An Alternative (Right?) Perspective On Objectivism

Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was born in 1905 in Saint Petersburg. She witnessed the disastrous rise of Communism during her youth, before moving to the USA. In addition to provocative monographs such as The Virtue Of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, she conveyed much of her philosophy in the books Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. Her capsule summary of Objectivism was:

Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism.

It’s often regarded as rather extreme, and a problem it shares with many ideologies is trying to fit everything into conceptual boxes. From an Alternative Right perspective, Objectivism has some drawbacks. Still, it has many useful concepts. For example, I mentioned “the sanction of the victim” earlier. The takeaway is that our enemies are basically parasitic, drawing their strength and substance from others, so refusing to cooperate with them will get them off our backs. There’s quite a bit to say about Objectivism, but I’ll cover the highlights, taking—shall we say—an objective look.

The importance of reason


Objectivism emphasizes rationality. Rand’s perspectives on the nature of reality are a great contribution to philosophy. Academia largely dismisses it as unworthy of consideration, because they don’t like Rand’s politics. That’s actually a good endorsement, considering the sorry state of faculty departments ridden with cultural Marxists these days. She wrote with crystalline clarity, quite unlike the tedious and muddy postmodernism so popular in academia today.

Leftist ideology often features obscurantism, circular reasoning, emotionalism, and fuzzy thought. This is one reason why arguing with them is like drilling holes in the water. Rand described “floating abstractions”, very poorly-defined concepts that could mean whatever the speaker wants and effectively mean nothing. Rand also described the “fallacy of the stolen concept” (something that denies the existence of a concept it depends on); “property is theft” is one example. Another item is the “anti-concept”, a thought-terminating cliché meant to delegitimize a valid concept. All these rhetorical tricks are common in leftist terminology and linguistic bowdlerizations, notably catch-all insults larded up with preconceptions often ending in “-ism” and “-phobia”.

Rand used the word “evasion” in a technical sense—basically meaning refusal to face the facts—even calling this evil. These days, people having their PC blinders on are afraid to face uncomfortable truths that threaten their views. Ideology is often taken to a fanatical degree, and cultural Marxism is a huge offender. Social Justice Warriors in particular are so screwed up that hearing contradictory facts is “triggering”, and logically reassessing their views could cause an existential crisis.

Subjectivism is a big article of faith in far-left viewpoints, which basically asserts that reality is a product of our minds. That’s childish nonsense popular with those educated beyond their ability to understand. For example, some varieties of feminism say that men and women are exactly the same, other than a few body parts. They act as if they repeat it enough and believe it strongly enough, it will become true. Naturally, Objectivism—stating that that reality exists independent of our beliefs, we encounter this reality through observation and the power of reason, “A is A”, and wishing something doesn’t make it so—is a great antidote to subjectivism.

Rand took it pretty far, for example, that one should examine why one likes particular styles of music, art, etc.; it wasn’t enough just to like them. Still, she couldn’t quite figure out why she was a Salvador Dali fan. Rand had a theory of aesthetics and how it relates to one’s sense of life. It’s altogether good, though not as significant. Still, it was considered serious business back in the day. It’s true that one’s taste in art can tell you something about that person’s psychology, but some things are just a mystery buried deep in the unconscious mind.

The importance of freedom

The Utah Data Center is designed to store exabytes of information and "is alleged to be able to process "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, and bookstore purchases"

The Utah Data Center is designed to store exabytes of information and “is alleged to be able to process “all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Internet searches, as well as all types of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, and bookstore purchases”

Rand summarized,

My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.

Rand knew the distinction between liberty and license. She was on board with the Aristotelian concept of liberty—freedom to act in your rational best interests. Others had the same rights, which shouldn’t be transgressed. She didn’t believe freedom meant doing whatever the hell you want; she called that “whim worship” and denounced it.

She thought anarchy was silly, which it is. Her view of the state’s role is that it should only provide basic law-and-order functions. I consider that debatable, but Rand’s perspective is a good antidote to leftists who want an overreaching government that can do anything for you (and to you).

Within the bounds of the above considerations, she strongly emphasized personal freedom. If she were around today, she would be appalled by the degree of domestic spying, nanny-state intrusiveness, and erosion of Constitutional law. More emphasis on personal freedom is a good thing, given today’s stifling government increasingly hostile toward its citizens.


In 2008 Obama said he thought marriage was between a man and a woman

In 2008 Obama said he thought marriage was between a man and a woman

Rand considered compromise wrong, stating:

In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.


There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

Note well, Saul Alinsky had a very different viewpoint. As he put it in Rules For Radicals:

But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.

A free and open society is an on-going conflict, interrupted periodically by compromises–which then become the start for the continuation of conflict, compromise, and on ad infinitum.

As Alinsky hinted, this “new normal” would then be the launching point for more demands as soon as the other side partially capitulates. Not accepting the 30% compromise they agreed to means they were negotiating in bad faith all along. This is a very valuable lesson to those of us who strive against cultural Marxism’s dialectic strategy. It’s a mistake to give into their demands and let the camel get its nose under the tent; it just encourages them, and you lose piecemeal.

Still, Rand’s refusal to compromise could be seen as excessively hard-headed. There’s something to be said for building bridges with potential allies. She rejected the Libertarians as whim-worshipers lacking a philosophical grounding; a lost opportunity since Libertarians actually have political positions very close to Objectivists.

Emphasis on capitalism

Trump tower

Objectivism presents an excellent, devastating critique of Communism. The epic tragedy We, The Living described first-hand the tyranny, hunger, and corruption of the early USSR. Atlas Shrugged provided another hard-hitting look at all the graft and dysfunction resulting from socialism. Her scathing depiction of those supporting and profiteering from it—limousine liberals, pointy-headed intellectuals, and what we now call SJWs—will be quite familiar to those aware of today’s globalist/leftist alliance. The Fountainhead skewered them too, focusing on how they manipulate the arts and the cultural scene.

Rand’s glowing elegies to productivity and genius are admirable. The creative captains of industry driven to success who she describes are alphas in the best possible sense. If Rand’s novels inspire someone stuck in a dead-end job—or stuck in his mom’s basement playing video games—to start a small business which becomes a profitable career, so much the better.

Capitalism does have much going for it, but Rand didn’t quite foresee the distortions that great concentrations of wealth can cause. For instance, she defended the existence of monopolies, but didn’t fully grasp that lack of competition interferes with Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” effect, which is what makes capitalism fairly efficient. Neither did she foresee the negative effects of big money on the political process and all the associated corruption.

If Rand were around now, she would regard the wealthy being in charge as right and natural. However, she’d be horrified that they are leftist degenerates who use cultural Marxism as a control method, manipulate international culture and geopolitics, and are doing their damnedest to produce a sheep-like servility in the public. There’s much to be said for a market economy, but problems result when it’s dominated by huge corporations. Instead, we should decentralize production.

Rejection of altruism

Most think of altruism as being kind to others. Objectivism uses it in a technical sense, basically meaning putting others above oneself, contrary to one’s own interests and well-being. Altruism includes anything from social pressure (for instance, your loser brother bugging you for yet another “loan”) to hardcore tyranny. Objectivism, being highly individualistic, regards altruism as involuntary self-sacrifice; basically like slavery. People should be self-reliant, neither mooching from others nor tolerating that.

Rejecting altruism might seem “not nice”, especially for those unaware of the Objectivist technical sense. Still, it’s time we refuse to be played for chumps. Being “Mister Nice Guy” gets you nowhere! There was a reason for hospitality to wayfarers in ancient times, and looking out for your family is a good thing (within reason). However, it’s wrong to make you responsible for the well-being of the whole country (or the world), or force you to place everyone else’s interests ahead of yours.

Pathological altruism features in the runaway welfare state as well as the religion of multiculturalism. These days, our society’s values—kindness, tolerance, fairness, etc.—have been turned into weapons against us. Thus, we should reevaluate if things like extending charity to the entire planet, letting in the world’s hard-luck cases, or becoming a global melting pot are wise or good for us.

Ultimately, I favor a balanced perspective. Some are helpless through no fault of their own, such as children, the severely disabled, and the elderly. I wouldn’t mind a well-regulated social safety net encouraging and assisting people to become as independent as they can, given their circumstances. Unfortunately, what exists now is a massive and inefficient bureaucracy subsidizing dependency. That leads to intergenerational poverty, causing squalor and crime, and that doesn’t help in the long term.

