "good control." You give the State that much power, and someone is going to use it against you someday. be careful what you wish for.
Why do women like this never run for Office? Why are the only women in politics hucksters like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Sara Palin, and Nancy Pelosi?
@DanielDamascusKimery They suffer from the delusion that they need to control others completely. Most of the people who are in government today have psychotic personality disorders.
@DanielDamascusKimery because those of us who know the true nature of government, and of freedom, of whatever gender, refuse to be thieves, and to shore up a system that inevitably turns its beneficiaries into such. One cannot use evil means to good ends. One cannot initiate force with the goal of lessening or abolishing the initiation of force. All such endeavors are corrupted by the system the purport to change.
I did not know that Ayn Rand could have such a poor reasoning. She is making gross simplifications of conservatism and general straw man arguments. The reasoning is not even worth a further comment.
She argues against the American form of conservatism, which is today a little more than the warfare/nanny state denomination of the Cult of the Omnipotant State. And an argument can never cover every single nuance, especially of political labels, which change their meanings very rapidly in this day and age.
The founders were both men of God and of science. Faith and reason. God before them was used to oppress the average man while science is the growing trend today. Or at least the bastardization of those ideals. The founders were smarter than most because they said o.k. two can play that game and said all men are created equal and generally speaking free from one another, thanks guys, defeating nobility. Just the same with science today, it is no more a master. Just the same trick with a new mask.
Libertypen, you are easily the best channel of politics and political philosophy on youtube. Popularizing the philosophies of Friedman, Sowell, Williams, Rand is a great public service.
@LogicalFlawDetector yes to all of the above, except rand. Rand is what more than anything else discredits capitalism in the minds of potential converts. Almost as many people are communists, socialists, or just liberals today because of being exposed to her stupid and overrated philosophies than are because of the work of Noam Chomsky. Had they read Wealth of Nations in stead of Atlas Shrugged, they may very well have become libertarians. Thanks you ugly russian psychopath, thanks.
It stings to hear my hero speak of conservatism in that way but she has described today's establishment Republicans with an eerie accuracy. The Tea Party conservatives are closer to Ayn Rand's views and represent generally what I think conservatism should be about. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, objectivism and conservatism will find more common ground as additional establishment Republicans are voted out of office and replaced by Tea Party conservatives.
@SUCKITHARD02 "The Constitution is dead but natural rights are not. Climb down out of your tree monkey people and fight for your natural rights to live free in a tree society and proclaim monkey evilution as a belief system."
I view my political views as conservative and I view myself as a modern American conservative but I agree with much of what Rand said. The best way to defend capitalism is with logic and rationality like by mentioning its effects in America's history like promoting entrepreneurship, innovation, and skilled labor or how it created the middle class. I always defended capitalism not because of tradition but because it helps the most people by creating greater opportunities for a better life.
@cevansroxy "Without God, there would be no liberty."
Strange how God always pops up to stifle discovery and knowledge, imposing his sick and twisted so-called "morality" on people who should rightly stand up against such a dictator and defend logic.
When I see what has happened to the Conservatives in my country it makes me realise how correct Ayn Rand is. Conservatives disgust me even more than Socialists nowadays. Socialists are the maggots and Conservatives the turd they fester in.
Like religious people, statist will not listen to reason, or logic, they will always special plead for their god, the government. Religion, and statism, pretty much are about the same amount of reason, which is really none, nor are the even based on a foundation of logical, and critical thinking, but they are all about growing their religion, and labeling outsiders as evil, to keep it going, such as Catholicism, does to 'heretics.' Science, reason, logic , and evidence are not valid for statism
Conservative(s) in the modern day are not conservative, but they are quasi form of liberal socialistic, with religious connotations, and they still support the Depart of War, and the Military Industrial Complex's goal to spread 'democracy' and 'freedom.' Conservatives, have been a large part in spreading the cancer of statism, so the empirical evidence says other wise. Statism, like religion, is a faith based belief system, based on superstition, falsehoods, emotion, and mysticism.
@KevZen2000 That is because statism and religion are both forms of collectivism, which are all, at their essence, attempts to use the herd mentality to conquer individual liberty.
@fzqlcs. Totally agree. Welcome to the heretic club, like me, we have bad mouth the god of the government, so now we are 'excommunicated' by the church of Statism. No matter what reason will prevail, so its a matter of time,when the statist god, is debunked, like all the other gods, of the past. Just sit back, and laugh at the madness of the statist religion.
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Therefore when one accepts something by faith, it dose NOT mean he has given up all reason about other things. Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith.
@ka7krz "Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith.
Charlie"So your should suspend your judgement if faith tells youthat you are in love with a man, even though in other contexts your rational judgement would say that this man is beating you or this man is cheating on you ?
A realization that God is the origin of our freedoms is not conceding rational arguments, or abandonment of rationality.
The American system of Capitalism is not old, it is new. "Our Ancestors" was a group of the most intelligent men for the last 200 years in the field of government, and political science. We follow their writings today because they set forth a foundation in a way that has never been done before or since.
Perhaps the reason why capitalism and conservatism coincide with reason is because faith's teaching of moral principle is rational. She refers to it as mysticism as a way of diminishing it's impact on society. Why reason and faith have to be mutually exclusive in this respect is, itself an irrational argument.
@rizziriz The founders of America were men of faith, and utilized the morality taught to them by faith as justification for the establishment of our constitution. Their faith coincided with their reason as men of intellect. Rand is wrong to disavow this in her argument. Also, I know not one conservative that concedes in the rationality of communism or socialism.
@rizziriz Capitalism has always held the moral high ground, but not for the reasons of faith. It's true that our opposition detests religion, and when we associate arguments for capitalism with "mysticism," It gives our opponents strength and a stronger conviction. One of the reasons I use to be a communist, was because the right excluded my "rational" arguments, because of my lack of faith. I think Rand has a good point.
