Ayn Rand, Capitalism, and the Strange Gullibility of Evangelicals

Preamble

This post has really got out of hand. I began it quite a while ago when reading "Atlas Shrugged", but it has evaded my attempts to finish and post it by overcomplicating itself despite my best efforts (that is my story, at any rate).

What I really need is more subroutines - but they haven't been written, so in what follows they are all included, somewhat clumsily and thrown together, in the main text.

Let me delay no longer and get this over with -

Why do we love Ayn Rand so much?

I toyed with the idea of making the title of this post 'Putting the "Ayn" in "Heinlien" ', having revisited Robert A. Heinlein's book "Stranger in a Strange Land" as an adult, and being a sucker for such wordplay... As I read, I was struck by a number of similarities between the views of Heinlein and Rand. However, on further thought I will leave him out of it. This is mainly because I don't view his ideology as a serious threat. There is a naïve aspect to it - quite enjoyable, but difficult to sustain into maturity; in much the same way that one laughs out loud when reading D.H. Lawrence as an adult. I suppose that in order for something to be truly blasphemous one must be able to take it seriously.

I have heard it said (or rather, seen it written) that many Republicans (the very people Jesus chose to eat with in the face of all those Pharisees!) and Evangelicals love Ayn Rand. This was reported with tones of incredulity and, having read at least some of her books, I may add to this my own surprise. And yet on further thought I understand and experience the attraction myself.

I will begin, as I so often do, with a disclaimer: this will not be a thorough review of Rand's writings or philosophy but will resemble more closely some random thoughts collected in a misshapen net of rhetoric.

Prophecy has been claimed by many but proven for few. Nowadays modern Christians say, “the prophetic” which is a turn of phrase which jars my more traditional upbringing - much like saying “the floor needs swept”. However you term it, I don’t think that what is being described (in most of the instances I can think of) is quite prophecy as I would tend to define it, being instead more like saying encouraging things vehemently - the power of positive speaking, perhaps. I’d personally place prophecy more in line with predictions of the future rather than claims for it. Think of the Biblical prophets. Certifiably insane perhaps (though validated by the passage of time), but uninhibited by any bent on personal gain.

I mention this because perhaps the first phrase one might reach for to describe Ayn’s writings is “darkly prophetic”. Here is the thing though - she wasn’t a medium for some mysterious spiritual force in describing her apocalyptic landscape, but instead channeled lived experiences from a parallel reality, "a candle flame's width away" - in the Soviet Union. In short, she was simply saying “It happened there; it could happen here.” 

I’ve mentioned elsewhere that the human race is singularly short-sighted: the event horizon is very close. This is what makes far-ranging slow-game conspiracies such as the Illuminati hard to believe. “Peace in my time” as Hezekiah famously said. There are those grandparents who plan for their grandchildren’s prosperity but even this is sowing for a crop one will see - at least the first fresh green shoots of - in one’s own lifetime. History is full of examples of the fact that, unless there is some gain NOW humans are not very good about caring for a future they will not experience. (Of course, if there has been a secret break-through in immortality (or time travel) that would change everything. Suddenly nothing would be more likely than the Illuminati and their ilk.) As such we tend to believe that things will go on as they always have; we copy those around us even to our detriment; and we do things without properly connecting the dots to where they lead.

Douglas Murray, who wrote amongst other things “The Strange Death of Europe” was quoted in an interview saying, “the footfall tells the whole story”. This interesting turn of phrase indicates that there is a reason that immigrants & refugees flow only in one direction over the borders of certain privileged countries. There is a diffusion gradient, but the unit of measure is not "population". The problem is that we (those who live in these advantaged places) have apparently forgotten what the units actually are. Or perhaps we are too afraid (of being oppressive, racist and so on) to specify? Douglas is saying that unless we appreciate what makes us different - which involves a certain amount of "guarding" if you like - we will not have anything to offer. Diffusion tends to make all things grey, rather than creating rainbows.

The Friend of My Enemy

Eric Weinstien, in his podcast "The Portal" says:

"Many of you know that I occasionally refer to Donald Trump as an existential risk to the fabric of our democracy, and by extension the world, as we are the lone stabilizing nuclear and economic superpower as I see it. But what I have tried not to say until now is why I have called Donald Trump an existential risk since before his election, while I obviously see him as the enemy of my enemy. Is it not the fact that the enemy of my enemy is supposed to be my friend?"

