7 replies »

  1. Thanks for the updated link.

    I am also a Stirnerite. In fact, I’d say Stirner, Nietzsche, and Ernst Junger are my three biggest influences. You’ll see that if you read my book. In fact, my politics are largely an outgrowth of the ideas of these three thinkers in various ways. At the same time, none of them are really necessary to my own politics on a practical level. So that makes for an interesting dichotomy.

  2. For me it’s Nietzsche, Dostoyevsky and Stirner as my greatest influences. However, like you, I pride myself in being an independent thinker. I am sure I would enjoy your book.

    Are you aware of the influence Max Stirner had on Ayn Rand and her “objectivism”? ( So you know, I have very little respect for her or her often childish “philosophy”.)

  3. Because of my interest in anti-state philosophies, I’m often asked what I think of Ayn Rand. The short answer is not very much. Her “philosophy” is just a third rate recycling of Nietzsche and other comparable thinkers, plus some borrowings from Locke, classical liberal economists like Mises, and American individualists like Isabel Patterson and Rose Wilder Lane. Anything Rand said, others have said it better. Go to the original sources if you need inspiration. Plus, she ran her own groups like a cult built up around herself, and as an individual she seems to have been a royal bitch, In fact, Objectivism has always been one of my least favorite strands of libertarian or anti-statist thought.

    • She is a decent pulp writer, and combining it with Russian pamphleteering bombastry and simplification has its own value. However, I agree with you entirely regarding the content and depth of her views; Ayn Rand was intellectually on the level of John Stossel, not Mises.

  4. I swear I feel I have met a long lost brother with you! 🙂

    I have many acquaintances who adore Ayn Rand in my political life. Right now I am helping a political party that is heavily influenced by her, The Freedom Party of Ontario. We do have many things we can agree on, like the end to grand centralized public education, protecting free speech and more, but I could never join one of their circle jerks. Even if I did, they would no doubt “ex-communicate” me. It’s just weird they don’t see the irony in that.

    The one question I always ask, which you just addressed, is “have you read the same books that Ayn Rand read?” Seems a reasonable question until they tell you that Rand was “only influenced by Aristotle and no else”. Rand said that herself and you can find her saying that on Youtube. Crazy! Here are the books she read.
    http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/misc/read.html

    How could anyone read these great thinkers and claim no influence? Stating the obvious and paraphrasing what you have said, Rand is “marketplace Nietzsche”. Her writing is soaked in his influence – to say the least!

    Here is my concern though about Rand. I would dismiss her as I have done before but I don’t think she can be ignored now. I see the established Republican elite – i.e. the military industrial complex, finance and energy – are using her so-called objectivism for domestic consumption and Straussian neo-conservatism for the foreign policy agenda. The two are a perfect marriage. I know the Koch brothers are big supporters of Rand and recently the Cato institute elected one of these objectivists as the new president. That’s a bit alarming given Cato was supposed to be about avoiding foreign entanglements.

    Last thing, they claim the concept of “The Ego and His Property” is an original concept by Rand. We of course know otherwise but the objectivists will refuse to acknowledge it because of course only the Aristotle influence is at work in the Randian world. To question their heroin (that’s a double-entendre) will mean no invitation to the Gulch for you! 🙂

    • Ayn Rand can’t entirely be blamed for her nutty cult, that is just what happens when your ‘representation’ are a bunch of political wonk New York Jews; of course, she was one herself. To an extent, as far as Rand’s views are defensible or at least generally correct they will almost invariably be simplified, distorted and cherry picked by her ‘successors’ who are, after all, people and, thus, more interested in herdish self esteem games than objective inquiry. Rothbard has the same problem, a lot of the people out there who espouse his views are fucking retarded.

Leave a Reply