@rizziriz So without a common faith, there would not have been morality? That is absurd. Just like I do not need a state providing morality at the barrel of a gun, I don't need religion providing morality either. It is something we inherit as human beings, and more so how we are raised by our parents, whether they are religious or not.
@LogicalThinker667 That is a myth only a handful were "deists", the vast majority were Christians in the real sense. Read about the prayer sessions they had at the Constitutional Convention for instance.
@rizziriz Faith and reason are mutually exclusive for this reason: Faith = a belief in that for which their is no evidence. Reason = a belief based on evidence. If one puts faith above reason, reason no longer exists for them in any real sense.
@fzqlcs Conservatives do concede to communism or socialism. When one associates religion with a political system, that system begins to erode as society "progresses" in ideas and freedom. I think that's what she was pointing out. Every system that based itself on religious doctrine has almost been destroyed since the Age of Enlightenment. Therefor, basing capitalism, or the American economic system on faith for morality is self defeating.
@fzqlcs That isn't true. Reason is drawing the same conclusion given the same input and the same method for solving it. For example: I am sure you believe the world revolves around the earth, but how do you know? have you done the math? have you seen it? you take it on faith that the book you read it from did the math. Or the scientists that approved it checked the work, but you actually have no idea. In this world, you cannot live life without faith.
@bluefootedpig That the Earth revolves around the sun (I am sure that is what you meant) is knowable. How the Earth was created or if a supreme being exists is not. The former is reason, the latter is faith. Faith is fine as long as it is not placed above reason. Consider that no suicide bomber has ever been motivated by reason.
@fzqlcs Yes, I did mean the earth revolving around the sun, but how do you know? have you done the study yourself? or do you take it on faith by what others have told you? How is that different than some "holy book" telling you how the earth was created? Both are taken on the word of another person, and really, until you can prove it yourself, you are taking it on faith. Also, if you change the method of processing the information, your reason can arrive at two different answers.
@bluefootedpig No, if you could prove the existence of a higher power beyond any doubt, I would of course accept such as fact. However, if you could prove your beliefs, what would be the value of faith?
@bluefootedpig I don't believe anything you claim, especially since you also admit to being a mystic. The standard of evidence you set and which I agreed to accept was evidence beyond any doubt.
She was an evil woman.
Cakerolled 1 week ago
This is like the only thing she said that was smart.
HoGraz 2 months ago
Ayn Rand for president!
islamiscrap8888 3 months ago 4
@islamiscrap8888 Funny you say that, she was once asked wether she would vote for a female candidate for president that also happened to be the best qualified for the job, and she said no, because she can't see women as leaders.
TheStrangerInTheRye 2 months ago
@TheStrangerInTheRye you have to keep in mind at the time women where not allowed to join the military. you would have a women commanding men to go and die for there county while women are not allowed to do the same, remember what she said ," to have women as COMMANDER IN CHIEF of the United States of American I find to be repulsive." It would have been lovely if they gave more time to answer but the question was asked at the end of the show.
islamiscrap8888 2 months ago
@islamiscrap8888
She would not vote for herself as she repeatedly stated.
outsidemendham 1 month ago
@outsidemendham I'm pretty sure in today's political climate should most definitively would vote for herself.
islamiscrap8888 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@islamiscrap8888 Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
islamiscrap8888 3 months ago
Capitalism is simply seeing that we the non-nobles of the world demand the right to make wealth like the birth right of nobles had. He or she who owns the means of production, not a title (entitlement of aristocracy) gives us the right to be rulers of society. Thus capitalism is about democratizing aristocratic rule among those who own the wealth.
Foreshadow44 4 months ago
Wow! This woman hit the nail on the head over 50 years ago. Wake up, liberals, and stop taking America down this road it will kill this country!
marksuave25 7 months ago
Heh.. I imagined reaching a state of "full moral certainty" by way of the empirical framework of reasoning. It might be possible if I were always a little intoxicated, but that would mean I was only deluding myself.
mhearstify 9 months ago
thank you LibertyPen
I had no idea there was so much Ayn Rand recorded material
this will be my next channel vid
maskedphrogg 10 months ago
Despite the fact that Democrats are mainstream capitalists, and light years (that's a measure of distance, for you Christian Republicans, illiterate and aliterate) away from socialism, I'd like to ask, What is so great about capitalism ? And why are so many Republicans OLD and POOR? They had time to get rich under capitalism, and then didn't. What went wrong ? Just lame ? "God" hates them ? Weak and stupid ?
beesleeper 10 months ago
Fantastic! Where'd you find this?
caltrop69 10 months ago
I love this lady sssssoooooo much !!
carveawoodeneye 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw
As am I. But using tradition and faith are terrible supports, as Ayn Rand was saying in this video. The reason I brought up monarchies is because we happen to live in a country that was set up by libertarians and secularists, but if it wasn't, I know I'd be libertarian all the same. And faith is just that, faith. No logic behind it. I think saying "donate to us and to charity or else you go to hell" isn't really consensual. And I don't care what you think about Jesus, I don't believe.
handsockpuppet 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw Never called anyone a liberal. Look your drippling all over yourself. Like I said before, no rational basis for your argument. Finance is not evil. It's merely a technology. Read some factual textbooks not conspiracy theories off the internet.
tempss 10 months ago
Bottom line, Milton Friedman, rest in peace. Ayn Rand, rest in perpetual herpes.
Porojukaha 10 months ago
@Porojukaha
Also Friedman was wrong about a fair amount of stuff. F.A. Hayek is better. We can thank old Milty for Ben Bernanke's insanity.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw Guys, whether God exists or not has nothing to do with whether Ayn Rand was a nutter or not. Even if we evolved from monkeys, Ayn Rands philosophies are still the feces of said monkeys. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Ayn Rands existence is proof that at least one person evolved from a monkey. Considering the oval office today, I would contend that possibly several share such genealogy.
