Posted on 08/27/2003 12:46:25 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
"Don't set out to raze all shrines — you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed . . . Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul — and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man"
In a famous speech from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (p. 637), arch-villain Ellsworth Toohey explains one way to seize power over an entire country...
His strategy is working.
Today, even a quick glance at newspaper headlines reveals the ongoing dismantling of freedom. It is true that the old guard of totalitarianism is largely dead — the Soviet Union is dissolved, the Berlin Wall is ten years fallen, and formerly communist countries are adopting limited market reforms. But statism is hardly beaten — it is simply reappearing in new guises, to fit the latest fashions of the masses...
What is killing freedom? Is it economic stupidity? The power of pressure groups moving unimpeded against a disinterested, complacent population? A conspiracy among the politicians and the press to maintain their modern-day Camelots?
Certainly, these are important culprits. But they are mere foot-soldiers compared to the looming commander whose spirit is the source of the disintegration of liberty: Ellsworth Toohey.
The essential evil of Ellsworth Toohey is his naked hatred of the good for being good.
Toohey was after power. And he knew that one cannot rule those of integrity, confidence, happiness, and pride. Toohey's whole aim was to destroy these qualities — to obliterate the shining spirit which represents joyous self-fulfillment. He sought to undermine a man's self-esteem and joy for life by destroying reverence. As Rand wrote in an early sketch of the character, his arsenal was not material, but spiritual, and centered on a sneer: "His chief weapon is mockery. A great, all-embracing nihilistic ridicule. Allow nothing to remain sacred in a man's soul. Earnestness towards any conception, the mere conception of earnestness itself, is the base of reverence. Allow nothing to be important to a man's spirit. Laugh it out of existence. Laughter, not as joy, but as destruction" (Journals of Ayn Rand)...
Ellsworth Toohey's greatest enemy was reverence — the precise opposite of his demoralizing, life-negating sneers. To revere a thing is to hold it in the full context of one's values, to see its immediate connection to one's highest value — one's life — and to grant it a soul-filling recognition and salute. It is a considerable task, for it presumes the achievement of self-esteem, confidence, and conscious values. But it is also the stuff of exuberant joy — the ecstatic state of being fully alive.
As such, it is absolute poison to tyrants everywhere, who thrive on the extinguished spirits of entire nations. The survival of civilization requires not just a political revolution, but a spiritual renaissance. It is either the screeching of punk rock, or the splendor of an exultant symphony. It is Andy Warhol, or it is Thomas Jefferson. It is nihilistic sneering, or a passionate reverence for being alive. Only one leads to freedom, and it will take nothing less to defeat the would-be totalitarians once and for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at freeradical.co.nz ...
No. Toohey was a diabolical genius. These people, for the most part, are dumber than a box of rocks.
"Success, achievement, and independence are consistently attacked. It is the expression, en masse, of a neurotic facing a meaningless existence, and lashing out at anything of passion, beauty, and meaning. It is a fundamental attack on the values of human life — and it is destroying the world."
Now that guy was much closer to today's journalists, except that he was also part Larry King as well. :)
The article is exactly right in its analysis of the cultural decay and contempt for values and meaning that pervades society. To those who love truth and freedom, all of this is painfully obvious. But the suggested solution is not possible.
The problem is people. Most people do not wish to be free. Most people want security, and they will surrender anything, including their souls to have it. To cure the problem you would have to change people, and that is not possible.
This is the one mistake that the Objectivists continue to make. There seems to be an almost mystical belief that they can make people want freedom by means of education, or the right propaganda program. What they do not understand is the moment you make people understand what freedom really is, and that being free means being responsible for one's own life, never seeking to have or enjoy what one has not earned or produced by one's own effort, most people will not be interested.
Those who truly want freedom must seek and acquire it themselves. It is not necessary to free the world to be free personally. This is the one truth the Randians never understood or explained. In some ways, the Randians are still collectivists.
One thing is certain, if you think the way to be free (and you wait for it to happen) is to make the entire world free, or your country, or your state, or your neighborhood, or even one other individual free, you will never be free. If you think any government can make you free, you will never be free. Freedom is no different than any other value worth pursuing in this world. If you do not acquire it by your own effort, you neither deserve it, or will be able to enjoy it, if you should accidentally have it. This is the reason most of the people in this country despise the limited freedom they still enjoy here in the USA.
A QUESTION FOR THE PING LIST:
In light of the obvious cultural and moral decay as well as the continuing erosion of freedom in our country, do you think the general decline will continue, and if so, will the result be revolution or a totalitarian government?
Do you think there is a political solution to the accelerating loss of freedom and values in this country?
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
No, I don't.
Thanks for asking.
Regards,
L
Will the decline continue? Yes. Will the result be revolution or totalitarian government? both.
