"Statism" and the Ayn Rand Cult

[Joanne98]

by Dave Johnson

Count how many times the word "statist" appears in this weird op-ed in the Washington Post: America's new culture war: Free enterprise vs. government control.

"Statism" has become a cult-word, used most frequently by people who are in the Ayn Rand cult. "Collectivist" is another. The Rand cult has been around quite a while now. Alan Greenspan actually lived with the Rand cult for a while. Randians are more and more becoming the core of the conservative movement, as this op-ed reflects. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, members of Congress and others are more and more frequently using strange-sounding Randian cult-words like these.

I don't know if the author of the op-ed is a Randian, but he uses the word "statist" over and over and places free enterprise and government as an either-or. He thinks regulation of business is wrong. (Aside -- He writes that "government housing policy," not Wall Street, caused the economic crisis. (??) He's the head of the American Enterprise Institute.)

So now I am thinking about the Rand cult... Randians believe government is inherently bad -- evil actually -- and that helping others is wrong and immoral. "Collectivism" means democracy and this is also bad they say it is the group imposing its will on individuals. From the Ayn Rand Lexicon,

“Democratic” in its original meaning unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose.
<. . .> Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom . . .


As for government,

The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.

I don't understand how it is consistent for them to claim that protecting from criminals is legitimate. Doesn't society define what a criminal is?

Oh, and by the way, for any Christians who think they are conservatives, here is where they stand on religion:

Faith, as such, is extremely detrimental to human life: it is the negation of reason. ... They may have a good influence or proper principles to inculcate, but in a very contradictory context and, on a very—how should I say it?—dangerous or malevolent base: on the ground of faith.
<. . .> Christ ... according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used.


And here you also find the roots of Glenn Beck's warning to run from any church that asks you to help others,

It’s either-or. If capitalism’s befuddled, guilt-ridden apologists do not know it, two fully consistent representatives of altruism do know it: Catholicism and communism.
Their rapprochement, therefore, is not astonishing. Their differences pertain only to the supernatural, but here, in reality, on earth, they have three cardinal elements in common: the same morality, altruism—the same goal, global rule by force—the same enemy, man’s mind.

There is a precedent for their strategy. In the German election of 1933, the communists supported the Nazis, on the premise that they could fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, capitalism. Today, Catholicism and communism may well cooperate, on the premise that they will fight each other for power later, but must first destroy their common enemy, the individual, by forcing mankind to unite to form one neck ready for one leash.


Go see what they think of charity, altruism, the environment, morality, society...

If you are starting to feel that you have entered into the mind of the sociopath, there is a reason you feel that way. As she was developing her philosophy she was enthralled by a serial killer named William Edward Hickman. Ayn Rand wrote that the serial killer was an "ideal man," a superior form of human because he didn't let society impose their morals on him. He didn't worry about what others thought and just did as he pleased.

http://www.seeingtheforest.com/archives/2010/05/statism.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeeingTheForest+%28Seeing+The+Forest%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

[LiberalLoner]

1. This philosophy is sick and it's spreading throughout our country. I hope we can stop it but I fear

it's a cancer that won't be stopped until it consumes and destroys our entire nation.

[proudohioan]

2. +1000! Sick and selfish! n/t

[Diclotican]

3. Joanne98

Joanne98

The smal part I discovered when I was in college, (or someting similar to that) is that the whole Ayn Rand idelogy is a idelogy of nutcases are trying to tell the world, that they world wiew, who are ego-sentric and just "more to me, is good, and greed is better than helping others" is sickening on many levels.. It is a perfect ideology for the strong, and they who want to stumble on others to make it big. Its perfect for them who dosen't care of what happening to others, as long as they got what they want.. Had a couple of them who I talked alot with in school, and even tho I learned a lot, I also understand a lot.. I was maybe on the opposite side of the spectrum as a rather "red" politically speaking.. And opposites react to anothers so I had some stimulating conversations over the years... And read/learned a lot on the way then:) Small college, but good teatchers, and many good students to learn many things from..

Ayn Rand was an drug addicted egeosentric woman, whos writing have poisened a whole generation of "Conservatives". And the whole conservative movement, spesially in the US, is poisened to a level where they might it is not easy at all to go back to the core of what was the conservatives before the poisend of Ayn Rand get into the system... Ayn Rand, as an drug addicted person, had, as most drug addicted persons are just interesting in one thing, their own needs.. Whatever the rest of the comunity need, or whatever their own familiy need, is of no interest, as long as themselfs got what they need, and want for themselfs...

And the sad part is, that for many the ideals of Ayn Rand, and the "objectivism" as she write the books of, is something that many really like, and for many it is also something they are getting with the rest of their life.. Even tho the ideals they are speaking of, is ideals who would tear the comunity apart, as man need laws, and need a function government to make all safe and sound.. No country, where total anarcy is the rule, have ever functioned for a long time.. Even when the man got down from the trees, and was living in smal communities, a set of accepted laws and rules was in place.. And from the time we have wrotten record, like 6000BC one of the first thing to get into writing was LAW to what to do with criminals. The Objectism or the thoughts of Ayn Rand is devestating to that rule, that all community need laws to function properly.. Not becouse they are right, more becouse they would ruin everything that we have managed to made progress for the last 6000 year or so..

And they have at least in the US, more or less raided the conservative movement, and made itself more vokal than other strings of conservatives.. Who for the most part want law and order - even tho the right-right in the US is off the scale in most european countrys I know off.. Even the moderates in the conservative movements have strings to themselfs, that would not be specailly tasty if they was to be converted directly to most europeran country I guess..

Poor USA who have to go true that face, but as others have experienced, as this type of ideolgy is ruining themselfs when they are loosing their faitfull, and screw to many (like many of the other ism who have been experienced here in europe) the US would in time grow, and get their feets on the ground again.. And rebuild a better, greater country than before.. But that wil take time, and be painfull... really painfull... But Im still hopefull that US would came out of this better, stronger, and greater than they have been the last decade or so.. Just wait and se..

Diclotican

[era veteran]

4. She died sick, alone, and unloved.

Sucks to have a life outlook like this White Russian did.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. The author of the WaPo op-ed, Arthur C. Brooks,

is the President of the American Enterprise Institute.

And there you have it...