Facts are absolute. The principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy are "contextual absolutes". They are "absolutely" true, but must be understood and applied in context, not as floating abstractions. The same is true for principles of physics or any other science. See Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Rational self interest.

"Just as man cannot survive by any random means, but must discover and practice the principles which his survival requires, so man’s self-interest cannot be determined by blind desires or random whims, but must be discovered and achieved by the guidance of rational principles. This is why the Objectivist ethics is a morality of rational self-interest—or of rational selfishness." - Ayn Rand

I am not sure Rand was endorsing an elite hide-away community enclosed from society. Everything was turning to worms in the book, so I didn't take anything that happened as idea. It might have been meant to be terrifying.

Regarding Satanism, I'm not sure it's even a real thing. It seems like a way to rebel and get people who believe in gods and devils fired up. I do not take stories about gods and devils seriously.

Ah, not sure if we are on the same train of thought, but my problem is with people who talk in absolutes. I can't stand it. I don't believe in absolutes. It is always easier for me to communicate with others if they don't say things like:
"You always do this" instead of saying:
"Sometimes you do this."

Absolutes is a word that comes up quite frequently in the readings of Ayn Rand. Take John Galt's speech:
"Absolutes. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute."

She makes it tricky for me. :) What I would call 'facts, she refers to as 'absolutes'.

I'm trying, but I'm finding your argument a reach.
Using your rationale, we should all avoid The Beatles lyrics because of how Charles Manson interpreted them.

Most people “learn” Ayn Rand’s philosophy from those who actively evade learning it.

Who cares? This isn't a *Anton Levay" fan forum. No one here cares what Anton Levay did or said. What point are you trying to make?

Ethical self interest is more to the point. Reasonable people do understand ethics.

Yep. A lot of people get that wrong. It's about REASONABLE self-interest. But, that's a concept a little to high for most to grasp. Most of my fellow Americans really can't tell the difference between "some" and "all". An example? Tell someone you "invested in gold". 90% will think your whole portfolio is GLD. Many other examples come to mind...running wild...right.

Objectivism isn’t about running wild in your own self interest regardless of consequences, like Capitalism is not about using politicians to force your customers to accept a deal they cannot refuse.
Somebody’s got their facts, definitions or basic premises confused. Likely on purpose.

The commentator refferreced Ayn Rand...GB never said anything about AR.

The others are correct Edwin...this is just garbage my friend. AR knew what morality was but she credited it to man's mind, not from the insights of one man.
The creatures you mention are parasitical humanoids...not value creating men .

The commentator (video creator) has a screw loose.

I read the book, loved the massage about personal liberty and the pursuit of the our desires regardless of social norms, rejecting pressure from narratives we disagree with or disavow as applicable in a free country. I Loved the depiction of an over reaching government being put in its place by a genius who does't want what modernity has to offer: money and banality. the films were a glaring disappointment, especially that castrated speech that went from almost a hundred page manifesto in the book to less than five minutes of screen time.

I can share quotes if you like, but why not do the research yourself and form your own opinion? Open google and type "Ayn Rand"and Anton Levay" he structured his "religion" off the beliefs of objectivism, replacing and substituting the concerns for the ethical good and moral right with the propagation of ones own self interest as a driving force regardless of consequences to others.
It was a bastardization of Objectivism, as it uses the framework to run wild, but it has undeniable links in premise.
I've read that, as a liberal, he (Levay) was trying to publicly damn Ayn Rand by tethering her movement (which is a threat to leftist values) to his "Satanic Bible". I think that's also possible, but its undeniable he read her work before writing his own.

yes

Rubbish.

Haven't had the chance to read it...but I thought it unfair that it was marked down...even if it is bullcrap, I would not mark it down but offer my criticism.

What do you like about his post?

You are barking up on the wrong tree here.

Have you read the book?

Some have marked you down 2...I marked you back up one.

Will view later to see what all the hub bub is about.

PS...re-posted a post of mine (2 years 10 months ago) that you commented recently on hoping to further that conversation.

My coffee must not have taken effect yet...because I don't know what the hell this is about.

What evidence specifically are you talking about? I saw a lot more bizarre accusation than any evidence. Are we living in some strange world where accusations and feelings are more important than facts and reason?

What are you babbling about? Have you read Atlas Shrugged?