Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why aren't O'ists being persecuted?

Rate this topic


roscov6

Recommended Posts

The whole history of the world is filled with people being persecuted because they disagreed.

Objectivists disagree to an extreme degree. Objectivists even claim "I am, therefore, I'll think." This ultimate disagreement is done openly, and proudly.

I call myself an Objectivist because I agree to disagree too, and I am, therefore, I'll think.

When the Romans were in charge, anyone who disagreed was fed to the lions, and Hitler killed the disagreeable ones, and now, Islam persecutes. Yet, no one comes in the night to haul me off to the gulag, and I have no knowledge of anyone being shot because they claim that existence exists.

Is this lack of persecution because the collectivists do not know what we are doing? If the altruists find out what we are doing, will they begin shooting Objectivists?

None of Objectivism is hidden; it's all out in the open for anyone to see. When the Christians first got started, they had secrets, and tried to hide - is that why they were persecuted? Objectivists are open and transparent - is that why we are not persecuted?

EDIT by Rationalcop: Moved to Basic Questions from About the Web Site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole history of the world is filled with people being persecuted because they disagreed. 

Objectivists disagree to an extreme degree.  Objectivists even claim "I am, therefore, I'll think."  This ultimate disagreement is done openly, and proudly. 

I call myself an Objectivist because I agree to disagree too, and I am, therefore, I'll think. 

When the Romans were in charge, anyone who disagreed was fed to the lions, and Hitler killed the disagreeable ones, and now, Islam persecutes.  Yet, no one comes in the night to haul me off to the gulag, and I have no knowledge of anyone being shot because they claim that existence exists. 

Is this lack of persecution because the collectivists do not know what we are doing?  If the altruists find out what we are doing, will they begin shooting Objectivists? 

None of Objectivism is hidden; it's all out in the open for anyone to see.  When the Christians first got started, they had secrets, and tried to hide - is that why they were persecuted?  Objectivists are open and transparent - is that why we are not persecuted?

EDIT by Rationalcop:  Moved to Basic Questions from About the Web Site.

The Proud Objectivist disagrees based on the standard that he is right. The Proud Objectivist is living his own life, engaging in his own career, for his own reasons, out of a unique passion. The Collectivist would be scared of him; and yet he would need him. Because he is a proud Objectivist, he is often right, he often exhibits efficiency, he finds solutions. This type of man is fit for the free market place. The regulated market place depends on the free market place.

Obviously if there is a secret conspiracy to immigrate Atlanteans, then this process should be kept secret. However, Until the proud Objectivist is found and rescued, he will continue seeing hope. So long as he is able to create and rewarded to the point of continuing the creation process long-range, he will not let the destruction of production and tyranny stop him from living his life.

This type of man will stand up for his principle on a daily basis, he will speak up, he will scream back, he will subdue violent tension in others.

Becasuse America came into existence, the data for the correctness of individual rights is widely available. It is still a fact that freedom causes wealth, whether people recognize it or not. It still a fact that you have a right to smoke in your home even though a by-law may prohibit so. Most people at least feel that they benefit greatly from their liberty.

The world is gradually recognizing Individualism. However, even though, we are not arrested by the secret police for speaking in disagreement with the government, we are still persecuted. Rewards will still be given unjustly based on pull and not ability. Some fool will secretly be after you, even though in vain. Some rabble rouser will try to distort your perception and waste your time. You may still be punched in the face for speaking your mind, for willing to stand as who you are.

Why arent' we persecuted as much as the pre-American world? Because of America. Because of our own nature: because we are right, because we are strong, because we are true lovers. Because we do the inescapable work of the world, existentially and even within the soul of others. We are needed.

An important political solution is to fight domestic organized crime, to fight the mentality that causes the gangster. Without such organizations as the Cosa Nostra, who create a reward system for crime, making it widespread, crime and persecution would remain marginal and easy to fight. When Americans stop idolizing the local gangster, they will easily recognize the evil in such men as Arafat, Bin Laden, and Baby Kim.

Americo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this lack of persecution because the collectivists do not know what we are doing?  If the altruists find out what we are doing, will they begin shooting Objectivists?

