David SimsEssays

Ayn Rand’s Radical Capitalism and Individualism: Definitely Not the Solution

Here we have media Jew Mike Wallace (original family name Wallik) and his interview with philosopher Ayn Rand (born Alisa Rosenbaum), author of Atlas Shrugged. Rand, also a Jew, invented Objectivism, a formalized variety of libertarianism that was promoted as an antidote to liberalism, religious conservatism, and Marxism — but which was just a cleverly-packaged extreme version of individualism, a philosophy incompatible with racial survival.

by David Sims

IN 1959, Mike Wallace interviewed capitalist apologist Ayn Rand. Rand had devised a catchy philosophical ideology that flattered the successful businessman and industrialist and postured as the champion of the freedom of action in economic affairs.

But Rand made mistakes, one of which you will find in this video if you listen closely and think carefully about what she says.

It begins at 8:49, where Rand says that man has free will and he can correct his faults and acquire virtues until he deserves to be loved. Rand ignores the fact that biology puts limitations on men’s action, that some men, regardless of their will-to-act, have not the possibility of sufficient action. To the extent that Rand says that only the worthy should be loved, I agree with her. It’s the idea that all men have the ability to become worthy that I dispute.

It begins again at 13:00, where Rand says that she desires the complete separation of state and economics. Not only is this impossible, the reason it is impossible is that the moment the capitalists apprehend that it is to their advantage to enlist the coercive power of the state in their pursuit of their own selfish interests, and have the power to do so, they will not hesitate.

After all, why should they? Capitalists aren’t altruists. If the state’s coercive power will make them richer, then why should they exercise the circumspection that an altruist would display? In other words, a laissez-faire economy will remain laissez-faire, only until the moment the people who have most benefited under laissez-faire are able to better their circumstances even faster through the use of government coercion. At that time, the laissez-faire economy will be demolished by the capitalists themselves.

At 14:00, Ayn Rand tries to shift the blame for legislation friendly to robber barons from the robber barons to the legislators, as if the robber barons themselves had had nothing to do with it.

It’s all very interesting, in a theoretical way, to speculate about how things might be if capitalists would never do this. But otherwise such maybes are irrelevant. Capitalists do behave like that, in the main. They always have. They always will.

And that’s one of the problems with Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Randian Objectivism has other problems too, including:

1. The fact that most humans aren’t rational actors, and they aren’t capable of becoming so because of biologically inherited limitations on their intelligence. Humanity straddles the line between sapiens and non-sapiens, whatever liberals may say to the contrary. The Latin binomial name for our species, Homo sapiens, is sort of a courtesy with regard to the part of its membership that, really, isn’t sapient.

2. Capitalism can fail in a piecemeal way even if everyone in it is a rational actor. With automation in the manufacture of hardware and standardization in the making of software, the bulk of a population can be rendered unnecessary to the production of goods and services, including most of the talented people whose talents were used by the capitalists so that their further use would never again be necessary.

It might help to use a metaphor.

Suppose that our country were a spaceship, and access to the life-support system wasn’t free, but was something that the passengers had to pay for, with money acquired by the sale of their labor. It would be possible for an emergent elite to choke the spaceship’s other passengers, a few at a time, by ensuring that most, but not all, of them could afford to buy air, water, and food — in the end leaving only themselves as the spaceship’s only possessors. To accelerate that process, the elite might set the other passengers to laboring at the creation of automatic systems, which would be owned by the elite and used to make the passengers uncompetitive as a source of labor power thereafter.

To forestall a revolution, however, the capitalists would probably continue to employ most, but not all, of the passengers, and to pay those whom they employed as little as possible. The trick to getting sole possession of the spaceship is not to exterminate (passively) the non-elite passengers quickly — but slowly. By doing it slowly, the elite can keep most of the other passengers fearful and on their side. To keep their regular supplies of food, water, and air for at least the foreseeable future, the employed passengers will betray their fellow passengers who are unemployed.

Doesn’t that situation sound familiar?

* * *

Source: Author

Previous post

UK: Migrant Who Tried to Rape Woman Granted £27,000

Next post

Political Power: A Force for Evil, A Force for Good


  1. Merz
    12 April, 2017 at 4:51 am — Reply

    No good thing cometh out of Israel — including Ayn Rand.

  2. cc
    12 April, 2017 at 7:00 am — Reply

    What’s in a name? People act like ‘capitalism’ is an invention. Mr. H. called it Jewish Democratic Capitalism. Marketing is buying and selling. Nobody should think ownership and the management of goods and services is a privilege. Under Consolidated Despotism everything is heavily taxed.

    “If, from the more wretched parts of the old world, we look at those which are in an advanced stage of improvement, we still find the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenue and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.”

    –Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, 1791

  3. PTFogg
    12 April, 2017 at 8:46 am — Reply

    “Rand made mistakes…”

    You’re absolutely right !

    “…. man has free will and he can correct his faults and acquire virtues until he deserves to be loved”

    Sounds like Rand DOES practice “utopian thinking” and DOES NOT have a firm grip on reality.

    Once again, “Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred and Self-Deceit” (Gedaliah Braun – 2008) is the absolute proof that Rand is wrong.

    The antidote to Rand’s thinking is Hitler’s National Socialism, a philosophy of life founded in the love of one’s own unique race and the recognition that the very different races are the creations of the Almighty over hundreds of thousands or millions of years of evolution.