Porojukaha 10 months ago
I mean, has she ever even READ the founding fathers? So often did they explicitly say that the principles of freedom were contingent upon a righteous god fearing nation that it becomes quite redundant in their works. Its even in the constitution and the declaration of independencem. "Endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights." yeah rand, religious conservatism TOTALLY violates american values....what an idiot!
Porojukaha 10 months ago
@Porojukaha before you silly trolls mistake me for a religious conservative let me point out. I am not necessarily saying that modern religious conservatism is, in itself, very logical. Its actually pretty stupid for OTHER reasons. But regardless of that, the founding fathers DID found this nation in a deep seated belief in God. Whether God exists or not does not change their opinions on God nor does whether a belief in God is necessary to be moral nor does it change Rands mental retardation.
Porojukaha 10 months ago
@Porojukaha
Rand was an Atheist its true, but she argued from the same side of our founders. Namely, that our "rights' are inalienable, not gifts from the state. Her philosophy is harsh and spiritually I disagree with much of it, but from a political point I agree 100% If you are going to criticize her, go after her ideas with a valid counter argument, otherwise your just joining the collectivist masses who use personal attacks rather then logical arguments.
standupgun 10 months ago
@Porojukaha
Her point was that religious arguments, and arguments relating to tradition are not valid arguments to make for conservatism. And no matter how the founders came to the conclusions is irrelevant to the socio-economic revolution that the United States was. Sure the founders believed in God, and believed that Liberty comes from God. But that has nothing to do with what Rand was talking about. Its irrelevant.
bobdole57 10 months ago
I would contend that Rand attempts to justify capitalism on fallacious grounds. Her ideas are downright illogical. Now there are very good arguments in support of capitalism. She did not use them however. The sad thing is, she took Adam Smith and Nietszche to make her philosophies, but in doing so she took out all the most important parts of both philosophies to make something that is completely nonsensical.
Porojukaha 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw You mad? You must be. You're quoting a 70's nut case that states that Atlas Shrugged is read by communists. A Christian nut case as well. I take it you are one as well. I'm not surprised since your type will believe anything. Happy Easter.
tempss 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw trololol! I am with the uploader. You have no idea what your talking about and you have no rational basis for anything you've said. So do yourself a favor, shut it.
tempss 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw Shut it.
tempss 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw
If that convinces you, so be it, but certainly rational reason is the only way to really determine what is right. Tradition is not something to say something used to say something is right. Europe has a tradition of totalitarian monarchies, so should they go back to an inherited kingship? And "faith" may be all well and good for you, but how can you convince anybody else you're right? I certainly don't believe it. And even if I believed in God, 'bible says Jesus was pretty socialist.
handsockpuppet 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw That would be because you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no rational basis for any of those claims. They all require circular reasoning, logically fallacious statements/arguments, or faith which is not a reasonable criteria for anyone to base their beliefs upon. It is great that you disagree, but your opinion doesn't mean anything unless you have some extremely substantial evidence to back up your claims.
capitalistswine1234 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw That would be because you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no rational basis for any of those claims. They all require circular reasoning, logically fallacious statements/arguments, or faith.
capitalistswine1234 10 months ago
@wtfjaftw That would be because you have no idea what you are talking about and you have no rational basis for any of those claims.
capitalistswine1234 10 months ago
I'm catholic and conservative. I care for the prosperity of people and voluntary giving. I don't care if it's capitalism or some form of it. But socialism and communism is fundamentally opposed to my religious beliefs.
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill there are Christian Marxist
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 I'm sure there are. Christianity has 2 billion people. But communism has been solemnly condemned by previous popes including Pope St. Pius x in 1907 and before that Freemasonary was condemned even before Pope Leo xiii's encyclical Humanum Genus in 1884. Just saying.
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill alright, that's cause a Friend here on YT is a Catholic Socialist, but some don't condemn it like the vatican
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@defgill
Is that how you want to convince OTHER people that socialism and communism are bad? I don't think thats a good way to do it. And i think that is the point of Rand's statements.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@bobdole57 No I'm just trying to say I'm open to whatever brings us prosperity whether that's capitalism or some form of it. Just stating a fact; communism has been condemned by the Catholic Church since forever. I've closed the door on that option.
defgill 10 months ago
@defgill
Well thats good and all, but if somebody is arguing for communism, that argument is not going to convince them. Its good for you, but in persuading others it is much less effective. I have arguments for capitalism (personally I favor it) and against socialism, not all work on all people. the arguments that convince me might not convince anyone else.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@bobdole57 Mine might convince other Catholics that have fallen into apostasy. Other than that I like to start with the premise that noone has the right to my money. And that govt is force. Therefore, more govt is more tyranny. But if you go into specifics it would have to depend on the subject but ultimately it's about freedom.
defgill 10 months ago
Ohh she is so close, so close to reality. I choose the arguement from maximum freedom. To government that can dictate what a man does with what is his can truly allow for liberty. no state that can dictate what a man does with his own body can truly allow for freedom. And no nation that can dictate what a man says can truly allow for reason.
Felhaven 10 months ago
Excellent, as always. Lucid and clear as a bell on the kind of thorny issues that catch others up in contradictions. Not Ayn Rand. What an amazingly prescient and brilliant woman. Like her in person even better than in her books.
thelistener13 10 months ago
I don't mean to post such a silly comment, but I loved how she said "semantic pretzel."
I'll take one semantic pretzel.. hold the grain of salt, please. Ayn Rand is my hero!
adammar5hall 10 months ago
Old school conservatives like Hayek and Buckley were sceptical of "reason" because they feared the belief in perfect rationality could lead to an unlimited government and all kind of social-engineering and experiments - like communism. They defended Christianity out of their desire to restrain political power, not because they wanted to substitute reason with "faith". I am a big fan of Rand however I just can't agree with her take on religion and atheism.
