The Ayn Rand-Satan Connection Revealed!

Joe Carter, co-author How to Argue Like Jesus, arrives very, very late to the Ayn Rand resurgence party with an important public service announcement: Rand's doctrines are satanic.

Carter is worried, you see, because lots of conservatives and professed Christians—Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.), and Rush Limbaugh among them—have said nice things about the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in the last couple of years. 

What they don't seem to have noticed that her writing conveys "the same philosophy" [strident italics in original] as Anton LeVay's 1969 classic The Satanic Bible. Conservatives and Christians who feel OK crediting Rand with influencing their intellectual development wouldn't pledge allegiance to Satan, would they?

Carter's fundamental point is legit. One cannot fully embrace both Christianity and Objectivism. As he notes:

Conservative Christians who embrace [Rand] as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy. 

True enough. Donald Luskin made this very point in The Wall Street Journal a couple of months ago. As did Rand herself. But sweet mother of Rand, why drag the Prince of Darkness into this? 

Lots of people are influenced by Rand without buying her arguments wholesale—including Anton LeVay. (The same is true of Jesus, incidentally.) Ta da! Problem solved. You can be a Christian and read Rand without descending (ascending?) immediately into LeVayan Satanism.

Carter says he's not trying to offer a guilt-by-association ad hominem argument in his wonderfully overwrought First Things essay. But it's pretty clear that's exactly what he is doing: Rand=LeVay=Satan, and you hate Satan, right?

Carter isn't just late to the Rand-is-back party, he's even late to the Rand-is-Satan party. Andrew Sullivan has been on the Rand=Satan beat for a while now. His research on the connection is also incomplete: Carter missed the utterly batty Ayn-Rand-was-Phillip-Rothschild's-satanic-mistress angle altogether. For shame.

Enjoy Reason's juicy, relatively Satan-free archive of Randania here.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Trespassers W||

    This "Satanism" sounds interesting. Does this LeVay have a newsletter to which I could subscribe?

  • ||

    If you listen to Let It Bleed backwards at one point the address where you send your money order is given. Can't remember which song though, have fun!

  • ||

    Yes, it's called The Daily Dirtnap. Published by Blanche Barton I think.

  • Gabe E||

    As a reform Satanist, I find this insulting.

  • Satan||

    As a Christian Conservative, I find this insulting

  • ||

    Fuck those other bloggers - Cons try to usurp Rand's capitalism but ditch her freedom philosophy while Progs miss the point entirely.

    Rand told Buckley and conservatives they were just 'whores for Jesus' while giving free markets a reach-around hand job.

    Which is true!

    Soros is the new Rand/Hayek - and if your missed his appearance at Cato for the new release of Hayek's book -CHECK IT OUT!

    Libertarians + Soros = a new freedom Frontier!

  • ||

    Shriek, what does it take to delude yourself into thinking that Soros is the second coming of Rand? The guy is constantly complaining about "market fundamentalism," what about that says libertarian prophet to you?

  • ||

    Market Fundamentalism (MF) is a perversion of Capitalism. Soros/Rand/Hayek all agree.

    (MF) says that no rules apply - property rights are negated, statutory rules are unneeded, etc.

    Capitalists like Soros/Buffett/Tepper today want rules to protect capital.

    Idiot (MF)ers like Jim DickMint/Rand Paul do not understand capital structure so when Obama raises 4x the amount of funds that RomBachLenty does - do not be surprised.

  • sevo||

    shrike|6.14.11 @ 5:45PM|#
    "Market Fundamentalism (MF) is a perversion of Capitalism...."

    And what about Elvis' alien love-child, huh? What about that?!

  • ||

    I don't know.

    You are obviously a Rothschilds/Paultard/Fed Conspiracy Freak.

  • sevo||

    "You are obviously a Rothschilds/Paultard/Fed Conspiracy Freak."
    Lucie get $0.05 for such bullshit; you're underpricing your product.

  • ||

    Shriek is approaching meltdown levels of stupidity here. You're a biggere fucking idiot than I thought. It's almost entertaining to listen to you contorting philosophies and identities into things they aren't, smushing them together, mashing them up. But mostly the extent to which you delude yourself is just sad. Now go copy paste some more economics from wikipedia to make us think you know what you're talking about.

