Print this post Print this post

Objectivist Zen
Or: If You Meet Ayn Rand on the Road, Kill Her

SmurfHat2,641 words

I discovered Ayn Rand when I was 20 years old and a college student (as prescribed by Scripture). I was living at home and tagged along one day when my mother went to the public library to return some books. There I loafed around, waiting for my mother to finish her usual gratuitous chat with the librarians, when suddenly it caught my eye: a paperback copy of The Fountainhead nestling innocently in one of those tall metal racks that spin around.

I frequently borrowed books from the library and seldom did more than flip through most of them. When, on a whim, I added The Fountainhead to my mother’s stack it was not with any serious conviction. I remember my mother saying something like “People thought she was weird,” referring to Rand. This was typical of my mother, who began a lot of sentences with “People think . . .” and “They say . . .” — much like one of Rand’s “secondhanders.” In my eyes, her remark was as good as a recommendation. On the drive home, I began skimming the Introduction, which Rand had penned for the twenty-fifth anniversary edition. There’s a paragraph where she mentions that she is an atheist — and this was what sold me. At the time, I was a militant boy atheist, or at least thought that I was.

To make a long story short, to my great surprise I wound up reading all 700 or so pages of The Fountainhead, and then detaching and mailing in the card in the middle of the book, which promised me more information on Rand’s philosophy of “Objectivism.” This was the beginning of my four year association with the Rand cult, during which time I enountered such Randian luminaries as Nathaniel Branden (excommunicated by Rand herself, but still on the periphery), David Kelley, and Allan Gotthelf. More importantly, The Fountainhead was actually my introduction to philosophy. What was most striking to me about the characters in the novel was that they took ideas seriously.

By the age of 20, after a rather difficult adolescence, I was a cynic and a nihilist (or, at least, thought that I was). Rand made me ashamed of that. I wanted to change, and she was my first guide. But I wasn’t cut from the same cloth as Branden et al., and after four more years of studying philosophy I was “cured” of my Objectivism. I had actually changed my major to philosophy with the intention of spreading the gospel. I set about studying Plato, Kant, Hegel, and the other luminaries of the tradition rather like Batman collecting intelligence on Known Super Criminals. Plato, according to Rand, was “the great destroyer,” bidding us to “crawl down into the muck of [his] cave,” and Kant was “the most evil man in mankind’s history,” whose philosophy was “like a hippopotamus belly dancing” (I kid you not). But things did not turn out exactly like I thought they would. I had good teachers, and after a while I began to read these philosophers with an open mind. Before I knew it I was down in the muck of that cave, belly dancing with the hippos. I had gone over to the Dark Side.

It’s easy to understand why many people who get into Rand stay into her: like I did, they need something that makes sense out of the world for them. They need a vision — something that’s beautiful and inspiring. And though I have moved far, far away from Rand, I would still name The Fountainhead as my favorite novel. It’s well written, intellectually exciting, and — above all — inspiring. Its philosophy is more or less Nietzschean (Rand contemplated opening each of the novel’s four sections with a quote from Nietzsche), and actually at odds in many ways with the pro-capitalist, “libertarian” message of the later Atlas Shrugged (a fact to which Rand fans are invariably oblivious). Atlas is itself an impressive achievement, and filled with passages that are literarily brilliant and inspiring — but it is marred by excess (e.g., one character makes a 60-page speech) and philosophical wrong-headedness. In many ways, it’s like a hippopotamus belly dancing (but who wouldn’t want to see that?).

What I don’t get, however, is folks like Kelley, Gotthelf, and Rand’s “intellectual heir” Leonard Peikoff (who I never met) all of whom earned Ph.D.s in philosophy and remained Objectivists their entire lives. How is that possible? These men are not dummies. One thing is for sure: it’s not a case of being honestly mistaken. These are men who are willfully blind in multiple ways. Blind to the stuff in Rand’s philosophy that’s superficial, sophomoric, and sometimes makes very little sense, blind to the obvious superiority of the canonical philosophers of the Western tradition (especially the evil ones), and blind to the simple fact that Objectivism just doesn’t deliver what it promises: “a philosophy for living on earth” (not this earth, anyway).

