Posted on 06/21/2008 5:42:33 PM PDT by Noumenon
Note: To All Fifth Columnists is an open letter written by Ayn Rand around the beginning of 1941, when she was encouraging conservative intellectuals to form a national organization advocating individualism. She desired for the letter be issued by such an organization.
You who read this represent the greatest danger to America.
No matter what the outcome of the war in Europe may be, Totalitarianism has already won a complete victory in many American minds and conquered all of our intellectual life. You have helped it to win.
Perhaps it is your right to destroy civilization and bring dictatorship to America, but not unless you understand fully what you are doing.
If that is what you want to do, say so openly, at least to your own conscience, and we who believe in freedom will fight you openly.
But the tragedy of today is that you — who are responsible for the coming Totalitarian dictatorship of America — you do not know your own responsibility. You would be the first to deny the active part you're playing and proclaim your belief in freedom, in civilization, in the American way of life. You are the most dangerous kind of Fifth Columnist — an innocent subconscious Fifth Columnist. Of such as you is the Kingdom of Hitler and of Stalin.
You do not believe this? Check up on yourself. Take the test we offer you here.
1. Are you the kind who considers ten minutes of his time too valuable to read this and give it some thought?
2. Are you the kind who sits at home and moans over the state of the world — but does nothing about it?
3. Are you the kind who says that the future is predestined by something or other, something he can't quite name or explain and isn't very clear about, but the world is doomed to dictatorship and there's nothing anyone can do about it?
4. Are you the kind who says that he wishes he could do something, he'd be so eager to do something — but what can one man do?
5. Are you the kind who are so devoted to your own career, your family, your home or your children that you will let the most unspeakable horrors be brought about to destroy your career, your family, your home and your children — because you are too busy now to prevent them?
Which one of the above are you? A little of all?
But are you really too busy to think?
Who "determines" the future? You're very muddled on that, aren't you? What exactly is "mankind"? Is it a mystical entity with a will of its own? Or is it you, and I, and the sum of all of us together? What force is there to make history — except men, other men just like you? If there are enough men who believe in a better future and are willing to work for it, the future will be what they want it to be. You doubt this? Why then, if the world is doomed to dictatorship, do the dictators spend so much money and effort on propaganda? If history is predestined in their favor, why don't Hitler and Stalin just ride the wave into the future without any trouble? Doesn't it seem more probable that history will be what the minds of men want it to be, and the dictators are smart enough to prepare these minds in the way they want them, while we talk of destiny and do nothing?
You say, what can one man do? When the Communists came to power in Russia, they were a handful of eighteen men. Just eighteen. In a country of [170,000,000] population. They were laughed at and no one took them seriously. According to their own prophet, Karl Marx, Russia was the last country in which Communism could be historically possible, because of Russia's backwardness in industrial development. Yet they succeeded. Because they knew what they wanted and went after it — historical destiny or no historical destiny. Adolf Hitler started the Nazi Party in Germany with seven men. He was laughed at and considered a harmless crank. People said that after the Versailles Treaty Germany could not possibly become a world power again, not for centuries. Yet Hitler succeeded. Because he knew what he wanted and went after it — history or no history. Shall we believe in mystical fates or do something about the future?
If you are one of those who have had a full, busy, successful life and are still hard at work making money — stop for one minute of thought. What are you working for? You have enough to keep you in comfort for the rest of your days. But you are working to insure your children's future. Well, what are you leaving to your children? The money, home, or education you plan to leave them will be worthless or taken away from them. Instead, your legacy will be a Totalitarian America, a world of slavery, of starvation, of concentration camps and of firing squads. The best part of your life is behind you — and it was lived in freedom. But your children will have nothing to face save their existence as slaves. Is that what you want for them? If not, it is still up to you. There is time left to abort it — but not very much time. You take out insurance to protect your children, don't you? How much money and working effort does that insurance cost you? If you put one-tenth of the money and time into insuring against your children's future slavery — you would save them and save for them everything else which you intend to leave them and which they'll never get otherwise.
Don't delude yourself by minimizing the danger. You see what is going on in Europe and what it's doing to our own country and to your own private life. What other proof do you need? Don't say smugly that "it can't happen here." Stop and look back for a moment.
The first Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Russia. People said: well, Russia was a dark, backward, primitive nation where anything could happen — but it could not happen in any civilized country.
The next Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Italy — one of the oldest civilized countries of Europe and the mother of European culture. People said: well, the Italians hadn't had much experience in democratic self-government, but it couldn't happen anywhere else.
The next Totalitarian dictatorship happened in Germany — the country of philosophers and scientists, with a long record of the highest cultural achievements. People said: well, Germany was accustomed to autocracy, and besides there's the Prussian character, and the last war, etc. — but it could not happen in any country with a strong democratic tradition.
Could it happen in France? People would have laughed at you had you asked such a question a year ago. Well, it has happened in France — France, the mother of freedom and of democracy, France, the most independent-minded nation on earth.
Well?
What price your smug self-confidence? In the face of millions of foreign money and foreign agents pouring into our country, in the face of one step after another by which our country is [moving] closer to Totalitarianism — you do nothing except say: "It can't happen here." Do you hear the Totalitarians answering you — "Oh, yeah?"
Don't delude yourself with slogans and meaningless historical generalizations. It can happen here. It can happen anywhere. And a country's past history has nothing to do with it. Totalitarianism is not a new product of historical evolution. It is older than history. It is the attempt of the worthless and the criminal to seize control of society. That element is always there, in any country. But a healthy society gives it no chance. It is when the majority in a country becomes weak, indifferent and confused that a criminal minority, beautifully organized like all gangs, seizes the power. And once that power is seized it cannot be taken back for generations. Fantastic as it may seem to think of a dictatorship in the United States, it is much easier to establish such a dictatorship than to overthrow it. With modern technique and modern weapons at its disposal, a ruthless minority can hold millions in slavery indefinitely. What can one thousand unorganized, unarmed men do against one man with a machine gun?
And the tragedy of today is that by remaining unorganized and mentally unarmed we are helping to bring that slavery upon ourselves. By being indifferent and confused, we are serving as innocent Fifth Columnists of our own destruction.
There is no personal neutrality in the world today.
Repeat that and scream that to yourself. In all great issues there are only two sides — and no middle. You are alive or you are dead, but you can't be "neither" or "in between." You are honest or you are not — and there is no neutral "half-honest." And so, you are against Totalitarianism — or you are for it. There is no intellectual neutrality.
The Totalitarians do not want your active support. They do not need it. They have their small, compact, well-organized minority and it is sufficient to carry out their aims. And they want from you is your indifference. The Communists and the Nazis have stated repeatedly that the indifference of the majority is their best ally. Just sit at home, pursue your private affairs, shrug about world problems — and you are the most effective Fifth Columnist that can be devised. You're doing your part as well as if you took orders consciously from Hitler or from Stalin. And so, you're in it, whether you want to be or not, you're helping the world towards destruction, while moaning and wondering what makes the world such as it is today. You do.
The Totalitarians have said: "Who is not against us, is for us." There is no personal neutrality.
And since you are involved, and have to be, what do you prefer? To do what you're doing and help the Totalitarians? Or to fight them?
But in order to fight, you must understand. You must know exactly what you believe and you must hold to your faith honestly, consistently, and all the time. A faith assumed occasionally, like Sunday clothes, is of no value. Communism and Nazism are a faith. Yours must be as strong and clear as theirs. They know what they want. We don't. But let us see how, before it is too late, whether we have a faith, what it is and how we can fight for it.
First and above all: what is Totalitarianism? We all hear so much about it, but we don't understand it. What is the most important point, the base, the whole heart of both Communism and Nazism? It is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," nor the nationalization of private property, nor the supremacy of the "Aryan" race, nor anti-Semitism. These things are secondary symptoms, surface details, the effects and not the cause. What is the primary cause, common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and all other dictators, past, present, and future? One idea — and one only: That the State is superior to the individual. That the Collective holds all rights and the individual has none.