  • ||

    What about this pisses you off?

    "Market Fundamentalism (MF) is a perversion of Capitalism. Soros/Rand/Hayek all agree.

    (MF) says that no rules apply - property rights are negated, statutory rules are unneeded, etc."

    Its simple. Markets love predictable outcomes. You just hate markets.

  • ||

    Shriek, market fundamentalism is simply the belief that the free market is the best economic system. The free market is inherently dependent on property rights, so to say that market fundamentalism "negates" property rights is retarded. Rand was a market fundamentalist. Hayek was a market fundamentalist. Market fundamentalists are Capitalists. The mixed economy promoted by Soros is only Capitalist-biased, not Capitalist. I hope I explained everything clearly enough that even an idiot like you can undertand.

  • ||

    No, it is NOT!

    Alan Greenspan was an MFer until he saw how unregulated markets lost trillions in capital.

    Since - he has DENOUNCED his MF-erism!!

    and Greenspan was the most visible Randian until then!

    MFers are lost - they belong in Saudi Arabia with other Kings who renounce Capitalism!

  • ||

    I don't see how anything you just said has anything to do with what I said Shriek. Did I say anything about Alan Greenspan? No. Does his ideological shift say anything about the MF of Ayn Rand or Hayek? No. Does it change the fact that MF is the belief that the free market is the best system? No. Thanks for playing, I award you no points.

  • tarran||

    BWA HA HA HA!

    Yes, nothing says free market like a monopolist who centrally controls the money supply!

    Tell su about the market fundamentalism behind the "Greenspan Put" shrieky! Educate us about the way moral hazards create self discipline on the part of people who are being shielded from the consequences of their bad descisions!

    Teach us o shrieky how Adam Smith was wrong when he promoted free markets as an alternative to mercantilism, when in fact they are, according to you - o economic solon - one and the same.

  • Aladdin Sane||

    Yet Soros calls Hayek an "apostle of market fundamentalism", despite his lack of understanding Hayek.

  • ||

    Because there is a ying/yang balance in Hayek and Keynes. Both were giants who earned mutual respect from each other!

  • ||

    Try to stay on your meds and on topic, Shrieky boy.

  • sevo||

    shrike|6.14.11 @ 6:43PM|#
    "Because there is a ying/yang balance in Hayek and Keynes."

    Ah, yes. The ol' yin and yang! Tell us more! Please include some guidance on balancing our chakras; sooo important to woos.

  • .||

    Is that anything like in and out?

  • ||

    Dude, it's a sockpuppet. It is specifically saying shit that is so retarded that it makes your blood boil. It's actually quite skilled at it, but enough is enough.

  • ||

    Maybe, but it doesn't make the anger any less real.

  • Almanian||

    Heller, why do you hate markets? It said you hate markets - why? Why, Heller?

  • ||

    *facepalm*

  • ||

    I think Heller hates free markets because there is more profit involved in closed markets where consumers are pushed toward a monopoly provider.

  • ||

    STFU troll.

  • ||

    Why do you hate my/Soros Free Market message?

    I do not understand your pointed antipathy, Heller.

  • ||

    Because it's obviously a steaming pile of bullshit, you halfwit.

  • Puppet Master||

    Shreck pulls your strings. It's funny.

  • ||

    Its because the stupid bastard won't own up to the fact that he hates the Libertarian Soros here!!!

    Soros = bad! Drummed into his brain stem!!! What a fucking idiot reptile Heller is!!!

  • ||

    If you don't use more exclamation points than that no one's going to take you seriously puppet.

  • ||

    OK - Why do you hate Capitalists/Libertarians like Soros?

    Note the absence of superfluous punctuation.

    Noted? I hope so.

  • ||

    OK - Why do you hate Capitalists/Libertarians like Soros?

    Is this how the left stole the word "liberal" from classical liberals?

    By putting a lunatic on a public forum and have him misuse it endlessly?

    If so I going to have to lower my appreciation for the classical liberals.

  • Horse of Bob||

    Is this how the left stole the word "liberal" from classical liberals? By putting a lunatic on a public forum?

