Skip to main content

Something very weird and deeply unsettling was going on in 1920’s America.  During this decade Eugenics, the idea that the human race can be improved by proper breeding and – more significantly – by preventing “undesirables” from reproducing, really came into its own in American society.  At the same time the celebration of an amoral Superman, an idea derived from a flawed understanding of Nietzche’s Ubermensch concept, led to at least one horrible crime and – for one person – seems to have provided the basis for a horrible “philosophy.”

The problem is that the “one person” was Ayn Rand, and through her writings both of these rotten ideas continue to exert influence over many of the people who help shape our national conversation today.  Listen carefully to the leaders of the Conservative Movement and the rhetoric designed to further the Conservative Cause, and you can hear these terrible ideas, filtered through Ayn Rand’s awful rhetoric, thrust themselves into our current discourse.

By the 1920’s the basic idea behind eugenics (“the science of human improvement by better breeding”) had been around for a while.  For example, around the turn of the century the Immigration Restriction League had started lobbying to restrict certain races from immigrating to the United States on the grounds that such immigration would “dilute the superior American blood line.”  As part of this lobbying the League attempted to impose literacy requirements on applicants under the assumption that literacy could be used as a proxy for intelligence.  The League finally succeeded in 1917 when Congress overturned President Wilson’s veto against such a measure.

But the eugenics movement really caught on in the 1920’s.  By then numerous states had enacted eugenics laws involving the forced sterilization of those individuals it deemed undesirable, especially – but not solely -- the mentally handicapped or disabled.  

In 1927 the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Virginia’s forced sterilization of the “unfit” in Buck v. Bell.  Writing for the 8-1 majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. declared that “Three generations of imbeciles are enough,” and with that the enforcement of compulsory sterilization laws was off to the races.

North Carolina, my home state, adopted a eugenics forced sterilization law in 1929 that continued in force until 1974.  North Carolina’s program even gave social workers the authority to determine whether their clients should be sterilized; the Winston-Salem Journal ran an excellent series on this program a few years ago, which recounted instances in which young black women receiving state aid were sterilized without their knowledge or consent whilst undergoing unrelated surgery – simply for being poor and black.  Others were sterilized for simply being promiscuous or homosexual.  (Sterilization was not limited to women; in one instance a ten year old boy was castrated.)

Significantly, California was at the forefront of the eugenics movement.  Although a majority of all the states eventually adopted forced sterilization laws, California alone was responsible for approximately one-third of all forced sterilizations in America between 1909 and 1970.

* * *

At the same time the eugenics movement was spreading, Friedrich Nietzche’s concept of the Ubermensch – set forth in his Thus Spake Zarathustra– was gaining in popularity.  In 1909 a man named Thomas Common had translated ubermensch to mean “superman,” just as George Bernard Shaw had done in his 1903 play Man and Superman.  The ubermensch was presented as the creator of new values, values not derived from existing societal or religious beliefs.  The ubermensch was to be “beyond” the pedestrian concerns of existing social and moral values.

Of course, this is an idea that is easy to balls up if understood only superficially.  Perhaps the most famous example of such a ballsing up is the murder of Bobby Franks – in 1924 – by (Nathan) Leopold and (Richard) Loeb.  Both Leopold and Loeb were extremely intelligent, wealthy University of Chicago students who had no need of money and who bore no ill will toward Bobby Franks.  They killed Franks simply because they wanted to prove they were Nietzchean supermen by committing “the perfect crime.”  

(Although, for all that they considered themselves superior to everyone else, their “perfect crime” was littered with gross mistakes.  Leopold left his signature eyeglasses where the body was found, they claimed to have been out in Leopold’s car the night of the murder even though Leopold’s chauffeur was working on the car that night, etc.  Far from being “Nietzchean supermen,” when one reads about their crime the two come across as bungling halfwits.)

The case became a national story and their attorney, Clarence Darrow, saved them from the death penalty by convincing both men to plead guilty and arguing for clemency before the judge.  In his peroration before the court Darrow expressly blamed the crime upon the boys (they were 19 and 18 years old, and so legal minors at the time) having taken seriously the Nietzchean superman idea that they had been taught at university.  Darrow prevailed and both his clients were sentenced to life plus 99 years in prison.

