By Richard Hoste | 22 Comments | 
Print
A Critique of Ayn Rand on Race
Today I read Any Rand’s 1963 essay “Racism
Her most famous sentence from the esssay is the first one. “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” She goes on to say:
It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage — the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry.
Not ascribing moral significance to a man’s genetic line would of course lead one to reject the concept of a family, which the old girl precedes to do.
The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to “protect the family name” (as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another) — the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at Carnegie Hall (as if the achievements of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another) — the parents who search genealogical trees in order to evaluate their prospective sons-in-law — the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history — all these are samples of racism, the atavistic manifestations of a doctrine whose full expression is the tribal warfare of prehistorical savages, the wholesale slaughter of Nazi Germany, the atrocities of today’s so-called “newly emerging nations.”
Rand goes on to bash both white Southerners and blacks who demanded quotas as she calls the civil rights bill “the worst breach of property rights in the sorry record of American history in respect to that subject.” If a battle against racism is to be waged, it should be through social ostracism or economic boycotts.
I don’t remember Rand ever directly addressing the family. Here she is on page 972 of the hardcover 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, as tycoon Henry Reardon parts ways with his collectivist family.
They were throwing their pleas at a face that could not be reached. They did not know — and their panic was the last of their struggle to escape the knowledge — that his merciless sense of justice, which had been their only hold on him, which had made him take any punishment and give them the benefit of every doubt, was now turned against them — that the same force that had made him tolerant, was now the force that made him ruthless — that the justice which would forgive miles of innocent errors of knowledge, would not forgive a single step taken in conscious evil.
“Henry, don’t you understand us?” his mother was pleading.
“I do,” he said quietly.
She looked away, avoiding the clarity of his eyes. “Don’t you care what becomes of us?”
“I don’t.”
“Aren’t you human?” Her voice grew shrill with anger. “Aren’t you capable of any love at all? It’s your heart that I’m trying to reach, not your mind! Love is not something to argue and reason and bargain about! It’s something to give! To feel! Oh God, Henry, can’t you feel without thinking?”
“I never have.”
An internet search of “Rand on the family” turned up nothing. Her views on everything are found in the book The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to Z
If Rand ever admitted to the legitimacy of loyalty to the family, she would be forced to approve of one preferring his own race. Like the family, racialism is justified from the perspective of genetic interests and their manifestation in inherent preferences.
From HBD Books
Great piece. I like that quote about the family. Especially with girls, those who are more intelligent and curious almost always put themselves in the libertarian camp. Maybe a collection of more articles like this could show them the error of their ways.
There’s an interesting article by the Jewish libertarian Murray N. Rothbard, “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult,” at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html
In this article, Rothbard noted that the Objectivist movement was a cult led by Jews:
“[T]he Randian movement was strictly hierarchical. At the top of the pyramid, of course, was Rand herself, the Ultimate Decider of all questions. Branden, her designated ‘intellectual heir,’ and the St. Paul of the movement, was Number 2. Third in rank was the top circle, the original disciples, those who had been converted before the publication of Atlas. Since they were converted by reading her previous novel, The Fountainhead, which had been published 1943, the top circle was designated in the movement as ‘the class of ’43.’ But there was an unofficial designation that was far more revealing: ‘the senior collective.’ . . . Strengthening the ties within the senior collective was the fact that each and every one of them was related to each other, all being part of one Canadian Jewish family, relatives of either Nathan or Barbara Branden. There was, for example, Nathan’s sister Elaine Kalberman; his brother-in-law, Harry Kalberman; his first cousin, Dr. Allan Blumenthal, who assumed the mantle of leading Objectivist Psychotherapist after Branden’s expulsion; Barbara’s first cousin, Leonard Peikoff; and Joan Mitchell, wife of Allan Blumenthal. Alan Greenspan’s familial relation was more tenuous, being the former husband of Joan Mitchell. The only non-relative in the class of ’43 was Mary Ann Rukovina, who made the top rank after being the college roommate of Joan Mitchell.”
Rothbard also pointed out that Nathaniel Branden changed his surname from Blumenthal to Branden, an anagram of “son of Rand” (Ben Rand).
