Skip to content

Ayn Rand’s New Order of Tomorrow

February 7, 2008

Vincent’s Note: This article is not mine; it is written by my favorite philosopher. I’m posting this because I believe in every word she said, and because I believe her philosophy is the best antidote to the New World Order. Enjoy!

THE greatest threat to mankind and civilization is the spread of the totalitarian philosophy. Its best ally is not the devotion of its followers but the confusion of its enemies. To fight it, we must understand it.

Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.´´

Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing “the common good.´´ Napoleon “served the common good´´ of France. Hitler is “serving the common good´´ of Germany. Horrors which no man would dare consider for his own selfish sake are perpetrated with a clear conscience by “altruists´´ who justify themselves by-the common good.

No tyrant has ever lasted long by force of arms alone. Men have been enslaved primarily by spiritual weapons. And the greatest of these is the collectivist doctrine that the supremacy of the state over the individual constitutes the common good. No dictator could rise if men held as a sacred faith the conviction that they have inalienable rights of which they cannot be deprived for any cause whatsoever, by any man whatsoever, neither by evildoer nor supposed benefactor.

This is the basic tenet of individualism, as opposed to collectivism. Individualism holds that man is an independent entity with an inalienable right to the pursuit of his own happiness in a society where men deal with one another as equals.

The American system is founded on individualism. If it is to survive, we must understand the principles of individualism and hold them as our standard in any public question, in every issue we face. We must have a positive credo, a clear consistent faith.

We must learn to reject as total evil the conception that the common good is served by the abolition of individual rights. General happiness cannot be created out of general suffering and self-immolation. The only happy society is one of happy individuals. One cannot have a healthy forest made up of rotten trees.

The power of society must always be limited by the basic, inalienable rights of the individual.

The right of liberty means man’s right to individual action, individual choice, individual initiative and individual property. Without the right to private property no independent action is possible.

The right to the pursuit of happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own, private, personal happiness and to work for its achievement. Each individual is the sole and final judge in this choice. A man’s happiness cannot be prescribed to him by another man or by any number of other men.

These rights are the unconditional, personal, private, individual possession of every man, granted to him by the fact of his birth and requiring no other sanction. Such was the conception of the founders of our country, who placed individual rights above any and all collective claims. Society can only be a traffic policeman in the intercourse of men with one another.

From the beginning of history, two antagonists have stood face to face, two opposite types of men: the Active and the Passive. The Active Man is the producer, the creator, the originator, the individualist. His basic need is independence — in order to think and work. He neither needs nor seeks power over other men — nor can he be made to work under any form of compulsion. Every type of good work — from laying bricks to writing a symphony — is done by the Active Man. Degrees of human ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence and initiative determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man.

The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

When a society is based on the needs of the Passive Man it destroys the Active; but when the Active is destroyed, the Passive can no longer be cared for. When a society is based on the needs of the Active Man, he carries the Passive ones along on his energy and raises them as he rises, as the whole society rises. This has been the pattern of all human progress.

Some humanitarians demand a collective state because of their pity for the incompetent or Passive Man. For his sake they wish to harness the Active. But the Active Man cannot function in harness. And once he is destroyed, the destruction of the Passive Man follows automatically. So if pity is the humanitarians’ first consideration, then in the name of pity, if nothing else, they should leave the Active Man free to function, in order to help the Passive. There is no other way to help him in the long run.

The history of mankind is the history of the struggle between the Active Man and the Passive, between the individual and the collective. The countries which have produced the happiest men, the highest standards of living and the greatest cultural advances have been the countries where the power of the collective — of the government, of the state — was limited and the individual was given freedom of independent action. As examples: The rise of Rome, with its conception of law based on a citizen’s rights, over the collectivist barbarism of its time. The rise of England, with a system of government based on the Magna Carta, over collectivist, totalitarian Spain. The rise of the United States to a degree of achievement unequaled in history — by grace of the individual freedom and independence which our Constitution gave each citizen against the collective.