DDG993 10 months ago
Normally I enjoy your videos.
oldsoulify 10 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand?
More like Alisa Rosenbaum.
Jews = Marxism.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
EuroAmericanReich=stupidity.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Akatam0t0ma = worthless in intellectual discussion.
You call me stupid, for making the 100% accurate description of Ayn Rand's real roots as Alisa Rosenbaum, a jew.
Be more of a freak paranoid jew-lover, seriously. Anytime someone gives a legitimate critique of Jews people emotionally plunge off the deep end, rendered incapacitated as far as being intellectually sound of mind and spoken thought.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
She was born a Jew and by your logic that automatically makes her a Marxist. You ignore the fact that she fled communist Russia and dedicated her life to exposing the evils of communism and collectivism. She was also an Atheist.
Become better informed, troll.
dubscheckem1 10 months ago
Thats right Dubscheckem. She and her family did not practice Judaism at all. Her last name is Rosenbalm. It would be like a black man with the sir name of Gordon in America, "Is he Scottish" Ofcourse not. The logic is silly. Your name does not show who you are or your character. Rand was a Atheist in the complete sense.
Bigturns33 10 months ago
@dubscheckem1 Better informed? You are naive, and gullible. How many Russian jews would end up becoming CRITICAL SPIES FOR THE USSR THAT CHANGED HISTORY?
Like the "American" Jews Julius & Ethel Rosenberg that gave the USSR the a-bomb, which then gave us Mutually Assured Destruction, igniting the korea/vietnam war?
Cry me a river, and pretend jews are above criticism. You only make yourself out to be an emotional train-wreck.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
What has any of that to do with Ayn Rand? Again, you generalize all Jews into a collective group ignoring the fact that people are individuals. You're the only one here who cares that she happened to be born into a Jewish family.
Again, become informed before typing racist nonsense.
dubscheckem1 10 months ago
@dubscheckem1 No, I don't, there are plenty of good jews out there, Benjamin Freedman, Alfred Rosenberg, Emil Maurice. You are falling back on the "racist" mantra because you are uneducated.
It's not "Anti italian" to call the mafia italian (even though in reality it is jewish), yet if you call Communsim jewish people get upset, even though it was invented and led by jews.
Your emotional reaction is something you've been trained for all your life. Good job sheep.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
Nonsense. The only emotional one here is you. Again, how is Rand a Marxist? Because she happened to be born into a certain ethnicity, thereby making her of the wrong political identity?
dubscheckem1 10 months ago
@dubscheckem1 Listen to her own words. The ends of her politics leaves people worthless and base selfish degenerates. There are many roads to bolshevism. Anarchism, Liberalism, Socialism, Democracy, anything that is not traditionalist or nationalist is susceptible to bolshevik infiltration.
FDR's close advisors Alger Hiss, and Dean Acheson were both convicted soviet spies. All because whiny little worms cry when nationalists do us true justice by pointing out the traitor within.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
*sigh*
Advocating freedom is not the road to Bolshevism. However, advocating any form of collectivism is, whether it be racial or religious or social. It seems that you are more on the side of socialism than anyone else if you make such sweeping statements about an entire group of people based only on the arbitrary circumstance of birth.
Listen to yourself, and check your premises.
dubscheckem1 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
Also nonsense. Pure free market capitalism can't be susceptible to Bolshevism or Marxism AS THERE IS NO MEANS TO ENFORCE OR IMPLEMENT IT. WITHOUT THE POWER OF THE STATE (THAT YOU LOVE) IT CAN NOT HAPPEN. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. So get your facts right.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@bobdole57 America was "Pure free market" capitalism, and now the government owns over 30% of the economy.
Looks like all your huffing and puffing doesn't change the truth. Unless an anti-marxist pro-nationalist stance is ingrained in the nation, it will always fall apart from within.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
America was never pure free market capitalism. It always had the force of the state which allowed the state to steal and regulate. The mistake is the State itself. Your fascist state can evolve into communism just as easily, over 200 years. Only a stateless society without voting, without monopolistic power can prevent the use of illegitimate force by Government that is Communism.
Nationalism will devolve into despotism and marxism.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@bobdole57 Never has a Fascist state in history even touched Marxism, in fact they were the only group on Earth to join in a war against marxism, what you say is literally the opposite of what history tells us.
Nationalism is the only real unifying force with human beings.
Groups that preach statelessness, end up being merged with communists, like the anarchists/leftists in spanish civil war, or anywhere where communists succeed, you lie to say Nazi's = Communism, Nazis invaded USSR
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
I suppose all that Hitler and Mussolini stuff ended real well. And Germany today has no Marxist tendencies at all. No Fascist state has ever touched Marxism? Show me a Fascist state period! None of them exist for very long, and when it all falls apart they become Marxist socialists.
Nazis invaded the USSR, sure, and eventually the Communists invaded Germany. Thats called equivalence.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@bobdole57 Francisco Franco signed the Anti-CominternPact, and merged the Fascist/Monarch parties into one Nationalist party. Spain's king still controls the military, and a majority of the Spanish populace still hold Axis world-view.
The USSR turning DDR into puppet state is not a good argument even from the spiteful brat standpoint of "Haha you lost ww2". The Germans constantly rose up all the time and even the DDR propaganda press blamed it on "Fascists". Foot = in your mouth.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
I'm not talking about east germany, i'm talking about Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Germany today, and most of Europe today. these countries are all falling into marxism, just as you claim the US is.
