The Ayn Rand Cult

Rating:
Summary: Early sources of the current rightist reaction
Review: After betting stunned to learn Alan Greenspan was once an Ayn Rand disciple, egad!!, I went in search of some background and this work amply foots the bill. Some reviewers here find the book too harsh, but I think not, since it pinpricks this strange fantasy world created by the apostle of selfishness. However, given the influence on a whole generation, it might be the leftish liberal who could ponder this oddball cult with all the markings of standard cults. The frequent comparisons with the Rajneesh cult are certainly fair game and yet that was something very different in its own way. I was struck by the strange combination of puerile philosophy and commercial success of Rand's career, and the historical interest of her bio starting in early twentieth century Russia. Rand was one of the first to react to the Bolshevik fiasco, and was actually present in Russia at the onset of early Stalinization. That goes away toward explaining, if not excusing, the extreme we find in her writings such as Atlas Shrugged, a book I was never able to read more than a few pages, such is its sheer fixated monomania and gross stupidity. The book interestingly traces the style and tenor of her writings to the business literature of the twenties, homing in on the sources of this early manifestation of the resurgent right we now see. That and much else of interest animates this quite compelling portrait of the piedpiper from the generation of Hayek and the proto-neocons. Rand was a truly special case as 'idiots' go, and this book does it on this topic.

Rating:
Summary: Randroids Beware: You're Not Gonna Like This One
Review: All I can say to anyone wanting to read this book or have read it is to actually read Rand's works. So many criticisms of Objectivism are easily refuted by simply reading Rand's own words. So, by all means read this book, just be sure to follow it with original Rand works.

Rating:
Summary: Great film-noir shtick
Review: Here's some background: I Was a Teenage Objectivist! I loved the novels and essays of Ayn Rand, and followed them to such an extent that I could have been called an Objectivist. Nonetheless -- and perhaps being stationed with the Army in Germany, rather than being an acolyte at the Ayn Rand Institute in Orange County, has a lot to do with it -- what I got most from Objectivism was a thirst for knowledge, and an insatiable appetite for books by thinkers of all stripes. Because of Rand, I branched out, reading works by writers and intellectuals such as Aristotle, Eric Hoffer, Jacques Barzun, Carl Jung, H.L. Mencken, Bertrand Russell, Sinclair Lewis, Baruch Spinoza, and -- surprise -- even Immanuel Kant. I even plowed through lots of Mickey Spillane and Ian Fleming to pass the time.

Needless to say, I came out of it with a broadened mind, and revised my self-categorization to small-'o' objectivist. By the late 1980s, when Barbara and Nathaniel Branden's biographical tomes came out, I did not suddenly feel betrayed, or that my Great Leader was somehow less than perfect. On the other hand, I did profoundly feel sorry for Rand and her followers, regretting the sordid mess into which the official Objectivist movement devolved.

Fast forward to the year 2000, by which time I regarded myself as an independent thinker, no longer an Objectivist nor objectivist, but one more in sympathy with the general ideas of Objectivism and less in sympathy with the pixilated lifestyles of Objectivists. I then picked up this potboiler by Jeff Walker, and devoured all its juicy tidbits of gossip and the "he-said/she-said" banter that comprises the main crux of its evidence. Doubtless, most of the anecdotes in it ring true, though through further reading, I've come to the conclusion that they're "enhanced" versions of the truth, spiced up to make for a more entertaining read.

Personally, I think that Rand would've LOVED this book! It's got all the best elements of one of her favorite genres of fiction, the detective novel. Reading it, I think that Rand would have been honored by the appropos typecasting that Walker seems to have given this book, which is on-par with any of James M. Cain's hard-boiled pulp thrillers.

I can see the accompanying theatrical trailer to the movie version of this book playing in my mind's eye:

SEE! A woman torn between an unmentionable love and her devoted
husband! A woman so smart, it took a pantheon of Greek navel-gazers to match her in philosophical profundity!

SEE! A social movement leader with the bark of a Union rep and the bite of a loanshark!

SEE! The troubled young boy who pined for the aloof woman of his
dreams, all the while hiding the shameful secret of a love that dare not speak its name!

It's the all-time rocker shocker to hit the screen since "Double
Indemnity," Warner Bros. masterpiece "THE AYN RAND CULT" (Directed by Michael Curtiz).

JOAN CRAWFORD stars in the performance of her career as the sultry, cigarette-holder wielding philosopher that could make men's blood boil!

