Books

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 7° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Ayn Rand: Can two new biographies unravel the mystery of the mad, sad heroine of the American right?

Johann Hari feels compassion for a monster

Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day. She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses" - her readers - were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live.

Yet she remains one of the most popular writers in the US, still selling 800,000 books a year. She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess. With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue", she is the patron saint of doomsters. So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?

Two new biographies of Rand, Jennifer Burns's Goddess of the Market (Oxford, £16.99) and Anne Heller's Ayn Rand and the World she Made (Nan A Talese), try to puzzle out this question, showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion. Alisa Rosenbaum was born in the icy winter of Tsarism, not long after the failed 1905 revolution ripped through her home city of St Petersburg. Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, her mother an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children.

Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood" headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise."

The worst anti-Jewish violence since the Middle Ages was brewing, and the family was terrified of being killed by the mobs. But it was the Bolsheviks who struck at them first. After the 1917 revolutions, her father's pharmacy was seized. For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where five million people died of starvation in two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike".

The Rosenbaums knew their angry, outspoken daughter would not survive under the Bolsheviks for long, so they arranged to smuggle her out to relatives in America. Just before her 21st birthday, she said goodbye to her country and her family. She was determined to live in the America she had seen in the silent movies – of skyscrapers, riches and freedom. She renamed herself Ayn Rand, a name she thought had the hardness and purity of a Hollywood starlet.

She headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy: a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism. She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": the "only virtue" is selfishness.

She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins her later writings. The newspapers were filled for months with stories about serial killer William Hickman, who kidnapped a 12-year-old girl called Marion Parker, raped her, and dismembered her body, which he sent mockingly to the police in pieces.

Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own... Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy". Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough."

It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living, and in the early drafts her central character - a crude proxy for Rand herself - says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them."

She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes. All have the same core message: anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad. In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor - not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil bureaucrats.

For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged, Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation - and said the US would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil. The abandoned masses are described variously as "savages", "refuse" and "inanimate objects". One of the strikers deliberately causes a train crash, and Rand makes it clear she thinks the murder victims deserved it, describing in horror how they all supported the taxes that made the attack necessary. Her heroes are a cocktail of extreme self-love and extreme self-pity. They insist they need no one, yet spend all their time fuming that the masses don't bow down before their manifest superiority.

As her books became mega-sellers, Rand surrounded herself with a tightly policed cult of young people. They were required to memorise her novels and slapped down as "imbecilic" if they asked questions. Rand had become addicted to amphetamines while writing The Fountainhead, and her paranoia and aggression were becoming more extreme. Anybody who disagreed with her was subjected to a show trial in which they would be required to repent or face expulsion. Her secretary, Barbara Weiss, said: "I came to look on her as a killer of people." The cult exposed the hollowness of Rand's claims to venerate free thinking and individualism. Her message was: think freely, as long as it leads you into total agreement with me.

In the end, Rand was destroyed by her own dogmas. She fell in love with a young follower, Nathaniel Branden, and had a decades-long affair with him. He became the cult's No. 2, and she named him as her "intellectual heir" - until he admitted he had fallen in love with a 23-year-old woman. As Burns explains, Rand's philosophy "taught that sex was never physical; it was always inspired by a deeper recognition of shared values, a sense that the other embodied the highest human achievement." To be sexually rejected by Branden meant he was rejecting her ideas, her philosophy, her entire person.

She never really recovered. We all become weak at some point in our lives, so a thinker who despises weakness will end up despising herself. In her seventies Rand found herself dying of lung cancer, after insisting that her followers smoke because it symbolised "man's victory over fire" and the studies showing it caused lung cancer were Communist propaganda. By then she had driven almost everyone away. In 1982, she died alone in her apartment with only a hired nurse at her side. If her philosophy is right - if the only human relationships worth having are based on the exchange of dollars - this was a happy and victorious death. Did even she believe it in the end?

Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism's opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.

I feel sympathy for Rand, even as I know she would have spat it back into my face. What I do find incomprehensible is that there are large numbers of people who see her writing not as psychopathy but as philosophy, and urge us to follow her. Why? Unfortunately, neither of these equally thorough, readable books can offer much of an answer to this great question about her. Rand expresses, with a pithy crudeness, an instinct that courses through us all sometimes: I'm the only one who matters! I'm not going to care about any of you! She then absolutises it in a Benzedrine-charged reductio ad absurdum by insisting it is the only feeling worth entertaining, ever.

