Chris: Get that bastard down here.
Kayla: Okay. I love her. I love her. Again.
Chris: Rand screamed upon hearing the news. Or I'll drag him here myself.
Kayla: I'm back on. I'm back on board.
Chris: It's finished. Your whole act, she told him. I'll tear down your facade as I built it up. I'll denounce you publicly. I'll destroy you as I created you. I don't even care what it does to me. You won't have the career I gave you, or the name or the wealth or the prestige. You'll have nothing. The barrage continued on for several minutes, until she pronounced her final curse. If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health, youll be impotent for the next 20 years. Recording in progress.
Kayla: I'm a zoom.
Chris: Hello? Kayla?
Kayla: Hi.
Chris: Hi. It's Chris.
Kayla: It's Kayla.
Chris: Cool.
Kayla: I didn't know where we're starting.
Chris: Well, I don't know. We always like. Because we haven't done banter in a while. Let's figure out, do you want to do banter this time?
Kayla: How do. I don't know how to banter.
Chris: I don't really know how to banter either.
Kayla: What are you up to these days?
Chris: Playing Zelda. Same with you. Working on this podcast quite a bit.
Kayla: Same.
Chris: So there's that. Helping you strike.
Kayla: Same.
Chris: Okay. All right.
Kayla: Great. Great banter.
Chris: That was good banter.
Kayla: Yeah.
Chris: Jokey Jokerson. Fine. Let's get to it. It's another biggie, which I know is maybe unexpected since we're breaking this up into three, but I just have a problem. So what are you gonna do?
Kayla: And that problem is called objectivism.
Chris: Yeah. Okay. So I have multiple problems. That's one of them.
Kayla: Well, first of all, welcome to cult or just weird.
Chris: Welcome to cult or just weird.
Kayla: I'm Kayla. I'm a television writer.
Chris: I am Chris. I am game designer Slash data scientist.
Kayla: And this is our podcast.
Chris: It is. It's our podcast where we cast pods and get on soapboxes before we get into it today, we have the. So we have normal business. We have our regularly scheduled business, which is. We gotta thank our new patrons. We have two new patrons. So big thank you to Tessa Hamilton and Noelle Hoover. Thank you for joining us. Thank you for supporting us on Patreon. It was a good time to join, actually, because we finally did the thing that we said were going to do. We said were going to do it last episode. We also said were going to do it. The entirety of this podcast, all five seasons, where we argue with each other about capitalism.
Kayla: We finally did as capitalism, occult, you guys. And it was supposed to be a bonus episode. And it's like. It's like an hour and a half.
Chris: It's like a regular episode.
Kayla: Yeah.
Chris: So it's probably a good thing we didn't talk about it on the main feed. Cause it was already a long episode.
Kayla: Go check it out on our Patreon.
Chris: So other than mentioning that, we finally decided whether capitalism was a cult or not.
Kayla: Oh, and we reached a decision, you guys.
Chris: We did reach a decision, but we're not gonna spoil it because that's, you know, that's behind the paywall, you know.
Kayla: So Patreon's four baby. Patreon.com culturjisweird so before we get into.
Chris: The topic today, the topic for this episode, I do want to talk a little bit about some things that have been on my mind, okay. Since doing the last episode, all right. Some things where I was like, oh, I wish I had said this, or, oh, I just thought of this based on what we talked about. And I kind of wrote them down, and then I stuck them in my script. Okay, so I have a list of things I thought of over the past couple weeks. So last episode, just to recap, we talked about, like, the beliefs of objectivism and sort of, like, went into a little bit of, like, the broader philosophy, the philosophical framework that they fall under. I didn't talk too much about the books that Ayn Rand wrote. We will talk a little bit more about that today.
Chris: But one of the things that I did want to say is that the fountainhead in her first, like, real novel, first successful novel, was. It was the first time that I was really exposed to the idea that something entirely secular could be spiritual or produce a spiritual experience, because it's so.
Kayla: Much about the experience of art.
Chris: Right, exactly. And before that, my perception was that it was either a traditional religion or something outside the norm, but still supernatural, like a new age spirituality thing, I thought that had the monopoly on spiritual experiences.
Kayla: You hadn't been introduced to the idea of secular spirituality.
Chris: Right. And the fountain had sort of introduced me to that idea, gave me sort of like an alternative to that idea that we can have awe and reverence and a spiritual experience based on things that are entirely grounded in reality. Like, you know, not to sound cliche, but like the vastness of the universe or the unknowability of the universe, or, I don't know, some art. You know, some art produces that. Some art, you watch an art sometimes if you watch an art, it makes you get that feeling. But true, though, sometimes, you know, you look at a piece of art or you watch a television show or whatever, and it just gives you that, like, holy shit, there are some beautiful, crazy things out there. Whatever that spiritual feeling is that we don't have a great word for other than spiritual, I guess.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: So wanted to mention that maybe put that in the pro column. One of the things that I forgot to bring up when were talking about the. The tiers of the kingdom, the tears of the kingdom, which is the game that I'm playing right now. But no, the tiers, the philosophical tiers. So there's metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and then politics. One of the ways that was helpful for me, and again, Ayn Rand didn't necessarily, like, invent the idea of, you know, those tears, but it's the first time I was exposed to it. And one of the ways that it's helpful for me is that if you're, like, having an argument with somebody, it's actually useful to know what tier that argument is happening on. Let's say, intelligent design or something like that.
Chris: If somebody is having that argument based on a more like, they're coming from it in a creationism, they believe in the Bible. And therefore, there's this metaphysical disagreement you have about whether the universe simply exists or. Or whether there was a God that created it.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: That's at a lower level than just, like, the content of, like, well, here are some specific things about creationism. Right. You're not gonna like. That's why frequently, it doesn't surprise me that no matter how many, like, details and facts we talk about with each other on certain topics, it's not gonna change somebody's mind.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: Like, I. No matter how many facts and whatever I show someone, if they already believe in God and the primacy of God having created the universe, yada, then I know that it's just sort of like a waste of time to talk about the, like, you know, the science of it.
Kayla: It doesn't matter how many facts and figures you come at me with, I refuse to change my stance that zero and infinity are the same thing.
Chris: Oh, my God.
Kayla: So, yes, I understand this as well.
Chris: Yeah, exactly. So you have your own little pet supernatural stuff that you think about. You know, if you just said related instead of same thing.
Kayla: No, they're exactly the same thing. I have some YouTube videos to show you.
Chris: Oh, great. Yeah, no, you have, like, some actual cult YouTube videos. Please don't share that with anyone. So, yeah, so I find that helpful. Or, like, even, like, the virtue of capitalism. Right? Like, it's easier to talk about, like, whether that's right or wrong. If you have, like, some sort of same base to start from, like, you at least. Well, okay, we agree that existence exists, and we agree that reason is important, but we don't agree whether capitalism is good or not or which aspects of it are good or not. I think it's maybe easier to have that discussion, or it should be easier to have that discussion with objectivists. Frequently it isn't, which I think is part of the problem.
Kayla: Are you saying they're hard to have conversations with or hard to have disagreements with?
Chris: Well, yes and no. Individual objectivists I've met, I've got a big question here, are pretty reasonable. But objectivism as a whole, if you like, when you're talking about Ari and the official stance. Yeah, no disagreement.
Kayla: This sounds like a lot of work. Like, why do they care?
Chris: Well, we'll get to that a little.
Kayla: Bit, but what's the deal?
Chris: Well, yeah.
Kayla: Aren't they tired?
Chris: I think so. I'm tired. Tired of talking about this stuff.
Kayla: Just having a stance on anything is really hard and draining. And then to have a stance on, like, metaphysics, epistemology, everything.
Chris: We will get to this.
Kayla: And what was the last one?
Chris: Art.
Kayla: Ethics.
Chris: Oh, sorry. Ethics, then politics. Ethics, then politics, art, and other things.
Kayla: That's just a lot of work.
Chris: I know. No, it is. It's been described as a complete philosophical framework. And I think by complete, they mean, like, they have an opinion about everything.
Kayla: As part of this complete breakfast.
Chris: Yeah, as part of this complete breakfast. We will get to all of that, actually. But I did want to talk about how the philosophical tier thing kind of helps me know whether it's, like, worth my time to discuss something with someone. Like, if we can't agree on some, like, basic metaphysical stuff, it doesn't matter whether we're gonna agree on the details. Beyond that, the other thing I wanted to mention, that's a really big statement.
Kayla: I won't get into it, but that is a really big statement.
Chris: Oh, you think you do? You have a potential disagreement.
Kayla: No, I guess my great disagreement is not that. It's like, is that a reason then, to figure out how to have a common ground, finding conversations with those people? Obviously not in all circumstances, but.
Chris: Oh, yeah, you're right. This is a can of worms, isn't it?
Kayla: Yeah. Yeah. So that's why I shouldn't even have said anything. I shouldn't even have said anything.
Chris: Stuff the lid back on the worms. They're getting out. It's okay. We'll talk about it later. Moving on. The law of identity is something we talked about in last episode. And that's the thing where it's like a. Is a thing, is what it is. A thing can't be something else that is different than it at the same time and in the same regard is kind of like, how that law is stated.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: And we talked a little bit about, like, okay, but is it dangerous to, like, take that. Well, like, a thing is what it is and extend it out further down than just, like, the metaphysical layer.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: And of course, the way that came up was like, you know, a man is a man and a woman's a woman.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: Right. And how that can be dangerous. And one of the things that I.
Kayla: It's hard to apply any sort of binary to human beings, because we just. We're wild and crazy. We are wild and crazy out here.
Chris: Yeah. And that's kind of what we mentioned last episode. And I agree that, like, binary versus spectrum is definitely, like, a fallacy and one that I think objectivism gets into a lot. But I also thought of over the past few weeks that, like, the law of identity also doesn't. That in this respect, the law of identity doesn't. It's not, like, monopolized either by bigots. Right. Like, a trans person could very easily say, yes, a woman is a woman, and that's what I am.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: I am a woman. I know that it is what it is, and that is what me is.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: Me is. Yeah. So I just wanted to mention that was another angle on that I hadn't thought of until after the show. And then the only other business I want to talk about, it's not really business. It's maybe just like, a little bit of, like a. Hey, this is sort of related to what we're talking about is. And this is something you and I talk about on the couch all the time. You don't seem to think it's very cool. I don't know. I do.
Kayla: What?
Chris: Mary's room.
Kayla: I'm just upset about. I'm just sick of it.
Chris: You just don't think that Mary's room is, like, a big deal.
Kayla: I don't even know why. I don't even know why. I don't even remember anymore. I just gotta have a take on everything you do.
Chris: Well, it's, you know, we're of the Internet age, so you gotta have a take on everything. I'm just gonna read you the experiment as it was originally. The thought experiment.
Kayla: Excuse me. I'm sick of this one.
Chris: The thought experiment. Well, you know what? Some of our listeners maybe haven't heard what Mary's room is, so I'm gonna say it for them.
Kayla: Nah, that's cool.
Chris: Thought experiment, originally proposed by Frank Jackson as Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires all of the physical information there is to obtain a about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes or the sky. And she uses terms like red and blue and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina and exactly how this produces, via the central nervous system, the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs. That results in the uttering of the sentence, the sky is blue. What happens when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor?
Chris: Does she learn anything new or not?
Kayla: Look, okay. I just don't see how it's shocking to come to the conclusion of, yes, obviously. And I think what irks me about Mary's room relates back to this common refrain that you will see on the Internet sometimes and hear me out, and then let me do my explanation, must I? So this common refrain that I'm referring to says something like, some men will have transformative drug trips in their twenties and thirties and come to realizations that girls had when they were 14 at a slumber party. And what I take that to mean.
Chris: What are you guys doing at your slumber parties?
Kayla: We are having conversations. What I take that to mean is that some people in our society are set up to truly to be forced to truly experience empathizing with somebody else's perspective. And some people in our society are not forced to do that until maybe later in life or have to come to that realization themselves. Most somewhat marginalized groups are forced as a survival mechanism to be able to understand the pov of dominant groups. Women are forced to understand the perspective of men. Black people are forced to understand the perspective of white people because white men traditionally are the heroes of our stories, are shaping our stories, yada, yada.
Chris: Okay.
Kayla: And so I just don't think, how.
Chris: Are you gonna land this plane?
Kayla: I don't think it is that controversial to large swaths of the population to say, well, yeah, of course Mary experiences something different. If she sees that the sky is actually blue, of course you learn something different.
Chris: What does that have to do with somebody else, though?
Kayla: Because you've come to that realization that, like, oh, other people have a different perspective that is entirely informed by their experience that I don't have access to, necessarily.
Chris: Well, I mean, the formulation of Mary's room doesn't even involve other people. Right. Like, the formulation of Mary's room, I understand, is more about, like, even if nobody else in the universe exists, does she learn something new? Like, not. She doesn't even, I think, have to have the thought that somebody else saw something differently than her eyeballs.
Kayla: I'm not saying that Mary has that experience. I'm saying that it doesn't. I guess I don't understand why. It's like a philosophical question. It's like, of course she learned something new.
Chris: I mean, I think it goes a little deeper than just povs and perspective and walking in somebody else's shoes. The core thrust of this is, and the reason I bring it up in this episode is, can you actually learn any truth you need to learn via reason alone? Or is. And this is where the word qualia comes in. And I don't want to, like, go into all this too much, but qualia is like, is there an aspect of this entity, of this thing or of this experience that cannot be described in any formal way whatsoever, that I can only gain some sort of knowledge about it experientially? And what that implies is, since she's read every single thing that can possibly be read about. Red, blue, green, yellow.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: That means that thing cannot be put into words. Cause if it was put into words, she would have already read it. Cause she's brilliant brain scientist for 30 years in the black and white room. You don't find that interesting that there might be an idea that there's experiences and knowledge that literally cannot be formulated into words?
Kayla: Yes, I do find that interesting. What I don't find interesting is the question. I think that maybe that's all it is. You can do your whole Mary's room, but then don't end it with a. Does she learn? Yes, of course. She learned something new. Of course. Of course.
Chris: Well, but that's the question, right?
Kayla: No, it's not a question.
Chris: Yes, it is. Because if she. If the answer is yes, then that means you are saying that there is something that she experienced that could not be put into words, no matter how hard you try. Yes, I just. I think that's actually a pretty significant statement, Kayla.