    No, it's because you keep answering the lunatic, thereby encouraging him.

    But you knew that.

  • ONNTA||

    shrike +1

    The low knowledge MF's will latch onto any the market knows best talking about without digging further. Much like their arguments today, blame obama, blame obama, blame clinton. lol

    The magical if government disappears everything will be grand argument is the worse fairy tale at best. It will lead to authoritarianism, a class system, and debtslavery for average citizens. Only bankruptcy for employers, and those needing to dump wages.

  • sevo||

    "The magical if government disappears everything will be grand argument is the worse fairy tale at best. It will lead to authoritarianism, a class system, and debtslavery for average citizens. Only bankruptcy for employers, and those needing to dump wages."
    You forgot to mention eating babies.

  • ONNTA||

    that's talking point, but anyways, we've seen how thuggish they can be already with their attacks on workers. Even in rand's book if you expect the best from your employees, they are well compensated for it.

  • sevo||

    ONNTA|6.14.11 @ 7:50PM|#
    "...we've seen how thuggish they can be already with their attacks on workers...."
    Right and the solution is government control.
    Why don't we try that? We could make a worker's paradise.
    Oh, wait.....

  • ||

    We don't expect the best from them. Good thing too...

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Ayn Rand wasn't an anarchist.

  • fish||

    Idiot (MF)ers like Jim DickMint/Rand Paul do not understand capital structure so when Obama raises 4x the amount of funds that RomBachLenty does - do not be surprised.

    Yeah you wouldn't want to forget tribute/contributions to the whore currently occupying the non-circular room....capital structure indeed.

  • ||

    Yes, I concur that Obama is a fave among the elite/Capitalists.

    Tell me what that means?

    Really --- ?? I do not know.

  •  ||

    You had me until "Soros..."

  • ||

    Soros was on the Cato/Hayek panel last month as a expert on Capitalism.

    I know - you listen to Glenn Beck - which means your IQ is about 70 +/- 10 points.

  • CE||

    It depends on how long you've listened to him.

  •  ||

    Glenn Beck is a buffoon. He's so bad my elderly parents watch him.

  • ||

    But Beck is the poster figure for Conservatives now.

    If not Beck - it is Rush (King of the Rednecks) Limpdick.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    What I have a hard time figuring out is how that idiot, low-IQ buffoon Beck somehow, despite his massive retardation, managed to make approximately $32 million last year.

    I wish I were that stupid.

  • ||

    Well, I hate Beck but he is an obvious genius as a snake-oil salesman and Christ-Puffer.

    When Jesus endorses your shit you will make money every time.

  • Horse of Bob||

    Beck went mining for morons and struck the mother lode.

  • ||

    Beck mined for Shrieks? Who knew?

  • sevo||

    shrike|6.14.11 @ 5:50PM|#
    "Soros was on the Cato/Hayek panel last month as a expert on Capitalism."
    Naah. He was there for comic relief.

  • ||

    Again - you hate a prominent Capitalist and Libertarian.

    Why?

    I don't get it.

    Is it because Soros is an atheist?

  • sevo||

    shrike|6.14.11 @ 6:33PM|#
    "Again - you hate a prominent [...]Libertarian.."
    Some libertarian:
    "According to Soros, market fundamentalism with its assumption that markets will correct themselves with no need for government intervention in financial affairs has been "some kind of an ideological excess"."

    Oh, and *I'm* an atheist, bozo.

  • ||

    Soros is the new Rand/Hayek - and if your missed his appearance at Cato for the new release of Hayek's book -CHECK IT OUT!

    You mean the one where he was bemoaning the lack of a public option in Obamacare?

    Go back to being crazy-shrike, fake market wizard-shrike sucks.

  • ||

    Yes, Soros said some mechanism was needed to counter-act Gouging by the private insurers.

    Gouging - FYI - is anti-market.

  • ||

    Shrike go look up the difference between free market economies, mixed economies, and command economies. Come on, any high schooler knows what you're saying is bullshit.