.....

"Without fail, he [Trump] simultaneously takes the legitimate anger we all feel as well as the critiques that have been building for generations, but which have been silenced and stonewalled for decades by our mainstream institutions, and he remakes them in his own image so that they are more powerful, more politically effective, and much more divisive than the underlying correct versions of any legitimate and decent point he might raise. This has a tendency to polarize us about Donald Trump rather than about the issues at hand."

I really enjoyed this analysis because it helped me understand why I felt so conflicted about the issues in the recent election. It is not because I am innately conspiratorially minded (though this may be the case!) but because this mixture of issues being presented (this part is good) in a twisted and divisive way (this part is bad) is real. Would you rather vote for the person who is going to shut up shop on the discussion of these issues and continue the headlong (Randian) descent of society, or for the person who hits more of the right notes but produces a twisted melody from them? It is in reality an impossible question. ("You've made your choice then? No, not remotely!" - The Princess Bride)

In a similar way Ayn Rand carries a torch for some key issues that Christians also care deeply about. But beware: as Weinstien infers, "any friend of your enemy is not necessarily your friend". In an interesting debate on Socialism vs Capitalism I heard a lot of Randisms touted by the Capitalist side. And indeed, I find myself cheering on more the side of Capitalism. But there is one telling moment, the socialist side having naturally disavowed religion as a matter of course during the debate, when the capitalist side is forced into unfurling their banner:

1:15:07 - John Ridpath for Capitalism:

"The case that we are making for capitalism is a case for a social system, as I said in my remarks, that hasn't yet existed. All that you hear about the alleged evils of capitalism with regards to exploitation in regards to monopolies and all of this is quite frankly a complete misrepresentation of what capitalism is, it does not relate to what we are talking about at all. But I will say in regards to bringing in Jesus that the fact of the matter is that the case we are making is a radical attack on the ethics of Judeo-Christianity: we are rejecting the cross; we are rejecting sacrifice. In rejecting state and forced sacrifice we are standing up for a man's mind for reason for this earth and for freedom. So you're right, Jesus and we are on opposite sides." (Clapping from audience.)

1:16:16  - A rejoinder from Christopher Hitchens (on the socialist side):

"There's a trite school of thought that does try and maintain that you can derive socialism from Christianity, and I hope I said enough to make plain that I think that's that's nonsense. Christianity is historically the ideology of feudalism and of slavery and with those it's been very strongly compatible, and I think remains [compatible]. As to whether Jesus was or was not, I don't know because I have no view of whether he existed or said any of the things that are attributed to him. Some of the more popular remarks attributed to Jesus - I would say uncontroversial remarks tending towards a view of the brotherhood of man - are of course pre-Christian: wholly admirable points about the interdependence of the human race and the need to help others for one's own sake. These are uncontroversial pre-Christian and obviously easily similar to socialist morality"

(I include Hitchens' retort here because I find it rather interesting. There are two things I want to comment on. Firstly, that he hasn't done his homework (or much worse, is deliberately obfuscating) regarding whether the historic figure of Jesus existed. I say this because it is fairly well proven that Jesus did indeed exist as a historic figure - as well as any history can be proven. Hitchens' representation of this ("I have no view") is therefore highly charged with prejudice which of course we already knew - of course you might fairly say that I am highly charged with prejudice against him! Secondly, he mentions "pre-Christian virtues" - the intent seems to be to allow them but make it clear the credit doesn't go to Jesus. What is interesting here is that Jesus himself didn't claim that he was making original remarks. Instead, he was very clearly pointing back to "that which was from the beginning". He fulfils the law and the prophets - which is to say, things that are definitively pre-Christian. But even these don't claim to have invented any of what they represent. If there are truths involved, they are necessarily eternal in nature.)

As a reminder, the reason for this transcript is John Ridpath's remark. "We are rejecting the cross; we are rejecting sacrifice." (Ignore his remark about "rejecting forced sacrifice" because that is clearly a dig at the socialist side - not a good one because it doesn't succeed in associating Christian with Socialist sacrifice: Christianity is clearly about the sacrifice being willed and not forced.)