EDWARD G. ROBINSON fills the screen as Nathan Branden, a man who ruled the lecture circuit empire with an iron fist, and attended to Ayn's every whim with a velvet glove!

RAY MILLAND as Ayn's forgotten husband Frank, a man so felled by failure that he sees life through the bottom of a whiskey glass! Life is a permanent Long Weekend for forlorn Frank!

OLIVIA DE HAVILLAND makes her return to the screen as Nathan's wife Barbara, an emotionally frigid woman who stands by as Ayn steals her man. Meanwhile, a fire starts flickering as she begins a back-alley dalliance with a dance teacher that turns into a scorching bonfire!

You liked FARLEY GRANGER as Guy in Hitchcock's "Strangers On a Train." You'll love him as Leonard, the sensitive young philosophy major with a thirst for knowledge and a hidden love for his Liberace-like mentor!

(Dialogue): NATHAN: Whattya take me for, a sap? The Institute is mine, see? Yeah. I got 'em lining around the block; Whatta you ever done for them except dishing out a smooth line of monkey talk and batting those bushy eyebrows at them? You just sit on that dais, toots and keep doling out that line about "social metaphysics." I *run* this operation, see?

AYN (Her shoulders hunched under her mink cape, but still protruding from her neck at 90-degree angles because of her shoulder pads, which she got after an affair with Vince Lombardi): You can't take the love of my students away from me! And you won't ditch me for some mealy-mouthed little tramp, who can't open her mouth except to wax eloquently about that mediocre hack, Thomas Wolfe! I'll ruin you! You can't leave me! Even if I were 80 years old and in a wheelchair, I'd MAKE you love me!!! (Slaps Nathan across cheek with the flash of her
five-carat diamond ring, leaving bloody gouges across his cheek).

NATHAN: (Trembling in anger, his eyes bulge until he looks like an exploding frog). Why, you filthy tramp! (Pulls a .45 on Ayn, levelling it square at her belly).

AYN: (Gasps, aghast). Damn you!!!!

SEE! The sordid, violent goings on inside a world too unmentionable to speak of, of forbidden love -- and hate! -- that would turn Tom Hobbes into a weak-willed Rousseau! Take a look -- if you can stomach it! -- inside......

THE AYN RAND CULT (A Jerry Wald Production)

I wish I were exagerating, but that's basically Walker's text, as put on celluloid.

His chapter on Alan Greenspan is particularly ludicrous, as it seeks to debunk Greenspan's financial acumen based mostly on opinion. Yet, Greenspan's record of achievement stands for all to see: His policies at the Fed have kept the economy relatively strong and at an even keel through four presidencies.

This volume about a dizzy dame bent on taking over the philosophy racket ranks right up there in such August company as "Peyton Place," "Valley of the Dolls" and "The Big Sleep."

Make sure to bring along plenty of popcorn, and NO ONE will be admitted after the start of the first reel!

Rating:
Summary: Who is Jeff Walker?
Review: I have very mixed feelings about this book. On the positive side, the book contains a tremendous amount of interesting historical information about Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement. The author quite successfully makes his point that Objectivism was/is a cult; though this is hardly an original claim, it has never been so thoroughly supported as it is here. However, the book is so negative and biased that it undercuts the arguments Walker is trying to make. Walker doesn't even try to be objective; I challenge you to find a single positive thing said about Rand or the Objectivist movement in the book's 300+ pages. I think Satan comes across better in the Bible than Rand does here. Most of the evidence given is through quotes, generally from former Objectivists. That's fine, but there is also a tremendous amount of unsupported (and nasty) editorializing, e.g. "By all accounts, the young Alissa [Rand] was not a particularly lovable child." Also, Walker often goes to great lengths to discredit certain people (notably Nathaniel Branden), and then uses quotes from them to support later arguments. If they aren't credible, why should we give their opinions any credence? Also, Walker accuses Branden of being responsible for his second wife's death and subtly implies that Leonard Peikoff is a homosexual. I could go on and on, but the point I'm trying to make is that Walker has a tremendous axe to grind, and much of the book appears to be a smear campaign for its own sake. Furthermore, Walker never makes it clear exactly why he hates Rand and Objectivism so much, aside from the fact that Peikoff threatened to sue him once regarding a radio program on Rand that Walker wrote. The last section of the last chapter is telling: it's about "the Ayn Rand that might have been", wherein Walker re-writes history to show how Ayn Rand, if she had had fewer psychological problems, might have actually attained some degree of respectability. This leads me to think that Walker is a disillusioned ex-Objectivist who was personally burned by the movement. "The Ayn Rand Cult", although well worth reading, would have been a much better book if Walker had made his own biases clear right from the start. As it is, I look forward to a more objective book on the Rand/Objectivist saga.