  •  ||

    Actually, "gouging" is a mechanism of market correction.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    What do we mean by gouging, here? Exploiting a slight increase in demand by pentupling the price, or raising the price in accordance with demand increase (which in some situations looks unreasonable, but really isn't)?

  • JoshINHB||

    Gouging = I have to pay more for shit than I want to.

    There's nothing wrong with raising prices to whatever level the market will bare.

    The anti-free market component is when supply is artificially restricted by government action.

    With out that type of restriction the higher price will entice new supply into the market leading to a lower price at a higher rate of consumption.

  • sevo||

    "The anti-free market component is when supply is artificially restricted by government action."
    Pretty sure it was Jeb Bush who, after hurricane Andrew, put price controls on portable generators so the retailers wouldn't 'gouge' people who wanted them.
    Those generators stayed in warehouses from Georgia to Texas since nobody was going to ship them and not make some dough in the process.
    And Floridians got to light their homes with candles and lanterns.

  •  ||

    PRICE GOUGING SAVES LIVES

    http://mises.org/daily/1593

  • ||

    Is there some capital-G gouging that I don't know about?

    I thought gouging was a mechanism to counteract distortions in the market ...such as government meddling...such as Obamacare.

  • ||

    oops, should have f5'd

  • ||

    No, When GOUGING occurs, it is because markets have abdicated demand pricing.

  • sevo||

    "...When GOUGING occurs, it is because markets have abdicated demand pricing."
    As a result of government distortions.

  • ||

    Like when you're forced at the point of a gun to buy a product...such as health insurance?

  • Jim||

    My overriding goal in life is now to become a multi-billionaire, just so I can rush in whenever there's a disaster pending and buy up all the fresh water, then sell it back to people at a 1,000% mark-up.

  • cynical||

    So, progressives totally miss the point, yet Soros is the second coming, yet Soros is most known today for his sponsorship of one of the more prominent progressive political organizations. Buh?

  • ||

    I am not a progressive.

    I am merely a Hayek/Rand/Soros liberal.

  • cynical||

    I never said you were.

    You claimed "Progs miss the point entirely."

    You also claimed "Soros is the new Rand/Hayek"

    But Soros is a major financier of exclusively progressive groups and causes.

    So.

    Although maybe the people that claim you're a sockpuppet are right, in which case you're under no obligation to be close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.

  • ||

    Soros = freedom??? Are you kidding? Soros has made it quite clear by his words, and actions that it is your freedoms, that he does not like, and many of times said how capitalism(freemarkets) needs to go, Soros is the antithesis of Ayn Rand.

  • ||

    Hail Satan!

  • Jeff P||

    But which Satan? The South Park one is too whiny. DeNiro in Angel Heart certainly has a Rand vibe, but he has a beard and that's right out. Viggo Mortensen in The Prophecy was anti-life.
    I'm gonna go with Peter Cook in Bedazzled.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Pacino in Devil's Advocate?

  • Jeff P||

    He was awful! Mincing about grunting "I'm the devil!" Yeah, I know, I read that on the poster coming in...

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    I'm gonna go with Peter Cook in Bedazzled.

    Better yet, Elizabeth Hurley in the goofy Brendan Fraser remake.

  • CE||

    I would have made a deal with her in the first 10 minutes.

  •  ||

    Fraser was brilliant (for an actor) in that version.

  • Otto||

    I would have made a deal with her in the first 10 minutes.

    I wish I had your willpower.

  • Amakudari||

    I liked that thing he played on the fiddle.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Miroslav Satan? I don't think he plays in the NHL anymore.

  • ||

    Satan is a goddamned saint and I won't have anyone sully his good name!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Conservatives and Christians who feel OK crediting Rand with influencing their intellectual development wouldn't pledge allegiance to Satan, would they?

    Oh, I don't see why not.

  • Cliff||

    Little known fact, Normy: If you rearrange the letters in Satan, you get Santa, and everyone knows that Rand the atheist approved of and, in fact, enjoyed the festive goodwill of Christmas, the secular holiday.

  • Max Stirner||

    Haha, I thought the Satanic Bible was interesting but the obsession with ritual and imagery was kind of boring. I've never thought to myself, "You know what I miss most about going to church? Ritual."

