Worth noting: Rand was more than a little miffed that of all the movies the HUAC had her analyze as an example of Communist propaganda, they limited her to "Song Of Russia", which she felt was pathetically obvious. (It shows Soviet Russia as peaceful and prosperous and happy--well, NO KIDDING it's propaganda!) She'd have much preferred to have analyzed examples of subtle propaganda (an example she often pointed to: the smearing of businessmen and banks in "The Best Years Of Our Lives"). Alas, the HUAC was more interested in scoring political points with the public, so they limited her to "well, duh" examples.
Don't people portray America the same way: (Peaceful, prosperous and happy--well, NO KIDDING it's propaganda!)... Riots of 2020 answers that. Peace, prosperity and happiness begins with the individual, not with the place.
Begins with the individual? Paris hilton is happy and prosperous, so isn't oprah, bill o,riely, dr. Phil, tom brady, my next door neighbor, me ,etc.etc.etc.......
“You don’t know who is going to do what to you, because you might offend someone” 1:19 Yikes. 2019 anyone? (I realized she is talking about government force here, but still, the mob mentality rules)
You say she thought it was wrong to help other people. One thing she said was: "There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them."
A lot of people can't get past Ayn Rand's use of the word "selfishness" and "altruism." English wasn't her first language (it was her third or fourth, I believe), so when she says "selfishness" she most nearly means "self-esteem" or "self-respect." When she says "altruism" she means "self-contempt" or "self-destruction." She thought that it was impossible to be a decent person if you ignored your own worth as an individual.
@@CountArtha No. Even you misunderstand what she means. Have you not read at least the introduction to "The Virtue of Selfishness"? She explains exactly what she means on the first page. Of the introduction.
Though I have to admit, some people's interpretation is different from mine. Some people claim that she lied on her application for a visa, but morally, there was nothing wrong with that. Since the purpose was to escape the Soviet Union, it was, morally, as bad as breaking the speed limit to get a dying person to the emergency room. So whats your point?
Capitalists keeps his money. - Leftists: Robber baron! Capitalist donates money. - Leftists: Hahaha, what an idiot! Now you are practicing communism! Hahah! Capitalism has failed! Hypocrite! Todays leftist even go on to argue that wealhy people donating money is tantamount to corruption (that donations into universities come with corporate agenda or some shit, etc.) and that only cure is to take the wealth from the wealthy by force, so the choice where it is invested is completely destroyed. What a great idea. Just selectively prevent people who are best at growing our economy from investing.
This video is speed up to give the speakers a higher voice, no doubt to portray them negatively. Play this at at .75 speed if you want to hear their real voice.
Why do people keep repeatign these LIES? She came to America on a student visa, got that extended once, then married Frank O'Connor. She was never here illegally.
She came to America on a student visa, which she got extended once, then married Frank O'Connor, and stayed married till death. She was never in America illegally. Why do people keep making up and repeating these lies about her? That was a rhetorical question. Its because they cannot answer her actual arguments, so they resort to lying smears, insults, and strawman arguments.
As to lying to get into the country, that may have been true. But there is nothing immoral about it. When the alternatives are a small lie or being sent back to a totalitarian dictatorship to have your spirit slowly crushed out of you, or even be sent off to die in a Siberian wasteland, a bit of lying is like violence in self-defense.
What do you mean we never hear about it? Its in ALL of her biographies. But still, now you have changed your story. This is how it is with ideological liars. You refute their first lie, they change the subject.
Please get a clue before you try to criticize Ayn rand again. At least criticize her for what she actually said, not some fake cartoon version of her ideas you read in leftie smear rants. "The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance."
