The Ayn Rand Cult

by Jeff Walker

Ayn Rand and her philosophical school, Objectivism, have had a considerable influence upon American popular culture, yet the true story of her life and work has yet to be told. In this book, Jeff Walker debunks the cult-like following that developed around the author of the classics Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead--a cult that persists even today.

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Biography, History, Cults, Politics

350 pages, Paperback

First published December 30, 1998

Reviews

[Timothy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ayn Rand was an idiot. But anyone who takes her seriously is a bigger idiot.

[Eric_W · Rating 4 out of 5]

This fascinating book reinforces an observation I have made over the years: that the ideas of individuals once institutionalized, become perverted and reinvented by those who claim to be the authentic followers of the guru who invented them. Certainly this is true of most religious leaders from Christ to Joseph Smith. It is happening to Robert Greenleaf, and it certainly happened to Ayn Rand, although in the case of the latter she may have had a hand in encouraging the transformation and idolatry.

Heresy and orthodoxy become important concepts once ideas have been codified and institutionalized: anyone with the temerity to suggest revisions or alternatives becomes a heretic and traitor. (Interestingly, the word traitor has religious roots. It comes from a Latin word meaning "handers-over," those Christians who obeyed the Diocletian order to hand over the Scriptures so they could be destroyed. Whether these traditores could receive communion again caused a major schism in the church. Of course one has to belong to an organization and to believe its basic tenets in order to be heretical or a traitor. Hence the difference between heretic and infidel.) Walker is no fan, but I think he makes the same error Philip Johnson did in his attack on intellectuals, condemning their philosophies because they were unable personally to live a blameless life. Walker denounces Rand because the did not often live the life she expounded in her books and he blames her for the iconographic adoration of her adolescent followers. Walker insists that only adolescents looking for a philosophical underpinning were susceptible to her beliefs, perhaps a questionable assumption, but one difficult to challenge given a paucity of data. More to the point he criticizes her for being essentially a derivative thinker (haven't most philosophers derived or based their thinking on the work of others?) and he says her books have little literary value. Ayn Rand, according to virtually everyone who knew her, was charismatic and unconflicted in her beliefs and that alone attracted many, often the young, to her. If she had a major flaw, it was her adoption of an orthodox position that considered views other than hers to be "unreasonable" and "unobjective," and to prevent the movement from developing its own orthodoxy.

There is an apparently inherent contradiction between her celebration of individualism and self-reliance and the Objectivist movement itself, but that is in the nature of all movements and perhaps a great reason to avoid them, be they religious or philosophical. Ayn Rand's heroes were the antithesis of followers, but I suspect that humans are biologically programmed to want to adhere to groups and to define themselves by that group, and to identify too closely with the set of beliefs, the orthodoxy of the group, and to want to exclude and brand as heretics those who refuse to adhere to the group's principles. It's true of the religious right and the radical left. The irony is that most movements eventually become so enamored of the trappings of their orthodoxy that they lose sight of the original beliefs of the founder, in fact, they often become irrelevant. But that's why we have libraries, to help everyone challenge their assumptions.

Clearly, the book is a vindictive, personal attack that will be ignored by Objectivists (who should read it, if only for the discussions of orthodoxy and heresy) and lauded by those who can't stand Rand. I found it a lively, if shrill, examination of the history of a movement founded by a passionate, if personally flawed, individual who, rightly or wrongly, has influenced a large number of people through a body of interesting novels; an examination of a movement to came to practice the opposite of the principles its leader espoused.

**I know "their" is incorrect here, but it seems a nice gender-neutral compromise, surely much better than his/her or just "her" or "his", so I think it's time for the English orthodox police (of which I am one when reading my kids' stuff) to admit this use of "their."

minor corrections 1/15/10

[nostalgebraist · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting book filled with startling and disturbing claims about Ayn Rand, the devoted inner circle that surrounded her while she was alive, and the cultlike organization (the Ayn Rand Institute) devoted to her legacy.