  4. Arvin N. Prebost
    12 April, 2017 at 9:05 am — Reply

    Businessmen as heroes—-how absurd.

    These INTJ types, like Rand, come up with all sorts of absurd ideas and schemes which melt in the face of reality like snowflakes in the sun.

    I think the author is spot-on about corporate mentality, in general, but not the mentality of the small businessman, who can be quite caring of his employees.

  5. Walt Hampton
    12 April, 2017 at 1:23 pm — Reply

    Much more about the Jewess Ayn
    Rand, her fellow associated Jews
    and Shabboz Goys, all can be found


  6. cc
    12 April, 2017 at 4:24 pm — Reply

    Rand had a tendency to lecture the reader. She also believed in equality which is standard for her kind.

    • Anthony Collins
      12 April, 2017 at 11:32 pm — Reply

      “Rand had a tendency to lecture the reader.” Indeed. The speech Ayn Rand put in John Galt’s mouth would take around three hours to deliver. In real life, radio audiences would “stop the motormouth of the world” by turning off the radio or switching channels.

    • Anthony Collins
      13 April, 2017 at 3:10 am — Reply

      Ayn Rand professed racial egalitarianism — she denounced racism as “barnyard collectivism” and “the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism” — but held Jewish supremacist views, once remarking on television, “If you mean whose side should we be on: Israel or the Arabs? I would certainly say Israel because it’s the advanced, technological, civilized country amidst a group of almost totally primitive savages.” (The notorious Zionist Pamela Geller would echo Rand’s remark in a poster that declared: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.”)

      Economically, Rand was no egalitarian, but it should be noted that the radical individualism and materialism (“moneytheism”) she professed is profoundly destructive, subversive, and deracinating. It empowers the Jews and enfeebles the goyim. When money is the measure of all things, Jews are free to “game the system,” and they do so with a vengeance.

      In Jews, and the Jews in England, Anthony M. Ludovici wrote of the Jewish concept of property:

      “The asperities of the Manchester School and its regime were but a practical application of the accepted principle of converting — even the flesh and blood of infants if necessary — into profit. Although born Englishmen in vast numbers were inextricably involved in this grisly traffic in white slaves (thousands of whom were mere children) . . . it can hardly be denied that, both in the philosophy of laissez-faire and the practical exponents of it, there was nothing fundamentally foreign to the time-honoured methods of the typical Jewish businessman, or to the spirit which the increasing influence of Jewish finance and trading morality had spread in England.

      “‘Politically,’ says Sombart, ‘he [the Jew] is an individualist,’ and it was extreme individualism, with its slogan sauve qui peut, in a ruthless struggle of everyone against his neighbour, which was responsible for the worst excesses of nineteenth-century industrialism.

      “One of the outstanding features in the growth of modern capitalism has been the gradual transformation of the notion of property as involving privilege plus duty and responsibility into a notion of property as free and devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. In fact, it is impossible to conceive of modern capitalism as not forestalled by this significant transmutation of values.

      “Property, as involving privilege plus obligation and responsibility, presupposed certain ties and stakes in the land, certain relations to dependents, assistants and equals, and certain obligations to the community as a whole for its incessant contribution to all forms of property, which were possible only to a legal denizen with traditions and contacts in his locality and usually his soil. This being so, however, no alien, no ‘freelance’ sojourner, wishing to settle in this country and to accumulate property could do so unless the very notion of property became suitably modified.”

      Ludovici also wrote of the Jewish opposition to forms of power or influence that could not be bought, and therefore had to be weakened, corrupted, or destroyed:

      “The fact, moreover, that in England after the resettlement the Jew was in the position of a stranger aspiring to power in a society already organized to a great extent upon the aristocratic and hereditary principle, meant that his one form of power — money — found itself opposed, or at least limited, by other kinds of power which, besides having no necessary basis in money alone, were inaccessible to money as such. These other kinds of power were Gentile aristocratic lineage, Gentile aristocratic privilege, hereditary honours and functions, all of which could not be bought, had no market price and belonged to a political system and a constitution which would need to be transformed, and if necessary wrecked, if these forms of power were to be released to merely affluent candidates for their possession.

      “Thus, if in such a society the Jew was to persist in his ambition to acquire power that had no insuperable limitations, it meant that, willy-nilly, he must give the weight of his support in influence and money to all those tendencies in the land which were aiming at destroying these peculiar and unpurchasable forms of power, and at dismantling the political framework into which they fitted.”

      Here one might cite Karl Marx’s remark that “money is the jealous god of Israel.” Ayn Rand was one of this god’s prophets.

  7. Walt Hampton
    12 April, 2017 at 5:46 pm — Reply

    RANDALL HILBURN posted…..

    “[[Jews]] will always try to corrupt their [host]
    populations because corrupted populations are
    easier to control. Once that has been accomplished,
    there has never been a single case [except Nazi
    Germany] in all of human history where a nation has
    succeeded in turning things around.” (I don’t
    remember who first made that observation.) I have
    watched the Jews corrupt the American people ever
    since the 1960’s and they have been spectacularly
    successful at it. Now my concern is with the tiny
    few who have managed to stay above their corrosive
    influence. The rest are just to far gone….[m]ainly
    because they have never been exposed to anything
    else but that influence until their fundamental
    characters have been set in stone.


Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.