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.


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.
  • David

    When I read that first line about “broken home” I knew it was pretty much the same opinion of Objectivism I had. Even as a non-libertarian now I have infinitely more respect for F.A. Hayek. Rand and Hayek had a mutual loathing for each other, though it would be more accurate to say Rand loathed Hayek and Hayek didn’t think she was worth his time. Women, eh? Your comparison of Galt to Christ is hardly shocking. Hayek’s last work, The Fatal Conceit, remarks about religious thinking being used to form supposedly secular institutions. He was referring to the “Social Body” though it applies here as well. I’m not sure Tyler Durden is exactly Post-modern? Joker is an obvious nihilist, but Durden seems intent to destroy Post-Modernism. I would like to hear more about miscegenation here. My father’s favorite book is Atlas Shrugged (though he’s hardly an Objectivist) and my mother is a Feminist, but only by emotional connection instead of poor rationalism like my militant sister. My father is White and my mother Chinese. I have a unique opportunity being raised Right by my father (to the virulent hatred of my sister) and recognizing the West’s degeneracy. I plan on moving East and marrying Asian. Objectivism fails because the family unit is intrinsically Socialist. Hayek recognized this and only an agorist would argue it is a bad arrangement.

    • David

      Another thing, this isn’t exactly on topic, but how about some solutions? You guys do great commentary here, but what are the actual manifestations of our ideas? In my investigation of the so called “alternative right” I’ve come to the conclusion that arranged marriages and wife buying could be one such institution. Just today I was investigating Confucianism. It offers a very solid hierarchical structure about the order of society at all levels, from the family unit to relation to government. This is especially pertinent considering the degeneracy of the West and the rise of Asia. It’s worth looking into.

  • Kate

    Oooooh, burn.

    You might as well tell us to go to hell for our beliefs as well. That’s my favorite insult from tolerant Christians.

    • Van

      A “tolerant Christian” is an atheist’s cuckold. Go fuck yourself, bitch.

  • Richard J. Johnson

    “The late author Ayn Rand is usually lumped onto the right side of the political spectrum. Believing as she did in a natural hierarchy, though one of merit and not of birth or station, there is some justification for this. However, adoption of her unabashed and unrestrained individualism would prove disruptive to the orderly functioning of society. So she can be imagined as an anomalous amalgam of order and anarchy.

    “When growing up through the adolescent and young adult stages, many of us became enthralled by the heroes of her novels. Through her books and the movies based on those books, the putative heroic individualism of her principle literary characters expounding and living her philosophy of Objectivism are attractive to the idealism of the young. But when imposed, do not most of the modern “isms” result in non-natural but forced applications derived from some obscure premise? In 1957 in National Review, Whittaker Chambers, reviewing her most ambitious and current novel noted “From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber – go!’ ” A few years before, Russel Kirk had captured this mentality describing the 200 year old visions of the Benthamites “The Utilitarians projected long and costly vistas; but at the end of every avenue, the Romantics spied the gallows.”

    “And I never understood the “right” of the hero architect Howard Roark in The Fountainhead to blow up and destroy a housing project built with others’ even if public monies, and hence property belonging to others, the community. Not being his property, he had no right to dispose of it. This is not a rugged individualism of principle, but an arrogance and egoism in conflict with and dismissive toward society, its customs, traditions and ethical norms. In stark contrast, when condemned by Athenian society for his “anti-social” behavior, Socrates accepted their judgment and punishment – the option of death or exile – and had his session with the Hemlock. He knew that if an individual strayed beyond the consensual social and moral boundaries of a polity, the consensus then had a right to enforce its will for the peace of society. We are volitional free individuals, but only find freedom sustained within the strictures of a culture; and all cultures are created via group dynamics. There is no such thing as a culture of ONE.

    “Born in 1905, the clues to Ayn Rand are found in her experiencing an impressionable adolescence living with her upper middle-class family during and immediately after the Russian Revolution in St. Petersburg, Russia. The ideological arguments must have been common street fare and school debate. Her most autobiographical novel We the Living details much of this. In reaction to the dictum “To each according to……………,” she invented her counterpoint theory. The inevitability of class warfare was accepted, and she fully agreed with Karl Marx’s Dialectical Materialism derived from Hegel. However, instead of identifying the proletarian as destiny’s favorite, contra Marx, she championed instead its supposed enemy, the bourgeoisie, or rather a “super” bourgeois Randian man. If this dichotomy represented the only possible descriptions of historical experience, then perhaps I would join her. But at its core, her philosophy of Objectivism is but right wing Marxism.”

    From my book REDOUBTS: Paleopopulism at Twilight

  • Richard Follette

    I appreciate your views on several of your posts.

  • John Tyson

    Read “The Fountainhead”.

    John Gaults don’t exist, but Howard Roarks do.

  • Pingback: Your Body And Your Rules Suck | The Right Stuff()

  • your fucking brain

    Ayn rand is stupid cunt. She completely misinterpretted Nietzsche’s concept of the ubermensch. She did not portray ubermenschian characters but instead created ideal egocentric materialists.