I started having misgivings about Rand’s philosophy after having called myself a “student of Objectivism” for only two years. It started with the feeling that Rand’s philosophy was “incomplete” (I wasn’t yet prepared to say that it was “wrong”). This was occasioned by reading Walter Stace’s classic book The Philosophy of Hegel. By Rand’s standards there was much in Hegel that was, well, evil. But the sheer grandiosity of his attempt to account for everything inspired me — as did the wonderful pull-out chart of Hegel’s vast system in the back of Stace’s book. Rand started looking like she needed to be aufgehoben: sublated as a mere moment within my own vast and labyrinthine philosophical system. And this was another factor that made it possible to put some distance between myself and Ayn: I had philosophical ambitions; I wasn’t really content to be someone’s follower.

The major step in my thinking came, however, when I realized that with the most simple and subtle of gestalt switches, one could turn Ayn into Zen. At the risk of understatement, Rand would really hate this. She dismissed Zen as “mysticism” (= irrationalism) and for some odd reason frequently coupled it with Existentialism, as in “Existentialism and Zen Buddhism.” So how did I get Zen out of her? Well, when I was in the thick of my Objectivist phase, and passionately trying to make sense out of every jot and tittle the woman wrote, the Randian sentence that fascinated me the most was “Existence exists.” The full context is to be found in Galt’s speech (the sixty-pager) in Atlas:

Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

I parodied this in my novel Heidegger in Chicago as follows:

Atoms atom and the conceptual articulation of that axiom implies three correlative lemmas: that atoms are, that nothing else is save empty space (viz. nothing), and that human beings exist possessing consciousness characterized by cognitive powers constituted by the atoms, and for the cognition of the atoms, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving aggregates of atoms.

(The novel includes a chapter-length parody of Rand.) What I am lampooning here, chiefly, is the ostentatiously “philosophical” way in which Rand is expressing what are in fact very simple ideas. What she means is that whatever is is, that we are confronted by what is, and that we are so constituted as to be aware of what is. This is all well and good, one might say, but why say it at all? The reason is that many people live in denial of what is: they refuse to face existence. They refuse to face facts. But what is is: existence exists. If we deny it we live not just contrary to existence, but contrary to our nature, which is to perceive what is.

“Existence exists” also serves a more exotic function in Rand’s philosophy than simply being a way to say “face facts!” In Rand’s pretentiously titled Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology she devotes a chapter to what she calls “Axiomatic Concepts.” One of these axioms is “Existence.” In geometry, an axiom is a very basic starting point which is simply assumed without proof, but from which all proof flows. In philosophy, an axiom tends to be understood as a basic starting point which is self-proving, or self-validating, rather than simply “assumed without proof.” An excellent example would be Descartes’s “I think,” which is proved true the moment one doubts it, and serves as a basis for deriving other truths in Descartes’s philosophy.

For Rand, “Existence” is like Descartes’s “I think.” If we deny existence, then what is it that we are conscious of? Further, since everything that exists is a specific something (it possesses identity), to affirm existence is to affirm things as having specific identities or natures, rather than being whatever we “wish” them to be (an attitude which denies existence in favor of what Rand called the “primacy of consciousness”). Consciousness implies existence, and existence implies identity. The existence-identity connection is quite useful, actually, and it’s one of the arrows in my Alt Right quiver: much of today’s madness consists of denying that things have any definite identity. Thus, there are no male and female “natures,” there are no natural differences between the races, everything is “constructed,” blah, blah, blah. (For all her errors, Rand’s analysis of the Left as in denial of existence, as a “cult of zero worship,” is spot on.)

I recall how I poured over Rand’s “Axiomatic Concepts” chapter, convinced that here were hints at the inner mysteries of Objectivism. If only I could unlock the intricacies of the Existence-Identity-Consciousness triad. There was something that captivated me about “Existence exists,” some depth I felt had not been explored, perhaps not even by Rand herself.