This urge exists everywhere, but it is supercharged on the American right. We all live every day with the victory of this fifth-rate Nietzsche of the mini-malls. Alan Greenspan was one of her strongest cult followers and even invited her to the Oval Office to witness his swearing-in when he joined the Ford administration. You can see how he carried this philosophy into the 1990s. Why should the Supermen of Wall Street be regulated to protect the lice of Main Street?

The figure Ayn Rand most resembles in American life is L Ron Hubbard, another crazed, pitiable charlatan who used trashy potboilers to whip up a cult. Unfortunately, Rand's cult isn't confined to Tom Cruise and a rash of Hollywood dimwits. No, its ideas and its impulses have, by drilling into the basest human instincts, captured one of America's major political parties.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Hysterical attacks usually mean the author is threatened
[info]londonaz wrote:
Friday, 13 November 2009 at 03:25 pm (UTC)
I found the attacks by Johann Hari to border on hysteria. To be fair, he was attempting to sum up Ayn Rand and not her works, but I would be flabbergasted if he actually read her novels as his comments concerning them suggest that he missed the major point. That personal responsibility is a virtue and that expecting others to take responsibility for you is cowardly and, ultimately, evil.

It is fantastic to watch the left-wing commentators continually label, slander, demonize any one with credible ideas or evidence that threaten their view.

Ayn Rand
[info]ragnar_redux wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 09:21 am (UTC)
Unlike a previous respondent, I did not detect 'hysteria' in this piece. On the other hand, it would have been useful to know which of the two biographies Mr Hari considers the better since few of us would buy both to find out.
Hari is hilarious
[info]jrdonohue wrote:
Saturday, 14 November 2009 at 03:01 pm (UTC)
I agree with londonaz on the "threatened" conjecture.

I would add "panic."
And don't forget "envy."

The left stare at the popularity, inspiration, endurance and power of the appeal of Ayn Rand and are left with few choices.
1) make her a monster and therefore the massive adherence to her ideas the stuff of a monstrous American citizenry
2) admit she is right and they are wrong;
3) float it as a permanent contradiction that has no explanation.

We Objectivists love them stuck behind any of those.

The Hari hit piece is despicable. I've seen a few worse, but he is definitely on the hate highway.

He only said one thing right. Miss Rand would have spit his "sympathy" back at him. In the end, Hari chooses #3 ("it's a mystery") but throws in an insult at Rand's Fans on the way out the door and blames "the right."

Hilarious.

John Donohue
Pasadena, CA
Advice to the rational reader
[info]reardon1990 wrote:
Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 03:07 pm (UTC)
To those interested enough I recommend your reading Ayn Rand's writings. Think about what she wrote and decide for youself the validity of what she wrote. No one can force an idea into the mind of another. To accept another's ideas without thinking is self destructive. Your life depends on your thinking not the ranting of Mr Hari.
Ayn Rand and ideas
[info]hkrening wrote:
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at 03:45 pm (UTC)
Odd, how an author whose books have sold so well for decades and contain such potent ideas has continued to receive ad hominem attacks, and with such vengeance, into the twenty-first century!

You'd think the ideas of this philosopher-novelist were dangerous or something. Perhaps they are even threatening to people who just love the direction our country is going in. Or scary to those who recognize that her philosophy questions the deepest premises of our culture.

If you want to judge the ideas of Ayn Rand, and that is all that is relevant at this point, you should read her works yourself. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Ayn Rand was Right
[info]weismonger2222 wrote:
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at 04:40 pm (UTC)
Five hundred years from now, when this planet Earth has been destroyed by all the "teaming masses" that you revere as worthy, historians and philosophers will look back at Ayn Rand's philosophy and state that she accurately had the foresight to understand that much of humanity and the ideals of "humanism" was over rated...and did not have the abstract intelligence to preserve this planet.

Just as Ayn Rand clear saw how such failed Left Wing ideology destroyed everything in its path in a neoreligious exercise in arrogance and self righteousness of the "state"...Rand had no such illusions and saw the failed future of human kind. This looming failure is present in the here and now, in which all thoughts, and all decisions, must pass some kind of test for "political correctness" and against the anti-"I" concept...and that all human actions, thoughts, and beliefs...be garnered to further the all mighty "state." In such a world...any individual "intelligence" that seeks to achieve something on its own, for itself...is said by "you" to be the act of a criminal.

One of Rand's messages was that it is only the genius of individual and the "mind" that creates progress, if it is free to do so. Whereas, your message wallows in self-aggrandizing psychobabble, that demands a strict accounting for every human action and thought...to be directed in some religious and saintly act for the benefit of others.

In your world of continuing victimhood and demands for a strict, "social" personality, this extraordinary world is over breeding, polluting everything it touches, and destroying all that lives, because those like you who cannot "live" for yourself, see no value in one's selfish striving for survival. All such philosophies that promote the idea that one should live for others or the "state"...always end up less than they could have been, usually with the destruction of all human genius and potential, than...if they had lived for themselves, and unleashed the creative genius of their own mind. Your philosophy is the most anti-human of them all....in that you and your kind promote the religious "belief" that all should live for the "herd"...and as parasites on those who do achieve and succeed.

Ayn Rand was right...and millions who have read her books and continue to do so, know that the very truths that exalt one's own existence is at war with the hypocritical world that you live in. Your "rant" does nothing more than demand that we live for cloudy, ever-changing social and anti-intellectual ideals, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a serial killer, etc. In reality, what your "unselfish" ideals promote in intellectual and moral slavery.

You failed to mention Rand's other prophetic books, i.e. "The Anthem" about a world such as yours, where no one is allowed to address themselves as "I,"....and you failed to mention "Return of the Primitives" (1971), in which Rand demonstrated the consequences of a world in which "hippies" were merely trained to "react" to all the social hype such as "global warming"...and not "think." Your world is filled with mysticism, priests, and Atillas, whom you worship as your saints...and demand that the individual obey...or be forever declared as "bad" persons.

Ayn Rand's philosophy will live on, because "objectivism" and reality has value...whereas your fairy tale, neoreligious, "one-world" mindlessness...does not.

Judy Weismonger PhD
Hari
[info]bradw2k wrote:
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at 05:03 pm (UTC)
I've studied Ayn Rand for 15 years, and Hari has no idea what he is talking about as is obvious from the first paragraph of hysterical misrepresentation and ad hominem. There is actually no mystery as to Ayn Rand's popularity with Americans: she defended the American Enlightenment and its underlying morality in passionate, brilliant fiction and with a revolutionary philosophy of reason. For the same reasons, there is no mystery why fans of the status quo -- of the welfare state and of a culture which revels in anti-heroes -- reveal an animated hatred for her.

Brad Williams
Portland, Oregon
Ayn Rand
[info]seine1 wrote:
Wednesday, 18 November 2009 at 07:58 pm (UTC)
Inside the established press the pundits are in agreement, they can't see why she is popular - she did everything wrong. The books are to long, the character have no humility, she was short tempered, etc.They continue to focus on her person life and find flaws in how she live, rather normal considering that she made her mark by telling people how to live. The critics fail to see that see was that she had no time to argue with everyone with a different viewpoint.
She has a following because of the ideas she presented, not her personal habits. If an understanding of why her ideas influence more and more people, study the ideas not the person. She said 'we should live life unapologeticly and to the fullest of our abilities and only under a capitalist system is this possible'.
We live in a world where the people with 'jobs' have can't see that living life is taking chances and stepping out of the box. She did - they won't. That is the message I'm sending - check out her work, not her critics work.
garret seinen
Ad-Hominem
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 05:43 pm (UTC)
"Ayn Rand is one of America's great mysteries. She was an amphetamine-addicted author of sub-Dan Brown potboilers, who in her spare time wrote torrents of praise for serial killers and the Bernie Madoff-style embezzlers of her day."

Ayn Rand was not addicted to amphetamies, and the rest of this first sentence is an ad-hominem argument fallacey

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&ved=0CAsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FAd_hominem&ei=eYMFS8SXM5D0MduemMEK&usg=AFQjCNFtzA1lQT7lOCPAFWFDTGZLh-p5mQ
Opposed Democracy?
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 05:46 pm (UTC)
"She opposed democracy on the grounds that "the masses" - her readers - were "lice" and "parasites" who scarcely deserved to live."