I’ve heard that Jeff Walker’s book, The Ayn Rand Cult (Open Court, 1998), discusses Jewish influences on Objectivism. Objectivists certainly appear to have Jewish attitudes towards money.
to day first time ever i listen any the russian bride first time in youtube from her voice with her accent 5 minutes later by heart i knew she has a jewish heritage 10 minutes later i was in a jewish website reading all about her childhood and family than i go back to you tube hoping there are some people who can also see this looking at tea party stupidity many other disillusional perceptions and incoherence of incoherence at many other videos including ron pauls comments on this russian bride and finally i found right here what i was looking for regardless regardless i am not an educated person and i felt happy i can learn i can be thought through intellectual morals intellectual honesty of treu schoolars and i just wanted to greet you with gratitude i better put some money aside and get the book its sucks to be old uneducated unemployed but hey what is hope all about
Even as a libertarian-minded person I have always felt that Rand’s philosophy was bloodless and gutless. To completely remove genes, blood and human heritage from the equation is not only mindless but morally corrupt. Denying the existence of the family and by extension the extended family (race, shared genotype) is tantamount to voluntary manslaughter. Libertarianism works great…in a homogeneous nation. It keeps the wicked government out of our affairs and maintains the health of a people through fierce competition. Yet, libertarianism, as abstracted to the absolutist point that Rand and her slobbering minions have made it, becomes poisonous to the genetic foundation that gave rise to libertarianism in the first place. Take for instance our Founding Fathers. Most, if not all and especially Jefferson, were ferocious libertarians like Ron Paul is today. Yet, they were undeniably White Nationalists as well. They knew liberty would falter and decompose rapidly if ethnic, racial or religious heterogeneity was encouraged or even allowed. We are seeing freedom disappear right now because we have been mistakenly convinced to believe that race does not exist or at best is besides the point. The World Police State is growing fast because multiculturalism/multiracialism has brought unspeakable horrors to our front doors while we simultaneously repeat the mantra that “Diversity is our strength.” We can partially thank Rand and her Abstract Libertarians for this. If we only would have remained true to the Racialist Libertarians that founded this nation. Liberty ceases to exist without white people. If only white people would allow themselves to believe this then we could quickly leap out of this nightmare we are presently in.
Ayn Rand on Israel (Ford Hall Forum lecture, 1974)
Q: What should the United Sates do about the [1973] Arab-Israeli War?
AR: Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.
Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don’t want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don’t wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I’ve contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.
****
Quite the constrast with her 1963 essay.
I remember Rand’s call for support of Israel at the end of one of her lectures. The brazenness of a Jew claiming that Arabs have no rights worth respecting because they are “nomads”! This was one of those moments when the light came on in my mind.
” In this article, Rothbard noted that the Objectivist movement was a cult led by Jews:”
It appears Rand had taken up an archetypal ‘Charasmatic Rabbinic’ role in this movement.
Sort of a Jewish version of the Aryan Fuhrerprinzip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip ) perhaps is how it could be thought of.
Rand (1905-1982) was born and educated in Russia. Her real name was Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum.
She is a classic example of the secular “rabbinic”-style Jewish guru described by Kevin MacDonald. The sexual dynamics of her cult were baroque. For example, Rand, though married to an Irish-American, carried on a long affair with disciple Nathaniel Branden, 25 years her junior, though Branden, too, was married at the time. Ostensibly both Frank O’Connor (Rand’s husband) and Barbara Branden “consented” to the affair.
Despite her ideological libertarianism, Rand possessed an intolerant, authoritarian personality that greatly affected the dynamics of her cult. It was vividly on display during an appearance on The Phil Donahue Show where I recall her brutally castigating a female member of the audience who’d articulated a question/comment that she disapproved of. I believe the woman had prefaced her remark with a fervent expression of her admiration for Rand and her work. That exchange remained forever etched in my mind.
Intolerance and authoritarianism likewise characterized another Jewish libertarian, economist Ludwig von Mises. This despite the fact that, in response to a question that began, “If you were dictator, what would you do to . . .” Mises humorously and charmingly responded, “I’d abdicate.” Mises married a beautiful shiksa—an Austrian actress who quit the stage and thereafter served as his dutiful typist and gofer. Her 1976 memoir (available online here http://mises.org/books/myyears.pdf ) displayed a painfully servile and worshipful attitude toward her “great” Jewish husband. Mises, too, was a guru in the MacDonald mold.
Intolerance and authoritarian personalities are particularly striking in people ostensibly devoted to liberty.