And my bit about the Nazi's loosing world war 2 isn't a spiteful one, its a practical one. Nationalism has a tendency to end that way, its just how it goes. In the same way socialism brings poverty and misery, Nationalism fails and brings on communism and collectivism.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich "Never has a Fascist state in history even touched Marxism" I guess that's why it was called the 'National Socialist German Workers' Party'
dubified89 8 months ago
@dubified89 Socialism wasn't associated with marxism back then, Hitler's speech in Munich 1922 he even says "It was only the Jew using the media associated the term with Marxism, he has succeeded in divorcing the social idea from the national."
EuroAmericanReich 8 months ago
@dubified89
In principle, the Government will not protect the economic interests of the German people by the circuitous method of an economic bureaucracy to be organized by the State, but by the utmost furtherance of private initiative and by the recognition of the rights of property... ~ Adolf Hitler. Berlin, Reichstag -- Speech of March 23, 1933
EuroAmericanReich 8 months ago
@bobdole57
Only INDIVIDUALISM can prevent collectivism and marxism. INDIVIDUALISM is the ANTITHESIS of Marxism, Nationalism is congruent to it. nationalism suffers the same faults, flaws and will arrive in a situation where the question is no longer whats best for the State but what is instead best for the common, collectivist good. And you will have your Communism.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich Actually Julias and Ethel did you a favour. Can you imagine how dangerous a world with just one nuclear armed state would be, able to hold all the others hostage?
In fact, the more nuclear armed countries there are, the safer the world is.
theredraven 10 months ago
@theredraven Yes, that is the backwards jew logic that they used themselves. Too bad the fact is, Mutually Assured Destruction ignited the Korea and Vietnam wars, so looks like you and the fried jews are wrong.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
No, I didn't call you stupid for pointing out Ayn Rand's real name, which is well known to everybody who has bothered to read the first line of her Wikipedia biography. However, if you think you made any sort of astonishing discovery by pointing this out, then yes, you are indeed stupid. And yes, if you claim a person advocates Marxism just because of his ethnic origin, even when he doesn't, then yes, you ARE stupid. You are not even remotely trying to be logical.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
There are no legitimate critiques of "jews" as you put it. If you haven't noticed, people are INDIVIDUALS. And people like you who lump them into groups and create class warfare and racial warfare are no different from the likes of Joe Stalin or Fidel Castro. As long as your will is imposed on those around you its all good, right? Wait till its someone else's will. Wait till somebody has a problem with your race, or religion, Fascism.
Anarcho-capitalism is the true good.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
Also,
Nazism=Communism.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma wrong Kid, Nazism was the originator of the ANTI COMINTERN PACT. That history lesson was free.
Also,
Ayn Rand?
More like Alisa Rosenbaum.
Jews once again center stage in left wing/marxist theology.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
Are you an idiot. Rand is no where near the left. Do you even understand what that means?
Bigturns33 10 months ago
@Bigturns33 Do you? Because she is. The term 'left" includes Classical Liberals i.e. Libertarians as well as Anarcho-Capitalists on the far left spectrum. The left you are considering is a more new idea of Progressive Liberals, which are socialistic, largely different from the Classical, which are Libertarian. I implore you to research this yourself, you will find it to be true.
Killedkennyagain 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich Fuck off racist slimeball.
MartinJWillett 10 months ago
@MartinJWillett Yes the whole world knows i'm "Racist", anything to say that has a point, marxist swine?
Naturalization law of 1790, Founding Fathers are on my side.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich You are clearly sick in the head seeing everybody who criticizes you as Marxist and anybody born of Jewish ancestry as Marxist too, even the twentieth century's most ardent anti-Communist. It is difficult to imagine how it is possible to be more wrong. But then again somebody who chooses to identify himself as a Nazi is clearly more interested in appearing shocking than having a political discussion with anybody. Troll off, loser.
MartinJWillett 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
Nazism and Communism are fundamentally and inherently collectivist philosophies, which reject individual rights in favor of the collective, which makes them far more similar than their brain-dead adherents would like to admit, regardless of any political strifes they may have had with each other. The enmity between Nazism and Communism weren't over major differences on a philosophical level, but rather on cosmetic differences of how to implement their sick utopian fantasies.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Sorry bud, your amateur analysis remains worthless.
Nazism rejects equality in favor of freedom and order, and Communism rejects freedom in favor of equality.
What you said is hollywood fairy tale nonsense, something reminiscent of 1984. Nazi's had more personal rights, and more business rights. Than Americans do today. In fact the Nazi gestapo only had 1 officer for every 2000+ Germans. Americans have more spies on their own populace in peace time.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
"Nazism rejects equality in favor of freedom and order"
No, it didn't. Order was imposed top-down, by a total state, which to say was "in favor of freedom" is to violate the law of non-contradication. After all, Nazism wasn't called National SOCIALISM for nothing.
"Nazi's had more personal rights, and more business rights. Than Americans do today."
Even if that is true(which coming from a self-styled Nazi is highly doubtful), how would that in any way would prove the...
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma LOL you are now using the "National SOCIALISM" argument?
Hitler from his speech in Munich 1922. "NATIONAL and SOCIAL are IDENTICAL CONCEPTS, it was only the JEW through hijacking the SOCIAL ideal and associating it with Marxism thus representing the NATIONAL and SOCIAL ideals as UTTERLY CONTRADICTORY".
