We knew this would return to bite us


Greybird

Recommended Posts

When a certain object of attention on the part of Ayn Rand was first reported in regard to her journals — and recently amplified by Jennifer Burns's book — I knew that one day it would result in the foulest of smears on Rand and on anyone who ever read or admired her.

That sad, yet inevitable, day has come. The least offensively presented version is at AlterNet, but the one obviously closest to the author's heart is copiously (and needlessly) illustrated at Exiled Online.

The title and kicker used at AlterNet:

Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to

Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer

Today her works are treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and

Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920s murderer William Hickman.

The closing smear and peroration:

[...] Whenever you hear politicians or Tea Baggers dividing up the world between "producers" and "collectivism," just know that those ideas and words more likely than not are derived from the deranged mind of a serial-killer groupie. When you hear them threaten to "Go John Galt," hide your daughters and tell them not to talk to any strangers — or Tea Party Republicans. And when you see them taking their razor blades to the last remaining programs protecting the middle class from total abject destitution — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — and brag about their plans to slash them for "moral" reasons, just remember Ayn's morality and who inspired her.

Too many critics of Ayn Rand — until I was one of them — would rather dismiss her books and ideas as laughable, childish, hackneyed. But it can't be dismissed because Rand is the name that keeps bubbling up from the Teabagger crowd and the elite conservative circuit in Washington as The Big Inspiration. The only way to protect ourselves from this thinking is the way you protect yourself from serial killers: smoke the Rand followers out, make them answer for following the crazed ideology of a serial-killer-groupie, and run them the hell out of town and out of our hemisphere.

This does not come near to being the worst of the article — and upon encountering a catalog of Hickman's crimes and modus operandi, you might become sick when you're reading it. But you should do so anyway.

I knew this was coming, but I remain numb from it. I have no idea how such a huge injustice can be responded to effectively, nor even how to begin. Yet one of you might, and you need to know about it, because this is too absurd and monstrous — and clearly written — to be simply ignored.

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Trash. I thought Hannibal Lecter was cool when I read/saw the books/movies. So what.

“[Y]ou should read this to give Rand’s ideas their proper context, and to repeat this over and over until all of America understands what made this fucked-up Russian nerd’s mind tick, because Rand’s influence over the very people leading the fight to kill social programs, and her ideological influence on so many powerful bankers, regulators and businessmen who brought the financial markets crashing down, means that it’s suicide to ignore her, no matter how dumb, silly or beneath you her books and ideas are.” Italics mine.

This might just sell some books! It doesn't look like a major publication though, are you sure it's worth such attention? It's not like GQ, which was just as trashy.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is done to create a meme, in the way that Rand portrayed Toohey doing to Roark with the lawsuit over the Stoddard Temple. "Rand? That psychotic admirer of serial killers?" That's all we'll be hearing in a year, in response to her name, from casual contacts. That is, if such a smear isn't stomped upon promptly.

And I've found that many on the putative "Right" aren't aware of what media are genuinely influential among the committed and intelligent types on the "Left," and vice versa. AlterNet is a highly respectable and constantly quoted "progressive" news and commentary source, with a far longer ideological and rhetorical pedigree than those parvenus at the splashier Huffington Post or Daily Kos.

Your quotation, by the way, is from the Exiled Online (more vulgar, semi-blog) version, and it does not appear in the AlterNet (more sober, reference-minded) version. That shows a difference in editorial standards. Yet both versions will end up being equal in Google's automated "eyes."

Edited by Greybird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, interesting... I always thought Rand's ideas always contain a hint of being Anti-social or to be more exact, having Anti-social Personality... I wanted to raise the notion of a serial killer being one gruesome embodiment of her ideals gone south. Serial killers (provided they are psycho/sociopaths) generally use incomplete and twisted logic (with more of impulsiveness) to guide their behavior in the sense that once they made a connection, e.g. "I plan to kill this person..." they cannot stop themselves from obsessing towards the fulfillment of that desire whatever future consequences might be. I think statistically, America has got the most number of serial killers or a person having higher chances of going psycho/sociopath precisely because of individualism where you have to choose what's best for you but forgetting the fact that you should avoid deciding for other people except by persuading them for their consent or assent.

In connection to Ayn Rand, the hero Howard Roark could be classified as anti-social based on APA's description of it because he exhibited signs/symptoms thereof such as when he blew up that building near the end of the story. ASPD description.Now, in the story, it's clear that Roark did initiate the use of force... justifiably but not legally. He destroyed his work, it was his right, but realistically, he could have killed someone, an innocent bystander... a scenario of idolizing Roark in that particular situation is not rationally practical or palatable.