The only work of Rand’s that I have read is her big novel Atlas Shrugged. It is an absorbing read and was a big bestseller; the woman definitely had a gift for storytelling.
Among other Jewish libertarians, Mises is important for his early critique of the problem of economic calculation under socialism and the delineation of the role of money and credit in causing business cycles. Milton Friedman’s work can be read with great profit along several dimensions. And Murray Rothbard is valuable particularly in understanding fractional reserve banking, a subject which has again moved to the fore because of the current credit crisis.
The greatest libertarian writer and thinker, however, was a non-Jew, Austrian-born philosopher Friedrich Hayek. You needn’t be a libertarian to appreciate the profound importance of his myriad contributions to intellectual thought.
Curiously, no attention whatsoever was paid by any of these writers—or the libertarians who succeeded them—to the problem of intellectual freedom: freedom of thought, speech, and association. In terms of liberty, this is the key issue of our time.
There was a brief interval during the 20th century in which selective, ad hoc theorizing about “freedom” by judges and legal academics took place. However, the participants were interested primarily in advancing Jewish and Leftist group interests in the political and cultural arena. Due to the profound insincerity and highly-specialized nature of this dialogue, its social influence was ephemeral, and vanished completely once power was attained.
Therefore, the last serious defense of intellectual freedom remains that of John Stuart Mill.
Clear, ionfrmaitve, simple. Could I send you some e-hugs?
zeiOq9 isrkbmnfzkhl
SL7xqf wsmyxvjnlbob
Not surprisingly, Alan Greenspan was a devotee of Ayn Rand and I remember seeing a PBS Series ‘Commanding Heights’ where Ludwig Von Mises walked out of a Monte Perlin Society meeting decrying everyone who contemplated any discussion of economic justice, equity, community or whatnot as ‘socialists.’
I think the folks over at Monthly Review on the Left (along with the numerous far-left nutcults of Marxist-Leninists) to the Objectivists, ‘LP’ activists and followers of Mises on the Right represent the polar opposites of this mindset with the Center some fusion of watered down ‘anarcho-capitalism’ (dubbed neo-liberalism) and Cultural Marxism—the Center-Right and Center-Left . . .
Interestingly, Ayn Rand’s portrait and biography were exhibits at one of Stalin’s ‘Museums of Atheism’ (I got this from Anton LaVey’s book Satan Speaks or Secret Life of a Satanist). I find it curious that of all the Orthodox, Catholic & Baptist clergy that ended up dead or in the Gulag along with numerous Islamic & Buddhist clergy, the founder of the modern Chabad movement in the US, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, got out of Stalin’s USSR with ease.
MJC
Rand:”The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads.”
Jews are obviously one the most nomadic groups on Earth. Who was Rand trying to fool?
You have more usufel info than the British had colonies pre-WWII.
Some contemporary Objectivists are even more rabid than the neo-conservatives concerning U.S. policy towards the Middle East. This is supported by Justin Raimondo’s article, “The Objectivist Death Cult,” which is at:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/raimondo1.html
The “maniacal bloodthirstiness” of Leonard Peikoff and others at the Ayn Rand Institute recalls that of the “Old Testament.” Although Jewish Objectivists profess radical individualism, rationalism, and atheism, they are still Jews. One may recall the Jew, cited in Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique, who remarked that he had not known how Jewish he was until the 1967 War. Jewish Objectivists may be more Jewish than they themselves realise. As Rudyard Kipling wrote in “The Stranger”:
The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control—
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.
great poetry great insight
This “political philosphy” is based on computer game anthropology, with no connection to reality, to real humans. It doesn’t even have an approximation of an founding anthropology. Undefined “individuals” with a set of rights, and some axioms based on some kind of silly idea of “rational egoism.” Why should anyone pay attention to whatever little theorems that can be deduced from these computer game characters?
No, really, I don’t think it is particularly more complicated than just another hyper individualism to sell to, and split up non-Jews; in particular to uprooted, rootless, atheistic lower middle class, first generation of the family that attends university, somewhat intelligent people of European descent as they have not seen, or heard about, anything else but outright irrational and vulgar parliamentary party politics, and here, finally, is some “rational” (rational, of course, within the computer game anthropology, which is not applicable to the real world) political thinking.
