…by Jonas E. Alexis, VT Editor

“In any given period of history, a culture is to be judged by its dominant philosophy, by the prevalent trend of its intellectual life as expressed in morality, in politics, in economics, in art. Professional intellectuals are the voice of a culture and are, therefore, its leaders, its integrators and its bodyguards.” Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual[1]

One can say with certainty that the 1960s and 1970s were a watershed moment in America and much of the Western world. Social critic Roger Kimball declared that those periods shocked “the moral and intellectual fabric of our society.”[2] Speaking of the 1960s in particular, Jack Kerouac declared that they were “apparently some kind of Dionysian movement.”[3]

And every watershed moment—most particularly Dionysian, sexual movement—had its own intellectual revolutionaries and writers whose ideological foundations had come to play a major role in the lives of young and eager students.  Michel Foucault, Jean Paul Sartre, and of course Ayn Rand were among those writers.

Foucault proclaimed that “it is forbidden to forbid,” a philosophy which he followed to its logical conclusions through homosexuality and which eventually took his own life.

Aldous Huxley wrote in his meditation Ends and Means, “For myself, as, for no doubt most of my contemporaries, the essence of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation…We objected to the morality because it interferes with our sexual freedom.”[4] Morality is compatible with reason, and reason is compatible with Logos. In a sense, a rejection of morality is a rejection of Logos, and once Logos is abandoned, then reason will inexorably follow suit.

Foucault, as well as Bertrand Russell, was indeed Huxley’s contemporaries, and both individuals proved Huxley right. Foucault once declared, “I would like and hope I’ll die of an overdose of pleasure of any kind.”[5]

Foucault got his wish in 1984: he died of AIDS. Yet even after he got the disease, “he recklessly visited gay bathhouses and sex clubs. He infected countless others.”[6] One of Foucault’s victims thought it was an honor to have been infected by Foucault’s own disease. “I die happy,” he triumphantly declared, “because I was infected by Michel Foucault.”[7]

Foucault also had an enormously powerful influence on his students. Here’s an interesting dialogue:

Student: Should I take chances with my life?

Foucault: By all means! Take risks, go out on a limb!

Student: But I yearn for solutions.

Foucault: There are no solutions.

Student: Then at least some answers.

Foucault: There are no answers!

The interesting thing is that Foucault spent most of his life writing books and positing answers to the questions that there are no answers, a self-defeating position.

In 1983, Foucault, because he had already crossed the sexual rubicon, collapsed. Yet “he could still be found in the baths and bars.” He would brag: “To die for the love of boys: What could be more beautiful.”[8]

Intellectual historian Mark Lilla of Columbia University writes that Foucault was “intoxicated by Nietzsche’s example…” Foucault, Lilla writes, takes those examples and “projects them out onto a political sphere in which he has no real interest and for which he accepts no responsibility.”[9]

Keep in mind that Nietzsche deliberately infected himself with syphilis and frequented brothels in order to largely manifest his hatred toward morality—and the culture that had embraced that morality.[10]

Sartre, whose existential philosophy has impacted millions through his plays and novels, also crossed the sexual abyss. As Paul Johnson puts it, “When Sartre first seduced de Beauvoir he outlined to her his sexual philosophy. He was frank about his desire to sleep with many women. He said his credo was ‘Travel, polygamy, and transparency.’” Sartre bragged about having been “in whorehouses all over the world,” including Korea and even India.[11]

Sartre was also “well-known for seducing his own female students. In a hostile criticism of Huisclos, Robert Francis wrote: ‘We all know Monsieur Sartre. He is an odd philosophy teacher who has specialized in the study of his students’ underwear.’”[12]

This accusation was not without merit, as de Beauvoir herself confessed that “as Sartre grew older, his girls became younger-seventeen or eighteen-year-olds, whom he spoke of ‘adopting’ in a legal sense, meaning they would inherit his copyrights.”[13]

During the 1950s, Sartre “was running four mistresses at once” and “deceiving all of them in one way or another. He dedicated his Critique de la Raison Dialectique (1960) publicly to the Beauvoir, but got his publisher Gallimard to print privately two copies with the words ‘To Wanda’; when Les Sequestres was produced Wanda and Evelyne were each told he had dedicated it to her.”[14]

Bauvoir believed that these young women “encouraged Sartre to lead a life of excess—not just sexual excesses, but drink and drugs too…the book on dialectical reason, indeed, appears to have been written under the influence of both drink and drugs.”[15]

Johnson writes that Sartre “could never stomach for long…male intellectual equals of his own age and seniority, who were liable at any moment to deflate his own often loose and windy arguments.”[16]

The sexual calculus which ran through people like Sartre found its way in the life of Bertrand Russell. When he was asked why he stopped doing philosophy at the early age of forty, Russell unashamedly declared: “Because I found I preferred fucking.”[17]

If “fucking” is more interesting than formal philosophy, then Russell inevitably proves that St. Paul was right all along, that many reject Logos because they love their sexual lifestyles. Russell was not kidding, for he went through four wives “and countless mistresses without apology….Behind and around him lay ‘a long trail of emotional wreckage,’ in the words of his principal biographer Ray Monk, while he himself often seemed haunted by the ghosts of maniac,’ his own phrase. Russell’s will of 1966, for example, did not even mention John, his first son on whom he had once pinned all his hopes but whom he had later tried to have locked away as insane.”[18]

Russell’s inconsistency with respect to his sexual voyage was discovered by Russell’s own daughter, Katherine Tait. She noted: “Having given up strict monogamy with the end of his first marriage, he no longer felt any need to restrict his affections, which he distributed most liberally throughout the rest of his life.”[19]

At one point, one of Russell’s lovers became pregnant by another man, which infuriated Russell, despite his philosophical stance on unfettered love. At another point, he gave Katherine advice that directly contradicted his own behavior. “Once I asked him if I should sleep with an amiable young man of my acquaintance. ‘Do you love him?’ ‘No, not really.’ ‘Then you shouldn’t. It’s best to save that for someone you love and not treat it lightly.’”[20]

Although Russell saw no problem with his own pattern of promiscuity, he was not so cavalier with his daughter’s virginity. Because of these contradictions, Tait came to the realization that the atheism which her father had followed to his dying day was irrational and unsustainable.

As Tait goes on to explain, Russell did not find the peace and happiness he so desperately pursued through unbridled passion. Russell avoided rational discussion about the subject he was rejecting. “When he wanted to attack religion, he sought out its most egregious errors and held them up to ridicule, while avoiding serious discussion of the basic message.”[21]

Even in his parenting Russell displayed his inconsistent thinking. Once when Tait asked her father why she should do something, he answered merely that she would make more people happy by doing it than by avoiding it. That was it.

No appeal to reason or preference or even higher authority—just social consensus. Russell, implacable mathematician, atheist, and philosopher, was not able to convince his own daughter about his worldview. Tait concludes, “We felt the heavy pressure of his rectitude and obeyed, but the reason was not convincing—neither to us nor to him.”[22]

There was more to Russell than meets the eye and ear. He was an advocate of homosexuality and sexual freedom. But when his own son, John, announced that he was a homosexual, Russell did not want to talk about it. Russell died in 1970, “but the misery he had created lived on.

Behind him he left two bitter ex-wives, a schizophrenic son John, who was never again fully sane, one granddaughter, Sarah, who was classified as schizophrenic, and another, Lucy, who for a time promised well and long adored her grandfather…Falling in love with a young Moroccan shoplifter (of books), she lost her grandfather’s affection so completely that by 1966 he cut off all contact and support. Not yet eighteen years old, rebuffed by other members of her family, Lucy was effectively homeless.”[23]


Not too many people are familiar with Foucault, Sartre, and others. People like Foucault, Sartre, and even Huxley are not household names among neoconservatives, but Ayn Rand is.

Ayn Rand is particularly interesting because she has probably been the quintessential guru and the “fountainhead” among many neoconservatives largely because she advocated unregulated laissez-faire economics. Jennifer Burns of Stanford declares that right after the economic collapse in 2008, Rand “has emerged as a leading intellectual on the right…”[24] She has been “the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right.”[25]

Rand is also interesting because, as Brian Doherty puts it, she is “the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large. She is a cultural force of impressive heft; a 1991 joint Library of Congress/Book of the Month Club poll found her magnum opus Atlas Shrugged to be the second most influential book on Americans’ lives, after the Bible.”[26]

One Graduate student in psychology remembered that after reading Rand’s book, “it was like being reborn…”[27] Leonard Peikoff, Rand’s intellectual children, “boasted of having read The Fountainhead sixty times but admitted that he did not fully understand its message regarding independence until the sixty-first reading.”[28]