Stop here. This is the crucial point. What you think of this will determine whether you are a mental Fifth Columnist or not. This is the point which allows no compromise. You must choose one or the other. There is no middle. Either you believe that each individual man has value, dignity and certain inalienable rights which cannot be sacrificed for any cause, for any purpose, for any collective, for any number of other men whatsoever. Or else you believe that a number of men — it doesn't matter what you call it: a collective, a class, a race or a State — holds all rights, and any individual man can be sacrificed if some collective good — it doesn't matter what you call it: better distribution of wealth, racial purity or the Millennium — demands it. Don't fool yourself. Be honest about this. Names don't matter. Only the basic principle matters, and there is no middle choice. Either man has individual, inalienable rights — or he hasn't.
Your intentions don't count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian. Don't forget, Stalin and Hitler sincerely believe that their causes are good. Stalin thinks that he is helping the downtrodden, and Hitler thinks that he is serving his country as a patriot. They are good causes, both of them, aren't they? Then what creates the horrors of Russia and of Germany? What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.
And if you — in the privacy of your own mind — believe so strongly in some particular good of yours that you would be willing to deprive men of all rights for the sake of this good, then you are as guilty of all the horrors of today as Hitler and Stalin. These horrors are made possible only by men who have lost all respect for single, individual human beings, who accept the idea that classes, races, and nations matter, but single persons do not, that a majority is sacred, but a minority is dirt, that herds count, but Man is nothing.
Where do you stand on this? There is no middle ground.
If you accept the Totalitarian idea, if the words "State" or "Collective" are sacred to you, but the word "Individual" is not — stop right here. You don't have to read further. What we have to say is not for you — and you are not for us. Let's part here — but be honest, admit that you are a Totalitarian and go join the Communist Party or the German-American Bund, because they are the logical end of the road you have chosen, and you will end up with one or the other, whether you know it now or not.
But if you are a Humanitarian and a Liberal — in the real, not the prostituted sense of these words — you will say with us that Man, each single, solitary, individual Man, has a sacred value which you respect, and sacred inalienable rights which nothing must take away from him.
You believe this? You agree with us that this is the heart of true Americanism, the basic principle upon which America was founded and which made it great — the Rights of Man and the Freedom of Man? But do you hear many voices saying this today?
Do you read many books saying this? Do you see many prominent men preaching this? Do you know a single publication devoted to this belief or a single organization representing it? You do not. Instead, you find a flood of words, of books, of preachers, publications, and organizations which, under very clever "Fronts," work tirelessly to sell you Totalitarianism. All of them are camouflaged under very appealing slogans: they scream to you that they are defenders of "Democracy," of "Americanism," of "Civil Liberties," etc. Everybody and anybody uses these words — and they have no meaning left. They are empty generalities and boob-catchers. There is only one real test that you can apply to all these organizations: ask yourself what is the actual result of their work under the glittering bromides? What are they really selling you, what are they driving at? If you ask this, you will see that they are selling you Collectivism in one form or another.
They preach "Democracy" and then make a little addition — "Economic Democracy" or a "Broader Democracy" or a "True Democracy", and demand that we turn all property over to the Government; "all property" means also "all rights"; let everybody hold all rights together — and nobody have any right of any kind individually. Is that Democracy or is it Totalitarianism? You know of a prominent woman commentator who wants us all to die for Democracy — and then defines "true" Democracy as State Socialism [probably a reference to Dorothy Thompson]. You have heard Secretary [Harold] Ickes define a "true" freedom of the press as the freedom to express the views of the majority. You have read in a highly respectable national monthly the claim that the Bill of Rights, as taught in our schools, is "selfish": that a "true" Bill of Rights means not demanding any rights for yourself, but your giving these rights to "others." God help us, fellow Americans, are we blind? Do you see what this means? Do you see the implications?