One definition of justice is the balance of the interests of individuals to the interests of the community. This balance is an example of the Aristotelian Golden Mean, wherein virtue is the middle ground between two vices. One negative extreme is pathological altruism. The other negative extreme is atomistic hyper-individualism. Society is more than just the sum of its parts, and we should care about the outcome of our civilization.

Rejection of nationalism


Res ipse loquitur

I’ve covered several largely positive items. Now here’s a major shortcoming. Rand dismissed the importance of ethnic heritage because of the belief in the primacy of the individual. As the idea goes, one’s accomplishments stand on their own, neither increased nor diminished by one’s ancestry.

That’s fine in theory, but regarding people as identical, interchangeable social units misses some important considerations. To mention just a few, group differences are real. Genetics has an influence on culture. Packing several unrelated groups—with greatly differing customs and values—into the same territory is a recipe for trouble. More cultures mean more conflicts. Since evasion is bad, Objectivists aren’t allowed to dismiss all this once they’re confronted with the facts.

To her credit, Rand didn’t make this a centerpiece of her ideology as leftists do, or virtue-signal about it like today’s cuckservatives. Actually, she did make some politically incorrect remarks that certainly would “trigger” SJWs these days.

The failure to see beyond Rousseau’s “blank slate” argument and confront the problems with multiculturalism causes some to see Objectivism as a distraction. Indeed, it offers no ideological defense against globalist population replacement policies. If Rand had seen that multiculturalism and mass immigration were being used as a sociopolitical battering ram (something more apparent now than in her day), she might have reconsidered. Ultimately, dismissing ethnic solidarity as collectivism was an opportunity lost.

Other pain points


Rand was a hard-boiled atheist, which she considered to be a key part of Objectivism. She was strictly materialist, in the “if you can’t touch it, it’s not real” sense, and had a great dislike for what she saw as irrational mysticism. This has turned off many conservatives who might otherwise embrace it. There’s no wiggle room for reconciling religion with science, and this matter remains a hot topic of discussion.

Rand didn’t personally put much emphasis on family ties, and this is reflected in the childless heroes of her novels. This is an unfortunate lapse, since youth is the future. Our families are part of who we are, even as individuals. Further, she was pro-abortion; she wasn’t a feminist (and took a lot of heat for saying a woman wouldn’t make a good President), but endorsed their most lethal position. If she’d witnessed one of these ghastly procedures, perhaps she would’ve changed her mind.

Objectivism galvanized a great many. Eventually, a cult of personality emerged around her, which she didn’t discourage. If it seems inconsistent that a passionate advocate of rationality and individualism would have a cult-like following, it is.

Rand got into a polyamorous relationship with Nathaniel Branden, then her top disciple, a detail many consider immoral. To make a long story short, he broke up with her, and that caused a rift severely damaging the Objectivist community. Polyamory does have a high drama potential, and bad breakups are a cost of doing business, but it would’ve been much better kept as a private matter.

Despite striving for perfection, Rand was still only human, and subject to personal flaws. Whatever these shortcomings were, confusing the messenger with the message is mistaken.

The possible influence of Rand’s background

There are some, such as David Duke, who regard her Jewish ancestry suspiciously (her birth name was Alisa Zinivievna Rosenbaum). It’s a bit indelicate, but I should address it lest it be the elephant in the room. Perhaps too much has been made of it; there are far more deserving targets for criticism. Rand was pro-Israel (though saying fairly little about it), seeing Palestinians as dreadfully backward, per the general opinion of Muslims as fanatical “camel jockeys”. I’m not taking sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, but there are reasons why that stereotype exists.

As an atheist who didn’t consider ethnicity important (even her own), she didn’t feel her Jewish roots strongly; no more than I consider my very scanty Mormon background while I enjoy a cold beer. Neither did she have a self-hatred complex like Karl Marx or certain key globalists today. Actually, she greatly admired us, and lacked any ill will or rivalry toward gentiles. By some others, that most unfortunately has led to friction, ultimately destructive to both sides.

Did her latent Jewishness inspire her notions on materialism? She did carefully work out her ideology from first principles and believed what she said. So we should consider Objectivism on its own terms, at least until some scientist discovers a gene for materialism. I’m happy to recognize overall positive Jewish contributions; more of the same (and fewer negative ones) will help alleviate the regrettable friction. Those concerned about anti-Semitism should note this well.

What can be learned from Ayn Rand

Objectivism is like spicy food: some like it and some don’t. Extending the analogy, it can be a refreshing break if you’ve been fed a steady diet of nothing but baloney. It does have much to contribute to politics and philosophy, serving as a remedy for much worn-out leftist thought. Still, it does have some negatives, most of which are from taking good principles too far as well as shortsightedness in some areas.

Objectivism is not really a “pick and choose” ideology. An Objectivist diverging on one of the major tenets (or perhaps some minor one) might be criticized for not being a true Objectivist. This “all or nothing” approach surely turns off some who agree with most of it. However, there’s nothing stopping us from learning from its good points, or deciding how far it is beneficial to take them.

If Objectivism gives a Libertarian a sharper ideological perspective, there’s no harm in that. If it causes a liberal to lose faith in socialism, that’s even better. If exposure to Objectivist epistemology causes someone steeped in mainstream conservatism to realize that one must consider uncomfortable truths, that person might shed the PC blinders. Rather than an ideological dead end, Objectivism’s clarity, emphasis on reason, and barbecuing leftist sacred cows can be a launching point to other valuable perspectives such as ours.

Read More: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

162 thoughts on “An Alternative (Right?) Perspective On Objectivism”

  1. Good read, IMHO. But regarding this passage –
    “If Rand were around now, she would regard the wealthy being in charge as right and natural. However, she’d be horrified that they are leftist degenerates who use cultural Marxism as a control method, manipulate international culture and geopolitics, and are doing their damnedest to produce a sheep-like servility in the public.”
    A very strong case could be made that Ayn Rand was just another mouthpiece for the globalists’ social engineering plans. Let’s connect some quick dots here, and you’ll see what I mean. Anybody who becomes a famous writer, did so at an elitist’s publishing house. Which means the elitists wanted that writer to become famous. Which means the elitists approved of what the writer had to say, because it dovetailed with one of their objectives. I don’t know if Rand took a course in logic, but this one is pretty easy to figure out.

  2. Oh, you would have to troll me today.
    I can tell you that our elites don’t find Ayn Rand’s philosophy threatening. For one thing she supported the basic principles of our elites’ feminist degeneracy: Women’s college education and careers; women’s sexual freedom, contraception, abortion and sterility; open marriages, adultery, affairs and divorce. Fortunately she stopped short of endorsing homosexuality and transgenderism.
    And for another, she supported our elites’ childish utopianism about race and immigration. Our business and financial elites also agree with Rand’s view that they should have the freedom to do whatever they want. And god knows our popular psychology has adopted Rand’s view of selfishness and self-esteem as the goals of “good mental health.”
    Then look at what Rand allegedly “opposed”: Government regulations, the welfare state, taxation, fiat money and central banking. But no one in power retaliated against her by, for example, throwing her in jail, accusing her of “hate speech,” causing her to lose jobs, canceling or disrupting her public appearances or pressuring her to humiliate herself publicly by repudiating her beliefs. Apart from her self-created problems in her old age, she had an easy life in the United States because she attacked the state in the areas where the people in power just don’t feel vulnerable, despite her self-promotion as an enemy of tyranny.
    Many people in our elites may have even read Rand’s novels or nonfiction works early in life, but they dismissed her because they already agree with a lot of what she says that has become mainstream ideology – her atheism, feminist degeneracy and advocacy of open borders – while they disregard the rest as uninsightful or unworkable. I doubt anyone who wields power and influence in our country has lost sleep because of the challenge to his beliefs he found in Rand’s amateurish philosophical works like For the New Intellectual, An Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology or The Romantic Manifesto.
    By contrast, look at what happens to public figures who venture into the areas identified as crucial by the Alt Right involving race, immigration, feminism and gay degeneracy, most recently Richard Spencer and Emily Youcis.
    The difference shows what our elites really care about, what they consider their most powerful tools for controlling and reshaping society according to their plans, and where they feel the most vulnerable to the men willing to stand up to them. Rand’s philosophy just doesn’t cut it now (and it probably never did) because she played it safe by pretending to defy the most secure parts of the state where her criticisms could just bounce off and not provoke retribution from the powerful.
    And Rand’s strategy makes sense, in a way. She came from a background in stage and cinema, and she apparently created Objectivism as a form of theater where you look and act in certain ways for spectators, instead of doing practical things to try to roll back the state to its proper limits where you could get into trouble with the powerful by doing so.
    But then, what would you expect of a philosophy imagined by a girl?

