In the past few months, I have plunged myself fully into the writings of Ayn Rand. At this point, I have read three of her four novels (Anthem, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged), a number of her philosophical works (The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Romantic Manifesto) as well as Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

I have found that Objectivism largely corresponds with my own views (as I’ve given them in previous posts). At the same time, I certainly do not believe that the philosophy of Objectivism is within the grasp of the average human being, the Masses being inherently incapable of adopting any rational philosophy that requires them to think and understand above a relatively inferior level.

I do not agree completely with every position held by Objectivism. Some of my disagreements with Objectivism relate to its exclusively anti-deterministic position, its refusal to acknowledge innate racial (and ethnic) differences, its highly questionable assertion that anyone can potentially become a fully rational human being, as well as its faithful adherence to all of the official lies about Adolf Hitler, the Third Reich, the Holocaust™ and World War II.

I greatly appreciate Ayn Rand’s commitment to unmitigated reason as the only way to ascertain real truth (as opposed to falsely presented “truths”), and her corresponding rejection of everything which is of the nature of illusion, delusion and deception, including all religion, mysticism, supernaturalism, skepticism, existentialism, subjectivism, etc.

(Yes, Ayn Rand was a Russian Jewess, but she (apparently) did not identify herself as such, which could explain why she was generally opposed to the “traditional Jewish arts” i.e. cunning, lying, cheating, treachery, fabrication, dissimulation, etc. Moreover, she was certainly well aware that the prime movers of Communism from its beginning have always been Jews, and that those who imposed Communism in Russia were mostly Jews. In any case, the genuine value of her philosophy is self-evident, at least to those who are actually capable of embracing it.)

Anyone who reads The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged will know what kind of man Ayn Rand considered to be the ideal man, the kind of man that she truly admired. In fact, the ideal man that she presents in the characters of Howard Roark and John Galt et al. is to be understood as being the genuinely real man, the fully natural man, the truly normal man. It is further to be understood that all men who fail to measure up to this ideal man are, at least to some degree, unreal, unnatural and abnormal.

The ideal man in Ayn Rand’s view is a strong, well-built man. He is bold and brave, confident and courageous, determined and devoted to his principles. He is an active and hard-working individual. But he is also creative and intelligent: not only is he not afraid of doing things, but he understands how things should properly be done. He is always ready to learn, to take on a challenge and to figure things out. Ayn Rand’s ideal man wants to excel, and is therefore nothing less than the excellent man.

Ayn Rand’s ideal man despises all weakness, sickness, ugliness and stupidity. He rejects any notion that there is any redeeming virtue whatsoever in any of these. He therefore refuses to acknowledge such time-honored Christian sayings as “the meek shall inherit the Earth” and “blessed are the poor”. He also understands clearly that the saying “errare humanum est” is blatantly wrong because it specifically damns the human condition; to err is certainly unfortunate, but it is not inherently human. Ayn Rand’s ideal man quite simply loves everything which is genuinely conducive to a truly successful life, these being strength, health, beauty and intelligence, and abhors any kind of compromise with respect to these.

(There certainly is little if anything in common between such an ideal man and Nietzsche’s ubermensch, who is not only irrational but even borderline psychotic. Considering especially how Nietzsche ended up, it is to be wondered how much genuine value there really is in his ideas.)

Ayn Rand’s ideal man is truly proud of himself, proud of his body and proud of his mind. And he has every good reason to be proud of himself. He will consequently be very selective with respect to the people he associates with. Very few people are worthy enough to truly be his friends, and very few women are worthy enough to be the objects of his love. He will avoid all relationships with stupid, perverse and contemptible people (at least as much as possible), and will categorically refuse to involve himself intimately in any way with any woman who doesn’t fully measure up to his standards.

As for Ayn Rand’s view of the ideal woman, she is not an arrogant bitch, a feminist cunt, a shameless skank, a submissive wench, a sentimental flake or a silly little girl. The ideal woman is a feminine version of the ideal man: a truly beautiful person with a good mind, a good character and a good attitude. In short, the ideal woman is a truly excellent woman, and this is in fact the genuinely real woman, the fully natural woman, the truly normal woman.

Ayn Rand fully despised everything that was fake, false and fraudulent. She refused to tolerate the deviant, the decadent and the degenerate. She had no respect whatsoever for faggots, freaks and fuck-ups. Of course, she could see quite well throughout her life that there was not only a constantly increasing tendency in society to tolerate all of these things, but that many important people and groups were actually committed to encouraging them.

She must have understood before she passed away that these things would only continue to get worse and worse for the foreseeable future, even despite her efforts and those of her associates and followers. Yet, I wonder if she could have foreseen the much-publicized celebrity recently afforded to such hideous monstrosities as “Conchita Wurst” and “Caitlyn Jenner”.