Not all remarks about people are fallacious. People can perfectly well be the psychological or social subject of a thought. The fallacy, rather, is to substitute personal remarks for engagement with an argument. (As the Wikipedia page puts it, "Typically, this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself.) And as you can see from my long article, I do the very opposite. I focus in withering detail on Rand's case for egoism.

I'm afraid your other criticisms are similarly confused or based on strawman readings of my arguments, but I'm not going to go through them all here.

I'll just add that we can always retreat to defending certain ideals even when the applications go bad. Communists could do the same thing. They could say the communist ideals have never been perfectly applied, so the communist ideology hasn't been falsified, not even by the collapse of the Soviet Union. Likewise, capitalism in the abstract would be safe from refutation, even as capitalism systematically promotes psychopaths, generates amoral monopolies, and exploits underclasses of labourers. But that kind of defense is cheap.