The Leopold and Loeb story served as the basis for Patrick Hamilton’s play Rope, which was later turned into a movie directed by Alfred Hitchcock.  Hitchcock’s Rope starred Jimmy Stewart as the former headmaster of the two young killers.  I very much recommend the movie, not least for watching Stewart’s reaction upon learning that it was his classroom rhetoric that persuaded his former pupils that an act of pointless murder could demonstrate their “superiority.”

* * *

During the mid- and late 1920’s – while eugenics was catching on (especially in California) and Leopold and Loeb were national front-page news – Ayn Rand was working in Hollywood.  During her tenure there a man named William Hickman shocked the nation by kidnapping a 12 year old girl named Marion Parker, killing her, dismembering her body, sewing her eyes open so it would appear (from a distance) that she was still alive, and then tossing her head and torso out of his car at the girl’s father after collecting ransom money he had demanded for her safe return.

This occurred in Los Angeles, where Rand was working, and it occurred in 1927, only three years after the infamous Leopold and Loeb murder.  And yet Rand admired Hickman for his crime and with the same rationale used by Leopold and Loeb to justify their own:  Hickman was a Nietzchean superman.  In her diary, Rand described this admiration:  “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should. . . .  [Hickman has] no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own.  He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman.  He can never realize and feel ‘other people.”

Now I suppose that Ayn Rand’s admiration of this child kidnapper-child killer-child dismemberer is old news for some.  Mark Ames wrote an excellent piece about this over a year ago and for anyone interested in learning more of the details surrounding Rand’s fascination with Hickman I highly recommend clicking over and reading the entire thing.  But I only learned about this recently, and it has started me re-evaluating my previous understanding of Rand’s writings.

* * *

Don’t get me wrong – I wasn’t a fan to begin with.  About a month ago I was inspired by a Johann Hari column in the UK’s The Independent to compare and contrast some of Rand’s ideas with those being pushed by today’s Republican leaders.  The title of the post – Ayn Rand Was Very Silly, But Conservatives Are Just Evil– fairly accurately summed up my thinking about Ayn Rand’s work:  that her writing is juvenile and naive, and that while she may have started with a few simple and valuable ideas (e.g.,facts cannot be changed by magical thinking, voluntary trade is better than simply taking what you want by force), her failure to appreciate nuance, complexity and irrationality as Real Forces experienced by Real People in the Real World led her to some dumb and indefensible conclusions.  

In short, I thought that Rand was an idiot, but I didn’t think that she was evil.  For all of the fact she wrote about how “parasites should perish,” I always understood this resulted from the fact that she filled her novels with one-dimensional caricatures that bear no resemblance to Real People.  When Rand wrote about how “moochers,” “leeches,” and “parasites” must die . . . well, in her novels that is all those characters actually are.  Calling for the death of cartoon characters never really struck me as all that heinous a crime, and I really did think Rand’s critics tended to go overboard when they claimed she seriously was advocating the elimination of the “non-productive,” i.e., the non-wealthy.  

(As an aside, and just because I can’t let this go by without comment, equating “the wealthy” with “the productive” has always annoyed me.  To be sure, some wealthy people are wealthy because they have produced something:  Bill Gates produced Windows, Steve Jobs has brought us some great Apple products.  But for the most part any society’s true wealth – not money, but actual food, goods, and services – is created from the bottom up.  For example, the Samurai of feudal Japan were the wealthiest members of their society, but the rice farmer was the source of that wealth, as reflected in the fact taxes were paid to the feudal lords in actual bushels of rice.  Conversely, while I am given to understand that Paris Hilton is wealthy, I completely fail to see how she is in any way productive.)

If there was evil in Ayn Rand’s work, I thought, the evil resided in the fact that her acolytes adopted the absurd conclusions reached in her novels as the root and not the twisted branch of her half-baked “philosophy.”  So I suggested in my earlier post that Rand’s modern acolytes had simply “found in her novels – just as people can find in any Holy Book they choose to follow, whether the Bible or the Qu’ran – a few phrases that can be twisted to justify what they want to do anyway.”

* * *

But now I think that maybe I was the one being naive.  Maybe her acolytes really did find what she intended they find.

There is something chilling about reading the young Ayn Rand’s admiration of William Hickman and her adoration of him as a “superman,” and then realizing that Ayn Rand is probably the single individual most responsible for shaping our political discourse today.  Professing admiration for Hickman in the same terms that Leopold and Loeb used to justify their crimes smells of sociopathy.  Go back and read that quote again:  there is an utter lack of empathy in it.  Worse, there is a celebration of empathy’s absence.

