>The book, when taken as a fable about the incredible talents of white men and their minds turning the wheels of the machinery of civilization, is excellent. Her defense of basic, straightforward economics, in terms of treating them as natural laws and appreciating the subjective nature of value and how money operates is a decent enough primer and a slap at Keynesian idiocy. Ayn Rand was a jilted Jew who turned against her own, she started writing books that told as much of the truth as she could (being a Jew who was hated by many more powerful Jews), purely out of spite towards her own racial collective. That was why she earned a legacy of hatred and vilification, and being criticized badly by those who misunderstand her philosophy and economics. >That said, it isn’t without its problems, greatest of which being Rand, herself, a militant atheist jew who created a faith based collective hive mind around the idea of rejecting collectives. I would not fault her for being an atheist who started up a cult around herself, people may not need God, or Afterlife, or the Soul, or the supernatural at all, but they do need faith, they need some common values, they need traditions and cultures, they need morals and purpose, all of these are required, purely out of being social creatures, she was right to give it to them. The cult also offered her protection against her enemies, so it served a practical purpose as well. >Rand had no tolerance for differing views on non-essential matters because her dogma allowed for no “non-essential” matters to exist. She dictated terms on everything from love and sex to the consumption of music or film, and her adherents saw these as holy writ, and continue to do so even today. Basically, she's doing everything here that the national socialists on /pol/ do, she's doing everything the christians do as well, she's basically on the same level as every community that criticizes her for this. What is the criticism here? "stop doing what we are doing?", what is the alternative? You don't get told what to do on everything by one group, you get told what to do on everything by another. >Whether she was intended as part of the “pilpul” to force an argument between commies and capitalists, I can’t say. However the greatest damage she inflicted came in the form of denouncing taking pride in one’s racial identity, and more specifically, denying the easily, scientifically demonstrable differences between the races, whether due to her seething hatred of “collectivism” or her seething hatred of whites due to being a jew. Agreed, this was terrible, I don't think she hated Whites, she gave them a lot more truth than than a Loxist would, I think it was a matter of her being a jew herself. I think it was more a matter of what might happen if she were to say all the truths in one place, including the ones that lead to anti-jewish sentiments, not only was she herself jewish, but surrounded by powerful jews who would get her and her cult torn to shreds, after the cult he started tore her to shreds first, it would have been a suicidal move for her to make. National capitalism addresses this problem by combining a lot of her ideas with white nationalism and the jewish problem, imagine Galt's Gulch as a White Ethnostate.