The DISTURBING TRUE STORY of Ayn Rand’s Indoctrination (Masterclass Excerpt)

People who lived and survived Socialism and Communism and tell of their evils, are often criticized by those who love Socialism and Communism but never lived it.

Objectivism does not hold reason as the ultimate value - but LIFE. Reason is a tool to pursue life to its fullest potential.

If indoctrination is this: " The process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs UNCRITICALLY", then what Ayn Rand did was not indoctrination. Ayn Rand wanted her ideas to be accepted through rational analysis, not through her social and emotional stability . If the speaker's intent was to discredit Objectivism she failed. Instead of attacking her ideas, she sunk into whataboutism.

Both things can be true, that she was an intelligent and very insightful person and that she was mistaken on many pivotal life decisions.

For a person who valued reason, Ayn appears to have rationalized some essentially irrational impulses.

The word "indoctrination" implies a specific preformulated doctrine imposed by an outside agency. Ayn Rand's philosophy was derived through self-actuation from a wide variety of influences.

The danger of altruism is that we can lose ourselves in thoughtless giving, as if we have no value. But giving done right blesses both the giver and the receiver. This is well covered nowadays in the various codependency materials.

There's a great movie about the Branden/Rand affair, one that had pitch-perfect casting: Helen Mirren as Ayn Rand; Eric Stolz as Nathanial Branden; Peter Fonda as Ayn's husband; and Julie Delpy as Barbara Branden. Barbra's the main character, and all the events are seen through her eyes and emotions. Since the real Barbara was the consultant for the movie, she got to play her own mother, with a brief, wordless cameo at the wedding of Nathaniel and Barbara. Ayn's living devotees were predictably not happy with this movie, but even they had to concede that Helen Mirren's performance was practically a reincarnation of Ayn, with Mirren winning the Emmy for Best Actress in a TV film. Here's a sampling: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOqn2Y6ihsE

I think that Audrey has missed some critical parts of the Ayn Rand story which help to explain the remarkable power of her ideas and influence. First, Rand's overarching argument was with the ideas and ideology represented by Soviet Russia, Marxism and the altruistic (non-self) ideology that the individual is subservient to the state. This is the backdrop to her story that Audrey does not share. Rand's response to the horrors she experienced and observed was to identify for herself valid principles for moral action which were obviously lacking in totalitarian systems. Her approach was based on personal, individual thought and action and, more specifically, consciously articulated argument based on objectively observed phenomena and not divine precepts or totalitarian systems which denied individual choice and responsibility. Her commitment to the individual superseded any altruistic motivation. Rand's quest for a moral basis for personal and social action was extremely important in the mid-20th century given the devastating destructive power of fascism (Hitler) and communism (Stalin). Young people coming-of-age during this period were looking beyond established religious belief in the arenas of personal and political morality - looking toward reason (clear-thinking), a method which was producing magnificent scientific accomplishments. Rand did not promote a "world view", rather she developed a philosophical system which she called Objectivism because it focused on objective facts or events much like the formal sciences. Second, I think it is incorrect to characterize Rand's ideas as religion and her teachings as indoctrination. Nor do I think she should be characterized as god-like. I did not know her personally but my impression is that she was both extremely intelligent and charismatic. Such people attract followers and many of these are unable to find their own way. Third, there have been recurring popularities of "open marriage" and the "delights and vicissitudes" of attractions across the lifespan await us all. Finally, I think it is perfectly valid to point out that Rand's exemplary "rationality" did not play out so well in her intimate relationships. Her concept of Love as the expression of one's highest values seems extremely narrow as this term, like "god", has become as overburdened. Afterthoughts: I should have also included a comment on Rand's embracing of Laissez-faire capitalism as the socio-political ideal expression of her philosophy. A great amount of her energy and focus was directed at championing this system in which the powers of the State were restricted from interfering in economic activity under the guise of altruistic redistribution. She wanted to be "left alone" and believed that the free, heroic individual, following the accurate assessment of Reason would produce a better social order than a socio-political system based on power which enslaved the individual.