Rand’s followers “have even held Randian weddings. At one such event in New York, a passage from the Objectivist holy book—Atlas Shrugged—was read and the couple pledged their loyalty to Ayn Rand.”[29] There’s more: “Upset that someone had poked fun at Rand, one Objectivist curtly retorted, ‘[Y]ou wouldn’t mock God.”[30] Both corporate leaders of Burger King and even Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, were huge fans of Rand’s work.[31]

The young Jewish writer and radio talk show host Ben Shapiro frequently cites Rand in his works and on occasions is angry at professors who say that there is no original innovation in Rand’s work. Michael F. Szalay of the University of California for example declares that Rand’s Objectivism “is not taken seriously by philosophers anywhere.”[32] Shapiro responded by saying, “to minimize her contribution to philosophy is ridiculous.”[33]

Shapiro seems to have forgotten that Szalay makes specific reference to Objectivism which, as we shall see, is philosophically worthless. Shapiro never addressed Rand’s own contradiction.  Shapiro likes Rand because “Her espousal of capitalism is incredibly important, today more than ever before.”[34]

Rand herself realized at the end of her life that her fundamental philosophy was unsustainable and existentially worthless when she embarked on a sexual journey. Born Alisa Rosenbaum, Rand was the daughter of Russian Jewish parents, Zinovy and Zakharovich. Former vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan himself linked some of his ideas to his reading of Rand.

We are told in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged that “Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to become the means by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of other men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other.”[35]

Rand here justified what many Jewish intellectuals were saying in the nineteenth century. Heinrich Heine, one of the most significant Jewish poets in the nineteenth century in Germany who called Communism “the dark hero,”[36] did not hesitate to write that “[M]oney is the god of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”[37]

Karl Marx drew somewhat a similar conclusion, but instead of Rothschild it is Israel. “Money is the jealous god of Israel,” he wrote in his essay entitled “On the Jewish Question,” “beside which no other god may exist.”[38] Karl Beck, another Jewish poet around the 1820s and 1830s, complained that the Rothschilds were “filling the insatiable money-bag for themselves and their kin alone!”[39]

More than a century later, Rand implicitly continued to proclaim the essential message of that tradition by saying that money “is the root of all good.” If money is the root of all good, then all those who possess money abundantly should live happily ever after. We all know that this is not the case.

In fact, the love of money has proved to be detrimental in the history of economics. Over the centuries, the love of money got morphed into usury and exploitation, and usury slowly but surely led to the plundering of the poor, the needy, and the defenseless of society.

The economic collapse in America and much of Europe, particularly Greece, around 2008, was a case in point. The Occupy Wall street movement was a reaction to those who perpetuated the capitalist ideology.

Rand’s Sexual Crossing

Jacoby declares that one reason Rand seems to have “a powerful appeal to intellectually precocious teenagers” is because Rand had an “unconventional” view of sex.[40] Jacoby is right.

In 1955, Rand began to have a sexual relationship with Nathaniel Branden, another Jewish writer who later wrote a biography of Rand. Rand was fifty years old at the time, and Branden was twenty-five. Both individuals were married when they began their sexual adventures. Rand was married to Frank O’Connor, and Branden to Barbara Weidman. Speaking of how she was going to explore the sexual journey, Rand told Branden, “We’ll have our year or two together, and there will be no victims, no tragedy.”[41]

In order to begin the sexual exploration, Rand and Branden asked their spouses their permission. “It is the logic of who we are that led us to this,” Rand told them. “It’s completely rational that Nathan and I should feel as we do toward each other. It’s totally rational, given our premises, that our feelings would include the sexual.”[42]

You see, anything that Rand likes is rational—even the generally dumb ideas that would stun a person with only an ounce of mental power. O’Connor and Weidman were devastated with the news, but they eventually succumbed. “Frank O’Connor was but one casualty of the affair. Barbara Branden began suffering panic attacks.”[43] The sexual relationship lasted for more than ten years, but old age began to take a toll on Rand.

By the time Rand was 63 (Branden would be 38), Branden saw no sexual pleasure in sleeping with an old woman. Branden, therefore, had to find a younger bird for more sexual exploration. This, of course, aggravated Rand. “You have dared to reject me?” she told him. “If anything goes permanently wrong between us, I’m finished; you’re my lifetime to the world and to any chance at happiness I’m ever going to have.”

