Ayn Rand blamed for current state of America

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Help me out, here - what on Earth does Che Guevara have to do with selfishness in US politics?

Not saying you’re wrong, I just don’t see the connection.

Boru

Opposite extremes of the same coin. Ayn Rand gave voice eventually to the "fuck you I got mine" mentality, and Che gave rise to "fuck capitalism".

FYI Fidel Castro died with a personal estimated wealth of $800 million. 

Truth be told worldwide, this is why I hate labels. Even Hitler once he consolidated power, became a very rich man by forcing his population to buy "Mein Kompf". It wasn't the reason he rose to absolute power, but once in that seat of power, he had the power to force Germans to buy his propaganda. 

There is no power in past or present history, that does not have wealth, friend or foe alike, open or closed state, all top powers invest in the global market. It always takes money and resources to keep power, regardless of autocracy, theocracy, dictatorship, open or closed state.

Not remotely what I asked you, but ok.

And Hitler didn’t force people to buy ‘Mein Kampf’. He didn’t have to.

Boru

[Brian37]

Opposite extremes of the same coin. Ayn Rand gave voice eventually to the "fuck you I got mine" mentality, and Che gave rise to "fuck capitalism".

FYI Fidel Castro died with a personal estimated wealth of $800 million. 

Truth be told worldwide, this is why I hate labels. Even Hitler once he consolidated power, became a very rich man by forcing his population to buy "Mein Kompf". It wasn't the reason he rose to absolute power, but once in that seat of power, he had the power to force Germans to buy his propaganda. 

There is no power in past or present history, that does not have wealth, friend or foe alike, open or closed state, all top powers invest in the global market. It always takes money and resources to keep power, regardless of autocracy, theocracy, dictatorship, open or closed state.

Not remotely what I asked you, but ok.

And Hitler didn’t force people to buy ‘Mein Kampf’. He didn’t have to.

Boru

Yea ok "He didn't have to" because he had already put fear into people that if they didn't those who didn't buy it, would be outed by others who supported him if they noticed they didn't have a copy. 

Yes he did force people to buy it by proxy of indoctrination, brain washing. 

Just like you can train a elephant or lion or tiger in Ringling Brothers.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not remotely what I asked you, but ok.

And Hitler didn’t force people to buy ‘Mein Kampf’. He didn’t have to.

Boru

Yea ok "He didn't have to" because he had already put fear into people that if they didn't those who didn't buy it, would be outed by others who supported him if they noticed they didn't have a copy. 

Yes he did force people to buy it by proxy of indoctrination, brain washing. 

Just like you can train a elephant or lion or tiger in Ringling Brothers.

None of that is correct. Until things started to go pear-shaped, Hitler was immensely popular. People bought his book because they wanted to, and there was never a requirement to own a copy.

Since Hitler actually disavowed the book, why would he force people to buy it?

Boru

[Brian37]

Yea ok "He didn't have to" because he had already put fear into people that if they didn't those who didn't buy it, would be outed by others who supported him if they noticed they didn't have a copy. 

Yes he did force people to buy it by proxy of indoctrination, brain washing. 

Just like you can train a elephant or lion or tiger in Ringling Brothers.

None of that is correct. Until things started to go pear-shaped, Hitler was immensely popular. People bought his book because they wanted to, and there was never a requirement to own a copy.

Since Hitler actually disavowed the book, why would he force people to buy it?

Boru

No he did not, Mein Kompf is the direct result of 6 million Jews being murdered. What the hell are you smoking?

No they only bought his book, because he had already brainwashed the public. 

"Wink wink" politics is what you are arguing. Please don't stupidly argue having Hitler's bible was voluntary. 

Sure it can seem "voluntary" much like training a dog. By the time he gained absolute power, anyone without a copy, or criticizing Hitler or the book, risked social outcast, or even arrest.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

None of that is correct. Until things started to go pear-shaped, Hitler was immensely popular. People bought his book because they wanted to, and there was never a requirement to own a copy.

Since Hitler actually disavowed the book, why would he force people to buy it?

Boru

No he did not, Mein Kompf is the direct result of 6 million Jews being murdered. What the hell are you smoking?

No they only bought his book, because he had already brainwashed the public. 

"Wink wink" politics is what you are arguing. Please don't stupidly argue having Hitler's bible was voluntary. 

Sure it can seem "voluntary" much like training a dog. By the time he gained absolute power, anyone without a copy, or criticizing Hitler or the book, risked social outcast, or even arrest.

Yes, he did disavow ‘Mein Kampf’. And no, the book was not the result of the Holocaust, since it was written before Hitler came to power (it can’t even be reasonably argued that the Holocaust was the result of the book).