Sacrifice

I want to discuss the idea of sacrifice a bit more before moving on. (I may replace this with a link to a separate post in future but as of right now it hasn't been written!) To begin with, note the connection back to John Ridpath's war cry. Obviously is not sacrifice per se that is being rejected, because one must always sacrifice some things in order to have others. Rather, this is a stand against the sacrifice of one's own ego, one's own self. One is reminded of the passage:

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! 
How art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God... (Is 14:12)

In contrast, "Greater love has no man than this" Jesus famously posited, "than that a man lay down his life for his friends". Jordan Peterson has some interesting things to say about sacrifice also, helpfully distilled down here.

In considering the meaning of sacrifice a few things came together for me. One was an association between fasting and "humbling oneself" as pointed out by Derek Prince. (I do not mean by this reference to espouse Derek's entire doctrine / world view, please limit the association to this one point.) He points out that the reason to humble oneself so is that there exists a universal principal that, "whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matt 23:12) and mentions that God does not ever humble us, we have to humble ourselves. Derek gives as a prime example that of the fall of Lucifer contrasted against the voluntary descent of Christ, who:

"Existing in the form of God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross." (Phil. 2)

I suddenly understood that this is sacrifice by definition - the architype, if you like. And, that this is exactly the meaning of a poem I'd written a couple of years ago: at the time I wrote without fully understanding, as one does, and likely now do not fully understand now either...

In a discussion between Jordan Peterson, Brett Weinstien & Sam Harris, Sam attacks the idea of sacrifice - I should rather say that he attacks Christianity by means of guilt by association to an action nowadays understood to be barbaric and unacceptable. He says, "Christianity is a cult of human sacrifice". Interestingly his words are correct despite the anathema of the meaning he intends.

In the same discussion Jordan Peterson explains sacrifice this way (my synopsis): if you give up something of value now, you can gain something of more value in the future. Animals "plan" for the future but only via instinct; we make pacts with the future, and "what's weird about this is that it works". Codification then happened: we formalize the means by which certain ends can be gained. Then by extension (we think) the greater the sacrifice the greater the return. And this misunderstanding may lead to horrific excesses such as human sacrifice. As always, I love the fact that Jordan's aim is not to get rid of the baby at all costs (unlike some others I could mention) but instead to understand the raison d'être for the bath water. When we discover laws of any kind - the law of gravity for instance, or the law of sowing & reaping - this does not, as some would posit, negate the concept of a creator. But at the same time there is a tendency to think that in our discoveries we have understood the universe when in fact we have often vastly oversimplified a universal law to meet our own limited understanding. Witness Isaac Newton's laws, which were an order of magnitude more accurate than what had come before, but still incomplete.

Given belief in a Creator one might reasonably expect to gain a greater understanding of universal laws by means of following His advice. And reading through the stories of the Bible two things are very clear: sacrifice is necessary, and it matters WHAT and HOW you sacrifice. Think of this in terms of a voluntary humility on the part of the one making the sacrifice; that this humility is in fact the whole point of, the essence of, sacrifice - the understanding and acceptance of one's place in the hierarchy of the universe; the "fear of God". We are not clearly told what went wrong in the case of Cain & Abel, but we do know that one sacrifice was accepted, and one rejected: the events that follow cast a more revealing light over the intent of the preceding sacrifice - for murder is not born out of humility. Then take Abraham & Isaac: the 'almost' child sacrifice, approaching the horrors of the neighboring gods - Moloch, Ashtaroth and their ilk. Yet with the important difference that this was an act of obedience not of placation. This was a voluntary humility; a letting go of the most cherished son of the promise. Abraham demonstrating that he understood his place in the universe. Further on the Hebrews chose codification over presence: “Speak to us yourself and we will listen,” they said to Moses. “But do not let God speak to us, or we will die.” (Deut 5:18). By the time that Christ came; He who was the universal law incarnate; Lord of the Sabbath, they had taken their myriad laws and run with them: if you placate God with the correct sacrifices, you may retain your own life, your own pride of place; no "coming under" need occur. 