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about democracy. Read it for yourself, and decide whether she was opposed to democracy for the reasons stated, or not:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/democracy.html

Here is an excerpt from the above link:

"Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . . ."
Ayn Rand has nothing to do with the American Right
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
"She regularly tops any list of books that Americans say have most influenced them. Since the great crash of 2008, her writing has had another Benzedrine rush, as Rush Limbaugh hails her as a prophetess"

Ayn Rand had nothing whatsoever to do with the conservative movement.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/conservatives.html

Here is an excerpt from the above link:

"Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . ."

Continue reading above link for a the instances in which Ayn Rand discussed conservatism in her non-fiction work.
I will pick this article apart sentence by sentence...
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 05:57 pm (UTC)
"With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue", she is the patron saint of doomsters."

First of all, note the term "patron saint of doomsters". This is YET ANOTHER argument fallacy (ad hominem, again), and we're only in the second paragraph of the article.

Really? Did Ayn Rand really say that government is "evil"? Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about government:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government.html

Here is an excerpt from the above link:

"If physical force is to be barred from social relationships, men need an institution charged with the task of protecting their rights under an objective code of rules.

This is the task of a government—of a proper government—its basic task, its only moral justification and the reason why men do need a government.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws."
Is "selfishness" the ONLY virtue??
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:04 pm (UTC)
"With her assertions that government is "evil" and selfishness is "the only virtue", she is the patron saint of doomsters."

Back to this comment. First of all, let's define virtue in the context of value. According to Ayn Rand:

"Value” is that which one acts to gain and keep, “virtue” is the action by which one gains and keeps it."

Also:

"Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue—and happiness is the goal and the reward of life."


According to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy, there are three basic values, and all the virtues are derivatives of (corollaries of) these three basic virtues. Some of the virtues according to Ayn Rand are rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. Selfishness is not the only virtue--to believe it is would be to purposely drop the entire context of Ayn Rand's philosophy.

Read what Ayn Rand had to say about virtue:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/virtue.html
THIRD Ad-hominem, in only the SECOND paragraph!
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:13 pm (UTC)
"So how did this little Russian bomb of pure immorality in a black wig become an American icon?"

This is the third ad hominem argument fallacy committed by the author in only the second paragraph. This Hari gal must REALLY be out to get Ayn Rand. I wonder what she did to her? Is it the number of books she sells per year that bothers her so much? Who knows/cares
What did Ayn Rand do to deserve this?
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:15 pm (UTC)
"showing how her arguments found an echo in the darkest corners of American political life. They are thrilling psychological portraits of a horribly damaged woman who deserves the one thing she spent her life raging against: compassion."

In what way is Ayn Rand "horribly damaged?" I regard this comment as yet another argument fallacy of ad hominem. When will it end?

In what way did Ayn Rand "rage against" compassion? Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about compassion:

"I regard compassion as proper only toward those who are innocent victims, but not toward those who are morally guilty. If one feels compassion for the victims of a concentration camp, one cannot feel it for the torturers. If one does feel compassion for the torturers, it is an act of moral treason toward the victims."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/compassion.html
Statements not supported by the archives
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:23 pm (UTC)
"Her father was a self-made Jewish pharmacist, her mother an aristocratic dilettante who loathed her three daughters. She would tell them she never wanted children.

Alisa became a surly, friendless child. In elementary school, her class was asked to write an essay about why being a child was a joyous thing. She instead wrote "a scathing denunciation of childhood" headed with a quote from Pascal: "I would prefer an intelligent hell to a stupid paradise.""

The archives of Ayn Rand and the documents written about her do not support any of these conclusions. Ayn Rand never made the statement that her mother 'loather her three daughters.' I challenge anyone to produce a document which states or suggests anything to this effect. There is nothing out there that says Ayn Rand denounced anything about childhood. I regard these comments as artbitrary attempts to smear the author
More distorted 'facts'
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:26 pm (UTC)
"For Alisa, who had grown up surrounded by servants and nannies, the Communists seemed at last to be the face of the masses, a terrifying robbing horde. In a country where five million people died of starvation in two years, the Rosenbaums went hungry. Her father tried to set up another business, but after it too was seized, he declared himself to be "on strike"."