Kayla: I know, but the statement is already made. Now we're getting into the semantics. The statement is already made by everything you say before you ask the question. The statement's already been made. So then I I just don't understand the questions there. Okay, well, the experiment sets up the yes answer.
Chris: I don't think that is, to me, that is not at all obvious. That being said, that being said, you.
Kayla: Never went to a slumber party when you were a 14 year old girl, right?
Chris: So I've never been to 14 year old girl slumber parties, and it's probably too late for that now. But I do think that it is an interesting thought experiment to talk about in context of objectivism, because I believe an objectivist might say to that the answer is actually no. Well, an objectivist would be wrong, objectively wrong.
Kayla: Has an objectivist never gone like, whoa.
Chris: What if you look at the color red?
Kayla: I really think you're seeing the color blue.
Chris: I really think that you're kind of being dogmatic about this, but you look.
Kayla: At it, and you see, we just will never know if we see it.
Chris: I feel like you're in your own Mary's room about Mary's room, potentially.
Kayla: No, but you know what I'm saying? Like, has an objectivist never had that conversation of thinking like, I think they have. Well, what if.
Chris: But the question isn't, have they thought about these things? The question is, can you learn everything you need to know via pure reason?
Kayla: No.
Chris: Or not?
Kayla: Wait, wait. Hold on. Can you learn everything you need to know?
Chris: Can you learn everything there is to know?
Kayla: No. That is. The answer is absolutely not.
Chris: Okay, well, that is Kayla's official position.
Kayla: My official position, I think we should say.
Chris: I'm a little short, saying it's the podcast official position, but I find the question.
Kayla: So you don't think there's something we.
Chris: Should probably get to the episode that.
Kayla: Qualia exists only experientially?
Chris: No, that's the definition of qualia. The question that I'm not sure about is that real?
Kayla: And you're saying you're not sure if that's real?
Chris: Yeah, I'm not sure if that is a real thing or not. It feels real, but I don't know. Nobody's ever put a brilliant scientist in a room for 30 years with only black and white television. Mary herself might come out and be like, no, I don't think I really learned anything new. Like, it's cool that I saw the color blue, but it didn't really teach me anything.
Kayla: I think you and Mary need to go take a hike.
Chris: Well, I think that we need to continue with the episode.
Kayla: You're the one who brought it up.
Chris: Let's recap. This episode is part two of three, so if you really want to catch up, go listen to our previous episode. Listen to that first. Or don't. I don't give a fuck. Whatever. This will be cool anyway. But to recap that episode, we talked about objectivist beliefs and, more generally, philosophical tiers, the ones were just talking about a minute ago. Speaking of last episode, Kayla, when we got into it, I asked you about how much you feel like your personal values and beliefs have evolved in the last 15 or so years, and we talked a little bit about how and why. Now, instead of asking you about how your personal feelings have changed and evolved, I want to ask you if you have any people for whom your feelings have changed and evolved.
Kayla: Oh, wow.
Chris: This could be people in your personal life. But I imagine this conversation is gonna include maybe some, like, role models, like mentors, heroes, artists you admire, et cetera.
Kayla: Look, I went back and forth so many times. I have gone. I have snip snap, snipped on Kim Kardashian. So, yes, obviously.
Chris: What was that?
Kayla: Snip, snap snip.
Chris: No, what was. What were you doing? What is that? Are we keeping this? I have no idea.
Kayla: I don't know. Yes. I mean, how much do you want me to get into this? Obviously not the Kardashian thing, but how many people do you want me to tell you that I've changed my opinion on?
Chris: I want you to list them all in alphabetical ways. And in the last 15 years, just a few people. Look, we're just trying to get the idea that you.
Kayla: Any female who was present in pop culture in 2003.
Chris: Mm mm. Right? We all shit on them then. And now we're kind of coming to terms with that. Is that what you're talking about?
Kayla: Cam Anderson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Paris Hilton, like Jessica Simpson. You name it, we're there. Kim Kardashian. I've gone, snip, snap, snip on. I was like, boo, Kim K. Then I was like, yay, Kim K. Now you're boo again. Very, very boo.
Chris: Speaking of Kim K, I assume that Kanye's on the list.
Kayla: Kanye was on the list. I was boo. Yay. And then very boo.
Chris: Yeah, yeah. It was like, boo at first. Cause it was like, man, shut up about Hurricane Katrina. Like that. And shut up about, like, Taylor Swift. But your music is awesome.
Kayla: And then it was like, hell, yeah. You were right about Hurricane King.
Chris: Yeah, yeah. And then. And then, like, in the last couple years, it's been like, oh, shit.
Kayla: Oh, you were. You have some views that I do not want to be anywhere near. And there's plenty of people like that aren't, you know, not just celebrities, but I'm sure I could name you a handful of politicians. I'm sure I could name you a handful of thought leaders, quote, unquote. I'm sure I could name you a handful of writers. Yes, of course. There are many people who I have changed my opinion on, especially now. We've gotten a lot more knowledge about various people. With things like the Internet, we have more access to the inner lives of our celebrities, and there's a lot that comes with that.
Chris: Yeah. Twitter is like, basically, I've heard this. Twitter is described as, like, we handed every celebrity, like, a loaded gun, and we're like, here you go. And then, like, a bunch of them are like, cool, I'm gonna shoot myself with this. So, reputationally. Reputationally. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, this is something that we're all sort of dealing with lately. We've talked about on the show. Certainly. We just talked about Louis CK, I think, last episode or last bonus episode. And of course, you know, in case this wasn't painfully obvious, I ask you this because today we're talking about the charismatic leader who created the objectivist belief system, Ayn Rand. And as we already hinted at many times in the previous episode, she is an extremely mixed bag, both in terms of the things that she well and truly believes.
Chris: Some of those beliefs are cool and some are more of a drag. And also in terms of whether she actually walks the walk on the things that maybe she does believe, which is also a mixed bag.
Kayla: This is the stuff I know a little bit more about.
Chris: Oh, you already know the juicy stuff.
Kayla: I don't necessarily know the horrendous things.
Chris: That she has said, the juicy stuff.
Kayla: That potentially outweigh the good things that she said, but I definitely know certain things that she did in her life in the later years.
Chris: Okay, but what would a charismatic leader be without having some of their influence over other human beings go to their head? Am I right?
Kayla: Happens to the worst of us and the best of us.
Chris: Of course, nobody starts out charismatic, influential, or hubristic.
Kayla: Excuse you. I've read the Bible.
Chris: Who starts out charismatic in the Bible?
Kayla: Jesus Christ, baby.
Chris: I guess he pops out.
Kayla: And he pops out, and people are showing up, giving him gifts.
Chris: Yeah, you're right. Well, as charismatic as he maybe started out life, Ayn Rand probably started out with a little bit of hubris at least, too. But what she wasn't born with was the name Ayn Rand. She was born Alyssa Rosenbaum on February 2, 1905, in St. Petersburg, Russia, which, yes, it was still called St. Petersburg back in 1905. Her family, she also had two sisters.
Kayla: By the way, and their names were Bind and Dyne.
Chris: Yeah. Ayn Rand. Bin Rand and Dyne Rand. Yep, very. Wouldn't it be Kyn Rand? ABC Kyne kyung, Keanu Rand. No, I don't know what their names were, and I'm not willing to look it up right now, but they were considered a, like a bourgeois class family. So her parents owned a pharmacy, and they did pretty well until she was twelve years old. So her 12th birthday happened in 1917.
Kayla: That's an important year.
Chris: Yep. That was a pretty important year in russian history. That was the year that the Bolsheviks took control of the russian soviet government, and as a consequence, many businesses were nationalized, including the Rosenbaums pharmacy. They fled St. Petersburg, now Petrograd, to another city in Russia. Let's see if I pronounce this correctly, Yevpatoria. I think that city was under white army control, which white army was like the anti Bolsheviks. But eventually they did have to move back to Petrograd. Alyssa attended high school during their time in Yevpatoria, and then when they got back to Petrograd, she enrolled in university. I think it was University of Petrograd where she studied philosophy and history. This is where she picked up her love of Aristotle, supposedly. So that's where that comes from. Life was indeed hard for her family during this time. Reportedly, they were near starving.
Chris: Several times she and others considered bourgeois class students.
Kayla: Is that how it's pronounced, bourgeois?
Chris: Bourgeois? Should I say bourgeois? Am I saying bourgeois?
Kayla: Saying bourgeois? I don't know what I was pronounced.
Chris: Burgoyce. So, yeah, I think you're right. I think I've been pronouncing it stupidly bourgeois. Other students of that class faced a purge from her university, although they were eventually reinstated after some visiting foreigners protested.
Kayla: Geez.
Chris: So just a quick note here. Objectivists don't really like to admit that nature or nurture is a thing.
Kayla: What do you mean?
Chris: Whenever they're faced with a question or not whenever, I shouldn't say whenever, but several times I have seen when they're faced with this question of, well, you think it's nature or nurture more? Well, what about, like, individual choice? Like, they always just sort of like, barrel through that and say, like, well, a lot of people have been grown up in this yada, but they didn't do well, and I did do well, or this person didn't. This person emigrated from blah, blah, and so did Andrew Carnegie or whatever. So they like to sort of like.
Kayla: Oh, they're saying it doesn't matter, just like, kind of.
Chris: Yeah, yeah, they're kind of saying that. Like, that's interesting that it's a collectivist fallacy to talk about nature versus nurture when it's all about individual choice.
Kayla: That's so interesting, because you said things that, like, they recognize some systemic issues like police brutality or whatever, or systemic racism. But then, I guess, choose when not to think about the systems at play individuals lives.
Chris: I think it's just one of those things. I think that, like, when they're, when somebody's having. When an objectivist is having, like, a normal conversation about things, like, about systemic issues and about, like, things you can actually study and point to, I think where it gets a little weird is when you get into, like, the ideological part, about when you get into the very theory, crafty land, about nature versus nurture. Right? Like, if you can actually sit here and point to like, oh, yeah, redlining, that is documented.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: There's evidence for that, right? Whereas with nature versus nurture, like, it's much more nebulous. Right? So I think it's easier for them to say, like, well, it's not nature or nurture. It's individual choice. The reason I bring it up here is because while I think that there is maybe some merit to the fact that individual choice is certainly something that matters, it just doesn't. To me, it's not incompatible at all with the notion of nature or nurture. And it feels like it shouldn't be incompatible with the way Ayn Rand feels about it, too. Cause the way that she seems to feel about it is things happen to you, and then you sort of incorporate those ideas and experiences, and then that in turn, generates your, you know, your decision making apparatus about these things, which I think is roughly how neuroscientists think of it.
Chris: Roughly.
Kayla: It doesn't seem like they deny the fact that, like, influence exists to go, like, no, nature nurture individual choice.
Chris: Right. It feels like they kind of cherry pick a little bit there also.
Kayla: Like, is nature nurture even, like a thing? Like, what does that mean? Do they even talk about that in real science? Like, is that. Or is that just, like, thing that dinguses? Like, you and me talk about, I.
Chris: Think it's a dingus thing, but what do you mean real? Okay, hold on. Let's not go down this tangent.
Kayla: I'm just saying, if I sit here and get all indignant about how objectivists feel about nature versus nurture, is that even a useful way to spend my time? Nature and nurture is not like, okay.
Chris: I think it's like a framework for debate, not a studied phenomenon. And I think if you were to study it would be, like, from a sociological perspective.
Kayla: Copy that.
Chris: The reason I bring it up, though, is because you can look at Ayn Rand's early childhood and go like, oh, okay. Yeah. That's why she cares about that stuff. Right, right. You can look at the fact that her family's business was nationalized and the fact that they were, like, a bourgeois class family that lost everything thanks to the soviet government, and go like, okay, that makes sense that she would hate.
Kayla: That a lot, right?
Chris: The fact that she starved almost, and, like, had that purge, a student purge in her university kind of points all to the like. I do get that. So there's a lot of nurture in there. A lot of it is also her decisions, because there's other people that had their businesses nationalized and didn't do what Ayn Rand did. So you can definitely point to that. But there's also, clearly she was influenced by her early childhood there.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: So she emigrated to the United States in 1926 on pretext of enriching the soviet film industry. Although she had no intention of ever returning. Her first stop was Chicago briefly, and one of her first acts was to change her name to Ayn Rand.
Kayla: Where did that come from?
Chris: So that's her actual name, not a pen name. And that came from. I didn't write it down, but I meant to. So her. So her pen name. Okay, so, first of all, I've seen it as, like, she actually changed her name, and I've seen it as pen name. I think she actually changed her name, though. So Rand, according to her, was taken from the russian Alphabet spelling of Rosenbaum, her actual last name. So that was derived from her last name. And she said she chose Ein after the name of a writer she liked from Finland, a finnish writer. I don't know who. I have not seen who, but someone she liked. Name Ein.
Kayla: I wish there was more info.
Chris: I know there might be. I just didn't dig too deeply on, like, the name change thing.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: I also saw something suggesting that maybe she did that to protect her family back in Russia.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: But anyway, so she was in the United States by 1926, changed her name to Ayn Rand. She was only in Chicago for a few months before moving to Hollywood to become a screenwriter.
Kayla: Yay.
Chris: She actually met Cecil B. DeMille by lucky accident, and he gave her opportunities as an extra and eventually as a screenwriter.
Kayla: Isn't that how it used to work in the old days? You could just roll up to Hollywood and run into someone, and then they're like, I like, cut of your jib. You should be in the pictures.
Chris: You have a face for pictures. Yeah, apparently. But, you know, bootstraps, though, Kayla, she didn't get any help from.
Kayla: There was no luck involved.
Chris: There was no luck involved, and she did everything on her own. Three years after emigrating, she married actor Frank O'Connor, and two years after that, she became an american citizen. If you're keeping track at home, that puts us at 1931. In 1933, she wrote her first successful play, a Broadway play entitled Night of January 16. I think it's, like a courtroom drama.
Kayla: Compelling.
Chris: Yeah. Which essentially is, like, what the fountainhead amounts to being. Anyway, she and her husband Frank then moved to New York City so she could oversee production of this play, and in the next several years, she wrote her first two literature works, we the Living and Anthem, which both were about the evils of collectivist, totalitarian states. And I think both were, like, dystopian setting. Like, one was like, future dystopia, and one was, like, actual soviet setting, I think. I think it was anthem, where part of the setting was that, like, the word. I had been eliminated from the english language, so that was fun. But, you know, it's whatever. Like, people write in Sci-fi sometimes they do weird stuff. It's, you know, it's not that cringe. So these two novels did okay.
