I was never a big fan of her novels though I thought she wrote better sex scenes than Mickey Spillane. As a Partisan of Francis Parker Yockey, I found myself opposed to her ‘stated’ philosophy on almost every point. But when I read Murray Rothbard’s 1972 diatribe against her, “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult”–available on the Internet–I developed enormous personal sympathy for her, while still disagreeing with her. This was helped along by the fact that I never thought too much of Rothbard. I consider him to be a malignant force, in fact, a Culture Distorter.
From a family that had been cleaned out by the Bolsheviks, she came to this country determined to be anti-Bolshevik in every way. In love with USA after having watched American films back in Russia, she enthusiastically embraced the business boosterism ideology that was dominant in the USA of the Twenties. When it crashed with the Stock Market in 1929, she tried to revive it with her first writing attempts in the 1930s.
Last fall, Johann Hari in SLATE, wrote this wise summary of her attempt:
“Rand was broken by the Bolsheviks as a girl, and she never left their bootprint behind. She believed her philosophy was Bolshevism’s opposite, when in reality it was its twin. Both she and the Soviets insisted a small revolutionary elite in possession of absolute rationality must seize power and impose its vision on a malleable, imbecilic mass. The only difference was that Lenin thought the parasites to be stomped on were the rich, while Rand thought they were the poor.”
Lawrence Auster, in his Blog “View from the Right”, wrote this:
“I have long said that Rand was a Communist turned inside out, a dictator for individualism.”
For my part, as I stated in a previous Blog, there is this running conflict in Rand, like an open sore, between her public affinity for Classical Liberalism, and her obvious underpinnings in Nietzsche. I mean, how to you square the Cult of the Superman with a stated fealty to the hoary old Constitutional order? The short answer is you can’t.
In the meantime today, you have Randroids spouting ‘libertarianism’ though she was contemptuous of the Libertarian Cult. When you criticize the functioning of Real, Existing Capitalism to a Randroid, they’ll say that’s not ‘real capitalism.’ When you ask what is, they reply about some utopian dribble which you’d expect from a pacifist or religionist.
When they ask me about how I’ll achieve my goals: I reply right to the point: Seize the Capital! Wipe out the Opposition! Start the Purge!
The Randroids–who I feel have little in common with the REAL Ayn Rand–then scurry off, probably to join the cesspool which is the Republican Party.
All of which brings us to Francis Parker Yockey. On June 17, 2010 in San Francisco, at a memorial dinner 50 years after Yockey’s passing, Michael O’Meara made these remarks. We close with excerpts:
“The anniversary of the death of this enigmatic figure–arguably America’s most brilliant anti-liberal thinker–is likely to go unobserved in his native land, for his legacy is still unclaimed.
“Unlike what Evola called the ‘false right,’ whose alleged anti-liberalism derives from essentially liberal premises (constitutionalism, free markets, bourgeois social forms and sentiments, etc.), Yockey’s thought derived from Prussian rather than Anglo-American sources.