While men are still pondering upon the causes of the rise and fall of civilizations, every page of history cries to us that there is but one source of progress: Individual Man in independent action. Collectivism is the ancient principle of savagery. A savage’s whole existence is ruled by the leaders of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

We are now facing a choice: to go forward or to go back.

Collectivism is not the “New Order of Tomorrow.´´ It is the order of a very dark yesterday. But there is a New Order of Tomorrow. It belongs to Individual Man — the only creator of any tomorrows humanity has ever been granted.

13 Comments leave one →
  1. Favela permalink
    February 7, 2008 3:38

    If Ayn rand is your favorite philosopher, you should know that she held the “ecological” movement in low regard. Alive today, I’m sure she would be scoffing at the global warming hysteria fueled by leftist “scientists” and politicians. The hoax of CO2 emissions as the cause of temperature change is just now being exposed by real scientists.

  2. February 8, 2008 3:38

    Yes, she is to me the philosopher whose idea makes sense. I think it’s unfair to make an assumption that if Ayn Rand were alive today, she would “be scoffing at the global warming hysteria fueled by leftist scientists and politicians.” Things have changed these days. In fact she even predicted that if America continued on subscribing to collectivism, it would end up in dictatorship. There are so many collective thoughts these days, and that is something she really hates.

  3. Duncan permalink
    April 30, 2008 3:38

    Re: Ayn Rand

    I hope this helps in the forwarding of rational though amongst those who, although touched by it, seem, somehow, to miss the entirety of the picture vis-à-vis Ayn and her moral framework.

    I hear moralistic arguments about the fact that capitalism is the best way to take this planet forward. These arguments can be countered on two fronts, both on the completely scientific, using logic, analysis and reasoning, and on the moral, using understanding and, again, logic and analysis.

    There is a camp of folk, in this world, that not only think that capitalism is the best means to an end, they believe that it’s a system that can take the planet forward. They worry about sacrifice to a bigger faceless goal, they concern themselves with “inalienable” rights, handed down to us “humans” from some place or another. They dream of an unregulated capitalist society where everyone has the “right” to pursue happiness as they see fit, and own property etc.

    They crave a day when we can do away with governments and let the market regulate the “economy” and that a set of “inalienable” are adheared to in some form of wish list type way. In fact
    “ Since the mind is an attribute of the individual, the continued existence of each person is ultimately, up to himself. People morally ought to think for themselves. This is the doctrine of rational egoism, or rational individualism. It is each individuals’ moral responsibility to “look out for number one.” If a man is persuaded, on the other hand, that his existence is not up to him, but to others (society, the government) he will be transformed into a helpless parasite, demanding that others sacrifice for him.
    It is morally up to each individual to look out for number one, but not only number one. When we choose to bear certain responsibilities (such as responsibilities to our children or spouse) we are morally obligated to come through for them. Objectivism says that there are no unchosen moral obligations to others or to “society.” http://www.fullcontext.org/Objectivism/ethics.htm

    These people, although excessively well intentioned, have some how missed the actual point of a capitalist society, with folk who own the means of production and folk who don’t.

    They make their philosophy, one of Objectivism, one based on one ladies well intentioned, look at life. This lady, Ayn Rand, without going into her life story here, was born in Lennengrad, then St Petersberg on the 2nd of Feburary 1905 and became an American citizen in 1931, finally dieing in 1981.

    She wrote many “philosophical” articles and published numerous fictional pieces before that. A lot of her arguments made a lot of sense, ones like “there is no need to assume a god”, etc.

    However, what she seems to have failed at, and where the complete basis for her work seems to fall down, is that she assumes that we, as humans, have inalienable rights, somehow defined. This author has yet to get to the bottom of the source of this definition.

    Basically we are looking at “moral” code that somehow came into existence, but was solely created by the physically conditions around Ayn at that time. I look back on her stance now, with the scientific understanding of capital, and laugh at her small mindedness, and her lack of vision, for the overall picture.

    Morals as a basis for a “new system” are not only completely ineffectual at bringing that system about, but they don’t help forward the current situation in anyway. It is all right to draw a nice moralistic picture, but unless one understands the driving force of a society, unless one comes to terms with how life “really is”, one can never hope to forward the thinking or ideals of anyone, let alone ones self.