Chris: And I'd certainly say that having written a Broadway play counts squarely as success, right?
Kayla: Sure.
Chris: But her first mass market pop culture, this is why you've heard of this person's success, was a novel we've mentioned several times already, the Fountainhead. The Fountainhead was published in 1943, and it tells the story of Howard Roerich, sort of like a doctor house of architecture. So he's, like, brilliant, egotistical, but not exactly personable, although I will say 99% of the time, Roark is merely unpersonal, because he just kind of doesn't care.
Kayla: Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't think the Doctor house comparison is accurate, honestly, because Doctor House says things to be mean, and Howard Rourke. It's that whole meme of, like, I don't think of you at all. Doesn't he say that in the book?
Chris: He does, actually. Yeah.
Kayla: It's not that he's pointedly mean to anyone. It's that he simply is not. He does not think of others. He thinks of himself and his.
Chris: Right. When he says that. When he says, I don't think of you at all, and I think you're right.
Kayla: I know I've said it, but I'm gonna say here. I really loved that book. I really liked that book a lot.
Chris: Yeah. There's a lot to like about it. There's a lot that's, like, inspirational about it.
Kayla: That whole thing of I don't think of you at all. To say to somebody who thinks they're your nemesis, to say that and mean.
Chris: It, it is the ultimate dunk. Yeah.
Kayla: Oh, it is. And then just.
Chris: But if you really mean it's, like, not even a dunkin, but it's right. It's, like, only a dunk to them.
Kayla: Oh, my gosh.
Chris: Which is, like, I think makes it better.
Kayla: Yeah, it's.
Chris: Yeah. I mean, that was probably, like, one of, like, the two or three things in that book where that, like, really hooked me.
Kayla: Yeah. And there's lots. There's lots that we can sit here and, like, say, oh, this is wrong, and that's wrong. And, like, I don't care for its depiction of rape and I don't care for this. That. We'll get to that, but. Oh, man, I really liked that book.
Chris: Yeah. So just for context, what happens is, like, the. The villain character, who's just, like, this smart, is, like. He's like, a banality of evil type villain, right?
Kayla: He's Pete from Mad Men.
Chris: He's Pete from Mad Men. Right. And he comes. He finally finds Roarke, who's trying to.
Kayla: Like, not even Don Draper. He's better than Don Draper.
Chris: Right. And he says, like, well, I'm really quite curious. Like, what do you. Really, deep down, what do you actually think of me, Howard? And he says, I don't think of you.
Kayla: Oh, my God.
Chris: So good.
Kayla: It's so good.
Chris: So, like, 99% of the time, Roark is, I would say, not such a piece of shit like Doctor house. But the other 1% of the time is where he is a rapist, maybe. Probably. So it kind of balances out.
Kayla: No, he's explicit. I mean, that's the thing. It's like the initial intercourse that occurs between Howard work and. What's her name?
Chris: Dominique Francon.
Kayla: And Dominique Franco.
Chris: Francon. Domin or maybe Frank Sol. I don't know, bourgeois. I can't pronounce things.
Kayla: And Dominique Francon is explicitly referred to as rape in.
Chris: It is, but it's also contested. I want to read you something from.
Kayla: Dominique Francon calls it rape to herself. And yes, she's saying it in a way that is like, oh, my gosh, I just got raped.
Chris: Right.
Kayla: The r word is explicitly used, and the use is also, alongside her, also explicitly having invited and enjoyed the encounter. So there's nuance and there's conflict, and there's a lot going on in the scene. But I. You know. Right, well, that word is used.
Chris: It's sort of a famously, like, to use the best possible word, famously controversial scene in the book. I would say maybe for me and maybe for others that are more towards, like, my side of thinking. It doesn't feel as controversial as it feels like, ew, kind of icky, especially because it's like, the protagonist. And what is she trying to say with how the protagonist first has a sexual encounter with his female other? But anyway, I want to read this bit from the Wikipedia article on the Fountainhead, because it gives a lot of interesting context. Feminist critics have condemned Roarks and Dominique's first sexual encounter, accusing Rand of endorsing rape. This was one of the most controversial elements of the book. Feminist critics have attacked the scene as representative of anti feminist viewpoint in Rand's works that makes women subservient to Mendez.
Chris: A side note from me, Chris, can confirm.
Kayla: Yeah, that's.
Chris: It's pretty clear there are other things that Rand has said that, like, 100% corroborate that viewpoint, that she had a pretty misogynistic outlook.
Kayla: You can have, quote unquote, strong female characters, which Ayn Rand clearly does and still have a philosophical stance that is anti feminist.
Chris: Right. Which is absolutely the case with her continuing the quote. Susan Brown Miller, in her 1975 work against our will, Men, Women and Rape, denounced what she called Rand's philosophy of rape for portraying women as wanting humiliation at the hands of a superior man, unquote. I think that quote is from Susan, not from Ayn Rand. I don't know if she would have said humiliation. Certainly that's what happened in this scene, but I think that she definitely had the flavor of superior man throughout her beliefs.
Kayla: The whole thing in that scene is that the reason why Dominique enjoys it is because she's like, oh, my gosh, I am so sexually turned on by a man who will just take what he wants without any concern for the other. That is peak rain right there. And then she, as a character, basically, then supports him through the rest of the book. Like he's a supportive force in the rest of the book.
Chris: Yeah. And it may also be worth noting that their relationship is weird. Like, she's not supportive of him. Her support of him is this weird sort of like destructive support. So that kind of plays into it, too. Her thing is she doesn't think that the world. She's kind of nihilist about it. She doesn't think the world deserves his artistic genius. So she tries to take him down, too. But it's very dramatic.
Kayla: Look, again, I really love this book, and I don't think that I'm not going to sit here and say artists shouldn't write or create art about controversial things, and you get to have controversial stances. It's just as you were discussing. This particular scene is often talked about when this book is talked about.
Chris: Yeah, it's a challenging scene for sure.
Kayla: And I think it's challenging even in Ayn Rand's own philosophies. I don't think that the Howard work that she writes and the Howard work that is to represent her objectivist philosophies, this act that he chooses to does not really feel compatible with how he is and acts as a character.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: He's not really into, like, dominating and subjugating others for his own will. He's just into making his buildings.
Chris: Right. So I agree that it feels weirdly actually out of character for him. It doesn't feel out of character for Rand. But again, I think that's because she has this sort of, like, I don't want to use the wrong words here, but, like, she sort of has this fetish for, like, subservience and dominant. And, like, she has this.
Kayla: Well, she has a clear view that women.
Chris: Clear view that, like, the ideal man is, like, a big deal for her. Like, the ideal man is like this shining example, and she means man explicitly. Man explicitly. And, like, women are defined to her, like, by their relationship to, like, the ideal woman is someone who supports the ideal man. Like that kind of thing.
Kayla: Sure.
Chris: So I'll continue with this quote. Susan Love Brown said the scene presents Rand's view of sex as sadomasochism involving feminine subordination and passivity. Another writer, Barbara Harrison, suggested women who enjoy such masochistic fantasies are damaged and have low self esteem.
Kayla: See these? We're getting into some territory here.
Chris: Right? I know, I know.
Kayla: Is also controversial.
Chris: That's why I'm reading all of them, yeah.
Kayla: Some of these statements are a little broad.
Chris: While Mimi Gladstein found elements to admire in Rand's female protagonist, she said that readers who have, quote, a raised consciousness about the nature of rape and, quote, would disapprove of Rand's romanticized rapes. Rand, for her part, posthumously published working notes for the novel that indicate that when she started on the book in 1936, she conceived of Rourke's character that were it necess. Quote. This is a quote from her notes. Were it necessary, he could rape her and feel justified, end quote. She denied that what happened in the finished novel was actually rape, referring to it as, quote, raped by engraved invitation, end quote.
Kayla: Because. Yeah, the whole way.
Chris: That's the best way of putting it. But yes.
Kayla: Oh, Dominique is, like, enticing him, and then he comes in and has sex with her against her will. But she wanted it.
Chris: She invites him into her house, but, like, on the pretext of, like, fixing some, like, marble fireplace or something. And then she does the like, I think she likes dressed that way type of thing, too. Like, I think she. Like. Not to say that, but, like, I think.
Kayla: But that's the implication. Yeah.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: It's not the most.
Chris: It's problematic.
Kayla: Yeah.
Chris: Rand said Dominique wanted and all but invited the act, citing, among other things, a passage where Dominique scratches a marble slab. This is what we just talked about. Scratches a marvel slab in her bedroom. Oh, it's in her bedroom. Okay. To invite Roerich to repair it so she intentionally scratches it so she can invite him to her bedroom. A true rape, Rand said, would be a quote, unquote, dreadful crime. Defenders of the novel have agreed with this interpretation. In an essay specifically explaining the scene, Andrew Bernstein wrote that, although much confusion exists about it, the descriptions in the novel provide conclusive evidence of Dominique's strong attraction to Roerich and her desire to have sex with him.
Kayla: Yes, I agree. And I think that if simply Dominique had not used the word rape to herself, it would greatly change the conversations around this scene, because then it's just an empowered woman being like, I want to have sex with that guy.
Chris: And so I'm inviting her to.
Kayla: Then they have sex rather than her.
Chris: I do think that explicit word changes a lot.
Kayla: And her to be inwardly titillated that the idea is that guy thinks that he raped me, not we had an encounter, it's her going, he thinks he raped me. And that's hot in this context.
Chris: Right. It's not really like a role play where there's, like, a dom, because, like, that's fine. Like, that's normal.
Kayla: People are, people do things.
Chris: People dominant, submissive roleplay all the time. But to actually view it as like, you know, a non consensual act. Anyway, let me read the last sentence here. So individuals. Feminist Wendy McElroy said that while Dominique is thoroughly taken, there is nonetheless clear indication, quote, that Dominique both gave consent for and enjoyed the experience. Both Bernstein and McElroy saw the interpretations of feminists such as Brown Miller as based in a false understanding of sexuality. And large quote from Wikipedia.
Kayla: I'm glad that people are having conversations about things like this.
Chris: Yeah, I agree. And that's kind of what I wanted to do here. Like, I didn't want to like, gloss over it and be like, anyway, there's a rape. Like, I wanted to talk about it a little bit. And yeah, it is challenging, it is problematic. It is kind of tough to parse, like, what the author intended or what she didn't intend or whether she intended it or not, what the characters are experiencing.
Kayla: Because it's like we don't really get, from what I remember, we don't really get Howard work's perspective on this. We don't get his internal monologue about this.
Chris: We only get, we only get her.
Kayla: Dominique's.
Chris: Yeah, this is during her pov.
Kayla: So, you know, that adds some complication and maybe some interesting complication. Because just because Dominique is saying certain words to herself, that doesn't necessarily mean that's what's in the other person's head. Like, it is a rich text. It's just a deeply concerning, troubling one in some way.
Chris: And it's a tough thing for readers to get through sometimes, which understandably, like, I've recommended the book to a lot of my friends over the years.
Kayla: To your mother.
Chris: To my mother. And like, when I was, when I first read this when I was 17, I think 18, right. You know, I remember, like, after I recommended it to a female friend of mine, she read it and she was like, I got to this one part and I think I might have to. She ended up finishing the book. But, like, I think I might have to stop.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: And it was that scene. And me as a 17 year old, this is just like me confessing all of my shittiness as like a 17 1822 year old. But like, I was like, what are you talking about?
Kayla: Right?
Chris: And I had read the whole book. So I had apparently even read the part later where Dominique introspects that it was rape. And I was still like, oh, I didn't notice that at all, which is a little bit of a commentary on, like, what things are presented to us as rape and not rape. Like, if you go back and watch, like, blade Runner or some things about raiders of the lost Ark that really. I don't even want to talk about. Cause it's horrible. But there's just things that get presented to the point where, like, as a 17 year old boy reading that scene, it literally didn't even occur to me.
Kayla: I think that's one of the damaging things in portraying sexual encounters like this, is that it does normalize certain things. It does normalize a lack of consent. It does normalize the idea. And this is so normalized in our society, we don't need to go down this rabbit hole. But not getting or asking for consent explicitly is super romanticized in a lot of our mainstream media. And this is.
Chris: Right. And I'm just saying this is like a can confirm.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: This was normalized for me to the point where I didn't even know. Like, that. Like, to this day, I'm like, that's the person that first informed me about this controversy. I didn't even know.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: And that's not. That's not great. Anyway, putting that very real and very large discussion.
Kayla: Oh, wait. I want to say one more thing. Sorry, can I say one more thing?
Chris: Stuff are in a box. Okay, fine. Go ahead.
Kayla: I just want to say, you know, we've said all of the things that make this controversial. I think it's also. There's one thing about, like, having a nuanced and conflicted conversation about a piece of art, and then when you explicitly have the artist's entire philosophy and set of beliefs summed up very, like, well documented, including their view of men and women.
Chris: Right.
Kayla: That makes those conversations a little less nuanced and interesting because they're just really heavily colored by. Okay, well, we know what the artist thinks.
Chris: Yeah. This scene in context of how she feels about men and women and about gender. Yeah, it's less good.
Kayla: It makes it less fun to have a conversation about. Naive's fun. Loosely. Continue.
Chris: So back to the very abridged plot summary for the fountainhead. So Mister Roarke values artistic integrity to a caricature extreme. But I don't necessarily say that in a bad way. Rhin's works are sort of like comic books in literature form. There's this really heightened sense of reality going on where all the characters are larger than life. Nobody really talks like real people talk. And you just kind of imagine that everywhere just sort of looks like, the design from BioShock. Like, level design from BioShock. If it was, like, maybe utopia instead of dystopia. And by the way, for anyone who's played BioShock, yes. BioShock's setting and characters are explicitly inspired by Rand's works. And if you haven't played BioShock, then what I mean by that is that there's, like, over the top art deco, right? So, like, that's just what I'm.
Chris: When I say heightened settings, heightened characters. Like, I'm just picturing, like, Art deco everywhere and, like, larger than life comic book characters.
Kayla: Oster. Great Gatsby. Dialed up to eleven in stripped of any joy.
Chris: Well, okay, I don't know.
Kayla: No one's doing the Charleston in the fountainhead, right?
Chris: But the joy comes from, like, weird, sort of like, oh, my God, that.
Kayla: Building looks so beautiful.
Chris: That building is so spiritual to me. Like, that's the joy in the fountainhead.
Kayla: It's not really a happy joy. It's more reverence.
Chris: Yeah, I would say that. Anyway, in this heightened context, I'm like, kind of okay with how the protagonist ends the story.
Kayla: Oh, my God, I love it.
Chris: She's trying to make a point with it. I don't want spoilers for the fountainhead. Yeah, I don't want to spoil it here. So I won't say anymore.
Kayla: The artist takes his art into his.
Chris: Own hands in a very extreme way.
Kayla: And I loved it.
Chris: Yes. So the fountainhead apparently went through twelve publishers saying no before seeing print. And it would have been 13 if an editor involved hadn't threatened to quit over its rejection. Sales were initially slow, but thanks to word of mouth, that editor turned out to be right, as the book eventually did well enough to bring Rand, quote, lasting fame and financial success. Success. A 1949 adaptation on film starring Gary Cooper, for which Rand herself wrote the screenplay. And. Oh, now we're back in Los Angeles.
Kayla: Wait, hold on 1 second. I have to say something about this.
Chris: Yes.
Kayla: How old is Gary Cooper? He was like 49 or something.
Chris: Oh, yeah. He was like, yeah, and like, roark supposed to be like 22 or something?
Kayla: He was like, in his late forties and hard work. Supposed to be like 22 when the book starts.
Chris: Yeah. So I've watched the movie. It's pretty jarring. Like, he's a good actor and like.
Kayla: He has to be that young.
Chris: Like, it's pretty relevant to his character that. Yeah, like, he's got the, like, rebelliousness of youth thing going on that, like Gary Cooper, you know, he does his best. He's a good actor. So, anyway, Rand herself wrote the screenplay for this, which means we're back in LA. Her whole life after moving to America is just like going back and forth between LA and New York City. Speaking of which, she moves back to New York again in 1951. So, two years later, back to New York. And don't worry, she stays there for a while. Now, the success and influence of the fountainhead had many downstream effects for Rand, above and beyond. Just the money it also earned her admirers and followers. And after she moved back to New York, she started up a little club consisting of these admirers.
Kayla: See, now it's a cult. Just. Just be successful. Just half your book. Just have your movie. Don't get the groupies. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it.
Chris: At first, no, it really was just a bunch of dorks that went to Ayn Rand's apartment once a week and talked about philosophy. Exactly like my club at Penn, actually, we'll get back to these guys. But first, the timeline here warrants that I mention her second big novel, her magnum opus, as it's called, atlas Shrugged, which some discussions from her dork fan club actually did influence the writing of. So, Atlas Drugged was published in 1957, and the reaction was pretty mixed from critics. Quoting from Wikipedia here, despite many negative reviews, Atlas Drug became an international bestseller. But the reaction of intellectuals to the novel discouraged and depressed Rand. Atlas Shrugged was her last completed work of fiction, marking the end of her career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher.
Kayla: Wait, I'm sorry, say that again. Why did she stop writing fiction after Atlas?
Chris: Well, I don't think there's a. Because there. There's a maybe because. Oh, but she didn't. She was depressed by the reaction to it, by, like, elites, like other interactions.
Kayla: I have a lot to say about this.
Chris: Well, if you want to say it now, go for it. There's more about her life that we can. I mean, like, we got more text to go through.
Kayla: I'm gonna bite my tongue. Cause I'm just gonna be saying some things that I shouldn't be saying.
Chris: All right, we'll hold that thought about.
Kayla: My industry and the people that come out of it sometimes.
Chris: Don't lose that thought. So, back to the philosophy club, comprised of the Ayn Rand sycophants. I mean, superfans. Excuse me. Superfans. Among this group included the following folks. You might recognize one of these names. All right, so there was Nathaniel Brandon and spouse Barbara Brandon. There was Leonard Peacock. And there was Alan Greenspan.
Kayla: Why do I know that guy Fred chair Fred?
Chris: Yeah. No, that Alan Greenspan. He was part of Ayn Rand's inner circle way back in the day, and.
Kayla: He was the chef.
Chris: And then he became. Eventually found his way to being chairman of the Fed.
Kayla: Why do I know that?
Chris: Because he was like. Not only was he chairman of the Fed for a while in, like, the nineties, and I don't know what the Fed is, he was also, like, kind of in the news a lot. The Fed is the Federal Reserve board. It's like the. Think of it as, like, the National Bank.
Kayla: I refuse to think of it like.
Chris: The head finance guy of the country.
Kayla: Okay, is that track good enough for me?
Chris: Now get ready, because the right is starting to get better at comedy, and it's making the left nervous. This group of theirs ironically called themselves unironically or ironically. Ironically.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: Ironically called themselves the collective.
Kayla: I'm gonna throw a bomb at that.
Chris: Get it? Cause they hate collectivism. It's so good.
Kayla: That's the lamest thing I've ever heard. Good God. We're gonna all sit around and talk together in one big group and say that groups are bad.
Chris: So we all kind of know Alan Greenspan, so I won't really get into his deal. It's just kind of a whoa. Moment to be like, oh, shit. Alan Greenspan was one of her, like, inner circle disciples. That's.
Kayla: How old is he?
Chris: I don't know how old he was at the time. But the other folks on the list. We'll start with a Leonard Peekoff. Pecoff. Peekoff. P e I k o f f. I'm gonna say peekoff now. He was 17 years old when he started hanging out.
Kayla: Okay, Ayn Rand with a. I gotta tell you something. Don't be an adult hanging out with 17 year olds.
Chris: Rand had no children, and she became close enough with Mister Peekoff, eventually, that she legally designated him as heir to her estate.
Kayla: That's cool.
Chris: He's followed through on that since. He was the co founder, actually, of the Ayn Rand Institute. The one in Irvine. The one that I got all the free pamphlets and brochures from when I registered my pen club. The one that sent some of those speakers for the lecture series.
Kayla: Yeah, the teachers did 911.
Chris: Teachers did 911 lecture series. Yep. So that's the. He started or co founded the Ayn Rand Institute. He's also done a ton of other stuff by now, mostly in the academic sphere and a bunch of, like, the free online courses you're able to take at Ari's website. Feature him as the lecturer and who's taking these courses? I took one.
Kayla: Yeah, but who else?
Chris: Who else? I don't know. People that. It's probably like, here's what it probably is. It's probably like you have annoying friend who's an objectivist and is like, hey, man, you gotta watch this lecture. Like, it's. It's. It'll change your life. It's probably stuff like that. Cause I can't imagine how you'd, like, organically come across this thing, but there's, like, tons. So I'll get into this here in a second, because I do want to take a quick detour before talking about the other folks in the collective. You can take a shit ton of classes on the Ari website, and some are quite long. So, as I mentioned, I did a short course, one, like, just over an hour.
Kayla: This was your experiential portion?
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: In addition to, like, the experience of being in the objectivist realm for many years.
Chris: Right. This was my checking the box on the season five theme of experientialism. But you're right. I almost feel like I didn't need to check that box.
Kayla: Since you checked that box when you were 20 years old.
Chris: I lived it. Yeah. So this class was called introduction to objectivism. It was mainly a refresher course for me, but it was also recorded in 1995, so that is a long time ago. I just want to show you a picture of Leonard Peekoff's hair from this lecture. But just be warned.
Kayla: Is it grand?
Chris: You are going to want to instantly join the cult after seeing this.
Kayla: I'm in.
Chris: All right, so there's picture number one.
Kayla: I'm in. Okay. That is the most nineties I know. That's like, oh, he's in 1995. My God. He's got pleated dockers on, and he's got a mullet. Curly mullet.
Chris: Curly. Epic mullet. Here's a close up of the curly epic.
Kayla: Oh, my God, he looks so muddy. He looks great.
Chris: The mullet, like, flares out at the bottom.
Kayla: I don't even know how he did that. That guy's definitely a cult leader. There's a cult.
Chris: He does kind of have the cult leader glasses.
Kayla: Yeah, he's a cult.
Chris: Speaking of experientialism, it actually is possible, sort of, to visit the Ayn Rand Institute. But it's, like, just a little office space and an office building in Irvine.
Kayla: The Ayn Rand Institute makes it sound like it's, like, a grand campus.
Chris: Yeah, that's kind of how I always envisioned it. Until I found some article that was written by somebody else who had gone to visit. And it was like little. It's like when you go to a doctor's office, you know, and it's like, go to the third floor and it's like, down this hall. It's like that kind of thing.
Kayla: That's not what I pictured at all.
Chris: Me either. I pictured it in a building, sprawling campus with tours and statues.
Kayla: Yeah, and the building was clearly designed by architect Howard Rohr.
Chris: Right. Exactly. By the way, shout out to season one, episode three with Irvine.
Kayla: Irvine.
Chris: As we discussed in last episode, I also reached out to Ari for an interview, and they politely declined, although they did send me that other interview between former director Jerome Brooke and Michael Shermer, which I might end up referencing again here.
Kayla: Once or twice they responded with, no, and we are not a cult. And here's why.
Chris: No, and definitely not a cult.
Kayla: No, and here's the faq on why we're not a cult. A totally normal thing for someone to have.
Chris: Back to Mister Peekaf, though. So my first exposure to Ayn Rand was the fountainhead. And I think it's safe to say that Atlas Shrugged was my second real exposure.
Kayla: Which book do you like more?
Chris: Oh, the fountainhead. It's not even close.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: Like, Atlas Shrugged is interesting. It's interesting. But it is a dagny Taggart.
Kayla: Mouthful is a great name.
Chris: Dagny Taggart is a good name. And I don't know, the book is just very big.
Kayla: I don't know what it means. But who is John Galt? I'm in. I want to know.
Chris: My interest is piqued after those two books when you kind of start googling stuff, when you start digging more into the Ayn Rand cinematic universe. Peekaf's name obviously comes up thanks to the air thing and all of his own work. One of his own works is a book called the Ominous the end of freedom in America.
Kayla: I think you should write a book called my mom is Ayn Rand.
Chris: It's more like mommy, though. Cause it's like, all right, so anyway, this was me in my rand honeymoon period.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: And even then, I was still like, yeah, I don't think I ever need to read that. That title is absurd. It's like Godwin's law.
Kayla: It's always been the same. Like, even when you're different, you've always been the same. You've always been the same.
Chris: Yeah. But, yeah, it's kind of like Godwin's law for books, you know? And Godwin's law is the Internet thing saying that as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of comparison to Nazis or Hitler approaches 100%?
Kayla: Right.
Chris: It kind of feels like it's part of that. According to book summaries and reviews, it basically does what it says in the tin. It draws parallels between America's current culture and german culture leading up to the nazi takeover, and then, surprise, prescribes objectivism as the cure.
Kayla: Wait, what is culture he's talking about? What year is this?
Chris: I have not read the book, so I don't know. But they have this sense, and I think that this contributes to their feeling of a cult. They sort of have the sense of, like, oh, everything is still wrong, and only we have the answer to make it right again.
Kayla: That feels really culty.
Chris: Yeah. I do want to kind of self reflect here. You know, we sit here and say, like, what a ridiculous name for a book. But then, like, I know that you and I sometimes use the word fasci. A lot we do to criticize America. So, like. But see here, is he not just doing the same thing?
Kayla: Here's the difference.
Chris: That we're okay and he's not.
Kayla: That we're the mullet.
Chris: We're. Right.
Kayla: Yeah, I'm objectively correct.
Chris: I'm objectively correct. No, I just. It's. It's hard because, like, I think there are fascistic elements that we can point to.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: But then I also, like, when I see somebody else do it and go like, oh, that's stupid. Then, like, I kind of have to think about how I do it, too.
Kayla: No, when you said Godwin's law, I immediately thought about, like, yeah, that's. Everybody does that. That's nothing. No political belief system has a monopoly on that.
Chris: Yeah, so that doesn't mean I don't still think that the book title is stupid. It just means that, like, I don't know.
Kayla: It can be stupid for other reasons.
Chris: Things are complicated.
Kayla: Yeah, this can be stupid for. Shut up. You don't know how good you had it.
Chris: Yeah, for real. So, since I did go through the trouble of watching the entire intro to objectivism lecture and Q and a session and took the trouble to take notes of, I will talk about a couple of the points he raised that I thought was interesting or at least informative.
Kayla: Who was he doing this class for in the nineties?
Chris: This was, like, a bunch of college students. I forget where. Okay, it might have been UCLA. I'm not sure. So Mister Peacock gets asked about liberals and conservatives, and while he says that both sides of the aisle are bad, of course. You know, everybody's bad except for objectivists. Right.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: As strange as this continues to sound, he says conservatives are actually worse because they want to control citizens moral and intellectual lives. And he cites, like, you know, criminalizing abortion, praying schools, that kind of thing, whereas liberals want to control citizens economic lives, which to him, at least in 1995, to him, that was the lesser of two evils.
Kayla: This is why it's been so weird for me to like for us, I guess, for everybody to see the rampant uptake of love for Ayn Rand amongst the politically conservative, because the viewpoints are not explicitly on that side.
Chris: It's odd.
Kayla: They're like, oh, both sides. And that side's bad. But for some reason, and not only.
Chris: Do they say both sides are bad, they're like, and the conservatives are probably worse. That's not every objectivist, but that's like, I would say, most of them.
Kayla: That seems to be the stance of the root source.
Chris: Yeah. And Ayn Rand has had some quotes to that effect as well.
Kayla: I guess it's just the conservatives really hate welfare. Is it just that?
Chris: I guess, I think so. I don't know, man. Like the alliance of the sort of like economic conservatism, neoliberal economics with the religious right is weird. That's worthy of its own, like, podcast series. So, you know, I think that's why some of these things are like, huh, really? And like, objectivists for their part, like, really don't care for religion and really don't care for that kind of stuff, like spiritual stuff. So I think that's why a lot of times, like, they'll just draw that hard line. But, so this kind of ties in, this next point kind of ties into what were just saying about the, like, everything's going to shit and only we have the cure. So I think that there's definitely within objectivism, or at least with objectivists, there's definitely a healthy helping of millenarian DNA in them. Right.
Kayla: We live in a fallen society.