You just aren't learned enough about the times Hitler was around in, and the vocabulary. Nazi Germans had Gun Rights, and private economy. Things USA takes away.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Also kid, as an American Nazi I have a different view on some things as German Nazi's or Japanese Nazi's etc. A Nazi is simply someone who defends their nation and culture from International Communism (George Soros, Andy Stern, Abraham Foxman, Mark Potok) or International Zionism (Rahm Emmanuel, Ben "Shalom" Bernanke, Henry Kissinger, Alan Greenspan, Murray Rothstein, Rupert Murdoch)
Fools like you would let these criminals keep looting us from within for another half century.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
...validity of Nazism? Of course, it doesn't. If anything, it would only prove how far America has distanced itself from the ideal of individual freedom. And since the Nazi state crushed any dissent, confiscated people's property based on their ethnic origin and eliminated personal freedom, your claim that it respected freedom is a lie. Freedom, in order to work, need to be extended to ALL people, regardless of their race and ethnic origin. Otherwise, it becomes meaningless.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
So as a person who doesn't believe in individual rights, but only in collective rights, based on people's ethnic origin and skin color, any attempt of your to lecture anyone about freedom ends up as a laughable farce and irony of the highest order,and your utter lack of sense of humor only serves to amplify that irony.Please,don't try to insult anyone's intelligence here by claiming that you support freedom, if you want to be taken seriously,let alone hope to convince anyone.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Listen, clearly you are an emotional trainwreck and incapable of dealing with the facts on hand without going on one of your Political Correctness Tel-Avivision rants I'll be quick.
Did you not hear a word I said? Nazi's favored FREEDOM over EQUALITY. Nazi's were HEAVY on the value of the INDIVIDUAL. Hitler said "It is not the mass that thinks or invents but ONE man the individual".
Collective rights was something that you made up in your head, and then tried to present as fact.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
I don't give a damn about political correctness, and again, as someone who calls the one of last century's most ardent anti-Communists a "Marxist" by virtue of ethnic origins, you are in no position to lecture anyone about logic. The historical FACT is that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian COLLECTIVIST state, just like the Soviet Union. If Nazis were "HEAVY on the value of the INDIVIDUAL", they shouldn't have looted the PRIVATE property of its Jewish citizenry.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Jewish citizenry? That is a contradictory statement, Jews hold Dual Citizenship, and jews have been the MOST CRITICAL SPIES FOR THE USSR IN THE USA.
What kind of RACIST demand is it to say that EVERY WHITE EUROPEAN NATION MUST ACCEPT JEWS?
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
Since they did, to say that they were "pro individual" is a futile attempt to insult a person's intelligence. Now, if you want to "defend your nation and culture", go right ahead, so long as you don't do that by engaging in aggressive violence against those who disagree with you, either directly, or by using the coercive state apparatus. Otherwise, you are just fighting a futile war of trying the same ideas that made Nazism the biggest political failure of the last century.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich:
So while pro-freedom people will, as they should, support your right to hold your views, vile as they are, if you try to impose your putrid and intellectually bankrupt philosophy using the guns of the state, you and your ilk will be opposed fiercely. So, do you support leaving people alone to pursue their individuals ends, regardless of their race, ethnicity, national origin and views? If not, then please, stop trying to insult the intelligence of those who know better.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Look bud, I'm already opposed fiercely, by Communists, and Zionists.
Read the Naturalization law of 1790. The founding fathers would agree with me. I respect any race that respects MY culture and MY national borders. I will do the same. However white people deserve our racial homelands that we died creating out of nothing.
Like I said, Naturalization law of 1790, and no more emotional whining please, enough already, facts at hand, thank you.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich Your natural homeland is back here in Europe then.
theredraven 10 months ago
@theredraven Don't forget Kennewick man, Nevada 7,000b.c.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@Akatam0t0ma Look at your channel! You are so full of it! You are prattling on about "regardless of race, ethnicity etc" While your channel you are talking all this crap about Islam and muslims. If someone says the same thing about Jews, you all of the sudden put on this fake mask of tolerance and brotherhood.
Why are you such a worthless hypocrite with zero morals or any concrete values?
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
So because Rand is jewish and argues against Socialism and Communism, is pro-capitalism and rational self interest means she's a marxist? Wow, you really need a better argument than that. its so incredibly ridiculous.
To borrow from John Lennon (whom I'm sure you hate) : But if you go carrying pictures of der Fuhrer.
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow.
You'll never get anyone to agree with you if you spout nonsense like you do.
bobdole57 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich Calling Ayn Rand a Marxist is like calling Richard Dawkins a Christian Creationist
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 All leftist ideology results in Marxism, lessons of Spanish Civil War.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich isn't that a slippery slope fallacy, also Hiter Backed Franco in the war, and Ayn Rand was not a Marxist, like I said if she's a Marxist then Hitler's a communist and Dawklins a creationist, and Hovind's an atheist
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 The republicans sent the gold of the entire Spanish Empire to the USSR. Just because Hitler backed Franco that makes him bad?
Consider this, Hitler backed Franco, which immediately supports Franco as a positive force in history.
Spain's destiny was not to become a soviet puppet state, sorry bud. Also, how is Hitler bad anyway again? Looking back Nazi policies actually made an extremely unified and comfortable society.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich well what about other societies, many countries in Europe embrace the left, and guess what there still Democratic, Also I never said Franco was bad, I just said Hitler backed him that is it. You are riddles with a slippery slope fallacies if you think the left someone how leads to Marxism
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 It does lead to marxism, every left party ended up under Communist military leadership in Spain, the "Democratic" Government sent the Spanish gold to the USSR. Many FLED to the USSR to live. Talking about riddles and slippery slopes adds nothing.
Hitler was elected democratically, so what of it? Why did you bring up democracy and other nonsense? I was talking about the left always ending up in military control of communism, and look what you went on about.
EuroAmericanReich 10 months ago
@EuroAmericanReich
I suppose black people equal the easter bunny. You Fascists fall for all the same bullshit as Communists, you just don't realize it. More state power, more control. You just think its "good control." You give the State that much power, and someone is going to use it against you someday. be careful what you wish for.
Fascists = Statists = Communists. Hows that?
bobdole57 10 months ago
Why do women like this never run for Office? Why are the only women in politics hucksters like Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Sara Palin, and Nancy Pelosi?
DanielDamascusKimery 10 months ago 15
@DanielDamascusKimery Maybe because women like this realize political action is impractical.
