'The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power.' What do you think?

Are you drunk?

They both remove God from the system and replace God with "the elite". It is not God who can "save the planet" from us ordinary sinners using up the elite's reosurces, it's only the elite who can "save the planet" for us.

She believed that only the "elite" could save America, and they tell us only the "elite" can "save the planet".

She claimed her philosophy was "rational", just like the Marxists claimed that their philosophy was "rational" and "modern". Both philosophies were opposed to the protector of ordinary people - the so-called "unscientific", "irrational" belief in God.

When the elite wish to dupe ordinary people, they pretend that their views are scientific. She calls her philosophy "objectivist" and "climate catastrophe" is said to be "scientific".

Ordinary people are often duped by the power of the corporate mediia and their cheerleaders, just as they are by "climate catastrophe".

Monbiot is correct when he says the following

"Like all philosophies, Objectivism is absorbed, secondhand, by people who have never read it."

Unfortunately this philosophy has been hyped by the media and movies and "intellectuals", and many ordinary people, who have never read it, have been duped by the elite media which promotes it.

Sh would probably say that the ordinary people don't serve to eat meat because that contributes to using the elite's resources. She is all about "derserving it". Of course, to her the elite would "deserve" to eat meat, it's just the ordinbary people who would have to be kept on "sustainability" rations of food and fuel.

I thought many supporters of the Tea Party movement were from the Christian right? How can they openly support a philosophy which advocates selfishness? Is there a branch of Christianity which says that Jesus was a deluded old fool who spent too much time thinking of heaven and not enough time thinking of ways of making money out of his healing powers and persuasive tongue?

If she were alive today, she might possibly be a green and pretend that she wanted to "save the planet" for the elite and from those ordinary people who are supposed to be "destroying" it.

I think it is a horrible philosophy and it is definitely being pushed and promoted by some people. I think it is about dictatorship and the end of democracy. It really serves the elites. Just like Marxism, which pretended to serve the proletariat, but really served the elite, her philosophy pretends to support capitalism, but really serves the elite.

She is no conservative, she scorns religion and God, just like the materialist Marxists. She is a materialist just like the Marxists and just like them, she does noit value religion and compassion. Just like them, she argues in favour of the elites, the planners who think they are more worthy than the ordinary people.

As the interviewer in the following interview says, around the 4.00 minute mark, she wishes to destroy almost every edifice of the contemporary American way of life, just as the elitist Marxist wanted to do.

This isn't our system. This is a system that serves the elite, just like Marxism.

Monbiot makes good points about it, but is wrong to imply that cutting the 50% rate of tax has anything to do with this horrible system. Is he pretending that cutting tax from 50% to 49% is inspired by this horriblke philosophy?

The real elite probably don't even pay 50% tax, with all their advisers and consultants.

It sounds a bit like going back to the days when everyone had to watch out for the next Viking raid. Hardly a step forwards, is it? Why on earth did we move away from that and seek more peace and stability, I wonder?

I guess it means getting rid of people who won't or can't do as they are told, unless they are ruthless enough to get rid of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

And who can the rich exploit if they've got rid of all the underlings???? It's much too hard making a decent profit out of people who aren't deeply stupid.

At least Ayn Rand has the b*lls to say what Dave, George, Liam and the rest of their buddies think, but realise it won't get them elected.

One assumes the security forces would be there just to keep the slave populace in order?

And what happens when only the rich are left? Who will wipe their bottoms, then? Or will they forget their selfishness and nobly shoot themselves when the time comes? Oh, silly me - their children will do it for them. Which means a fair part of their selfish lives will be spent concocting ways to prevent their children from doing that, rather than accepting their fate like the selfish old tossers ought to.

If selfishness is good, then why the need for the police, courts and armed forces? Would this be to stop the selfish, feckless poor attempting to slit the throats of the virtuously selfish rich?