Rating:
Summary: Useful
Review: If you would like to know why you should probably read *about* Ayn Rand and her pop philosophy, Objectivism, from a safe distance rather than joining it, you can hardly go wrong with this book. It provides extensive and evidently correct information on why Objectivism fits perfectly into the definition of 'cult,' and why Ayn Rand can fairly be called an intellectual bully and tyrant. Based on the picture of Objectivist leaders' behavior, I can easily imagine current Ayn Rand Institute director Leonard Peikoff stridently condemning this book as irrational! irrational! irrational! (Probably without having read it first; the author notes cases of Rand and her students bashing philosophers and/or books that they have little or no firsthand knowledge of.)
However, it is too bad that for some reason there aren't that many anti-Rand books out there (that I know of), because I would rather have gotten this critical information on Rand/Objectivism from a different author. What most of the other reviews say is true: he is dreadfully abrasive. He is described as an investigative journalist, but his analysis is not conducted with a semblance of detachment or professionalism. Rather, he very much gives the impression of having a personal axe to grind with the Objectivist movement. The back of the book states that some of the publications he has worked for are Free Inquiry, Skeptical Enquirer and Liberty. I am wondering if he might be a libertarian, in which case his tone would be understandable, because according to him, Rand and her Objectivists hated (still hate) libertarians for not wholly accepting Objectivist philosophy. Or possibly Walker is a former Objectivist student who suffered 'excommunication' for developing incorrect ideas. (The Objectivist leaders' standard procedure in this matter is ugly.) Still, the book is the truth, and should be read.

Rating:
Summary: The negative reviewers are right
Review: In brief: The negative reviewers of this book are right. Rand had problems. Early Objectivism was cult-like (and that is carried forward still in the ARI/Peikoff branch of Objectivism). But this book goes far beyond legitimate reporting on those topics, becoming fairly contemptible.

Page after page is marred by excessive (or utterly gratuitous) cheap shots and rambling. There is a pages-long disquisition on the nature of monetary policy which is without relevance or even coherence, except to try to paint Alan Greenspan in the most negative light possible. Even in the expected dirt-dishing sections, Walker frequently makes criticisms that either aren't founded, or that actually contradict another criticism he stated but a paragraph earlier. (Only one tiny example among thousands: in the chapter on Nathaniel Branden, first Branden is bad because his early self-esteem theory didn't stress self-acceptance; then in the next paragraph, Branden is bad because he later modified or corrected his self-esteem theory, to stress self-acceptance).

In terms of biographical details about Rand and associates, the book supplies little that is new (i.e., that was not already in the 2 Branden biographies/memoirs, plus The Journals of Ayn Rand).

The book only begins to redeem itself in the last chapter or two. Walker gives an interesting survey of old novels and movies that anticipated Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_. The chapter only starts to work when Walker, in his own words, decides that "Whether Rand concealed any of these influences...I will not pursue" (in other words, to stick to reportage and not personal attacks). If only he had done the same in the rest of the book! But even this much-improved chapter is still marred by some strange non sequiturs and sudden ad hominems.

It could have been a good book; Walker obviously did a lot of research. But he became consumed by his own hatred...not to mention his apparently resentful desire to promote certain non-Randians. (For example, Walker insistently quotes Albert Ellis and Murray Rothbard at their worst, i.e., them at their most personally resentful.)

Rating:
Summary: An OK book, but not scholarly or profound,
Review: Jeff Walker's book, "The Cult of Ayn Rand", is a mixed bag. The writing style ranges from erratic to concise and cogent, however his obvious disdain for Rand and the members of her circle intrudes on his analysis and places his own objectivity at question (pun unintended). On the other hand, anyone interested in understanding Rand and her followers ought to read the book in spite of its imperfections. The first clue as to the tone of the book is the cover. Rand (never what many would call a beautiful woman) appears as a caricature. This, when coupled with the garish yellow on red layout immediately tells the reader that what is inside is not likely to be either pretty or particularly refined. In this case it is easy to judge the book from its cover.