For help, I turned for a while to phenomenology, convinced that it could shed light on Ayn Rand. (How ironic.) Heidegger claimed that the most fundamental of all philosophical questions is “why does anything exist at all, rather than nothing?” When I read that, it finally hit me: the reason I found “Existence exists” so fascinating was because my mind wanted to immediately think beyond it — to question why existence exists. I have always been a peculiarly visual thinker, and strange, usually impossible-to-describe images float through my mind as I contemplate abstract concepts. When thinking about “Existence exists” I always visualized a kind of blacker-than-black blackness within empty, black space. A kind of a void, or black hole. It was as if I wanted to know what was on the other side of that. Whence comes existence? And why? Why is there anything at all?

Now, the Objectivists (though not Rand herself) actually try to deal with such questions. I remember slogging through the entirety of Nathaniel Branden’s audio lecture series “Basic Principles of Objectivism,” in which he tackles such “mystical” questions at one point, his voice dripping with contempt. Essentially what he says is that any attempt to posit where existence comes from simply posits something else that exists. If one asks why existence exists, well, presumably any answer to “why?” would posit something that exists. In short, “existence” simply can’t be questioned: you can’t go any deeper, there is no “why” behind it. It just is. Existence exists.

Needless to say, this answer did not satisfy me. And I realized that Rand and company were sitting on something big, something they were just far too flat souled to see. They were sitting, in fact, on a miracle. The sheer fact that existence exists is miraculous. Let me put that a different way: the fact that something is, rather than nothing, is miraculous. I studied Zen a few years later and realized that the experience of satori was the experience of being struck with wonder by the fact that existence exists. It’s the experience of the sheer thereness or thatness of things: It is — it’s there — that is — that! In Indian Buddhism this was called an awakening to tathātā, “suchness” or “thatness.” (You either know what I’m talking about by this point or you don’t; if you don’t, please ask someone to crack you over the head with a stick.)

This is not an “intellectual” realization; it’s not the conclusion to a chain of reasoning. Rand unwittingly gets to tathātā when she writes that “to define ‘existence,’ one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: ‘I mean this.’” And Branden’s attempts to argue that “existence exists” cannot be questioned are perfectly compatible with a Zen construal of this “axiom.” No, you can’t penetrate the sheer fact of existence any more deeply using logic or familiar categories of thought. One such category is causality: if we ask “why?” of existence and are looking for a cause (e.g., God as craftsman), well the cause would also have to exist. But why? Why does it exist? Why does anything exist? Branden’s facile answers accidentally set the stage for the “mysticism” he and Rand despised: if neither logic nor empirical investigation can tell us why existence exists, then the fact that it does should strike us with wonder — again and again.

I suppose the reason why Rand liked to couple Zen Buddhism with Existentialism is that the latter philosophy also treats the experience of being struck by the fact that anything exists at all. But it does so in a way radically different from Zen. In the hands of the hideous and twisted Jean-Paul Sartre this experience is one of nausea: the fact that things are made him want to puke. But then, he had to look at that face in the mirror every morning. Zen Buddhists manage to feel wonder and joy in the face of what is — no matter what kind of face they have, and having proven themselves unable to resolve the issue of what kind of face they had before their father and mother were born. Rand claimed to possess a benevolent “sense of life”; she thought the universe was basically good. But that’s not the same thing as registering the fact of existence and experiencing satori.

I will close with a Zen story I picked up from Alan Watts (I forget where). A man came to study in a Zen monastery, professing that he was searching for enlightenment. “I will hold nothing back from you,” the master said to him. After many months of washing his bowl and sweeping the floor, the student felt no closer to being enlightened. Then, one day, he was walking on the path with the master when both stopped to appreciate some beautiful chrysanthemums. Suddenly, the master cried “You see! I said I would hold nothing back from you.” At that moment, the student achieved satori.

And so we might imagine our own Zen story. Camped outside Rand’s New York apartment, having been refused admission twice by a caustic Nathaniel Branden, we are finally let in on the third day. We find ourselves at once enveloped by a cloud of cigarette smoke and by the stench of cat urine. One of the students of Objectivism offers us a plate of sweet pastries. We politely refuse it and are bidden to approach the Master (for surely only Branden can call Rand “mistress”). She sits perched on a blue-green couch, wearing a black cloak and something that looks a little like a Smurf hat.

“Vould you like to ask a question?” she says in her thick Russian accent.

“What is existence?” we pipe forth rather timidly.

“This!” she cries, sweeping her arm around in a dramatic arc.

“But why does existence exist?” we respond.

Rand does not speak. Instead, she simply smiles slightly and holds up a single cigarette, emblazoned with a gold dollar sign.

At this moment, we achieve satori. And then we go and dynamite a housing project.


If you enjoyed this piece, and wish to encourage more like it, give a tip through Paypal. You can earmark your tip directly to the author or translator, or you can put it in a general fund. (Be sure to specify which in the "Add special instructions to seller" box at Paypal.)
This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , , , , . Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. rhondda
    Posted July 10, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink

    A very interesting intellectual journey Jef. Only someone who knew her work well could have written Heidegger in Chicago which I enjoyed very much. I could not get into her work. She bored me silly, but nevertheless she made her mark and apparently still does. If you need to choose between selflessness and selfishness, she knew exactly who and what to target.

  2. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted July 10, 2016 at 1:21 am | Permalink

    Why does existence exist? Our mind which is conditioned by existence itself cannot answer that question. Only a mind that is not conditioned by existence could answer that question. But in order to be able to do so it itself should exist. Conclusion : existence exists because we cannot escape existence, existence MUST exist.

  3. Margot Metroland
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

    In support of Rand: she tried hard to acclimate herself to Western (American) culture, in an imagined, idealized distillation, as she needed to do when working as a screenwriter. Just as L. B. Mayer and Sam Goldwyn conjured up a vision of America that was often in agreement with that pushed by Revilo Oliver, Wilmot Robertson, and Henry R. Luce, so Rand’s Russian Jewishness probably aided her artifice and made it very un-self-conscious. Race and ethnicity are almost never on the table. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged take place in an all-white America, where the closest thing to a doubtful alien is a swarthy Italian laborer from Howard Roark’s quarry. Supposedly Ellsworth Toohey is based on Harold Laski, but his name is Toohey (of all things).

    Now to eviscerate Rand’s vision: It is phony and unhelpful for the aforementioned reasons. It pretends that racial issues do not, should not exist. It is a fantasy world in which libertarians can build their castles in the air without ever being intruded upon by cold reality. It exists without any reference points to the origin of the American nation, to the travails of the Revolution, the Mexican War, the Civil War, or any of the persistent controversies about race that have bedeviled us from the beginning. For these reasons Rand is worse that unhelpful, she is distracting and destructive.

  4. Petronius
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 11:49 am | Permalink

    Not how the world is, is the mystical, but that it is.

    Nicht w i e die Welt ist, ist das Mystische, sondern d a s s sie ist.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein

    • jef costello
      Posted July 9, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Excellent quote.

  5. Peter Quint
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    Ayn Rand is a jew, therefore I have not read her works. I don’t see how she has anything to offer white nationalism, because her thought processes are alien.

    • jef costello
      Posted July 9, 2016 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

      Your thought processes seem pretty alien to me, actually. Seekers of truth are willing to look anywhere to find it, even to the works of non-Whites, for there are truths to be found there as well. Should we not read the Tao Te Ching because Lao Tzu wasn’t a white man? As for what Rand has to offer white nationalism, I’m not sure she has anything at all (I doubt it). But then there’s more to life than white nationalism.

      • Peter Quint
        Posted July 10, 2016 at 1:21 pm | Permalink

        Actually there is not more to life than white nationalism, white nationalism is about racial survival, and nothing trumps that. Yes, I am an alien, you’ve seen my brethren in the movie “They Live, We Sleep.” If you want to see me in my true form you will need a pair of Hoffman glasses, or contact lens.
        I like your book though.