Yikes, in the Lew Rockwell column above there’s a link to this speech by a modern day Objectivist.
http://forum-network.org/lecture/leonard-peikoff-america-versus-americans
Things get good around 19:10. There’s a moral imperative to kill citizens in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why can’t things be like the good old days when FDR and friends burned 80,000 Japanese civilians alive in one day?
I couldn’t find Peikoff’s ethnicity from a quick search, but I’m sure someone will take the opportunity to inform me.
These people are beyond sick.
Peikoff is of Russian Jewish descent. He is the first cousin of Barbara Branden, born Weidman, the wife of Nathaniel Branden.
“The only work of Rand’s that I have read is her big novel Atlas Shrugged. It is an absorbing read and was a big bestseller; the woman definitely had a gift for storytelling.
Among other Jewish libertarians, Mises is important for his early critique of the problem of economic calculation under socialism and the delineation of the role of money and credit in causing business cycles. Milton Friedman’s work can be read with great profit along several dimensions. And Murray Rothbard is valuable particularly in understanding fractional reserve banking, a subject which has again moved to the fore because of the current credit crisis.
The greatest libertarian writer and thinker, however, was a non-Jew, Austrian-born philosopher Friedrich Hayek. You needn’t be a libertarian to appreciate the profound importance of his myriad contributions to intellectual thought.
Curiously, no attention whatsoever was paid by any of these writers—or the libertarians who succeeded them—to the problem of intellectual freedom: freedom of thought, speech, and association. In terms of liberty, this is the key issue of our time.”
Actually, Rothbard by the end of his life was so fed up with the assaults on freedom of speech and association in the name of civil rights that he was supporting David Duke. Unlike Rand and the Objectivists with their computer game “individuals,” he had no problem with hereditary differences and cheered the success of The Bell Curve.
http://vdare.com/misc/091109_hoste.htm
A distinction should be made by the brilliant scholars of the Mises Institute and the deranged permanent adolescent followers of Rand’s philosophy.
The notion that race and family are somewhat intertwined is an interesting one but not altogether convincing. After all, one can have multiracial families (witness our own President Obama or professional golfer Tiger Woods to name two examples). However, I think that Rand is consistent (if horribly so) on this point. Nowhere does she admit to the legitimacy to anything other than loyalty to the self, not to one’s spouse, or one’s family, or one’s nation, or anything else. Certainly her contempt of the family is seen by how she treated her husband during her affair with Nathanial Brandon.
I read the article by Rand and the article above. I don’t agree with both since both 1) appear to make collective and self-interest mutually exclusive and 2) remain purposely ahistorical. The article above does little more than re-present Rand’s work and then state very briefly the moralistic issues that the author has. Hoste says she should admit to the “legitimacy of loyalty to the family” and that such loyalty derives from “inherent preferences” and “genetic interests”. This might be some kind of veiled evolutionary argument…I don’t know. Even then some evolutionary biologists would argue that such loyalty and preference (altruism really) is wrapped up with the survival of one’s own kin and therefore of one’s genetic pool i.e. it’s a selfish endeavor. I propose that race, family etc and the allegiance to it are capable of holding both self and collective interest and neither Hoste nor Rand acknowledge this because they are myopically dichotomizing the collective and the individual.
2) Collectivism is given some historical consideration but it is incomplete and may be deliberately so. Rand assumes that possession of private property at the time was also consonant with rightful acquisition. We are left to wonder what the wrongful acquisition of property might mean for one’s entitlement to it and vice versa for those who either were never allowed to own property or were wrongfully stripped thereof. As with all near sighted conservatives and liberals, she fails to understand the relationship between provenance and entitlement, as if all or most property currently under control by any collective or individual is without any prior condition. Southern planters that got rich off the expropriation and enslavement of various peoples are, under Rand’s protection of property and libertarianism, morally entitled to continue doing so. Were the government to remove that right or otherwise threaten the wealth of such a person…well then, the government would be coercive, as would civil rights groups that attempted to level an irreparably skewed playing field.
Maybe that is the problem. She is looking at rational egoism in a utopic world where there is no history or unjustly gained property and we all have a fair start at becoming an individual success – without collective support of course because we can all do it on our own. Her bourgeois family should have let her out into the streets of Saint Petersburg back then to see whether or not she would sink or swim. Tough as she is, I’m sure she would have been a roaring success nonetheless.