  • ||

    I've noted the LeVay/Rand parallels for a while -- Both espoused a fairly compelling philosophy of individual liberty, arguing that the compulsions of society and the state to restrain such liberty, and their misguided or hypocritical efforts toward "collective welfare", tend to cause worse and more far-reaching harm than any actual abuse of personal freedom.

    Unfortunately, Rand and LaVey also both chose to dress their essential wisdom in "shock value" extremist rhetoric and load it with their idiosyncratic personal aesthetics (BDSM erotic tropes, as well as the whole Romantic Hero "Don't hate me because I'm superior... Or do, I'm too badass to care!" affectation), such that it's far too easy for their critics to dismiss them as evil, egomaniacal cranks, and damn their message by association.

    As usual, Peter Bagge summed this "controversy" up best --
    http://reason.com/archives/200.....-stop-frea

  • Old Bull Lee||

    The "Nine Satanic Statements" in The Satanic Bible are actually based on the John Galt speech.

  • Jeff P||

    Someone needs to write The Fountainomicon.

  •  ||

    Maybe the guy writing all those fake James Bond novels could take some time out.

  • Otto||

    The film version could be the prequel to Ghostbusters - the creation of the Shandor Building.

  • CE||

    Where's the church lady when you need her?

  • Jim||

    This entire article is literally hilarious. I very much so want to go to the next meeting of my county republican party organization (it's nothing but a nest of socons who only ever briefly bring up any economics, because it distracts from the greater goal of punishing addicts and outlawing faggotry) and ask them about their feelings for Rand.

  •  ||

    They would probably blink and shrug, and someone would finally say, "Don't you mean Paul Rand?" Then somebody else would say, "That's Ryan Rand you idiot!"

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Date and location, or could you record it?

  • Amakudari||

    The real question is, how does Anton LaVey feel about the Federal Reserve?

  • ||

    Cold.

  • jester||

    'One cannot fully embrace both Christianity and Objectivism'

    Christianity's adherents like anyone are capable of creating their own curious and often contradictory belief systems. Consider: Christians who read horoscopes, Aquinas's embrace of Aristotelian thought, Christians throughout the world who marry animistic beliefs with whatever brand of Christianity is brought by the missionaries.

    Not to pick on Christians but adherents of most religions perform the same curious acts. A self-proclaimed atheist still performs his Catholic gesticulations and think about the religious concoctions of the famous from Madonna to Richard Gere to our president Obama.

  • JLT||

    In other words, Mr. Carter, govt screws up so badly to make even Satan look good?

  • Almanian||

    It's government's specialty, in fact

  • Gelidus V||

    LaVeyan Satanism always annoyed me they way it is basically just organized and ritualized atheism. They hugely confuse the issue when you want to talk about about the divine council's adversary.

    It was bad enough when the Christians morphed the Satan into a villainous upstart angel named Lucifer.

  • Otto||

    Yes, I've read a lot of Satanists who state they're atheists. I really, really don't get it. Pick one and run with it.

  • Old Bull Lee||

    In LaVeyan Satanism the purpose of the rituals is "psychodrama" and Satan is purely a symbol.

  • ||

    If you are going for psychodrama then go with the gnostics.

    A god that tricks himself into believing he is a man makes for much better story telling.

  • ||

    LaVeyan Satanism always annoyed me they way it is basically just organized and ritualized atheism.

    I get more annoyed by the idea that someone should reject god by worshiping his fabricated rival.

    God does not exist but his loser strawman villain does...

    WTF?!?!?

  • Gelidus V||

    No, that's the problem: LaVeyan Satanism does not worship Satan. Like Old Bull said, it's purely used symbolically because they like the attitude of what they consider a fictional character.

    Let's take the Satanism back to its proper meaning of worshiping the Adversary!

  • ||

    it's purely used symbolically because they like the attitude of what they consider a fictional character.

    The loser fallguy of God has an attractive attitude?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey0B9dfROwE

  • ||

    Satanists don't believe in Satan. They're not as dumb as the Wiccans. No offense meant to any idiots out there...none whatsoever....

