Valid point.

And for those just wandering in, "We the Living" is her novel detailing what life in Soviet Russia was like - AND it was widely discredited by The Establishment as "not how Communism really is" etc etc etc.

Yep and as far as blacks go, I've known some that bristled at "African-American" because they are just American, and because they are just African.

Relatively few [edit: people not necessarily black people] actually literally fit the stupid hyphen. (Elon Musk is one LOL.)

I had a coworker who did such, and proudly. Also, the swastika was co-opted by the Nazis, it goes way back.

The first-side suite "2112" is basically the book "Anthem."

Edit: It's obviously simplified, and the thing rediscovered is different. I'd also guess, while she probably wouldn't have enjoyed their hard rock approach, she probably would have approved of the general adaptation. IMO they should have credited the book more specifically - it was many years before an Objectivist Rush fan told me and I read it.

This is a good resource to see what she had to say on various topics.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/

And the pot called the kettle a darker shade of non-pale

Greenspan was an early member of her inner sort of philosophical circle. He even wrote an essay or two that got published in her nonfiction essay collections. What he eventually became given what he knew philosophically and economically at one point in his life is matter that has disgusted Objectivists for decades.

So you didn't know she was an atheist before?

Oh gawd.

She integrated the ideas of others before her (Aristotle, von Mises, to name two) plus her own to form a complete philosophy that guides man qua man properly for the first time in history. No small feat for a "hateful old woman."

"Doesn't your very own philosophy or tenant give you the permission to function irrationally AND without any moral constraint as well"

This flies in the face of everything she had to say philosophically.

I'm curious, what stood out to you from the interviews? What different light vs before?

Sometimes they are earned. The OP here is such an impossibly ignorant take on things I actually turned on the button to click it...and that is very rare.

I hope this is sarcasm?

Including being discriminating. Just because something is posted here....

Because with all due respect this theory has floated around for awhile and is completely asinine. It's right up there with people who have no idea calling Rand "fascist."

Have you even read the book? The summary of WHY the protagonists burn or otherwise destroy their own stuff is vastly inaccurate.

Came here to say this. I follow AO and usually he's on but this post was garbage. The problem is asbestos and talc occur together as you note, but the bigger problem is the gov't started requiring talc products to be asbestos-free in the early 70s (maybe this is in your link, I just bounced over here for a quick work break) and J&J (and probably other companies) ignored it.

I'd lump it all together and say our system is most essentially fascism.

Yes, and this is just one example of their way of thinking. It's like yes, the principle isn't wrong, but it relies on a different context than the actual reality. Tariffs is another - yeah they are not pure capitalism, but until other countries don't do them either....

Fuckin' seriously?

All organized religion is control not spirituality so I don't think this question is germane.

We wouldn't be in this situation without rampant government interference in all areas of the economy including the money.

"Capitalism would work way better if we didn't have subsidies."

->

"Capitalism would work way better if we had capitalism instead of fascism."

Another angle - bear in mind lots of people on ZH and similar sites tend to be libertarians. And libertarians as a general rule view Principle as their guide but drop context in the process. Example: Trump wants closed/regulated borders. Principle: Everyone should be free to go wherever they want, borders are bad. Conclusion: Trump is bad. Context dropped: But not everyone is benevolent nor crossing borders with good intent.

They do this about all kinds of stuff and end up screwing themselves in the process.

The thing is this - "it is obvious" - exactly/indeed - the world/situation looks VERY different if you don't know about Q enough to a) be aware of the general Plan and b) believe it (because you've seen enough Proof(s)).

"Awful vax" is a good example. To anyone that does not understand exactly what warp speed did, why it was necessary even if DJT knew it was going to be Bad in terms of vax effects etc, he is very bad for this point alone.

So all these commenters are basically operating from what evidence they know of, can see and believe, etc. And I don't think Q awareness (beyond "it's a conspiracy"/Operation Trust etc, see first paragraph) is nearly as widespread as it may seem like it should be by now.

This site likes to think it's the Public Face of Q but I don't think anyone I've referred here grokked it enough to settle in and get it. I think this is where X comes in, where normies can get exposed to small bites at a time (e.g. Maher video on Hollywood pedos now circulating). Most people probably don't need full Q awareness level, just awake enough about certain things that they get the direness of the overall situation. Then when this does get all wrapped up they will learn they didn't understand Trump or what all was really going on.