Chris: Yep. In this lecture, Peacock talks about, and I'm paraphrasing here, the idea that our civilization is definitely headed toward collapse.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: And of course, only the ideas that we promote can save it, which again, is also what his book seems to have been about. I did write down part of his quote here, which is civil war, international war, economic collapse, a new dark ages are all possible, end quote.
Kayla: What does he think about now? I must know if this is what he thought about the state of the world in 1995. And granted, and this was also, like, there's a lot of shit that was going on in 1995. There's no perfect era. No, but I want.
Chris: But for an objectivist, we just had the eighties, and also the Soviet Union just collapsed. So, like, what are you. This is, like, yours should be at the peak of your game. Like, this is exactly what Ayn Rand wanted since, like, 1995.
Kayla: I guess it was still really socially conservative in a lot of ways, and that was bad, I guess.
Chris: I think that there was also, like, if you're viewing both sides as bad, then it's like, yeah, we're still creeping towards losing rights to abortion, and we're still creeping towards all the things that prayer in schools are kind of tied with. We hadn't quite gotten into the evolution debate yet, but that was just the next domino after prayer in schools, did.
Kayla: They have any stance on roe getting overturned?
Chris: I'm not sure officially, but I think that 90% of them would think that was a bad thing. Okay, don't quote me on that, but I'm pretty sure quoted anyway. Millenarianism definitely seems to be present and maybe even core a little bit to objectivism, because, like, actually, that's kind of what Atlas Shrugged was about. I know you didn't read that one, but Atlas Shrugged was about the creators in society, like, stopping, quote, unquote, stopping the motor of the world.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: Right. So it was about the, like, essentially, like, the billionaires. Well, they weren't billionaires at the time. Let's be super clear. It was about the magnates, the tycoons. The tycoons, the titans of the creative titans of industry. Because don't, you know, all the titans of industry got there? Because, like, you know, in her mind, like, elon Musk, like, invented Tesla type of thing. That was the idea, you guys.
Kayla: He didn't.
Chris: So, in her mind, it's like, those types of people that don't exist going on strike, and therefore, oh, no, whatever.
Kayla: Will we do if Elon Musk, when.
Chris: Capital, goes on strike? Oh, man, that just ruins everything. But the point is, it's got this millenarian like, hey, we stopped the motor of the world, quote, unquote. Everything's kind of collapsed. Now we're gonna go, like, reset society with good values about money.
Kayla: I'm gonna throw up.
Chris: So, just seems to me that. That millenarianism is certainly core to the philosophy. So Peekaf gets into the weird logical loop that we talked on last episode, where someone asks, well, what about action XYZ? Like, this thing that we all agree is bad, like murder or something, right? What if that's in somebody's self interest? And the answer is inevitably, well, if you look at it in the right way, it's not actually in your self interest to do the thing. XYZ. It's not in your self interest to murder.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: Which, like, kind of seems like a closed logical loop to me. Right. If you can always just turn something around to say, like, this thing that seems like a counter argument is actually an argument in favor. Like, sure, it's probably in my self interest to not murder someone and steal their money, because I'll probably get in trouble for it. Like, I get that. But let's be real. Like, I think we're all going to agree that it's wrong to murder, regardless of whether I eventually get in trouble for it or not. So how does self interest factor into that? And besides, objectivism itself argues that selfishness is further down the philosophical trunk than something like law enforcement.
Chris: So if you have to invoke law enforcement and consequences as the thing that makes it wrong, when deeper in the trunk, further towards the base, should be this ethics of selfishness, then that's just incredibly flimsy at that point. And to boot, objectivists absolutely think that there are bad laws that are immoral and probably ought to be broken, things like regulations and whatnot. So I just don't get how you can kind of invoke that. Like, well, you're probably gonna get in trouble. So it's not selfish, really, that feels.
Kayla: Like someone missed the class and didn't read up on the part. Like, that feels like that's a really big oversight. If the collective and Ayn Rand didn't cover a better way to talk about that.
Chris: Like, if that's the look, I might just be not doing it justice, too, but I've always had this.
Kayla: It could be that you're really bad and dumb.
Chris: I am stupid, so let's factor that in for sure. But we also. We had this conversation in our pen club several times where it was like, you try.
Kayla: It's my dream. I want to sit in a room full of 19 year olds and hear their take on why you shouldn't murder 19 year olds at a very prestigious, expensive university.
Chris: We were all like, 20, 21, 22. So that's way different. But, like, I think that what we're also running into here is the exact thing we talked about last episode is ought problem, right? Like, especially in the philosophy club, you know, you sit there, and you kind of go like, all right, we can think of a way to objectively define ethics based on, like, the laws of physics. And it just. It just doesn't work. It just doesn't seem to work.
Kayla: Yeah. It kind of feels like with something like murder and some things that the more axiomatic argument for not doing it is that other people are other people and not. I must always act in my own self interest. It does kind of feel like that to me.
Chris: And I think that. And this, I think an argument that a lot of atheists talk about with regard to ethics and moralism in religion and to the argument of, like, well, how can you possibly do the right thing if you're an atheist? Because you're not afraid of consequences. Kind of feels like that a little bit too. Right. Where, like, yes.
Kayla: That pendulum thing of, like, I feel.
Chris: Like you wouldn't murder anyway. Hopefully you feel like murder would be wrong whether or not, like, you went to hell.
Kayla: Yeah. Penn Jillette literally says, I commit as many rapes and murders as I want. That answer is zero. That number is zero. And if your answer is something different, like, get the fuck away.
Chris: Right. It feels more likely to me that it's like, a logical fallacy than, like, there's a bunch of, like, christians walking around just desperate to, like, rape and murder if it were, like, weren't for their.
Kayla: But Jesus. Yeah, people don't like. Yeah.
Chris: It's not that I think, honestly, like, my take on it, not to go into another huge rabbit hole, but, like, my take on it is that it's morality is more something that is hardwired a little bit into us for the purposes of making us able to work as a pro social species.
Kayla: I hate to break it to the objectivist, but collectivism is one of the reasons why we are successful as a species. And so maybe there's some things that are hardwired into us, but just like you said, just to get along and.
Chris: Work together, I think objectivists would say, well, of course we're built to be social. It's just, what is the proper way of interacting with another human? Is it sacrificing oneself or sacrificing them? Or is it free and mutual trade? That's how they would kind of answer that. But let me get back to this last point that peekaf made. Oh, sorry. Two more points. He blamed the increase in crime between the seventies and eighties in America on the, quote, morally bankrupt sixties culture, end quote.
Kayla: Always comes back to hating hippies.
Chris: I know. Exactly. And, like, why does it always also come back to the. It's the culture, like, everybody. This is every correct moral decay. It's always moral decay. Even when you have a philosophy built around reason and science, when you get to the end of it's still just an old white dude going, like, it's moral decay in the hippies.
Kayla: People should behave in their own self interest and not kowtow to the man. And also, when these guys said, fuck the man, they were wrong and bad.
Chris: And it's like the objectivists are anti Vietnam war, too. So it's like, I don't know.
Kayla: We can all have problems with the hippies, but what exactly was the problem with the hippies?
Chris: Yeah, I don't know.
Kayla: It's just that they goofed around, looked goofy like that.
Chris: I think free love or. I don't know. What is that?
Kayla: How is that?
Chris: I don't know.
Kayla: What is that?
Chris: No, that wouldn't be it either. I really don't know because it just.
Kayla: That sounds like drugs.
Chris: I don't know, Kayla.
Kayla: Okay, you're gonna tell me the objectivists aren't, like, just do whatever drugs are?
Chris: Actually, I bet the collective was, like, doing weed.
Kayla: I don't even mean that. I just mean it feels like, given their standpoints on things, that it should be up to the individual whether or not they want to take drugs. And that's not a, like, moral issue.
Chris: I cannot pinpoint it. All I know is that it's weird, but also not weird. The hippies that you have, these guys that supposedly hate religion, but suddenly, at the end of the day, they're still bitching about moral.
Kayla: I know what it is. It's because the hippies were doing communes and stuff. Like, the hippies. There was a collectivist approach in some of their philosophies.
Chris: I'm certain that factors into it. A few of his q and a answers reflected the lack of nuance and objectivism that I think really hurts it as a viable philosophy. You know, everything is absolute. Rand was an absolutist, and so was her philosophy. You know, only laissez faire capitalism is good enough. Capitalism. Several students asked him questions along the lines of, okay, but what about poor people who. Or people who need help? And after some explanation, he punctuates his answer with, quote, the only logical conclusion of a government that has state welfare is complete totalitarianism. End quote. Again, not a lot of nuance there that, like, you know, exists in the real world, right? And he gave the usual, like, objectivist libertarian answer about, like, okay, wait, so then poor people just get fucked in the system.
Chris: And the answer that they usually give, depending on how you look at it, is charity or mutual aid. So his example was that supposedly farmers in the 18 hundreds before they could count on aid from the federal government, if a farmer was unlucky enough to get struck by disaster, he'd often be richer afterwards, actually, because the whole community around him would come together and support, which actually sounds pretty nice, not particularly selfish or like, I don't know, maybe it is because it implies a social contract involving mutual aid that you might benefit from. I don't know.
Kayla: Do they know how charity works? Like, do they know. I'm not saying that's charity. I'm saying, do they know how charity works?
Chris: What do you mean?
Kayla: Like, they say, charity, charity. Are they talking about some nebulous idea of charity, or are they talking about charity as it exists?
Chris: Nebulous idea. As an entity, as they tend to do? Nebulous idea.
Kayla: So what are they saying? They're just saying that people will magically get helped by some benevolent billionaire.
Chris: They're saying that there's no problem with helping the poor. They just don't think it should be the government doing it, because then you are.
Kayla: So then who's helping the poor people.
Chris: To help the poor.
Kayla: So what I'm hearing is that the poor will not be helped.
Chris: The poor may not be helped.
Kayla: So they're saying that.
Chris: They're saying if people don't decide that they want to help the poor, then the poor shouldn't be helped. That's what they're saying.
Kayla: Then the poor should die. That's the natural consequence there, probably.
Chris: Yes.
Kayla: I just, I just have a lot of questions involved in a lot of things.
Chris: I think the weirder part for me is that, like they frequently say, like, you know, oh, that's a good thing. And in, under capitalism, you know, under laissez faire capitalism, there's less poverty anyway, so it's actually a better system regardless. But that's not the moral basis for capitalism. The moral basis for capitalism is free interaction between two people. And if the government takes taxes from you and uses it to feed the poor, then that's not a free interaction. And a better way to maybe think about it again from the devil's advocate perspective is less like, well, I'd rather just hold onto my money and more like, well, what if you think that the biggest issue is poverty and I think that the biggest issue is healthcare and somebody else thinks that the biggest issue is helping, you know, third world sweatshops or something? Right?
Chris: Like, then why do I have. Why is there an entity that can, like, override what I want and help with you? Like, let's say the government is like, we're gonna spend our money on homelessness, right? And then I'm like, well, what about the fucking, what about the third world? You know, slaves? Like, that fucking sucks. And so I think that's, like, a stronger argument because the argument there is, like, who decides what we spend that money on? Wouldn't it better if we all individually put our money where our mouth was and donate it or whatever to our own causes that we care about?
Kayla: I remember when I was a young person and I thought a lot about taxes. That's all you need to know about me. And I remember being a child and going, well, wouldn't it just make a lot more sense if we could, like, pay the taxes to the things that we cared about? And that way people who, like, the military could pay their taxes to the military and, like, I could grow up and just pay my taxes to, like, schools. I think the objectivists would have really liked that pitch.
Chris: So are you saying that they are childlike in their assessment, or are you saying that, like, this is actually kind of complicated sometimes? Because I think we. I mean, we've talked about this. It does suck.
Kayla: I would.
Chris: To pay taxes.
Kayla: I would love to not pay taxes that go to cops and military, right?
Chris: I mean, like, we are spending, like the military. Like, helicopters and missiles are insanely expensive. And a lot of the influence, because we have so much money influencing government comes from that. And, like, it creates this sort of, like, feedback cycle where we're just sort of, like, stuck in this, like, military industrial complex. So, you know, we've sat here and gone like, yeah, you know what? Fuck taxes. And then we're like, wait, am I just a libertarian now? What happened?
Kayla: My problem is that I'm pro taxes and I'm anti the things our government chooses to prioritize. I view the government as something that should be, like, the will of the people that it represents. And currently our taxes are generally not distributed in such a way.
Chris: Right, right.
Kayla: But also, you can't do certain things. You can't do certain things just via charity alone. And I am totally on their side in saying that we could better organize our society to produce or to create few. To create less poverty, to create fewer people that need help. Need charity. Need aid. Absolutely. We absolutely could organize our society to create less poverty. And we're choosing not to do it. But in the meantime, I don't want the people that are in poverty right now because we have a fucked up system to die on the street.
Chris: Right.
Kayla: And so I kind of think until, like, you gotta do something to save those people. You do. Sorry. Bye.
Chris: So again, this stuff is, like, kind of complicated, right? Because it's like, one hand, you're like, what? They're crazy. No, taxes are good. But then, like, when you think about it from a different perspective, you can kind of see what they're saying.
Kayla: Oh, fuck taxes.
Chris: Also gay taxes. All right, so let's go back down the tangent tree. We just talked a bit about the Leonard peekoff lecture that I watched for these episodes. Before we get back to the other folks in Rand's inner circle, the collective, here's a few courses that I didn't take. And I do mean a few, because, again, there are a ton of these courses on the Ari website. By the way, I noticed some of them are not free. Some of them you do actually have to register and pay for. And some of them are actually, like, not lectures that are, you know, just like from 1995. Some of them are actually, like, ongoing classes. So there's, like, some. Some things that are just lectures and some things that are, like, an actual.
Kayla: Okay, gotcha.
Chris: So here's some names. Certainty and happiness. Achieving success in thought and action. 2 hours.
Kayla: I've got to say one thing about that.
Chris: Okay.
Kayla: I don't. I'm not happy.
Chris: Okay, great. Maybe you should take that class.
Kayla: I don't get a lot of communication from Ayn Rand's work about how to be a happy person.
Chris: Oh, well, I feel like that's. Well, we'll get to that.
Kayla: She does.
Chris: Happiness and fulfillment are kind of like. That's why we gotta be selfish. Okay, next one. Lectures on culture and politics, 6 hours. Logic, the method of reason, 6 hours. Moral, 6 hours. And then there's a bunch of lectures on Rand's books, of course. There's one called the art of thinking. 14 hours.
