Thursday, December 24, 2015

The Narcissism and Human Sacrifice of "Ayn Rand"

"Ayn Rand"'s real name was Alice Rosenbaum, and she was a Christianity-hating, left-wing Jew atheist (she was not American, but Russian). She ostensibly supported capitalism, but the base on which she tried to support it would never work and would in fact destroy it. By the way, I personally know some leftist, Russian Jew atheists - and they're buffoons).

Rosenbaum was mentally ill, and her friends used to discuss whether or not whe was evil - and could never come to a conclusion. She was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Paranoid Personality Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder - character disorders in which the afflicted always claims, "It's not my fault; it's yours!" (It's no surprise Rosembaum claimed she was "the perfect woman.")

It's amazing anyone ever took this worshiper of Dionysus seriously.

I refer to Atlas Shrugged as "the Talmud Lite for Naive Goyim," although almost all of her early followers were Jewish (no surprise there). It's a book for lost 12-year-olds, which is what all leftists are, Jewish or not.

The whole book is a perfect example of narcissism - her perfect, grandiose John Galtian heroes and her subhuman "looters" and "parasites," whom she casts into an undifferentiated damnation and slaughters by the hundreds of millions.

I've had people tell me Rosenbaum didn't kill these people, that they killed themselves. I've responded that her characters don't exist and that Rosenbaum, as the author, was responsible for everything her characters did. And she admitted enjoying killing off the world.

Rosenbaum was engaging in human sacrifice - murdering people to save society from something that supposedly will destroy it. Since Rand had that left-wing, immature Jewish hate of things-as-they-are, she wanted to destroy it to save her "heroes."

As I said, a severely disturbed woman.

It doesn't surprise me that Alan Greenspan and Murray Rothbard, two nuts, were both involved with Rosenbaum's "Objectivism" early in their careers.

I, on the other hand, saw through her nonsense instantly.


Quartermain said...

Murray Rothbard's time with Ayn Rand was short, and became a fierce critic of hers:

Mozart Was a Red

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult

Alan Stang, a Jew to Christian convert and former Bircher who left over disagreement about the IRS had this to say about her:

By: Alan Stang

Glen Filthie said...

I must be an eeeeeevil jooooo then. Maybe you read a different version of "Atlas Shrugged" than I did - because Detroit looks awfully "John Galt-ish" to me. I'm surprised at you, Bob - what tenets of objectivism do you specifically disagree with?

Not disagreeing with you or anything, I only read her one book and to me it was no worse than any of the message fiction from the contemporary social justice warriors that pose as authors these days....

A.B. Prosper said...

Merry Christmas everybody

I'm not Bob but I think chunks of Objectivism are anti social garbage


1- Follow reason, not whims or faith.

Nope. The key to a good life includes faith

2- Work hard to achieve a life of purpose and productiveness.

A life of productiveness and hard work are far from essential. many more things are important than material goods. Nothing wrong with working hard but its not a goal but a means to a better life for family and self. Of course I have a Catholic work ethic not a Protestant one. Fokus Und Arbeit Mach Sklave

3- Earn genuine self-esteem.

This is fine. Of course self esteem is not the be-all end all either. Respect within ones community is important too though not mutually exclusive. That said self esteem really does come from others. Without others, at least kin you have no means to compare and measure. To an extent self esteem is being part of something bigger than oneself

4- Pursue your own happiness as your highest moral aim.

Any functioning person is part of a community and a family. These duties may quite often come before personal happiness.

5-Prosper by treating others as individuals, trading value for value.

If you count immaterial values and reciprocal obligations, obligations to the divine the Gift for a Gift principle , I'm fine with it . I don't think Rand accepted this concept though as I believe she was a staunch materialist

Unknown said...

Revolutionaries don't run. Rosenbaum is the red herring to lead the prey away from the obvious truth. The enemy is worthless and weak, and so small in number. Less than 2% of the population. Within the margin of error for a census. A small but worthwhile sacrifice for one's children.

Quartermain said...

@ Glen

At least you just read the book as a book but some people got fanatical and almost religious about it.

Quartermain said...


Here's a link for guess what:

If you can handle this one, here is another:

kurt9 said...

The best description of what Ayn Rand was like as a person is in Barbara Brandon's book "The Passion of Ayn Rand". It is a good read. Ms. Rand was a definite piece of work. The other description of Rand and her followers from the late 50's is in Jerome Tucille's book "It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand" and his description of how Rothbard left what he called the Ayn Rand Cult. It is not 100% accurate, but the spirit of it is 100% accurate, and it is a hoot!

Having said that, I am well aware of the flaws that Rand had as a human being.

Nevertheless, I still subscribe to Rand's and Rothbard's world-views in general. Whatever flaws these individuals had, at the end of the day they were the people who came out and directly stated that the individual owns his/her own self and their own life. This concept of self-ownership is the foundational root of my personal world-view since I was a teenager and is the philosophical root of libertarianism. 35 years of adult life (including lots of work-life experiences as expat in Asia and Europe) has not changed this conviction one iota. Indeed, I believe in more fervently today than I did 35 years ago.