The book is fairly well documented from both existing sources along with his own interviews. Walker begins with a history of the inner workings of Objectivism as a cult followed by several brief discussions of key players-Nathaniel Brandon, Leonard Peikoff, and Alan Greenspan. The portraits are not flattering. Unfortunately, in the case of Greenspan, inasmuch as he was not a key player in either the formation or evolution of the "cult," Walker has to spend his time criticizing Greenspan's handling of Federal Reserve monetary policy. In Walker's estimation, the Fed Chairman's job performance has been and continues to be marginal at best. In the author's opinion, Greenspan is indirectly responsible for the Savings and Loan debacle, and directly responsible for, among other things, "Black Monday" and George Bush's reelection failure. Walker attempts to explain Greenspan's Federal Reserve policy actions as a function of the influence of Rand's zero inflationist and gold standard views. On the other hand, he is forced to recognize that in light of Greenspan's actual work at the Fed any direct philosophical link to Rand is tenuous at best. Also, the reader begins to understand (or at least suspect) the basis for Walker's own economic leanings since Lester Thurow is, apparently, the source for many of his economic views.

Walker does a better job in his discussions of Brandon and Peikoff. The former is viewed as an unethical opportunist at best and an intellectual fraud at worse. Interestingly, when criticizing Brandon's peculiar pop psychology Walker uses as a standard the work of Albert Ellis. In an ironic twist, Walker is scandalized when Peikoff unabashedly tells an Objectivist lecture audience that, before her death, Rand recommended that all Objectivist students purchase his (Peikoff's) recently published essay, "...a brilliant book." Yet, after leaning on the anti-Rand Ellis, is it a coincidence to find on the book's back cover a glowing recommendation from, you guessed it, Ellis himself, wherein the psychologist calls Walker's new book, "a brilliant, scholarly, and comprehensive critique..."?

Walker's book is OK, for what it is, but is neither brilliant nor really scholarly. Many of Walker's statements appear less than profound and some range from the petty to the grotesque. The worst is his insinuation that Nathaniel Brandon was, through negligence, somehow responsible for the death of his second wife. The lack of scholarship shows in his frequent use of blanket statements such as, "Psychologists hold that membership in a group is all the more highly valued when one has to go through hell to obtain it." Does he mean "all psychologists"? Or is it only "some?" Is it just Ellis? This statement is really not much different than explaining that people value what they work for--certainly not a brilliant revelation and definitely not one that requires a psychological consultation in order to understand. Also, some of Walker's comments on his own writing seem rather gratuitous and patronizing. For instance, after an in depth discussion of the bitter antagonisms between Peikoff and his relative, Barbara Brandon, Walker glibly tells us that the two are "obviously" not kissing cousins.

Walker next discusses specific aspects of Rand's philosophy in spite of his statement in the introduction that it is not his intention to examine doctrinal aspects of Objectivism. In the sections, "An Ignorant Oracle" and "The Banality of Ayn Rand's Thought" Walker makes a good case for Rand's lack of experience (understanding) and hostility towards both contemporary popular culture and established high culture. He then gives a very brief outline of others criticisms of Rand's philosophy. Again, it is unfortunate that Walker has decided to forgo any in-depth discussion of Rand's alleged philosophical mistakes since the uninitiated reader must take at face value the goodness of the arguments presented against Rand without the benefit of a presentation of specific points of contention. For instance, when discussing Rand's ethics (the section "The Virtue of Selfishness") Walker introduces reasonable questions concerning Rand's non-violence dictum vis-à-vis her valuation of individual rights, however he fails to offer obvious and competing answers to his own questions regarding how an Objectivist might handle conflicts of interests. On the other hand, Walker's three page discussion of Rand and Kant is quite cogent and, to my mind, quite succinctly underscores the Rand cult's misinterpretation and distortion of the critical philosophy

It is unfortunate that Walker missed a chance to conduct a more serious study with a more serious tone. There is no question that the cult of Rand deserves a scholarly analysis, however Walker's book leaves the reader wanting. It is as if the author could not decide whether he wanted to attempt a rigorous analysis or just limit himself to anecdotal pop journalism. To my mind, the latter won out. The author evidently writes for television. This might explain the book's sometimes superficial and "in your face" tone.. It is almost the printed equivalent of something you might see on 60 Minutes or 20/20 without the rakishness of either. The book can be recommended for the casual reader who wants an introduction to the bizarre world of Ayn Rand. For the serious student of Objectivism, the reader would do well to explore the comprehensive bibliography Walker provides