And don’t we see this everywhere in today’s Republican party?  What is the modern Republican Plan to Destroy Medicare, if not a complete and total absence of empathy?  What was on display two weeks ago when a retiree asked of her Congressman, Rob Woodall (R-Ga), how she would have been able to obtain medical insurance under this proposed voucher system when the company she retired from doesn’t provide medical benefits to retirees, and Woodall responded:  ‘Hear yourself, ma’am.  Hear yourself.  You want the government to take care of you, because your employer decided not to take care of you.  My question is, ‘When do I decide I’m going to take care of me?’”  (emphasis added).

This pride in their lack of empathy is displayed every time the Republican party insists on trying to cut unemployment benefits at a time when the nominal unemployment rate in this country is about 9% (and the real unemployment rate is much higher).  It is displayed when John Boehner, questioned about a further loss of jobs if the Republicans’ austerity plans are put into place responds, “So be it.”  It is displayed when Republicans vote to kill the DREAM Act, thereby denying the children of illegal immigrants a legal way to remain in the only country many of them have ever known.

But I think it goes beyond a simple lack of empathy and beyond taking pride in that lack, as terrible as that is already.  It seems to me there is a real resurgence in the idea – the basis of all eugenics – that there are those among us who are “deserving” and those among us who are of “lesser breeds.”  Now, don’t get me wrong . . . .  I am not suggesting that a program of forced sterilization is about to be unleashed.  I am just pointing out that the basic idea that there is such a distinction between people seems to be back in fashion amongst many on the Right, and this time the idea derives directly from Ayn Rand’s writing.

* * *

To be sure, such a distinction has been drawn many times in the past, but the prior bases for finding whole groups of people to be “lesser” are now frowned upon.  Although there is unfortunately no shortage of people in today’s society who actually do still think African-Americans, or Hispanics, or gays, or Jews, etc. are still “lesser,” by and large those people understand that they can’t say so in polite society.  By and large, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, etc. are considered anathema and that is a very good thing.

The other prominent way society has traditionally drawn distinctions between “the deserving” and “the lesser” has been based on wealth.  The history of Europe’s economic class struggles is more widely studied here than is America’s own, but America has a rich history of class warfare too.  We just have tended to sweep it under the rug and forget about it, because – like racism, etc. – we aren’t supposed to talk about or even recognize “class” in this society.  In fact, there is a whole cottage industry, largely funded by the Ayn Rand-extolling Koch Brothers, heavily invested in persuading Americans either that significant income equality doesn’t really exist or that, if it does exists, it doesn’t matter.

But Ayn Rand’s work provides a way to locate and demonize “lesser breeds” and it does so without explicit reference to inherent traits (race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.) or to class.   Instead, her followers have created a weird amalgam of both types of traits by which they can label certain people “Parasites.”  

It really is quite a trick, and it provides Conservatives a moral justification to demonstrate their “superiority” by evidencing a complete lack of empathy for these lesser people.  More concretely, it provides Conservatives the opportunity to justify as a virtue the elimination of all assistance to people who have been passed over by our increasingly concentrated and polarized economy.  To understand how it works you have to break it down into a series of small steps:

    (1)  There are two types of individuals:  “Producers” and “Parasites;”  

    (2)  Producers create wealth, goods and services, jobs and employment, and because all of society rests upon their work they must be protected at all costs;

    (3)  Parasites’ contribution to society is a net negative, and they are constantly looking for handouts from the creative Producers in order to survive;

    (4)  You can tell who a Producer is because Producers are wealthy.  They wouldn’t be wealthy if they were not producing, so if you are wealthy than you automatically must be a Producer;

    (5)  You can tell who a Parasite is by whether they accept any government assistance.  If they are collecting unemployment benefits, Medicare/Medicaid or Social Security payments, if they receive housing assistance or food stamps, if they receive state-provided education benefits, etc., etc., then this is only because they are consuming more than they can pay for and therefore are by definition Parasites;

    (6)  This is not about class warfare.  Parasites aren’t “lesser” because they are poor, they are “lesser” because they are greedy and not living within the small means that they can provide for themselves;

    (7)  This is not discrimination (racial or otherwise), for precisely the same reason;

    (8)  Anybody can stop being a Parasite and become a Producer.  So the fact you receive government assistance of any kind means that you are morally inferior and evil;

    (9)  Since nobody who is morally inferior and evil should be supported by the tax dollars of good, hardworking Producers, nobody who actually needs government assistance should be allowed to receive it;

    (10) Since the only people deserving of government assistance don’t need it, all government assistance programs should be eliminated immediately.

