Print this post Print this post

A Sense of Life:
Ayn Rand & White Nationalism

Randstamp4,876 words

The story is clichéd. A teenager discovers a book. It challenges his religion. It rips apart his morality. He radically changes his behavior within days. The path of his life is forever altered. As Jerome Tuccille titled his book about the libertarian movement, It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand.

Even a casual glance at the American scene shows Rand’s influence is growing. Sales of Atlas Shrugged are brisk, and Rand’s magnum opus is consistently ranked in polls as one of the most influential books in Americans’ lives, just behind the Bible.[1]

Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, is unapologetically selfish. Rand proclaimed “greed is good” well before Gordon Gekko. Family, religion, nation, and race were all collectivist “mysticism” that a free man must ruthlessly swipe aside. Objectivists heaped scorn upon the very concept of race, declaring that the individual holds no allegiance to anything except those loyalties that are freely chosen. Background is an accident; heritage an irrelevance. The Russian Jewess Ayn Rand (real name Alisa Rosenbaum) seems a bizarro version of Emma Goldman designed to wean the American Right away from White racial nationalism. Objectivism, in theory, is a mortal threat to White racial identity — another rabbit hole for White Americans to fall down in their never ending quest to pursue every ideology, party, or platform except the ones that might allow them to take their own side. In fact, Objectivism denies that they have a side at all, or even that there is a “they.”

And yet, despite it all, for a surprising number of White advocates, it usually begins with Ayn Rand. The journey from the world of the heroic architect Howard Roark to Jared Taylor or even Julius Evola is not uncommon. Strange as it seems, the writings of an anti-racist Jewess have real value to White nationalists even beyond serving as a stepping stone to greater truths. A closer examination of Rand’s life and work reveal that some of the assumptions behind Objectivism can lead to White advocacy. It may seem contradictory to interpret Alisa Rosenbaum as some kind of proto-White nationalist. However, as Francisco d’Anconia said in Atlas Shrugged, “Check your premises. Contradictions don’t exist.” The answers we find might surprise us.

* * *

To answer the question, “Who is John Galt?” one must first know “Who is Ayn Rand?” Alisa Rosenbaum was destined to create a philosophy of deracination, as her own roots were shallow. She was the daughter of a pharmacist in St. Petersburg who nursed a quiet hostility for Bolshevism. The Rosenbaums, middle class Jews in the midst of tsarist Russia, were an oddity, and the young Rosenbaum had an economically comfortable but isolated early life, with no participation in Jewish religious life, the resentment of the peasantry, or the Orthodox Russian upper class whose glittering existence she could only glimpse. Rand’s family was non-observant but even the ultimate individualist had to be aware of a distinction between her Jewish family and the Orthodox masses of Holy Russia.

Rand, even at an early age, was recognized for her fierce intelligence and aloof attitude towards those she considered intellectually beneath her. Family was never terribly important to Rand, with even a real relationship to her father dependent on intellectual agreement. It is also not surprising that Rand despised what she saw as the “mystical” soul of her Orthodox homeland and looked west, especially to England and America, for a place that fit what she called her “sense of life.” Perhaps reading into the Anglosphere what she wanted to see, she viewed the English-speaking world as a bastion of reason, liberty, and science in contrast to the Oriental despotism of Russia. She was proud of her westward looking home city of St. Petersburg, calling it a “monument to the spirit of man.” Rand supported the downfall of the Tsar and the rise of a parliamentary regime, identifying her first hero in Alexander Kerensky. Unfortunately for Rand and for Russia, the Kerensky regime was only a placeholder for the more disciplined and dedicated Bolsheviks.

The Bolshevik Revolution destroyed what order existed in Rand’s world, with her “bourgeois” father’s wealth confiscated and his shop destroyed. Rand genuinely respected her father and saw with shock how the work of a lifetime was destroyed in the name of revolution. Rand’s life was a nightmare world of grinding poverty, constant hunger, and creeping terror that at any time she would be denounced or arrested. Rand was also forced to study Marxist ideology as part of her education. The Revolution became the formative experience of her life. Rand could justifiably state that she thoroughly understood Communism as both theory and practice.

Rand’s unique background combined with her oppression at the hands of the Bolsheviks provides the key to understanding her work. Rand’s Jewish heritage and scorn for Russian culture prevented her from conceiving of the Communist Revolution as a hostile or “foreign” movement. Rand could not identify with any resistance to the Bolsheviks couched in terms of traditionalism, Orthodoxy, or Russian patriotism or identity. However, Rand’s “bourgeois” background ensured that she also did not conceive of the Revolution as liberation or as revenge for anti-Semitism that she never experienced. She and her family suffered horribly at the hands of their supposed co-ethnics amidst the Bolsheviks, a persecution she could only explain as a product of class hostility divorced from considerations of race or religion.