    Ayn, singularly failed to come to terms with the real factors in life, and as such spend her entire life in a cloud of liberal thought that can only serve to confuse and hinder her “disciples”, as disciples they surely are, who prescribe to this theory of “rights”, which have not been substantiated, in any way.

    You may as well have said “because God says so”, and be done with it.
    Well done, you’ve now moved humanity backwards 2000 years.

    Peace,
    Dunk

  4. May 2, 2008 3:38

    Duncan,

    No, you’re wrong, Duncan. With Ayn Rand’s idea, we move the world 2000 years forward. Though you’ve mentioned about logic and some other ready-made concepts about reason, you failed to bring me to the point where your whole idea is supposed to lead to. Though I found your message to be utterly incomplete, what I deciphered is that you rebuke Rand’s idea of “inalienable rights.” To me, based on your incomplete message (though I would love to hear more from you), your notion that there is no such thing as human rights is very dangerous. Actually to me, that is the idea that massacred the world and extracted the blood of human slaves 2000 years ago.
    If you deeply believed that there’s no such thing as inalienable rights, what are we? That we exist in this world with the purpose of getting at each other’s throat? That must be governed strictly? Every nation today may have government, but you should know that the international community exists in an anarchic system, and this situation is the permissive cause of war. Even without reading Ayn Rand, I believe that man is an end in himself, that he has the rights that must be respected not only by his neighbors but also by the state. There are a lot of people out there who mastered the lessons they learned from college, but they lacked the most important thing- reason. I do not take 100 percent the teachings of Ayn Rand. I only take those I think are morally right and correct. Man should exist as an individual, away from the sway and control of a scheming collective. You must remember that ethics and some other dialectic and rational ideas are not exact science, which means everybody can make his own version according to his rational judgment- according to reason. I think you know that. But if someone seeks to gain power in the future, or decides to ally himself with the power-hungry collective, then he may choose to destroy reason, and PREACH THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS… That person is utterly dangerous to the individual, but very useful to the scheming collective. Sometimes man’s understanding of reason depends upon the class, family, community, and even the school where he belongs.
    Vincent

  5. Duncan permalink
    May 3, 2008 3:38

    Vincent,

    Thank you for getting back to me. And, off the bat, of course, it’s good to be told that I’m wrong.🙂 Helps keep one grounded.

    However, let explain my perspective to you so that you can see where I am coming from, even if you don’t agree with me. That, after all, is what discussion is all about.

    Let me first of all apologise for the previous incomplete message as I’m sure that’s what it was. I will make sure that this one does not suffer from the same limitation just so we are both clear:)

    You said:
    “your notion that there is no such thing as human rights is very dangerous”

    Let me expand my “notion” for you:

    The very idea of “rights” implies a society that is incapable of thought. For “rights” to be granted, there has to be a controlling entity to do the granting and there has to be something that needs “protecting”. You have the “right” to not be murdered on the street. You have the “right” not to be abused by an adult if you’re a kid. You have a “right” not to have your house broken into at random intervals. So those “rights” “defend” us against acts of human beings. Also, those “rights” are granted by an authority. For instance, not even 50 years ago, woman did not have the “right” to vote, as granted by the “authorities”. Humans with black skin were in the same satiation, they had no “right” to vote.

    Now, what Ayn did was to move this notion of “granted rights” to be in the domain of some sort of external entity that somehow could “grant rights” to humans. I remember when I had the “right” to get on a plane without having to take my shoes off. I no longer have that “right”. In the USA humans have a “right” to bare arms. In the UK that’s not really as wide spread. Therefore it does not take to much brain power to realise that Ayn’s inalienable “rights” are a myth of circumstance. Her circumstances and her wish lists. Good for her, but that does not make her right, it just makes her a moralist with a wish lists.

    You then asked:

    “If you deeply believed that there’s no such thing as inalienable rights, what are we?”