She continued, “The man to whom I dedicated Atlas Shrugged would never want anything less than me! I don’t care if I’m ninety years old and in a wheelchair!”[44] By this time, Rand began to call Branden a “bastard,” a “monster” and a “contemptible swine!”[45]

Rand could not see that sexual lust and passion only last for a moment and that once the physical attraction is gone, the party is over.

Moreover, Rand could not see that once sexual lust becomes dominant, it will more than likely seek to explore forbidden territories. Branden said that it was this “sexuality that seemed to have materialized out of nowhere…”[46] It was materialized because Rand opened Branden’s sexual licentiousness up. Once Branden had crossed that rubicon, it seemed that all sexual possibilities were on the table. In other words, Rand open the sexual floodgate. But she forgot a basic principle: once you open the floodgate, you simply cannot tell the water where to land. Branden himself wrote,

“I had lost all sense of restraints or barriers…I was sometimes astonished by the degree of my ease and comfort in getting what I wanted, the sense of operating in a context where mastery was effortless. Looking back several decades later, I am still somewhat amazed and unable to explain my certainty in an area where my previous experience had been so limited.”[47]

Rand, according to Branden, “wanted me to override two marriages, the age of difference, and every kind of conventional objection—and I did so.”[48] E. Michael Jones comments,

“Rand’s lust for a younger man had reduced her to a groveling parody of the characters in her novel. She was now the female equivalent of Peter Keating, the ‘second hander’ she held in contempt in The Fountainhead… The lady who dedicated her life to promoting what she called ‘the virtue of selfishness,’ now demanded the complete and utter devotion of her most important follower.”[49]

In other words, Rand’s grand foundations in books such as Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged! are philosophically, intellectually and practically worthless, since at their metaphysical root they contradict what Rand actually practiced. As time went by, Rand became another product of the Enlightenment whose obvious philosophical contradiction failed the test of her own practical life.

As already suggested, sexual lust, like a mighty river, always takes a life of its own. And when Rand pull that sexual lever, she eventually became the victim of the floodgate which she had erected. As the book of James suggests, lust in the end always brings misery, and Rand had to live with that misery right after Branden began to flirt and sleep with his own client.

“You have no right to casual friendships,” she said to Branden, “no right to vacations, no right to sex with some inferior woman! Did you imagine that I would consent to be left on the scrap heap? Is that what you imagined? Is it?”[50]

Rand forgot that she was the author of The Virtue of Selfishness. She wrote that there is a virtue in being selfish, a philosophy which is at the heart of Milton Friedman’s capitalism.

But Rand could not stand Branden who practiced the virtue of selfishness, particularly when Branden was having an affair with actress Patrecia Scott. If “the role of the mind in man’s existence” which to Rand is “the new moral philosophy” and “the morality of rational self-interest,”[51] then Branden had all the intellectual rationalization on the palms of his hands to pursue his sexual interest and concupiscent needs with as many women as he liked.

Moreover, Branden used to refer to Rand as “Mrs. Logic” and “a goddess of reason,”[52] which seems to suggest that Branden was taking notes from Rand’s own worldview and trying to follow those notes to their logical conclusions—both philosophically and practically. For example, Rand writes in The Virtue of Selfishness:

“The virtue of Pride can best be described by the term: ‘Moral ambitiousness.’ It means that one must earn the right to hold oneself as one’s own highest value by achieving one’s own moral perfection—which one achieves by never accepting any code of irrational virtues impossible to practice and by never failing to practice the virtues one knows to be rational—by never accepting an unearned guilt and never earning any, or, if one has earned it, never leaving it uncorrected—by never reigning oneself passively to any flaws in one’s character—by never placing any concern, wish, fear or mood of the moment above the reality of one’s own self-esteem.”[53]

Then Rand drops the atomic bomb, which literally destroys her own philosophical mines:

“The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that just as life is an end in itself, so every living human being is an end in himself, not the means to the ends or the welfare of others—and, therefore, that man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. To live for his own sake means that the achievement of his own happiness is man’s highest moral purpose.”[54]

Rand, like Mary Wollstonecraft before her,[55] was trapped by her own philosophical deadness. How could Rand tell Branden how to live his life when Branden was trying to reach his sexual happiness elsewhere, a philosophy which is logically congruent with Rand’s own metaphysical foundations? How could Branden be wrong when he was not willing to sacrifice himself for Rand, when Rand was twenty-five years older than Branden? Did she really think that a middle-age man with a sexual and uncontrolled appetite will stay with a woman who already passes the age of sixty?

