She warrants treatment on my other website, by which I mean I intend to write an essay on her life, philosophy, and use both as an entry way to a discussion of my own views on the nature and purpose of Individualism.
For now, I did want to offer several cursory observations. First, she was almost certainly a clinical narcissist. She seems never to have actually loved her husband, Frank O’Connor, hurt him often, and yet needed him desperately.
I think she had a “Rosebud” moment in her early childhood, which can actually likely be identified. I will pull the story.
No John Galt would need Ayn Rand. Nor would he need sycophants of the sort with which she chose to surround herself most of her life.
John Galt, for her, was God. He was the reification of her desire to live a life free of conflict, suffering, and mental uncertainty. This desire, in turn, was created by an inability to process the horrible sufferings of her life, in terms of loneliness, being misunderstood, having a narcissistic mother, and of course the physical privations of pre- and post-revolutionary Russia. The reality, of course, is that John Galt was a sociopath. This freed him from some conflicts, but created a lack of emotional depth and in particular the capacity for empathy.
Altruism, for Rand, is used as a synonym for “hypocrisy”. She herself benefited often from the genuine generosity of others, and very simply could have not have written her books without large supplies of it. For her part, she offered it at times as well, although in general she was quite vindictive, and selfish in ways she would not have tolerated in others.
Corollary: Behind every “self made” man or woman stand many people he or she has simply chosen to forget. That was plainly the case with Rand.
I made copious notes while listening to her autobiography. When time permits, I am going to read John Galt’s speech, Roark’s courtroom speech, and Francisco something’s disquisition on money. Then I will collate it, post it on the other site, and mention it here.