And this is the picture wherever you look. They "oppose" Totalitarianism and they "defend" Democracy — by preaching their own version of Totalitarianism, some form of "collective good," "collective rights," "collective will," etc. And the one thing which is never said, never preached, never upheld in our public life, the one thing all these "defenders of Democracy" hate, denounce, and tear down subtly, gradually, systematically — is the principle of Individual Rights, Individual Freedom, Individual Value. That is the principle against which the present great world conspiracy is directed. That is the heart of the whole world question. That is the only opposite of Totalitarianism and our only defense against it. Drop that — and what difference will it make what name you give to the resulting society? It will be Totalitarianism — and all Totalitarians are alike, all come to the same methods, the same slavery, the same bloodshed, the same horrors, no matter what noble slogan they start under, as witness Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Principles are much more consistent than men. A basic principle, once accepted, has a way of working itself out to its logical conclusion — even against the will and to the great surprise of those who accepted it. Just accept the idea that there are no inalienable individual rights — and firing squads, executions without trial, and a Gestapo or a G. P. U. will follow automatically — no matter who holds the power, no matter how noble and benevolent his intentions. That is a law of history. You can find any number of examples. Can you name one [counter-example]? Can you name one instance where absolute power — in any hands — did not end in absolute horror? And — for God's sake, fellow Americans, let's not be utter morons, let's give our intelligence a small chance to function and let's recognize the obvious — what is absolute power? It's a power which holds all rights and has to respect none. Does it matter whether such a power is held by a self-appointed dictator or by an elected representative body? The power is the same and its results will be the same. Look through all of history. Look at Europe. Don't forget — they still hold "elections" in Europe. Don't forget, Hitler was elected.
Now, if you see how completely intellectual Totalitarianism is already in control of our country, if you see that there is no action and no organization to defend the only true anti-Totalitarian principle, the principle of individual rights, you will realize that there is only one thing for us to do: to take such action and to form such an organization. If you are really opposed to Totalitarianism, to all of it, in any shape, form, or color — you will join us. We propose to unite all men of good will who believe that Freedom is our most precious possession, that it is greater than any other consideration whatsoever, that no good has ever been accomplished by force, that Freedom must not be sacrificed to any other ideal, and that Freedom is an individual, not a collective entity.
We do not know how many of us there are left in the world. But we think there are many more than the Totalitarians suspect. We are the majority, but we are scattered, unorganized, silenced and helpless. The Totalitarians are an efficient, organized, and very noisy minority. They have seized key positions in our intellectual life and they make it appear as if they are the voice of America. They can, if left unchecked, highjack America into dictatorship. Are we going to let them get away with it? They are not the voice of America. We are. But let us be heard.
To be heard, however, we must be organized. This is not a paradox. Individualists have always been reluctant to form any sort of organization. The best, the most independent, the hardest working, the most productive members of society have always lived and worked alone. But the incompetent and the unscrupulous have organized. The world today shows how well they have organized. And so, we shall attempt what has never been attempted before — an organization against organization. That is — an organization to defend us all from the coming compulsory organization which will swallow all of society; an organization to defend our rights, including the right not to belong to any forced organization; an organization, not to impose our ideology upon anyone, but to prevent anyone from imposing his ideology upon us by physical or social violence.
Are you with us?
If you realize that the world is moving toward disaster, but see no effective force to avert it —
If you are eager to join in a great cause and accept a great faith, but find no such cause or faith offered to you anywhere today —
If you are not one of those doomed jellyfish to whom the word "Freedom" means nothing —
If you cannot conceive of yourself living in a society without personal freedom, a society in which you will be told what to do, what to think, what to feel, in which your very life will be only a gift from the Collective, to be revoked at its pleasure at any time —
If you cannot conceive of yourself surrendering your freedom for any collective good whatsoever, and do not believe that any such good can ever be accomplished by such a surrender —
If you believe in your own dignity and your own value, and hold that such a belief is not "selfish," but is instead your greatest virtue, without which you are worthless both to your fellow-men and to yourself —
If you believe that it is vicious to demand that you should exist solely for the sake of your fellow-men and grant them all and any right over you —
If you believe that it is vicious to demand everyone's sacrifice for everyone else's sake, and that such a demand creates nothing but mutual victims, without profiting anyone, neither society nor the individual —
If you believe that men can tell you what you must not do to them, but can never assume the arrogance of telling you what you must do, no matter what their number —
If you believe in majority rule only with protection for minority rights, both being limited by inalienable individual rights —
If you believe that the mere mention of "the good of the majority" is not sufficient ground to justify any possible kind of horror, and that those yelling loudest of "majority good" are not necessarily the friends of mankind —
If you are sick of professional "liberals," "humanitarians," "uplifters" and "idealists" who would do you good as they see fit, even if it kills you, whose idea of world benevolence is world slavery —
If you are sick, disgusted, disheartened, without faith, without direction, and have lost everything but your courage —
— come and join us.
There is so much at stake — and so little time left.
Let us have an organization as strong, as sure, as enthusiastic as any the Totalitarians could hope to achieve. Let us follow our faith as consistently as they follow theirs. Let us offer the world our philosophy of life. Let us expose all Totalitarian propaganda in any medium and in any form. Let us answer any argument, every promise, every "Party Line" of the Totalitarians. Let us drop all compromise, all cooperation or collaboration with those preaching any brand of Totalitarianism in letter or in spirit, in name or in fact. Let us have nothing to do with "Front" organizations, "Front" agents or "Front" ideas. We do not have to proscribe them by law. We can put them out of existence by social boycott. But this means — no compromise. There is no compromise between life and death. You do not make deals with the black plague. Let us touch nothing tainted with Totalitarianism. Let us tear down the masks, bring them out into the open and — leave them alone. Very strictly alone. No "pro-Soviet" or "pro-Nazi" members of the board in our organization. No "benevolent" Trojan horses. Let us stick together as they do. They silence us, they force us out of public life, they fill key positions with their own men. Let us stick together — and they will be helpless to continue. They have millions of foreign money on their side. We have the truth.
As a first step and a first declaration of what we stand for, we offer you the following principles:
We believe in the value, the dignity and the freedom of Man.
We believe:
— That each man has inalienable rights which cannot be taken from him for any cause whatsoever. These rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
— That the right of life means that man cannot be deprived of his life for the convenience of any number of other men.
— That the right of liberty means freedom of individual decision, individual choice, individual judgment and individual initiative; it means also the right to disagree with others.
— That the right to the pursuit of happiness means man's freedom to choose what constitutes his own private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement; that such a pursuit is neither evil nor reprehensible, but honorable and good; and that a man's happiness is not to be prescribed to him by any other man nor by any number of other men.
— That these rights have no meaning unless they are the unconditional, personal, private possession of each man, granted to him by the fact of his birth, held by him independently of all other men, and limited only by the exercise of the same rights by other men.
— That the only just, moral and beneficent form of society is a society based upon the recognition of these inalienable individual rights.
— That the State exists for Man, and no Man for the State.
— That the greatest good for all men can be achieved only through the voluntary cooperation of free individuals for mutual benefit, and not through a compulsory sacrifice of all for all.
— That "voluntary" presupposes an alternative and a choice of opportunities; and thus even a universal agreement of all men on one course of action is neither free nor voluntary if no other course of action is open to them.
— That each man's independence of spirit and other men's respect for it have created all civilization, all culture, all human progress and have benefited all mankind.
— That the greatest threat to civilization is the spread of Collectivism, which demands the sacrifice of all individual rights to collective rights and the supremacy of the State over the individual.
— That the general good which such Collectivism professes as its objective can never be achieved at the sacrifice of man's freedom, and such sacrifice can lead only to general suffering, stagnation, and degeneration.