Rand’s forced education in the historical dialectic also affected her interpretation of Bolshevism. Rand boasted that she had never been affected by Marxist propaganda and “learned in reverse” by critically analyzing everything she was taught and formulating reasons as to why the Communists were wrong. The dialectical method of education emphasized the interplay of philosophical principles with economic and social factors that led to “inevitable” conclusions. Thus, Rand viewed history as the conflict of abstractions in the real world. She created her own dialectic, in which “values” determine the success or failure of societies and individuals. Rand absorbed much of the Marxist method — she just changed the conclusions. For a society — or a person — to succeed, it was simply necessary to have the correct principles and all else would follow, systematically and inevitably.

Thus, because of her background and education, Rand did not view the Russian Revolution as an ethnic struggle between Jews and non-Jews, the byproduct of a poorly waged war, the victory of professional revolutionaries or even the end product of a host of complicated factors. Instead, it was the inevitable result of mistaken philosophy, the real world manifestation of an abstract ideological battle. Indeed, decades later, Ayn Rand would say to the graduates of West Point, “politics is not the cause, but the last consequence of philosophical ideas.”[2] Hence, Rand would later say that the “most evil man in history” was not Marx, Lenin, or Stalin, but Immanuel Kant.

A central premise of Rand’s worldview is control. Rand tried to “name her path, to grasp it, to conceptualize it, and, most important, to put it under her conscious control.”[3] The moral man guides himself through the dispassionate application of his reason to his chosen goals, sweeping all else before him. He is therefore successful. If a person neglects to choose any particular course and simply follows everyone else (a profoundly immoral act in Rand’s view), he will be condemned to flail wildly throughout his life, a victim of circumstance and the machinations of “collectivists” and “mystics” that seek to exploit him. The immoral, irrational man will be a failure.

Of course, Rand’s own life was heavily affected by the uncontrolled. Her own intellectual outlook was at least partly a product of her background. The fact that she was able to get an education only occurred because the Communist Party spared “bourgeois” students in her school years while purging them the next year. She also was fortunate in securing her escape from Russia. Her family randomly received a letter from relatives in America in 1925. Seizing the opportunity, Rand announced her intention to leave Russia and stay with her relatives, thus beginning a nearly impossible bureaucratic struggle to obtain the proper paperwork from Bolshevik authorities. Her family also raised the necessary money for the journey, an almost insurmountable obstacle in its own right. Rand lied on her paperwork and was not caught, and also noticed a minor clerical error that would have prevented her from leaving. Only through luck, unchosen family ties, and the sacrifice of others was Alisa able to emigrate from Russia.

Her parents were not so lucky — they would never obtain permission to leave Russia and died in the Siege of Leningrad. However, this narrow escape did not seem to affect Alisa Rosenbaum’s emerging worldview, nor did it challenge her conception of herself as entirely self-made. Her American relatives were perturbed at her seeming indifference to their existence and lack of gratitude, and she quickly moved to Hollywood where she worked as a screenwriter and costume designer. She also began her writing career, formally adopting the nom de plume Ayn Rand, breaking even in name from her Russian past and Russian family.

Rand’s first novel, We the Living, is an autobiographical tale of a young woman trying to survive in the new Soviet Union. In many ways, it is her best work, with complex characters and plot details that can only come from someone who has lived the experience. The heroine, Kira, falls for a free-spirited bourgeois man named Leo. Ultimately, the relationship collapses under the harsh reality of life under the Bolsheviks. Intriguingly, the most admirable character in the book is probably Andrei, a loyal, honest, and dedicated Communist who falls in love with Kira. Kira, who values him as a friend, becomes his lover in order to secure treatment for Leo’s tuberculosis. In the end, the book ends in tragedy, as Leo abandons Kira to become a gigolo, Andrei commits suicide, and Kira is shot while trying to escape Russia.

Anthem, a dystopian novella, is about a collectivist future in which even the word ‘I’ is banned. Uniquely for such a novel, technology has degenerated and the world is far more primitive than our own. A man named Equality 7-2521 rediscovers electricity but is punished by his society for doing so. Escaping from his society and joined by a woman he loves, he finds books that contain the word ‘I’. Inspired, he prepares to chart a new cause for humanity.

The Fountainhead is the work that made Ayn Rand a household name. It focuses on Howard Roark, an architect of genius who struggles to find work in a world ruled by compromise and cowardice. He falls in love with Dominique Francon, who is so disgusted by the world that she would rather destroy greatness than see it corrupted. Ellsworth Toohey, a socialist architecture critic, manipulates the culture to defeat Roark because he does not want to see greatness survive anywhere. Gail Wynand, a newspaper owner, had the potential to be a great man, but pursued power and is defeated when he finds that such a path leads to him being ruled by the masses, instead of ruling. In the end, Roark triumphs through the force of his genius.