Yet throughout the history of Israel there had been warnings - "What is more pleasing to the LORD: your burnt offerings and sacrifices or your obedience to his voice?" (1 Sam 15:22) - "For You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; You take no pleasure in burnt offerings. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise. (Psalm 51:16) - "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." (Micah 6:8)

There is sacrifice in the world of Ayn Rand: her heroes have obviously subjugated their appetites in order to achieve the unimaginable. They are not sloppy, greedy, prodigal - no true superman could be. The only unbridled thing about them is their self, their ego. In her stories this intensity of purpose brings her heroes safe through the storm and into Utopia. Yet this pride of life is in fact the last and greatest barrier that keeps us from entering Paradise.

The Enemy of My Friend

Ayn Rand is famously long-winded in her books: key characters are granted implausibly long attention spans from listeners while they preach endless sermons - one nice example is when someone is defending their case in a courtroom. One's sense of reality is strained as the defendant's one-sided speech goes on... and on... and on... I will not attempt to transplant any of her sermons but instead quote shorter excerpts - where the same message may be found in a rather more accessible fashion.

"Our plan? We put into practice that noble historical precept: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Everybody in the factory, from charwomen to president, received the same salary—the barest minimum necessary. Twice a year, we all gathered in a mass meeting, where every person presented his claim for what he believed to be his needs. We voted on every claim, and the will of the majority established every person’s need and every person’s ability. The income of the factory was distributed accordingly. Rewards were based on need, and penalties on ability. Those whose needs were voted to be the greatest, received the most. Those who had not produced as much as the vote said they could, were fined and had to pay the fines by working overtime without pay. That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness. It required men to be motivated, not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers.”

Dagny heard a cold, implacable voice saying somewhere within her: Remember it—remember it well—it is not often that one can see pure evil—look at it—remember—and someday you’ll find the words to name its essence.... (Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged)

In the first paragraph we see Ayn's enemy represented. There is no doubt that her enemy is also one of ours. Jesus' "Parable of the Talents" comes to mind. I believe that this ability to see through the "social-speak" to the heart of darkness is a large part of what is endearing about Rand. A claim of selflessness can be used as a bludgeon, a conversation stopper - because it appears to be a virtue. If you wish to read no further then know that the glorification of selfishness is what is put forward as the antidote, and this is where she departs dramatically from Christianity (that is to say, those who follow Christ).

Man & Superman

The representation of Rand's heroes and heroines is perhaps as telling as the descriptions of her enemies. None are overweight, all are fit and strong. They are highly intelligent and self-motivated and independent. They live and love with an unearthly intensity. And they see through the corruption around them to a pure vision, which is attainable here on earth.

"Who are these gods and goddesses that walk amongst us? They are incorruptible, they do not kill based on petty jealousies. They are white hot burning with the flame of industry."

It is interesting to note that Bernard Shaw enthrones a similar Superman as his hero, although his bent is supposedly towards socialism, which is (supposedly) directly opposed to Rand's objectivism. The fact is that it would take a Superman - in fact, a society of Supermen - to bring any of these ideal societies down onto Earth. This harks back to the debate exchange I quoted above: both parties wish to be clear that their ideas simply haven't yet been given a sporting chance - any observed flaws in their systems are due to improper experimental practices... Communism likewise relies on a perfect human nature in order to realize its lofty ideals. And in the practical outworking we have seen in recent history it was the imperfect human nature which dragged their utopias down into mass graves. Similarly, Ayn Rand in her actual life succumbed to the same gravity felt by all of mankind and could not seem to rise to the level of her own vision.

“My personal life,” says Ayn Rand, “is a postscript to my novels; it consists of the sentence: ‘And I mean it.’ I have always lived by the philosophy I present in my books—and it has worked for me, as it works for my characters. The concretes differ, the abstractions are the same.

“I trust that no one will tell me that men such as 1 write about don’t exist. That this book has been written—and published—is my proof that they do.”

However, in practice this did not turn out to be true. This preacher of independent thought gathered her own share of sycophants, those who could not or would not speak out on their own. (I suppose that once you have narrowed what is correct down to the essentials there can be no further argument. There can be no freedom from freedom itself...!) By the end of her life, she was collecting social security, something she had argued vehemently against.

The Shadow

Ayn's books tend to depict a society which is imploding - corrupted by such doctrines as "reward the needy" and hastened along by villains such as Ellsworth Toohey ("The Fountainhead"). Toohey sees and understands the downward spiral but seems viciously content to ride society into the ground - as long as he is the puppet master. This has a strange similarity to the demonic propensity to destroy their host: witness the pigs driven headlong into the sea (Mark 5:12–13). Less villainous but equally culpable are those who look only for approbation and, afraid of and craving public opinion, will not speak the truth. The hangers-on, the moochers - they live like leeches on the life blood of society.