It really is quite remarkable, the perfect synthesis of those two terrible ideas swirling around in 1920’s America when Ayn Rand first arrived here from Russia.  The first is that – for the good of society as a whole – the “lesser breeds” (i.e., the “Parasites”) must be encouraged to wither and die without any support from our society (although they will be allowed to reproduce, if only to live in abject poverty).  The second is that the superior nature of true Nitzchean supermen (like Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and the ever stoic John Boehner) is demonstrated not by any Jesus- or Buddha-like compassion for the less well off, but by denying the less well off any such compassion.

* * *

If you want to see an example of this type of right-wing blather a simple Google search will pull up as many as you may like.  Right before the last election, Free Republic posted The Coming Civil War:  Producers Vs. [sic] Parasites, by Bradley Harrington who – after the obligatory Ayn Rand opening quote – wrote:

. . . I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that fully half of our population is receiving government aid of some sort and amount from the other half.

And this guess, while a guess, is at least close, for the tax figures bear it out:  In [sic] 2008, IRS figures show that the top 50 percent of the country’s adult population (with incomes greater than $33,000) paid 97.3 percent of collected taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the other piddling 2.7 percent.

And if you (mistakenly) think that this is the price we pay for “helping the poor,” you’d better check your premises on that one as well:  for despite the untold trillions of dollars we’ve poured into the so-called “War on Poverty” since 1967 alone, when 31.8 million people lived under the poverty line, we now have 38.9 million people there instead.  This isn’t “welfare”; this is parasites living at the expense of the producers – period! (emphasis added).

You can find unlimited examples of this theme on right-wing sites, but I certainly am not going to link to any more.  Reading this type of dreck once is enough for me.

* * *  

I suppose I shouldn’t be too surprised that the amorality and viciousness that Ayn Rand apparently learned to embrace in the 1920’s should have proved to be so popular among so many of our business and political elites.  I have long suspected that the reason top-flight CEO’s get paid what they do is because there is only a small pool of people so lacking in empathy that they will repeatedly cut their labor force, ship jobs overseas, and slash worker benefits (“Chainsaw” Al Dunlop, anybody?) in order to bolster the bottom line and thus “earn” their multi-million dollar annual salaries and a $100 million golden parachutes.

Similarly, there has always seemed to me to be something deeply psychologically disturbed about many of the politicians who seek high office in this country, and their apparent willingness do anything, say anything, and grovel as necessary in order to achieve it.  (Newt Gingrich?  Mitt Romney?  Richard Nixon?)

So learning that Ayn Rand’s ideal beau was a psychotic killer who as a child “liked to strangle cats and snap the necks of chickens for fun” shouldn’t have been too shocking.  And yet, somehow it was.

Like I said, I can be pretty naive sometimes.

Cross-posted at Casa Cognito.

Originally posted to swellsman on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:16 PM PDT.

Also republished by ClassWarfare Newsletter: WallStreet VS Working Class Global Occupy movement.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you read any of Ayn Rand's writings on racism qua collectivism?

    The Objectivist's Epistemology has the most comprehensive view of race, and racism I've seen to date, even now.

    When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace- Hendrix

    by Maori on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:28:02 PM PDT

  •  Ayn Rand was right about god, wrong about (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    beltane, mikeplugh, x

    nearly everything else.

    That goes to prove that the god question is only one of many for humans to deal with.

    That members of the so called Christian "right" can embrace Rand is proof that those elements of the Christian "right" is irrational.

    God is the problem, not the solution.

    by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:35:42 PM PDT

  •  Excellent work. (11+ / 0-)

    You show the core evil in the beliefs.  Remember Greenspan was an acolyte and look what he did to America.

    CitizenX: "If the republicans were in charge GM & Chrysler would be dead and Osama bin Laden would be alive."

    by TomP on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 03:40:34 PM PDT

  •  The great thing about Ayn Rand (13+ / 0-)

    is that her essay "Racism" (which castigated the Civil Rights movement as the most evil oppressive thing since Stalin) is only readily available online at white supremacist websites. Just google it.