Finally, the monumental Atlas Shrugged is about a strike by “the men of the mind.” As America sinks into socialism, men of ability around the country are mysteriously vanishing. Dagny Taggart, a beautiful female railroad tycoon, struggles to hold her railroad together. Eventually, she meets John Galt, Rand’s ideal man, a scientific genius who is deliberately withdrawing the men of ability from the country in order to collapse the collectivist system. In reality, though Taggart and Galt share the same values, they are enemies, as Taggart fights to keep the country going, and Galt wishes to see it destroyed in order to be reborn. In the end, Taggart admits Galt is right, and the country collapses as the lights go out in New York. The novel ends, however, on a note of hope, as the men of ability prepare to return.

Rand presented her worldview through her work. However, are her novels really “Objectivist?” Ayn Rand’s early experiences show a clear tendency on her part to reinterpret her experiences and views in order to be consistent with her abstract ideology. As Objectivism crystallized, Rand ultimately put more demands for obedience on both her readers and ideological followers, outlining the correct moral choices on matters such as politics, architecture, music, and even sex.

Few of these choices can be justified purely through reason, as Rand’s own life would later demonstrate when she would try to rigorously apply her philosophy to her life. Rand married a bit actor named Frank O’Connor. However, in order to fit into her own self-conception, she ludicrously proclaimed that O’ Connor was not a failed actor but a misunderstood hero “on strike” against the world. Actually, O’Connor allowed Rand to dominate the relationship, reversing what Rand held to be the ideal. Later, the much older Rand began a sexual affair with the already married Nathaniel Branden, her chosen intellectual heir. Because sex was held to be an inevitable outgrowth of deeply held metaphysical principles, Rand forced the affair to be approved by O’Connor and Nathaniel’s wife Barbara.

Of course, it ended in disaster. Branden’s marriage was destroyed and O’Connor desperately cried out that he wanted to leave Rand but he had been so beaten down he couldn’t. When Nathaniel could no longer maintain his sexual attraction to a much older woman and began a relationship with someone younger, Rand interpreted the rejection as intellectual betrayal, expelled Nathaniel from all Objectivist organizations, removed the dedication to him in Atlas Shrugged, and practically gutted the emerging “official” Objectivist movement, a sad consequence of the attempt to subordinate sex to ideology.

A careful reader can see the premises that contradict Rand’s own ideology even within her own books. Even though the novels are often castigated as being simply collections of speeches by characters who serve as either Objectivist mouthpieces or collectivist straw men, the truth is more sophisticated and complex. Of course, as Francisco d’Anconia of Atlas Shrugged, tells us, “Check your premises. Contradictions don’t exist.” Rather than adopting a premise and using reason to arrive inexorably at one corollary after another, Rand’s approach is more akin to arriving at a desired conclusion and then retroactively rationalizing the philosophic steps needed to get to that point. In her fiction, it is actually the world presented, not the rationalizations created to get there, that are attractive to so many readers. Let’s check Ayn’s premises. The result actually shows that Rand might have more to teach White nationalists than libertarians.

A term often used by Ayn Rand to describe herself, her followers, and her enemies was “a sense of life.” This refers to the value judgments and emotional responses that a person has to the things he encounters. Ultimately, these derive from the philosophical principles a person implicitly believes or consciously chooses. “A sense of life” is a Weltanschauung as observed through the prism of Objectivist theory and the premise that such reactions can always be determined by rational choice. Hence, if a piece of music, a book, or another person created a positive or negative emotional reaction in someone, one could analyze that person’s deepest beliefs and character according to those likes or dislikes. If we accept this premise, we find Rand’s sense of life is similar to what would one expect for any White nationalist.

Rand’s first literary hero was the character Cyrus from an adventure story called “The Mysterious Valley.” Cyrus was a handsome, dashing British officer who foiled a plot by superstitious Indian natives to overthrow the British Raj and ravish a young blonde English girl. Cyrus rescues the girl and uses dynamite to blow up a dam, flooding the natives and killing them all. Cyrus triumphs through daring, intelligence, and courage, easily outsmarting the colored masses and laughing in his victory. One can compare Cyrus to John Wayne fighting Indians, the stories of Rudyard Kipling, or even to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If Edward Said, author of Orientalism, read this story, he would surely grind his teeth in rage.

