The Tragedy of Objectivism

Without a Geist, there is no Zeit.
Objectivism, to me, is an ideology best compared to a brilliant child reared in a broken home. Good genetics, poor environment. What beauty results is forever crippled by the realization of what could have been. Many today are content with simply bashing the Objectivist ideology; it is my intent to present to you, dear reader, a more somber narrative. This is because, to me, there exists no modern ideology more incomplete, and therefore more tragic, than this one. Ayn Rand, today a figure commonly associated with smoking, bad writing, and communistic anti-Communism, was in reality a woman fascinated by, dedicated to, the ideal Man. The Hero. She was not intent on remaking man, rather she sought to remind her audience of what had been forgotten by decades of decadent, easy, unearned living. Recognizing this is to recognize that, above all other titles achieved in her life, she was an *apostle*. Her *Atlas Shrugged*, in the main a turgid and repetitive rant against Liberalism and its thinly-disguised ideals, was nonetheless brilliant in its depictions of the heroic masculine. Randian heroes were *Übermenschen* who would play by their rules alone. Rand’s heroes make strong assertions, both through their dialogue and actions, of there existing measurable qualities applicable to human beings. The more Rand solidified such moral foundations, rejecting the childish *a priori* claim that all human life is inherently (*and equally, lol*) valuable, the more pathetic and disgusting her flat, paint-by-numbers liberal villains seemed in comparison. *Atlas* comes highly-recommended by this contributor for that reason only; you certainly wouldn’t explore this tome for its love story or well-paced action. Who is John Galt? The Revolutionary Hero. Seeing the world around him as incompatible with his ideals, he sets out to remake the world in his image, the present world be damned. And, faced against the mightiest forces the opposition could bring to bear, *he succeeds*. Christianity is replete with tales of such men, foremost being Jesus Christ. This is not a coincidence, though your mind may thrash about upon making this connection. All religious thought is first expressed in, born to reality as revolutionary action, and no religion is complete without its ideal, its standard-bearer, its hero. Do you see? John Galt is the Objectivist Christ. [![Uncomfortable](/content/images/2012/12/galt.jpg)](/content/images/2012/12/galt.jpg) In comparison, postmodern conceptualizations of the Revolutionary Hero are degenerate, leftist, nihilistic. The closest our present age comes to John Galt and Christ is Tyler Durden and the Joker, which says a lot about the direction Western society is heading. The religion of today seeks to make spiritual conflict non-existent, the priests of today strive to make one’s salvation idiot-proof. This is a condemnation as applicable to the Doctorates in Theology as the Professors of Physics: Atheism+ and the 700 Club are both welcome to kiss my ass. Such a perceived state of spiritual post-scarcity explains why the children of today’s Revolution are disgusting sodomites, miscegenist moralizers, and feminist pedophiles. They exist: therefore power, therefore happiness. Would you like some fag marriage with that side of waffle fries? Objectivism could have emerged to rally a force capable of smashing down the rising tide of human mendacity. Instead it collapsed into a pale imitation of libertarianism and a shitty fantasy series about cutting parasitic hair from your head.
Your “Sword Of Truth” is a dildo.
What makes Objectivism so tragic is how it came to be expressed by the men who held its views. Created by a woman that idealized strong men, her movement came to be composed by, to still be composed of, simpering boymen and matriarchal betas. Ayn Rand’s John Galt never came. There is reason for this; ironically enough, it is “reason.” That the mortal man following an ideal must *necessarily* fall short of the heights of heroism is part of the dialectic. The religious conflict between reasoning, logical man and unreasonable, paradoxical God resolves itself to one’s faith. Ayn Rand writes of heroic men, supernatural beings that defied physics, conquered foes, and toppled nations, the very world, by their will alone.  These ideals present conflict enough for any man. Unfortunately, Rand was quick to strike out at anyone who tried to handle any notion of the ideal as it should be handled; that is, religiously.  Galt is not comparable to Jesus, his Gulch is not Heaven, and you are just as bad as any disgusting James Taggart if you to try and mix *Atlas* or the non-fiction word of Rand with any foul “mysticism.” Indeed Objectivism came from a broken home: the Father was never allowed to exist as anything more tangible than lengthy, repetitive strings of dialogue in an over-indulgent literary work. Rand was an apostle who wished instead to be a genius, and the self-denial as a result sullied her accomplishments. Upon creating a beautiful work of art, she refused to let it adorn any wall. By not allowing a spiritual skeleton to fly in and hold up her beautiful aesthetics, the result was a tumbled caricature, a mockery. John Galt was a still-born god. In trying to create a thoroughly anti-Soviet propaganda, Ayn Rand briefly brushed the hand of God. She spent the rest of her life trying to deny this event, and her potentially life-affirming works will forever be stained with the confused anarchy that non-belief entails.
It’s pretty lonely up here without God.