The alchemy of turning LaVey into Rand

I'll piss on the next guy that says Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy is satanic in its origins. Because Anton LaVey, the author of the satanic bible, claimed that his work was "just Ayn Rand's philosophy with ceremony and ritual added" makes objectivism as religious as toasted bread. If anything, the weight of that argument is situated in the perceived truism of

• LaVey finding her writings satanic,


• Rand's disagreement with collectivism,


• The attainment of a "godly" stature, and


• Rand's "disagreement" with the self-sacrificial nature of religion.

People must first understand that all the religious implications of Rand's philosophy have only been centered around it: objectivism applies to anyone who finds reason in it, irrespective of whether or not he was religious first. If anything that a philosopher says is found to be satanic, then the philosophy only has to suffer contentious arguments born from adherence to a religious faith. Just because Rand's condemnation of philanthropy was born from a self-sacrificial act by Jesus Christ doesn't mean she's a self-confessed anti-Christ. It only means that's the way an evangelist will see her.

If LaVey finds her writings satanic, it's because he's thinking about Christianity. He's placing it in a religious context that brings damnation with it. Secondly, objectivism is not a controversial truth - it's only a debatable truth. The difference is exemplified by any religion that invites "deities" and otherworldly "spirits" in order to successfully conclude a debate. Anyone would agree that an empirical observation can withstand logical review better than one founded simply in literature.

Argumentatively speaking, both satanists and objectivists have an enemy united by a simple metaphor: The Controller. While the satanists reject the restraints imposed by way of being a follower of "God and His Ways" that limits humankind from seeking out pleasures that might never really be sins if only they gave credit to conscience and a strong will, objectivists work only to break free from the inheritance of loss and define their successes as theirs because it is a product of their perseverance and sacrifice and define their successes as theirs alone (to keep it simple). However, believing in A and believing in B doesn't make them equatable simply because they both define the truth of my existence.

"I believe all things have meaning.

I believe all things are made of matter.

So... meaning is made of matter."

Rand doesn't stand against collectivism because she wants it to make way for a more controversial idea: she stands against it because she finds it more dangerous to human progress than any other solution that might take its stead. However, the Randian satanist is only a philosopher who has substituted one evil with another evil - irrespective of their relative strengths.

On a final note: Rand can believe in what she fucking wants to believe in but that's not enough to condemn one of her works. The ad hominem fallacy works only when Rand alone believes in the success of objectivism, which is obviously not the case. Otherwise, anyone who has ever committed a criminal activity will never be able to afford the rationality of truths.