However, Rand was thrilled by the story and later told a biographer, “the kind of feeling I had for [Cyrus], it still exists, it’s in essence everything that I’ve ever felt for Roark, Galt . . . or all my values.” Barbara Branden comments, “Howard Roark in The Fountainhead was Cyrus, John Galt and Hank Rearden and Francisco d’Anconia in Atlas Shrugged were Cyrus.”[4]

Rand’s hero-worship of the Aryan peoples had much to do with simple aesthetic appeal. One of the most important experiences in Alisa Rosenbaum’s life was when she saw a young girl named Daisy Gerhardi from England, who wore stylish clothes and played tennis, which was unheard of for young Russian girls. She would later say, “It amazed me. . . . it was a creature out of a different world, my idea of what a woman should be. I can still see her today, a very active, tall, long-legged girl in motion.”[5]

It is therefore not surprising to us, but surprising to those who accept Rand’s individualist rhetoric at face value, that all of the heroes of Rand’s novels are clearly, even comically Nordic. Howard Roark, the heroic architect of The Fountainhead, is described as having “hair neither blond nor red, but the exact color of ripe orange rind” and “a body of long straight lines and angles, each curve broken into plains.”[6] His great love, Dominique Francon has grey eyes and pale gold hair.[7] The great love of the hero of Anthem is simply referred to as “The Golden One.”

In Atlas Shrugged, the heroine Dagny Taggart , has grey eyes and brown hair.[8] The heroic steel plant owner with whom she has a torrid affair, Hank Rearden, is described as having eyes with “the color and quality of pale blue ice” and ash-blond hair, with prominent cheekbones.[9] Ragnar Danneskjold, the Scandinavian pirate who raids foreign aid ships in order to fight against the collectivists directly, has “gold hair and a face of . . . shocking perfection of beauty.”[10] John Galt, the ultimate hero of Atlas Shrugged, the scientific genius and ideal man, has “chestnut-brown” hair, “the loose strands of the hair shading from brown to gold in the sun . . . his eyes were the deep, dark green of light glinting on metal.”[11] He has “angular planes” for cheeks, once again, suggesting a Nordic phenotype.

There is one possible non-Aryan hero in Atlas Shrugged — Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’ Anconia. However, even here Rand writes, “Nobody described his appearance as Latin, yet the word applied to him, not in its present, but in its original sense, not pertaining to Spain, but to ancient Rome. . . . His features had the fine precision of sculpture. His hair was Black and straight, swept Black. The suntan of his skin intensified the startling color of his eyes: they were a pure, clear blue.”[12]

Most revealingly, Rand inserts herself into the book in an Alfred Hitchcock-like device. In Atlas Shrugged, the heroes that oppose socialism have a secret hideaway called “Galt’s Gulch” where they live “on strike” from the rest of the world and wait for it to collapse. As John Galt and Dagny Taggart walk by, a “writer who wouldn’t be published outside [Galt’s Gulch]” looks up at them. “She wore slacks, rolled above the knees of her bare legs, she had dark disheveled hair and large eyes.” As she looks at Galt, her glance contains “hopelessness, serenely accepted.”[13] Though this worship was rationalized by Rand, clearly the Objectivist “sense of life” prizes the Aryan physical ideal — an ideal the Jewess Alisa Rosenbaum could worship, but never possess.

In contrast, rather than the Aryan supermen cum corporate overlords that are the heroes of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s villains are some of the most brutal character sketches of the liberal elite ever written. Howard Roark’s antithesis in The Fountainhead is Ellsworth Monkton Toohey, who has a “thin little body” like that of a chicken just emerging from the egg, in all the sorry fragility of unhardened bones.”A great forehead dominated the body. The wedge-shaped face descended from the broad temples to a small, pointed chin. The hair was Black, lacquered, divided into equal halves by a thin White line . . . the nose was long and thin, prolonged by the small dab of a Black mustache. The eyes were dark and startling.”[14]

Toohey is an architectural critic but is also much more. He organizes writers, architects, artists and others into various councils which do nothing but mouth Leftist pieties. His writings promote equality and human rights, but in a witty, ironic, self-deprecating way that communicates that everything should be mocked and nothing should be taken seriously — except the destruction of the dissenter. Toohey is a murderer who never lets his victims see what it is that has destroyed them. He explains, “Don’t you find it interesting to see a huge, complicated piece of machinery, such as our society, all levers and belts and interlocking gears, the kind that looks as if one would need an army to operate it — and you find that by pressing your little finger against one spot, the one vital spot, the center of all its gravity, you can make the thing crumble into a worthless heap of scrap iron?”[15]

It is impossible for White nationalists to not laugh at the portrait of respectable society that Rand draws. Toohey states, “Mr. Alvah Scarret [a worker at an anti-socialist paper], the college professors, the newspaper editors, the respectable mothers and the Chamber of Commerce should have come flying to the defense of Howard Roark — if they value their own lives. But they didn’t.”[16] Replace Howard Roark with White advocates, and you have the situation today.