    How appropriate. How telling.

    How iconic for the Tea Party movement's standard line on race issues and Civil Rights.

    Fuck you, Rand Paul - you racist piece of garbage.

  •  The classic movie "Idiocracy" (3+ / 0-)

    more or less seems to agree with the premise that the fate of the human race will be determined through breeding

    Although Mike Judge seems to have picked up on the fact that you have to illustrate the concept in the opposite fashion as Ms. Rand  . . ..  

    •  Well yes, if humans don't breed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Seamus D

      we'll go extinct. How perspicacious of her!

      "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

      by Bob Love on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:14:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You may be right (5+ / 0-)

      since it's been a while since I've seen Idiocracy, but I think instead of laying the decline of civilization on genetics and breeding, I think Judge is painting a picture that's more about social devolution than biological devolution.

      It isn't just that idiots have more kids than non-idiots - it's that the culture leads those off-spring to remain idiots. A lot of the film is about the cultural structures that enforce and reinforce idiocy - I don't recall it as being about eugenics at all.

      And I tend to view the movie more as documentary than fiction.

      We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

      by badger on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:31:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've always said (7+ / 0-)

    that Ayn Rand was nothing more than a dreary, bourgeois version of the Marquis de Sade. Her joyless depravity is like a siren song to sociopaths everywhere.

  •  This must be where Alan Simpson (8+ / 0-)

    got the term "lesser people", when speaking of Americans as 300M titty-suckers. Note: Simpson has received government checks for almost his entire adult life, as did his daddy.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:11:52 PM PDT

  •  You need to separate the wheat from the chaff. (0+ / 0-)

    Her book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" was a groundbreaking new book on epistemology.  Great work.

    Yes, a lot of other stuff was crap.  Yet other stuff was great.

    Those who throw out her every word because of who she is are just as cultish as those who accept her every word because of who she is.

    •  ??? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dov12348, Matt Z, Seamus D, gramofsam1

      Can you summarize in a few words what important new contribution to epistemology was in that book? Is there any particular reason that this great fundamental advance has had no effect on any of our lesser fields, such as physics and biology?

      Michael Weissman UID 197542

      by docmidwest on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:59:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Concept formation. (0+ / 0-)

        It's had an effect on everything - all knowledge.  We just didn't know how to analyze what we were actually doing, although we are doing the right thing.  It's the operation of the faculty of reason made transparent.

        •  that's it? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          It was "groundbreaking" to attack Kant in 1979? Einstein did in Kant's prior analytics (or whatever he called the necessity of Euclid) via General Relativity in 1917.

          The article you link to is utterly banal. In some ways it reminds me of Mao's little Red Book, and some jokes about it.

          Michael Weissman UID 197542

          by docmidwest on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 06:49:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's why you should read the book. (0+ / 0-)

            It really can't be summarized.

            Einstein wrote on epistemology? Can you quote?

            •  brass (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              The key point in the tiresome article to which you linked was: "all concepts must be resolved into their irreducible primaries. ". That's a rehash of the particularly crude operationalist version of logical positivism. I can't resist quoting from the reminiscences of a distinguished chemist (my dad) about disputes at U of Chicago from the 1930's, as published in the Annual Reviews of Physical Chemistry:

              "In the physical sciences, a group of operationalists, converted by Bridg­man's book, The Logic of Modern Physics, had become more Catholic than the pope. One of them, a graduate student in physics, confronted one of his fellow students with the question, "What are you doing?" The answer: "I'm measuring the cross section of beryllium for alphas in the alpha-n reaction." Operationalist: "Don't be childish. What scale readings are you making and what correlations are you finding between them?" At their next encounter, before the operationalist could repeat his question he was told, "I'm sawing this fucking piece of brass."

              Michael Weissman UID 197542

              by docmidwest on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 07:18:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Einstein (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I forgot to respond to that question, not sure if you were joking. Google "Einstein epistemology". Open the first link. Try the first two sentences: "Albert Einstein (1879–1955) is well known as the most prominent physicist of the twentieth century. Less well known, though of comparable importance, are his contributions to twentieth-century philosophy of science."
              He was fortunate to have been dead some 24 years before Rand contributed to the field.

              Michael Weissman UID 197542

              by docmidwest on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 07:27:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  The religious connection (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Seamus D

    There's a parallel connection in religion--the difference between "believers" whom God will save, and non-believers. It doesn't matter what you do; that would be seeing it all backwards.

