Why They Fear Us

The Rational Argumentator ^ | December 26, 2003 | Henry Emrich

[G. Stolyarov II]

One of the most vexing problems that I have encountered in my experiences with Objectivism, is the fact that many people seem deathly afraid of our viewpoint – EVEN people with whom we should have most in common. They just don't seem to be able to understand it, even if we explain it patiently and calmly. Everything we say gets systematically distorted into something horrible. This used to bother me quite a lot, and still does to some degree. But I have come to a conclusion after a VERY long time thinking about it:

When people misunderstand what Objectivism is, and the things for which we stand, many of them are simply ignorant, NOT willfully antagonistic.

Take, for example, a situation that will doubtless be VERY common to most Objectivists: the issue of religion, and atheism. Whenever I would make statements to the effect that I didn't (and still don't), believe the Judeo-Christian mythology, everybody would go into emotional meltdown: their powers of reason would mysteriously disappear.

You can't really blame them, however. Most "Believers" (in whatever religion), simply don't understand, or think about, their religion very deeply. They are "religious" enough that atheism makes them nervous, but actually have very little understanding of the Bible, Koran, or whatever "holy book" they believe.

Most people don't really understand what Christianity means by "God". They have no idea that the concept makes no sense, as their religion teaches it. To them, "God" is somewhere between Santa Claus and Uncle Sam – a benevolent, strong, heroic Father figure "in the sky". Most of them have only a vague notion of heaven, and no interest in hell whatsoever.

When confronted with the works of Thomas Paine, Robert G. Ingersoll, or Ayn Rand, they honestly do not understand how those critiques of religion could apply to them. And can you REALLY blame them? After all, as we all know, most of the Christian Clergy THEMSELVES don't know half of how bloody and evil parts of the Bible are.

Most "Christians" in this country (and others) couldn't care less about the bible. The only parts of it they know halfway clearly are the "Christmas story", and the Easter thing. They understand the "ten commandments" in a very rudimentary, common sense way. They don't CARE that the "thou shalt not steal" thing is an injunction against stealing your neighbor's SLAVE. Most people honestly have no idea what the bible actually says, or what Christianity actually teaches.

They get terrified by "secular humanism" or "Godless atheists" because pretty much the only exposure to such things has been from socialists, communists, and suchlike. Hell, how do you think the destroyers of the United States were able to hoodwink people into putting "Under god" in the pledge of allegiance, in the first place? The sales-pitch was to make us different from the "Godless Commies". In the popular mind (controlled and shaped as it is by the "activists" and their social agendas), the concepts of Communism and Atheism were skillfully and secretly blended, so that the Common man can no longer tell one from the other.

This is part of what makes Conservatives useless, as I said. Most of them have no idea what their Bible teaches; nor will they listen. More often than not, when they DO find out, they get every bit as disgusted as we do, and worse: you ever wonder where all those preachy "born-again atheist" sites come from?

Same thing with capitalism: what most people in this culture mistakenly think of as capitalism is the lukewarm, state-entangled version: government-backed monopolies, licensing, franchises, tariffs, etc. Most of these people have never tried (as I have), to start a business, or create their own wealth. They've all bought into the mediocrity-mentality that says the only way to make it is as somebody else's "employee". The Entrepreneurial spirit is mostly dead in them, and they see "their jobs" as nothing more than a means to continue subsisting at the same mediocre level.

Reason? Too hard. Easier to watch TV, and give a half-hearted appearance of a religion you don't understand, every Sunday.

Purpose? Work, sleep, watch TV, breed the next generation of slaves, and die in a pool of your own urine.

They haven't learned any better. The government-controlled schools specialize in killing off every trace of the heroic impulse. Generations of potential Howard Roarks are systematically processed into docile, conformist Keatings, by schools, families, and 'peer pressure'.

But ask yourself: having never had self-made goals, how can they be expected to be creatures of "self-made soul?"

It's actually rather heartbreaking, to consider the masses of living zombies lock-stepping through life, their only goal to keep up with the Joneses, afraid to stand taller than the crowd because "what will the neighbors think." It's horrifying.

These poor fools equate "Altruism" with goodheartedness, human warmth, and private charity. They've probably never read Comte, Bismarck, Hegel, or Marx, and barely even heard their names.

So what's the answer?

PATIENCE. Those of us who know a better way MUST stand for it, and MUST reach out to them. Otherwise, this entire world is as good as dead.

So "professional philosophers" don't take Objectivism or Rand very seriously? Screw 'em. It's not ABOUT winning over Academia, in the long run. It's about reclaiming the Human Spirit from its destroyers, and getting people do understand that they DO have a right to exist, and they DO have a right to resist their Masters. We are a slave rebellion, friends: an "Underground railroad" of the Human Spirit.

Academia is a joke. Most so-called "philosophers" have deteriorated into gibbering wordplay, or convinced themselves they don't even exist. To think we're actually going to make headway there is wishful thinking at least, and suicidal at most.

The philosophical gangrene set in several centuries ago. We must ask ourselves: do we have 200 years to wait? Can we afford to let the wheels of history turn, and hope against all evidence that that the inhabitants of that time will still even be recognizably human in spirit and mind?

No. We don't have the time for that.

Even a cursory examination of history will reveal a pivotal fact; namely, that "paradigm shifts" – massive changes of gestalt thinking NEVER originate from WITHIN the old paradigm. In other words, history supports Miss Rand's premise that the "Mavericks" – the Roarks and Galts of the world – are the Atlas's who make the world turn.

So do not despair, friends. We must take up the torch, fight for all that is good and genuine and beautiful and true, and NEVER submit. "Second Renaissance" is eminently appropriate for an Objectivist bookstore's name, but it is ALSO – MUST be – our credo.

WE, and those of like mind, must be the heralds of a "new birth of freedom".

There's no other choice.

[smith288]

Hitler and Saddam were atheists which makes their govt one. Not so much their society, but their governing style. Cared little for anyone.

[thoughtomator]

Yeah, essentially it is. Objectivists, however, are deliberately obtuse about this, as it is the fundamental underpinning of the philosophy, so you have to explain the obvious fifty different ways to find a chink in their armor of denial.

[ought-six]

Reads like elitist swill, if you ask me. The author seeks to lump all "conservatives" into the same basket, but what he actually accomplishes is to advertise the sad limits of his own sophistry, and show how poor and bankrupt his narrow opinions are. Generally, I enjoy discussions with the true objectivists, as I do with the true subjectivists, as they usually bring a sense of excitement and discovery to their arguments. The writer of this pap, however, casually discounts anything not conforming to his own established parameters of what is acceptable, and thus he serves only to stymie constructive discourse.

[smith288]

I am not exclusionist, but I am a staunch supporter of full separation of Church and State.

Dept of Redundancy Dept.

[ArGee]

You've hit the nail on the head. The essence of Objectivism is a denial of the actual subjectivity of the Objectivist's point of view.

Did I say that? Reading it makes my brain hurt.

But, yes, I guess I said that.

;)

Shalom.

[sauropod]

"Would a quick look at the sale of books relating to the topic of Christianity be considered "evidence" of thought to this "rational thinker?"

No it wouldn't. They have an arrogant conceit as I spelled out in No. 4.

All you have to do is read their writings and it leaps right out at you.

[esopman]

Gospodin Stolyarov:

Sauropod is correct. There are many of us who have both the intellectual apparatus and training at the graduate level to think, and do in fact think very deeply about our religion. It is arrogant to dismiss our community of faith as shallow thinkers. The posted article is both incorrect and poorly written.

I can speak as a 61-year old former atheist who has come, by the grace of Messiah, Y'shua, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, into a relationship with the Lord. Relationship of love and grace - not merely a 'religion.' Further, please feel free to Freep mail me privately and I will respond thoughtfully.

[thoughtomator]

Do you realize that being a "staunch supporter" of "separation of Church and State" puts you directly at odds with the founders of our nation?

How does an Objectivist reconcile that with the plain language of the First Amendment, which demands, in essence, indifference to religion with respect to government, and not separation?

[ArGee]

But I am not willing to embrace certain Christians' claims that America is fundamentally a religious country, nor will I sanction their attempts to employ the coercive powers of the State to in any manner impede on anyone's religious freedom.

Point #1: Just because that is "certain Christians' claims" does not make it a Christian concept.

Point #2: America did have a Christian concept of right and wrong through the 1920s or so. That is an objective fact, whether you like it or not. And nobody's freedom was ever infringed by that fact.

Shalom.

[sauropod]

"But I am not willing to embrace certain Christians' claims that America is fundamentally a religious country..."

Then you ignore history.

"...nor will I sanction their attempts to employ the coercive powers of the State to in any manner impede on anyone's religious freedom."

If the State were equally tolerant of all religions then I would agree with you.

The State is not equally tolerant of Christianity compared with Islam or even Judiasm. The latter are favored as we saw at Christmas time.

"...but I am a staunch supporter of full separation of Church and State."

Itself an unConstitutional and unhistorical view.

[RLK]

I was reading Rand long before most people were born. Fountainhead was a cheap drunk and a course of psychotherapy.

I have two serious problems with Rand.

1) She is no longer alive and is hence unable to defend herself from people who claim to be her disciples.

2) She is Wagnerian in the sense of seeking the glorified position of emotionally sterile all-powerful aweing Germanic gods. It is a hollow life.

[sauropod]

Hitler and the Nazis motivated an awful lot of Germans to do what they did through appeals to altruism, e.g., the German "Volk."

Read Peikoff's book.

[sauropod]

"Sauropod is correct."

"He always is", he sez humbly ;-)

[Pahuanui]

The books of CS Lewis alone account for a huge chunk of the publishing industry

Oh, please.

Yes, they are evergreens, and still sell, but a "huge chunk"? You either are unfamiliar with the publishing industry or are terminally optimistic.

[ladyinred]

Even a cursory examination of history will reveal a pivotal fact; namely, that "paradigm shifts" – massive changes of gestalt thinking NEVER originate from WITHIN the old paradigm.

So this guy is a new ager then? This is also their thinking. Somehow I don't trust his views of Christianity if this is his belief. (Among other reasons)

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>>>We are a slave rebellion, friends: an "Underground railroad" of the Human Spirit.


In the absence of God, is the Human Spirit (capitalized out of respect for it's apotheosis, I assume) something that I would find in the AD&D Monster Manual?

I understand why Objectivists find some elements of modern religion as objectionable as a Tammy Faye Bakkar makeover, but I'm not sure how they can disbelieve in God and still posit a spiritual world. Are there any Objectivists that believe quartz crystals cure herpes?

Who is John Galt, and what was he smoking when he wrote this article?

[Dog Anchor]

I have read all Ayn Rand's philosophic treatises, as well as, her novels, and, for the most part, consider myself an objectvist, although more of an Aristotleian. However, I try to refrain from running around epousing such except on a ripe occasion as this. As well, I believe in God, although God is not a single entity, a benevolent being, and as such, or contrary to, the commonly accepted belief that God created Man in His own image, I must believe Man created God in his own image.

[Dutchgirl]

I understand that CS Lewis Books, including Narnia sell over 2 million copies annually...