  • sevo||

    Why not?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    If wikipedia is to be believed, LaVey's influences included Nietzsche, Rand, Jack London, and Ragnar Redbeard. Why didn't the universe explode? The contradictions are way to much for my mind to handle.

  • pmains||

    Also if Wikipedia is to be believed, Ragnar Redbeard may actually be Jack London and Jack London was at one time a socialist. Seems like quite the controversy. Trying ... to ... care. Nope. Can't do it.

  • sevo||

    LaVey was a typical SF media-whore whose only guiding principle seemed to be whether he got ink in any given newspaper edition.
    Think Zsa-Zsa Gabor with a smaller audience and a better shtick.

  • ||

    Conservative Christians who embrace [Rand] as the “enemy-of-my-enemy” seem to forget that she considered us the enemy.

    She did hate religion...but sadly she never did make a coherent argument as to why it had anything to do with Objectivisim. It is simply duct taped on to her over riding philosophy because it fits her personal bias.

  •  ||

    Are you really an idiot? Objectivism deals with objective reality. Religion deals with faith, with faking reality. She "hated" (your words) religion because of its corrosive effects on humanity, because a worldview based on faith must necessarily cause misery and pain, whereas a worldview based on objective reality offers the best hope for humanity.

  • cynical||

    How exactly do Objectivists know that objective reality (as we know it) truly exists? It sounds like something you just take on... well, you know.

  • ||

    Because one of Rand's main points is that reason and our senses are the only way of determining objective reality. I've had the argument about the fallability of sense observations with die-hard Objectivists, the argument goes nowhere. Needless to say, those guys are all much less Objectivist after being exposed to the ugliness and stupidity of the Peikoff Objectivists online.

  • Horse of Bob||

    heller|6.14.11 @ 8:50PM|#
    ...one of Rand's main points is that reason and our senses are the only way of determining objective reality. I've had the argument about the fallability of sense observations

    Nice misrepresentation, and bonus points for the subsequent slight-of-hand. First of all, the brain is the integrator and processor of the information received from the senses. The senses as such do nothing other than provide information to the brain. Sense-perceptions can lead the brain down the wrong conceptual path (e.g. a scientific experiment based on false premises or flawed data leading to an erroneous conclusion) but the fact that the sense observations may be "fallible" (e.g. a color-blind man misidentifying reds and greens) in no way disproves the brain's function as an integrator and processor of the information given it (garbage in, garbage out). Faulty or damaged sense organs (as well as responses induced by laboratory or "magical" tricks) will provide the brain with faulty data. This does not disprove the axiom that existence exists, that A is A.

    More telling is your assertion (by omission) that there are means of determining reality other than by processing the evidence of ones senses, but you do not identify these "other" means. What are they? Do you know? And how will you prove it? How will you convince me that your thesis is the "right" one, without an appeal to my rationality, my brain's ability to process the information given it, based on facts of reality? Should I "feel" that you are correct, or simply take your word for it without any proof?

    Ultimately, you will undermine your own argument by using the tools that you yourself claim are flawed.

  • sevo||

    cynical|6.14.11 @ 8:40PM|#
    "How exactly do Objectivists know that objective reality (as we know it) truly exists?"
    Uh, predict and test? Sorta like saying a plane can fly if the wings are X?
    That sort of objective reality.

  • ||

    http://www.nathanielbranden.co.....ncept.html

    "'We know that we know nothing,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge—-'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute-—'You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.”

  • Horse of Bob||

    +1

  • ||

    because a worldview based on faith must necessarily cause misery and pain

    That is the non-sequencer I was alluding to.

    I fail to see why a fake reality would be more miserable then a real reality.

    Last I checked my avatar in Minecraft does not get cavities.

  • ||

    Ehm... no.

  • Sudden||

    When you put the cross ahead of reason you get treason.

  • Jim||

    +1 for cleverness.

  • El Foldo||

    I am anxiously awaiting Jack Chick's thought on this matter.

    www.chick.com

  • ||

    Carter missed the utterly batty Ayn-Rand-was-Phillip-Rothschild's-satanic-mistress angle altogether.
    John Todd should have known better than to betray the Betrayer.