Similarly, the best scenes of both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged take place in the drawing rooms and cocktail parties of polite society. Empty-headed society women honor postmodern literature and new age spirituality for seemingly no other reason than fashion — fashion created by culture distorters such as Ellsworth Toohey. Meanwhile, men of genuine accomplishment and serious works of literature, art and music are destroyed, not through real criticism, but through mockery and the refusal of the average person to even comprehend what is being done.

In defiance of the egalitarian parasites she portrays, Rand advances a proudly inegalitarian creed. Her heroes are described as “ruthless” with “contemptuous mouths” that react to difficulty with suppressed emotion. Randian heroes are classic Nordic character types in both appearance and behavior. If the primary virtue of the Left is to be defined as “equality,” the works of Ayn Rand firmly maintain that men are not equal and that human lives are not of equal value.

According to Objectivism, no man has the right to initiate force against the use of someone else. Despite Rand’s supposed condemnation of force, her books show that her definition of “initiate” is somewhat flexible. Rand argues that not intervening to help the less able, even to save their lives, is a moral necessity. The entire plot of Atlas Shrugged focuses on the men of ability withdrawing their talents from an immoral society, condemning millions to starvation or violent death. Even if the argument of “sin by neglect” is rejected, the first edition of her 1936 novel We the Living has the heroine proclaim, “What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?” Though this was removed from a later edition, it is questionable whether there was actually a real transformation in Rand’s thought. When Dagny Taggart attempts to rescue John Galt from a government prison near the end of Atlas Shrugged, she calmly murders a guard because he can’t make up his mind what to do.

Rand’s views on the non-White world are also quite clear. She heaps scorn upon the idea that anyone owes the Third World anything. Angelina Jolie claims to be a fan of Ayn Rand, but she obviously missed John Galt speak on how “random females with causeless incomes flitter on trips around the globe and return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world demand a higher standard of living. Demand — of whom?”[17] In Jean Raspail’s classic The Camp of the Saints, the activists who hurry to welcome invading immigrants cry, “We’re all from the Ganges now!” In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt asks, “Which is the monument to the triumph of the human spirit over matter: the germ-eaten hovels on the shorelines of the Ganges or the Atlantic skyline of New York?”[18]

Most critically, Rand outlines an important concept — the sanction of the victim — that all White nationalists would be wise to adopt. In John Galt’s climatic speech, he outlines again and again the incredible accomplishments of the modern world and asks who makes it possible. Since it is obviously not the liberal literati or the champagne socialists, why are they able to direct the vast majority of the energy and wealth of the world, as well as determine the culture? According to Rand, it is because the productive have let them. “Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love — the endurance that carries their burdens — the generosity that responds to their cries of despair — the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs . . . in the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, don’t exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs.”[19]

Such words can easily be directed at the Whites who serve the armies of an America that despises them, who pay the taxes to fund welfare programs for non-Whites, and who keep America going while receiving nothing but scorn in return. Who cannot think of the acceptance by Whites of the catch-all explanation of “racism” for every racial discrepancy in crime, education, income, or intelligence? Regardless of the Jewish media, White Americans are in the situation they are in today because they have given “the sanction of the victim.” Who makes this world possible? Like Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden, White Americans have to say, “We do.”

It is an obvious point to state that Rand’s world of capitalist Übermenschen, like libertarianism in general, is premised upon a White world, a world where uniquely Western values such as individualism, the rule of law, and limited government are taken for granted. Rand does not address how such a world of rugged individualists would survive in a country besieged by millions of hostile ethnics who practice ethnic solidarity. Nor does she explain how her childless heroes will build a world that could last more than a generation. Of course, oppressed White individualists could “go Galt” and withdraw their productivity — but as the example of Zimbabwe shows, the new non-White rulers probably don’t care. It is also obvious to point out that Rand’s rejection of the reality of race or the importance of unchosen, immutable genetic characteristics or facts of background blinded her to any real understanding of the world.

That said, the greater truth here is that Ayn Rand’s “sense of life” is deeper than her own superficial ideology. It assumes not just a White world, but an Aryan code of achievement, appreciation of hierarchy, and a robustly defended philosophy of greatness. Rand lays out a forthright defense of excellence as opposed to equality, not just in the realm of economics but throughout all human existence. Rand’s heroes are intelligent, productive, courageous, taciturn, admirable and attractive — and they are all obviously of Aryan heritage to boot. While White nationalists often look to past warriors, the Randian heroes show how Whites at their best could act in a peaceful, modern world.

Rand also shows the depravity of the Left-wing elite, showing their motivation, appearance, and operations. While she obviously doesn’t address the question of Judaism, her novels remain one of the most powerful portraits of America’s parasitic rulers ever created.

Finally, Rand, through her concept of the “sanction of the victim” identifies the key moral precept that keeps White Americans in chains, and suggests that withdrawing it could blow apart the entire system that mandates our genocide.

Because of Rand’s background and personality, this essentially healthy worldview was turned into a universalistic abstraction. Nonetheless, a heretical kernel of a White nationalist “sense of life” endures in her novels. As with libertarianism in general, it remains for White advocates to “check Rand’s premises” and take her ideas to conclusions she could not have expected, including White identity and racial nationalism. In the end, the closest thing to Rand’s valley of heroes, “Galt’s Gulch,” might be found in the White Republic of the future.


1. “‘Atlas Shrugged’ 50 Years Later,” Christian Science Monitor (March 6, 2007).

2. Ayn Rand, “Philosophy: Who Needs It.” Lecture given at West Point, 1974.

3. Barbara Branden, The Passion of Ayn Rand (New York: Doubleday Books, 1987).

4. Branden, 12.

5. Branden, 9.

6. Ayn Rand, The Fountainhead (New York: Signet, 1996), 3.

7. Ibid, 105.

8. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Plume Reprint Edition, 1999), 20.

9. Ibid, 34.

10. Ibid, 690.

11. Ibid, 643.

12. Ibid, 114.

13. Ibid, 660.

14. Rand, The Fountainhead, 231.

15. Ibid, 356.

16. Ibid, 357.

17. Ibid, 955.

18. Ibid, 963.

19. Ibid, 979.




  1. Oil Can Harry
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 3:12 am | Permalink

    Excellent piece.

    Rand sometimes contradicted her professed belief in racial egalitarianism. During the Yom Kippur War she took the side of her Tribe, describing the conflict as “civilized men fighting savages”.

    In 1974 when white guilt over the historic treatment of American Indians was sky high Rand called Indians “savages” living “a primitive existence… like animals or cavemen. …Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent.”

    • Proofreader
      Posted November 30, 2015 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      “During the Yom Kippur War [Ayn Rand] took the side of her Tribe, describing the conflict as ‘civilized men fighting savages.'”

      Rand’s remark must have inspired the wording of the posters that Pamela Geller had put up in several transit systems in the United States: “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad.” In addition to being a hysterical Zionist and Islamophobe (a term which can be applied to her quite legitimately), Geller admires Ayn Rand and has a blog titled “Atlas Shrugs.”

  2. Posted November 30, 2015 at 5:27 am | Permalink

    Probably the best short critique on AR I’ve ever read. Rand the artist conveyed things that are often hard to reconcile with Rand the ‘philosopher.’

    I have another, less romantic explanation of why ‘it often begins with Ayn Rand.’ Conservative and rightist thought was pretty much a void in the decades after WW2. Racial identitarianism was beyond the pale, so we were left with sentimental traditionalism, and anti-Bolshevism, both reactive schools with no coherent worldview. (The presence of Whittaker Chambers and other ex-communists in the National Review crowd was particularly sad, because, as Revilo Oliver never tired of pointing out, the key point to their life drama was that they had shown atrociously poor judgment.) Against this background Ayn Rand’s looked daring, forward-looking, and bracingly unapologetic.

  3. Bjørn
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 7:15 am | Permalink

    Excellent piece!
    Having been there, by indulging in Atlas Shrugged in my late teens, I must say this analysis very much describe the the obvious step from Libertarianism to WN if the starting point is Ayn Rand. I also (at the time) took great pleasure in noticing that the heroes were of my own race.
    Having come to the conclusion that anything written by a jew must be regarded with the uttermost caution, as their deceptive story-telling abilities are at times very good, but their dealing with the truth rather disastrous, I started to disregard her books in their entirety.
    But describing them as the creations of a jewess that quite unintentionally(?) praise the Nordic man as a race is a delightful discovery. And rather humorous as well.

  4. James L Rockwell
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 7:54 am | Permalink

    You’re alive! You scared the hell out of us, Hood. Its good to see you’re still at it. You’re my favorite alt-right writer.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted November 30, 2015 at 9:26 am | Permalink

      This was written in 2010.

      • James L Rockwell
        Posted November 30, 2015 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

        oosh. So it was. Does anyone know what happened to him? Did he hang it up? I know its hard starring into this abyss.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted November 30, 2015 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

          I don’t really know. He is not communicative.