If one follows Rand’s Objectivism consistently, Branden had to look for sexual satisfaction elsewhere because Rand by that time Rand was no longer the attractive darling she once was when she landed in America in 1925.

Moreover, how could Branden be wrong when he was also trying to follow the sexual philosophy that Rand’s contemporaries had already set forth? After all, did not Wilhelm Reich and Sigmund Freud advocate a free sexual life?[56] Did not Freud say, “I stand for an incomparably freer sexual life”?[57] Did not Antorn Lavey declare that free love “means exactly that—freedom to either be faithful to one person or to indulge your sexual desires with as many others as you feel is necessary to satisfy your particular needs….”?[58]

Was not Branden trying to follow Phillip Roth’s sexual liberation as explicitly stated in Portnoy’s Complaint?[59] Wasn’t Branden trying to “put the id back in the yid” and attempting to “liberate the Jewish boy’s libido”? Why would Rand want to suppress Branden’s sexual passion? Was Rand indirectly refuting herself by disagreeing with Branden on this very issue? If so, then what is the point of The Virtue of Selfishness?

If everything revolves around “the gripping power of Oedipus Rex,” as Freud tells us, then Branden is vindicated in his sexual exploration. If every boy has a desire to have sex with his mother and that every girl has a desire to have sex with her father, then the plausibility of a man having sex with as many women as possible in order to absolve himself from sexual repression is not far-fetched.

If almost everything revolves around the “oral,” “anal,” and the “phallic” stages, as Freud tells us, then the next move for an individual is to explore those stages later in life with as many women as possible. Branden, in that sense, was more consistent than Rand. Branden was right in line with the Freudian tradition.

Rand’s Objectivism was like a cult. It had a lot to do with preserving Rand’s image and had virtually nothing to do with truth.

As it turned out, Rand’s movement was a covert Jewish revolutionary activity which sought to undermine the moral order. Jennifer Burns, a very honest scholar, in an interview with Stephen Colbert, declared just that:

“When Rand talked about the virtue of selfishness, she was opposing traditional Christian value.”[60]

The genie, then, is out of the bottle. At its eventual root, Objectivism was an implicit attack on reason. Rand, throughout For the New Intellectual, denounces moral values as barbaric, backward, and intolerant. But Rand replaces moral values with a barbaric doctrine, as she began to excommunicate virtually anyone who disagreed with her fundamental premises. Daniel J. Flynn wrote,

“Among the reasons that Nataniel Branden banished anarcho libertarian Murray Rothbard from the circle was that Rothbard had married a Christian and refused to leave her when she didn’t succumb to anti-God audiotapes and essays put out by the Objectivists.”[61]

So much for Ayn Rand. She should have been dismissed long ago.

This essay was first published in 2013.