I don't know what Rand might be thinking when she decided to like that serial killer but it should not and cannot reflect on each Objectivist or to be more specific: Rational individuals who bought her ideas. If I were to speculate, maybe she got so overwhelmed by one of Hickman's characteristics that it blinded her from her stand of "not initiating the use of force".

If this is a fact, then, all the more clearly Rand echoes her stand in her ideals that is: Use your independent minds.

I like the ideas Rand presents. I am a rational individual capable of anything I so desire within my rights. If evidence comes to light that Aristotle murdered someone just because, would it disprove his achievements and insights too? Would, or rather, could you abandon his logic which proves to be the only way to perceive reality? At most, one can say Rand lied about being consistent in practicing her philosophies but it does not follow that what she stated is wrong altogether.

It's ad hominem gentlemen, you know it's a flawed argument so how it will bite a rational man?

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Rand might be thinking when she decided to like that serial killer

I think Anne Heller analysed this, but I bought the audiobook so I don’t have it at my fingertips to review the relevant part. Rand’s journal entries are dated, and if you tie in what she thought when, a different picture emerges. This writer is treating it as though she had all the facts from the beginning, and as though this reflects her mature judgement. It’s a smear job.

Another point, in her fiction, Rand liked to shock: Kira lets Leo think she’s a whore when they first meet, the Rape scene, the Cortland dynamiting. There’s plenty of serial killers in popular fiction now, Hannibal Lecter comes to mind immediately. I don’t think there were so many in the 20’s, so maybe she was ahead of the curve in seeing the potential, though in the 1800’s there were the Newgate novels (e.g. Oliver Twist), and penny dreadful characters like Sweeney Todd. But Rand never wrote anything like that, maybe she thought about it, but couldn’t get it to work. Which would say what about her?

In any event, this is just some hack trying to make something out of nothing. I used this quote yesterday, it belongs here too: “a case has not been refuted until it has been stated at its strongest” (Hitchens channeling Popper). How's this writer attacking Objectivism? Innuendo and misrepresentation.

Edited by Ninth Doctor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the smearing of Rand, but I understand why some people may be revolted by some of her comments. I think there is a legitimate basis for concern about some of her views as stated in her journals.

For example (from http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm):

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal...

"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."

Rand's assertion that the disgustingly "average" masses were enraged more about an act of daring individuality than mutilation and murder is quite disturbing. I think that her seething contempt for good people who expressed outrage about Hickman's crimes, and her claim that they had worse sins and crimes in their own lives, is reasonable grounds for very harsh criticism of her.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ironically, not, Hickman turned out to be a snivelling little coward too. But in the context of her life and how young she was, morally she gets a pass on this. When you write notes to yourself trying to find your way to a proper view of man for your art's sake, 95% deserves the wastebasket. You should see the crap I put on paper when I was 13 and my hormones were out of control. You should, but you won't; I tossed it. Now, if she had picketed the courthouse supporting that SOB ...

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this was a poorly stated defense of a horrible criminal, but don't miss the point embedded in here: What people were upset at was his lack of concern for society, not his crime. She transmuted this lack of concern into someone who did good things (i.e. revolutionizing architecture) and you see the same hatred and attacks. I think she even pointed out that of course the criminal did something horrible in her notes. This was like an experiment in social metaphysics. The writer of that article never pointed out that Ayn Rand advanced her thinking enough to say that her 'prime directive' is to never initiate force... as Ninth Doctor said the writer had to set up the weakest case before he tried to knock it down.

Edited by DavidMcK
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to hand it to the ARI, their work is starting to pay dividends in the USA.

These blatantly obvious smear jobs should encourage all of you, that Ayn Rand's message is getting through.

Those Progressive-Liberals are hurting - and it's showing.

That cheap gimmick in 'Exiled Online' of printing the terrible photo of the victim's body parts, and directly below it the statement "This is the 'amazing picture' Ayn Rand - guru to the Republican/Tea Party right wing, admired when she wrote..."

- when there is not the slightest correlation between the two, is disgusting, muck-raking journalism that would have got the writer and sub-editor fired from any decent newspaper.

They're getting desperate, gentlemen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly Tony:

These kinds of toothless trite attacks are to be given the attention that they deserve which is zero.

Jonathan raises a legitimate concern and I am willing to stipulate that Ayn was just as peculiar and just as bizarre as we all are.

Brant is correct. Musings at different youthful ages should be carefully purged and should only enter your myth as you explain it to people when you want to.

One of the fine parts of many in the Burn's book was the evolution of Ayn's concept of the "mob." As she appeared on stage in movie theaters answering questions and debating with the common man, she evolved her appreciation of the common American citizen.

So essentially, empowering these nit picking marxist gnats is just not worth it.

Tony, I see that the "situation" over there is getting quite interesting. The ANC is stirring pots again so I hear. Additionally, it looks like all hell is going to break lose in Niger.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Yes, South Africa is sinking deeper into a sort of grey, Statist porridge; we have an amoral, populist President, with an immoral, populist Pretender (Julius Malema) in the wings. The in-fighting begins.

Which means I spend more time studying (and sorting out :lol: ) the problems of the US, just because of the perspective of distance, as well as my personal identification with it.

Your own Nation probably looks grey and murky to you right now!

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

Yes, South Africa is sinking deeper into a sort of grey, Statist porridge; we have an amoral, populist President, with an immoral, populist Pretender (Julius Malema) in the wings. The in-fighting begins.

Which means I spend more time studying (and sorting out :lol: ) the problems of the US, just because of the perspective of distance, as well as my personal identification with it.

Your own Nation probably looks grey and murky to you right now!

Tony

Tony:

Yes, but it has looked murky before...lol. We just do not do well on our knees and we tend to get really fucking pissed off when someone tells us to get on our knees and be thankful for getting a bowl of rice back from our productive efforts.

Well, you know how primitive and picky us colonials are!

Did that Malerma dude actually say that he is being investigated because the white man thinks that a black man who got rich stole it? Or, words to that effect?

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this was a poorly stated defense of a horrible criminal, but don't miss the point embedded in here: What people were upset at was his lack of concern for society, not his crime.

I think that's bullshit. I think it's an example of Rand getting herself into her artistic creative zone and coming up with romantic fantasies about why a filthy herd would persecute a heroic individual. I think she got a little carried away, and confused reality with the fiction that she was trying to create. She didn't actually know the minds of others, or care to know them, before spouting off about what they believed or why they believed it, especially those she had never met and had only read about in vague terms in news stories. Claiming that masses of people, whom she had never met, weren't actually upset about murder and mutilation, but were instead opposed to heroism, defiance and proud individuality, rightfully comes across to people as bordering on insanity. It's something Objectivists should acknowledge as being nutty, or at least as Rand blurring fiction and reality while creating her art. It's not something that should be emulated by her idiot followers who have it twisted around in their angry little skulls that Rand's worst moments were her best.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the Hickman story bothers me more than it seems other people here. Rand may have hated the "ordinary" person (I don't know if that's the right phrase) for not being outstanding and leading ordinary lives, but to glorify a nasty killer for doing something out of the ordinary and with a positive attitute at that strikes me a bad. If this were an isolated musing, I'd be okay with it, but there's the section in We The Living where she discusses the uselessness of the masses and how it's okay for those who can to spill their blood. I won't even get into the whole "rape" thing and the whole affair thing involving starstruck people who couldn't handle it, but there's something off and narcissistic here. I know Barbara keeps saying that AR was a terrific person, and on a level, I believe she was, but I've respected this woman my adult life, and this doesn't compute in my brain. And no, I don't think it's unfair for people to judge her negatively on this. God knows, she judged harshly enough. Sorry, I seem to be a bit pissed off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with this point.

It's not something that should be emulated by her idiot followers who have it twisted around in their angry little skulls that Rand's worst moments were her best.

You could see that clearly at NBI in the mid sixties.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I would definitely go with the (very) young Rand "blurring fiction and reality while creating her art"- as you say.

I'd like to dig up MSK's comment posted somewhere, that to glorify and rationalise Rand's (comparitively) few, if glaring, errors, is to diminish her true genius. (Paraphrased.)

The Hickman-as-Superman episode cast a shadow when I first came on it.

What it reveals is what I believe to be her hunger to find a truly unashamed Individualist who had no concept of Society's constraints. She briefly and certainly went overboard with this one. As an artist, you can understand that she needed a symbol.

Anyway, I am infinitely more absorbed by the 'individualist as psychopath', 'loner as anti-social outcast' perception that I'm sure you have considered, or perhaps even faced in accusation as I have, from non-O'ists.

The truth is that Individualism is misunderstood and misrepresented, usually because it's feared and hated, I think.

In fact, it isn't even discussed much on Objectivist forums, except in passing, and I can't figure why.

'I'ism', of the moral, courageous, and considerate (in the true sense of the word) sort, is the polar opposite to narcissism, or sociopathy.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reaction by someone on the Objectivism Online forum on that article was rather funny:

My grandmother sent this to me and if she gave it to me in person I might of slapped her face.

Now that is really a rational response!

Another poster wrote about "people who viscously denounce Objectivism". That must have been sticky posters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that this was a poorly stated defense of a horrible criminal, but don't miss the point embedded in here: What people were upset at was his lack of concern for society, not his crime.

I think that's bullshit. I think it's an example of Rand getting herself into her artistic creative zone and coming up with romantic fantasies about why a filthy herd would persecute a heroic individual. I think she got a little carried away, and confused reality with the fiction that she was trying to create. She didn't actually know the minds of others, or care to know them, before spouting off about what they believed or why they believed it, especially those she had never met and had only read about in vague terms in news stories. Claiming that masses of people, whom she had never met, weren't actually upset about murder and mutilation, but were instead opposed to heroism, defiance and proud individuality, rightfully comes across to people as bordering on insanity. It's something Objectivists should acknowledge as being nutty, or at least as Rand blurring fiction and reality while creating her art. It's not something that should be emulated by her idiot followers who have it twisted around in their angry little skulls that Rand's worst moments were her best.

J

The first writer still uses this episode to ignore the totality of Objectivism, the argument that Life and Value are connected, the ethics of individualism the bankruptcy of the Welfare state. I clearly stated that this admiration of a criminal is clearly indefensible, but I still stand by the point I'm trying to make: If someone does something horrible and tells people they couldn't care less about society and then someone does something of incredibly positive value, say writing Atlas Shrugged and tell people they couldn't care less about society and people respond exactly the same then it must be that the real crime is that somebody didn't care enough about others to suit them. If you haven't seen this in your own life then I don't know how else to make the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote

It's not something that should be emulated by her idiot followers who have it twisted around in their angry little skulls that Rand's worst moments were her best.

J

end quote

It's precisely because they are idiots that you shouldn't advice them as they will not consider any other fact like say, Ayn Rand is fallible since like us, she only uses her reason to (ideally) the best way she can. Probably in their own idiotic way they are thinking, "Ayn Rand is the Messiah!!" Pfft... That's bigotry for you.

I have genuine respect for Rand and her philosophy and thinking, but praising a man who kills another for no good reason is utterly sickening. However, it is probable that she couldn't find a hero who can represent her ideals to this extreme.

Well, she can admire whoever she wants to and express her opinions about them (based on the facts that she perceives at least)... it's a right.

Edited by David Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Much of Rand's pre-1940 writings had a Nietzschean Übermensch quality to them. It can be said that Rand didn't have a fully developed philosophic system yet, but one doesn't need a system to know that murdering young girls is wrong. The best defense could be that Rand came out of Russia severely emotionally disturbed and it took some time for her to adjust to American principles.

Rand's early views can be seen in "I loathe your ideals. I admire your methods" passage in the original version of We The Living. The 1959 version that is read today is more egalitarian. I wish that Rand could have had the honesty to admit to the shifts in her philosophy while standing by 95% of the novel, but that would have required her to say that she was wrong about something.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Not only were Ayn Rand's early journal entries concerning William Hickman very likely bowdlerized, it gets worse. Apparently her earliest journals have now been lost. I don't know the circumstances, but there is a statement in Jennifer Burns' book to that effect.

Rand did have second thoughts, and she ended up scrapping "The Little Street." Still, some of the attitudes about "ordinary" people that underlay that project remained on evidence in Ideal and Night of January 16th, as well as the first edition of We the Living.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Greybird,

The article you're reacting to is truly scummy, but look on the bright side.

If the Whittaker Chambers procedure had been effective, 52 years ago, there would no perceived need for this kind of take-down today.

The same goes for the GQ piece, or the Daniels/Dalrymple screed in the New Criterion.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thought has occurred to me that Rand's contempt for the proles, little people, untermenschen or what have you, through The Fountainhead had to do with the progress of her career. These were the people who were not buying her work and maybe never would. Ideal is another case in point, and The Simplest Thing in the World features a novelist whose first book failed commercially, convincing him at least temporarily that he couldn't make it as a writer. The Fountainhead brought her professional success, and we see much less of this afterward. In her last years she was something of a populist (culturally, not politically), thinking that regular folks were the custodians of certain truths that had gone over the heads of the elite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now