  3. Good read, IMHO. But regarding this particular passage –
    “If Rand were around now, she would regard the wealthy being in charge as right and natural. However, she’d be horrified that they are leftist degenerates who use cultural Marxism as a control method, manipulate international culture and geopolitics, and are doing their damnedest to produce a sheep-like servility in the public.”
    A very strong case could be made that Ayn Rand was just another mouthpiece for the globalists’ social engineering plans. Let’s connect some quick dots here, and you’ll see what I mean. Anybody who becomes a famous writer, did so at an elitist’s publishing house. Which means the elitists wanted that writer to become famous. Which means the elitists approved of what the writer had to say, because it dovetailed with one of their objectives. I don’t know if Rand took a course in logic, but this one is pretty easy to figure out – rattlesnakes don’t commit suicide…

    1. Good point, pre internet, if the establishment, or some strong opposing faction, didn’t want your message out it mostly didn’t get out unless you brought it by force of arms.

    2. The fact is she didn’t think that wealth made right either. in fact she vilified the wealthy elitists who used the government to shut out competition. Her “heroes” were the ones that produced things. In fact it was the wealthy elitist villains that allowed the socialists to spread their worldviews, in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead novels.

  4. Extreme right, Randian-style libertarianism (I think she was a stooge to give libertarianism a bad name) is just as dangerous to society as extreme left communist totalitarianism; in fact, they’re both actually two sides of the same coin.
    Is it any surprise that she’s worshiped by Greenspan, the money-changers and other degenerates of society?
    I especially find this tidbit amusing: “Objectivism, being highly individualistic, regards altruism as involuntary self-sacrifice; basically like slavery.”
    Rand is an overrated fool who simply marketed herself very well.

  5. “Most think of altruism as being kind to others. Objectivism uses it
    in a technical sense, basically meaning putting others above oneself,
    contrary to one’s own interests and well-being. Altruism includes
    anything from social pressure (for instance, your loser brother bugging
    you for yet another “loan”) to hardcore tyranny. Objectivism, being
    highly individualistic, regards altruism as involuntary self-sacrifice;
    basically like slavery. People should be self-reliant, neither mooching
    from others nor tolerating that.”
    This reminds me of one of my fave posts by Terry/Teddy Xu/Yu (he hasnt been on this site in a long time, dont remember his handle) but he accused white people of having “pathological altruism”.

  6. Ayn Rand’s official story of her early life makes no sense.
    One, how did she get a visa from Stalin’s Soviet Union to “visit relatives” in the United States in 1926? How many of those did the Soviet regime issue in those years, and to whom? Millions of people in Russia would have killed for a way out of that shit hole, but Rand somehow secured the “Get Out of Jail Free” card.
    Two, after coming to the U.S. and spending some time with these alleged “relatives” in Chicago, she traveled to Hollywood and just by alleged sheer coincidence met the director Cecil B. DeMille, who offered her a job. Uh, could Rand legally have accepted employment in the United States as a visitor from a foreign country – not a legal immigrant – and one who wound up overstaying her visa? Did DeMille break the law by offering Rand a job? The Immigration Act of 1924 had tightened up on the requirements for letting in immigrants, and yet somehow she got away with violating the regulations with impunity. How many people in similar circumstances in those years wound up arrested and deported?
    So, yeah, it sounds plausible that Rand had patrons behind the scenes with the power to transplant her from the Soviet Union to the United States and protect her from the authorities, once you examine the mythic account of her origins rationally.

    1. These are some very good points – I too would be curious for more details. Seems strange for an immigrant to meet Hollywood moguls. Usually chicks that pull this off are über hot on the tits-and-ass department; but Rand was not.
      That said, though I do respect Atlas Shrugged.
      Albionic – do you have any speculation that something rlsr was going on? What is your tske on Atlas Shrugged?

      1. I don’t have the answers to the puzzles with Rand’s immigration story.
        And yeah, she didn’t get by on her looks. Rand also downplayed her Jewish background, but many of the younger American and Canadian Jews who met Rand in the 1950’s and 1960’s, themselves only a generation or two removed from immigrants, picked up on Rand’s Jewishness right away just from her appearance and accent. She reminded them of their Jewish mothers or aunts from the old country.

      2. You have to look at Atlas in an historical context where Americans want to find hacks and shortcuts to become “superhuman,” or at least noticeably better than other people. We see an early example of this in Benjamin Franklin’s Autobiography, for example, where he writes about the experiments he conducted on himself to try to become morally perfect.
        In the last century this idea floated around in popular culture, witness the popularity of fads about diet, exercise, positive thinking, self-hypnosis, General Semantics, Scientology, LSD, etc.
        Rand’s novel fits into this pattern because she wrote it as a kind of advertisement for her philosophy by showing the powers of Operating Objectivists like Dagny Taggart, Francisco d’Anconia and Henry Rearden. And who wouldn’t want to become “superhuman” like those characters? From hindsight Rand’s philosophy looks like a poor man’s transhumanism, and many of today’s transhumanists cite Rand as an inspiration.
        I don’t know how seriously she took her own claims, however. Empirically we can see that:
        Objectivism + Man ≈ Man
        Subtract Man from both sides:
        Objectivism ≈ 0

        1. Interesting and I see your point. Do you think Atlas Shrugged had any subtle alterior motive to bring down the USA? Or was she just keen on knowing what the people want to read?

        2. You’ve got to be kidding me – have you read Atlas Shrugged and considered that it was written in the 1950’s ??

    2. Very interesting point regarding the Visa.
      They were NOT issued to those that Stalin’s Commissars did not trust. “visiting relatives” was NOT something they cared about. They were not sentimental men.
      So why was she issued a Visa?

      1. Plenty of other Jews couldn’t get out of the Soviet Union, however, like the rest of Rand’s family.

        1. You really, really, have no fucking idea about what you are talking.
          Yes, she was jewish. Yes, Objetivism is a pernicious doctrine.
          NO, she was not ‘hired’, she was only acting like a typical jew, spreading false and corrosive doctrines. NO, NO and NO, Atlas Shrugged is not the blueprint for the NWO; just look around you.
          You, and the other fucker Marcos_Brazil, are just tinfoil hats who discredit a valid model of analysis with non sense about satanism/illuminati/reptilians/whatever.

        2. Here here! Most of these people have CLEARLY NOT read the book. The book is (in my opinion) a WARNING to what we may/have become!! Satanism/illuminati/new world order ??? NONSENSE!!

    3. when Rand left it wasn’t exactly “Stalin’s Russia” yet. Lenin only died a year ago and it still was a time of NEP – New Economic Policy – which can be loosely described as “mild capitalism”. all kind of things were possible then with the right connections and money. it sure as hell wasn’t easy – but it still wasn’t the time when it was completely unthinkable.
      also, some info here:
      and here’s some answers on her employment in the States:

      1. That still doesn’t address the issue of how Rand gamed or broke America’s immigration laws. Could people just visiting on a visa legally hold jobs here in the 1920’s?

        1. she sure had some good connections, great talent, and probably sucked a few dicks. not everything in life is being done exactly by the book – even in such orderly, quiet and otherwise idyllic times as 1920s were.

      2. In Kharkov there were between 2,000 and 3,000 executions in February–June 1919, and another 1,000–2,000 when the town was taken again in December of that year; in Rostov-on-Don, approximately 1,000 in January 1920; in Odessa, 2,200 in May–August 1919, then 1,500–3,000 between February 1920 and February 1921; in Kiev, at least 3,000 in February–August 1919; in Ekaterinodar, at least 3,000 between August 1920 and February 1921; In Armavir, a small town in Kuban, between 2,000 and 3,000 in August–October 1920. The list could go on and on.
        Sounds wonderful!
        Strange they didn’t just leave the country if it was so easy?
        The CHEKA/NKVD had to approve anyone leaving which means they approved of Ayn Rand leaving.

        1. what on earth does it have to do with anything? in 1919-1921 there still was a Civil War in Russia. plus re-read my post again.

        2. Lenin and Zinoviev were butchers as well, just not on the scale of Stalin.
          It wasn’t just the civil war that led to mass executions.
          That aside the Soviets approved Ayn Rand leaving which most were not allowed to do.

        3. Yeah it does.
          People weren’t allowed to leave and the link you provided is claiming that most could freely leave.
          It is BS.
          You also claim above that the 1920’s Soviet Union was an “idyllic” time.
          Also BS.

        4. i said that it sure as hell wasn’t easy and required connections and money. and i never said that 1920’s Soviet Union was an “idyllic” time.

    4. Seems to me that Rand served to caracturize capitalism in the terms that communism attacks capitalism in. Communists have always called Capitalists as uncaring, exploitative, and materialistic. Rand with the help of another wolf in sheep’s clothing: William F. Buckley attempted to do just that.

    5. She obtained her visa to visit the United States by convincing the US visa officer that she had a fiance that she would return to after six months. Once here, she was able to have the visa extended, and just before it expired, she married in 1929. Was she an illegal? not quite, did she bend the rules, absolutely. What would have happened to her had she returned? most probably she would have been executed or sent to a gulag.

  7. It’s been a long time, but I did read Atlas Shrugged years and The Fountainhead. Too bad this stuff is not read as part of a reading lesson in ‘publik skools’ or colleges.

    1. Anthem was part of my 9th grade English reading list, and I moved on to the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged on my own (and oddly enough, she was instrumental on my path to conversion to Christianity).
      As far as forcibly including it on reading lists, the old expression “you can lead a horse to water, but you can;t make him drink” applies: the other kids kvetched about reading Anthem.

      1. Starting a kid on Anthem is a lot less daunting than 8lbs and 1800 pages of Atlas Shrugged on him.

  8. Good read. My take away compliments a theme that’s been recurring recently to me in light of the exciting times we are living in. . .

    “. . . objectivism. . . Communism. . . postmodernism. . . obscurantism. . . emotionalism. . .cultural Marxism. . . Subjectivism. . .feminism. . .Aristotelian. . . Libertarians. . . Capitalism. . .altruism. . . multiculturalism. . .atomistic hyper-individualism. . . mysticism. . .”

    . . . and those are just the “-isms” (with a few extra) that I took out of the article. The globalist enemy has a huge abundance of money and resources at their disposal. Their subversive techniques have allowed them to infiltrate every school of thought and even create some of those quoted above. BB has a good read on, “10. . . things to know about Kelloggs”, detailing private sector corruption due to destructive ideology.
    It all becomes an exercise in mental masturbation with all the long winded commentary on “-isms” this and “-isms” that. While the common man is out earning a living, wealthy evildoers are allotting his extorted tax dollars to around the clock scheming on how to conquer his lands using, or subverting, every “-ism” under the sun as another “gotcha” in 5, 10, 20 years time regardless who appears to be in power. The root of the problem is that the Western nations “laws” have become a beast that serves these wicked men. It does not protect Western nations or culture, but rather wages war against them. If one point gets driven home in this comment let it be that every nation’s laws is a reflection of someone’s morality. It is impossible to separate morality from legislation.
    “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ.” Col 2:8 NASB
    The West has fully been taken captive! It was different in centuries past. Christian moral law is the only thing that inoculates, and protects, a nation against the globalists. No “-ism” is going to save you. No “new” school of thought is going to reveal answers to bring about the return of kings, the West, or advance man’s destiny into a just, lawful, and orderly future for all mankind. Only Christian moral law.
    As an example, one can go on and on and on about the different “traditions of men” (-“isms”) and debate their worth in Western society. Christian moral law trumps them all in one law, “You shall have no other gods besides me”. Even a five year old can reason that. It trumps every other “law system” or competing ideology right out of the gate. Zionism? Not welcome here. No other gods. Communism? Socialism? Islamism? Stop. No. First commandment. Open and shut. Not wasting my life bloviating over all the “-isms” man has come up with because the simplicity of Christ inoculates me against this vain exercise and waste of time. That’s just one example of the “perfect law of liberty”. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, and the law is spiritual.
    Why do people think the Globalists hate and despise Christianity so much? It is the only effective thing that has stood in the way of their false god from the beginning. His moral law holds the answers and they are the only answers. There are no alternatives. The sooner the West wakes up to that the sooner we can take back our own destiny.

  9. Rand also worked to alienate white Americans from our own cultural heritage. Why did she disparage Shakespeare, for example? She must have picked up on the fact that many Americans of British ancestry had read and liked her novels, so to secure their loyalty, she tried to discredit her readers’ given literary tradition and substitute an inferior one of her own devising where her novels would look better by comparison, along with her own aesthetic theory to rationalize her works’ value.
    And she hired Nathaniel Branden to do the organizational work for her; he obliged by creating the Nathaniel Branden Institute to bring in and indoctrinate new Rand cultists.
    People with good liberal or classical educations can see that her novels just don’t measure up compared with the best literature in the Western canon. Rand knew this on some level, but instead of trying to write better novels, she attacked the value of her predecessors’ achievements.

    1. Because Shakespeare wrote crap?
      Sorry, always hated Shakespeare. But mostly I hate Romeo and Juliet. Midsummer Night’s Dream actually I rather like. 😀
      Can’t say I’m that fond of Rand either. Atlas Shrugged was alright, but I never cared for the Fountainhead.

      1. Some of the current Rand cultists realize that Rand stated embarrassingly bad things about art and literature, and they want to downplay that now. This Kool-Aid drinker, for example, acknowledges that he likes both Shakespeare and Beethoven, regardless of what Rand wrote about them:

        As I write this post, I’m listening to Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony, the symphony widely considered to have shattered the classical form and ushered in the era of the Romantic symphony. The music is profound, intellectual, opinionated. Beethoven has something to say. Few listeners find it surprising, for instance, that Beethoven apparently dedicated the symphony to Napoleon, only to rescind the dedication when Napoleon declared himself Emperor. Yet the intellectual content of the music does not convert it into anything like a conference talk; nor does it render the music dull, although it does make special demands on the listener. But for those able to appreciate it, the music’s intellectuality heightens its power.
        Or take Shakespeare. One of my great pleasures in the last couple of years, since moving to the East Coast, has been to see a number of well-performed Shakespeare tragedies. You cannot leave the theater after seeing a good version of Hamlet or Othello or Julius Caesar without grasping that Shakespeare is a profoundly intellectual writer: he has much to say about man and life on earth. His characters engage in speeches and soliloquies. No one, neither today nor in Shakespeare’s time (with the possible exception of Shakespeare himself), can speak with the eloquence, intellectual exactness or emotional vividness that Shakespeare’s characters do. But all this intellectual content does not render the plays didactic or unentertaining, because this content is integral to the drama of the story. Without it, you cannot understand the characters’ motivations or actions, or the logic of the events.

  10. As an epistemology (way of knowing) I think Objectivism is good. As a political philosophy, it’s questionable. And as a moral philosophy, it’s abysmal.

  11. Not a bad critique of Objectivism. Being essentially objectivist myself, I agree with much of it. The “nationalist” part of it in particular. Rand’s world-view works well for those who are capable of it, which are what I would call “Heinleinian competent” people, which are generally limited to the northern hemisphere (European whites and north-east Asian peoples). In essence, I am somewhat of an objectivist as well as a “northernist”.
    I think the family-based objections to objectivism and libertarianism in general are way off base. Libertarianism is not anti-family. Rather libertarianism and family values are orthogonal to each other. Libertarianism is the freedom to make ones own choices in life, not about making a cockup of the choices that one makes. Family values is a specific subset of the general concept that anything that is worth doing should be done well. If you’re going to have a family, do a good job of it, which is really no different than engaging in any other productive pursuit in life. In other words, what we call “family values” is really just an emphasis on competence and all libertarians worth their salt believe in competence.
    As for religion, I don’t believe in it, not at all. Others do and I consider religion to be personal thing and nothing more. There really isn’t anything more that can be said about it.
    As for the reconciliation of religion with science, comparing science and religion is like comparing apples and oranges.

  12. One other thing thats missing from objectivism, which I believe in but much of the alt-right probably does not, is pioneering as a free standing value of its own. I believe that pioneering, in the Turner-Heinleininan sense, is the true basis of spiritualism. In other words, spiritualism as something separate and distinct from pioneering does not exist.
    Pioneering is a value that the alt-right should emphasize. The white Europeans who settled America are essentially the only humans on the planet that believe in any concept of pioneering, and I consider pioneering to be what makes Western civilization special. Without pioneering, the West and the white races in general are no different than the rest of the human race. In which case, any concept of nationalism becomes meaningless.
    A good world-view is a mixture of Rand, Rothbard, and Heinlein.

  13. But to the organizer, compromise is a key and beautiful word. It is always present in the pragmatics of operation. It is making the deal, getting that vital breather, usually the victory. If you start with nothing, demand 100 per cent, then compromise for 30 per cent, you’re 30 per cent ahead.
    This is why I always disagreed with republicans willing to compromise with democrats on gun control issues. Any legislation passed is just a foot in the door. It’s obvious by seeing comments from high level democrats what their goal is.

    1. Compromise is necessary – just not on your ideals/values. That’s how I reconciled her stuff with Real Life.

    1. Rand inspired several cults in addition to LaVey’s: Frank R. Wallace’s Neotech, John Williamson’s Sandstone Retreat (featured prominently in Gay Talese’s book about the sexual revolution, Thy Neighbor’s Wife), and Keith Raniere’s NXIVM.

      1. Interesting. I have some reading to do on the subject I think. At first glance I don’t see how her ideas can provided any kind of solid basis for conservatism though

        1. Accordingly to the CoS official doctrine, they don’t believe in Satan as an actual metaphysical being but as a symbol of rebellion, defiance, etc.
          Now, seriously speaking Satanism (CoS and derivates)is just a poor blend of Nietzsche, (((Rand))) and theatrical psychodrama. The same (((LaVey))) defined a satanist as “just a liberal in a halloween costume”.

  14. Ugly Jewess!
    Enough said.
    I would rather be interested in what Jesus said. Or Adolf. Or Roosh V for that matter.
    Or any average straight, white, christian male if push comes to shove.

    1. Pathetic statment. She was a cultural Warrior against communism. Stood against big Government at evey turn. Wtf have you done?

      1. What I have done is freeing my mind from the thoughts of any “clever” Jewish thinkers, knowing full well that no matter how convincing they are, at the end all they wish is to fuck us up. And what have you done?.

        1. Oh I see. You just hate Jews. The woman dedicated her life to fighting the same ideology we fight today, but she was Jew, so to dickheads like yourself she must be evil.

        2. No, I do not hate Jews. I am just aware that she does not belong to my people, even in the wider sense, as in: white, christian people of Europe.
          Just a quote from the article above: “Rand dismissed the importance of ethnic heritage because of the belief in the primacy of the individual.”
          Do you understand why she does that? Because all Jews fear that if white non-Jews recognise the importance of ethnic heritage, they represent a threat to the Globalist Jewish power structure.
          “Rejection of altruism?” It is advising stupid Goyim to refuse to help each other, while her kind feeds off them.
          So even a Jewish thinker “fighting Cultural Marxism” – as you claim it she does – is peddling the same message as Cultural Marxism, and for the very same reason, like the liberal-bolsheviks today, but she is doing it in a more Conservative disguise.
          If you decide to fall for it, well, who am I to say to you what to do? You are a free man and an adult. For me, it is enough that I warned you, maybe got you thinking of certain implications. Learn from it or leave it – your choice.

  15. I have read Atlas and Anthem. I will at some time in the future read Fountainhead. I found Rand long winded, her characters very two dimensional, and her portrayal of Reardon et al as paragons of virtue without realising the reality of greed in many people in their position in real life.
    Anthem was a much more realistic view of a future ruled by sjw’s. She was way ahead of her time on this topic.
    From what I can gather of her life and character a evening round Ayn’s would have been a real hoot…..

  16. This is a decent critique. A couple of things:
    Objectivism is not an ideology. Its a philosophy BASED ON the ideology of Individualism. I am an Objectivist but I never encourage people to call themselves such unless they really study the philosophy and find themselves in agreement with 100% of it. But I do encourage everyone to be Individualists.
    Regarding compromise, one shouldn’t compromise on basic principles. You can compromise on details. That is I am not going to compromise on the idea that reality is absolute. But I will admit that I don’t know everything about it and will deter to those who know more than I on a given aspect of reality.
    Regarding racism: it is the most basic and pathetic form of tribalism. For one to reject someone because of their racism background is to say that one’s own fate is also fixed by their genetic make up or some other inborn trait. Get off it, people. I don’t care if you like hanging out with people of your own racial make up. That’s normal.
    I am also very cautious initially around non white people with a strong racial identities because I know how much racism has been normalized against those of use with European backgrounds. But I will not compromise on the principle that anyone can be a good person no matter their background–including myself.
    This by the way does not mean that I think everyone is good. I don’t. There are a lot of evil people in the world. There are even more that live in the mire of the not quite and the almost who go through life “compromising between food and poison” and wind up spiritually dead.
    Again, don’t call yourself an Objectivist if you don’t agree with 100% of it. But get into Ayn Rand’s ideas and see if she can convince you to be an individualist.

    1. For one to reject someone because of their racism background is to say that one’s own fate is also fixed by their genetic make up or some other inborn trait.

      Uh, human biology works that way, you know. A is A. Rand would reject the modern degeneracy that men can turn into women, simply from the fact that men and women have different genetic make-ups, and we don’t have the transhumanist bullshit called “morphological freedom” to change sexes.

      1. Your strawman is noted. Thank you. Alsp, how tall are you? If you are not at least six feet tall, I deem you to be genetically inferior. Thank you.

  17. Rand is really a communist in disguise. Hear me out.
    She is presented as a fierce defender of capitalism and an enemy of the communists. We all know the story; she escaped the evil Soviets and was rescued by America. This gives her more credibility than a random Jewish girl in America.
    Objectivism is the cover over our eyes to distract us from what she really supports. Everyone knows capitalism works pretty damn well, and it’s easy to reason your way to it. She just gave it a name and added to it.
    What does she really support though? Abortion, feminism (I give no weight to her comments on a female president; more important is that all of her female heroes are working independent women.), and globalism.
    What does it matter that she fervently defends and reasons her way to capitalism? The means of attaining communism is destroying the bonds between men. She does her part to destroy familial, racial, and national ties. Those are the things that matter most. We are deceived into thinking Objectivism supports freedom but it will extinguish it.
    With leftists and with Rand, the worst thing you can be is a racist.

    1. As I posted below, Rand promoted most of the destructive agenda of modern feminism, short of lesbianism and having bastard kids. Women’s natural function of childbearing apparently grossed her out, and she bears some responsibility for normalizing the lifestyle of single, sterile career women who turn into middle-aged cat ladies, like that ridiculous broad who now runs the Atlas Society and publishes drivel about using Atlas Shrugged as a woman’s guide to “dating.”.

    2. “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”
      -Vladimir Lenin (((Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov-Blank)))

  18. Ayn Rand gave people permission to be selfish and greedy just like Freud allowed them to indulge their sexual libido. Her whole doctrine ridiculed the Christian ethos. Rand asked: “Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own?” Rand exulted that the statement “what is good for me is right” expressed “the psychology of a real man.”
    She was part of the Illuminati dialectic. On the one hand, they constructed Communism and socialism, “collectivism;” and then they used Ayn Rand to posit its dialectic opposite, Rand’s “Objectivism” a form of individualism. While individualists and collectivists fight it out in a Punch and Judy Show, they don’t see the puppet masters.
    “Collectivism” is simply a means to win popular support for a totalitarian government run by Illuminati Jews and their Masonic fart catchers. Objectivism releases these billionaire Illuminati psychopaths from conscience or any social obligation.
    Who is John Galt? He is Ayn Rand. He is the Cabalist Jew who demands the world accept him as God. He is Rothschild and Rockefeller.
    He is the Illuminati.

    1. Yes. Objectivism rejects religion completely. The primary reason being that faith destroys man’s ability to reason. The rest of your post is a fine example of this reality.

        1. As soon as you accept an idea without evidemxe, you are open to accepting any idea without evidence

        2. But zero does exist to the extent that any number can be said to exist. It has any number of important properties that are essential to arithmetic and algebra, and so we have compelling reasons to want such an object to exist and for it to be a number.

        3. Logic would require you to say that you have no idea if he exists or not.
          That isn’t your claim.

        4. So from our short exchange we can conclude that it is only your belief that God is nothing and if there are no proofs that God is anything i.e. he exists, there are also no proofs he does not exist.
          The atheist is just as unscientific as the theist.

        5. This comment to which I m replying is another good example of what happens to people’s thinking when they try to rationalize the irrational

        6. Sharrukin above, told you that logic would require you to say that you have no idea if he exists or not. Which is exactly my position here.
          Your position on the other hand could be classified as rather religious and dogmatic as even without a proof that God does not exist, you still make a claim against his existence.

        7. The theist does not say he knows that God exists, he says he believes it. He doesn’t need to talk of proofs, since a belief is never based on proofs. Faith is a belief whereas knowledge is a certainty.
          So if you reject his faith you must provide us with some firm foundation for your “knowledge.”
          This you can never do.
          Bye for now.

        8. Argumentum ad ignorantiam
          This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
          unknown between true or false
          being unknowable (among the first three).

        9. Acceptance of the existence of God is based on faith; meaning: belief without evidence.
          It is possible to prove God.
          Pick one.

        10. … or a third option: insufficient investigation.
          We’re going in circles. This is obvious beyond your abilities.
          Sorry I’m done here.

        11. Insufficient evidence would imply it is possible to prove God *in the future.*
          I’m going in a straight line. You are throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.

        12. There’s always an excuse or an exit door when you’re permanently on the high road…on logic, you just got smoked in this thread.

        13. So your statement is: the limits of my knowledge/criteria/perception are the limits of reality. Thankfully our ancestors didn’t think like that…

      1. Faith in -what-? You can have faith in all sorts of things. None of which necessarily destroy the ability to reason.

  19. I’ve fantasized about what a Neoreactionary version of Atlas would look like.
    In my alternate universe, Dagny didn’t want to take over her family’s railroad; she reluctantly had to because she saw her brother Jim’s incompetence and she wanted to try to preserve the wealth she had inherited. She really, desperately wanted to marry and bear children, especially as she reached her 30’s; but she couldn’t find a man worthy enough in her degenerate society until she meets John Galt. At the end of the novel, as she and Galt stare over the horizon, Dagny has a baby in the oven, fathered by Galt, to symbolize the start of the new America they plan to rebuild.
    Also I wouldn’t throw away the lives of Eddie Willers and Cherryl Taggart. They seem like a plausible couple, and they could marry, join the strikers and start their own family.
    But Rand would never have thought like this about her own characters. Women’s natural function, but not the sex itself that initiates it, grossed her out; so she shows this weird blind spot about the biological reality of human flourishing.

    1. I think the fate of Willers had more to do with protecting Ms. Rosenbaum’s allegory than with narrative resolution.

  20. Objectivism is a fucking cult, on par with Scientology. For starters, they can’t get of their fucking high horses. They dismiss all other philosophies without even giving them a chance at dialog, they claim to be objective and scientific without actually using any sources or scientific analysis, and they put their god, Ayn Rand, on a fucking pedestal with near deity levels of respect. Any sort of critical analysis of Rand are considered person attacks against them and their (cult) philosophy, or it is flat out ignored. How many of you knew that she used medicare AND social security?

    1. Well, one thing is for sure. People are often very passionate about her ideas one way or the other.

      1. And that is okay if you have reasons or evidence to backup your passion, Objectivists are just a bunch of tools…

        1. Man, when you are right, you are right. Your incisive commentary has convinced me. I am no longer an Objectivist. Why? Because I don’t want to be a “tool.”

  21. The main value I got from Atlas Shrugged was that it made me empathize with the capitalist and entrepreneur.
    Seems in some cases though Rand is overlooking human nature when she prescribes things like how people should relate to each other… That they should view each other and themselves “objectively” and avoid failings like jealousy, corruption, and other human vices. Guess what lady your “objectivism” is a pipe-dream. Just pass the fucking spliff and shut up already.
    Her philosophy is an idealization of human nature, but on the opposite side of the spectrum compared to Marxist thought. Marxists put the onus on the state and collective whereas Rand puts the onus entirely on the individual. Both philosophies have unrealistic expectations of what is possible though and will never actually work.
    Why will it fail? Because people will begin to exploit the “objectivist’s” conventional social order, and vice and human failure will gradually creep into the system. Nature abhors a vacuum, and where something other than pure objectivism can succeed, it will succeed… And then it’s bye-bye say hi to your new ruler in the sky.

  22. As an atheist who didn’t consider ethnicity important (even her own), she didn’t feel her Jewish roots strongly; no more than I consider my very scanty Mormon background while I enjoy a cold beer.

    It astounds me after all evidence to the contrary throughout history, gentiles still believe this façade from these usurpers.
    Is the sense of altruism and wishful thinking so strong that it overpowers common sense.

  23. Objectivism is SATANISM in (a poor) disguise.
    Do what thou will, with no regards to others. Crowley’s motto. Rand was a lover of a Rothschild, and was hired to write this social Darwinist, eugenics crap to validate the rule of the billionaire bankers. Who by the way don’t believe in merit but are all nepotists.
    Of course there is some truths in this poop sandwich, but absolutely nothing is original or devised by Rand, but borrowed from other authors.

      1. I suspect you misunderstand what satanism is about – there is a technical sense, which has nothing to do with the supernatural or mumbo jumbo, but which relates to the transgression of conventional morality: from what I know about Rand – not that much to be honest – she seems to be objecting to regulation etc based on sentimental (altruistic) morality, something that is seen as holding humans back from their full potential (i.e. it is a perfectly rational if worrying). I might be wrong in my understanding of Rand’s position but the comparison is a serious one not a nutcase religious one – ‘do what thou wilt’ is a crowleyian axiom. For Crowley it is the whole of the law, replacing the superstitious / sentimental morality codes that – in his view – limit our potential. At first sight at least there seems to be something similar going on with Rand’s objectivism.

        1. I’m familiar with modern Satanism both theistic (Temple of Set) and non theistic (Church of Satan) and with Crowley’s writings. You are partially right in saying that Satanism has a component of transgression of conventional morality, liberation, etc, etc. and that (((Rand’s))) Objetivism has a similar component.
          But that similar component doesn’t mean equivalence nor direct relation. You can find this same component in political ideologies that had nothing to do with religious, ‘occult’ of metaphysical doctrines; for example in Anarchism and Marxism. Was Stirner a Satanist? Was (((Marx))) a Satanist?
          There is no need to use religious, metaphysical or ‘occult’ terms to condenate a pernicious doctrine like Objetivism. That’s exactly the problem with tinfoil hats, they start talking about Illuminati and Black Masses when they should be talking about power structures, politics, geopolitics and economy.

        2. I take your point but in a sense my reason for raising the issue is not so dissimilar to yours, namely a concern with the danger of confusing the real issues. The danger in talking about satanism, the occult, the illuminati etc. is indeed that it may produce an emotive / religious response, a knee-jerk reaction, and with it fuzzy thinking. But equally this may be because people don’t know what those terms relate to – they have been mythologised by dumbed-down religion (christianity tends only to wish to condemn anything relating to the occult) or by a hollywood / media only interested in selling scary supernatural stories.
          While self-proclaimed satanism does indeed relate to groups like the Laveyans and sethians there is a technical sense to the term satanism that relates to the broader negation of God, or the laws or commandments of God, and which once religious fixations are dispensed with continues in a commitment to substituting man-made morality for god-derived morality. Now potentially that’s a definition that could include a whole lot of people, including atheists in general (although I’d say that wasn’t the case as most atheists are not in revolt against the everyday order of things). This is the reason for focusing specifically on satanism as something that should be understood in secular terms as a tradition that is fundamentally negatory and often revolutionary in character (there is a sense potentially in which we may all be satanists – adversaries of the god of the moment if you like).
          Now the issue here is whether this clarifies or obscures the issue. My argument is that having a clearer understanding of the ‘satanic’ principle (of negation) as it may have played out in the background of events, including revolutionary history, is necessary if we are to understand the motor of much modern history. You mention Karl Marx in this context. One of the things I was quite surprised to discover is that the young marx did actually write some ‘satanic’ poems. Revolutionaries and social reformers have quite frequently drawn inspiration from satanic themes, even if they should not necessarily be considered satanists. As for Stirner and Rand. In the former case, as far as I’m aware Stirner developed from within a broadly theosophist milieu that occasionally as with the earlier Blavatsky did laud satan as a liberator. Regarding Rand I have not the slightest reason to think she was a satanist in any literal self-conscious sense, but my point in all of the above is to make the intimate connection between the satanic principle of revolt against law / the natural order etc and the practice of revolution, ‘liberation’ etc. From what little I know of Stirner he was an occultist with some very interesting ideas but I’m not aware that he was out ‘to change the world’ or anything. Rand on the other does appear to have wished to negate “sentimental” altruistic laws and regulations that constrained the free play of the self, something that could be seen as being as ‘satanic’ as seeking the political overthrow of a political system etc (which of course might well be genuinely unjust).

        3. yes I meant the latter steiner – my bad. I’m not really familiar with max S. but certainly from the wikipage he would be of interest with respect to the development of the thelemic side of things, and arguably also the ‘anti-nomian’ side (i.e. negating conventional moral law). As in:
          “For Stirner, to be free is to be both one’s own “creature” (in the sense of ‘creation’) and one’s own “creator” (dislocating the traditional role assigned to the gods). To Stirner power is the method of egoism. It is the only justified method of gaining property.”
          I wouldn’t describe the above as Satanic, as it’s focus is positive rather than negatory, but bear in mind the same article sees him as a forerunner of nihilism, which certainly could be understood in ‘satanic’ terms.
          “Stirner considers the world and everything in it, including other persons, available to one’s taking or use without moral constraint[14] – that rights do not exist in regard to objects and people at all. He sees no rationality in taking the interests of others into account unless doing so furthers one’s self-interest”
          I would say that that might accord with some but not other forms of satanism, or theleme. My purpose wasn’t to label everybody ‘satanic’ who didn’t keep the 10 commandents or whatever, but to make the case that there is dynamic history of of anti-nomianism, often understood in explicitly thelemic and / or satanic terms, that is being obscured because people think it’s about the supernatural, and then dismiss any reference to such things as religious ‘weakness of mind’.
          If you consider the Podesta / Abramovic affair (leaving aside the more alluring Pizzagate) one of the reasons it has been possible to pass over the whole affair, is because it can be presented as relating to ignorant ‘satanic panic’ on the part of religious “simpletons” or whatever. You can’t argue against what you can’t clearly define

    1. Did you read the article at all? Or did you just miss the part about “She didn’t believe freedom meant doing whatever the hell you want; she called that “whim worship” and denounced it” that was near the beginning?

  24. I think her life and how she lived it should be a good factor in determining whether or not any of us should listen to her spiel. I mean, are we really taking ideology from a woman who didn’t have any kids and couldn’t manage a single normal relationship?
    What the….!? 🙂
    What’s next? How to find a husband by Jane Austen? 😉

    1. In fact, Traditionalism in the line of Evola/Guenon is a dead end. It is a paralyzing myth. If you really think we are in the Kaliyuga and there is absolutely nothing we can to to stop/reverse the process and the forces of dissolution and decadence, you are simply losing the battle without even fighting.
      Traditionalism is just a doctrine for cowards who do absolutely nothing for secure the existence of our people and a future for white children while thinking of themselves as ‘powerful spiritual warriors riding the tiger in an age of dissolution’.

        1. You are trying to say that Falange was Traditionalist? I have read the complete works of Primo de Rivera (in his original spanish) and there is zero influence of Evola in his thinking or in any postulate of FE-JONS.
          You are confusing the terms. Falange was traditionalist in the catholic-monarchy sense of the word. Evola was Traditionalist in the Guenon sense of the word.
          A little more reading doesn’t hurt.

  25. I’m new here, but I saw the Ayn Rand bit and thought I’d comment.
    I’ve noticed a lot of famous people have unsavory aspects to their lives. Still, philosophies are something, IMHO, you pick and choose from as needed. A lot of entrepreneurs have said her works inspired them to strike out on their own and be successful, so maybe if you are an entrepreneur, her philosophy is useful, but maybe not if you are a different personality type.
    As the writer said, there are some good points and definitely some bad points. You have to be able to take what’s useful to you and discard the bad stuff. She was writing in a different era when Communism was the big threat. Now it’s Cultural Marxism and globalism, so maybe she’s not so useful anymore. Heck, even Einstein was right about relativity (or GPS wouldn’t work), so you can listen to what he says about the motions of particles and discard all the left-wing political stuff.
    Life is about trying different things and seeing what works for you. It might not be the same as what works for someone else, and probably won’t be.

  26. Objectivist epistemology is a disaster. The book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Leonard Peikoff and Harry Binswanger is utterly laughable, and that’s the best the movement ever did in trying to put forward a workable epistemological system. Rand herself never made any attempt to write such a work or elaborate on an Objectivist theory of knowledge.

    1. Ayn Rand wrote Intoduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Peikoff wrote the DIM Hypothesis to complete the theory.
      Tell me, what part do you disagree with most? Is it logic in general you reject or just her appraisal of it?

      1. She didn’t really write it, as it’s not a treatise; it’s a series of brief transcribed interviews that she gave on the subject. Lightweight stuff.
        A major problem, for starters, with Objectivist epistemology (qua Rand) is that it bases all knowledge on deductive reasoning and makes no attempt to account for inductive reasoning.
        Rand herself admitted that she was clueless about the basis for inductive reason, in the following interview transcription:
        Prof. M: The question is: when does one stop? When does one decide that enough confirming evidence exists? Is that in the province of the issue of induction?
        AR: Yes. That’s the big question of induction. Which I couldn’t begin to discuss—because (a) I haven’t worked on that subject enough to even begin to formulate it, and (b) it would take an accomplished scientist in a given field to illustrate the whole process in that field.
        —— —– —–
        Rand’s philosophy is empirical and accepts a tabula rasa view of human knowledge. It thus has no basis to deal with Hume’s problem of induction.

        1. Huh. Did you do any research before you wrote this post or do you just go with what you *feel to be true?
          Ayn Rand wrote ITOE. It’s not a collection of essays as many of her books were. The later editions did include some interviews and an essay by Leonard Peikoff. But Ayn Rand wrote it.
          And it was primarily about logical induction; i.e. the means of concept formation. I have no clue how you came up with the idea that she only dealt with deduction. Did you read a message board or something?

        2. Try reading the referenced Rand quote, for starters. You’re a typical Objectivist who wants to make short ad hominem posts that avoid dealing with the arguments made, such as the inability of Objectivism to deal with the problem of induction due to its simultaneous adoption of empiricism and tabula rasa. I can only assume that you are incapable of a reasoned response to this criticism.
          On a further personal note, you lack an understanding of the ethical Is/Ought problem when you state that ethics proceeds out of metaphysics and epistemology. Ethics (axiology) is its own branch of philosophy for a reason, and ought cannot be derived from is irrespective of the metaphysics or epistemology one adopts.
          You further state that the Stoics were not philosophers because they focused on ethics. You’re joking, right???
          You respond to specific philosophical criticisms with ad hominem arguments because you do not understand the criticisms and don’t have a sound grasp of philosophy. You’re not the first Objectivist to do this, and you won’t be the last. At least you haven’t accused me of being a Kantian yet, but the day is young…

        3. Well, I do admit that I am only a layman. But, homey, you’re just ybrowinh carp at the wall to see what sticks.
          Here’s a professional philosopher’s view on the supposed is/ought dichotomy. I doubt it will sink in for you but maybe others reading can benefit from the following from the Ayn Rand Lexicon:
          It is only an ultimate goal, and end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
          In answer to those philosophers who claim that no relation can be established between ultimate ends or values and the facts of reality, let me stress that the fact that living entities exist and function necessitates the existence of values and of an ultimate value which for any given living entity is its own life. Thus the validation of value judgments is to be achieved by reference to the facts of reality. The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between “is” and “ought.”

        4. In a remote jungle, a man comes across a woman whom he finds sexually arousing. She doesn’t want to have sex with him but he is stronger than her and overpowers her. There are no other people, police, courts or societies in the area, nor will there ever be. The man is unarguably a living entity. Are his actions in this case moral, or no?

        5. If you and I were on a lifeboat and there was plenty of food and water for both I would still throw you over board because I would not want to hear your inane prattling about implausible situations.

        6. You’re obviously in too deep here. Ethical situations arise all the time that are beyond legal and societal judgement. Does the man’s status as a living organism justify sex with a woman against her will or not? The man’s biology is geared for the sex and certainly craves it. Is it moral according to the standard you have posted? Please explain how the brute fact of the man’s existence provides us moral guidance in this situation. You’ve read the Ayn Rand lexicon, so this ought to be easy for you.
          Your cheeky comments and ad hominem posting doesn’t mask the fact that you are intellectually unable to defend your views.

        7. I think everybody knows you’re not supposed to rape people. What I’m vaguely curious about is how you got to this point in our exchange.
          Somehow you moved the conversation from me encouraging the original poster to focus on metaphysics and epistemology as opposed to ethics and politics….to some dude raping a chick in the woods.
          I think I’d like to move on now.

        8. We are at this point in the exchange because you provided a fluff quote from the Ayn Rand lexicon that really says nothing about the Is/Ought problem, which you have essentially trivialized.
          The quote you provided essentially states that the basic fact of a man’s existence and function provides moral guidance that makes the Is/Ought problem moot.
          Given that you believe this to be true, I am simply asking you to demonstrate the principle you are arguing for. The man essentially exists in the jungle, as does his sex drive, which is biologically hard wired and craves sex with unwilling woman he has come across. Given that his actions will never be judged by the law or society, we need you to tell us if it would be moral or not for him to force her to have sex. More importantly, we need you to explain to us how you have derived your answer solely from the fact of this man’s existence, as the passage you provided states so glibly

  27. Classical Athens solved the problem of money in politics. They just use lottery with 1-year term (topped out at two terms). Only the generals were elected as they need the confidence of the citizen-soldiers. About 20% of the managing team were hired for their specialist skills but they worked only one year. All were subjected to strict audit, no exception to root out corruption. Their jury courts have the power to reject bad laws too.

  28. I feel that you can apply objectivist viewpoints to learn from mistakes.
    As a teen I objectively know that something wasn’t right when Al-Qaeda bombed that Navy vessel and Bill Clinton did nothing about it.(Which later led to bolder attacks)
    I knew that terrorist didn’t need a reason to kill 4 people in Benghazi..(Hillary blamed it on a video)
    And most of all, I knew that objectively that I reap what I sowed.( I live and die by MY choices)
    Overall, I’m a conservative because at it’s core it’s founded on some key principles that anyone can live by if applied correctly.

  29. Overall, I think you can use objectivist viewpoints to learn from mistakes.
    It’s not that different from taking the Red Pill IMO.

  30. I came to the alt-right from Objectivism. I credit the influence of Rand with opening me up to new ideas and thinking outside the box the mainstream tried to put me into. For me the main thing was she freed me from the sin of “unearned guilt” or in my context “white guilt.” I also took the lesson that you should examine your premises, in my case I had to look at the gut feelings I had about all the idiotic notions stuffed down my throat about feminism and multiculturalism. In essence, I was given permission to not shy away from gut feeling and actually ask myself why these things made me so uncomfortable. It pretty much gave me the excuse to swallow the red pill.
    In my interactions with doctrinaire objectivists, I find they have actually swallowed a lot of the bullshit peddled by cultural marxism and feminism. Ayn Rand herself remarked that the idea of a woman president being commander-in-chief of the Army was “unspeakable” and regarded homosexuality as “disgusting.” I remember reading objectivist bloggers actually rejecting her views regarding feminism and women being in charge as just a relic of the age she was born in. I find myself actually agreeing with her more now that I’ve come to the alt-right than I did before regarding issues like homosexuality, feminism and all the rest of the cultural marxist clap-trap.

    1. If you’re really interested in philosophy, don’t fixate on ethics, as you are doing here. Focus on metaphysics and epistemology–the nature of the universe and man’s place in it.
      When we “speak in philosophic terms” we are talking about metaphysics and epistemolgy. Ethics flows from these two basics. Politics then flows from ethics.
      The problem with focusing on ethics (what we DO) is that it’s easy to make mistakes. Ayn Rand made a couple of big ethical mostakes, just like most people do. But so what. She still does the best at describing what reality is and how we know it, IMO.

      1. How arbitrary of you. The Stoics focused on ethics. Are you saying that they didn’t speak in “philosophic terms”?

        1. I’ll let your ignorance and inane ad hominem speak for themselves. The Stoics weren’t philosophers because they focused on ethics??? LOL!!

        2. You’re not the sharpest knife in the drawer are you? By the way, why are you speaking of stoics in the past tense? There’s still plenty out there. I was one before I discovered Objectivism

  31. Feminism is right in saying that men and women are alike save a few body parts.
    Problem is, the brain is one of them.

  32. Well Mr. Albrecht, I must give you a sincere compliment.
    This the most thorough and balanced article on Objectivism I have ever read.
    It nicely points out the contrasts…I especially like that you put forward the youth blind spot of Objectivism.
    And I also like your explanation of “Rational Self-Interest” as:
    “People should be self-reliant, neither mooching from others nor tolerating that.”
    If people would really put this last thought into life, there would be no “mama’s-boys” and “daddy’s-girls”.
    BTW: There was a trilogy of Atlas Shrugged filmed not long ago

  33. this a great post – learn’t some background.
    Realize it goes much deeper though.
    Saw an interview – she was adamantly opposed to any market control -100% free market.
    If, I’m not mistaken, same as Milton Friedman yes? no?
    “barbecuing leftist sacred cows” – MAGA

  34. Rand was an ugly woman who was obsessed with alpha males and developed her philosophy as an attempt to lure them as well as channel her sexual frustration into. This is no great secret; throughout her writings, Rand catalogued her every alpha obsession, starting with an illustration of a fictional alpha hero in an adventure story she read as a young girl. From her earliest youth, she associated male physical beauty and dominance with higher moral purpose. She explicitly stated that she developed her philosophy to explain the kind of man she so desired. She was attracted to the Irish good looks and dominance of a brutal criminal who kidnapped and savagely murdered a twelve year old girl. She was attracted by her husband’s Irish good looks, but quickly lost attraction for him, due to his submissive personality. She openly cucked him and drove him into humiliation and alcoholism.
    Objectivism comes across as half baked and cultish, because it was essentially developed as an ad hoc attempt to give an ugly woman access to alpha men.
    It is well known that good looking men benefit from the “halo effect”. Objectivism has some good points, but it was at bottom an idiosyncratic, feminized and sexually frustrated encapsulation of the halo effect.
    Howard Roark was muscled and dominant. Ellsworth Toohey was pasty, ugly and sneaky. Need I say more?

    1. I think you’re obsessed with alpha males and that’s what drove you to post this. Not saying you’re wrong. I just think you’re projecting.

    2. ” She was attracted to the Irish good looks and dominance of a brutal criminal who kidnapped and savagely murdered a twelve year old girl. She was attracted by her husband’s Irish good looks, but quickly lost attraction for him, due to his submissive personality”
      Are you talking about her husband Frank O’connor? Is there any place where I can get more info about him? Who he is will indeed shed an interesting light on Rand.

      1. You should read Barbara Branden’s book–it’s called The Passion of Ayn Rand if O remember correctly (been twenty years since I read it). It has a lot about Frank, and is where I learned most of what I know about him.

        1. Thanks. I did some initial research about him – there was another Frank O’connor actor who many confuse as Rand’s husband.
          Turns out that Rand’s husband was also a painter as well. One normally does not associate a rough alpha male with someone who is an artist, not that I doubt that he was the overbearing personality that you describe.

        2. She married him because he looked like the kind of alpha she wanted. He wasn’t, and she spent the rest of her life punishing him for her disappointment.
          If Rand had been a pretty woman who was able to get a dominant alpha, we would have never heard of her or Objectivism.

        3. “If Rand had been a pretty woman who was able to get a dominant alpha, we would have never heard of her or Objectivism.”
          Interesting – and very well could have been. If it wasn’t for the CIA promoting abstract expressionism then nobody would have heard of Jackson Pollock – not that I’m saying he was a great painter, but rather pointing out the idea that many times a person’s fame only comes about only when there are other elements in place.

  35. Objectivism is the only political philosophy that demonstrates how altruism destroys the individualist – and that alone is reason enough why Ayn Rand makes perfect sense. In government as in business, your only duty is to secure the best deal for yourself – not for your competition. Other citizens are just potential contenders – and in the community as in commerce, you need to be ruthless toward any probable rival. You only want an ethos or an economic order that puts you in the best possible position.

  36. “Neither did she foresee the negative effects of big money on the political process and all the associated corruption.” Actually she did see the problem with this as the crony capitalists were just as vilified in Atlas Shrugged as the socialists were, and it was through the machinations that allowed the socialists to propagate their worldviews. Rand didn’t blindly worship capitalism, she revered the “producers”, from captains of industry to inventors, to working stiff that took responsibility for the results of their own actions.

  37. I love that you are a fan of distributism; not many people know about it, and any time I mention it among conservatives, they think I’m talking about socialism/communism.

Comments are closed.