Exterminating Ellsworth

"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...

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.

Thanks for the reply. I agree with most of your views, which you should have suspected.

Since candidly you admitted, 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, I can understand how some of what I said might have been misconstrued.

You asked, Do you wish to be free?

Mr.Atos, I am free. My freedom does not depend on anyone else. I neither desire, nor entertain the illusion, that I can make others be or do anything other than what they choose to be and do. I cannot make them free or make them want to be.

Assuming the answer is "Yes," then it is quite condescending of you to suggest that your neighbor does not think the same way.

On the contrary, I believe it is presumptuous to believe that other's thoughts, beliefs, or desires are the same as mine. My opinion about what other's want is based on what they tell me they want, not by their words (everyone claims to want freedom) but by their actions. If they consistently choose to have government solve their problems for them, it is not from a desire for freedom.

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.

Must humans are not so much cattle as sheep, but it is not their nature to be sheep. The essence of human nature, and that which distinguishes human beings from all other creatures is their ability and necessity to consciously choose their behavior. Nothing "makes" human beings behave or be anything. What human beings are and what they do, they are and do by choice. Of course every man "is quite capable of recognizing values to his being, making choices that are in his best interest, and correspondent with those values," but most do not. The ability to do something and actually doing it are not the same thing.

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 ...

The mysticism I accused the Objectivists of is the belief that they can somehow make men who choose not to achieve what they are capable of, to become achievers, by education, or promoting their philosophy. Objecitivism has had forty years to accomplish this. Freedom and individual responsibility are not increasing.

The collectivism I accused the Objectivists of is the view that one must make others agree with you and seek and want the same thing you want before you can achieve it. I do not really believe Objectivists are collectivists, of course. Individualism is the hallmark of the objectivist philosophy, but the view that before individuals can be free, a society must be made free is a kind of implicit collectivism objectivists have failed to identify.

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.

Well of course. The nature of all things is what it is, A is A. In the case of human beings, the essence of that nature is choice or volition. One choice open to all individuals is to not choose, to abdicate one's personally responsibility and to turn that responsibility over to someone else. This is the choice that most make. It is not what I would wish, if wishing could change anything. It is what anyone who cares to observe cannot deny.

Now how could you for a moment suppose that, "no opinion of yours concerning his existence is relevant... even at the point of your gun," pertains to someone who does not believe human beings can be changed nor has any desire to? What would an person who believes no one deserves what they have not earned by their own effort and has no claim on anyone else's life be using a gun for, except self-defense?

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.

Ayn Rand frequently pointed out that human beings are not infallible. Rand, Peikoff, Kelly, et. al. are only human. I would be the last person to belittle objectivism, which I consider the most real progress in philosophy since Locke. But objectivism is not perfect philosophy. It is neither a complete philosophy or without error. To point these things out is not "belittling."

My criticism of objectivist philosophy is not, in general, about the essentials, but certain things that have never been made explicit, or are left out, that have damaged objectivism as an effective philosophy. Three things in particular stand out. Objectivism has no metaphysics to speak of, except the axiom of existence, and no ontology at all. There are two major mistakes in epistemology, which do not effect the essential principles, but do undercut them. There is an implicit mistake in objectivist political theory that is ignored by objectivists, which is that no government (as defined by objectivists) is possible that does not assume the right to initiate force.

Do you believe objectivism is the end of philosophy, that there is nothing more to be discovered, and that all the questions of philosophy are answered?

...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?!

It is not difficult for you or me, but it must be difficult, else why would so few truly say it and live by it.

Hank

Thanks for the comments! Also, many who put freedom first rely on some source of security...

There is no security. There are no guarantees. Those who do not learn this are at the mercy of the whims of governments, societies and nature.

There is only reality. If we are to be secure, it must be security we have provided ourselves by knowing where we live, what the dangers are, and preparing for both the expected and unexpected. To rely on anything else, (such as the government) is submitting to the vagaries of an unpredictable monster, sometimes benevolent, but often the most malevolent of all dangers. (See Death By Government By R.J. Rummel)

I agree with all the reasons that so many are willing to surrender freedom for security. Since the first requirement of human nature to live successfully as a human being is the freedom to think and choose, there is no reason or justification for surrendering freedom, however.

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.

I will not presume to answer for Rand or Adams, but I personally believe the "collectivist" view is only a subset of irrationality in general, and that the "Toohey" types will fourish wherever irrationality prevails. By the way a market economy and a free market economy are not the same thing and the United States is not a free market economy. (None exist.)