Before leaving this point, I want to point out one of these aforementioned darkly prophetic themes. In "The Fountainhead" Ellsworth Toohey largely uses the newspapers, for which he writes, as the dissemination method for his poison. And his poison is seemingly innocuous. It is imbibed by all and sundry - willing masses downing the sugared draft of death. This is strangely reminiscent of the manner in which the media today has become the puppet of a shapeless but deadly force. I've wondered myself, and heard from many other prophetic voices of our times, the question "why?" Why does an (unnamed) organization present a name & face of care for the underprivileged, but strapped to the undercarriage is a series of bombs? Why does a writhing mass of spoiled students squirm towards immediate power but ultimate destruction of the very ground they stand upon? What "Shadow of that hyddeous strength / Sax myle and more it is of length" (The Monarche, David Lindsey) falls upon our society? In Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" society is indeed driven headlong into the sea. A small community of "supermen" alone witness the apocalypse from the safety of their wilderness sanctuary. They will be ready to rebuild once the last fires have burned themselves out.

Of course, you can call anything semantics and redefine it that way so that 2 + 2 = 5 by definition. (I mentioned this article in The Ark: Part 2.) But the way these people are going about it is so irrational that it is hard to understand how to refute their obvious error. They have cut away the very ground that any argument against them could be made from. Of course, in time they will find out that they have cut out their own foundation, but one wonders if after all this may not be that troubling to them. Say what you like about Ayn Rand (and who doesn't), but she does paint a very convincing picture of humanity coming up with an unreasonable version of society and following it through all the way to the bitter end where they starve to death, or society has fallen apart, or whatever other apocalyptic ending you might imagine. Of course, she was basing this off some of her own experiences, having witnessed the Soviet dream in practice: from the grand workers' paradise as envisioned to the starving populace and mass murders as actualized. Optimistically, in Ayn's world the heroes tend to be justified in the end. They are able to demonstrate their truth either by means of long tirades or by physical action. But in some cases, the rest of society does actually self-implode as part of this demonstration, eaten away at the heart by its own members.

Before leaving this point, I want to reference a book by C.S. Lewis which took on the same enemy, the same shadow, but with a very different intent and content. The name of this book is "The Abolition of Man", and perhaps the best way to introduce the different approaches each author took is to reference this website which details Ayn Rand's marginalia in her copy of "The Abolition of Man".

Enabling

A truly important idea in Rand's work is that of "enabling". The book "Atlas Shrugged" deals largely with this. On the one hand you have John Galt, a genius who recognizes the endemic corruption early on:

“John Galt is Prometheus who changed his mind. After centuries of being torn by vultures in payment for having brought to men the fire of the gods, he broke his chains and he withdrew his fire—until the day when men withdraw their vultures.”

As this quote describes, John Galt removes his talents from the world of moochers and creates his own Utopia in the Colorado wilderness - and spends his time, Robin Hood-like, convincing the rest of the world's talent - titans of industry in the main - to join him. Many of them are hard to convince because they cannot at first understand that their sense of honor, their inbuilt desire to save humanity, to prop up the dying world, is in fact enabling the "moochers" to grow fat. This is the image of Atlas supporting the world, but with the sudden comprehension that the globe is actually the distended body of a giant parasite embedded in Atlas's neck. By continuing to offer support, Atlas is actually enabling the parasite to continue to suck him dry. By "shrugging" the blood supply is cut off and the parasite collapses in upon itself.

I must confess that reading Ayn's assault on "enabling" has caused me to question the dynamic I often see myself taking part of in everyday life. Though events may be to some degree unfolding around me (despite me) I wonder at my part in enabling certain things to continue. This reminds me of "The Constant Gardener" - which, besides being the title of a book by John LeCarre, is a very powerful idea: that our daily tending of the things that grow (though sometimes imperceptibly slowly) around us is what shapes the result we end up with. As the Irishman admits in the joke after jumping to his death, (infuriated by receiving the same packed lunch yet again) - "I made my own sandwiches". This idea is especially relevant when it comes to our health - mental, spiritual, physical - and the health of our relationships - family & friends. Our daily gardening - or neglect - does measurably affect the state in which we find ourselves eventually.

In "Atlas Shrugged" Dagny finds herself eventually and reluctantly numbered amongst the converts to John Galt's philosophy. But to begin with she is everything heroic but with the fatal flaw of sympathy, a misplaced sense of responsibility: she must keep her railroad going. Her journey is perhaps the hardest of all because she is the strongest of all. She is destined (of course) to become John Galt's lover, rescued "like a brand plucked from the burning" as the epic comes to an end. But it takes a titanic struggle for her to understand that her dedication to keep the railroad going is actually sustaining the parasites that have fastened onto her & hers. She must abandon what she sees as her life's work in order for the new world to come about. "Unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." (John 12:24) Yet there is a discordant note when one comes to the next verse: "Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life.", because this cuts directly opposite to Ayn's message. One begins to see the cracks in the edifice. 

"Then, one sleepless night, she [Dagny] realized that her effort to fulfill that duty consisted of turning away whenever people discussed his job, of refusing to look at newspaper mentions of Taggart Transcontinental, of slamming her mind shut against any evidence and every contradiction. She stopped, aghast, struck by the question: What is it, then - faith versus truth? And realizing that part of her zeal to believe was her fear to know, she set out to learn the truth, with a cleaner, calmer sense of rightness than the effort at dutiful self-fraud had ever given her." (Atlas Shrugged)

Fantasy

It is somewhat unsettling to realize that in the world of "Atlas Shrugged" Dagny is the lone female titan of industry, surrounded by a circle of strong, intelligent men - and desired by more than one of them. There is this strange chivalrous notion that "the best man may have her" - the heroes do not fight over her; the most deserving gets her.  

Ayn sees the sexual act as a special thing, sacred and not at all one of guilt and shame. But she appears to think that it is man's volition that makes it so. That the smallness of motive is what corrupts the playboys and prostitutes. And conversely that greatness of motive - selfishness, true selfishness, is what redeems it.

This is a good example of the "distortion of reality" field Ayn deploys in order to showcase her ideal of "selfishness" as the prime "virtue". Supposedly with enough "purity" of selfishness it all works out in the end. The "lesser" heroes are content to let Dagny pass on to the more worthy; I suppose you could say they come to recognize that what they want most is this, rather than that. Our imagination strains to see this as a remote possibility - that a man could be so "good" while motivated solely by "selfishness" goes somewhat (!) against what we know to be true from our own experiences in the world. I'm using a lot of air quotes here simply because words and concepts are being strained somewhat out of their natural place and function. I said that Ayn "deploys" this distortion field, but this suggests a conscious intent which I don't believe to be the case. Instead, I would say this is simply her personality & worldview asserting itself as a matter of course on the things she creates.

In all the books by Ayn that I have read there is a strong current of personal fantasy being played out amidst the stirring strains of Randian ideology. Much as her villains are plucked ready-made from the parallel universe of the Soviet Union (as well as her observations on the state of society in the US at the time), it appears that her heroes are modeled after what is to hand: herself (or rather an idealized version of herself) and the type of men she was attracted to. (And who is to criticize her for this? After all, in this world there may not be anywhere else to turn for our heroes and heroines.)

Truth

Besides "Atlas Shrugged" another book worthy of mention is "The Fountainhead". Architecture and design make up the framework of this story. The hero, Howard Roark, is a struggling but brilliant architect: the only truly honest one in an industry which is given over to bloated designs, the dragging in of traditional constructs to mask the bones of modern structure, pandering to the corrupt tastes of popular culture. I enjoyed the description of Roark: he is not ashamed of the essential structure of his buildings; he will not hide it underneath false fronts, false pillars, false beams. The central idea here is that classical architecture - Greeks and Roman - was born of necessity rather than vogue, and it is dishonest to deliberately create such a structure nowadays when our building materials and methods have changed and no longer require it. "Truth in the inward parts" is here a theme that can be recognized and appreciated.

In this story, in contrast to "Atlas Shrugged", triumph of good is achieved without the complete destruction of the world. Roark's genius is strong enough to triumph over, to pierce through, the muffled weight of culture trying to drag him down. He emerges as a triumphant figure by the end of the book - one that it appears humanity may be able to follow up out of their current slough of despond.

These are stories of great pessimism but ultimately of great optimism: the insistence there does exist something worth saving out of corruption; the belief that industrious, hardworking and honest men may make a paradise for themselves. There is a descent into hell, but it is in order to clearly define the great heights that man may scale.

Sin

..."the only sin on earth was to do things badly. I still believe it." (- Dagny, Atlas Shrugged)

Given that the word "sin" in Biblical usage means "missing the mark" in the sense of archery, this is not far from the truth. All that is lacking is the definition of some terms!

Community

In "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn paints a beautiful picture of the elect living in harmony in the wilderness while the rest of the world goes to hell. The ideal of a community of men and women living perfectly free here on earth is truly beautiful, but I believe it is unattainable while we are still human. I have lived some of this dream myself and seen some of the beauty, experienced some of the grandeur, known some of the wonder; but I have also seen some of the politicizing which sneaks in on the backs of our natures, seemingly required as we forget why we are attempting to live the way we do - as if the form were the purpose. The iconoclast becomes the icon.

"She looked at the quiet, impregnable room, and at the light—the light that came from his motor—on the faces of men who were the most serene and confident gathering she had ever attended." (Atlas Shrugged)

There is a story I heard told about a group of people who followed this ideal and, selling all they owned, set out to build such a community. The young leader had bought a book on survival and his family were some of the first to arrive in the chosen spot and began to build log cabins right out of the book. At this point in the story, you can see it all come together: the romance of camping (for those who can understand this!); the unifying hardship of pioneering; camaraderie around the campfires; beloved sleep borne out of hard work and fellowship; a sense of purpose & oneness with nature. It is idyllic. Then everyone else begins to arrive - vanloads of young people, families and so on: and with them the need for rules. Every successive arrival adds another rule which adds another skin over the ideal until it is lost in the layers and perhaps completely forgotten. Thus, we leave civilization only to build it over again.

This is not to say one should give up. But instead endeavor to proceed with understanding rather than in delusion.

Perhaps this is a besetting sin for Christianity through the ages. From the beginning Jesus had to be very clear: "my kingdom is not of this earth". There would be no swords, no chasing out of the Romans, no tabernacles built on the mount of transfiguration. And yet we persist in thinking that His kingdom IS of this earth. Think about American history. The Puritans - Jingoism - Nationalism. Things we struggle with to this day.

In a simplified view of the First World War, we can see the great powers each with their own belief that their country, their nation, was to some degree the chosen people of God. Especially consider Germany - which came to be seen (by others!) as an evil power, but which started innocently enough simply believing that theirs was the nation God was currently backing. 

As I've said elsewhere, I am often reminded of what was said to a leader of the original chosen people of God: "Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come." (Joshua 5:13)

Perhaps we are too quick to assume that God is aligning Himself to our agendas, nations, political parties...

The Strange Gullibility

Chuck Colson, once Nixon's strong-arm man in the White House, said: 

"When I served under President Nixon, one of my jobs was to work with special-interest groups, including religious leaders. We would invite them to the White House, wine and dine them, take them on cruises aboard the presidential yacht. … Ironically, few were more easily impressed than religious leaders. The very people who should have been immune to the worldly pomp seemed most vulnerable."

 (I've found this quoted a few times online - it has been dug up a few times recently regarding President Trump! - but haven't found the attribution source as yet.) 

This leads to this interesting article which talks more about Nixon's wining and dining of religious leaders.

Why are Evangelicals tagged in this essay, when all humans appear eager to accept anything that will advance their premises and often don't look too closely under the hood? Well, Christians are supposed to be somewhat immune from political and other types of glamour, and thus are more responsible when they fail.

Niggles

One thing that irritates me is where the apparent practicality of Rand & her message wears thin and you see a sort of cheap substrate beneath. Here's a few lines taken from end of "Atlas Shrugged" where the world has ended, and the elite are able to see what the remnants of humanity have been brought to as a result:

"In a distant field, beyond the town, they saw the figure of a man moving slowly, contorted by the ugliness of a physical effort beyond the proper use of a human body: he was pushing a plow by hand."

The reason that this is offensive may not be obvious to those without any farming or similar practical background. To begin with, ploughs are pulled through the earth not pushed. The image of a man behind a plough is always accompanied by either a horse or an ox pulling from the front. Secondly, the idea that a man could pull a plough is to credit this man with superhuman strength. I did a quick search to confirm my gut reaction and came up with some video from Africa purporting to be a man pulling a plough, and though there was a man pulling (and one guiding from behind) the ground being cultivated was obviously very soft - it wasn't a plough as I understand it, a curved blade that cuts into the ground and turns it over as it moves. Of course, such things could be scaled down to the point at which a man could pull a plough - either if the plough were very small or the ground soft. If this were done then this would simply be the kind of exercise sought after by the crossfit community, and not at all "the ugliness of a physical effort beyond the proper use of a human body".

Most fiction does not attempt to be accurate, either being completely fantastical by design or moderately fantastical by implication. But Ayn Rand takes herself so seriously that one cannot help being frustrated by these inclusions.

Happiness

"But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live." (John Galt's speech, Altas Shrugged)

I couldn't agree more with this statement from John Galt. However, what I believe this stems from, and what the implications are, are very different from what Ayn takes them to be. 

The Children of Israel were given strict ordinances to live under - very restrictive. They had (we assume) no understanding of the WHY, but were told "that it may be well with you and with your children forever". Now, one way of looking at this is to see these demands as those of a capricious and childish God who is teetering on the edge of being offended and is advising his chosen people to toe the line lest he be annoyed and smite them. I believe this to be a common view of the God of the Old Testament nowadays. (Some sects have believed that the God of the N.T. is a different animal - they should note that Jesus plainly stated that "not one jot nor tittle"...)

Another and almost diametrically opposite interpretation of the same facts is that there are certain ways of living that will produce the most happiness and healthiness and that these laws to some degree described how to live this sort of life, and this may be why God prescribes them. You have to understand that He was dealing with a pack of savages in the beginning, and may still be dealing with them to this day...

Terry Pratchett describes in one of his books how those who are wise can lead even ignorant villagers to abide by sanitary rules. Instead of telling them the unbelievable truth about disease-causing microbes migrating between septic & drinking water and thus the need to distance a wellhouse from an outhouse, it is necessary to spin a tale of magic and malevolent otherworldly creatures. This is simply translating reality into a language that can be understood and will be obeyed. Today we fear the invisible microbe; yesterday we feared invisible otherworldly creatures. How much of this is happening in the myriad laws of the Old Testament is an open question, but I will point out that most Christians today consider themselves free to eat bacon.

I believe that our Creator intends there to be delight in life, and thus creation is innately delightful to us.

"Now, flung at me like frolic or insolence, there came as if it were a voice — no words — but if you made it into words it would be, ‘Why should your heart not dance?’ It’s the measure of my folly that my heart almost answered, ‘Why not?’ I had to tell myself over like a lesson the infinite reasons it had not to dance. My heart to dance? Mine whose love was taken from me, I, the ugly princess who must never look for other love, the drudge of the King […]? And yet, it was a lesson I could hardly keep in my mind. The sight of the huge world put mad ideas into me, as if I could wander away, wander forever, see strange and beautiful things, one after the other to the world’s end. The freshness and wetness all about me […] made me feel that I had misjudged the world; it seemed kind, and laughing, as if its heart also danced. Even my ugliness I could not quite believe in. Who can feel ugly when the heart meets delight?" (Till We Have Faces, C. S. Lewis)

There are echoes of this in these words of Dagny's:

"No matter what her problem, this would always remain to her—this immovable conviction that evil was unnatural and temporary. She felt it more clearly than ever this morning: the certainty that the ugliness of the men in the city and the ugliness of her suffering were transient accidents—while the smiling sense of hope within her at the sight of a sun-flooded forest, the sense of an unlimited promise, was the permanent and the real." (Atlas Shrugged)

The fact is that all of us - socialists, communists, objectivists; atheists, agnostics, religious; all of us faithful - catch glimpses of the gates of Paradise. But as to the means to enter - that is not so clear.

Admission & Conclusion

The truth is that I have both enjoyed reading Ayn's books - delighted to be caught up in the world she creates, seeing myself as a part of this superman cadre who stand for the truth amidst a crumbling world - AND am extremely gullible. I'm not at all sure that I'm an evangelical, but this is a moot point. The preceding thoughts are an attempt to be responsible; to sift through the data and discard poison while retaining nutrition - I do not claim definite success...