  6. lemur
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 8:28 am | Permalink

    The Randroid phase is associated with puberty. It’s awkward and stupid, but most grow out of it.

  7. Jaego
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    All there is is IS. Clinton’s question, What the “meaning” of is is, is nonsense. Is is. There is no meaning beyond existence or in addition to existence. But we can say that It is pure Joy as the Book of the Law affirms. How did Watts put it? That which is no whicher. To know it is to become that which we already are. As falls Wichita falls Wichita Falls.

  8. Ragnvaldr
    Posted July 9, 2016 at 12:44 am | Permalink

    “Rand does not speak. Instead, she simply smiles slightly and holds up a single cigarette, emblazoned with a gold dollar sign.”

    Your mother was right, Ayn Rand is weird…not only weird but a discernable sociopath as is reflected in the sentence so astutely written above. How many pages could one turn in a Rand novel without encountering a trigger for a human addiction? If memory serves correctly I’d say one and a half, which is more than enough to stimulate the Wall Street/Financial Sector crowd to this day. There are several major Banks that still send their employees to Rand training…

    My own encounter with Rand was through a young fool, I had the unfortunate experience of encountering at an age where I was also susceptible to foolery. Fault being that of my own idiocy vs. blaming the other idiot for my own miff.

    Academia is riddled with a plethora of examples beyond Rand who formulate some type of ridiculous justification to augment their own or some other group’s hidden social agenda, i.e. Aryanism which was a pathetic attempt at further separating Christianity from Judaism. Never mind to be Aryan one must embrace the Iranians, the Hindu’s and a plethora of other races the “ring” holder would be horrified and/or refuse to acknowledge. But it is whatever it is…

    So I applaud, a thoughtful reflection…and suggest the author is not a moron, albeit I hope in the future the man will fart more proudly in noticing he’s a ton more brilliant than the rest of those sloths who wasted their time and energies on the non-sense of a sociopath’s widely adopted madness…

    • Matthias
      Posted July 9, 2016 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

      “Academia is riddled with a plethora of examples beyond Rand who formulate some type of ridiculous justification to augment their own or some other group’s hidden social agenda, i.e. Aryanism which was a pathetic attempt at further separating Christianity from Judaism. Never mind to be Aryan one must embrace the Iranians, the Hindu’s and a plethora of other races the “ring” holder would be horrified and/or refuse to acknowledge. ”

      Aryanism or Arianism? Especially given that you speak of “separating Christianity from Judaism”. The first is a kind of racialism, the second one a christological doctrine, right?

      • Ragnvaldr
        Posted July 9, 2016 at 10:48 pm | Permalink

        Good and relevant question, I was referring to academics seeking to reconstruct the Bible in Aryan terms. Ernest Renan, a philologist and Hebrew scholar, drew sharp distinctions between Semitic and Aryan languages and peoples. He proposed that though Aryans began as polytheists they were later transformed into Christian monotheists, and that Semitic peoples comprised an entirely different (and inferior) civilization. Adolphe Pictet, a Swiss linguist and ethnographer, was fully committed to the notion of European Aryans who were destined to conquer the world being blessed with “innate beauty” and “gifts of intelligence.” He separated Jesus from Judaism, and turned him into the Aryan Christ.

        • Matthias
          Posted July 10, 2016 at 10:00 pm | Permalink

          Interesting. The similar pronuciation of the two terms always seemed like a confusing and fascinating coincidence.

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    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

    Forever and Ever

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4


    The Node


    Carl Schmitt Today

    A Sky Without Eagles

    The Way of Men

    Generation Identity

    Nietzsche's Coming God

    The Conservative

    The New Austerities

    Convergence of Catastrophes


    Proofs of a Conspiracy

    Fascism viewed from the Right

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance


    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy


    The Path of Cinnabar


    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace


    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above