Why is this book considered so controversial?

I didn't realize I was going to read a book detailing current events so well, that was written more than 50 years ago.
Why are people so upset over this book?

Attached: iu[1].jpg (474x316, 33.59K)

Because an autistic jew who should have been dead wrote it.

Dishonest people hate when their true motives for seeking power are displayed openly.

Jews really hate it when something that they think should of happened didn't it makes them question their god.

>Why are people so upset over this book?

Ayn rand basically described late stage statism step by step as she saw the collapse of the feudal system in russia.

The right thinks, it's escapism, the left thinks it's a direct attack against the left (even tough the left replaced the feudal system in russia).

Basically the same shit from the book happened in venezuela and other nations multiple times.

>Why are people so upset over this book?
Because it's horribly written, the message is great, but the form... oh man.
And most of the people, being NPC's unable to read between the lines, they say it's horrible. And it is, in some way.

It describes a scenario if all the people who do actual work and innovation refuse to work for the bureaucrats who set endless regulations and burdens, and instead create a small, insular community with their wealth where they serve each other and their interests. It takes itself too seriously, and is quite lengthy for the actual complexity of the core ideas. This almost makes it a fedora tier representation of libertarianism, which makes it a gratifying target for all sides. Would I still recommend it? Sure, if you read a few of Rand's shorter works and found them insightful or enjoyable.

The people who hate it know they are the villains of the story.

It's not considered controversial at all. It is considered a stupid book that only the worst bankers in existence adhere to.
The bankers who sold rotten nigger house loans as wrapped up AAA investments to pension funds.

It was just jews capturing the libertarian movement like they capture every single social movement and ideology

This one describes current events much better, excellently so in fact, and it was written in 56, published 58.

Attached: The_Lightning_and_the_Sun.jpg (245x406, 15.04K)

Atlas Shrugged really sucks as a book and I wish people would stop dicksucking it. Recommending Atlas Shrugged probably disinterests many people from looking further into libertarianism.
The Fountainhead, though, is great.

I can agree with this. There are times where she just drones on and on, but the message is really great.

I will check it out, but it definitely seems like it would be a great conversation starter from the cover.


How does The Fountainhead differ?

It puts man above god and kings.

Think of it, the core tenet of objectivism is Man. The weaklings that had to band together to be put in charge fear having to consider themselves as the highest authority and need some bulshit higher purpose in life like muh climate of muh gods.

The radio scene is particularly long.

tldr me on the meaning of the title? why are people shrugging at atlas?

I thought the book was fine up until the free energy device is introduced.
Then it goes to hell for me.
She has some okay ideas but most of them are marred by Utopian grandeur.

Atlas is the one who shrugs, and so the world is no longer held aloft.

>She has some okay ideas but most of them are marred by Utopian grandeur.
>tldr she was a woman

>The_Lightning_and_the_Sun
In greek mythology Atlas is the dude holding the world on his shoulders.

In the book, the people who work hard to make the world run decide to shrug at their tasks and fuck off leaving the world to fall.

Dagny is whore

That part is just the worst.

I actually like the book, but Jesus...