Where, in the US? Unlikely. Persecution of the feeding to the lions kind is a thing of the past or a thing of elsewhere (i.e. the uncivilized world). If there are Objectivists in North Korea, I would suspect that they do not advertise their views lest they be killed; or, perhaps they do and they get killed. In modern society, persecution can be more subtle, for example in philosophy (as a profession) you can exclude Objectivists from your presence in less noticeable ways than killing them. What you should notice, if you look at history closer, is that disagreement does not entail persection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, the comment about the Romans is out of place. And anyway there will be no persecution of Objectivists in the US. In other countries, you don't have to be half as radical to be persecuted.

Another thing, Objectivists don't make good martyrs. One of the reasons they Christians were persecuted was they disregarded their own safety for the sake of their creed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a couple of reason why Objectivists haven't been persecuted (to any appreciable extent):

1. There is no physical symobl that distinguishes an Objectivist. Christians wore crosses, Jews wore Stars of David, African-Americans have a darker skin color, immigrants have an accent or markedly different physical features. Objectivism has no distinguishing feature. Rand wore a dollar sign, but so do hoodlums and gangsters in today's culture. The naked human body may also be an appropriate symbol, but alas, there are quite a few of those as well :P It is difficult to persecute those who cannot be distinguished easily.

2. Objectivism started in the 1930-40's with Rand's books and essays (Although many ideas which fit into Objectivist philosophy existed long before). Since it's rise is so recent in history, it was recieved by a world that is wholly more rational, secular and capitalist than any other time in the past. There is no established tradition involved with despising Objectivists, and tradition is an extremely important thing to have on your side for persecution, because tradition requires no logic or reason behind it.

3. Palpableness. To direct hate and persecution at a group, masses need something palpable to hate. Just as Roark, Mallory and Cameron find it impossible to fight a nothingness, so too is it difficult for masses to hate a nothingness. Tying in with point one, there is no physically apparent way to distinguish an Objectivist. The lack of palpableness can also be attributed to the relatively small number of Objectivists who are actually living.

4. Threat. Due to the small ranks of Objectivism as well as its core message, it poses little threat to other philosophy. It espouses that a man should be concerned primarily with himself - if others wish to worship malefic and supernatural beings, let them do so; they are of no concern to the self-sufficient man. Such a philosophy with an apparent live and let live attitude (I'm hesitant to use that cliche) poses a small threat especially with so small a following.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. There is no physical symobl that distinguishes an Objectivist.
Oh, I don't know. Objectivists stand erect, not hunched over in self-denigrating humility.
2. Objectivism started in the 1930-40's with Rand's books and essays (Although many ideas which fit into Objectivist philosophy existed long before). Since it's rise is so recent..
But Falun Gong, which is persecuted, was founded by a guy who's only a couple years older than me. So that's not a good argument.
3. Palpableness. To direct hate and persecution at a group, masses need something palpable to hate. Just as Roark, Mallory and Cameron find it impossible to fight a nothingness, so too is it difficult for masses to hate a nothingness.
Are you equating Objectivism with nothingness? Objectivism is palpable; it is something.
4. Threat.  Due to the small ranks of Objectivism as well as its core message, it poses little threat to other philosophy.
But those who persecute are unconcerned with philosophy, except insofar as any system of consistent thinking is dangerous to those who wish to persecute. So I'm afraid I don't find your arguments persuasive on this point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Threat.  Due to the small ranks of Objectivism as well as its core message, it poses little threat to other philosophy.

I emphatically disagree with this point. Academic philosophers know about Objectivism, small following or not, and they are scared to death of it. Objectivism has made its way into university positions, academic journals, and Objectivism even has its own group in the American Philosophical Association, The Ayn Rand Society.

Academics are threatened because they know we have a message and that it is a very powerful one. What scares them the most--at least the more honest among them if such even exist--is that subconsciously they know that we are right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I don't know. Objectivists stand erect, not hunched over in self-denigrating humility.

And what if they're sitting down? I suppose you'll tell me they sit erect as well. Suppose they're tired? What if they're lying down? I'm tempted to think this is a joke. The point, however, is that the average persecutor cannot spot an objectivist with anywhere near the ease that one can spot an orthodox Chrisitan, an African-American, a foreign immigrant from Asia, etc.

But Falun Gong, which is persecuted, was founded by a guy who's only a couple years older than me. So that's not a good argument.

An interesting, and valid counterpoint. Perhaps it would be prudent to add to the point that Objectivist philosophy is only available to the "free world," seeing that countries like China filter their media. Even so, I'm still not sure that stands fully; I'll have to give it some thought.

Are you equating Objectivism with nothingness? Objectivism is palpable; it is something.

I think you misinterpreted my meaning. In order to direct persecution, there must be some symbol, some concrete presence to persecute. People need something tangible and concrete to throw their hate at. Without some kind of symbol or consistant reminder, it is difficult to inspire that type of persecution. The average person does not feel the concreteness of an Objectivist as he walks by. I by no means imply that Objectivism is not palpable, I do imply that its existence is not palpable to the average person.

But those who persecute are unconcerned with philosophy, except insofar as any system of consistent thinking is dangerous to those who wish to persecute. So I'm afraid I don't find your arguments persuasive on this point.

Those who persecute are unconcerned with philosophy, but the leaders who start such persecutions are concerned with it. (i.e. Toohey) And just as Toohey chose to ignore Roark and attack him by keeping his name out of print until he became a sufficient threat, so it is with Objectivism. It poses no serious threats to the leaders of alternate schools of thought, as yet, and to bring its existence into widespread knowledge by attacking it may actually attract more people (The effect of hightened book sales when some retailer chooses to ban it from its shelves) to its ranks and be detrimental to their positions. Sometimes the most effective form of attack is to ignore something completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point, however, is that the average persecutor cannot spot an objectivist with anywhere near the ease that one can spot an orthodox Chrisitan, an African-American, a foreign immigrant from Asia, etc.
I myself am incapable of identifying orthodox Christians or foreign immigrants from Asian on sight. I am somewhat able to identify people who either themselves emigrated from Asia, at least East Asia, or had an ancestor who did, but not reliably since I was aware that a friend was 1/8 Chinese. I've never been able to reliably identify orthodox X'ers and distinguish them from atheists, though sometimes I see some evidence like a bible that tilts the scales.
I think you misinterpreted my meaning. In order to direct persecution, there must be some symbol, some concrete presence to persecute.
I was wondering what you really meant. But you don't need a symbol per se, you just need a means of identifying. The ideas could be a very easy means of identifying, hence persecuting, without fetlocks or ceremonial clothing to identify us.
Those who persecute are unconcerned with philosophy, but the leaders who start such persecutions are concerned with it. (i.e. Toohey)

I don't think being Armenian is a philosophical matter, and yet the Turks did a good job of persecuting them; nor did Hitler seek to exterminate the Jews because he disagreed with some detail of Jewish philosophy. Irrational hatred, especially ethnic and religious hatred, leads to persecution. Religion is not philosophy, nor is ancestry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think being Armenian is a philosophical matter, and yet the Turks did a good job of persecuting them; nor did Hitler seek to exterminate the Jews because he disagreed with some detail of Jewish philosophy. Irrational hatred, especially ethnic and religious hatred, leads to persecution. Religion is not philosophy, nor is ancestry.

Didn't say they were exclusively concerned with philosophy. I think it's quite obvious that plenty of other groups were persecuted for non-philosophical reasons (probably an overwhelming majority). But since our discussion pertained to a philosophy and those who ascribe to it, I thought I would confine my response to that matter. I by no means meant to imply that persecution was tied to philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to say that persecution was tied to fear, but the underlying cause isn't some particular philosophy, but anti-reason, which is the cause of the kind of fear I'm talking about. All of the examples given are tied to some form of atavism. All religion is a form of atavism. Hitler was certainly an atavistic savage. Just because these folks wear suits and speak well doesn't make them civilized, nor does it make them incapable of turning on anyone who is a threat to their virtual worlds.

Ted Kennedy is a man who would persecute his enemies, if he thought he could get away with it. If you study his career, you will see a real Jim Taggart type. Reality has gradually faded into nothingness in his little world.

At the moment, religion is too busy doing away with the Left to notice us too much. We are lumped into the collective of "secularists." We hold too many unique American values (such as independence, etc.) that jive with their values for them to become too intolerant at this point. It is this vestige of Americanism that keeps us safe for the moment. The religionists have adopted too many of the Left's ideology, however, for this to remain so. The fact that they would never admit their affiliation with the Left's fundamental ethics, i.e., altruism, doesn't matter. They won't like it when we point this out to them. Altruism provides the basis for their values, which is why the Americanisms we agree on will eventually fade from their purview, just as it has the Left, and we will find ourselves in the crosshairs.

If it happens, it will happen down the road a bit. Right now, we still have freedom of speech (somewhat) and the ability to fight them. This week's laughter from the conservatives over ARI's article against government altruism, however, tells me that we have a very long way to go. They don't have a clue what we're talking about. They certainly don't understand the "why" of our adversion to altruism; if they did, they wouldn't have laughed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I started to say that persecution was tied to fear, but the underlying cause isn't some particular philosophy, but anti-reason, which is the cause of the kind of fear I'm talking about.  All of the examples given are tied to some form of atavism.  All religion is a form of atavism.  Hitler was certainly an atavistic savage.

Janet, how do you define atavism? The Encarta online dictionary offers the following definition: "the recurrence of a genetically controlled feature in an organism after it has been absent for several generations, usually because of an accidental recombination of genes." Does it have some other meaning?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My thoughts are these:

Persecution is usually an attempt to gain or maintain power. Not necessarily over the specific victims of the persecution, although that may be a secondary, but over someone.

What on earth does anyone have to gain from persecuting Objectivists? We don't have any political power and there isn't enough hatred directed towards us to make us a useful target for a politico seeking to ride that hatred. Instead, we get lumped in with people that agree with us approximately and attacked on that basis.

If it did become possible to gain or keep power from persecuting Objectivists I think someone would try. I don't see it happening in the near future without some kind of dramatic change, but it is possible.

It might be amusing to watch them try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Janet, how do you define atavism?  The Encarta online dictionary offers the following definition:  "the recurrence of a genetically controlled feature in an organism after it has been absent for several generations, usually because of an accidental recombination of genes."  Does it have some other meaning?

That definition is correct. The word is further used, in its second usage, as: 2: an individual or character manafesting atavism: THROWBACK. (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary) It was as "throwback" to the more primative that I used the word. This isn't an unusual usage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? What makes you say that?

quote]

Good question when one realises that the Roman Republic-if my data is true-tolerated, indeed encouraged, divergent thought and expression. Republican Rome, though not as free as America, was laudable in this regard. Even the devolved freedom afforded the Romans during the Empire was the freshest air man would breathe until 1776.

'Disagreements' did not usually lead to mass-slaughter and rabid anti-Semitism and other manifestations of sectarian oppression until the unfortunate Empire was was devoured by Christological irrationality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Persecutions on a national scale usually involve a ruling elite with almost unlimited power against a minority that is at odds with those in power. Our current political environment does not support any organization with near unlimited power; so, persecution on a large scale as the examples you noted in your original post, cannot exist....in the United States. My hope is that Objectivism will grow and influence this culture to the point that, by the time it does become a major cultural influence, the political climate in this country will not be allowing a ruling elite to persecute those with contrary views; however, I'm not optimistic. Persecutions on a smaller or individual scale probably occur routinely for Objectivist. I crossed a picket line in New Jersey and had to lock my doors when I got home from work that evening. I was going to call in sick that day (had a stomach flu) but when I heard that the workers in my department had organized a one day walk out strike to show support for organizing a union and had established a picket line, I wanted to show them that I did not support their stand and they knew why, so I crossed their line and went in to work that day. There are more details than that, but I'm sure there are other members that can share some instances where the outcome was a little more violent. Anyone want to share? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...