Ayn Rand First Interview 1959 (Full)

In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when "the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear."

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati's plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.

Thank you for watching.

• Category

  Education

[Johnnie Johnson]

Mike Wallace comes off like a petulant child. He also lacks the profound respect that is due this amazing woman.

[Tony Starks]

Not at all. The only thing vague is your response. Every vote cannot count if every vote is for a different item on a list with large choices and limited options. You are voting for nothing then.

The points stands that you cannot separate the government from the people. You cannot disprove that.

English standard has no value on non-English lands. The right of the Native Americans is not dependent upon arbitrary standards of England. That is a total fallacy. And England lead by a king? You lose.

[Degaribay]

No the final statement was a rebuttal to the vague query "anyone who is running the government". No one has a "Greater right" to anything, they did nothing with the land, did not lay claim to it, they sat on it and even moved around from time to time. Also the state is limited in its function to protecting individual rights, had a Native American individual actually "owned" the land in an English common law sense they it would've been their own.

[Tony Starks]

So you need the state to certify your claim to property? Is not then the state greater than an individual? If you claim the individual is not beholden to the state, and the state is less than the individual, then you are in a dilemma. The Native Americans have a right greater than any deed, state certified letter or paper laying claim to property. The Randian contradiction is puzzling. The very act of living on the land prior to Europeans gives the people living their greater claim. You lose.

[flopress]

There are a bunch of spammers on this channel who do not want Ayn Rand's ideas to be discussed. Further proof that she was a genius.

[Degaribay]

The process of nature would take its course, you're personifying things and laying claim to something that "they" when applicable and having not specifically had deeds, rightful ownership, or claim to the land had done. In other words, the Natives in certain cases had no right to the land as they had not developed it, claimed it, or otherwise owned it. No one is running the government, its an impossibility for every vote to ever count, so your last statement is moot

[LosRancidos]

Has anyone actually read Atlas Shrugged? Her philosophy makes no sense. She says that the industrialists work harder, but all of the characters in her book wee born into wealthy families already possessing empires. John Galt works in manual labor his entire life, and look what happens: he goes nowhere. You couldn't run a railroad business in the Utopia, because there are like ten people there. People would just walk. And then Galt speaks for 150 pages? It's garbage.

[Tony Starks]

If I have a yard and I want to let it grow wild, there is nothing you can say to me lay claim to my yard. The Native Americans can let the land grow wild, but European settlers who came to America do not have a "right" to the land greater than the Native Americans, especially if they are subjects of a king.

Again, who is running the government? Your attempts at separating the govt from the people will always fail. 100%. All those encroachments were a combination of the people and the state.

[Degaribay]

The government has had a worse track record of maintaining property rights than any corporation. Just ask Andrew Jackson about that one or any case of eminent domain, the Homestead acts were not coercion the government got out of the way and let settlers develop the land out West that the Native Americans did nothing with. The assumption that they died every time they came into contact is not supported by historical evidence, Indians and traders bartered all the time.