The key word there is "claims." Now, I'm not an objectivist, and I have never been one. I never had a teenage Ayn Rand phase. I've never even read any of her books. And everything I know about rigid ideologies and the way they tend to function among human beings suggests to me that the central thrust of this book -- that Ayn Rand's inner circle and its descendants were/are scary, totalitarian, cult-like environments -- is very plausible. But the book shoots itself in the foot by overreaching: it's so determined to be a thorough hatchet job, criticizing Rand and her followers in every possible way, that the author doesn't end up seeming like a reliable source. It's probably true that Rand et. al. were roughly this bad -- but if so, that information was not credibly conveyed to me by this book.

The tone is hectoring, relentless, and somewhat cruel. Walker does not focus on proving some limited set of central claims; instead, the book is like a sort of "anti-Rand compendium," listing every possible criticism one could make of the Randians, from the damning to the petty, from the profound to the inane. Walker criticizes Rand for treating her followers in shockingly inhumane ways, but that's just the start; he also criticizes her on a huge number of other grounds, some of which are simply bizarre.

For instance, in a section on Rand's views of art, he makes a good case that Rand's overall philosophy of art was blinkered and incompatible with real human psychology. Not content to stop there, he mentions her distaste for medieval art, and proceeds into a peculiar rant "correcting" her on this score:

She was apparently ignorant of the medievals' magnificent sensuality, their wonderful flair for the ceremonial, their astounding engineering feats, and their many great philosophical and literary works, not to mention their absolutely spectacular stained glass, pottery, weaving, embroidery, and wood carving. Perfectly normal for the Middle Ages, for instance, were stained glass panels where exquisitely erotic figures in hilarious peripheral sex scenes counterbalanced the Christian central motif.

There is a great mismatch of proportion here; "being a cruel, controlling cult leader" is quite a different order of sin from "not properly appreciating 'hilarious' sexually explicit glasswork." A bit later he criticizes Rand's psychological views because they do not match the triune brain theory -- an interesting but controversial theory about the human brain. In general, it feels like Walker wants to throw everything he's ever heard of -- the triune brain theory, sexy medieval stained glass, whatever -- at Rand in one all-encompassing assault. But this weakens his case rather than strengthening it, because it makes him come off not as a fair judge but as someone who will present any argument, no matter how specious or flawed, so long as it happens to be critical of Rand and her followers.

(A chapter on Alan Greenspan's disastrous Rand-influenced policies is shocking, if accurate, but beyond claiming that Greenspan made many bad decisions, Walker seems unable to admit that Greenspan ever made a good decision; when he reaches a point in the story in which Greenspan made the right choice, he refuses to give Greenspan any credit, as this choice was apparently "obvious," something any competent person would do in Greenspan's place. This may well be true, but it gives some sense of the overall feel of the book: the Randians cannot be merely wrong about some important things, they must be comprehensively, fractally wrong about everything, down to the pettiest detail.)

At one point, I read an anecdote so startling and funny in Walker's book that I decided to post it elsewhere on the internet:

At the 1989 Objectivist summer conference [Leonard] Peikoff revealed that he’d read The Fountainhead, whose theme is independence, 60 times, but found himself floundering intellectually for weeks trying to write his chapter on independence in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand until suddenly it struck him that a 61st perusal of The Fountainhead might clarify matters. Lo and behold, it did.

A friend found this startling and funny as well and asked me for a source. I said it was in the book, and tried to track down Walker's reference, but Walker only cites references for direct quotes, and Google would reveal nothing about this story. Is the story true? Is it an urban legend? Is it something Walker found in some archived copy of Peikoff's speech (in which case, why didn't he directly quote Peikoff?), or is it simply an anecdote he heard from some source of unknown quality? One does not get the impression that Walker is the sort of person who would give up a zinger like this just because he can't source it well.

So, there we have it: the book is full of fascinating, extremely damning stories about Rand and her followers, but it forms the overall impression that none of these stories can be believed unless independently sourced by the reader. At best, it's a starting point for further reading, if one really wants to delve into the sordid history of objectivism. As a stand-alone work, I just don't trust it.

[Max]

SO cool research. I wish someone else would write it. A lot of the subject matter (to the extent he manages to stay focused on the cult itself and not EXTREMELY low hanging fruit dunking on ayn/objectivism) is genuinely super interesting but is made tedious in the delivery, which again, feels like an accomplishment . i LOVE shitty biographies, which is how i would describe the best parts of this. I read a lot of them, the worse the better . i have NEVER seen anyone end one with a fanfiction about how the subject's life could have gone if she wasn't such a frigid psycho bitch. Truly singular. Author manages to come off more sanctimonious than ayn herself- could he be a titan of industry in this regard?

[Nadine · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had no idea that Ms. Rand was such a bully. Her relationship with her actor/husband is covered lightly. He was alcoholic. Nathaniel Branden ( a self-esteem psychologist licensed to practice in New Jersey for 30 days a year) was kicked out of the cult and publicly humiliated when he disagreed with the Mistress of Selfishness. The book goes into a great deal of philosophical byways involving cults, religion and economics. Concludes that Ms. Rand was a second-rate writer with a paranoid personality. Worth reading.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ayn Rand's novels THE FOUNTAINHEAD and ATLAS SHRUGGED, fiction written to present the author's ideas to a mass audience, have been wildly popular among a certain demographic since their appearance. However, once institutes and organizations popped up around the new philosophy of "Objectivism", first Rand and then her successors have seemed to suppress dissent, shun those considered heterodox, and viciously attack other philosophers and political parties. In THE AYN RAND CULT, Canadian journalist Jeff Walker makes the case that this world can indeed be called a cult, and that it has wrecked lives and destroyed marriages and friendships. He makes use of countless interviews and published material.

Walker's survey begins in the 1950s, when a group of New York intellectuals enamoured with THE FOUNTAINHEAD gathered around Rand to discuss her ideas. Already in the beginning Rand showed herself to be very intolerent of other opinions, and those who continued to profess ideas were banned from the group. Even those who maintained friendships with those banned were themselves banned. One of the members, Nathaniel Branden, was especially dedicated to Rand, and the author even pressured his wife into allowing an affair. Branden was for many years seen as Rand's right-hand man, but in 1968, Rand became furious after she discovered he had seen another woman, and ordered all her followers to shun him without even disclosing a reason. Much the same happened years later when Leonard Peikoff, the ultimate heir to Rand's philosophical legacy, cut off David Kelley because he had spoken in front of a group of libertarians, and all who sided with Kelley were also exiled. This forcing adherents to associate only with others loyal to a group orthodoxy, Walker notes, is a typical behaviour of a cult, and much of the book tracks these precepts, schisms, and divorces as though they were a good case study of a sect.

Another behaviour typical of a cult is holding the guru up as the source of all wisdom, regardless of the guru's qualifications. Rand herself had read little philosophy, and many legitimate philosophers have said her odd rantings against Emmanuel Kant could have only come about had she never studied Kant's own writings. Here is unmistakable proof that the guru is not a reliable source. Yet, in Objectivist circles Rand's thoughts on Kant must be taken as authoritative, and her followers have continued to quote these in spite of their erroneous nature. Similarly, Branden has been dishonestly called a great psychologist, even though his Ph.D is from an unaccredited institution, and he has not been permitted to practise in all states.

THE AYN RAND CULT leaves little doubt that Objectivism is dangerous and ruins lives. While her novels have an especial charm for adolescents, and one frequently runs into posters on Internet forums holding her up as a great expert, there is little peril for many. Yet, deeper activity in Rand's thought can entrap the idealist, and Walker's book serves as a good dose of reality. That said, I must echo many complaints here that the writing is all too often spiteful and venomous. It is not ad hominem to list Rand's shortcomings as a philosopher and arrogance as a guru, that's an essential part of the thesis. However, Walker does not write in a sufficiently dispassionate scholarly tone, and anger and malice can be found on many of the book's pages. The book ends with an odd section of imaginative writing called "The Ayn Rand That Might Have Been", in which Walker conjectures about how Rand's life might have gone had she been more open to criticism. I found this portion thoroughly unacademic.

It is a pity that the book suffers from a polemical tone, and we are still waiting for a neutral study of the cult-like traits of Objectivism. In the meantime, however, THE AYN RAND CULT can prove useful from dissuading people from taking this pop philosopher and her risible novels seriously.

[Donna Parker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ayn Rand conjured up the cult of Objectivism, which to the best of my knowledge is a philosophy whose principal doctrines are: reality is a standalone of consciousness; one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the practice of concept formation and inductive logic; the apposite moral function of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness, sort of a rational egotism; human beings experience express connection with reality through sense perception; the only social system consistent with this morality is complete respect for individual rights embodied in laissez faire capitalism; and the role of art in human life is to alter humans' metaphysical ideas by selective replication of reality into a physical form, ie. a work of art. Rand branded Objectivism as a viewpoint for reality-based living on earth, intended to define not only human nature, but the nature of our world.
I can see the cult aspect of Rand’s work, it’s seductive to believe self-interest, said pursuit of self-interest, and the concept that people are somehow heroes for pursuing self-interest is beguiling. The thought that logic ruling man is always enthralling, but seldom so, paradoxically, rarely among Rand’s followers or even herself. Perhaps if they were true to the philosophy that may be the case, but the cult of Objectivism has been so warped, exploited, and perverted it is a pathetic wraith of what Rand intended.
This book is an interesting, fairly objective look at Objectivism and Rand herself. Way too long and ragged at times, but one must consider the subject matter. While people may believe Rand’s ideas and beliefs are a thing of the past, in fact, there is a resurgence in Rand, especially among the extreme right wing political parties in many countries. The belief in pursuing self-interest above all else is alive and well, the trend is to pretend to not worship their prophet Ms. Rand. The trouble with reason and logic, they are susceptible to the whims, lies, and wilful misunderstandings of humans who wield them as weapons against those who may resist them. As for the issues with laissez faire capitalism, where do I begin? Look around and figure it out yourself. While I have found the ideas of Rand’s work seductive myself at times I find it improbable that my own happiness above all others is noble and absolute.

[Rebecca · Rating 2 out of 5]

The argument that Rand's group is a cult is totally convincing, and the book is entertaining as a kind of pop expose. The detailed catalog of Rand's flaws, hypocrisies, and overall narcissism is pretty gratifying if you find her belief system as cruel and fascistic as I do. There's also a useful lit-review section that places her works in the context of conservative pulp fiction and business theories of the 1920s-1940s. The author seems to write from a libertarian perspective, so while I found the discussion of economics and history limited, seeing the schisms of objectivists, former objectivists, neo-objectivists and libertarians from the inside was quite interesting. Reading the book gave me some perspective on how non-socialists might read left sectarian debates with which I'm more familiar. The other problems with the book are the poor writing & editing, a bizarre section on the Jewish origins of objectivism which bordered on anti-semitic stereotype, and the sappy coda for the Rand-who-could have-been, which focused largely on her failure to have children.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

helpful antidote to Ayn Rand. Just in case you thought you were reading truly great literature in Atlas Shrugged. This will snap you out of it.

[Don Incognito · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you would like to know why you should probably read *about* Ayn Rand and her Objectivist philosophy rather than joining it, you can't go wrong with this book. It provides extensive and seemingly correct information on why Objectivism fits perfectly into the definition of "cult" and why Ayn Rand can fairly be called an intellectual bully and tyrant.
Based on the picture of Objectivist leaders' behavior, I can easily imagine current Ayn Rand Institute director Leonard Peikoff stridently condemning this book as irrational! irrational! irrational!, probably without having read it. (The author notes cases of Rand and her students bashing philosophers and/or books that they have little or no firsthand knowledge of.)
However, it is too bad that for some reason there aren't that many anti-Rand books out there (that I know of), because I would rather have gotten this critical information on Rand/Objectivism from a different author. What most of the other reviews say is true: he is dreadfully abrasive. He is described as an investigative journalist, but his analysis is not conducted with a semblance of detachment or professionalism. Rather, he very much gives the impression of having a personal axe to grind with the Objectivist movement. The back of the book states that some of the publications he has worked for are Free Inquiry, Skeptical Enquirer and Liberty. I am wondering if he might be a libertarian, in which case his tone would be understandable, because according to him, Rand and her Objectivists hated (still hate) libertarians for not wholly accepting Objectivist philosophy. Or possibly Walker is a former Objectivist student who suffered 'excommunication' for developing incorrect ideas. (The Objectivist leaders' standard procedure in this matter is ugly.)

[Lulie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Describes the coercive control dynamics around Ayn Rand and her followers, including subtle patterns that made it a head-fucky environment.