    Well, I can do with out any form of beliefs in my life, for a start. Therefore I can state, we are what we, as a collective call, human beings. We are nothing more, nothing less.

    You go on to say:
    “Man should exist as an individual, away from the sway and control of a scheming collective.”

    It does not surprise me that you like Ayn’s writings as you two seem to be a moralist that “believes” how things should be; “man should”. Well, what we’re doing just now, is what we’re doing, and it’s not about how we “should” be acting it’s about how we are actually acting that concerns me. You also imply, by the second half of that quote “away from the sway and control of a scheming collective” that you are afraid of some form of oppression that some group can impose on you?

    You seem to have the world upside down. You have bought the lies. Let me show you;

    You are part of a collective, that is, the human species, living, producing, acting and interacting, on this globe. You are one of us. Everything you can buy in the shops and every commodity around you right now is a product of that interaction. You can not even have a cup of tea without being affected by millions of humans. I mean, the tea bag itself connects you to humans unseen across the globe. You are not an island.

    When one realises that one is not an island, endeavouring to defend oneself from the “other islands”, one begins to see the larger picture. You also begin to realise that your connected status, as part of the human species, is the only route to your salvation, in terms of releasing you from the need worry about “rights”, granted by “God” or any other “authority”.

    The logic is simple;
    I do not want to feel the fear of job loss. I do not want to have to fear becoming homeless without shelter or warmth. I do not want to fear being drafted to the army. I do not want to fear having no food on the table. I do not want to witness poverty or genocide or famine or war. I do not want to have to wonder what the powers at be have in store for me. Therefore, I want to be part of the group, the species in this case, that is running this planet for the species and as such ensure that I don’t have to suffer these fears or ills.

    It so happens that I, logical, realise that the best way to achieve such a goal is to ensure that everyone else is spared the same fears and assaults to their humanity.

    Let me put that in your terms:
    I want the “right” to have a job. I want the “right” to have shelter and warmth. I want the “right” not to fight in the army. I want the “right” to have food and a table to put it on. I want the “right” to never have to witness poverty, genocide, famine or war, ever again. I want the “right” to define the future instead of worrying about it. I want the “right” to be part of a group that appreciates that their best hope of survival is to all pull in the same direction. I realise that if I want all those “rights”, the best thing to do is “grant” them to others. As I am part of that collective too.

    When we realise we are not an island and that our way of life right now, today, is bound up in the interaction of over 6,000,000,000 people around the globe we can give up any notion that striving to be the “best individual alone” is really a silly one.

    As alone, I dare say you’d be naked. And alone, for sure, you’d not have pumped in water and electricity. And you’d not be able to use the internet. You see, cooperation is the only thing that can bring you all the things you’ve got just now.

    Realising that you’re part of the larger group of humans on this planet, all “suffering” under the one system, can make you want to change that over night. That means, stop striving for “rights”, which are transient, and start striving for global understandings.

    It is under a system where humans realise their part on the surface of this wee rock we currently call Earth that we can do away with old fashioned notions such as Ayn discussed.

    The large point is, in case you need me to point it out, is that the notion of “laws” is, by the same token, an indicator that the society is broken in some measure. Laws are an indication that a society is not functioning for its constituent human beings. Laws, after all, are the mechanism by which “rights” are granted. Laws are an indication that there is work yet to be done:)

    Remember, she was a product of her time. We are product of ours. What we deem to be “right” is not what she’d have deemed to be “right”.

    Your final sentence:

    “Sometimes man’s understanding of reason depends upon the class, family, community, and even the school where he belongs.”

    I love your use of “sometimes” in that statement. Those things are the only things that define a persons terms of reference. LOL. Sometimes? LOL. You just said, in essence, and Marx would agree with you on this totally, if you want to put yourself along side a political economist, that human beings are a product of their material experience. By this statement you manage to highlight the materialist aspect of your rational thoughts. By the earlier quoted phrase of “man should”, you highlighted your idealist qualities. No wonder you’re confused.

    If you want to get to the nub of the issue that I have with Ayn it is very simply this; Ayn dealt with a wish list of how she “would” like the world to be and how people “should” act, instead of actually engaging with the concrete reality of right now.

    By engaging with “now”, we can understand and develop our productive capabilities and continue on the road to having all the things that “Ayn” would have wanted to be granted to us.

    Peace,
    Dunk

    PS. I really don’t mind carrying this conversation on here, and in this way, but if you could ping me an email to really()()REMOVE()()connected()()REMOVE()()a t ()()yahoo()()d o t()()c o m id appreciate that.

  6. May 4, 2008 3:38

    It seems that wordpress moderator disallowed your email address. So that’s means there can be no way we could discuss matters via email. When I saw your reply, I observed that, I’m sorry to tell this, you’re not that consistent with your idea. Contradiction best describes your answer. Lemme show you.
    You said: “The very idea of “rights” implies a society that is incapable of thought.” Hell, no!!! (forgive me for using such a word). Well, this is your premise, but it was later on contradicted by your statement- “I do not want to feel the fear of job loss; I do not want to have to fear becoming homeless without shelter or warmth; I do not want to fear being drafted to the army,” etc. Actually, my reply has two goals. First is to know what your idea is, what do you believe in, and what sways you. Second to find out if you really read Ayn Rand or you really read some of my blogs. My conclusion, you did not read Ayn Rand well– here great two novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. You simply judged her based on what you read here and on some reviews and online accounts about here. Well, with that you’ll never understand me, and this discussion will get to no where. Forgive me if I sound arrogant, but this is what I really think. Even so, I try to give you my simple opinion.
    There is no such thing as society– and it is “really” INCAPABLE OF THOUGHT. Every society is composed of individuals. While you said that you have the right to have a job, to be protected, to refuse a military duty, you mentioned also that “You are part of a collective, that is, the human species, living, producing, acting and interacting, on this globe…” You said– “you are one of us…” NO, physically maybe, I’m one of you, but not mentally.
    It seems that you have an incomplete idea what individualism and collectivism really are. A society is one collective entity. There are many kinds of collective entities. But the most powerful of the all is the state, the government. It is the most powerful because it dictates what kinds of law are to be implemented, it regulates trades, rights, and even the lives of the people, it sets moral codes, it implements standards, social norms, educational standards, and even religious beliefs. You must have a great knowledge in history and philosophy to understand what I’m talking about.
    One more thing— I and Ayn Rand do not in any way believe in excessive government regulation as what you tried to say. That’s why I said you’ve never really read me and Ayn Rand. You reply is littered with so many contradictions. I know because you’re very confused. You said you don’t want to witness men’s suffering, genocide, crimes, etc., and that you’re part of the society you call COLLECTIVE. But don’t you know that that society and collective you’re talking about has and is still killing millions of people. Really, every society is incapable of thinking, because it is formed by individuals of different intent, beliefs, background, etc. There are many ways for that COLLECTIVE TO CONTROL AND REGULATE EVEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE. One is the concept of NATIONAL SECURITY. Through this concept you can be sent to war even if you don’t like to kill state enemies. People can be surveiled, tracked, detected and followed through hi-tech apparatuses. A dictator can also abolished private property and all kinds of rights for the sake of national security. Look at AMERICA, the most powerful collective in the world composed of evil and greedy men like Bush, Cheney and many others. Because of oil and world dominance, they initiated a global consensus to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to kill thousands of innocent people. Now, they’re slowly invading private lives. That is the collective you’re talking about. They set laws, norms, moral codes, regulations, etc. The world system of today is simply this– countries may now vote or elect what country to destroy through COLLECTIVE CONSENSUS. It is simple as this– you and your bunch of friends may conspire to destroy the reputation of or kill a person– you can do that because you may produce spurious testimonies and that you have the number, power, and much resources to end his life. You can use the power of votes or number to destroy and individual, thus disregarding and destroying his individual rights. That’s why I say you are very CONFUSED.
    I have written two articles about this topic. One is BREAK THE NEW WORLD ORDER OF MEN, wherein I wrote the following. Note: It’s quite too long.
    An individual is borne with rights and civil liberties— and I call these human essentials as man’s basic means of existence. I define existence as man’s reason for being. To live, man must exist first. Existence, therefore, is the prerequisite for the aforementioned rights.
    To simplify, man’s basic means of existence are equal to human rights— the right to live, to property, to liberty, to his pursuit of happiness. Without these man cannot exist well, because if a tyrant rooted out one of these rights, say— his right to liberty— then man would live like a prisoner, caged, followed, surveyed, and detected, and deprived of freedom to think and to socialize with other human beings- he is deprived of free will.
    Without these essentials for existence, man will not grow academically, as he is only fed with state-controlled information— he will not improve economically since he is deprived of choice like what course to take or what career to pursue— also, he will live in a system where laissez faire is considered evil while planned economy is considered the best mode of production.
    But existence is different from survival. The second depends upon the first. Man can no longer survive if he’s dead.
    Hence, man’s basic means of survival are what some theorists or bunch of knee-jerk “intellectuals” call as “basic needs” like shelter, clothing, food, security and so on.
    I say these are the basic tools for survival because man needs them not just for comfort but also to survive in the jungle-like world. Did you know how man created all these tools for survival? All of these came into being— which we are the beneficiaries— because of man’s intellect; because man used his sound judgment, his ability to think and never his ability to feel.
    To feel is the indication that man exists, while to think is the indicia that he is man. Take note that I use the word “man” here as the one with complete mental faculties, the thinking being, the creature who is above all living things, and the one who should and ought to live on Earth. This is so because in our world, there are half-humans or humanoids— those who surrendered reason to feeling, individualism to collectivism.
    In the beginning, it was man and not society who discovered fire. Man invented— not community— wheel. Through his intellect, judgment and effort, tribes, communities and societies lived comfortably.
    Man built the first bridge because of his willingness to survive— he migrated from one place to another to search for food and to look for a better and more suitable place to live in.
    Man— the Individual— is the creator. He created men’s tools for survival and men’s facility in order to live a comfortable life. I define men as the Collective.
    After the Individual introduced his creation, the Collective then used the concept of society in order to place man under the rule of men. Then a tribe was created. Time after time, tribal wars occurred. Tribes grew into community or society. Communities, on the other hand, evolved into states or nations (territories).
    All those creations of Man were used by the Collective to perpetuate slavery and to facilitate invasions. Man’s first tool for hunting was turned by men into weapons for wars and slavery. Man’s first bangka or wooden boat for fishing— men improved it into fleets.
    Throughout history, the Individual— the Creator— introduced new things that would benefit men.
    Galileo Galilei invented a magnifying device now called telescope to observe the heavens. Through his invention, he discovered that the world is round and argued Sun-centered solar system as a fact. But men (members of the Catholic Church) ganged up on Galileo and employed the force of the Collective to forever silence him. By the advent of the age of industrialization, the sanctimonious, murderous, power-thirsty Roman Catholic Church realized it committed a mortal sin punishable by God.
    Another example is Nikola Tesla who discovered wireless technology. But because of the utter ignorance of men who doubted the power of human mind, Tesla was ostracized and then tagged as a mad scientist. Decades after Tesla’s death, men realized his wireless technology discovery was possible.
    One good example of a brilliant creator is Albert Einstein, who discovered the theory of relativity now used by men in every field of human life. Einstein’s theory largely benefited the United States of America in its empire project. Soon it was used to bomb two major cities in Japan— Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
    Computer and the Internet were discovered by Man and not by men. This is the reason why the wealthiest man on earth is one of the pioneering capitalists who ventured on this new technology. The logic is— if the Internet was created by the Collective, then there will be no Internet billionaires like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, among others.
    Individualism, not Collectivism, is, therefore, the banner held by Man (Creator). Collectivism is the lie that binds men— those who benefit and exploit the creation of the Individual.
    Give me a proof! you might ask. America is the proof. Before it became the U.S. of A, it was the most moral nation in the world. Before the Bushes came to power, it was the nation of America’s founding fathers who preached the gospel of individualism and put the Individual above men. The U.S. Constitution is the first on earth that recognized the inviolability of the Individual.
