Ayn Rand Interviews

[izi]

A nice collection of Ayn Rand clips from one of her later interviews. This is one of the foundational philosophers of more recent Satanism and is definitely worth a watch, even if one doesn't agree with all of her ideas


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqq4VKh1xM

[m1thr0s]

super interview! i honestly can't stand the woman on a personal level...i get an overwhelming flood of morbid vanity from her aura and general mannerisms, but i do think she took on an important task in her professional life. somebody needed to stand up for individualism in this gung-ho nationalistic shit-fest world of ours. her ability to go right at the jugular of conventional altruism and various other sacred cows is fun to watch. her ideas about capitalism are inexcusably stinted and her ideas about morality are completely dysfunctional in my view but overall i think she will be remembered as a champion of individual rights and liberties. i would not want to live in a world she ruled by any means. she has many of the characteristics of the worst despots in history and would wind up having to be violently deposed. on the plus side - she would probably never consent to the role of *ruler* anyway...

her birthday is the same as mine...she's a fairly classical aquarius actually...she'd probably despise that observation but it's true notwithstanding.

m1

[AfterViewer]

(:DQuoteCLASSIC !) her birthday is the same as mine...she's a fairly classical aquarius actually...she'd probably despise that observation but it's true notwithstanding.

m1

[izi]

The 1959 Mike Wallace interviews


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEruXzQZhNI

[izi]

In my opinion Rand is ignorant of two key factors at play in the world stage today:

1. The pollution of the industrialized world, which is harming others.

Rand was a strong opponent of violence and harming others.

2. The evidence for a collective mind at work without the influence of political collectivists.

[frater luciferi]

she was on welfare when she wrote her books therfor a hypocrite.

[m1thr0s]

it's too bad really that she never made the leap to occultism since most of the *broad strokes* of her philosophy fit very neatly there by in large. What she seems to have failed to recognize is that many of these ideals of *self sovereignty* have to be treated as *goals*, achieved through the process of self-transformation. A completely energy-independent human being is a *goal*...only a narrow-minded prude would expect it could somehow be mandated politically, economically or socially. She seems to have labored under the mistaken assumption that government could somehow be perfected through rational means, but you cannot rectify a thing which is inherently corruptible no matter how you frame it. The best you can hope for is a kind of uneasy stalemate where it is approximately held in check but will nevertheless continue to wreak havoc by its very nature. But so long as people succumb to conditions that require assistance from without, there will always be a cry for something outside oneself to uphold a standard of law and order...of compassion and fairness.

So I don't think Rand was ever intentionally hypocritical, but there were some serious holes in her philosophy she never seems to have plugged. A *Randian* universe simply doesn't work unless people are somehow first afforded the opportunity to become liberated from the conditions that necessitate an imperfect governmental rule. The word *whole* in the phrase *Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the Law* is very important as it serves to render the entire standard a *goal* and cannot be expected to be mandated outright for every person born into this world no matter the impossible conditions they are born into. You cannot Do What Thou Wilt if you have no idea what the f*ck that even means for instance...it takes an unprecedented refining of knowledge and power to make any such thing even vaguely possible for even one human being!

[izi]

she was on welfare when she wrote her books therfor (sp?) a hypocrite.

It doesn't make her a hypocrite - it makes her selfish. In objectivism how is selfishness wrong? She opposed the collectivist welfare state, but she also opposed racism and a lot of other things going on in the United States at the time. If a government is already on its way to a collectivist welfare state then you may have no choice but to use whatever is available.

Any objectivist would use welfare since it is not a moral choice but a selfish one. Of course she participated in welfare, what else are you supposed to do in this country? You're forced to pay taxes...

“It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.” -Ayn Rand, 1966

It was her lawyers who had to talk her into it since like many workers, she had paid into SS her entire life.

You are aware the Ayn Rand Institute offers a grant program as well....

She was right about assistance not being given intellectuals in this country, it is still true today that most scholars are not treated properly, since having intelligent people working on their technology or philosophy benefits everybody.

[Theflyingsorcerer]

We live today in the world that Ayn Rand helped to create, where unregulated, unbridled Selfishness rules. Its Avatars are Rupert Murdoch, Bernie Madoff, Ivan "Greed is Good" Boesky....