These coercive dynamics appear in other Ayn Rand-influenced groups too. I'm sure some fan groups are lovely, but the Manichaean judgemental psychology of Ayn Rand can ooze into groups and cause nasty effects.

I might change my rating to 4/5 later, but this book was really helpful.

[Bob Duke · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having encountered some disciples of Rand I have often felt that I have meet a member of a cult. Rand's inner circle referred to themselves in jest as the "collective" but in reality it was no joke. Those who fell foul of Ayn Rand were "excommunicated" members of the Rand inner circle were banned from reading the writings of those who had been excommunicated.

[REO Bookwagon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book blew me away...it puts forth the idea that the cult of Objectivism was based on Ayn Rand's quirks and dislikes with reality & that without it, she might not have been able to function normally in the outside world.

[Fred · Rating 5 out of 5]

wildly relevant expose

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

A critical view of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. This book should be read in conjunction with Barbara Branden's "The Passion of Ayn Rand'".

[William Frost · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was a Randroid for a year in high school (thank god I didn't have any other Randroids to reinforce it!) I picked up "Philosophy: Who Needs It" as a freshman, and I was totally taken in and devoured everything she wrote over the next year plus. I eventually realized how bizarrely specific her ideas were and how unworkable, but it definitely influenced me very strongly.

Just before graduating, I came across some works about her life, but this book synthesizes a lot of the information I wish I'd had before reading the first book of hers, especially on the actual intellectual background of Objectivism, as I'd previously bought hook line and sinker her claim to have just made it up herself. Also, admittedly, the information about her personal life was very interesting.

But--there are some big problems. The most obvious is the end of the book where he imagines a Rand who had a child and thus chilled out. I've seen this trope before in another book about Rand, and no. God no. There was no value there.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Yeah, I get it. Ayn Rand was a sociopathic cunt buffoon with an overinflated ego with a legion of iamverysmart followers who have read about three books in their life and believe they have found the meaning of life and commit themselves to following her teachings. It comes out of the same milieu as Scientology, another cult full of lost blowhards looking for answers in all the wrong places.

I was with it until the author started performing autofellatio and talking about how incredible neo-feudalism, err, libertarianism is. Anyone who supports that dogmatic and deranged inversion of bolshevism which led to the second half of the twentieth century's major atrocities, mass murder campaigns, and destruction of the democratic process in countless countries isn't worth my time. So yeah. Fuck Ayn Rand but also fuck every single libertarian. I should have quit the moment I realized that the author was taking the word of Murray Rothbard seriously. Fuck him too.

[Ross · Rating 2 out of 5]

So Objectivism is, by any objective standard (see what I did there?), a literal cult and Ayn Rand was its literal cult leader. Not cult-like, not something with a cult following, but a very literal cult that has all the typical traits of any other cult, such as Scientology or Falun Gong. Anyone with a working brain can see that this is the case and I applaud the author's efforts to expose that. What I take issue with is his inability to see that Libertarianism itself is a religion that has caused more harm to humanity than any other religion or cult in modern times. The author has no problems with neoliberal capitalism and all the evil it causes. He takes issue with Rand's approach to it. Acting like Ayn Rand's Objectivism is dogmatic and evil, yet typical Libertarianism isn't, is hilariously idiotic and I don't have time for it.

[Aaron · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jeff Walker took aim at a target-rich environment, fired a shotgun blast...and missed.

There's plenty of valid criticism to be leveled at Rand, especially Rand the human being. There's also plenty of bullshit criticism that has gained traction despite having the unfortunate quality of being not true.

Rand the person, the woman, the human being was many things: brilliant and strange; cruel and gullible; ambitious and fragile. Her work was both better and worse than you might glean from typical commentary by people who seem to have not actually read or understood anything she wrote.

Her inner circle was cliquish. Obsessively so, even. But Walker spends an entire book trying and failing to establish that it was a cult despite the glaringly obvious fact that it was not. It was, rather, a thoroughly human and therefore flawed institution, doubly so because it arrayed itself against the prevailing culture of the time and felt (not unreasonably) besieged by people on all sides, many of whom couldn't even be bothered to critique her actual ideas.

When "To a gas chamber, go!" is the best line that Whittaker Chambers (who of all people at the time should have known better) could come up with in reviewing Atlas Shrugged, you begin to realize the disingenuousness with which people approached her work. Walker commits the same error in his zealous pursuit of a conclusion he was not about to be dissuaded from no matter the evidence.

Should Walker accomplish enough to warrant a critical biography someday, let it be undertaken by someone more honest than he is.

[dejah_thoris · Rating 1 out of 5]

I am so glad to be DONE with this boring book! I started this thinking it would be an expose of the modern Objectivist movement (kind of like most of the Scientology and FLDS books I read) but it isn't. Instead, it's a discussion of Objectivism's evolution and leaders from its inception until about 1990. On the plus side, it is VERY detailed with separate long chapters devoted to each leader after Ayn Rand as well as long chapters on the philosophy as applied to romance, art, etc. Unfortunately, it is also EXTREMELY repetitive and filled with references to cult leaders few have heard of since their reign. In addition, most of the quotes and perspectives cited from former Objectivists do not depict a range of personalities or experiences, focusing more on the inner circle than its impact on the general membership. However, having dated an Objectivist for a year (2000-01, not recommended) I can endorse this book as a solid source for presenting the philosophy and its evolution though I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for something incredibly sensationalistic. Aside from Ayn being her stubborn undebatable self, there's nothing really applicable to the modern movement, which I'd rather see explored.

[Fred Kohn · Rating 1 out of 5]

Mimi Reisel Gladstein, specialist on Ayn Rand's literature, says of this book: "There is material of interest here, but one has to pick through a lot of muck to get at it." Frankly, I think that is quite generous. The author has dug through an amazing amount of material with no apparent purpose other than to quote mine it for negatives about Ayn Rand and her followers. Why do we need to know that a young Alan Greenspan had a reputation for having bad breath, or that as a student Nathaniel Brandon often cut classes to watch four movies a day? On the rare occasions the author does give his own opinion, it is sometimes supported (poorly), but more often not supported at all. I am still kicking myself for getting sucked into reading the entire book. I was most interested in the chapter on the Nietzschean, Jewish, and 1920s business thinkers' influence on Rand's thinking. If I had known it was going to include points such as Rand's fascination with money coming from her Jewishness, I never would have bothered opening the book at all.

[Jon]

This book is very badly written and the editing is worse. (Important figures in the book are often introduced by last name only, leaving the reader thumbing through the index trying to figure out who's being mentioned.) One especially egregious chapter offers a "counter-history" of Rand's life, imagining her later years if she'd done everything differently. I mean, who cares? Only one chapter, in which Walker discusses writers (including some you wouldn't have expected) who may have influenced Rand and in which he shows real skill as a literary critic, is worth reading. As a target for would-be debunkers, Rand is about as tempting as it gets. Maybe that's actually the problem--in any case, this book doesn't hit the mark. Maybe if I read one or both of the two recently published biographies of Rand, I'll finally understand the significance of the woman who gave liberty and atheism--the two ideals I cherish most--a bad name.

[Elliott · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was hoping that this book would be more than it actually was. On the one side it's an excellent dissection of the Randroid cult of personality, but on the other hand I was hoping for a critique of her fiction and philosophy to accompany it. At the end however which bumped this book down a further one star was the chapter "An Ayn Rand who Might Have Been." This chapter did not fit in with the rest of the book at all, and really might have served best as a separate essay, or appendix. I personally thought it a bit too silly for inclusion to an otherwise dreadfully serious book.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unreadable mix of sophomoric psuedo-journalism smears an often very unlikeable Rand with ludicrous charges of cultdom based on a small cadre of intense fans. Just because Ayn Rand was not a likable person often emulated by even less likable sycopants neither diminishes the value of her writings nor paints her followers as cult members.

See also the autobiography of Rand written by Barbara Branden, the wife of the man she shared with Rand!

[Joseph · Rating 4 out of 5]

Insightful about her personality and history growing up in post-imperial Russia during the Communist Revolution. Read it because her ideas have influenced a lot of politicians, especially on the conservative side.

[Ed · Rating 3 out of 5]

He makes some good points, but the argument really only applies to the 'inner circle.' The cult of Ayn is about as real as the Stonecutters on the Simpsons.

[Agger · Rating 3 out of 5]

OK book about the cult, a bit too one-sided.