Ok, this has nothing to do with this lecture, but I love this speaker’s hair. Gorgeous.

I think narcissism is often the result of trauma. Pity for anyone who experiences trauma in early life and spends the rest of their energy trying to control the universe. More pity for those who get caught up under their control. No respect for someone who creates a playbook for narcissism and sells it as the keys to the universe. Thank you Audrey for this work that teachers how to identify and understand the patterns and the impact of narcissistic abuse.

I do not know who Ayn was nor do I know of her work. Not originally from the west. That being said, this seems like a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Subscribing dogmatically to any idea or philosophy and using it solely as a guide to life will almost always not end up well. That seems to be what happened with Ayn herself (from what I got from the lecture). Like with every philosophy, you have to test and apply what works and discard what does not work, and this has to be done with constant evaluation and in specific situations, especially when dealing with the complexity of the non-logical human being. Take what she got right (which seems to be a lot), be grateful for it, build on it, discard what she got wrong and learn from it, don’t use it as an excuse to tear down or discredit even her positive contributions. For we Christians, David is regarded as one of the greatest kings in the Bible. We learn from his several costly mistakes, we don’t tear him down because of them.

the heart has reasons that reason knows nothing of

Audrey, you stated that Rand's stories are "very sexually explicit", but this is not truthful on your part. Have you actually read her books? Maybe 1% or 2% of the content might involve the topic of sexuality, with no dirty descriptions and no demeaning descriptions (like the type that are often found in many novels). Sexual attraction between characters in Rand's stories is caused mostly by admiration and respect for the other person's virtues and values and personal strength. The characters are attractive because they stand by their convictions and their sense of life without compromising to convenience or trends or trying to impress. The characters are not primarily attractive to each other because of their body appearance or their money or their status. Rand had the affair with Branden, but my understanding is that all parties remained at free choice related to it. It seems correct to say that pain was caused to a variety of people because of the affair - but it also seems fair to say that each person played their own part in causing it. I have known many Christian moms who initiated divorce and crushed their children's lives and crushed their husband's lives - simply because the mom wanted to apply feminism to her own situation. Your framing and your selected focus make your presentation feel like a gossip smear piece - as if you might be envious or jealous of Ayn Rand's successes and you are trying to emphasize the things that went badly in order to show her as being inferior or broken or similar. Rand's stories appeal to so many tens of millions of people because her core theme is "self-respect", and this modeling is missing from most teachings and most teachers. This is why her stories sell hundreds of thousands of copies per year 6o years after they were first published.

If one cannot counter the message, go after the messenger.

I read The Fountainhead while a student at Indiana University, almost at a single sitting. I read it years later as something of an exercise in studying her captivating rhetoric. I have read Atlas Shrugged twice, and my paperback copy is heavily underlined and annotated. I did not know these seedy parts of her life, but I am not surprised given the unbridled sexual aspects of her novels. I follow a different philosopher, who taught that the meek are blessed and will inherit the earth, and the pure in heart would see God.

Sounds more like unenlightened selfishness than enlightened self-interest.

I’ve read virtually everything Ayn wrote (well beyond her novels) plus all the books written about her. I’ve met Nathanial, and well, I could go on and on. And as best I can tell, you have it right. Well done. May I add: What kills me is that SO MANY people who hate Ayn Rand, have no idea what she represented. I’m NOT saying most people would love her if they understood her. I’m just explaining how people don’t understand that she would have hated the conservatives that use her name as much as the liberals whom she despised. Heck she didn’t even like Libertarians! One has to read a lot of her work (and her history) before praising or condemning. – And yeah, she was human, and subject to the irrationality that can come with love, sex, attachment. She really screwed up her delusional love life. But it doesn’t negate her philosophy (which should not be criticized before fully understood).

She was a difficult damaged woman but I would not want to think of my life without her. Great contributions are often born of adversity and adversity can also scar.

THREE of her books have been made into movies: We the Living (1942, Italy); The Fountainhead (1949): Atlas Shrugged (Parts 1, 2, 3, 2011-2014).