Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead of Satanism

LaVeyAre conservative Christians who admire Ayn Rand the biggest of hypocrites? Joe Carter wrote at First Things:

Over the past few years, Anton LaVey and his book The Satanic Bible has grown increasingly popular, selling thousands of new copies. His impact has been especially pronounced in our nation’s capital. One U.S. senator has publicly confessed to being a fan of the The Satanic Bible while another calls it his “foundation book.” On the other side of Congress, a representative speaks highly of LaVey and recommends that his staffers read the book.

A leading radio host called LaVey “brilliant” and quotations from the The Satanic Bible can be glimpsed on placards at political rallies. More recently, a respected theologian dared to criticize the founder of the Church of Satan in the pages of a religious and cultural journal and was roundly criticized by dozens of fellow Christians.

Surprisingly little concern, much less outrage, has erupted over this phenomenon. Shouldn’t we be appalled by the ascendancy of this evangelist of anti-Christian philosophy? Shouldn’t we all—especially we Christians—be mobilizing to counter the malevolent force of this man on our culture and politics?…

Read more here.

35 Comments on "Ayn Rand: The Fountainhead of Satanism"

  1. No mistaking it. She makes it very clear in her books that “mystics” are enemies and parasites.

    Want to see how conservatives viewed “Atlas Shrugged” before the Objectivism cult popped up? It’s an awesome read, plays right into this article:

  2. Redacted | Mar 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm |

    She never did get over Lenin refusing to go to prom with her. So she spent the rest of her life writing terrible fiction, and presumably cutting herself with the finest quality emo razors.


    •  I always thought it was Leon Trotsky choosing Revolution over her. Hence “We The Living” (the most autobiographical novel) having the most non-Randlike character name: Leo.

  3. DeepCough | Mar 4, 2012 at 8:17 pm |

    FYI: Ayn Rand was a staunch atheist.

    • Jin The Ninja | Mar 4, 2012 at 8:39 pm |

       that is true, but what i think (?) they are referring to is satanism as materilalism (hedonism as spirituality) a la lavey rather than worship of baphomet or set.

    • FYI: So was Anton LaVey.  He only did his ceremonies and called himself a satanist to mock Christianity.  He didn’t really believe in the devil.

      • The Fourth | Mar 4, 2012 at 9:08 pm |

        Agreed, there are different forms of Satanism. There are various Theistic Satanic traditions and a few Atheistic Satanic traditions.

        Theistic Satanist believe that Satan is a real independent entity.

        Atheistic Satanists believe that they are their own gods on this earth but once they are dead, that’s it. Might as well make the best of it while you are here. The Satanic Bible is full of common sense philosophy and psychodrama. This is the tradition that LaVey started.

        I am a Theistic Satanist that likes to read up on many traditions, Both Atheistic and Theistic, Satanic and non-Satanic. Eastern and African traditions are very interesting as well. It helps to be an open minded person.

        • Indeed a lot of people just heard his name and heard the name of the book he wrote and never bothered to pick up and actually read anything he wrote or where too afraid to.  A lot of people just don’t research anything. 

          • DeepCough | Mar 4, 2012 at 10:04 pm |

            If you really wanna see how whacky those “non-Laveyan” Satanists are, check out the Disinfo TV series, a whole expose is done about them. Laveyan Satanists come off as niche drama geeks in comparison.

          • The Fourth | Mar 4, 2012 at 10:57 pm |

             So you’d rather just watch some over sensualized episode rather than do some actual book research? I am a non-Laveyan (Theistic) Satanist and a pretty normal person. Many times you’ll have pseudo-Satanist’s that try to walk this path and fail miserably, this is the inevitable end to those who aren’t serious and lack responsibility. Unfortunately, the occult world is flooded with fools who pick up 1 or 2 books and all of a sudden they think they are some grand magus and decide to start an ego stroking cult.

            My point is, do your own research and think for yourself. whackos will penetrate any and every tradition and culture, they should be ignored rather than have news segments on them which give them more power and influence (even if it is negative publicity).

          • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 5, 2012 at 4:53 am |

            I dont know, theistic satanism is pretty weird. Do you sacrifice animals? I read satanist’s also thrive on the domination of others. Your right in that we have to keep an open mind and look at all spiritual traditions.

          • The Fourth | Mar 5, 2012 at 12:36 pm |

            Magick is about changing the self and not so much about changing others. Many people see magick as a means to dominate others and in the end their own inability to change themselves will ultimately become their own demise (This is common in evolution; the organism needs to adapt to the environment in order to survive, if it doesn’t, it will die).

            I do not sacrifice animals. However, Animal and human sacrifice is seen and documented in the Bible (most people ignore this simple fact). God told Abraham to sacrifice his son (although God finally stepped in to prevent what he originally told him to do). Sheep were also a common sacrifice to god. In Voodoo, animal sacrifice also occurs, but voodoo is not some evil religion that Hollywood tries to make it out to be.

            I personally see absolutely no use in sacrificing animals, but if someone were to see it as useful, I believe that it should be done humanly and the animal should also be consumed as food.

            This site below is were I started my path many years ago and is all about SANE and RATIONAL Satanism. Diane Vera does a good job to cover the basics and disprove much disinformation.


          • DeepCough | Mar 5, 2012 at 1:52 pm |

            I think for myself so much that I’ve promptly told your great maltheistic deity “Shatan” to go fuck himself because it’s just as imaginary as the one who spawned it in the first place. Now piss off, and go pack to your pointless, Crowleyan dramaturgy.