Hank

...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?

Agreeing with Noumenon, "The result will be a prolonged conflict that'll make the events in the Balkans seem like a Girl Scout picnic."

Man is the animal that "tries on ideas for size". Civilization gestated in the womb of Christinity, which eventually came to dominate Western daily life and informed us even as to scientific realities. With Newton, it was found that all of the universe operated in accord with certain uniform mathematically rules, and the extension of this idea gave way to the Materailistic worldview, which in turn did grave damage, warranted to some extent, to the institution of Christianity. Materialism is soulless and men became things. Darwinism, Empty Sophistry that it is, took root in Materialist soil and those "things that are men" were freighted philosophically with craven "survivalist" selfishness. Nihilism seemed justified. Then came quantum mechanics in the 1920's which completely overthrew and undermined Materialism, but this fact is little understood or acknowledged. The budding quantum mechanical counter-revolution in thought is still in its infancy. It has penetrating and extremely positive implications for a spiritual renaissance, which must happen if the abyss is to be avoided. But it requires that we embrace the unvisualizable. We don't understand Material. We don't understand Man. How can we understand God? The probabilities do not appear to be in our favor.

First, thank you for you response.

To answer your first question, yes - I do believe that the general decline will continue. Why? Because individuals in positions of power encourage this.

Why do "individuals in positions of power encourage," the degradation of values? The question is rhetorical. I do not think that is their intention, but it is certainly the result.

The second part of your first question is both. I think that we are on the road to a totalitarian government which will lead to mini revolutions throughout the country.

You, templar, headsonpikes, and dyed_in_the_wool have all pointed out the choice I neglected to offer (See Post #18), which is "both," and the one I myself agree with.

In light of that, I would like to ask an additional question of anyone who would care to answer. Are you making any preparation, even if only mental preparation, for what you see coming, both in terms of more government control and tyranny, and of any possible revolutionary violence? (Will you take part in the revolution? Do not answer this unless you are certain your actual identity is secure in FR.)

To answer your last question - no, I do not think there is a political solution. I believe the solution is spiritual.

I agree in this sense: by spiritual, I mean the human spirit, that is, the rational/volitional consciousness. If there is a solution, it will be individual, requiring individuals to discover the necessity of values, of knowledge, of effort, of integrity, of character, and a ruthless adherence to the truth.

Hank

Thank you for your interesting response. I meant to respond earlier and skipped over you. Sorry!

Yes [the general decline will continue]. If for no other reason than 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

Yes! Thanks largely to public education.

The result will be a prolonged conflict that'll make the events in the Balkans seem like a Girl Scout picnic.

I do not doubt that a senseless "Balkan" type conflict is possible, but I doubt if there will be any real battle by those who seek liberty against those who wish to continue the tyranny.

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."

Excellent!

You see, Mr.Atos, this is the reason most people do not wish to be free. They have swallowed the poison their culture and institutions have fed them. (Because it is easier, and cheaper, and "safer" than thinking for yourself.) The hope is not, as Noumenon has so aptly pointed out, a political solution. The downward spiral will not be stopped. In Atlas Shrugged, the rapid decline into totalitarianism was never stopped, but it ended when those who were its victims refused to continue to support and feed those who tyrannized them.

Hank

Thanks for your "$0.02."

Can I take 'C: Both'?

Of course, and I have already commented on this.

But the depth of the revolution may not be as bloody or as damaging as in the past.

Interesting. Do you mean, by, "the past," the first revolution, or the civil war (which was a revolt and would have been a revolution if the South had won their independence).

The pendulum swings both ways. In fact, I think it's going on right now. I think this website is part of that process.

A lot of people seem to believe this. Personally, I think this is an illusion. The general progress toward totalitarianism, "speeds up," and "slows down," and the impression that it is reversing during the slow-down is largely deceptive. Can you think of one confiscatory or oppressive law that has ever been removed during such periods. As for the present, more oppressive laws and regulations have been put in place under the George Bush administration than possibly any other president except Roosevelt. This is my opinion.

As far as totalitarian government, we already have that. Name one of the original Bill of Rights that still stands. I can wait ALL DAY...

Do not hold your breath. You are absolutely right. I have been saying for a long time the Bill of Rights is gone, and everyone scoffs at me. I'm sure you experience the same.

I think the political is part of the solution, ...

I do not, becasue politics is the problem. Just paying back your two cents.

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.