Ayn Rand was not surroundey servants and nannies--neither existed in her household when she was growing up. I challenge anyone to produce any documents that prove otherwise.

Ayn Rand's father was never 'on strike' in the same way her characters in her novel were. This is an attempt by Hari to try to connect alleged 'facts' of AR's life to show how the events in her novels were drawn from them. It's just not true, and not supported by any documents in the Ayn Rand archives.
Constant barrage of false statements by Hari
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:28 pm (UTC)
"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen and "the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent" who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them. It is evil to show kindness to these "lice": the "only virtue" is selfishness."

I have already established above that selfishness is not the only virtue according to Objectivism. Further, Ayn Rand didn't think in the terms Hari describes above. She never typed the words in quotations. It's as though Hari is putting words in Ayn Rand's mouth that she never uttered, for the express purpose of smearing her
Ayn Rand's diaries
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:32 pm (UTC)
"She meant it. Her diaries from that time, while she worked as a receptionist and an extra, lay out the Nietzschean mentality that underpins her later writings."

Ayn Rand's journal entries--the relevant passages--are all published, and in none of the passages does she show sympathy for the philosopher Nietzche. Here is a link to them:

http://www.amazon.com/Journals-Ayn-Rand/dp/0525943706

Here is what Ayn Rand had to say about Nietzche:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche--friedrich.html

Excerpt from the above link:

"Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms."

When will the INSANITY end?
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 06:36 pm (UTC)
"Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented "the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own... Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should." She called him "a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy". Rand had only one regret: "A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough.""


NEVER, EVER did Ayn Rand write any of this. I CHALLENGE anyone. ANYONE. To provide a shred of evidence which suggests that Ayn Rand even THOUGHT of this news article, let alone went out of her way to write this nonsense about it. This is just utter INSANITY and a complete LIE. This is stooping below any level I have seen anyone attack Ayn Rand at
More false conclusions based on shady historical info
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 09:01 pm (UTC)
"It's not hard to see this as a kind of political post-traumatic stress disorder. Rand believed the Bolshevik lie that they represented the people, so she wanted to strike back at them through theft and murder. In a nasty irony, she was copying their tactics. She started to write her first novel, We the Living, and in the early drafts her central character - a crude proxy for Rand herself - says to a Bolshevik: "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods. If one believes one's right, one shouldn't wait to convince millions of fools, one might just as well force them.""

Ayn Rand never believed any 'Bolshevik lies', nor did she spend any of her time or effort trying to 'strike back' at them. It's just an utter lie. So is the alleged quote from an 'early draft' of one of her characters. I challenge the author of this article to even tell us the names of the characters in We the Living. I bet she hasn't even read the book. Where does she get the alleged early draft quote from? What source material was this quote pulled from? The author of this article doesn't have access to the Ayn Rand archives, so how would she know? It's just a lie and a smear tactic
Author of article confuses Ayn Rand with Friedrich Nietzche
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 09:05 pm (UTC)
"She poured these beliefs into a series of deeply odd novels. She takes the flabby staples of romantic fiction and peppers them with political ravings and rapes. All have the same core message: anything that pleases the Superman's ego is good; anything that blocks it is bad."

Nothing could be further from the truth about how Ayn Rand viewed ethics. Here is a quote from Ayn Rand about the Nietszchean ethics that the author falsely ascribes to Ayn Rand:

"Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor."

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche--friedrich.html
Howard Roark's decision to destroy Cortland Homes
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 09:10 pm (UTC)
"In The Fountainhead, published in 1943, a heroic architect called Howard Roark designs a housing project for the poor - not out of compassion but because he wants to build something mighty. When his plans are slightly altered, he blows up the project, saying the purity of his vision has been contaminated by evil bureaucrats."

The author of this article falsely attributes Howard Roark's decision to blow up Courtland Homes--his residential architectural opus--to the Nietszchean notion that anything done to benefit the self is good, as an end in itself. But is this why Roark really blew up Cortland Homes? Rather than reading for yourself, go and WATCH for yourself, as Howard Roark defends his decision in the movie version of The Fountainhead:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4
Wrong understanding of how Ayn Rand thought
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 09:20 pm (UTC)
"For her longest novel, Atlas Shrugged, Rand returned to a moment from her childhood. Just as her father once went on strike against Bolshevism, she imagined the super-rich in America going on strike against progressive taxation - and said the US would swiftly regress to an apocalyptic hellhole if the Donald Trumps and Ted Turners ceased their toil."

Atlas Shrugged wasn't about Ayn Rand returning to her childhood. It had nothing to do with her father going on strike against Bolshevism. The reason Ayn Rand chose the idea of going on strike, is because that concept would best illustrate the theme of Atlas Shrugged, namely the role of the mind in human existence. By demonstrating what happens when the men of the mind go on strike, she illustrated what would happen to every aspect of society in its absence. It was merely the most convenient tool to demonstrate and illustrate here theme.

Aside from that point, the anger of your comments is betrayed by every sentence you write. It's as though you can't restrain your hatred of Ayn Rand. Why is that?
Ayn Rand on 'Plot-Theme'
[info]ayn_rand_fan wrote:
Thursday, 19 November 2009 at 09:21 pm (UTC)
"Plot-Theme. The link between the theme and the events of a novel is an element which I call the plot-theme. It is the first step of the translation of an abstract theme into a story, without which the construction of a plot would be impossible. A “plot-theme” is the central conflict or “situation” of a story—a conflict in terms of action, corresponding to the theme and complex enough to create a purposeful progression of events."

The theme of a novel is the core of its abstract meaning—the plot-theme is the core of its events.

For example, the theme of Atlas Shrugged is: “The role of the mind in man’s existence.” The plot-theme is: “The men of the mind going on strike against an altruist-collectivist society.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/plot-theme.html
Refreshing debunking of a criminally insane Ayn Rand
[info]hd70642 wrote:
Sunday, 22 November 2009 at 01:56 pm (UTC)
The Right Wing Nuts are extremely hypercrtical since they will viciously attack someone then cry foul when the same is done to them . Nobody in their right mind thinks that people of true merit should denied the fruits of their labor . People of great talent are not always justly compenasted and a blatant example of this are performers cheated by their managers and royalities are not always paid.Quite often highly incomptent passionately negligent ceos that know absoltely nothing about their business are grossly overcompensated and more adept at swindeling than actually running a bussiness .
. As far as feeling threatened yes everybody is threatened by people who are apathetic sociopathic and any member of a cult who can not think for themselves . She was entitled to her lunatic ideas and to be as uncaring and as selfish as humanly possible but it must be remember the reason she had the right to be an amoral sociopathic individual was because of people who were willing to risk their lives like policemen soldiers etc . Selfishness is only possible because of those that are selfless .So while she autisticly rallied on the behalf of selfishness it was altruisticness that generously gave her the right to behave in that anti social manner
Elitism and idealism the road to hell
[info]hd70642 wrote:
Sunday, 22 November 2009 at 06:11 pm (UTC)
One of the worst personality traits a person can pocess is thinking they have all the answers and never make mistakes. Likewise no compotent tailor would ever endorce one size fits all . Yes if anybody would look at my post they most certainlly note I made all kinds of typos and yes I have more faults then all the sesmic faults in Calfornia combined but I admit I am not perfect and have plenty of room for improvement in a vareirty of areas. What makes a political philsophy viable is not whether it benefits an elitest click but whether it benefits society in general.
Whatever mistakes I make or whatever knowledge I might actually own is from my own limited ability to think for myself and not some cult pulling my strings. Also as far as needing greater insight into ayn Rands ramblings I do not need or desire any first hand reading on The Turner diaries or L Ron Hubbards scientology or Mein kompt or the sociapathic ramblings of Antwon Levay to know like Ayn Rand they are either full of hatefull scapegoating and or mystic elitist pscho babble.
As far as the crusading Ayn Rand juhadist who swarm over anyone who commits the obscene blasphemy by daring to condeme any of the sacred tenets of ayn Rands rambling .Like selfishness being a scarament instead of a disease . After all the desire to fool around with drugs comes from a selfish desire for pleasure along with dealing drugs . To quote a master of sarcasm and paradoy Frank Zappa "Look here brother who you jiving with that cosmic debries"

Most popular

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date