Rating:
Summary: Chained to the Ego
Review: There are two good reasons for reading this book: 1) Jeff Walker has managed to interview many people who were close to Ayn Rand and early Objectivism. It is thus an invaluable historical record. 2) In view of the chronic stand-off between the various factions of Objectivism, only a non-Objectivist could have written this book. It is thus an invaluable historical record.
Does Walker despise Ayn Rand? Quite a lot. But there's no obligation to revere Ayn Rand, and Walker clearly doesn't.
Is he fair on Ayn Rand? Possibly not. There must have been times when she was genial and pleasant and prepared to discuss opposing points of view in a civilised atmosphere. We do not find those instances here.
But that's not the point. Walker is trying to make a case that Rand was a cult figure, in a context of the more committed Randians' refusal to entertain the possibility that Rand's personality and behaviour was the fuel to that cult.
And not just her personality and behaviour, but also her ideas. Central to her thought was her notion of ethical egoism, where the autonomous ego decided what was right and wrong. But what was missing from this equation was the notion of the ego's obligation to the well-being of others. Thus, she could embark on an affair with Nathaniel Branden, assuming that her husband Frank - the Eddie Willers of Objectivism -- could not be affected by their actions.
But as Barbara Branden discovered, therein lay the rotten core of Objectivism, the deceit that had to be practiced at Rand's instigation. This deceit consumed more and more of their lives until the central character imploded under the strain of her own self-deceit.
And this was the woman who claimed to know the rational source of her every emotion.
The enormous tragedy of Ayn Rand was not just that she fabricated a lie, but that she drew so many others into that lie. This rotten core is even now consuming the Objectivist movement.
B

Rating:
Summary: A TERRIBLE book on an interesting subject.
Review: There is no question that Ayn Rand's followers (especially their leaders) can be rather strange at times. There is also no doubt that the Ayn Rand Institute (started by the now "retired" Leonard Piekoff) can be labeled as a dogmatic cult. In their defense, it is the only dogmatic cult I know of that preaches the use of logical arguments and personal responsibility. Their strange hero worship of Rand notwithstanding I think their doctrines are perfectly harmless, though presented in a strangely non individualist way. With a quick search around the web you will be able to quickly locate some of the odd characters presented in this book -- and you could easily write a book based on all of the gossip that goes on in various message boards and blogs. That is precisely what Walker did, and his obvious distain for Ayn Rand and the Objectivist movement colors every sentence of his poorly written and poorly researched book.

Of course everyone is painted in the worst light possible. Even Alan Greenspan, the very highly respected economist and FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN is written off as a second rate poorly educated lackey of Rand's. Every person who ever disliked Mr. Greenspan must have been interviewed for the chapter on him. The over the top take on Rand and her philosophy lacks any pretense of impartiality and why did the author of the book feel the need to add a chapter in the end depicting what he thinks Rand's life should have been like? Rand's incredible life was her own to live and a lightweight (shall we say second hander) like Walker doesn't need to tell us how it should have been. If you read some of the more reasonable biographies on Ayn Rand it will become obvious that she was a quirky genius (can't that be said of most geniuses?) with a strange, though highly intelligent group of followers. She wrote some excellent and profound literature highlighting the key American ideals and made some important contributions to philosophy and political debate.


Rating:
Summary: Chained to the Ego
Review: Unlike most people, I discovered the ideas of Ayn Rand through a seminar at college. I was captivated at her uncanny ability to explain complex philosophical ideas and the ease and evident joy with which she fielded anudience questions- even from the enemy camp. Later I discovered the books and only after that did I learn of her personal life. The more one reads of that life the more one is astounded that she was able to produce anything with all the infighting, love affairs, bickering, struggles for control, etc. Yet somehow she did and became a one-woman phenomenon.

Much of Walker's information comes directly from other sources. In fact, a large part of the text consists of "and in PASSION, Barbara Brandon says..." or "Kay Nolte Smith describes the marriage as one of...". I was looking for something new or a new way of looking at the movement but alas the only thing we get is writing with all the judgement and seriousness of a hack speech writer. The writing, by the way, is strictly junior college caliber - no sense of flow or organization.

Is Objectivism a cult? Absolutely. Was Rand the worst person to ever live? Well, according to Walker she comes close. Her ideas were the result of (take your pick) her escape from the USSR, business opinions of the 1920's, pill popping or unhappy marriage. She was uncaring, depressed, smoked, deluded, always had an answer and self-assured. She's even taken to task for once being kind to an old man!

One must ask two questions: How did this poor immigrant become a cultural icon and why were so many apparently intelligent people willing to sublimate themselves to her power? Neither of these questions are answered.