Back in 2017 - Ayn Rand and Silicon Valley

Recommended Posts

Back in 2017 - Ayn Rand and Silicon Valley

Steve Bannon made the following post on Gettr and it brought to mind how much perception shifts in just a few short years of fake news and propaganda.



(Click on the image and it will take you to the Gettr post.)

The article he mentions is a Vanity Fair article from 2017, although Bannon does not mention the date. (I wonder how many people he will trip up with this easy propaganda maneuver? Don't forget, for all my admiration of Steve Bannon, I am fully aware that he is well-versed in how to do propaganda and does it brilliantly--just like Rand did.)

Now to the Vanity Fair article of yesteryear.


The Obscure Economist Silicon Valley Billionaires Should Dump Ayn Rand For
He lived almost 200 years ago, but Henry George’s theories might have something to offer people who want to put their money to good use today.

Go on and read the article if you want (it's not long) to see the typical blah blah blah about Rand at the time.

Also, there is another idea and not a good one. Sorting out which source of wealth should be taxed, and trying to give that moral import (like Henry George did), is one reason this idea never took off.

Taxing is not a moral enterprise, but instead it is confiscation. One set of people take money and property from others whether they agree or not. The confiscators use guns if they fail and they set the rules of the confiscation.

That is not moral no matter how you slice and dice it intellectually. There are reasons for taxation, but they are not moral reasons.

Henry George does make a good point about wealth that produces stuff and wealth that does not. That's a good distinction to make. But for the moral purpose of improving taxes? Ugh..


Now to the real reason I posted this. In today's world, that headline doesn't make any sense, even among leftists. What in hell does Ayn Rand have to do with Silicon Valley? They can't stand her right now.

But let's not forget this was 2017. Silicon Valley started with a lot of Rand's ideas goosing the imaginations of the engineers and entrepreneurs at the time.

Well goosed, too.

Look what they created.

But, also, look what they did with it.


Silicon Valley runs on a Marxist structure with a slight inversion--they distribute a lot of goods for free as switch and bait, but then you give them everything you have and they distribute to everyone what they think each person should have. The original Marxist version was you produce it, then they take it along with the production processes and dole it out to everyone as they see fit.

How in hell did Silicon Valley get to Marx from Ayn Rand?

That's something people need to think about.


In reality, if business-government crony-corporatism is defined as fascism (which I believe is the closest to the essence), then Silicon Valley has morphed into a fascist system and they are in up to their necks with the Word Economic Forum and other fascists. 


To me, it's easy. They became immune to liability. They are not held responsible for their wrong-doing. Since they can get away with it, they do evil to others.

(Ditto for Big Pharma, but that's another discussion.)

Sometimes old adages run true in explaining the world, even where Rand was once ascendant.

Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.


  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Now get a load of this.

From what I see, the majority of the Objectivist movement is being run from these Marxist platforms.

How's that for a mindfuck?


There is - contra Barbara Branden, who was too Catholic - no Objectivist movement. It got a knife in the heart in 1968 and slowly died presided over byLeonard Peikoff who wasn't up to what Nathaniel Branden did in the 1960s. I saw it all after arriving in New York City in April 1968 just months before the Break of 1968 disaster. Only now do I know it was ripe for the times but vanity. But it could only have lived on for a while anyway. There was no transitional figure to replace NB, not that Rand would have tolerated such a person. Atlas Shrugged in that respect was decades ahead of its time. Now its time is becoming our time sans the psychological renderings which are wrong, confused and right.


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


I basically agree with this.

But I also see what I see and have lived what I lived.

Let's say there is an Objectivist movement and there is not one.

(A is not A :evil:  :) )

Call it what you want, but something is going on in the Randian world.

And whatever is going on, it is many, it is contradictory, it is glorious, (but often petty), and it is not like the people in it believe.

Not at all...



Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then, there's this...Silicon Valley + Bioengineering + Deep State= WTF???


By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:...

Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy

September 12, 2022 • Presidential Action


"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

"Section 1.  Policy.  It is the policy of my Administration to coordinate a whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions in health, climate change, energy, food security, agriculture, supply chain resilience, and national and economic security.  Central to this policy and its outcomes are principles of equity, ethics, safety, and security that enable access to technologies, processes, and products in a manner that benefits all Americans and the global community and that maintains United States technological leadership and economic competitiveness."


"For biotechnology and biomanufacturing to help us achieve our societal goals, the United States needs to invest in foundational scientific capabilities.  We need to develop genetic engineering technologies and techniques to be able to write circuitry for cells and predictably program biology in the same way in which we write software and program computers; unlock the power of biological data, including through computing tools and artificial intelligence; and advance the science of scale‑up production while reducing the obstacles for commercialization so that innovative technologies and products can reach markets faster."

(read the full thing in the article above...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now