  • ||

  • Brant||

    LaVeyan Satanism has nothing to do with Satan. You'd think you would have come across that in your research.

  • alan||

    There is a porn video starring a slightly oogly (skinny so I don't care) redhead getting anal while telling the guy how LaVey was a misunderstood genuis. I'm trying to find it for you guys, but I can't even recall her name just yet.

  • ||

    Oh -- SATAN!

    I thought they said Santa...

  • squishua||

    Good article on Satanism vs Objectivism on the Church of Satan's website:
    http://www.churchofsatan.com/Pages/SatObj.html

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Yeah, sticking with Objectivism.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Shorter version:

    Rand = Egoist

    LaVey = Egotist

    Rand = Rationalist

    LaVey = Irrationalist

  • Daze||

    Anton LaVey had a sense of humor. Sounds like the latter-day LaVeyites have abandoned that part of his legacy.

  • ||

    I've often described Satanism (as in the Anton Levay version) as "Ayn Rand plus Alistair Crowley".

    It's not an inaccurate description.

  • alan||

    'The Beast' was just am ingenious guise of Crowley's used to spy on subversive occultist for British intelligence.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The John Todd link is hilarious

    PHILLIP ROTHSCHILD ORDERED ONE OF HIS MISTRESSES TO WRITE AN 1100-PAGE BOOK that would describe to all witches how they would take control of the World through the Illuminati: It's called Atlas Shrugged. (By Ayn Rand) One of the things in it is happening on the front pages of the newspapers across the United States right now. In fact she spent a third of the book describing how they would raise the oil prices and then later destroy the oil fields and then they would also completely shut down the coal.

    IT ALSO DESCRIBED HOW THEY WOULD BLOW UP GRAIN MILLS, how they would derail trains. Their sole purpose is to bankrupt their own companies and destroy their own companies until they destroyed the currency of the whole World, and still be so financially strong they would withstand it!

    good stuff.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I hadn't really thought about it but I like Rand and I like Satan so maybe they're on to something. Could just be the dopamine though.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    What's the difference between Ayn Rand and Anton LaVey?

    One of them founded a creepy cult whose followers were expected to blindly obey the texts written by the founder . . . and the other founded the Church of Satan.

  • ||

    Rand explicitly stated that she did not want "blind followers". Also, if you think all Objectivists monolithically agree on all tenets of Objectivist philosophy, a few seconds of googling will easily disabuse you of that notion.

    By the way, how would one refer to the people who believed and still believe that "stimulus" programs would have such amazing effects?

    http://reason.com/blog/2011/06.....another-ro

    A pity the one-liner smears are not more directed at those with an actual hand in the pockets of others.

  • Horse of Bob||

    It's easier to parrot the hackneyed one-liners of intellectual midgets than to think for oneself.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "You're either with Ayn Rand, or you're with the bailout!"

  • ||

    My intent was not to set up a false dichotomy--one can loathe both Rand and the bailouts--but to point out the misapplication of the word "cult".

    You could define "cult" and then explain how it fits--a technique that Rand herself was quite fond of in her essays.

  • ||

    Semantics, this is pointless and pulls away from the issues, I could care less if Ayn Rand was waiting on the mother-ship, fact she made great intellectual points, a philosophy that can guide us to a freer, and happier world, but much like any ideology, it should not be so dogmatically followed to the point you end up creating the very problems you are trying to avert...

  • JBP||

    Ha ha! I love the thrust of this piece: "oh, you can SO be both a Christian and a Randian/Satanist at the same time. Just use a pinch of creative selectivity, and stop making such a fuss!"
    Bitch, the two are contradictory! Rand, the dirty rag herself, was ADAMANT about this! Stop deluding yourself and accept your convictions for what they are. You can NOT be both!

  • ||

    Since when do people generally behave rationally? Since when are people not liars? I will take that free market when people become perfect- no lying, cheating, theft, extortion, blackmail, omission of facts, sensory manipulation while at the same time being hard workers principled on equity in society first with a high level of intelligence and dedication nearly beyond measure.

    Untill then, I will not be condoning any sort of totally free market what so ever. People are drooling slobs looking for an easy meal from top to bottom.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement