1. The Ayn Rand Institute Press just published a new booklet, I Chose to be An American: Ayn Rand’s Immigration Story. A few points:
a. The book references Barbara Branden’s interviews with Rand in 1960 and 1961 and makes the curious statement, “Factual details drawn from these interviews depend upon the accuracy of Rand’s later recollection. While many such details are likely reliable (especially basic family and biographical facts), memory is fallible.” Rand was 55 to 56 years old when she gave these interviews and in good health. I wonder why the authors think her recollections on the facts of her life are only “likely reliable”? And are Rand’s recollections on things other than “basic family and biographical facts” (whatever those are) unreliable? Shoshana Milgram Knapp (Rand’s future biographer) once wrote that Rand might have been wrong in saying that one of her philosophy professors was Nicholas Lossky, so this is likely what the authors are referencing. Chris Sciabarra has a response to Knapp in the second edition of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical.
b. The authors report that Rand adopted her name “Ayn Rand” in America after she arrived in 1925. “Rand’s sister Natasha refers to her as ‘Lil Rand’ in a letter dated February 26, 1926. Over a month later, Rand’s sister Nora addresses her as ‘Ayn Rand’ in a letter dated April 11, 1926. This is the first time the name appears in their documented correspondence.” Unfortunately, no information is provided as to why she adopted this name. Rand once said that her name was a shortened version of her Russian name (Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum), but during the PARC Wars, a couple native speakers said that’s not possible.
c. Our authors report that before Rand became an American citizen there were few requirements on immigrants such as Rand informing the government where they worked:
Employers now are expected to ask about an individual’s employment eligibility and to document it (e.g.: millions are required to use E-Verify), with financial and other penalties for hiring ineligible individuals . . . Moreover, given her moral and political ideals, she would have repudiated such a government prohibition on engaging in voluntary, productive work — and the requirement to disclose employment in a visa renewal.
The authors write that for Rand’s views on immigration, readers should consult an answer to a question about immigration Rand gave in 1973. Rand doesn’t comment on work restrictions and notifications in her answer. Unfortunately, the ARI continues to tell people what Rand would have thought about things she never commented on.
2. The ARI press also published another Rand booklet, Screen Guide for Americans. This includes Rand’s original pamphlet, which was published by the Motion Picture Alliance for Preserving American Ideals, as well as related archival material.
3. Yaron Brook recently responded to a question asking if Vice President J.D. Vance was “disgusting and immoral.” Brook responded, “I agree.” As Brook and the ARI must know, there are a fair number of Objectivists who lean to the right culturally. I guess they have written them off for good.
8 comments:
Does leaning right politically mean that someone necessarily likes and supports JD Vance?
While somebody who "leans right" might not necessarily "like" JD Vance, they would likely be more inclined to support Vance as Trump's successor than anyone the Democrats might offer at this time. I doubt Rand herself would have cared much for Vance if she still around; but she'd vote for him all the same if the Democrats offered up, as they likely will, a hard left candidate.
Anon: that's pretty wild to me. Vance is pushing for a kind of white Christian nationalism, but his true agenda is a little hidden. He was placed in office by Peter Thiel, a truly evil man for any number of reasons. Having called myself an Objectivist for almost 40 years and so understanding the philosophy fairly well at the Objectivist level (i.e., someone who's not studied this site to see what the philosophy is so terrible), I can say that the only way an Objectivist could support Vance is if they just don't know the facts about him.
Of course, that does mean that many Objectivists would probably be okay with Vance, because Rand taught them that it's not really important to know the facts about things. Maybe Rand would have like him for that reason, as well.
What facts are you talking about? If Vance's true agenda is a "little hidden," how do you know what it is? Where's your evidence that Vance is pushing for "white Christian nationalism"? What does that even mean? If he became President, how that affect the daily lives of those of us who are among the subject class and have no say in the governance of the country?
I'm all for being as objective and factual as circumstances will permit. But knowledge of facts require evidence, and in the absence of evidence you're just guessing. Now I happen to know people who have met and talked with Vance, so I know a little bit more of him than the average bear. My issue with him is that, as far as I can tell, he doesn't seem to be the kind of person who can make tough decisions. He just doesn't have the hard-wired character for that. So he certainly wouldn't be my first choice for President nor would I ever vote for him in a Republican primary. But if it's an election between Vance and somebody from the party of the DSA (i.e., the Democrats), I'm choosing Vance without question. And I would hazard to guess that Rand, who understood how dangerous the far left is, would likely have felt obligated to vote for Vance as well, as much as she may have disliked him.
By "hidden," I meant obfuscated. And the facts include Vance's various statements and his involvement with organizations that indicate his support for Christian nationalism. Then, add in his constant talk about "Heritage Americans," such as when he went on Theo Von's podcast and talked about how awesome it is that his ancestors are in some Civil War registry, as Confederates, and it's not hard to get to the white Christian nationalist perspective.
No, he's never come right out and said, "I'm a white Christian nationalist." But there's sufficient evidence there to suggest that he's almost certainly aligned with that movement, if not an active part of it. But by his agenda being "hidden," I wonder sometimes what he really wants. The fact that he was placed in office by Peter Thiel certainly doesn't improve my opinion of him.
VP Vance is married to an Indian who is an agnostic. Doesn't sound that White Christian Nationalism is Vance's priority.
-Neil
Neil - I've learned so much from this site about how Objectivism is so incredibly flawed, and in my opinion, destructively so. I owe all of you main contributors here a great debt, and I only wish I'd discovered this site years ago.
That said, I want to say that your response surprises me a little. Is that really the depth of knowledge you're going to use in evaluating whether JD Vance could be aligned with white Christian nationalism? That his wife is an agnostic Indian?
I mean, he married her in 2014. That was three years after he met Peter Thiel, in 2011, and a year before Thiel became his mentor at Thiel's venture capital firm, Mithril Capital, in 2015. Although born into an evangelical Protestant family, from his mid-20s to his mid-30s, Vance identified as an atheist. In 2019, he converted to Catholicism, and in 2021, Thiel spent $15 million to fund Vance's Senate campaign (the single largest contribution to a Senate candidate to date).
If you're familiar with Thiel at all, you'll know that he's a hot mess of philosophical influences. His "guru" is Curtis Yarvin, and his theologian of choice is the French Catholic philosopher René Girard, whom he studied under at Stanford. Today, Thiel is all about things like the apocalypse, Armageddon, the Antichrist, etc., which I won't delve into because it's not really the point here. If you haven't looked into him, you might be interested in learning more about that wholly evil person.
The point, though, is that Vance also touts Yarvin and Girard (with a minor assist from Rand) as his own philosophical influences. He was mentored by Thiel, and put in office by Thiel. It's fair to say that nobody has influenced Vance as much as Thiel has done.
Then, when you evaluate Vance's various positions, as I mentioned briefly earlier in this thread, it's very easy to say he's in the Christian nationalist camp and then, less obviously so but just as strongly, in the white Christian nationalist camp.
Frankly, without meaning to be disrespectful, if sort of cracked me up to read that his being married to an agnostic Indian could mean that he's not a white Christian nationalist. The man is a chameleon, and will do and say anything to position himself as the successor to Trump. And he's certainly not trying to build a country where agnostic Indians would be welcome.
If I were to summarize my thoughts about Vance and his wife, the term "throw her under a bus" would be the first thing that comes to my mind.
I was just making a specific point -- not saying that this resolves the issue on way or another - NP
Post a Comment