Last week, I wrote an article for TownHall.com that condemned the political fanaticism that inevitably stems from utopian ideologies. Among these delusions is the misnamed Objectivism. My inclusion of Ayn Rand as an intellectual moron has sent her followers into a frenzy. Angered that I would dare criticize Objectivism as an incubator of fanaticism, one admirer of Rand threatened in an email missive: "we are going to make this world hell for you." I guess he missed the irony.

While you didn't get to see the nasty emails, you may have noticed the invasion of this site by Randroids. You may have also noticed their cowardly retreat. After listing a number of things I admire about Rand, I asked her defenders to list one defect in Rand's novels, philosophy, and character. It's five days later, and I'm still waiting for an answer. My sense is that I'll be waiting quite a bit longer. This is because Objectivism is not that different from a cult. Any criticism of Rand is deemed treason, with the "guilty" party excommunicated.

It's not so much that the Randians objected to my specific criticisms of Rand. It's that they object to any criticism of Rand.

Despite the pretext of individuality, Randians are joiners--people who follow a guru and rely on the guru's system rather than their minds to think. They are programmed. What else explains the overload of their mental circuits when confronted with the simple challenge of coming up with a few substantive matters on which they disagree with Rand?

According to one Randian poster on this site, believing in the truth of Rand's philosophical system is no different from believing in the truth of the laws of mathematics. Another Objectivist went so far as to invent quotes and attribute them to me. He then attempted to refute the quotes that he had made up. That's usually a fairly easy way to win a debate, but the jury is still out whether this guy was even able to win this staged argument. I realize this blogger used caveats like "he said in effect" when quoting himself quoting a fictional me, but why invent quotes when all you have to do is use the "cut-and-paste" function?

While I welcome the input of readers, including Randians, to this site, this same tolerance is not extended to critics of Rand when you comment on various Objectivist sites. Take Don Watkins, for instance, who was one of the Randian posters on FlynnFiles who left in a huff when the challenge to make a criticism of Rand was made. I came across a comment on his site that politely congratulated him on opening his mind to other perspectives. Watkins curtly responded: "what makes you think MY blog is the proper forum for anti-Rand statements?" "I'll be stating my general policy on what I do and do not want posted in my comments section," he continued. "Slams against Rand or any other value I hold are unacceptable and will be deleted."

Erasing dissenting opinions is certainly one way not to lose an argument. Putting words in quotations marks that someone never said and then attributing those words to that person is another way. Neither method, however, does much to uncover the truth--which, of course, is never the goal of intellects in submission to a guru.

Fascinating, I had completely missed out on that whole thread. I would have loved to argue with Randroids. I particularly loved their attempt to say that Rand is not a philosophical materialist because she believes in "consciousness," or the "mind." The two are not incompatible.

I also enjoyed their haughtiness and moral righteousness. You did fine Dan, you are clearly much more patient than I would be with those guys.

By the way, if they want to discuss contorted uses of words maybe they can explain to me how the title of Rand's book "The Virtue of Selfishness" is not a nonsensical contradiction meant for immature polemical impact. They seem to be following the master's lead in manipulating accepted and acceptable meanings of words.

They're a strange group. Surprisingly, they have some distinguished philosophers in their ranks, but I've never been able to figure out why.

I attended a Randy group meeting at the APA out of curiousity. Afterwards I began to querry the Randy's about objectivism by comparing it to seemingly similar Aristotelian positions. The response was telling: Rand, apparently, doesn't dig quite as deep as the Stagirite. No surprise there. The shallowness of Randy 'philosophy'-talk was accompanied by a odd group dynamic. I had the distinct feeling of being recruited by a cult (not unlike the Sun Shine Carpet Cleaners a la Seinfeld).

Pretty entertaining thread. Both sides made some decent points early on, but why waste your time arguing about one of the most overrated novels of all time. Atlas Shrugged is about as worthwhile as a daytime soap. Lots of sex and back stabbing. The story's watered down to the point of bordem. I've only read it once, but I'm still surprised that it is held in such high regards by some.

Those Randians really did disappear didn't they?