Repairman

Luis Enrique Colon, Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure where you were informed about United States policies prior to 1940, but the leadership in Washington definitely opposed the Bolshevik revolution, the Comintern and its international mission of infiltration, and the subsequent Soviet leadership. The exception to this policy came only during the Great Depression, when trade and diplomatic recognition resumed, and at the onset of the Nazi expansion (Operation Barbarosa.) These were pragmatic decisions; there were no ambiguities regarding the Soviet Union and Stalin. It was well know that the USSR was also a threat to freedom. At the conclusion of the European war, the nations of Eastern Europe under Soviet occupation in fact were supposed to be allowed to choose there own governments. But any government not meeting full approval with Stalin was destroyed. I guess you could say that Stalin was smart for having opposition leaders thrown out of windows, that is if one uses tyranny as the standard of smart. I refrain from using the term, "Communism" as the governing principle; Tito in Yugoslavia was a communist. Kremlin leaders turned on Tito for not falling in line as a vassal state. But unlike the nations directly on Russia's borders, Tito's nation was spared full-scale military invasion. I would prefer to use the term, Eastern or Oriental Despotism rather than Communism. While Communism was the ideological foundation of the Iron Curtain countries, it was the Stalinism, a form of oriental despotism that dominated those unfortunate nations ceded to rule under Moscow by agreements reached at Yalta. It wasn't that Roosevelt didn't care about Russian domination; it was his sense of pragmatism that set the stage for the Cold War.

Spooky Kitty, Would you be willing to suspend your belief of: man, the parasite? Biology and semantics aside, I'm quite sure that the opening post is little more than an suggestion that reason, as a means of survival, is overrated. Could we stay within that context? To be sure, man has been able to survive with the most rudimentary skills. But he must still apply reason to his actions, even when living within a primitive tribal setting with mysticism as its guiding idea of morality. As a lone castaway, he would certainly perish unless he applied his best reasoning skills. Reason is and always will be essential to mans' survival. It is a choice, although some choose not to think, and allow or force others to fulfill their needs. Often because of one great thinker, many others survive while they, the many, abandon their own choice of reason. Abandon reason entirely, and man becomes the breakfast of much more physically powerful species possessing claws and fangs. When the only choice for man was to kill or be killed, the guiding moral principal normally was mysticism. If mere survival is the only goal of the collective/tribe, acting as predator was using reason. I don't understand your suggestion that "man is not necessarily destroying himself" by acting as predator. It is not in spite of his predatory actions that he survived, but because of his well-reasoned actions to act as a predator that he survived. Either way, the "tribe" survives in spite of mystic leadership, because someone among the tribe has a higher capacity to reason. Consider this illustration: It didn't always go so well. As rational as they may have been on occasion, a society ruled by mysticism is a society that destroys the innovator, the deviant intellectual, the seditious critic, and all who challenge the status quo. I really don't need to defend Ayn Rand's logic. From man's early beginnings where he relied on shamans, to the life in the Workers Utopian Paradise, or to any other subjective philosophy, ideology, and/or theology that relegates man to a subject living at the whim of the king or the state, it usually doesn't end well. In other words, it destroys man.

Surely, you must hold some value for your personal life and possessions, in spite of however self-sacrificial you might feel at times.