    Just as producers are rich, the saved believe. It doesn't matter what you do. The "dog whisper" in this heretical inversion of Christianity is "King David" who could commit adultery, have his mistress' husband killed, and still be favored by God. Doesn't matter what you do! Just say you believe!

    I've done some semi-scholarly research on science textbooks in the 20s and 30s. The bigotry you so aptly describe in this diary was masked in pseudo science then, and in all the textbooks. Google the oft-told tale of the Jukes and the Kallikaks.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 04:45:43 PM PDT

  •  You might find this interesting. (0+ / 0-)

    Here a person raises the Rand/Hickman issue in an Objectivist forum.

  •  Rand on a postage stamp... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, Matt Z, Seamus D, marykk

    ...and yet the US Postal Service saw fit to put her on a postage stamp. Shame.

    Ayn Rand is even WORSE than I thought. I had no idea about this Hickman thing. That is just SICK, SICK, SICK!

    Resist all attempts to mainstream Ayn Rand. She is not casual alternative-POV libertarianism.

    She was just evil.

  •  Ayn Rand was a nasty piece of work (6+ / 0-)

    Learning about her idolization of a sociopathic murderer didn't surprise me- I think because using terms like "parasites" and "leeches" to describe the majority of humanity has long been a red flag for me. That, and the fact that my first in depth look at her work was in a political theory class, so I wasn't looking at it as merely a work of fiction.

    For all of the fact she wrote about how “parasites should perish,” I always understood this resulted from the fact that she filled her novels with one-dimensional caricatures that bear no resemblance to Real People.  When Rand wrote about how “moochers,” “leeches,” and “parasites” must die . . . well, in her novels that is all those characters actually are.

    It seems to me that you can tell a lot about what an author considers important by how their characters are constructed. I mean, yeah, you have to make allowances for simple bad writing, but authors who have nothing but flat simplistic characters- "Heroes" who are completely without fault and "Villains" who are completely without virtue (and anyone who doesn't fawn over the heroes placed firmly in the later category) tend to worry me. Even in fiction, people tend to write the world as they see it.

  •  Though eugenics/forced sterilization is wrong (0+ / 0-)

    I personally would support global temporary sterilization of everyone in the population (if and only if we had good enough technology to make sure it's 100% safe and reversible, or extremely close to that), preferrably almost immediately when they become capable of having kids (though that could cause problems with puberty / development).  

    That way, instead of having tons of unwanted pregnancies, people would actually choose if and when they have kids.  No teen births, no hooker crack babies, far fewer rape/incest babies, etc.  No need for abortion unless there's a significant medical issue with either the mother or the baby.

    Then you get into the more difficult question - who can request it to be reversed, and what is the process for that?  Anywhere from "if you ask it's reversed" to proving financial / mental competence is possible, but I'd probably prefer at or close to the former.  

    The difficulty is, some societies would be guaranteed to use it as a tool of societal / eugenic engineering...and I don't see any real way of preventing that, so in addition to the technical obstacle, there's a big ethical / societal obstacle as well.

    New favorite put-down: S/he's as dumb as a flock of Sarah Palins

    by sleipner on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:31:37 PM PDT

    •  Similar plan (0+ / 0-)

      My thought was to find a birth control that could be put in the beer. Therefore, only sober people could conceive. The virtual end of unintended pregnancies, especially teen pregnancies, and the resulting social ills, while drastically reducing the  demand for abortions. And no one would lose any rights, because anyone wanting to have children could refrain from drinking for a few months. Both would have to refrain -- I want a birth control that would involve the males equally.

      Oh, maybe you'd need to put the birth control in the wine and hard liquor, too. Maybe. But in my observation, if the guys are sober, they will wear condoms, unless they want to make a baby. If the girls are sober, they won't give in without protection, unless they want to have a baby. So birth control in the beer will pretty much take care of it.

      •  Decent idea (0+ / 0-)

        but you'd also have to put it in the crystal meth, cocaine, pot, ecstasy, and heroin to catch all of them.

        Also - wishful thinking, most guys (especially young ones) probably won't even be thinking about pregnancy, even when sober, they're "thinking" with the other head.

        I like the idea of long term reversable sterilization / birth control better, cuz that doesn't require people to actively do something continuously to keep it up (like the pill).