          • The Fourth | Mar 6, 2012 at 7:09 pm |

             Apparently, you do not think for yourself since you need to be spoon-fed information from a TV. I also find it hilarious that you are equating Crowley with Satanism. Stop being an ignorant fool!

          • DeepCough | Mar 9, 2012 at 2:26 am |

            You Satanists are just the Emos of the Abrahamic tradition of religion. Grow some balls, quit clasping onto your Pentragram like a Christian clasps onto a cross, and tell Yahweh and Shatan to go fuck themselves. You’ll be better for it.

  4. Ed12261973 | Mar 4, 2012 at 8:19 pm |

     I think there is an aspect of social consciousness in Laveyean thought that might not exist in Randian thought, and that it stems from boyhood heroes that Lavey said that he had in the documentary Speak of the Devil: The Authorized Canon of Anton Lavey including such figures as Wolf Larson in London’s The Sea Wolf as well as noire heroes like Batman, The Shadow, and The Lone Ranger.

  5. Antediluvian | Mar 4, 2012 at 9:02 pm |

    I’ll just leave this here

  6. I sometimes wonder if the real value of religions out there, is to just keep alive the concept of Reverence. It seems all too easily for atheists to fall into destructive pitfalls of unbridled selfishness of satanism, or the silliness of something like subgenius, or the misplaced optimism of techno-utopianism. Things like this always lead to a lack of respect for our people and our world.

  7. halmonkey | Mar 4, 2012 at 11:49 pm |

    That article is half onto something, but mostly just some Christian conservative who is mad that many conservatives are interested in Ayn Rand’s political ideas (liberty for the most part). LaVey and Rand had very similar ideas for sure, but LaVey was into the rituals and entertainment, and enjoyed mocking Christianity–not seriously worshiping the devil. Rand, on the other hand, was a serious philosopher and atheist who saw no point in any religious rituals at all. Many, many people are misinformed on LaVey and the Satanic Bible, which really has little to do with religion or Satan (or devil or Lucifer), but is a nice philosophy of man.

    • Underwhelmed | Mar 5, 2012 at 4:39 am |

      She always struck me as being equal parts ugly and closet Thelemite but I digress…….

      • Monkey See Monkey Do | Mar 5, 2012 at 4:59 am |

        I’ve always read that Thelemite’s hold compassion and empathy as some of their great virtues.

    •  Upon reading the words “serious philosopher,” I realized that I was reading the words of a man I could not take seriously. Compare Ayn Rand with Heidegger or MacIntyre, or even compare her with ancient and medieval philosophers. She, to use academic jargon, sucks balls.

  8. Psychological Operations | Mar 5, 2012 at 11:29 am |

    It’s Classic Hegelian Dialectic. Two-Sides, Same Coin. The more energy you put into it, the more it spins.  Any Who?  http://t.co/lr5fEFQf

  9. I think Disinformation isn’t what it presents itself to be. I think its interesting because its kind of “reverse irony” But anyway, Alex Burns, Micheal Aquino, these aren’t playful anti-establishment types like Banksey. These are people after power. Who cares what conservative Christians think? That’s not who the establishment is. The tea party is not the establishment.

    • Jin The Ninja | Mar 5, 2012 at 9:56 pm |

      the tea party is owned by the establishment. so, in effect they are establisment social actors by proxy.

  10. Hadrian999 | Mar 5, 2012 at 1:41 pm |

    the most amusing thing about many rand acolytes  is that in her world they would be no better than slaves. It is the genius of the right wing that they get people from the poor and lower middle class to fight for the right of the rich to dominate everyone else and to fight the right of everyone else to have a voice in society. do these blue collar people think that they would suddenly be beautiful billionaire industrialists if we would only shut up and be good little slaves?

  11. I think that the truth in all of this, lies in the difference between objectivism/(atheistic) satanism and (love-centric) religion/community. satanism/objectivism tout the benefits of individuality, to the extent of individuality becoming most important to ones existence, and, likely, the exclusion of others. Where as religion tries to impart the importance of community and togetherness, despite an individualistic world.
    The problem with individualism is that no one ever got Anywhere entirely on their own. We are connected at the most intrinsic of levels, whether you see and understand this or not. My personal belief, is that ones worth is at least partially determined by your effect on those around you. not your ability to subjugate, and utilize.

  12. rus Archer | Mar 5, 2012 at 5:18 pm |

    what’s so bad about satan?

  13. Ronald Ward | Mar 6, 2012 at 9:55 am |

    what the author of this article fails to point out, (and probably fails to realize, )  is that Satanism is just another FORM of Christianity. Satanism is just Christianity’s mirror-image, it is worship of the Christian god’s polar opposite, but it is still based in belief in Christian theology. there are other religious and spiritual belief systems, not all of which believe in a “Devil”.

  14. Countvelcro | Mar 6, 2012 at 6:06 pm |

    my holy guardian angel told me that the occult is stoopid.

  15. Apathesis | Mar 7, 2012 at 7:24 pm |

    There is no one true philosophy that works for everyone.  Sure, some may be better than others when it comes to which benefits the most people, but like people are unique, so are opinions.  Some people are compassionate and love everyone, while others are selfish assholes who only care about getting what they want.

    Her opinion on the rape scene from The Fountainhead has always bothered me.  Maybe she was into rough sex so she tailored it into the story and was afraid to admit her sexual fetishes in those days?  But I doubt that.  More likely she was just another woman blaming the victim much like Athena blamed Medusa…

Comments are closed.