I disagree with Rand's philosophy in two areas.

One, she believed money was the measure of all value. It is not. I do accept her point that all interpersonal relations are inherently contractual in nature. I do not accept her point that money alone can be the measure of all that is transacted in interpersonal relations.

Two, pioneering (in the Robert Heinlein and Frederick Jackson sense) really had no place in her world-view. I, on the other hand, believe that pioneering is the the basic purposes of human life and is actually the real definition of spirituality (read James P. Hogan's "Voyage From Yesteryear" for the kind of society I truly want to live in).

Murray Rothbard's version of libertarianism is the one that is closest to my own. One little known fact about Rothbard is that his wife was a practicing Bapist. This fact drove the Rand people nuts and is one of the reason why Rothbard dropped out of the Rand cult.

kurt9 said...

I'm not sure about the rant against Rothbard. Unlike Rand, both he and his version of libertarianism were very mellow. Much like Harry Brown, Rothbard was a very mellow, laid-back individual in person. To me, the essence of libertarianism is supposed to be its live and let live mellowness.

Glen Filthie said...

Hmmmmpffff. I know nothing about the woman herself. I know a lot of people hated and still hate her and when you really look hard at their reasons - there seems to be something missing. Many are grinding their personal axes, and when you look at some - they whet those blades with anti-Semitism, socialism, or radical libertarianism. Whatever it is, it takes the edge off their argument. I don't defend Rand, and I am no expert...BUT

AB Prosper missed the boat. Human beings are psychologically hard wired with the need to be useful and productive. Those that aren't devolve into drunks like Marx or monsters like Castro. This is why American negroes are rioting in their ghettos and Canadian Indians are rotting on their reservations. Humans and their societies derive status by being productive and useful (ie, purposeful)and thereby successful. When they don't - they fall into ruin and decay as the islamic states have.

Rand does not rule out altruism and charity, she disagrees with the way those values are applied. And rightfully so - by throwing welfare money at unproductive low skill/low IQ negroes and minorities - we have created a lazy, entitled feral class of useless dependents. Look at Africa: for 50 years the Hollywood do-gooders have been parading endless numbers of starving, diseased black children that need medicine and food. All we have to show for it today is growing numbers of diseased, malnourished negroes that need to be fed and cared for.

Up here we have The Sheltered Workshop. It's a charity that I think Rand might have approved of. The shop is run by retards and the handicapped and produces simple tables and furnishings made by rudimentary wood work. The prices are horrible but the profits are used to pay the handicapped and create a job for them where they CAN feel a sense of productivity and usefulness.

Rand's most fierce opponents seem to be those idiots that think economics is a zero sum game. They think that for someone to benefit, somebody has to lose. That the eeeeevil joooos or the eeeeevil 1% or the eeeeeevil corporatists are getting richer as the Pore & Starvin little guy gets poorer and poorer. Those morons don't see the hard work, the endless work hours, the sacrifices...all they see are the big houses, flashy cars and the yachts. Women and children can be forgiven for such foolishness (they are socialists and fascists by nature) - but the true working man cannot.

Such people seem to read stuff into her work that I just don't see. I wonder if our tree dwelling host doesn't do the same...

Unknown said...

"I'm not sure about the rant against Rothbard."

Rothbard claimed fetuses were parasites and so can be removed for that reason.
I thought, "This guy is a leftist...or a Jew."

kurt9 said...

Rothbard claimed fetuses were parasites and so can be removed for that reason.

This is the first time I heard this. I guess I learn something new each day.

little dynamo said...

'Rothbard claimed fetuses were parasites and so can be removed for that reason.
I thought, "This guy is a leftist...or a Jew."'

The cults of Milcom arose in Ammon, and were favored by the Canaanites, Phoenicians, some of the African tribes, the usual. Child-sacrifice was not a feature of Judaism, but of surrounding pagan peoples. Its greatest influence amongst the Hebrews coincided, for some reason, with the rise and politicization of collective female power amongst those tribes. Most men in ancient Israel were exactly like most men in the nations today -- arrogant, and weak before women.

The ONLY ENEMY of child-sacrifice in the Near East was the God of ISRAEL and his Hebrew prophets. Without whom this miserable shithole of a planet would not have Father, fatherhood, or any other good thing, that it takes for granted and for its own.

Anonymous said...

Rothbard was a kook indeed, though surely a very erudite and logical kook. His theory of Anarcho-Capitalism was dead wrong, of course, but it was at least wrong in interesting and original ways. It's the type of absurd theory from which you can actually learn a lot, by studying what's wrong with it in detail.

"Objectivism", on the other hand, is roughly the same ideology I invented for myself as a petulant twelve-year-old, and abandoned by age fourteen. It's almost as if Rand became a living parody of the Evil Capitalists in the Communist propaganda to which she was exposed.