        I also agree re. men should be targeted for this just as much.  Course I'm gay, so the likelihood of me getting anyone pregnant is about the same as some woman forcibly raping 42 I'm still technically a virgin, at least with women...and I'm 6'2" & 185#...

        New favorite put-down: S/he's as dumb as a flock of Sarah Palins

        by sleipner on Fri Jun 03, 2011 at 09:50:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not going to be a popular comment but (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sam Wise Gingy, gramofsam1

    some "progressives" of the early 1900s also supported eugenics. If you look up Margaret Sanger, perhaps the founder of the modern birth control movement, she supported eugenics, though admittedly a kindler, gentler version than others did. She was also hostile to immigration.

    •  Everyone makes mistakes (0+ / 0-)

      that is why no one and no idea can be held exempt to reasoned criticism.

      That's the problem with religion. It's places it's primary principles beyond reason then acts on them as if they were proven.

      Rand and her disciples did much the same thing. Fortunately there was enough reason in the world to change their course.

      God is the problem, not the solution.

      by Sam Wise Gingy on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:43:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I've found Ayn Rand's influence (6+ / 0-)

    on modern American politics to be a little surprising, particularly considering that it is driven mostly by people claiming to be religious zealots and people who rail against the "liberal elites." It's clearly not the quality of her writing that is so compelling, because it's rather hard to identify with characters that go on uninterrupted 40-page monologues. I suppose there is something appealing to her philosophy to people who are convinced of their superiority to everyone else, which is certainly a feature of the dominionist branch of faux-Christianity...

    •  I first met readers of Ayn Rand . . . (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      . . . back on a college campus in Texas in the early 1960s, that is, at the height of the Civil Rights struggle. The Ayn Rand readers hated the Civil Rights movement. Well, really, they hated the ni@@ers. But they also hated the Democrats, from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, who they blamed for the upsetting changes going on. Since there wasn't a Tea Party at the time, they were most aligned with the John Birch Society, swallowing paranoid notions about the United Nations, Socialism, the Democratic Party -- and did I say, paranoid about the ni@@ers.

      They would have been candidates for the Ku Klux Klan a generation or two before. Their political allegiance was to the lost Confederacy and to the Jim Crow South, favoring poll taxes and literacy tests to limit the right to vote to the deserving, and keeping it away from the ni@@ers. Most seemed to be drawn from the suburbs of Houston and Dallas, from families very recently arrived at some middle-class status, their parents having left the farm or the small town not very long before. So they weren't very secure of their own status in life, and they lived in fear, did I say, that the ni@@ers were going to take over.

  •  I am surprised that more people (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    gramofsam1, esquimaux, Matt Z, Seamus D

    don't draw the parallel between Rand and Nietzsche.

    Imagine if a Democrat said they liked Nietzche's ideas.  Conservatives would demonize him, starting with Nietzche's atheism.  Yet for some reason the right does not seem to mind the Republicans who like Rand, despite Rand's atheism.

    "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt." Bertrand Russell

    by Thutmose V on Thu Jun 02, 2011 at 05:51:43 PM PDT

  •  Not quite getting it. (0+ / 0-)

    If you want to understand Rand's popularity, you have to look at it "backwards": Productive people view the progressives' agenda as one of violence and rapine directed at them. Rand, by contrast, defends the values and efforts of productive people, despite the nuttiness she includes in the package. Compared with the abyss of nihilism and abnegation offered by the left, Rand's world view looks like a better deal.

    In a way, Rand created an alternative humanism which, after developing under the radar for a couple of generations, has recently become strong enough to compete with left-liberal humanism in the culture. I can see why that drives left-liberal humanists nuts; they had branded their world view as a secular alternative to both conservatism and religion (the latter a softer target than the former), and they hadn't anticipated that another secular life stance, based on assumptions friendlier to the right, would come along and challenge them for market share among irreligious conservatives.

  •  About the Hickman thing (0+ / 0-)

    Many women become infatuated with famous murderers. Ted Bundy received a lot of unsolicited love letters in prison from women he never met, for example, and I've read that the same thing has happened to Scott Peterson and Joran van der Sloot. In that context, Rand's chick boner for Hickman in her 20's doesn't seem so unusual.

  •  For a fun alternative to Rand... (0+ / 0-)

    if you've actually read Atlas Shrugged, or seek an alternative to having to read it at all, cf. the parody "secret sequel."

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site