"The Betrayal of Ayn Rand"

Intellectuals and the Media
41

Maximus’s picture shows what it is “in real life”. Also, on the Internet, a metaphor for a person using multiple identities, usually in order to carry on a conversation with himself.

I thought it was well-known internet terminology, like BRB or PEBKAC.

Anyway, there are three main uses for sock puppets. One is to take up both sides of an issue in a board such as this one or a blog’s comment section. Another is to create the impression of agreement with a controversial position in baords such as ths one or a blog’s comment section (this may require a larger quantity of sock puppets). Finally some bloggers use a sock puppet or two to post incendiary comments to their own articles. Of course the roles can mix in any number of ways.

Regardless of intent or utility, the use of sock puppets is fraudulent, as the puppet claims to be somethign he’s not. A long time ago, before the internet took off among the masses, I helped mod a BBS (something along the lines of this board). The owner and I created a sock puppet to make incendiary statements (back then he was known as a phantom user). I realized it was a mistake and ahve never done it since (well, once as a joke, but it was only a joke).

42

No, despite confusion to the contrary, I am not trolling or being sarcastic. I meant commitment to individual rights.

The collectivism espoused by Christianity (you are your brothers keeper, neither a borrower nor a lender be, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, Turn the other cheek, Pride is a deadly sin) is the antithesis of individual rights.

My first (and really the only) individual right is to Live my life as I see fit. EVERYTHING held within Christianity is about living my life in a manner concocted by some fairy tail boogeyman, his dead Jewish Zombie “son” or was it some monk copying imperfectly suffering in a hair shirt for King James? No matter really, the point is that if I should choose to be a glutton that is my individual right. If I choose to become filthy rich and never part with a cent of my hard earned money that too is my right. If when threatened with death I strike back and kill my assailant that too is my individual right. If I want to smoke and drink and fuck and dance and party and work too much and buy the best of everything that is my individual right.

So cut the crap about Christianity supporting individual rights it supports collective obedience nothing else nothing less.

Religion (all of them) is collectivism, collectivism is anti-individual, Anti-individual = anti-individual rights.

43

It appears clear that Ayn Rand’s teaching often deals with hierarchical differences. As such, she was not so much against altruism, mysticism, statism, as much as she was FOR Individualism and Reason. [I would be interested if anyone can refute this, since I have always taken it as self-evident in her writing].

You are exactly right. For the same reason that I said there is no such “thing” as atheism or an atheist, since that states what you are NOT, not what you are. e,g. Communist, Objectivist, Existentialist, etc. Why this is crucial is that, to operate, the Law of Identiy needs something on which to get traction and it cann’t do that on a “not”.

The arguments I have heard against religion are mainly completely true, but on one occasion a little puzzling. Now I’m a far off observer of U.S. politics, and can’t claim to be au fait with the specifics, as you are, but I cannot quite grasp how and why it was (slightly) more important to vote in a liberal, statist government, than- as I read it- one that has backing of the religious ‘right’. The explanation given was that one can at least debate with the former, but that the religious will never respond to Reason. [Hope I got that right].

You have it right but the hypothesis is false. Watch Barney Frank or Nancy Pelosi in action and the eco’s are totally devoid of reason. The whole liberal gestalt is more like the termitary that they chose as their model 80 years ago. In fact it is now the religionists who are more amenable to reason at least in personal inclination if not doctrine.. Of the liberals Rand said in the middle 1970’s “[with respect to those of the pre-1960 era] Though they were wrong, I envied them their methodology [logic and reason]: Today they are in no such danger” Now, let that brew ferment for 34 years and tell me what you have.

But there were still good reasons to prefer Obama to McCain.

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08feb.html

I computed that a McCain victory would move the Republican party about 20 points to the left from 60% right to 40% and this would be irreversible, leaving no viable alternative to some form of liberalism being the permanent baseline and proceeding left from there. At leat now, the Republican brand is still salvageable and since we are locked by law, for all practical purposes, in a two-party system, that’s important.

Also the Democrats would bring their schemes to fruition Prematurely and hurriedly so that by 2011, it would be plainly apparent just what liberalism is and what it does. Mine was sort of a rope-a-dope tactic. Let them win the political battles then let reality do my dirty work for me. To cheat fools, give them that for which they ask

Coming from the O’ist intellectuals supporting this stance, was as I say, puzzling: what about the possibility that, with the Statists in power, they then decide to enforce religion in schools, society etc.?

Then you have two evils for the price of one, surely? Or is this much too simplistic?

So that leads me back to my original post here; the question of allowing some access of those ‘self-proclaimed religious Capitalists’ to an arms- length, totally practical, alliance with Objectivism. This is still only hypothetical in my mind, and I welcome any opinions on the inherent flaws.

But, well, the moderate Christians do have the numbers. Capitalism needs a boost, all over the world.

With Capitalism forcing a check on spreading Statism, our liberty again has a chance.

I have heard many opinions on the threat of Mysticism, but does this [my theory] mean we are ‘selling our souls’?

I stand by my previous statement that O’ism must stay pure to itself,and in itself, so if there is the faintest whiff of compromise and contradiction and moral pragmatism, I won’t hesitate to withdraw the argument. Please consider it though.

The fact is that we must deal in the world as it is. Principles and concepts are hierarchical and we live in a mixed system. To abandon a lesser principle in order to achieve a geater one is not a comprmise. To pass on a goal today makes no law that I will not come back for it tomorrow. A competent thief will often hide the treasure in the same room as it was in, and return for it when the hubbub has died away. Also things are done in two templates. Successive approximations. getting first to the ballpark, then the infield, then the pitchers’ mound or home plate. Another template is incrementalism, taking what you can get at any givine time without trying for the home run all the time. Yet another characteristic of the mixed system is that the agressor is responsible for the results of his actions. as Rand said “The only thing you can do with a criminal os to crack his skull before he cracks yours”. If there is a significant threat they doing whatever it takes to nullify it is no compromise since individual life is the standard of value. Therefore all bets are off. There are persons in this world to whom I regularly and gleefull “lie” for my own ends. Galt’s Gulch has not yet been built. let alone become the world empire. In line with this, see also “The Question of Scholarships” in The OBJECTIVIST.

Also the libs have a religion: Environmentalism, which they enforce with the viciousness that the Iranian mulluhs and ayatollahs would be embarrassed to emulate as it’s sooooooo over the top.

44

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists. Galt’s pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

45

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists.

There’s enough history for that belief to be true. Religious persecution is so old that it was collectiong Social Security 3 millenia before there was Social Security

Galt’s pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

The religionist is, at heart, a puppet, living his life for the greater glory of God. How would he even understand Galt’s oath, he hasn’t the experience, worldview or mindset for it.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

That was done for awhile between 1976 and 1988. Guess who broke the deal, as I knew they would.

How do you make a deal with someone for whom reality is malleable? What’s to stop him from having a “revelation” that God told him that the deal was now annulled? Many Muslims think it clever to trick the Infidel and once’s word given to an infidel is not binding.

That’s why these are alliances and not oaths of eternal friendship. An alliance is only to meet a specific, common, critical threat. We have permanent interests and permanant principles, but we do not have permanant friends. I found that out the hard way with a so-called Objectivist of almost 22 years standing. In fact, it was the person who introduced me to Rand.

46

Thanks for the info on sock puppets, Gents- - [i’d half-way worked it out], now I can add it to my ever growing internet fund .

What a brilliant metaphor!! Who’s the genius who dreams these up? sock puppets, sick puppies…

Hi Space Patroller, I enjoyed your ‘rope-a-dope’ analogy. A bit Machiavellian, and rather risky - it all depends on those stomach muscles, or else disaster!

47

Well, I’m not a sock puppet, and I posted the article for honest intentions, because I wanted to discuss it. Love the metaphor, though!

I think there’s truth that it may be impossible to make anything but temporary alliances. This whole “betrayal” concept illustrates the point nicely. Rick and company honestly do not see the contradiction between Galt’s Oath and believing in a being who tells them to sacrifice their lives for a greater good. They believe that god is rational, and if we just understood how rational their faith is, we would be able to accept god too–or at least not be so intransigent in our atheism. (BTW, “theism” means “god belief,” so a-theism means “the absence of god belief.” FWIW. Maybe you know this already.)

I have heard some of the FCP people cite Galt’s Oath for themselves. They take the principle of non-sacrifice, of living your own life, surprisingly far considering their allegiences. Some of them even come to question their premises. . .

I think if the ally can accept the premise, and the premise is stated clearly, they can be worked with, but the premises must be checked regularly for concurrance. You can’t assume that all members of an organization will agree or that the same members will maintain their agreement over time. You have to actually check what they mean on a regular basis. There is definitely short term value in working with others. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” But you can never forget that he is still fundamentally your enemy–as is demonstrated by having a so called friend call Objectivists betrayers because they are anti-religion!

I like the comment that the law of identity needs something positive to get traction on. That’s precisely why Rick’s attack on people who are too opposed to religion to work FOR reason is so telling. I claim that he is missing the point about what they are doing; they are not just distracted, they are working to pull down a fundamental obstacle to the positive one they hope to instill. He’s acting as if they’re just being silly and should focus on the REAL issue. He wants them to put aside what they perceive as the importance of atheism and work with him. (He still has not posted my comment on his blog…) But Ojbectivism is fundamentally a-theist, because all “evidence” for god is arbitrary and emotional. So to give the law of identity some traction, you can call yourself an Objectivist (or student of Objectivism!) and that is FOR something. It’s like he’s telling people not to be what they are because he isn’t.

Oh, and I don’t think the "american people’ were rational in their choice about which presidential candidate to vote for. They vote by how they feel, not by a rational process. If they gave even a little rational thought to it, the whole system would be stronger and we would have a lot more to work with.

48

I think this is a curious thread in that if one wants to uphold Man’s Rights then welcome aboard. However, from a philosophical perspective, man’s rights are only derivable all the way down from reason and reality, rather than faith and the other world of God and heaven. In the long run, this contradiction will have to be faced by the religionists, and I think they will see that so long as they hold onto the ideals of God and mysticism, then they really can’t be for individual rights. Freedom of religion is not the same thing as capitalism; capitalism will have the freedom of religion, but your religion is incompatible with living life on earth to the most rationally fullest.

Now, if you wanted to say that not everyone has to be an Objectivist before we can re-assert individual rights, I would agree with that; though I’m not really sure there can be a general advocacy for individual rights without at least an implicit agreement of reason and life on earth. In other words, if you accept as an ideal that God demands that man lives in freedom – that God gave us free will and that capitalism is the political implementation of free will – that will only get you so far; and I doubt if you would be on-board for the right to abortion, the right to be a prostitute, and the right to do illicit drugs, the right to pornography, and the right to be free from religion, and the right to do those things that a religionist considers to be immoral; and a whole host of other rights incompatible with religion. However, if you can do that, then maybe you can come on-board for the push for individual rights.

I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff that a religious stance as the supposed basis for rights is incompatible with capitalism and that the ideology of religion is far more dangerous than socialism. But, if you can be religious and still fight for individual rights, then do so. The contradiction is yours, not ours.

49

“The contradiction is yours, not ours.”

Elegantly put, Mr Miovas.

50

Hi Space Patroller, I enjoyed your ‘rope-a-dope’ analogy. A bit Machiavellian, and rather risky

More D’Anconian than Mechiavellian and not that risky since, barring an intervening variable, the danger in in force already. This is a tactic. you’re looking for an opening. Since the liberal statist is at war with reality, i.e. the universe at large, he cannot succeed. The Law of Identity guarantees that opening. However, it does not guarantee that you will notice it.

There is another approach that is a strategem more than a tactic. Let the religionist and the socialist fight it out with a little judicious action here and ther, then take on the winner who will be pretty much out of recources and an easy win. Even if you had allied yourself with the religionist, he will break the deal.

  • it all depends on those stomach muscles, or else disaster!

Well, that’s what it means to be a warrior. Actually if you relax the stomach muscles you can take more of a pounding than you thihk. Just let every blow be the promise of 5 in return. It’s called “eyes on the prize”; aka being a stubborn bastard!

51

I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff that a religious stance as the supposed basis for rights is incompatible with capitalism and that the ideology of religion is far more dangerous than socialism. But, if you can be religious and still fight for individual rights, then do so. The contradiction is yours, not ours.

I have 2 problems with Peikoff’s asscessment:

  1. There is no basic discontinuity between religion and socialism or, more correctly, welfare statism. ONe is the fullfillment of the other. Look at the structure of religios utopianism and utpias. Therefore one cannot be worse than the other since they are not in opposition. It can only be that a situation of one can be worse than that of the other.

  2. Religion is not monolithic. The mainlin denominations are leftists along with the Nihilists which includes a large and maybe predominant number of atheists. The main body that is against socialism is relgious. So either way you are siding with a religious faction So religion cannot be wrose than socialism.

Now where would he be if it ws the case that the socialism divide was between religionists being against it and Nihilists being for it? Remember, Rand ID’ed religion as a primitive form of philosophy(RM). Nihilists are anti-philosophy For us, it’s all about philospphy. To say then that religion is worse than socialism would be to say that primiative, limited philosophy is worse than anti-philosophy. This would be in contradiction to Rand’s statement that “A man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none”. Religion by holding to the existence and supremecy of God at least holds to the a priori existence of the external world. The Nihilist is egocentric which is the psychological aspect of the doctrine of the Primacy of Consciousness. Nasty choice, that.

Beyond all of this. The “Progressive” movement, which liberalism sprang from and to which is is retrurning at lightspeed, according to a number of sources; notably the 1970’s PBS seriese THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS, was founded by about equal nulmbers of clergy, intellectuals and politicians. Can you see what each had to gain? The series did not mention that liberalism was returning to its roots, which migration had just begun

52

I have 2 problems with Peikoff’s assessment:

Let me rephrase what I said. In terms of political states, theocracy is worse than socialism. While I agree that nihilism is worse than religion, Dr. Peikoff explained in his DIM Hypothesis Course why it is that nihilism must be short-range and cannot establish a state or a government, primarily because it is destructive rather than creative. (I was going to provide a link to the on-line DIM Course, but I can’t locate it, so I don’t if it is still available.)

The socialism we are moving towards is a European type of socialism, which definitely makes living qua man difficult; but recall that theocracy was the master of the Dark Ages. There is no appeal on earth for being ruled by heaven, and it took the genius of Thomas Aquinas and the rebirth of Aristotle to break their thousand year hold. Socialism inherently has the same basic flaw as communism – a promise of a better life on earth, that becomes clear it is not true after a few generations, and all one needs is a better view of what is possible on earth and how government prevents that to break its hold. Notice how a lot of people are alarmed that DC will be heading the manufacturing of cars with Government Motors. One doesn’t have that type of concern under theocracy.

While socialism and theocracy are both forms of Statism, theocracy is far worse – especially if there is a return to the religious view of Augustine that science is the whore of the eyes. A truly religious stance aims to destroy man’s life on earth qua rational being; socialism just wants to throttle him under the state. Both lead to destruction of the rational and independent mind, but theocracy aims for that as an ideal.

In short, modern American style religion is still tempered by Thomas Aquinas’ influence, which is why they are not calling directly for, say, and Iranian style theocracy. But once they get power, they will force their religious anti-man morality onto all of us.

53

I would think to be fully consistent with itself. theocracy would be socialistic or welfare state of some kind which is shy the mainline churches are headed there and why I don’t see religion as “worse” in the sense of stroger but antagonistic to socialism, but rather the implimentation of “Give us this day our daily bread”, but “worse” in the sense of , as the Portuguese say “Mais e mais forte” More and more strong. There were more religious socialist entities than atheistic ones.

I also wonder if socialism or whatever hasn’t lsot is appeal to a better life for man and replace it with the garden snake or boll weevil to which to sacrifice man, which puts it in a kind of man-hating mode that makes it a kind of theocracy. Don’t forget the eco’s hate science as much as the Augustinians; look at their history. At least the old time theocrat wants to sacrifice human ambition for the sake of what they believe to be a higher being: But to sacrifice humnaity to the housefly?

I tend to think that what we are headed for is not European style socialism but something else that came out of Europe the economics of which was government rule over nominally private propety which was the economics of Naziism, which makes Peikoff a prophet.

I don’t really know if we’re in any significant danger of a theocracy. They hate each other, too. Look at the way the Evenagelicals trashed Romney and the way they hate the Catholics. Besides, the mainstream churches would come to power under a leftist culture anyway and may work from there. but can you picture the Episcopalians with the gumption to organize a theocracy? “There are no atheists in foxholes” is being replaced by "There are no Episcopalians if foxholes. The fundies also hated the Freemasons as some part of a global conspiracy so getting the religious together is like herding catsl

The danger I see is the Nihilist left and religious left which is the biggest secret alliance that you never heard of. Some 10 years ago Rush Limbaugh read a piece about the Democratic Party on a campaing to “Take back God”. I think we ought to encurage and support that. It wouold bring the real nature of religion out in the open

Some time back I heard. well…

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08jun.html

Hears a man who could be a theocrat.

54

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists. Galt’s pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

Craig, Were you thinking along the lines of this:

"I swear by my God and my love of Him, that I will Honor and Esteem the Objectivists’ dedication and commitment to Egoism and Reason ".

55

Yes, Dr. Peikoff’s Ominous Parallels still holds true, but what he is saying more recently is for that to happen, some sort of ideology must be in place, and he doesn’t see socialism as having an ideology behind it in its current form. In other words, the ideal of socialism / communism has run out of steam, and the only passionate ideology on the horizon is a religious view. Environmentalism has an ideological steam behind it, but the average American will not currently give up creature comforts for the sake of the house fly, as you put it; but they might be taught to do things for the sake of God again. So, the real dangerous amalgamation is between the environmentalist Left and the religious Right – preserving the house fly for the sake of God’s Will. We are a ways away from this, as right now the religious Right cannot stand the environmentalist Left, especially since the Left has tended to be anti-religious in it own way. However, if you watched the new Battlestar Galactica, that type of amalgamation is already there in art.

“Danger, Will Robinson – Danger!” to come back atcha :wink:

56

Craig, Were you thinking along the lines of this:

"I swear by my God and my love of Him, that I will Honor and Esteem the Objectivists’ dedication and commitment to Egoism and Reason ".

Ooo, that was cold :wink:

Not to mention being totally atheistic.

57

Yes, Dr. Peikoff’s Ominous Parallels still holds true, but what he is saying more recently is for that to happen, some sort of ideology must be in place, and he doesn’t see socialism as having an ideology behind it in its current form. In other words, the ideal of socialism / communism has run out of steam, and the only passionate ideology on the horizon is a religious view.

Which is totally compatible with socialism or some form of welfare statism

Environmentalism has an ideological steam behind it, but the average American will not currently give up creature comforts for the sake of the house fly, as you put it;

I have the utmost conficence in the public school system.

but they might be taught to do things for the sake of God again. So, the real dangerous amalgamation is between the environmentalist Left and the religious Right – preserving the house fly for the sake of God’s Will. We are a ways away from this, as right now the religious Right cannot stand the environmentalist Left, especially since the Left has tended to be anti-religious in it own way. However, if you watched the new Battlestar Galactica, that type of amalgamation is already there in art.

Did you open the link and read the article therein?

“Danger, Will Robinson – Danger!” to come back atcha :stuck_out_tongue:

Damn straight!

58

Did you open the link and read the article therein?

I did now.

Look, I have no doubt that the religious Right is not really for full capitalism – never said they were; and one thing we need is to get the religious Right out of the political spectrum. There is a sense in which the Right has been more for individualism, but their current acceptance of religion leads them to not uphold individual rights – to be against unthrottled greed, as it where, which is anti-man. Objectivism basically says that our current political choices (of environmentalist / socialist Left or religious Right) is a choice of the lesser of two evils – not the choice of good versus evil. Now, if the religionists can take the stance of some of the Founders who were religious but considered individual freedoms to be sacrosanct, then we can work with them; but they haven’t shown that yet. That’s why I added a link to Miss Rand’s article, Man’s Rights. If they can agree with that, then welcome aboard; otherwise, they are the ideological enemy.

59

Ooo, that was cold :slight_smile:

Well, no, it wasn’t meant to be either cold, or cutting. Sorry it looked that way.

Craig made, I thought a reasonable follow-up projection onto the original hypothesis of alliances, and I made the next projection onto that. [i thought].

It also wasn’t meant to be satirical - despite it being based on Galt’s Oath.

At the most, perhaps it was a little dry; and that’s my Brit Dad’s fault, not mine :stuck_out_tongue:

60

Well, no, it wasn’t meant to be either cold, or cutting. Sorry it looked that way.

Craig made, I thought a reasonable follow-up projection onto the original hypothesis of alliances, and I made the next projection onto that. [i thought].

It also wasn’t meant to be satirical - despite it being based on Galt’s Oath.

At the most, perhaps it was a little dry; and that’s my Brit Dad’s fault, not mine :slight_smile:

I was being funny, “toungue in cheek”. It was actually right to the point