If you’re going to claim that owning the book was compulsory, you’ll need to back that up. Can you cite the law that required people to own it, or provide evidence that people were punished for not doing so? I’m going to need more than your say-so.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Okay, a little more info: for the record, during the Nazi regime, it was given away for free to any newlywed couple and soldier fighting at the front. However, he made no law saying that everyone in Germany had to have a copy. That one, you're probably thinking of Mao's Little Red Book. That said, I am told it was popular enough that in libraries, it was in high demand. Admittedly, probably more because of who wrote it than the content. If literally anyone else but the Fuhrer wrote it, hardly anyone would bother with it. Even since he did, it was one of those books people owned, but almost never read.

As for the claims that Hitler disavowed the book, I wouldn't use terms that strong, but he did tell Hans Frank that "If I had had any idea in 1924 that I would have become Reich chancellor, I never would have written the book." Not much of a public disavowal, but still a sign that Hitler wasn't totally pleased with what he wrote over a decade after, especially the fact that people were holding him to these grandiose ideas he wrote about when, in a sane political system, his political career would have been finished and he'd be in jail for life instead of getting sentenced to what basically amounts to an unusually long writer's retreat.

Did the book only get as popular as it did after Hitler took power? Yes. Was that because he had brainwashed the public? Well, that really depends on what you consider brainwashing. It's more akin to what Trump did for the Republican base but with a Hell of a lot more control of his own PR (the fact that he wouldn't get into the full bugfuck insane mode until the 1940s at least certainly helped) and fewer people were able to call him on his bullshit (partly because of censorship, and partly because there was no easy spread of information like the Internet that could even logistically do so at the time).

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like it was one of those cheap bibles in whoring hotels..to me....

[Pat Mustard]

Rand certainly had an effect in decades past, but I don't hear many people talk about her now.

In an era of the "Red Scare", Rand was popular, and I remember reading "Anthem" and liking it.  It was an anti-communist book.

Most young people who read The Fountainhead outgrow it.  As the article says, Rand believed that altruism was either evil or didn't exist.  You should do good for others ONLY if it benefits you in some way.  You can give a gift if it makes you feel good, but don't ever claim it was for their benefit.  There should never be something done solely for someone else's benefit.  Anyone who claims they are doing so are self-deluded or liars.

I think it is true that all motivations are internal.  You help others for some internal reason.  That could be love, fairness, justice, reciprocity, a sense of connection.  Rand's problem is that she despises motivations that are not objectively beneficial to you.  She fetishises selfishness.

The main reason the fsr right don't talk about their messiah any more is that she was an outspoken atheist and they're chasing the fundagelical vote. Economically they're still pushing the brand of "fuck you, I got mine" she sold and party leaders like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul are still randbots, just no longer shouting it.

[Brian37]

Okay, a little more info: for the record, during the Nazi regime, it was given away for free to any newlywed couple and soldier fighting at the front. However, he made no law saying that everyone in Germany had to have a copy. That one, you're probably thinking of Mao's Little Red Book. That said, I am told it was popular enough that in libraries, it was in high demand. Admittedly, probably more because of who wrote it than the content. If literally anyone else but the Fuhrer wrote it, hardly anyone would bother with it. Even since he did, it was one of those books people owned, but almost never read.

As for the claims that Hitler disavowed the book, I wouldn't use terms that strong, but he did tell Hans Frank that "If I had had any idea in 1924 that I would have become Reich chancellor, I never would have written the book." Not much of a public disavowal, but still a sign that Hitler wasn't totally pleased with what he wrote over a decade after, especially the fact that people were holding him to these grandiose ideas he wrote about when, in a sane political system, his political career would have been finished and he'd be in jail for life instead of getting sentenced to what basically amounts to an unusually long writer's retreat.

Did the book only get as popular as it did after Hitler took power? Yes. Was that because he had brainwashed the public? Well, that really depends on what you consider brainwashing. It's more akin to what Trump did for the Republican base but with a Hell of a lot more control of his own PR (the fact that he wouldn't get into the full bugfuck insane mode until the 1940s at least certainly helped) and fewer people were able to call him on his bullshit (partly because of censorship, and partly because there was no easy spread of information like the Internet that could even logistically do so at the time).

He didn't have to make a law saying everyone had to have a copy. He was no humanitarian. This is splitting hairs. It was unwritten by the time he gained power, that if you didn't have a copy in your house, you had a very severe likelihood that someone would out you, family, friends, help. 

Hitler all arguments aside, DID get rich off his book.

[no one]

Also, Ayn Rand was partially responsible for 2112, so, I hearby absolve her of all allegations.

Furthermore, she is granted complete and total immunity to any and all further actions.

Thank you very much, have a nice day.
Stay safe out there.