Ayn Rand – Born Alissa Rosenbaum, 1905-1982
Quotes:
Quotes:
- The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservative” was only to retard that process.)
- Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.
- That the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.
- Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.
Who Is John Galt?
“John Galt is a fictional charater in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's oft repeated question, "Who is John Galt?", and the quest to discover the answer. As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator and inventor who embodies the power of the individual capitalist. He serves as an idealistic counterpoint to the social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the "stifling mediocrity" and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. In this popular mass ideology, he is a metaphorical Atlas of Greek methology, holding up the world.” Wikipedia.
Rand and Orwell, like many writers, photographers, and painters across our globe, have made use of art forms to put on display their vision of humanity’s social interaction, or intervention as it were. Language, as used by Rand and Orwell, has been and will continue to be the primary medium for social, philosophical, and political communication. Our politicians and university professors do not normally take pictures or paint. The world’s media, however, do. This combined bombardment through the use of modern technology is difficult to do battle with.
Without you having read these authors, the terms Statist, Looter, and Limiter are defined through context and inference in the last blog. Though provocative and interesting, they do not serve our immediate purpose well. If we cannot converse within the confines of a common language, we cannot converse at all.
Exact terms within the fabric of the current government hedgemony is important. The term “Patriot”, for example, is used by both the left and the right (the definition of both of which is vague as well) but often with different meanings. One can say, “He is a criminal, but a Patriot.”, or “Yes, he voted against every war ever faught by America and dodged the draft, but he is a Patriot.” The dictionary defines patriot as “One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.”, and patriotism as “Love of and devotion to one’s country.” There are many who the government sees as criminals but who would still fit these definitions. There is even logical support for pacifists, draft dodgers, and those who would vote against any war, although others would believe that logic faulty. If a staunch conservative and capitalist were to yell, “Let all patriots gather round and defend what is right.”, it might draw an entirely different crowd had the call to rally been issued by a left-wing socialist.
Even some conservatives stand in disdain of Rand’s strong individualist capitalist personalities. But how far does that disdain go? Beware that it does not go too far, for by it socialism is born.
When I was a young man, I met a genius with whom I became friends. He did not know he was a genius, and to this day I doubt he knows it. But his quotes are filled with poignant irony.
“When I finally get around to writing my personal Declaration of Independence, the last line will be something like, To these principles I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, as long as it does not rain, there is nothing good on television, and it is not inconvenient.” LP
And, with the flare of Sherlock Holmes,
“When all sane explanations fail to explain behavior, then insanity must be the truth.” LP
It is with such foreboding that I ponder the inexplicable campaign words of President Obama. I assume I paraphrase. “America is the greatest nation on earth. Help me change it!” And indeed, all the language of Obama is inexplicable. There is little doubt that Obama is a shining example of an alternative reality within my definition of Patriot. There is certainly irony.
And if an Intellectual Revolution is filled with precise and understandable language, and if it is characterized within the principles of Killology, and if it is couched within the traditional confines of America, and yet it fails … what then?
If Ayn Rand is wrong, is she wrong in this?
“I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.”
I invite you to watch the 3 part Ayn Rand interview, which gives some idea of Rand’s Objectivism philosophy.
Although at first shocking, do the points made pave a clear avenue for American economics and the moral ground upon which socialism drowns? Or are we too altruistic to save ourselves?
No comments:
Post a Comment