  5. f
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

    I can see why her works would lead here…selfishness and greed are in essence, taking your own side. I see that this does not come very naturally to a lot of whites, especially those deep within the hajnal line…but it is how the rest of the world operates! You favor yourself, and move outwards towards your family, extended family, sub ethnicity, ethnicity, race, etc….as the kebabs say, me and cousins against the world, but me and my brothers against my cousin.

    This is why I don’t understand the LARPy handwringing about is so and so ethnicity white- it doesn’t matter that much, and of course there are grey areas, but just favor yourself and move outwards. I am astounded at how this is not instinctual to all peoples. Then again, I’m a sleazy Slav.

    All roads lead to Rome, though, don’t they? Funnily enough I found the Alt Right through Paleo blogs…once you figure out that youve been lied to you kind of start to question everything else.

  6. Lorenz Kraus
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    Her ideal Nordic man runs away and leaves power in the hands of the Jews.

    Hitler didn’t run away. He took power in twelve years.

    Objectivism is the philosophy of living on earth without street-smarts.

    Without racial wisdom, her philosophy is wrong on all normative questions. Even her epistemology of measurement-omission is limited to yellow triangles.

    What measurements are omitted for justice, intuition, commitment?

    Even though they may be all the same size, man-made objects are distinguished by their purpose, like flower pot, cooking pot, piss pot.

  7. Bobby
    Posted November 30, 2015 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    My favorite writer, Gregory Hood. He is through and has just enough outrage to keep you interested no matter how long the article is, or the subject matter.

  8. Posted November 30, 2015 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    This will be the first time that I have commented on a site, that I do objectively (pun intended) appreciate,,, but whenever I hear Aryans glorifying the Talmudic Ayn Rand (named after her typewriter, to conceal Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum as her real name)… I must speak… she has witty insights, and no bright person would deny many Jewish authors like Heine are brilliant… but even Heine would have gagged at her creed, as chest beating greed… it is a sorry state, when men of my race look up to those who all its virtues would deface… she was nearly booed of the stage once, when justly comparing Hitler to JFK, for both saw altruism as the high path, in a world beset by darkness and greed… Common Interest, before the Self (NSDAP)… Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country (JFK)… beware of mirroring, the enemies of your soul… for Victory, resides in remaining Whole… H.

  9. Charles
    Posted December 1, 2015 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    Ayn Rand’s world, especially in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, has both its flamboyant heroes and its vile left-leaning parasites. Greg Hood’s piece is an example of highlighting features that remain unconscious in things we liked. I can remember how much I enjoyed Rand, something very unusual in my country, while trying to fit in as a libertarian. Rand recognizes the value of personality, of civilization, likes the beautiful, scorns an ugliness that almost no one really denounces. Besides, she was opposed to the sixties upheavals, though she did not see — or did not wanted to see — how Jews were thoroughly implicated there.

    Ultimately, Rand’s own worldview is not only unfit for our times, as it supports individualism, race-blindedness, and remains awkwardly unefficient facing the Leftist metapolitical blows, but also self-defeating.
    Technology and matter-related stuff become boring after a while. A world where only work, or the narrowest “reality principle” has a place, would need a lot of diversion, because it would be empty and shallow. (Not unlike “real” America somehow.) It would also suffer from superproduction, as everyone would have to produce in order to fit in. In a nutshell: Rand’s world would create superproduction, a sense of senselessness and spiritual emptiness. Such a world would be fated to chaos — or to discover the spiritual again, something Rand herself would have considered a “barbarism” or “superstition.” So much for her “Enlightenment” influences.

    As Greg Hood points with the childless heroes, Ayn Rand’s world has missing pieces. It is doubtlessly an oasis of beauty within an ugly leftist-dominated world, but after a while, one needs to go beyond.

  10. R_Moreland
    Posted December 2, 2015 at 2:34 am | Permalink

    There was a time you went over to the digs of a Young Republican or YAF member and next to a pile of unread Freeman magazines were well thumbed copies of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Libertarians (both large and small “L”) could talk about “Freedom in Our Time,” subscribe to Reason, vote for a Goldwater or Reagan, and look forward to small government with prosperity and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Heady times, indeed!

    We’re not in that world any more.

    Up until, say, the year 2000 the main threat to liberty was from the proverbial Big Government. It was 90% tax brackets, bans on 30 round assault rifle magazines, having to sign up for the draft, and your local narcotics officer making that marijuana bust. All that could be rolled back by repealing some legislation and defunding a federal agency or two.

    But in the 21st century Big Government is taking on an entirely new front.

    Reason magazine has come out for open borders (promoted as part of a larger “open society”). Why has this become the most important issue in the world? Have their capitalist financiers given them new marching orders? We have de facto open borders and we are certainly not any freer.