As time passes, I often consider the various ideologies that comprise the many layers of mainstream political thought in the Unites States. A pall of pessimism enshrouds the nation. We are on the threshold of another (I hope) peaceful transition of power. Once again, Americans are expected to vote, not for an improvement in governance, but against the greater of two evils. Then, I encounter an umbrella term: Alt-Right, which could identify one who is a white nationalist, while not being a white nationalist(?) It could include those who support a patriarchy, a monarchy, or anyone who has near complete contempt for natural human rights or life itself. A point of view based on a malevolent universe is common, all together too common among the lowest rungs of the economic hierarchy. Anecdotally, I understand that the malevolent universe premise is nearly universal among convicted criminals, which would explain their all-too-common quest for personal redemption through Christianity or Islam. Both of these creeds holds to a malevolent universe premise. While it requires no degree in theology to hold a religious faith, it would require some religious faith to believe in a monarch as one's sovereign. Throughout my life, I have witnessed the intellectual density of racists both religious and secular. We've come a long way in the past fifty years, but obviously not far enough. It bothers me that one of the two leading contenders for the highest office is feeding, if not gorging, on racist sentiments. It is likely that his opponent will succeed. And while it will be a relief to have dodged the catastrophic ascent to power of someone as ill-equipped to hold that office, as Donald Trump is, the more successful candidate seems intent on following the same economic formula that has cast the pall of pessimism that has grown thicker in the past fifteen years. A disgruntled population seeking redemption through an anti-politician politician is gaining converts. Republics historically have succumb to the reign of tyrants largely because of internal economic desperation. The liberty that has been our birthright, and the gift to other nations through the sacrifice of American lives, hangs in the balance, perhaps not in this election, but in a future election, one in which the United States gasps for economic freedom under crushing laws implemented with best of intentions. The ranks of the disgruntled will no doubt swell to a point where an American tyrant could win. Once established, suspensions of elections and other constitutional laws could become routine, and generations will pass until no one remembers the promise to secure the blessings of liberty ourselves and our posterity. No monarch or aristocracy in history was ever established without a violent conflict, or at least through coup d'etat. And every one of them or their descendants tried to crush the freewill of the common people, often with bloody reprisals. The rise of the secular tyrants of the 20th century, Stalin, Hitler, and so many others support the argument that personal self-reliance must first be broken before a nation recedes into absolute authority, and ultimately, totalitarianism. Must it always be between the lesser of two evils? As Objectivists, we know that evil wins with every compromise to evil. More than ever Americans need to recognize the value of individual liberty before it is voluntarily abandoned, and we are subjects to a new form of tyranny once again. It may not happen today, it may not happen tomorrow, but soon, and for the rest of your descendant's lives.

World history verifies that terrible things happen; it also informs us of incredible discoveries in medicine, science, human behavior, to say nothing of the creation of wealth through industrialization. While terrible things may be the result of both nature and human effort, the incredible advances in human progress may be almost entirely credited to human resourcefulness,i.e. benevolent people. Your debunking is anything but thorough, however, you may try to make a more convincing argument to support your claim.

Dustin86, You seem to have a strong interest in reactionary groups, "tribes" if you wish to call them. Is violent reaction proscribed among those of your tribe? Commentary on student demonstrations: Objectivism advocates private education. Do you think these antics would be allowed on a privately own campus? Commentary of monarchy: Do you think violent mob action would be impossible in a monarchy?

Actually, big companies would benefit from an increase in minimum wage. Big companies are more able to absorb the cost, while small businesses will suffer from the increased overhead costs. Big companies would install automation to offset labor costs, (and lay-off workers), while small businesses would struggle. The small business might hire the laid-off workers, but when they compete with a company that increases its output with fewer wages on the payroll, eventually the small business folds.

Dustin86, it's more likely that you have no argument. That's why you so often start these belligerent dialogs, and then back off and/or say nothing. I've answered your questions, even when they include unnecessary tags such as: "Answer the question." Not even so much as "please." How rude. To be sure, it's very difficult to understand someone who refuses to clarify his position. It's not clarifying anything to tell people what you are not; simply put: what are you? I can't help noticing you're playing the "victim card" again. No one is "monsterizing" you. I think you're imagining others perceiving you as "the sworn enemy." I asked that you would explain what ever is your personal ideology, (aside for your malevolent universe), and how would it in any way benefit someone who holds a diametrically opposing view. Your metaphorical olive branch is getting a bit weak. So please, if you truly wish to be understood, explain what makes you different from the Alt-Right movement with which you expressed your solidarity, and yet deny association.

Dustin86, The term, "Objectivist," has been in use for more than fifty years, long enough to identify an Objectivist with the writings of Ayn Rand. I suppose it's entirely possible that a loose organization of misanthropes could lay claim to Objectivist or any other title, but for now, that's not something I'm worried about. If it ever came to that, I would, for social purposes, identify as a rationalist, egoist, or assume some other identity appropriate to my intellectual persuasion. On the other hand, white racist organizations have been changing their label whenever it seems suitable, and it appears they're doing it again. So, if I proceed on the assumption that your Alt-Right identity is in the past, why do you make this statement: If I could learn a great deal from Alt-Righters, what might that be? Did you learn any thing from the Alt-Right movement that benefited you? Please, answer this question: This suggests that you are in fact in league with Alt-Right-what-ever-it-is, and I've asked you several times to clarify the differing view you hold from others who identify as such, and you continue to evade. You favor a monarchy. OK. You believe in a malevolent universe. OK. Still, you find "strength in togetherness" or some sort of unity with this motley collective. So, for the umpteenth time, what makes you different from a neo-Nazi/white nationalist/Alt-Right/whatever?

Dustin86, So far, you've not presented any reason that anyone at an Objectivist chat site would take you seriously. It sort of seems that you're saying that you sympathize with white-nationalists because they are "victimized" by mainstream popular sentiment. After reading the article about the journalist that was digitally harassed, along with his family, I hardly find such people worthy of anyone's sympathy. Prior to reading this, I regarded any neo-Nazi-types as the social misfits you've described them as -- exception being that I don't see them as victims, rather that they pose a threat as cyber-saboteurs. Aside from being held in low regard by most folks, how do they qualify as victims? And why would you wish to identify in any way with this collective of pariahs? Are you not being victimized enough already? By choosing solidarity with such losers, you voluntarily fall into the same category. On the other hand, if there is something different in your beliefs from the typical Alt-Right person, I'd like to hear what you have to say. Supporting an ideology that favors ethnic cleansing would make you unpopular with most Americans, (and can you blame them?) The malevolent universe premise you hold does not necessarily make you anyone's "sworn enemy," although I speak for no one other than myself. Anyhow, if you have a specifically different belief, make your most rational explanation on your interpretation of Alt-Right ideology, and while you're at it, explain why you believe that a rational egoist would benefit from your perspective. This is your chance to be persuasive.

Should I consider this dialog a form of olive branch? What do you suppose I could learn from an Alt-Righter?

Dustin86, While this is no great revelation, thank you for the clarification. Why do you believe you have the right to identify as Alt-Right, when there are positions which you disagree in their ideology? Do you believe you have a right to an independence of mind, given the collectivism of Alt-Right ideology? Or to selectively choose an individualized "world view," for lack of a better term? Could you site something that differentiates your views from that of your typical Alt-Right person?

MisterSwig, This thread has been my only introduction to this Alt-Right movement. Their ideas are not new ideas, but rather very old, in fact, ancient ideas. I agree with you that engaging such irrational persons in polemics would be futile. It's their tactical use of the internet that concerns me. If they are sophisticated troublemakers, launching their attacks via cyber-space, the damage to their victims could be severe, costing them their livelihoods, inducing fear, even unleashing the occasional follower-fanatic on an anti-life mission. I still don't believe anything openly organized could last very long before they are investigated, infiltrated, and driven back to the proverbial shadow-world in which they now cower. Nonetheless, they have been reported in credible sources to have struck terror in the form of online harassment on a scale that would warrant police action; I don't know that nothing or anything is being done at this time, but I can imagine the FBI is aware of it. If you have the means to "fight back" I wouldn't discourage you, but it would be a job for someone with both the technical skills and connections to the federal Department of Justice, otherwise you may find yourself in violation of some illegal online practices. And I don't believe it's necessary to side with anybody, "Establishment" or "anti-Establishment." That is, unless there is some connection to a formal investigation. In such a case, siding with the "Established" authorities would be best. And as I alluded to earlier, this begs the question: Will we accept new restrictions of internet freedom regardless of their intentions? (Is the term, "Establishment" an anti-concept? anybody?)

Nicky, I touched on that point earlier, mentioning the cloak of anonymity. You expanded on that fact, the fact that the same anonymity that protects them prevents them from creating a genuine political movement. And nice job. However, after reading the article submitted by Reidy, it appears there may be a more sinister aspect to consider. That article was a bit disturbing. If these fanatics can terrorize and vandalize the tech equipment of individuals they deem worthy of such harassment, they will present a threat to professionals at work thwarting their efforts, or free-speech on the internet. This cyber-terror is bad enough. It could result in another justification for more advanced cyber-policing, something that could then be abused for the benefit of established politicians with the authority to abuse such policing. And the lone-wolf psycho-killer has greater re-enforcement supporting his paranoid delusions. While I don't regard the Atl-Right as a major contributing factor to the potential fall of Western Civilization, it could be a contributing factor to the decline. MisterSwig, The source of this Alt-Right is little more than the same race-based ideology that inspired the Ku Klux Klan and the Third Reich with the unrestrained freedom provide by the internet. With the advantage of historical perspective, I'm not so concerned about the creation of an out-in-the-opened political movement emerging from the Alt-Right. Yet, the challenges I mentioned above merit concern, at least in the short term. I will ask you again: In your opinion, what actions if any should be taken to prevent further damage?

MisterSwig, I don't think I'll spend much time debating the national influence of an online chat group until they come out from under cover anonymity. Violent or non-violent, organizations with no public visibility have little influence on the electorate. The police also operate anonymously and in secret when dealing with threats such as you've described. Let them write all manifestos they wish; they only makes it easier for the police to identify the real troublemakers. These sorts are less dangerous than the lone-wolf psycho-killers. I'd be better served promoting constructive ideologies or philosophies, such as Objectivism, rather than taking any actions in opposition to any non-constructive cabal. What sort of actions would you recommend for thwarting these Alt-Right interlopers?

MisterSwig, I'm sure I would need an explanation for this statement, although it seems to merit some kind of clarity. Anyway, I'd rather rebuttal of some other points in your commentary: Why should this Alt-Right (alleged) threat make any difference? It is doubtful that there will ever be a collective focus in the United States, unless you are considering another major terrorist attack within our borders, or something equally apocalyptic. The only thing this country focuses on are the personal problems related to each individual. Maybe I would include the annual Christmas celebrations or Superbowl Sunday as matters of collective national focus. The impression I have is that far too many Americans aren't even interested in this year's national election, resulting from the lousy choices. As for the popular notion of jailing Hillary Clinton, it is an unlikely outcome, more like wishful thinking for anti-establishment folks. However, if there is an investigation of the second President Clinton, I would not be surprised or disappointed, and could not suppress a bit of satisfaction at the prospect of diminishing her agenda. I seriously doubt if she would ever be removed from office. How can you say this Alt-Right thing is a serious problem; have their actions merited any criminal investigation? Don't you suppose that they would be investigated at the first violent incident associated with them? I don't see any obligation on my part to "doing" anything other than ignoring these websites; if any people were actually intent on criminal activity, it's a police matter. As for changing the American political landscape, most voters are too intelligent to fall for such rubbish as conspiracy theories and cults.

Indeed, you are mistaken on many things regarding Objectivism. But we all make mistakes.

New Budda, Perhaps my use of the term, "dogma" was misplaced. Either way, my point that Protestantism, with its emphasis on human ability, displaced the influence of rigid Catholic dominance. Even in predominantly Catholic nations in Western Europe, church attendance is dwindling. Dustin86, It hardly matters that some people will always hold to subjective systems of understanding reality. The hazard lies in the predominant philosophical belief that people have no right to live other than for the lives of others. Whether one arrives at this understanding through contemplating deep philosophical studies, or through a common understanding among members of a society. Individualism and capitalism are widely accepted in American society, although few people ever stop to think of the reasons for their behavior. Objectivism points to the underlying philosophical premise of religious and altruistic beliefs. Historic record points out the hazards of nations in submission to religious and/or altruistic beliefs. Objectivism offers the logical alternative. Objectivism does not seek to punish those who evade truth. Evasion provides its own consequences. You seem concerned about some sort of conflict between Objectivist and "subjectivist" forces. The conflict is an individual conflict, one in which an individual chooses his/her own direction in life. If there is widespread popular appeal of Objectivism, the transition to a laissez-faire economic model will likely be democratic, and non-violent.

Is Objectivism still relevant today? The obvious short answer: Yes. In the context of the opening post, tyranny exists today, as it has since man's earliest civilizations. Tyranny or any form of absolute autocracy is the ambition of megalomaniacs whenever good people allow them to succeed. Objectivism answers the question, "What do we mean by 'good'." You may as well ask the question, "Does morality matter?" If one is to approach questions of morality with a subjective set of standards, then anything goes, from moral relativism to the absolutism of whim. Can one judge another person without an objective standard of good? Where the lives, freedom, processions, and all that makes a person happy are at stake, then no, one needs an objective standard. On a curious note: There are some people in Russia today who hold to the belief that Stalin was a good leader. The obvious tyrants of the 20th century are dead, and their heirs are contained, for the most part. But military invasion is only one way the bring about the demise of civilization. Ideas matter, (as stated by Steve Simpson in the video in the preceding post.) If our society proceeds on the same false premises of civilizations past, we can expect that our society will pass, and we can only hope good people will write the pages of our history. But they would be well within their rights to write of us as if we were fools for allowing our civilization, (our civilization that conquered mass starvation and travel into out space to name a few achievements) to fall into ruin because of our own folly. On the other hand, if the future historians labor under the oversight of absolute rulers, tyrants, it would be likely that their assessment of us will be judged on our "conceited notion of individual rights." It would serve their needs well to say, "Those idiots had too many choices to make; it's so much easier to live when someone else is making your choices for you." Philosophy: Who needs it? I can't think of a time and place where philosophy is more needed than right now, today. Philosophy guides the actions of every living person capable of free will. If you chose to live with no stated moral guidance, you've still made choice. If we claim our common philosophy to be some undefined notion of freedom, then it is high time we define exactly what it is to be free. And what is good. And what is man's highest purpose. Objectivism offers definitions to those questions, but only for those who seek the answers. If life has any relevance to you, your life in particular, then yes, Objectivism is as relevant today as it was in Ayn Rand's lifetime.

Yes, of course it is; if it were not, I would have corrected you. Nonetheless, it does not support anything you've said about Objectivism. I'm still waiting for something that supports your odd point of view of Objectivism. And while you're at it, would you please address softwareNerd's questions.

Let's say that this is the nearest to an exact quote from Objectivist literature, then I'm willing to respond to it. Monetary inflation is the form of taxation under which everyone suffers. However, the people at the lowest economic levels suffer more than anyone, while the wealthy are able to afford the inflated cost of living to a greater extent. I found the exact reference in Philosophy: Who Needs It. Ayn Rand addresses the matter of economic blow-back resulting in the devaluation of US currency, resulting in the rampant inflation of the 1970s. Dustin86, if you were to analyze the economic issues of the 1970s, as well as the theories of Milton Freidman, you'd find that Ayn Rand was correct. Inflation has a way of getting out of control. The policies that came to be called, "Reaganomics," reigned in the ill-effect of well-intended but disastrous federal economic planning. Otherwise, there appears to be no such plan for gutted ruins and moans of agony, only the unintended consequences of state planning.

Could you site your references supporting this assertion? There really is no need to capitalize the term, "subjectivism." As I understand it, subjectivism is not so much a formally titled philosophy, but more along the lines of an implied tenet of various schools of thought: that our own mental activity is the only unquestionable fact of our experience. One example of subjectivism is mysticism. Allow me to explain through historical example. While I had originally intended to offer you an extended summation of European history in medieval times, that won't be necessary. Suffice it to say that stagnation and bloody chaos typified the Middle Ages, for roughly a thousand years. It was not until after a century or more of the reintroduction of Aristotelian logic that the West regained preeminence over rival cultures. Roughly beginning 1650, a new school of Aristotelian logic, i.e. objective truth, very gradually emerged, led by the writings of such notables as Isaac Newton, Edmund Halley, Tycho Brahe, Copernicus, Galileo, and many others who either struggled or flourished in the Age of Discovery. We owe a great deal to those who embraced Aristotelian logic, even if they continued to hold religious beliefs. The degree to which they struggled or flourished depended largely on the degree of human freedom they were granted by their governments. Western Europe gradually threw off the oppressive dominance of Catholic dogma, and embraced human ability as the means of solving problems. Unfortunately, the secular philosophy widely embraced was based on the subjectivism of Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, and other Idealists, leading to Hegel and Marx. (As I am not a philosophy major, anyone who is may correct me on these matters.) To the point, the outcome of Western Europe's turn toward secular socialism was every bit as disastrous as the centuries of Catholic domination, that outcome being two world wars, followed by the Cold War. In the Muslim East, discoveries in the fields of science and medicine flourished under theocratic rulers more tolerant of Aristotelian logic. Centuries latter, after lagging behind the West, it should be fairly obvious that submission of "a higher power" is resulting in disaster. Whether it is the religious dictatorship or the statist dictatorship exemplified historically, it is only a matter of time before standards gravitate into bloody chaos. However, there is no reason humanity should ever reach that depth again, unless humanity suppresses reason. The collapse of Western Civilization is not inevitable; Ayn Rand often pointed out that she rejected determinism. We may never know how many men of the mind struggled and suffered under the centuries of subjective forms of governance, be they religious or secular forms of governance. We do know that they thrived under freedom within, and modeled after, the American paradigm of governance, i.e. a standard of governance recognizing individual human rights. This paradigm was never before attempted in the entirety of human history. So long as our liberty is secured, no "collapse" need happen. There is strong evidence to suggesting that greater prosperity usually accompanies greater freedom of man's thought. Certainly, men of ability existed in times when it was understood that punishment would follow any dissenting public expressions. But with every new court ruling and law ramming religion and socialism down our throats, how far are we, the United States, from establishing a dictatorship in one form or another? I hold to the notion that Western nations are still free enough to recognize the danger of limiting man's natural rights, and expressing dissent when needed. We have not hit the proverbial bottom, not yet at least, and I believe we are far from it. And until we degenerate to that level, individuals will enjoy the freedom to choose their own personal means of integrating knowledge, whether subjective or objective. To that, we can coexist in a society of diverse schools of thought. Ayn Rand postulated that our survival and revival would depend on how soon and how many of us embrace objective truth over subjective assertions. The popularity of mysticism, collectivism, and altruism has not served society well, as it has not served the individual very well. So, back to you, Dustin86: If the collapse of Western Civilization never happens, what difference does it make? Do you believe that, because X, therefore Y? Because no predicted collapse happens, therefore Ayn Rand was a cracked-pot? Where did you get this idea?

Jon, While I agree with most of what you've said, Trump has only been a leader of the Republican Party by virtue of delegate count. He is only the leader of an outraged mob of ignoramuses. The vast majority of Republican leadership is now required to hold their noses and follow along, or reject him outright. Very few jumped on his bandwagon before the nomination. In the not-too-distant past, Trump identified with and donated to the Clintons, and golfed with Bill. Now the Republicans will bear the foul odor of Trump for some time to come, the US will have to get used to President Hillary, and no good will come of any of it. Americans have the option of participating without feeling guilty of contributing to the decline and fall of Western Civilization. And it is important that they do participate. There are congressional, state, and local officials in competition as well as the national leadership. Many people would disapprove of my choice to cast a vote for the Libertarian candidate for president, but I rest better knowing that I showed support to other office-holders, while showing no support to either Trump nor Hillary. The most hopeful outcome will be a Republican controlled Congress versus President Hillary. I believe there is hope where there is gridlock.

You're welcome. But if I may add further clarifications: Nothing I've ever read in any Objectivist literature indicates an explicit call to violent revolution. The state of the Union at present does not justify revolution, unless we're talking about a campaign of political reform aimed at creating a more rational society. One only needs to look at the carnival-style competition between the two leading (and very dubious) presidential contenders to realize that, certainly by Objectivist standards, we are on the proverbial road to perdition. And I can't blame the politicians, rather it is the electorate that brought us to this point. The scenario depicted in Atlas Shrugged, with its all-encompassing command-economic mandates and population control through weapons of mass destruction, seem nowhere in sight. This is not to say that it will never happen. And if it did, I doubt if I'll live to see it. For the sake of those who may live to see it, and those who care about those who may live to see it, I advocate a campaign of non-violent and intelligent political reform. The electorate is not longer complacent; however, they do seem a bit confused. To the few people I have had the pleasure to discuss the underlying cause of America's social and political problems, most, but not all, seem content to ignore the truth, or dismiss the importance of seeking it: "Who has the time for that?" (which sounds to me like, "Who is John Galt?") Could we agree that time is running out? "If men grasp the source of their destruction -- if they dedicate themselves to the greatest of all crusades: a crusade for the absolutism of reason -- the twenty-first century will have a chance once more." --Ayn Rand, Philosophy: Who Needs It; p.111

My short answer: Even better. If Western Civilization never collapses, then life goes on. The continuance of current social norms will very likely change. And it is very likely that independence of judgement, personal integrity, intellectual honesty, a definitive sense of justice, productiveness, and fulfillment through achievement as virtues will become normal, as opposed to the "virtues" of rebellion for the sake of rebellion, displays of material possession, and a sense of pride derived from knowing how to "game the system." I wouldn't expect to see these virtues rise to the standard of normal in my lifetime, but given time, the heirs of Western Civilization will learn the necessity of properly dealing with reality, even if many cling to their religious or altruistic ("subjectivist," if you wish) beliefs. Whether or not they recognize these virtues as associated with Objectivism or not is as immaterial as understanding the origins of Christmas. As an optimist, I believe this will be the ultimate outcome, whether here on Earth, or somewhere out in a future extraterrestrial colony of humans. The re-discovery of reason is inevitable so long has even a small group of people survive a catastrophic disaster. Proceeding on the premise that no such disaster happens only means that the enlightenment of individuals, and the gradual effects, will result in a second Renaissance all that much sooner.