I would imagine that Ms. Rand herself, who was rabidly opposed to anything that smacked of religion, would be quite horrified that her ideas have inspired the philosophy of modern Satanism. It's true, though.

Though one has to wonder about a woman who can write a novel, "The Fountainhead", whose hero, Roark, brutally rapes the heroine. It hints to me of an unconscious streak of sado-masochism.

Theflyingsorcerer.

[izi]

I don't think it was unconscious sado-masochism. Men assume too often women are not aware of their own sexuality.

Ayn Rand didn't help create our world - nobody listened to her, we never had a free market and we still do not today. Congratulations on parroting sheep liberals.There has never been a free market economy in the world.

A free market paired with a noocracy not based solely on monetary gain in old aeon raw materials is the right way. If you take Ayn Rand's Objectivism and put it in a world or life filled with problems it will quickly find ways to solve those problems in the most frictionless manner. Like it or not the world was MUCH MORE FUCKED UP before Ayn Rand.

Communists like to rewrite history to make it seem like everything will all get better once we work together but it goes against the very fabric of nature itself.

If I was born before Ayn Rand my options would be extremely limited, because of my race, gender and religious beliefs. So tell me, who has the world gotten worse for? Single white males? Oh poor babies. I'm sorry you can't wallow in your nonsensical religious moral idiocy. Not.

[Theflyingsorcerer]

LOTS of people listened to Ayn Rand. I've met many self-styled "capitalists" (who were really wage slaves just like the rest of us) who parroted Rand's philosophy, and many business types who operated, or at least tried to operate, on pure Randroid principles. The main thrust of her philosophy was not so much the free market economy as it was personal selfishness. To Rand, the free market was a byproduct of her main theme; at least that's how I read it. One of her non-fiction books was entitled "The Virtue of Selfishness". QED.

I would say, izi, that your third and final paragraphs contradict your second. If "nobody listened to her", how could the world have been MORE FUCKED UP before her, and have gotten better for you post-Rand? But gender and racial emancipation would have happened with or without Rand; she had nothing to do with it. I can't recall a single non-white character of any importance in any of her novels.

I agree with m1thr0s; "morbid vanity" seems to sum her up succintly; this seems to be confirmed by every biography of her I've ever read. I'm not saying, mind you, that some of her ideas weren't good in themselves; she championed intelligence, enterprise, sexual freedom, and personal vision, but unfortunately mixed it all up with a political Fundamentalism as extreme as that of any religious True Believer.

As for her streak of sado-masochism, maybe it was unconscious, maybe not; but I don't think there's much doubt that she had one. And most of the women I know are well aware of their own sexuality, and (mostly) comfortable with it. None of them are into SM though.

Not sure what you mean by "nonsensical religious moral idiocy".

Theflyingsorcerer.

[izi]

The main thrust of her philosophy was rational objectivity, that's in her own words by the way...for someone who seems to have so many opinions about her, you only seem to want to focus on the negatives and not look at her objectively.

Warts and all, she was the best thing to happen to Satanism by championing individualism, EVER. Lavey was pure carnival lunacy by comparison.



I would say, izi, that your third and final paragraphs contradict your second. If "nobody listened to her", how could the world have been MORE FUCKED UP before her, and have gotten better for you post-Rand?

This absurd logic fails to take into account that Rand was certainly not the sole voice of women's rights and civil rights in general. What kind of fucking idiot would assert that? So your accusation of me contradicting myself is fucking rediculous. You're the one who made the huge, gross error of stating Ayn Rand helped fuck up the world. The world was already far gone by the time she was born. She arrived in the turmoil of the fucking Bolshevik revolution.

Everything has gotten better since then I NEVER SAID SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, MERELY POINTING OUT YOUR ILLOGICAL, UNINFORMED STUPID STATEMENT. AND AGREEING WITH m1thr0s WON'T SAVE YOU.

[m1thr0s]

horribly emotional topic apparently...:confused:

since i never really bothered to read her stuff in any great depth I only have an outline of impressions to go on. I think it is apparent she was more or less drafted onto a political stage for a purpose she may have never intended herself. I do not know her work well enough to debate the pros and cons very intelligently.