No. I strongly disagree with this notion. Do you wish to be free? Assuming the answer is "Yes," then it is quite condescending of you to suggest that your neighbor does not think the same way. If the answer is "No," then your perspective is suspect to the point that your opinion is irrelevent, because it is antithetical to human nature. I am not familiar with your opinions or previous contributions, so pardon me if my conclusions are flawed based merely on the reply that you offered. But from what I read, your views concerning the nature of Man lead me to suspect that you are no better than the tyrants of history and their minions... and Toohey Ellsworth. The notions that humans are merely cattle waiting to be fed, led, bred, and dead is the same idea that gives rise to bad philosophy in the first place - concepts of man as too degenerate to know better, nor to decide his own destiny. Regardless of your perspective concerning the nature of Man, he is quite capable of recognizing values to his being, making choices that are in his best interest, and correspondent with those values. He is quite capable of acknowledging the existence and value of others and respecting them accordingly. He is quite capable of being. The highest possible stature of Man is no less a goal as should be expected from any individual. The moment that you accept anything less, you will get nothing more. There is nothing mystical in an Objectivist's belief that man is able to achieving that for which he is capable. And there is certainly nothing collectivist about the notion that an individual is ultimately and primarily responsible unto himself, for it is only then - when he has achieved consistency in his own being - that he can find value in others and extend himself to them accordingly.
You say... Freedom is no different than any other value worth pursuing in this world. If you do not acquire it by your own effort, you neither deserve it, or will be able to enjoy it, if you should accidentally have it. A statement of the obvious... pronounce by a cynic. You conclude by belittling those who seek this as a value. Then you condemn those who maintain this truth as philosophy. Finally, you damn Man for being incapable of acquiring this as his destiny.
In answer to your question... In light of the obvious cultural and moral decay as well as the continuing erosion of freedom in our country, do you think the general decline will continue, and if so, will the result be revolution or a totalitarian government?... Get this straight. It doesn't matter! The nature of Man is what it is, despite what you desire to believe. And as long as there is one individual who does not recognize your will in any decision concerning his being, no opinion of yours concerning his existence is relevant... even at the point of your gun. Revolution, tyranny, revolution! All this will stop when every man can truthfully accept the idea that he will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for the sake of his... and MEAN it.
What is so difficult to understand about that?!
Yes. If for no other reason that the high ground of culture, literature, the arts, the media and education have largely been ceded to the death-worshippers of the Left. Remember this statement?
"When an opponent declares, 'I will not come over to your side,' I calmly say, 'Your child belongs to us already...' What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."
Adolf Hitler, November, 1933
How right he was.
and if so, will the result be revolution or a totalitarian government?
The result will be a prolonged conflict that'll make the events in the Balkans seem like a Girl Scout picnic.
Do you think there is a political solution to the accelerating loss of freedom and values in this country?
No. What political solution can there be? When your opponents lack the price of admission to civilized debate: a respect for reason, belief in objective truth, and a willingness to admit they're wrong when the facts prove it so; when your opponents' goals are to destroy the very foundation of your culture and your society - and to offer nothing in return but the howling nightmare of a society of cannibals and looters; when your opponents seize and indoctrinate your children's' minds in the politics of victimization and the nobility of human servitude and sacrifice - what then? When the institutions of higher learning are occupied by Marxist multiculturalists who despise the very philosophical foundation upon which the architecture of liberty and human dignity can be constructed - what then? We know the answer - as Huntington said, "History shows that no country so constituted can long endure as a coherent society."
In recent years, though, the desire for personal freedom has increased. We do have a greater interest in maximizing our life choices than our parents or grandparents. But "personal freedom" doesn't always mean political or economic freedom -- it may just mean more consumer or lifestyle choices. We may increase our "personal freedom" while losing important rights and liberties.
Also, many who put freedom first rely on some source of security -- it may be money or education or resourcefulness or talent or self-confidence. Without that confidence, people may be suspicious their ability to prevail in free societies. Those who put security first include those who've lived through some blow to their self-confidence or resources. Older people who've seen war, depression, or hyperinflation are a good example.
There is a Hobbesian abyss of struggle -- "the war of each against all" -- that lies underneath civilization. Those who've experienced it are likely to value security over freedom. And it may be hard for such people to see how individual freedom can be reconciled with that degree of safety that others take for granted.
A question for Rand or Adams, though, is whether "Ellsworth Toohey" types, power-seeking mockers, are only found in collectivist movements or societies. It looks like such types also have a bright future in market economies. Rand and Adams may want individualism and "spiritual renaissance," but they may not get both. Freedom and moral rebirth may complement each other in the highest human natures, but in the real world they may well find that societies opt for one or the other -- or indeed, see neither very well established.
Huntington? And he is a scholar of what? Can American history be analyzed according to historical precident?... in consideration of the fact that there is NO predecessor to America in world history? Need you an answer, it is NO!
And lest we get absorbed in the fallacy of historical perception at the expense of reality, Mr. Hitler was NOT right about anything! He lost, He's dead, his experiment failed... horrendously.
Thanks for the reply. As you've discovered, you are already "on the list," for better or worse.
I understand your view, because I also am a perennial optimist, but my optimism is tempered by the realistic fact there is no historical precedent for a reversal of social corruption. Nevertheless, I know any individual who chooses to be free can be.
Societies ultimately are whatever they are comprised of. It is impossible to have a society of hight moral and cultural value built from rotten material. If enough individuals discover their lives are their own responsibility, that its purpose is their enjoyment of it and that only the highest standards of personal moral character, decency, and effort make that possible, there might be hope for a decent society. What are the possibilities of that?
Hank
Sad to say, I agree with you.
Thanks!
Hank
Yes, both, of course. headsonpikes also observerd that. No doubt, the accelerating decline into statism is what will precipitate revolt. What I wonder is, will it be so much a violent revolution, or one of "going on strike," as Rand suggested? Historically, revolutions do not generally improve conditions, they only change the players and style of tyranny.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.