  •  [1] Ayn Rand, For the New Intellectual (New York: Signet, 1963), 10.
  • [2] Roger Kimball, The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America (San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2001), 4.
  • [3] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000), 507.
  • [4] Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry into the Nature of Ideals and into the Methods Employed for their Realization (London: Chatoo and Windus, 1946), 273.
  • [5] Quoted in Jonathan Dollimore, Death, Desire and Loss in Western Culture (New York: Routledge, 1998), 305.
  • [6] Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 237.
  • [7] Ibid.
  • [8] Quoted in Mark Mark Lilla, The Reckless Mind: Intellectuals in Politics (New York: New York Review of Books, 2001), 157.
  • [9] Ibid., 158.
  • [10] See for example E. Michael Jones, Dionysos Rising: The Birth of Cultural Revolution Out of the Spirit of Music (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994), chapter 2.
  • [11] See for example Paul Johnson, Intellectuals: From Marx and Tolstoy to Sartre and Chomsky (New York: HarperCollins, 1987), chapter 9.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Ibid.
  • [14] Ibid.
  • [15] Ibid.
  • [16] Ibid.
  • [17] Quoted in Ibid., 94.
  • [18] Ibid.
  • [19] Katherine Tait, My Father, Bertrand Russell (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1975), 46.
  • [20] Ibid., 155-156.
  • [21] Ibid., 188.
  • [22] Ibid., 184-185.
  • [23] Thompson and Rogers, Philosophers Behaving Badly, 123.
  • [24] Jennifer Burns, “Ayn Rand and America’s New Culture War,” Christian Science Monitor, December 11, 2009.
  • [25] Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 4.
  • [26] Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (New York: Public Affairs, 2007), 11; see also Daniel J. Flynn, Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas (New York: Crown Forum, 2004), 198.
  • [27] Cited in Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (New York: Oxford University Press, 2009), 1.
  • [28] Flynn, Intellectual Morons, 203.
  • [29] Ibid.
  • [30] Ibid., 200.
  • [31] Ibid., 199; Burns, Goddess of the Market, 143-150.
  • [32] Ben Shapiro, Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America’s Youth (Nashville: WND Books, 2004), chapter 11.
  • [33] Ibid.
  • [34] Ibid.
  • [35] Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged (New York: Signet, 1957 and 1992), 385.
  • [36] Quoted in Robert Payne, Marx: A Biography (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1968), 102.
  • [37] Quoted in Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: Money’s Prophets, 1798-1848, Volume I (New York: Penguin Books, 1999), 17, 214-215.
  • [38] Quoted in Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 587.
  • [39] Ferguson, The House of Rothschild, Volume I, 439.
  • [40] Jacoby, “The Ayn Rand Revival: Economics, Sex and Atheism for Dummies,” Washington Post, April 20, 2011.
  • [41] Quoted in E. Michael Jones, “Death at the Gazebo: Conservativism in Extremis at Hillsdale College,” Culture Wars, January 2000.
  • [42] Flynn, Intellectual Morons, 211.
  • [43] Ibid., 212.
  • [44] Jones, “Death at the Gazebo: Conservativism in Extremis at Hillsdale College,” Culture Wars, January 2000.
  • [45] Flynn, Intellectual Morons, 212.
  • [46] Nathaniel Branden, My Years with Ayn Rand (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1999), 136.
  • [47] Ibid.
  • [48] Ibid., 137.
  • [49] Jones, “Death at the Gazebo: Conservativism in Extremis at Hillsdale College,” Culture Wars, January 2000.
  • [50] Ibid.
  • [51] Quoted in Gregory Salmieri, “Atlas Shrugged on the Role of the Mind in Man’s Existence,” Robert Mayhew ed., Essays on Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009), 248.
  • [52] Jones, “Death at the Gazebo: Conservativism in Extremis at Hillsdale College,” Culture Wars, January 2000.
  • [53] Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet, 1964), 29.
  • [54] Ibid., 30; emphasis in original.
  • [55] See for example E. Michael Jones, Monsters From the Id: The Rise of Horror in Fiction and Film (Dallas: Spence Publishing, 2000), chapter 1.
  • [56] See for example Wilhelm Reich, The Sexual Revolution: Toward a Self-Governing Character Structure (New York: Doubleday, 1971); The Function of the Orgasm: Sex-Economic Problems of Biological Energy (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1973); E. Michael Jones, Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control (South Bend: St. Augustine’s Press, 2000).
  • [57] See for example Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, Vol. II (New York: Basic Books, 1981), 416-418.
  • [58] Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969), 66, 67, 69, 81.
  • [59] See for example Jones, The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 979-982.
  • [60] http://www.jenniferburns.org/.
  • [61] Flynn, Intellectual Morons, 204.


We See The World From All Sides and Want YOU To Be Fully Informed
In fact, intentional disinformation is a disgraceful scourge in media today. So to assuage any possible errant incorrect information posted herein, we strongly encourage you to seek corroboration from other non-VT sources before forming an educated opinion.

About VT - Policies & Disclosures - Comment Policy
Due to the nature of uncensored content posted by VT's fully independent international writers, VT cannot guarantee absolute validity. All content is owned by the author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images are the full responsibility of the article author and NOT VT.


  1. To the first part: And; the “love of money” turned millions of Africans into American slaves.
    To the second: I imagine the ancient Romans could have taught Ayn Rand a thing or two about sexual licentiousness.
    But “Christian” morals finally prevailed and provided a framework for Western civilization; of which, those of Rand’s persuasion have wreaked havoc for over a hundred years.

  2. A young lady once asked her grandfather why young men were praised for their sexual conquests; while women who were promiscuous were denounced as sluts. The grandfather thought about it for a bit, then said, “When you have a key that can open many locks, it’s a master key! When you have a lock any key will open; it’s just a shitty lock.”

Comments are closed.