I can only hope that those who have will make every effort to address the relevant facts and not get too caught up in emotions, since some of us would be interested in following a discussion that is not making our eyeballs bleed just reading through it! :eek:

note: for the purpose of discussion it might be useful to focus on Objectivism itself for instance.
though Wikipedia is hardly a good *authority*, it is often a good starting point: Wiki Link: Objectivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29)

I do not understand the assertion that *reality exists outside of consciousness* for instance - a core tenet of Objectivism.
It doesn't strike me that it will ever be possible to prove such a thing as it will always require some form of consciousness to validate it!
I am guessing that the key to that assertion will depend on a very carefully restricted use of the term *consciousness*.
It runs against the grain of most magickal/mystical philosophy which typically starts from the reverse position...that consciousness is the basis of so-called reality...
So we will have our work cut out for us just keeping track of terms I think.

While I don't really like Ayn Rand on a personal level, it has to be admitted that she has done something very few women have ever tried to do - declare and defend a formal philosophy which has been a brutally male-dominated game for thousands of years across most major cultures. She earns extra points for this in my view and it doesn't really matter whether I like her personally or not...I don't have to sleep with her and anyway...she's dead!

m1thr0s

[AfterViewer]

http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0322a.htm

[Theflyingsorcerer]

izi, swearing and screaming at me doesn't make you right. What you're doing is called an "ad hominem" attack, and is generally what someone does when they don't have a valid argument. And you don't.

I don't need this crap.

[izi]

So you hear voices when you read my post? Sounds like you need a prescription. I was totally drunk when i was writing that and I remember LOLing about it the whole t ime.

Most of the world is full of weak parasites who will die by trial of evolution, and no petty whining from silly little people are going to ever change that fact of nature. If you don't understand Ayn Rand you're already a failure, believe it or not....nature herself will run right over you. Individualism is the only way to power in this world, and the entire universe as a matter of fact.

Some people are so stuck in the whole political-economic meme they can't see the big picture, that is that evolution is always moving forward. If you aren't aware of the next level of threshold, you're probably already going extinct. Good riddance.

[dev]

Seem Rand gets people going no matter what side they are on. I have read her work myself and I really liked it. So much in fact I started discussing Objectivism with other Rand-fans and discovered that any form of critical debate about her ideas are not allowed. In fact the closed minds of her followers turned me off quite quickly... best thing is to avoid groups generally. A "prophet" is also never represented good by its followers... there is proof in this if we look at Jesus, Mohammed, Crowley, Rand, Gandhi and all the others. All these groups argue/bifurcate because none are like the original thinker who in all cases were just an individual... interesting... ;)

I think Atlas Shrugged is a good book for anyone to read, doesn't matter if you are blue or red... to me the message was not political. It was a salute to people who create and act, about dreamers (regardless of the dream). Rand after all comes from a place not that different from my own origins and any socialist/communist society focus life on the dream of the group, the production of products by a State... not the individual. Socialism fail to understand that if the individual is content so will the group be. But if a group is content except one discontent individual there will be revolution one day. Capitalism is not the answer either. If the individual is given full power and responsibility it doesn't matter what kind of political rule there is, because rulers are irrelevant at that point.


Individualism is the only way to power in this world, and the entire universe as a matter of fact.

I agree and I have noticed that most people I argue this with always raise two points: loneliness and egoism.

I don't understand why either has got to do with individualism. Is it such a difficult state to fathom?

:deveye:

[izi]

I still don't know why FlyingSorc came to this forum just to post complaints in an obscure topic in the Satanism area. Unless he's a moron or a troll, it doesn't really compute. No loss really.

Yeah and considering The Abrahadabra Institute is forming a collective of individualists I would say the two opposing philosophies of the two camps are really quite compatible once a certain understanding is reached, that is to let all men be free above all else, and force none....that's the law of the lady.

Ayn Rand wasn't perfect but she did exceed at her job despite being tortured by post-traumatic stress disorder brought on by her turbulent upbringing, her reaction to Stalin and his thugs interfering with her life was to outline very succinctly the problems of the Old Aeon and a path towards individualism in the New Aeon.

I have never been more lonely than when I tried to fit in with the crowd....it is an absurdity to assume that the individualist, often bright, attractive and charismatic to other individualists could ever really be lonely unless they had some sort of personality disorder. It's really a fear based reaction of those suffering from a poverty of the intellectual and magickal kind.