Kayla: The art of thinking.
Chris: Free will, 3 hours. Eight great plays, 33 hours.
Kayla: What?
Chris: Eight great plays. Is hers one of them, actually. No, I did click in there is actually kind of a variety. The only one I remember is Othello and then seven others.
Kayla: It is pretty great.
Chris: There is a course on CRT, obviously, critical race theory. Yep. Which actually does have some interesting titled subtopics. But I don't trust it at all. Nor I like anybody who even says those letters. I'm just like, I don't trust anything you're about to say. But anyway, the list goes on again. The point of me selecting those particular titles is that they cover everything. Logic, moral virtue, happiness, culture, politics, Rand's books, other plays, free will, art of thinking. It just covers everything. And that's why there's so many courses. I guess that's just the nature of having a complete philosophical system. I don't know.
Kayla: Yeah, that's a lot.
Chris: Anyway, continuing back down the tangent tree, let us go ahead and talk about some of the other folks in the collective. So we talked about Peekaf Greenspan. We didn't really talk about him, actually, because he was already famous. And the other folks I mentioned in that initial inner circle were the Brandons, Nathaniel and Barbara. Nathaniel, Brandon, or. Sorry. Let's see. He started out as Nathaniel Blumenthal, and after marrying girlfriend Barbara, which was a few years after they started hanging out with Ayn, they changed their last names to Brandon. Brandon. Coincidence? Oh, I didn't dig into this to see whether he explicitly acknowledged that he changed his name to brand basically Brandon, or whether it's just like, speculation. I kind of want to give them the benefit of the doubt and just be like, oh, it's cool.
Chris: Chose a different last name for both of you.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: But, yeah, but they did change their last name when they got married. Anyway, Nathaniel came into the inner circle at 20 years of age.
Kayla: Why were they all so young and small?
Chris: Well, in 1950, after reading the fountainhead, becoming enraptured, and exchanging fan mail with Ayn Rand, he ended up joining the group. Like, they. Like, he sent her a fan letter. They corresponded, and then he moved with Barbara across the country to go, like, become part of her collective. Pretty wild.
Kayla: See, this is a reason why we shouldn't have this stage of capitalism that we're in is because you used to be able to do crazy shit.
Chris: I know.
Kayla: It makes me move across the country. You could just be.
Chris: I know.
Kayla: You could have a fucking mansion for your commune house and you could email.
Chris: You could just send a message to a famous person, email Ayn Rand from the future, or send her regular mail, and she'd be like, hey, man, what's up?
Kayla: Well, now you can tweet at Chris Pratt.
Chris: That's true. And it makes me bummed, though. Cause, like, my fan mail to Shannon Miller when I was 16 never got me anywhere with her.
Kayla: Did you actually send it?
Chris: I think so.
Kayla: Cause you have a copy of it at home. You won't let me read it.
Chris: Cause it's too embarrassing, Kayla. But apparently it's possible that can work. I don't know. So I'm just bummed about that. Anyway, Mister Brandon quickly became Rand's favorite little guy, which led to her naming him as her heir.
Kayla: Wait, what?
Chris: What?
Kayla: You already said that she had an heir and it was her other favorite little guy.
Chris: Oh, we already talked about Rand's actual legal heir. Leonard Peacock, you mean?
Kayla: Yes.
Chris: Oh, that's true. And like the law of identity states, that a is a and a thing can't be true at the same time in the same way for two different things. So how is this possible?
Kayla: Explain.
Chris: We will get to that. Oh, no.
Kayla: I need to know.
Chris: Now back to her relationship with Mister Brandon. Here's what Encyclopedia Britannica has to say. Among members of the collective, Nathaniel Brandon was unquestionably Rand's favorite. She openly acknowledged him as her intellectual heir and formally designated him as such in the afterword of Atlas Shrugged, which she co dedicated to him and to O'Connor. End quote.
Kayla: Who's O'Connor?
Chris: O'Connor, if you don't remember from much earlier, was Ayn Rand's husband. So she co dedicated Atlas Shrugged to Nathaniel Brandon and her husband.
Kayla: What's going on here? What's going on here? I think she. I don't know. I think there's a lot going on. I think that a. How old was she at this time? I think there's something weird about hanging out with little kids.
Chris: She was.
Kayla: They're not little kids. 17 and 20 are not little kids.
Chris: But she was born in 1905, so in 1951 ish, which is, I think when this started, she was like 46, but this continued into the sixties.
Kayla: Okay. I think there's. I think that I'm looking at these ages a little. With a little bit of a side eye.
Chris: A little side eye.
Kayla: Just because they're. I'm not saying like, ooh, she was a groomer. I'm just saying there's, you know, anytime you have those disparity in ages, in some sort of, like, mentorship, leadership, charismatic leader, capacity, there's like, where there's like.
Chris: A heavy degree of, like, admiration.
Kayla: There's an imbalance of power. Yeah, yeah. So it makes me concerned. And then also I'm just like, what's going on? What's happening? Yeah, tell me what's happening. Tell me what you think.
Chris: I think that's pretty astute. It feels very much like that to me as well. Where, again, you have this, like, because, I mean, the power dynamic here is real, right? Like, this is a fan, right? I mean, it was a fan. Now it's like, it became much more than that, but it's a fan, 20 years old, Ayn Rand is 45 or whatever, in her forties, and is, like, this world renowned at this point, I think, for producing the fountainhead.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: So, you know, she's working with, like, Cecile DeMille and with Gary Cooper. So there's definitely, like a father yode thing here where, like, you have this, like, glowing figure that's like, way above you in terms of their, you know, position and power, right? Definitely feels like that, right?
Kayla: And for some reason, his, you know, his. His favorite little guys in his team were a bunch of young people, a bunch of young women, right? There was anybody of all walks of age and life in his group, but his favorites were the young sycophants. And so I'm just looking at Ayn Rand, and you're telling me that her favorites were the young sycophants, and I just have questions.
Chris: After Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957, with a bunch of input from Mister Brandon, I might add, Rand gave him her blessing to start a company with the objective to promote objectivism. Let me read you just a bit more from that Britannica article on this, which I think does a great job of summarizing this period of time in Rand's life. Quote. In the late 1950s, with Rand's permission, Brandon established a business designed to teach the basic principles of objectivism to sympathetic readers of Rand's novels. The Nathaniel Brandon Institute, NBI, as it was later called, offered courses in objectivism in New York and distributed tape recorded lectures by Brandon to objectivist centers in various other cities. Despite its outward appearance as an educational institution, NBI did not permit its students to think critically about objectivism or to develop objectivist ideas in novel ways.
Chris: Through the success of NBI, Brandon would eventually become the public guardian of objectivist orthodoxy against innovation or unauthorized borrowing by objectivist sympathizers, especially among the growing student. Right. In 1962, Brandon and Rand launched the monthly objectivist newsletter, renamed the Objectivist, in 1968. Meanwhile, Rand's fame grew apace with the brisk sales of her novels. She was invited to speak at numerous colleges and universities and was interviewed on television talk shows and on the news program 60 minutes, end quote.
Kayla: So we got dueling orgs or dueling.
Chris: No, this is with her blessing. This is part like this.
Kayla: But I'm saying. But I don't understand. You said there were two heirs. How are there two heirs?
Chris: We haven't gotten to that part.
Kayla: I'm confused.
Chris: All right, so there's right now in the story and there's right now in real life.
Kayla: Okay?
Chris: So right now, as of in 2023, it's Leonard Peacock.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: At this point in the story, in the fifties and sixties, it's still Brandon.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: And we are. There's at some point that flips over.
Kayla: And can you tell me why?
Chris: So we will still get to that. But I do want to discuss real quick, like, the sort of, like, dogmatic orthodoxy part here, because this clearly refers to that. Right. Like, at this point in time, it says, Brandon would become the public guardian of objectivist orthodoxy against innovation or unauthorized borrowing.
Kayla: Gotcha.
Chris: So again, it feels rather dogmatic in that regard. I also, though, I want to present a counterargument to that I heard Jeron Brook make in his interview with Michael Shermer. So his thing was basically like, look, Ayn Rand invented something. She invented objectivism. And she wanted the thing that she said was objectivism to be objectivism. Right. She's not saying you can't go have other thoughts and do other things that just can't be called objectivism.
Kayla: Right. It's a different thing. I'm not anti that.
Chris: I'm not anti that either. I think it just. I don't know. There's part of it that feels weird.
Kayla: It feels weird that's such a priority, the preservation rather than the interest in philosophical thought and some sort of give and take. But that, again, kind of goes back to this idea of, well, this is mine and I made it. This is what I say. There's no outside influence. It's not a conversation. This is what I'm saying.
Chris: Right. And that feels weird to me. For a philosophical system, especially one that's being actively promoted by an institution versus. I wrote a book, and I don't want you to change the words.
Kayla: There's something different between an artistic endeavor and a philosophical endeavor.
Chris: Yeah. And what I've ultimately. But I think it's like they're nothing like. That Venn diagram certainly overlaps. I think.
Kayla: I can't just get up and say, like, oh, well, Aristotle said this, and this is what we should take from Aristotle. I mean, I can say that.
Chris: Right.
Kayla: But I can't say dogs go to church on Wednesdays. And that's what Aristotle said, and it's aristotelian philosophical beliefs. I can't.
Chris: Are you saying that dogs don't go to church on Wednesday?
Kayla: I don't think they do. I think that they're a Thursday dog.
Chris: It's like the twice a year dog. Cathy. Anyway. Yeah. Where I've landed on it is like, I actually think that the person that it hurts the most to be orthodox is rand herself or Ari themselves. Because, like, yeah, you can say it's not open for discussion or change or evolution, and that is absolutely your right. You have every right to say that. But then as soon as you say that, it becomes tremendously less useful. And you encourage people to say, like, well, I'm gonna pick and choose some stuff. And if those people that pick and choose stuff, if you, like, don't have dialogue with them because they're not saying it the right way or whatever, then what do you even do? Like, you're just. You're only shooting yourself in the foot, I feel like.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: Anyway, let's get back to Miss Rand. So here we are. Fifties, sixties. Things are going great, right?
Kayla: I mean, I guess flying high.
Chris: She's got the book sales going.
Kayla: What happened?
Chris: Intellectual air going. But, like the greek tragedies that objectivists recommend, that heady flight up to the sun sometimes leads to something of a fall. So, is there anything else, Kayla, that you think that, like, feels weird about Ayn Rand's relationship with Mister Brandon?
Kayla: I will answer your question by asking you a question.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: I'm a writer.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: If I wrote something.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: And then I dedicated it to you.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: And my 20 year old male protege, how would that make you feel?
Chris: I wouldn't feel super great about it.
Kayla: Would you at least, like, I would probably raise some concerns. Even if you believed the relationship to be totally academic or platonic or whatever, you would at least go, it's interesting that my. And I'm putting words in your mouth also. I'll phrase this a question. Would you at least go, I find it interesting, and raises some red flags for me, that my wife would put me and this guy on the same level in, like, her magnum opus.
Chris: Well, first of all, I don't think you've dedicated any of your scripts to me, so.
Kayla: No, I have not.
Chris: I'm already like, I'm a bad person to ask because I don't know who you're dedicating them to. What little 20 year old you have running around.
Kayla: All my 20 year old friends are your little hottie.
Chris: 20 year old sycophants. I know.
Kayla: Got a lot of those.
Chris: So Nathaniel and Ein had indeed been having a sexual affair.
Kayla: Yeah, I would have. I would have thought so.
Chris: Lasting roughly ten years.
Kayla: That's a long time.
Chris: And this affair was the most Ayn Rand thing.
Kayla: I don't wanna hear about it.
Chris: That you can possibly describe. See this?
Kayla: Is it very serious? Well, it just feels like everything is so fucking serious with these guys. Yeah, that's what I mean about the lack joy, is that it's because even when you're talking about happiness, it's not like, woohoo. It's like serious.
Chris: I am very happy and reverent right now. I am fulfilled. Ideal man. Okay, so the following is paraphrased from Barbara Brandon, later writing on this topic. Barbara being Nathaniel's wife at the time, she wrote a bio memoir called the passion of Ayn Rand, which was also made into a movie with Helen Mirren playing Rand, no less.
Kayla: Okay, I want to watch that.
Chris: So we need to like, watch that for the show. I know, but this is a paraphrase from that memoir and it's actually secondhand from Shermer's. Is it a cult essay? But the falling in love was not planned, but it was ultimately reasonable since the two of them were de facto the two greatest humans on the planet. By the total logic, this is a quote again from Rand. Quote. By the total logic of who we are. By the total logic of what love and sex mean, we had to love each other, Rand told Barbara Brandon and her own husband, Frank O'Connor. It was a classic display of a brilliant mind intellectualizing a purely emotional response, and another example of reason carried to absurd heights. Whatever the two of you may be feeling, rand rationalized. I know your intelligence.
Chris: I know you recognize the rationality of what we feel for each other and that you hold no value higher than reason. This is her speaking to Barbara and Frank. Unbelievably, both Barbara and Frank accepted the affair and agreed to allow Aine and Nathaniel an afternoon and evening of sex and love once a week. And so, Barbara explained, we all careened towards disaster. The rational justification and its consequences continued year after year as the tale of interpersonal and group deceit grew broader and deeper. End quote.
Kayla: Look, man, people can have all different kinds of relationships in all different kinds of ways, and I am not going to sit here and judge anybody for having different kinds of arrangements with their various friends and lovers and committed partners. That being said, I'm genuinely horrified by that level of gaslighting and manipulation coming out of her mouth.
Chris: But I think she believed it, though, is the thing. I don't care.
Kayla: That doesn't make it not gaslighting and manipulation.
Chris: No, I know that. I know that. But this is definitely a drink, her own Kool Aid thing, because I've definitely read other quotes from her where she's talking to someone about the affair. Maybe it's Brandon, maybe it's Barbara. I don't know who. But I've definitely read quotes where she's like, this is right. There's definitely the same thing going on with this affair that goes on with the philosophy itself, which is like, well, this is okay because it is derived from the facts of reality, and it's objectively correct, because we are the two most important people on the planet. And of course, we would fall in love with each other. And so therefore, you guys should be totally okay with it, which in, like, some weird sort of gaslighty way, they. I don't know if they were okay with it, but they allowed it.
Chris: Well, it's like you permitted it.
Kayla: Clearly, you have to let them do this, or else you lose them.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: And it's just horrifying to. I don't think that you should think you're the most important person on the planet. Like, are they saying that in a. Like, I'm more important than other people because I'm making this philosophy, or, we are the most important people on the planet in the way that any individual is the most important person in their own world?
Chris: I mean, like, I think that it's. I think that Ayn Rand definitely had an inflated opinion of herself.
Kayla: I also think that maybe don't get married if you're Ayn. I'm serious. If you're Ayn Rand and you hold your philosophies to such a close degree that you seem to live your entire life, every action of your life is defined by this philosophy. It does feel like getting married is incompatible with that. I mean, if you want. It turns out, if you don't want your selfishness to also be injurious, then I don't know if you can get married and not be immoral.
Chris: Yeah, but Kayla, in her philosophy, it shouldn't have been injurious, because Frank and Barbara should have looked at it and gone like, oh, yeah, they are two titans of intellectual thought. And that makes sense. So I'm not even upset.
Kayla: Okay, well, would you. How would you feel?
Chris: Dude, I'm.
Kayla: If I was saying, look, man, I gotta fuck this guy, because he and I are the most important people on the planet. Why are you even married?
Chris: Because it's logically justified by the facts of reality.
Kayla: But, like, why stay married to this schmuck over here? Like, why not just get married to the most important, if he's the most important person on the planet? What are you getting from your husband? I don't understand?
Chris: I don't know. And obviously, I'm the most important person on the planet, so I don't know what she was thinking with this Brandon guy. But anyway, this isn't alive at the time. Doesn't mean it wasn't important back then. Right? I was going to be alive. Somebody predicted that.
Kayla: Literally. Literally. That is whether or not she believes it, that sentiment holds. So is, like, so overlapping with so many things thought and believed by so many other cult leaders.
Chris: Other cult leaders? Yeah.
Kayla: Like father. Like Father Yoda would absolutely say something like, you don't understand to be having an affair, because we are. Like, we're on a miss soul bonded, must be together. Twin flames universe.
Chris: Right? And I am, like, literally maybe God on earth. So, like, I'm doing you a favor when you have sex with me like I.
Kayla: Do.
Chris: You remember that lady that. That was interviewed on that documentary about David Koresh and the Branch Davidians?
Kayla: Yeah.
Chris: Do you remember how she talked about having sex with her?
Kayla: Having sex with him. Washington was being close to God.
Chris: Being close to God. It was. He was deigning to have sex with her. And she felt so grateful that this godlike being would have sex with her. Now, I don't think Ayn Rand is quite at that level, of course. But it's like the same type of thing, right, where it's like, well, I mean, of course you want to have sex with me because I am the biggest brain of all time, right? So, like, of course that I'm kind of doing it a favor for.
Kayla: Calm down for a second. Like, most people, all of these people we talk about, like, if they just took a breather, if they just went, wait, hold on. Time out. Let me take a step back. It might help a lot of things. Cause just calm down.
Chris: Just. And as you mentioned before, at this point in time, there's also an age differential. I think when they started up, Ayn was 49 and Nathaniel was 24, half her age, which, I don't know, 24 is kind of getting to the point where it's like, whatever, but it is half is a lot. I don't know, it's a bit.
Kayla: It's also a lot to be like, this is the most important person on the planet, this 24 year old. Like, I'm sorry, right? I felt very important. Our 24 year olds are incredibly important. But to be 49 and saying this is like, an intellectual titan that is the most important person in the world is maybe discounting the importance of wisdom on intellect.
Chris: Maybe he just said, really awesome tits.
Kayla: Maybe.
Chris: So their affair eventually did trail off. According to him, she became somewhat depressed after Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957. And then that kind of just naturally ended things, sort of.
Kayla: It's not super hot when your book doesn't do well.
Chris: Yeah, so it was. I don't think anybody knows, like exactly when they started boning, but they met in 1950, so like a maximum of seven years, but probably a few less. I know I said ten earlier, but that was like the. That was more the time period. Excuse me. So maximum seven years that they could have been actually boning. Okay. By the way, can you imagine how intolerably cringe their sex must have been? Oh, not to like sex shame or kink shame or anything like, whatever kink you're into is cool. It's just funny to think about like, there particular kink.
Kayla: I'm so important. I'm so important.
Chris: This is. You're so. This is the most rational sex I've ever had. This fulfills my veneration for your ideal man. And I'm never going to culminates with my philosophy. Oh, I'm coming. Selfish. Oh, coming.
Kayla: Stop.
Chris: A few years later, Rand did try to resume the affair with him.
Kayla: Aw. She loved him.
Chris: But by that time, he was already on to his next affair with a younger model named Patricia Scott.
Kayla: Oh, no.
Chris: So he was uninterested.
Kayla: So he was just cheating on his wife. Cause he liked to cheat on his wife.
Chris: So this new affair was finally the nail in the coffin with his marriage with Barbara. So they got separated.
Kayla: Good job, Barbara.
Chris: Even at that time, both Barbara and Nathaniel agreed. Let's not tell Ayn about this because she's gonna go ape shit.
Kayla: That, see, that's. There's problems here. That's a problematic thing to happen.
Chris: Probably seemed wise at the time, but, and this goes to what you're saying about problematic lies do incur a debt to the truth. And in 1968, Ayn Rand did indeed find out about Nathaniel's relationship with Patricia from Barbara herself, who apparently changed her mind.
Kayla: Barbara, get it. I like that.
Chris: And I know I really want to watch the passion of Ayn rand now. And that revelation finally led to the fall of objectivist Olympus. This all transpired pretty differently depending on who you want to believe. Whether you want to believe, like the Brandons themselves and their memoirs and interviews, or whether you want to believe Peekaf and Ari, which basically, like, totally dismiss their point of view, or the spectrum of her followers and other objectivists who range from believing the Brandon's accounts all the way to defending here, to the point of, like, infallibility, which is the vibe I get from Ari. In the interest of trying to be objective about this, I did trace through sourcing on the Wikipedia and Encyclopedia Britannica articles on this subject.
Chris: And while the two Brandon's accounts are cited in both places, and I think, contribute, like, a lot to this tale, there are also plenty of other primary sources from which the articles draw information, which is important. So, as a side note, in the interview with Michael Shermer, your own brook basically dismissed some of the culty claims from the Brandon, saying, oh, well, that's one source, and it's a biased source. I'm not saying that all of what they're saying is incorrect, but there's parts I don't like. There's motivation there. So you can't necessarily treat that as, like, the only source. But I don't think it is the only source, at least based on me tracing where these encyclopedia articles took their various bits of information.
Chris: There were other bios, other memoirs written, and, you know, letters from Ayn Rand, blah, blah, that they're citing as their sources. So it's not just the Brandon's. So here's some accounts of what went on. First, the Wiki articles on Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Brandon. Quote, she published an article in the object. So this is after, by the way, after finding out about this affair that had been going on for a while, and she hadn't been having her affair with. With Brandon for like, eight years or something. Quote, she published an article in the Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Brandon for dishonesty and other, quote, irrational behavior in his private life. End quote.
Kayla: I can't listen to any more of this.
Chris: In subsequent years.
Kayla: I can't. I'm honestly, I can't do this.
Chris: And subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company, end quote. Why can't. Why not? Does this make you not like the fountainhead more? Is this like.
Kayla: No, I've already got plenty of reason to not like it. It's fine.
Chris: It's just like how you can't watch Annie hall now.
Kayla: Upsetting. This dynamic is just so upsetting and awful.
Chris: But isn't it juicy, though?
Kayla: Oh, it's extraordinarily juicy.
Chris: It's the juiciest thing.
Kayla: It would better if it weren't, like, you know, a charismatic leader.
Chris: It would be.
Kayla: But orchestrating and manipulating their sycophants that are much younger than them.
Chris: Yes, I cannot agree more.
Kayla: But just you guys. You guys, all of you are so predictable.
Chris: Yeah, I know.
Kayla: It's so tropey.
Chris: It's so tropey.
Kayla: Oh, he had an affair with a hot young model instead of you, and then you dipped it.
Chris: And then basically, this is the best part, is that. But it's like the.
Kayla: Like, he's irrational in his personal life and therefore he must be repeated.
Chris: It ties so closely to her, like, way of thinking and philosophy or whatever. It's like, if this were like a video game, like, we'd call it ludonarrative design. We call it Ludo narrative cohesion. I just love the cohesion between how the affair happened and how her fucking books are. Cause in her books, by the way, like, you know this from Fountainhead, maybe, but in Atlas Shrugged, Dagny Taggart, she's going through guys and she's going through the world's best guys. She's going through. First she dates the steel magnate, and then she dates this generations mining guy from.
Kayla: She's a railroad magnate, right?
Chris: Yeah, she's a railroad magnate herself. And then at the end, of course, she dates Jon Galt. So she's just going through all the best guys in the entire world.
Kayla: And I also gotta say, this guy. This guy is getting y'all.
Chris: I don't know, he might have been cute.
Kayla: I'm not saying he's not, but I'm just saying, like, you're writing your books about Dagney, Taggart, Dayton, John Galton. Then you're like, I like Brandon, and.
Chris: I like this 24 year old.
Kayla: It's not even like Andrew Carnegie or somebody, you know, it's not like a Ken, he's not a Kennedy, but he.
Chris: Has the key thing that ultimately I think she wanted, which is pole models, which is he was absolutely enthralled by her. Right. And her philosophy.
Kayla: And then the second he does something that shows he can be enthralled by another, that's very threatening, that completely shatters it. Yeah. God, it's so even if you haven't.
Chris: Been in an affair for eight years.
Kayla: Right?
Chris: And the Brandon Wiki article, quote, says, in response, rand morally condemned the Brandons and disassociated herself from them in an article for her journal, the Objectivist, which, without revealing the existence of her romantic involvement with Brandon.
Kayla: Oh, but he's dishonest. Accused, she's not irrationally disposed.
Chris: Accused him of deliberate deception and financial misdeelings in their business partnership.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: End quote. Now let's hear from Botanica. Accusing him of betray, quote, accusing him of betraying objectivist principles. She stripped him of his partnership in the objectivist and demanded that he surrender control of NBI, which was soon dissolved. The closing of the institute freed various self described objectivists to publicly develop their own interpretations of Rand's philosophy, all of which, however, she rejected as perversions or plagiarism of her ideas. She was especially incensed at the use of objectivist vocabulary by young libertarians, whom she accused of disregarding morality and flirting with anarchism. Meanwhile, Brandon's status as Rand's favorite disciple was assumed by Leonard Peekoff, an original member of the collective, whom she would eventually designate as her intellectual and legal heir.
Kayla: How does it feel to be sloppy seconds, Leonard? I want to say one thing.
Chris: I wish that I could ask him, but he's got the hair, so maybe.
Kayla: His hair is pretty great. I like that she. It's not that she's incensed that he would be with another woman because he was married to another woman.
Chris: Right?
Kayla: It's that he would have an affair with another woman, right?
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: And I guess, yeah, that would make you crazy if it's like you thought. Especially, like, because it's like somebody having. I could see the twisted logic of, like, oh, somebody having an affair with you. That makes you special in some way, but if he just has affairs, you're not special.
Chris: And also, they kept it secret. Right. So, like, there's definitely like a chicken egg there of like, why didn't you tell me this? It's like, because we knew you'd react this way. I'm only reacting this way because you didn't tell me.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: There's definitely some. Some aspect of that, I think, going on. Let's go back to the skeptic article by Mister Shermer, because he calls together some of my favorite tidbits. In this first quote here, he'll be giving Barbara's account of how Ayn Rand took the news that Nathaniel was having an affair with someone other than her. According to Barbara, Ein said, get that bastard down here.
Kayla: Okay. I love her. I love her.
Chris: Again, Rand screamed upon hearing the news. Or I'll drag him here myself.
Kayla: I'm back on board.
Chris: Nathaniel, according to Barbara, slunk into Rand's apartment to face the judgment day. It's finished. Your whole act, she told him. I'll tear down your facade as I built it up. I'll denounce you publicly. I'll destroy you as I created you. I don't even care what it does to me. You won't have the career I gave you, or the name, or the wealth or the prestige, you'll have nothing. The barrage continued on for several minutes, until she pronounced her final curse. If you have an ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health, you'll be impotent for the next 20 years. End quote. So that's an account from Barbara. Okay. Did it happen? I don't know. I like to think that it did. Cause it's pretty cool.
Kayla: Don't people realize how goofy they are?
Chris: Like, come on, let me read this last bit. Because the skeptic article also pulls from Rand's public response, which, while less juicy and fun than get that bastard down here, is equally damning for the way in which she frames everything. In a six page open letter to her followers in the publication of the Objectivist, May 1968, Rand writes, quote, about two months ago, Mister Brandon presented me with a written statement which was so irrational and so offensive to me that I had to break my personal association with him. And then he says, without so much as a hint of the nature of the offense, Rand continued. About two months later, Mister Brandon suddenly confessed that Mister Brandon had been. This is her writing. Oh, sorry.
Chris: About two months later, Misses Brandon suddenly confessed that Mister Brandon had been concealing from me certain ugly actions and irrational behavior in his private life, which was grossly contradictory to objectivist morality.
Kayla: I really am. It's. Honestly, it's causing fear in my body. The way that she's using the word irrational. It's really scary. And she continues, not good.
Chris: Because Nathaniel Brandon and Barbara Brandon, in a series of actions, have betrayed fundamental.
Kayla: Principles of objectivism, like not fucking me.
Chris: We condemn and repudiate these two persons irrevocably and have terminated all association with them, end quote.
Kayla: Very rational, very logical.
Chris: So you can see kind of the, like, problem here. Oh, where there's a problem here, there's a massive conflation happening between, like, what she thinks is objective, what she thinks is part of the philosophy, how she conducts her own life, what is actually objective versus subjective. Again, these last bits are from the Brandons themselves, so maybe a biased source. Well, actually, the last. Sorry. The last thing that I read was from Ayn Rand herself.
Kayla: That was Miss Rand.
Chris: So that was, you know, that was her saying, not, I was upset that he was fucking someone else. That was her saying, like, he's betrayed the principles and is thus excommunicated.
Kayla: That's so culty and terrifying. That's so, like. Yeah, that's really. That is an unsafe exit, my friend.
Chris: It is very unsafe. Anyway, thus ended the relationship between Ayn Rand and the Brandons.