    Support for Big Government is becoming more diffuse. It’s especially prominent among minorities and radical feminists. They create the demand for affirmative action, minority studies programs, speech codes, diversity indoctrination, and even more open borders to let their co-nationals into first world lands. They also staff an exploding bureaucracy working in partnership with minority ethnic based NGOs, as well as marching Red Guard type activists in the streets. (The latter are deluded into believing they are fighting the system when they are the System’s crudest front.)

    Are Objectivists going to inform Black Lives Matters that they are anti-human and anti-life for “initiating force?” Or tell the NAACP that they are engaged in “barnyard collectivism?”

    Where is John Galt? I don’t know, but I do know that out there are George Soros, Bill Gates, the Bush family, the Ford Foundation and quite a few others who promote globalism as well as fund much of the socialist-radical left. Rand Paul seems to have peaked—his downslide began, I think, when he declared that the GOP had to “embrace” third world immigrants. You have to ask who got to him.

    I have discussed the immigration issue with libertarian acquaintances, and there is a growing awareness of the downside. There is some development of an ideological opposition to open borders. Lew Rockwell appears to be doing his share of Bankster-Bashing. You can also look at the rise of movements like National Anarchism.

    Nonetheless, there are things which can be gained from Ayn Rand, at least tactically. One is the the proscription against altruism. Can that be turned into nationalist agitprop against the insane altruism which opens European and US frontiers to “refugees?” Or to mobilize support against the self-sacrifice required for white people in giving the consent of the victim when it comes to affirmative action or handing their children over ala Amy Biehl or Rotherham? Nationalists can now take up the banner of Free Speech against the growing tide of censorship. I’ll put in my usual plug here for nationalists promoting an international Right to Bear Arms.

    Can we see Freedom in Our Time? Maybe, but it is going to require a whole new level of struggle. Yes, there does seem to be a relation between becoming an Objectivist or libertarian in one’s youth and a white nationalist later on. Perhaps it is that same struggle for freedom. And for man as a heroic being. But Objectivism can only take it so far. As noted, “It started with Ayn Rand.”

    PS: You might consider a review of the movie “The Passion of Ayn Rand.”

  11. rhondda
    Posted December 2, 2015 at 10:38 am | Permalink

    While I have never been a fan of Rand, I am surprised that no one has mentioned her idea of the men of the mind going on strike and withdrawing their services from institutions that want to destroy them. In the book, it was about unearned money, but in this day and age of information, it could mean something completely other than that.

    A few years ago I read a story about a CEO who held a staff meeting in a strip joint. There were a couple of women in the group who were offended, but I thought about it and it seemed to me to be quite brillant. If I was that CEO I would be looking to see who concentrated upon the work at hand and who was most distracted by the atmosphere. Then I would know who to promote.
    Withdrawing services can be just refusing to answer a question, or playing dumb because you know that person who is asking would step all over you given the chance. Being too generous with what you know can handicap you. Hoarding it can work against you too. It is more about learning who is on our side and who to trust. Usually, someone who does that is regarded as the villian in a story. I am not talking about depraved indifference to suffering, but who benefits with what you know because everyone knows something that someone else does not. There are givers and takers and those who know how to reciprocate.

  12. Petronius
    Posted December 3, 2015 at 9:24 pm | Permalink

    Her novels work very well as inspiring modern myths – the 1947 King Vidor movie “The Fountainhead” magnificently catches that spirit, and yes this sort of thing primarily appeals to White people or certain types of them. As philosophy, objectivism is very objectable, to say the least, if not bordering on the loathsome.

  13. GC
    Posted December 8, 2015 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I think far too much is made of Rand’s rejection of race on either side. It seems non-essential to me, like her views on homosexuality.

    I would advise anyone interested in Atlas Shrugged to read to book and avoid the (inferior) movies.

  14. Ray Symm
    Posted February 4, 2016 at 12:30 am | Permalink

    Nonwhite libertarians usually have a white spouse or girlfriend. I think they share Ayn’s affection for nordics.

  15. GeorgeD
    Posted June 10, 2020 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    Who cares about Ayn Rand’s personal life.
    Are the creative achievements of great thinkers and artists made any
    less great because they were, as all of us are, flawed human beings
    in some way?
    In all the many articles I have read about her over the years
    there is not one discussion of her Philosophical writings, never mind a quote.
    That tells me something.

    “Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron—without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.

    But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call ‘human nature,’ the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival—so that for you, who are a human being, the question ‘to be or not to be’ is the question ‘to’ think or not to think.”
    ― Ayn Rand

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    Here’s the Thing

    Trevor Lynch: Part Four of the Trilogy

    Graduate School with Heidegger

    It’s Okay to Be White


    The Enemy of Europe

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace