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).
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?