Kayla: I would feel really bad if. I feel really bad for Leonard Peekoff right now. I really do.
Chris: I know. I've always felt bad for him.
Kayla: So bad for him.
Chris: I know. I know, dude. I know. I know.
Kayla: This is the most important man in my life. I guess maybe he's this guy.
Chris: And also, it kind of makes me. It recolors all of the dedication that he's had to promoting these ideals. It's kind of like, well, of course you're dedicated. You have to prove this out. You have to prove out that you were the correct heir. You have to be the most dedicated.
Kayla: And if you theoretically step out of line, Ayn Rand's gonna come back from the dead and, like, repudiate you.
Chris: Right.
Kayla: Because of your lack of rationality.
Chris: So Nathaniel went on to become a clinical psychologist and the, quote, father of the self esteem movement.
Kayla: Okay, what does that mean?
Chris: He wrote, like, a bunch of books. He published a bunch of books about, like, self esteem. And, like, that was part of his practice.
Kayla: What's his name? Nathaniel Brandon.
Chris: Nathaniel Brandon, yeah. So I think for the most part, it's like, kind of how we're talking about, like, it can be healthy to have. Like, to treat, you know, to choose yourself first.
Kayla: Right.
Chris: I think that's kind of where he went with it a bit. I know that he disagreed on principle. Like, you know, at first he was like orthodoxy guy, but then he started disagreeing with things. One of them was like, the place of emotion. Like, he felt like emotion had a much higher place in humanity and conceptualizing of the world and making sense of things.
Kayla: Okay.
Chris: Than Rand did. Like, you know, with Ayn Rand, it's like, well, I guess emotion's there. Whereas he was like, no, it's important. Anyway, as for Miss Rand, after the dissolution of the collective and NBI, she kept publishing, although intermittently, with a bi weekly newsletter and a collection of philosophy articles that she wrote. But she was never quite the same, and by this point was getting to kind of be up there in age as well. Also, she was a ravenous smoker. And because she was Ayn Rand, it had to be like a thing. You know, it couldn't just be like, oh, she smoked. It was like a moral thing.
Kayla: Shut the fuck up.
Chris: Smoking is the spiritually fulfilling thing to do as an ideal human. Or there's like, this whole passage about it in Atlas Shrugged, about, like, it makes me think I can control fire or what it makes me.
Kayla: I think that she should have literally taken a trip to Sedona and just got a little sound bath and just maybe had a little edible and just chilled out for a second.
Chris: So, yeah, this, like, ideal human smokes. But on the other hand, she had to undergo surgery for lung cancer in 1974.
Kayla: But it's morally the correct position. And I hate it. I hate all of this, because I hate all of this. I hate it, I hate it. I think that artists that are super serious and take themselves super seriously are extraordinarily compelling. I could not be more compelled by somebody like Marina Abramovich.
Chris: I was just gonna say Marina Abramovich.
Kayla: Marina Abramovich could come out and say, smoking is a moral imperative because it is man's control over fire. And I would go, fuck, yeah, it is. You fucking better believe it. I will follow you anywhere. But if Ayn Rand comes out and says that, I go, chill out, ladies.
Chris: What a weirdo.
Kayla: You should just chill.
Chris: So in 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter, and after initial objections, allowed a social worker employed by her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.
Kayla: Oh, Ayn.
Chris: Finally, in March of 1982.
Kayla: This is the thing that. This is the only thing I really know about Ayn Rand's.
Chris: Like, we'll talk about it in a sec, after I tie the bow. Because she died in 1982 of heart failure at her home in New York, and at her funeral, a six foot floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket. And in her will, she named, of course, Leonard Peekaf as her heir. And as we've mentioned, for his part, he really did do quite a good job of carrying on her legacy. Like, he co founded the Ayn Rand Institute that we've mentioned several times. He does all those online classes, advocacy. It's all of its involvement in college clubs.
Kayla: He's the real hero of this story.
Chris: I know. If it weren't for the ominous parallels, I would just. I would have been a Peekaf fan instead of a rand fan.
Kayla: Like, yeah, here's the thing. Like, as a character, I'm really digging him.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: As a human being, I journey out, but as a character.
Chris: As a character in this story, in the passion of Ayn Rand. Yeah. Do you want to talk at all about the Social Security thing?
Kayla: I mean, I was just gonna say that's the only thing. That's one of the few things that I know about her personal life. I didn't know, obviously, all these juicy bears. I just did know about what is often labeled by Ayn Rand detractors as, like, the hypocrisy of. Speaking of building an entire moral framework around if you need welfare, like, go die, and then needing and relying on it in later life. And I know that there are supporters that say, like, look, man, that was money that was stolen from her in the form of taxes. So she was just using her own money. And to that I want to say, how do you think welfare works? That is how welfare works. Welfare is generally, you pay into it and then you get it back.
Kayla: Like when I go on unemployment insurance in between jobs, I'm not just taking money from somebody else. I've paid into that.
Chris: I think part of the problem is that everybody always thinks, yeah, but what if I never have to pay into something like that? Or what if I never need health insurance? What if I never need that?
Kayla: Then you are God.
Chris: Right? But that's what I'm saying. You always think about that. You always think that way. If you're thinking that way until something happens.
Kayla: Well, look.
Chris: And then it's like, well, this is different.
Kayla: Yeah.
Chris: It's the same way with abortions. It's like, well, it's not those people. It's people that are just using it as contraception. And then something happens where for health reasons, because you have a corpse in your uterus, you have to get an abortion in month seven or whatever. And then you're like, well, but it's not that. It's the other people.
Kayla: It's the other people. So I think that it's possible that detractors perch on this. Gotcha. Maybe a little bit too much. And also, I will say that it is definitely a very blatant, like, come on, you guys. Very blatant. Like, okay, you're gonna hold certain people to a certain standard, but that the charismatic leader is okay for doing this. Got it.
Chris: Yeah. I will give her credit.
Kayla: Cannot be. There's no way for the charismatic leader to do a wrong.
Chris: Yeah. And that kind of feels like that's true with Ayn Rand, especially for Ari, the orthodoxy people, because I might mention this later, but nothing in their stuff about the Brandon's or about any other schism y type stuff.
Kayla: Ooh, that would get people in.
Chris: I know when I finally learned that, which was like, well, after I had read both of her novels and I finally did the Googles.
Kayla: Right, right.
Chris: I was like, whoa, that's interesting.
Kayla: Yeah, that's sexy stuff.
Chris: I wouldn't have thought that. I get why that is sort of suppressed, because that does call into question, like, the hypocrisy. As I said this at the top of the show, doesn't always walk the walk, right?
Kayla: So terrifying ways. Like, it's really, it's not just being, like, misusing the word irrational or logical or whatever. It's like utilizing the, like, keywords of your philosophical framework in order to condemn somebody who's not fucking you, right?
Chris: And I'll say about the Social Security thing, like, I think another counterargument to that is, like, you know, you'll. You'll see, like, you know, reverse the tables there, right? And, like, people on our side of the left right divide, people will be critical of people who are, like, in favor of socialism or pro communism or whatever. They'll say, like, oh, yeah, you're typing that on your iPhone and tweeting it on Twitter. Both private companies, right? Like, and I think that's, like, I don't know. I don't care for that either, because, like, we all have to live in a society. And so I think that's part of it. With Ayn Rand here, I kind of.
Kayla: Say, like, make the argument, you do.
Chris: Have to, you know, at the end of the day, you do have to take Social Security to live, right? Your ideology doesn't really compute with this.
Kayla: Right? Exactly, exactly. But that said, get wrecked, Ayn Rand, for taking Social Security at the end of your life.
Chris: So objectivism as it stands today is like, well, the inner circle, the collective is long gone, of course, died before its charismatic leader did. But objectivism itself is more popular than ever with all those tea party types and other right wing nincompoops. So theres that. And Ari does seem to be alive and well. They have a ton of material on their website, and they still have these guys writing, like, op eds and lecturing and whatnot. And theres also more objectivists out there than just the ARI orthodoxy. One notable example is the Atlas Society, or task of which was founded by objectivist David Kelly, although there's, like, a little more juicy interne drama here as well. So in the late eighties, he was with Ari himself. He was part of the organization. But then, well, here's how T's wiki article describes the situation.
Chris: After disputes with ArI founder Leonard Peacock and board chairman Peter Schwartz, Ari cut ties with Kelly and warned others in the objectivist movement not to associate with him. In response, Kelly and former ARI advisor George Walsh co founded the Institute for Objectivist Studies in 1990. It was later renamed the Atlas Society, which is still around today. By the way, TAs positions itself as a more open and tolerant alternative to the orthodox ARI. ARI and TAs are the most prominent american organizations advocating for objectivism, although TAS is smaller and not as well funded as its rival.
Kayla: TAS sounds like a better time.
Chris: Yeah. And I just love that. It's like the whole excommunication thing. Like history repeated itself. The son acts like the mother.
Kayla: Yep.
Chris: And also, we know that objectivism has really made it because why?
Kayla: There's a schism.
Chris: Schism, baby. Yeah. So, yeah, I can confirm that Ari in particular doesn't really do any acknowledging of task, and they also don't really talk about Brandon either, or anything else that might pierce the veil. David Kelly, for his part, allegedly, that dispute was related to the orthodoxy itself. Like, he wanted to promote the idea that objectivism was an open system, which Peekaf, and by extension, the rest of Ari, was explicitly against. Calling it a closed system, which we talked about before, is what Ayn Rand herself wanted. Well, Kayla, that brings us to the end of our episode. Life and times of our charismatic leader, complete with the juicy dirty laundry. Thoughts.
Kayla: I have a lot of them.
Chris: I wish that our audience could see your face right now. You're like, your head's cocked to one side.
Kayla: I'm doing a rock eyebrow. I think that.
Chris: I think that. I want to watch passion of Ayn Rand.
Kayla: I want to watch the passion of Ayn Rand right now. Fast nine. But now we're gonna go watch passion of Ayn Rand. I think that I have far more data points on certain aspects of our criteria than I did before. I will reserve total judgment until we get to the end of this journey. But I'm a little more disappointed in Ayn Rand the person now than I was before. And unfortunately, I think that trend is going to continue because I know that in future episodes, you're going to get into more specifics on, like. Like, positions that were maybe held and statements that were maybe made about certain things from her.
Chris: Yeah.
Kayla: So I'm just real. I'm not looking forward to the. I already was, like, not a fan of Ayn Rand the person, and this is not really helping.
Chris: Yeah. We're gonna play a game called good take, bad take with Ayn Rand.
Kayla: Okay. Okay. I think that. I think that I maybe know what I'm gonna call this at the end.
Chris: Well, yeah, yeah. No spoilers, but I think that. Yeah, I get it. After hearing that and knowing that we're not exactly gonna be redeeming in the next episode, all the redemption was actually last episode where I was like, there's some good stuff.
Kayla: There was some redemption here, though, in this episode of talking about. And granted, I don't think that she or her club would call it redemption, but explaining that there were some personal circumstances that Ayn Rand experienced as a young person that shaped her worldview, I think that's important context. Like, I think it's really important context for people, especially, who may not really agree with where she ended up philosophically, to at least know that it didn't come out of a vacuum, and it didn't come out of growing up in America. These are not like, obviously she had, she liked America and she wanted to come here and she wanted to live here. And her philosophies are very intrinsically tied to a lot of american philosophy philosophies. But her viewpoints grew out of living under a political system that took something away.
Kayla: I'm going to use vague terms here and not try to use judgment terms. Took something away from her family, changed the way her family operated in their home country, forced moving around, and eventually separated her from her family. So those are very specific experiences that were probably negative, that came out of.
Chris: They're very negative in her mind. I mean, like she said, like, she might have starved several times.
Kayla: Starving is not good. And if a collectivist, if you perceive a collectivist culture as leading to you and your family's starvation, it makes sense that you would swing the other way on the pendulum a little bit.
Chris: Right? And I'll give, I would like to say, like, I don't even know if I would use the word perceived there. I mean, it was the Bolsheviks at that point that did the nationalization. So that's not to say that there aren't also bad things that happen in capitalism, but certainly, I don't think what happened to her family was a good thing. And there is a clear chain of causality back to the Bolshevik government, also, 1917. Like, no matter who wins that, it's probably gonna be rough on some people when there's a revolution, right? So, like, maybe it would have been kind of, by definition, a different family if the Bolsheviks had lost. I don't know. But certainly, you know, in our world, they didn't. And that had its negative consequences on her.
Kayla: And, well, that's often a trend, led.
Chris: To her thinking certain ways.
Kayla: That's often a wider trend in communist revolution and in communism in general when it, you know, comes to a country, is that often our. Our thoughts on communism in America are shaped by the fact that the people that communism harms the most tend to leave and then immigrate here.
Chris: Right?
Kayla: So, and that's something that's explicitly happened with Ayn Rand. Her particular family was harmed by this thing, and that brought here. And we see that a lot with, like, detractors of cuban communism. We see that with lots and lots and lots of different ways. So it's just interesting context and useful context.
Chris: One more little bit of context, too. I don't know how important this is. I read it in one place that she, to finish the deadline for the fountainhead, took a bunch of stimulants. I forget exactly what drug it was.
Kayla: But this is what I'm saying. They would be down with drug use.
Chris: Yeah, well, she was. She was definitely down with productivity drug use. And this particular thing that I read alleged that, like, some people thought that maybe that's why she was a little bit volatile later in life. Get that bastard down here. And that kind of thing.
Kayla: I think it was the.
Chris: I don't know, just throwing that.
Kayla: I think it was the power. Yeah, I think power does corrupt. I just don't want to come to that conclusion. But I'm coming to it.
Chris: Yeah, I think power and then being irrationally rational, I think also, well, if.
Kayla: You think that you're the best person in the entire world, then, yeah, that's akin to being like, well, I'm Jesus Christ.
Chris: Right? So to recap our first episode on this topic, two weeks ago we talked about the orthodoxy that is objectivist beliefs. Today we talked about Ayn Rand, her life, and some of her key associates. Next time on cult are just weird. And our third and final episode on this topic will go more into how the larger popular and cultural reaction to her writings went down, including this podcast's own reaction as to whether it's a cult or not. Until then, I wish you reason and objectivity expressed in your own unique way. This is Chris, this is Kayla, and this has been cult or just weird? Collective edition?