— That such conception of Collectivism is the greatest possible evil — under any name, in any form, for any professed purpose whatsoever.
Such is our definition of Americanism and the American way of life.
The American way of life has always been based upon the Rights of Man, upon individual freedom and upon respect for each human individual personality. Through all its history, this has been the source of America's greatness. This is the spirit of America which we dedicate ourselves to defend and preserve.
In practical policy we shall be guided by one basic formula: of every law and of every conception we shall demand the maximum freedom for the individual and the minimum power for the government necessary to achieve any given social objective.
If you believe this, join us. If you don't — fight us. Either is your privilege, but the only truly immoral act you can commit is to agree with us, to realize that we are right — and then to forget it and do nothing.
There is some excuse, little as it may be, for an open, honest Fifth Columnist. There is none for an innocent, passive, subconscious one. Of all the things we have said here to you, we wish to be wrong on only one — our first sentence. Prove us wrong on that. Join us.
The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.
I never said otherwise. The problem is that your post is incomprehensible. That’s why I said I have no idea what you’re talking about. Be explicit about what you’re agreeing with him about, and disagreeing with me.
Again, the fallacy propagated regularly by the Left. A child's body is its own, not someone else's, to destroy.
Why do you consider it to be such a burden for people to be told that it is not legal or right to butcher little children? This is beyond reason.
“Why do you consider it to be such a burden for people to be told that it is not legal or right to butcher little children?”
I have no objection to people being told that abortion is wrong. My objection is to giving an agency of force (government) the power to make people have or not have abortions against their will. When you give government the power to make such decisions it will almost surely make the one you do not like.
Hank
Well, "Hank", you're no better than Obama or Clinton, then.
And I think you have also helped to prove my initial assertion on this thread. Thanks.
The good thing is that Your Creator gave you a mind. Use your mind in conjunction with the writings of wiser men without resorting to Him in this argument. You still may turn to Him privately for the faith that you will need. That seems fair and I think -- at least from what I been told from many like yourself -- it will work wonders if you have the faith you claim you do.
2. Re: Before this immoral modern age this wasn’t even questionable.
Down to hard tacks. Had you written more simply "Before this age this wasn’t even questionable." and had not added the additional adjective immoral (loaded, subjective) and modern (incorrect philosophy) I'd say your statement started correctly. Abortions simply were not performed primarily because, for good or ill, the societal moral code -- and thus its influence upon government -- was indeed theological. You could from there argue about what has been gained and lost since the shift in from the basic theological influences from which this country emerged and upon indeed it was founded into what it has become now that so much of that is being deliberately eroded or discarded.
However, had you not made this error, I may not have stepped in because it hadn't really occurred to me that you didn't know how philosophically regressive the world has become until you used the word "modern."
3. Here's why I call it an error for you to have called this a modern age. The time frame and the philosophical meanings of modern are ambiguous in this instance. Had you used the word "contemporary" to refer to our age you would not be in error even though you'd be less specific. But this is a philosophical discussion, and the second meaning is quite precise. The killing of innocents is decidedly NOT modern.
Modernity has made human lives longer and more prosperous and made freedom much more attainable for every human soul.
Our contemporary world and country has turned predominantly postmodern in its goals. I assert that you'll find our institutions peopled by those who philosophically are more postmodernist than modernist.
4. And that is why I called it an error, misguided at best, to call the current age an immoral one. Your ethos is no longer dominant even though most everybody outwardly gives lip-service to it. The evidence for my assessment here is rampant. You can see it in the growing influence of the "science" of postmodernism: Post-Normal Science. That means that scientific and technical advances will be hampered quite a bit more than you, a traditional moralist, would like. And that, in turn, makes your use of the word "moral" a joke among many of the people who are fighting you. Whether you like it or not, their influence is currently much much greater than yours. They have been turning your view of morality around and against you.
Another way of putting it is what is moral to a modernist is generally crazy talk to a postmodernist. "Who is this so-called God of theirs who would be so foolish as to tell them to be fruitful and multiply without consideration of limits, of sustainability!"
One who has been influenced by postmodernist's preaching of limits to human growth and the consequences of not checking that growth beliefs that it is YOU who is the immoral one, setting up the world to be destroyed by man's marauding in search of food and materials to sustain his God-commanded growth. The very meaning of protecting human life simply because that human hasn't committed a crime against persons or property is not looking at the limits the postmodernists considers a much more moral guideline. The existence of babies simply because they are babies and not because of what they may contribute versus what they will use up is simply IMMORAL to the postmodernist.
This was not easy for me to write. There's probably typos in there. There's many other points that I left out. You may disagree with me all you want. If so, then make me defend this thesis. Break your complaints up into multiple posts as needed. If there is something you don't understand, ask it.
This is your personal copy of a thesis I've been struggling with, and still struggling with, for longer than you've known me.
Even if you don't believe me yet, you have enough knowledge here to reevaluate the forces that are fighting you. Their thinking and beliefs and anti-optimism is not the same as yours seems to be. God serves you. They seek to stand in His stead because they cannot or will not believe He exists. And in some instances, your opponents believe your God exists, but they hate Him. Getting any of them to admit what I have laid out here is not all that likely until they no longer fear you. Keep going in the manner you have been, ignore all that I have written here, and you will wind up serving your enemies all too well.
1. So, because many have forsaken the knowledge of the Creator, and therefore choose to ignore what the Founders called self-evident truth, I should refrain from pointing to the foundations of our liberty? Sorry, my friend. That just doesn’t make sense. Just because they’re godless, in the literal sense, doesn’t mean I’m going to be.
2. Big deal.
3. Again, much ado about nothing. “Immoral” and “modern” fit just dandy in this conversation, since no generation before this in America slaughtered thousands of innocents every day. Or, for that matter, tried to “marry” sodomites.
4. You contradict yourself. You obviously agree with my assertion that this is an immoral time we live in. But then you go into a long dissertation on why I should pay more heed to what those who are destroying our civilization and our republic think. You err in thinking that I have any illusions about changing their minds about anything. I don’t care what they think. I don’t care about convincing them. They’re invincibly ignorant about what is important. And so, I only care about exposing and defeating them.
On this very thread, they admit they are as pro-abort as any Democrat.
I’m flying in the morning and haven’t started packing nor even finished laundry. I’ve little time now to point out where and how what I see as your blindness makes you determined to blow it and go on serving your enemies.
Maybe I shouldn’t have bothered. Maybe I should have taken the suggestion of others.
The fact that you will dismiss glibly that there is an important distinction in that these are contemporary and not modern times does not say much for your commitment to truth, That lack of commitment is not in keeping with any sound theological stance that I know of.
I too do not give a damn about what those people you specified as your enemies think. But I do give a damn about those they MISLEAD.
And here you are. Easily dismissing what you foolishly think is only semantics, what you call these “much ados.” These are little acorns that your enemies have planted. You haven’t a care in the world that our institutions are rotting from the inside out, from the top down. They couldn’t pay you enough to keep on doing things precisely as you’re doing them. But with you they really don’t have to pay you a dime.
Eternal vigilance should have enough flexibility to try different tactics as your enemies have adapted their tactics. Is it vigilant to have you stranded at a lone rampart tower whilst they go on decimating all that you originally stood against? That’s neither vigilant nor loyal to your commission. It is stubbornly sticking to what you’ve learned once, but having failed to adapt yourself as the battlefield changed, are recast (betraying your enviable pertinaciousness) into a scarecrow by the marauders you hate. They use you to keep the next group of victims from seeking from you the protection you’d love to bestow upon them. But the marauders know you hate them more than you’ll love their victims. They laugh at you. God will deal with them, but He’ll also reprove those who hated the nasties so much that they forgot who to love.
Have a safe trip.
1. You are not behaving godless by not invoking God in your arguments. I would presume your using Him as your guide. Continue. It is rarely pointed out that God asked Abraham to offer Isaac so that He could refuse the offer, and PRECISELY to break the pattern of sacrificing children to lesser gods. You do realize that abortion is a form of giving up one’s child so that one may be able to live life doing other things (serving lesser gods) than the continuation of life creation? Where Pagan societies FORCED this on the parents, our postmodern, anti-natal Western societies have figured out ways to get the parents to VOLUNTEER. Mostly by demonizing religion as a facade for authoritarians.
Work with me on this aspect EV. The volunteers CAN be persuaded in your direction. The pro-abortion crowd claims that abortions are declining. It may be true, and that would be goog, but I don’t trust them or their stats. That they want to lessen the pressure on them is all the motive they need to lie.
2., 3. & 4. I responded to in post 126. I await your thoughts.
On-topic bump. Suggest you two start your own discussion thread on the subject of abortion. It’s one of THE issues of our time, and it’s a no-compromise, no sit-on-the-fence issue. Along with the original subject of this essay.
Like i said, it’s time for Atlas to shrug - and pick up a gun.
But my thread wouldn't be on the topic of abortion directly. My thread would attempt to make clear how postmodernism has been the antithesis of modernism since its inception. IMO, here is as astute a marking of that inception as it gets: "The Fourth [of July] is the birthday of the modern world."-- Michael Ledeen
As I tried to make clear earlier, postmodern (contemporary) morality has turned classical morality on its head without firing a shot. MSM subtlely redefined its meaning and hardly anybody makes an issue of the switch. The dictionary still holds the old meaning, but culturely it has so clearly changed that even South Park made a gag around it almost 10 years ago.
Those like EV who are vehemently against abortions use the word morality in its ancient sense (in its JudeoChristian sense) while failing to fight the theft of the very word morality. It is clear from his usage that he doesn't even acknowledge it has been stolen and even refuses to discuss it.
I personally think that preserving innocent human life is still the primary moral goal and purpose of the social contract under which government is granted its moral authority. Postmodernists are horrified by that "old" meaning of morality. They have redefined "innocent" in utilitarian terms (not a squanderer of scarce resources -- i.e., almost any peon in an elitist world) rather than classically innocent (not guilty of crime to person or property).
-- i.e., almost any peon in an elitist world is guilty.
One cannot be innocent when one exists without permission.
Believe it or not I'd never read it before.
L
On topic notes.
The metaphor “Fifth Columnist” was about 5 years old according to the date you’ve provided this letter. The metaphor had already been extended to refer to any figures who hid their intentions so it would be nearly impossible for “we who believe in freedom will fight you openly.”
Rand presumed it was unnatural that sane people would aid their own destruction. So she segmented innocents from other fifth columnists to represent those who presumably didn’t understand how what they gave aid to their own enemies. Thus, from her arguments, her term “innocent” Fifth Columnists is effectively equivalent to the term “useful idiots.”
From the time Lenin exploited useful idiots, through the times Rand bemoaned here, right up to the present, what do we see that has not changed?
We see that power seekers have exploited each new generation that has been filled with foolish notions. The power hungry exploit them faster than either liberty lovers or experience can disabuse enough of them of their error. Those who refuse to acknowledge even what hard experience has punished them with we call rightly call idiots. Each time they continue to behave usefully for the exploiters at some point we sane ones have to shake our heads and wonder “How innocent can they really be? Does their imperturbable aid to the enemy prove their guilt?”
EV versus tacticalogic?
Per your request, The Westerner. I found that I had indeed posted this a while back. You will enjoy the commentary. Good exchange of ideas as we used to do here on FR. So it’s time for a bump to the top - for great justice.
Submit - with all that it implies
Or fight. Fight for the Freedom God gave us and to preserve the last best place on Earth.
I have made my choice. You cannot evade yours.
It’s time for Atlas to Shrug - and to pick up a gun.
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.