StatelessRich 10 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery They suffer from the delusion that they need to control others completely. Most of the people who are in government today have psychotic personality disorders.
EltonJThe 10 months ago
@EltonJThe Amen. You just made a new friend.
DanielDamascusKimery 10 months ago
@DanielDamascusKimery because those of us who know the true nature of government, and of freedom, of whatever gender, refuse to be thieves, and to shore up a system that inevitably turns its beneficiaries into such. One cannot use evil means to good ends. One cannot initiate force with the goal of lessening or abolishing the initiation of force. All such endeavors are corrupted by the system the purport to change.
XantheBard 10 months ago
4 people who dislike this video think they gain some greater knowledge over reason by merely having "faith"... or the more recently popular "hope"...
sbank 10 months ago
even though I am not a libertarian, this is pretty damn good and I completely agree with her on conservatives
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 Ayn Rand was also not a libertarian, but an objectivist. She called libertarians "hippies of the right". I'm not sure why.
machaeroguy 10 months ago
@machaeroguy really?
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 Sry, I have to correct that statement. She referred to anarcho-capitalists as "Hippies of the right".
machaeroguy 10 months ago
@machaeroguy oh, alright
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
Thank you for uploading these videos.
lashkaretoiba 10 months ago
I did not know that Ayn Rand could have such a poor reasoning. She is making gross simplifications of conservatism and general straw man arguments. The reasoning is not even worth a further comment.
enevighet17 10 months ago
@enevighet17:
She argues against the American form of conservatism, which is today a little more than the warfare/nanny state denomination of the Cult of the Omnipotant State. And an argument can never cover every single nuance, especially of political labels, which change their meanings very rapidly in this day and age.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
Considering her Russian origin, she is more versed in the English than most americans. What a woman!
yamahaU3 10 months ago
@SUCKITHARD02 "...you're a weak minded tool."
Describing yourself there, bub. Either you really are a loon, or you're just a troll. Methinks you live under a bridge, to be honest.
MagnusIan 10 months ago
The founders were both men of God and of science. Faith and reason. God before them was used to oppress the average man while science is the growing trend today. Or at least the bastardization of those ideals. The founders were smarter than most because they said o.k. two can play that game and said all men are created equal and generally speaking free from one another, thanks guys, defeating nobility. Just the same with science today, it is no more a master. Just the same trick with a new mask.
LokiScoutSniper 10 months ago
Libertypen, you are easily the best channel of politics and political philosophy on youtube. Popularizing the philosophies of Friedman, Sowell, Williams, Rand is a great public service.
LogicalFlawDetector 10 months ago 9
@LogicalFlawDetector yes to all of the above, except rand. Rand is what more than anything else discredits capitalism in the minds of potential converts. Almost as many people are communists, socialists, or just liberals today because of being exposed to her stupid and overrated philosophies than are because of the work of Noam Chomsky. Had they read Wealth of Nations in stead of Atlas Shrugged, they may very well have become libertarians. Thanks you ugly russian psychopath, thanks.
Porojukaha 10 months ago
It stings to hear my hero speak of conservatism in that way but she has described today's establishment Republicans with an eerie accuracy. The Tea Party conservatives are closer to Ayn Rand's views and represent generally what I think conservatism should be about. Perhaps, in the fullness of time, objectivism and conservatism will find more common ground as additional establishment Republicans are voted out of office and replaced by Tea Party conservatives.
TaoMannaDon 10 months ago
@TaoMannaDon
Maybe you are not conservative. Could it be that you are actually libertarian? You called her your hero :)
niklasbastholmhansen 10 months ago
@SUCKITHARD02 "The Constitution is dead but natural rights are not. Climb down out of your tree monkey people and fight for your natural rights to live free in a tree society and proclaim monkey evilution as a belief system."
"Monkey evilution"? You have issues, pal.
MagnusIan 10 months ago
I view my political views as conservative and I view myself as a modern American conservative but I agree with much of what Rand said. The best way to defend capitalism is with logic and rationality like by mentioning its effects in America's history like promoting entrepreneurship, innovation, and skilled labor or how it created the middle class. I always defended capitalism not because of tradition but because it helps the most people by creating greater opportunities for a better life.
Infantry9 10 months ago
Without God, there would be no liberty.
cevansroxy 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cevansroxy "Without God, there would be no liberty."
Strange how God always pops up to stifle discovery and knowledge, imposing his sick and twisted so-called "morality" on people who should rightly stand up against such a dictator and defend logic.
MagnusIan 10 months ago
@cevansroxy Why not?
waksibra 10 months ago
@cevansroxy:
Case in point. Good job proving Ayn Rand right.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
without faith in God, our society is doomed.
cevansroxy 10 months ago
When I see what has happened to the Conservatives in my country it makes me realise how correct Ayn Rand is. Conservatives disgust me even more than Socialists nowadays. Socialists are the maggots and Conservatives the turd they fester in.
coltrane1966 10 months ago
Like religious people, statist will not listen to reason, or logic, they will always special plead for their god, the government. Religion, and statism, pretty much are about the same amount of reason, which is really none, nor are the even based on a foundation of logical, and critical thinking, but they are all about growing their religion, and labeling outsiders as evil, to keep it going, such as Catholicism, does to 'heretics.' Science, reason, logic , and evidence are not valid for statism
KevZen2000 10 months ago
Conservative(s) in the modern day are not conservative, but they are quasi form of liberal socialistic, with religious connotations, and they still support the Depart of War, and the Military Industrial Complex's goal to spread 'democracy' and 'freedom.' Conservatives, have been a large part in spreading the cancer of statism, so the empirical evidence says other wise. Statism, like religion, is a faith based belief system, based on superstition, falsehoods, emotion, and mysticism.
KevZen2000 10 months ago
@KevZen2000 That is because statism and religion are both forms of collectivism, which are all, at their essence, attempts to use the herd mentality to conquer individual liberty.
fzqlcs 10 months ago
@fzqlcs. Totally agree. Welcome to the heretic club, like me, we have bad mouth the god of the government, so now we are 'excommunicated' by the church of Statism. No matter what reason will prevail, so its a matter of time,when the statist god, is debunked, like all the other gods, of the past. Just sit back, and laugh at the madness of the statist religion.
KevZen2000 10 months ago
@KevZen2000:
Considering that statism has its roots in religion, I think the striking similarities between the two are not coincidental.
Akatam0t0ma 10 months ago
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. Therefore when one accepts something by faith, it dose NOT mean he has given up all reason about other things. Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith.
Charlie
ka7krz 10 months ago
@ka7krz "Politics is better left to reason. Love is better left to faith.
Charlie"So your should suspend your judgement if faith tells youthat you are in love with a man, even though in other contexts your rational judgement would say that this man is beating you or this man is cheating on you ?
Pentazoid111 10 months ago
Stunning! Her best speech I've seen!
Adlasyn 10 months ago
A realization that God is the origin of our freedoms is not conceding rational arguments, or abandonment of rationality.
The American system of Capitalism is not old, it is new. "Our Ancestors" was a group of the most intelligent men for the last 200 years in the field of government, and political science. We follow their writings today because they set forth a foundation in a way that has never been done before or since.
Brantoc 10 months ago
sorry Rand, you're wrong...
ZamolxisReborn 10 months ago
What year is this?
NordenzurZukunft 10 months ago
@NordenzurZukunft 2011, most computers contain the date.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
@bluefootedpig I wasn't asking for sarcasm.
NordenzurZukunft 10 months ago
@NordenzurZukunft Depends on how you interrupt your question. If you are asking, "What year is this applicable" it would be today.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
That gave me goosebumps. Are we reaching a precipice or is this all in my head?
scalp340 10 months ago
Perhaps the reason why capitalism and conservatism coincide with reason is because faith's teaching of moral principle is rational. She refers to it as mysticism as a way of diminishing it's impact on society. Why reason and faith have to be mutually exclusive in this respect is, itself an irrational argument.
rizziriz 10 months ago
@rizziriz The founders of America were men of faith, and utilized the morality taught to them by faith as justification for the establishment of our constitution. Their faith coincided with their reason as men of intellect. Rand is wrong to disavow this in her argument. Also, I know not one conservative that concedes in the rationality of communism or socialism.
rizziriz 10 months ago
@rizziriz Capitalism has always held the moral high ground, but not for the reasons of faith. It's true that our opposition detests religion, and when we associate arguments for capitalism with "mysticism," It gives our opponents strength and a stronger conviction. One of the reasons I use to be a communist, was because the right excluded my "rational" arguments, because of my lack of faith. I think Rand has a good point.
groam6666 10 months ago
@rizziriz So without a common faith, there would not have been morality? That is absurd. Just like I do not need a state providing morality at the barrel of a gun, I don't need religion providing morality either. It is something we inherit as human beings, and more so how we are raised by our parents, whether they are religious or not.
NordenzurZukunft 10 months ago
@rizziriz The founders were largely Deist the least devote form of theism they new better than to believe in religion or let religion rule over law
LogicalThinker667 10 months ago
@LogicalThinker667 That is a myth only a handful were "deists", the vast majority were Christians in the real sense. Read about the prayer sessions they had at the Constitutional Convention for instance.
TheBullionBull 10 months ago
@rizziriz Faith and reason are mutually exclusive for this reason: Faith = a belief in that for which their is no evidence. Reason = a belief based on evidence. If one puts faith above reason, reason no longer exists for them in any real sense.
fzqlcs 10 months ago 18
@fzqlcs Conservatives do concede to communism or socialism. When one associates religion with a political system, that system begins to erode as society "progresses" in ideas and freedom. I think that's what she was pointing out. Every system that based itself on religious doctrine has almost been destroyed since the Age of Enlightenment. Therefor, basing capitalism, or the American economic system on faith for morality is self defeating.
groam6666 10 months ago
@fzqlcs That isn't true. Reason is drawing the same conclusion given the same input and the same method for solving it. For example: I am sure you believe the world revolves around the earth, but how do you know? have you done the math? have you seen it? you take it on faith that the book you read it from did the math. Or the scientists that approved it checked the work, but you actually have no idea. In this world, you cannot live life without faith.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
@bluefootedpig That the Earth revolves around the sun (I am sure that is what you meant) is knowable. How the Earth was created or if a supreme being exists is not. The former is reason, the latter is faith. Faith is fine as long as it is not placed above reason. Consider that no suicide bomber has ever been motivated by reason.
fzqlcs 10 months ago
@fzqlcs Yes, I did mean the earth revolving around the sun, but how do you know? have you done the study yourself? or do you take it on faith by what others have told you? How is that different than some "holy book" telling you how the earth was created? Both are taken on the word of another person, and really, until you can prove it yourself, you are taking it on faith. Also, if you change the method of processing the information, your reason can arrive at two different answers.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
@bluefootedpig I am sorry, but if you cannot understand the distinction between the knowable and the unknowable, we have no basis for conversation.
fzqlcs 10 months ago
@fzqlcs So you are saying, that if I could prove without a doubt, that there was a higher power, you would still say that it is not possible?
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
@bluefootedpig No, if you could prove the existence of a higher power beyond any doubt, I would of course accept such as fact. However, if you could prove your beliefs, what would be the value of faith?
fzqlcs 10 months ago
@fzqlcs So then, If I claim I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a higher power exists, you believe me.
bluefootedpig 10 months ago
@bluefootedpig I don't believe anything you claim, especially since you also admit to being a mystic. The standard of evidence you set and which I agreed to accept was evidence beyond any doubt.
fzqlcs 10 months ago