    America rose in a time when all countries all over the world embraced the gospel of Collectivism— when Russia and Italy both slid into communism, when Germany was fooled by Nazism, and when the rest of the world (Japan, China, Spain, Great Britain, etc) was ruled by the Collectivists (monarchy, socialism, communism, fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, etc.)
    Then the great consequence came. What would the Individual do if his rights were abolished, abridged, or diminished by the Collective? He would shout “Run as fast as you can and never come back!”
    German-born Einstein screamed: “Flee from Germany and go to America”
    Austrian-born Tesla also migrated to the U.S. to get rid of the Collectivists back in his homeland.
    Ayn Rand went to America in 1920s and forever denounced Russia as her mother country.
    Einstein, Tesla, Rand, the ancestors of Robert Kennedy, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, and many others staged the greatest strike of all time, as they all fled their respective motherlands poisoned by Collectivism.
    It wasn’t destiny, but their love of life and reason that brought them to America. It wasn’t choice, but their high regard for freedom that made them search for the most moral nation in the world where they could practice their profession and enrich their talent without state interference. It wasn’t other people’s will, but their love of their work and craft that made them choose America as their motherland.
    The Great Strike of the Individual took place because Man could not exist in an ecosystem run by the Collectivists who advocate for what is called the “common good”. He cannot live in a corrupt society where self-sacrifice is considered virtue and man’s self-interest is regarded as evil. He cannot survive under a system that removes his rights and civil liberties, a system that arrogates all rights and power to a collective or group of men.
    It was predicted over half a century ago that America would embrace collectivism, and this is what is happening these days. The Collectivist has framed a grand design that would trap the people in a communal system. For the sake of “common good”, they say, surrender your gold to the government— and this happened during the term of U.S. Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt when the Americans were ordered at gunpoint to give up their remaining wealth to the Federal government.
    For “common good”, Germany’s Adolf Hitler said, “surrender all your rights to the state.” This was also the case in China under Mao Tse-Tong, and the Chinese people had been told to obey the law of the communist state under pain of death. This “common good” leitmotif was also applied in communist states like USSR and Italy.
    Now it’s different. Having no enemy, the Collectivist has to create one. This is because war is indispensable under a collective system. The existence of war creates a notion that the territory under threat must always take the self-defense mode. War does not only confuse the people, it also keeps the communal society intact.
    The global war against terrorism gives America the right to act on both defensive and offensive mode. It arrogated so much power to the Chief Executive branch, so much power that it can order the surveillance of not only suspected terrorists but also individuals it desired to follow, particularly the critics. It also sanctioned the kidnapping of suspected terrorist (and even ordinary individuals) through what is called extraordinary rendition.
    The world is shrinking, digitally and ideologically. Some European countries had merged to achieve the common good. More and more countries were now beholden to collectivism.
    If the people remained confused and the collectivists continued with their quest for a communal system, the world would slide into communal dictatorship.
    When that day comes, the word “I” will be replaced by a single word–“We.” A new Babylon will rise under one-world, one-law, one-language system— and it will be the death of Man.
    I also wrote an article titled INDIVIDUALISM OVER COLLECTIVISM, some of the excerpts are the following:
    To live on earth, man must also respect the rights and existence of others. If problem occurs, that’s the time the authority of the government comes in.
    Every individual is not obliged to offer his life for what the government calls the “common good.” Self-interest must always be the basis of his existence and survival. But every individual has the moral (not that religious morality) obligation to defend himself and his country from invaders so that he will not be reduced to a slave.
    Man must not live for and depend on others. He must not offer or sacrifice his life for others. To do so would make him the slave of men who live and feed on the services and labor of people who were either fooled or forced to sacrifice their lives for the sake of what they call “common good.”
    Throughout history there are two kinds of invaders who preached the gospel of slavery and the surrender of every man to a collective.
    The one are the invaders-by-law, or those who use the law by virtue of their authority (either through election or revolution or by birth.) This situation usually exists in a collectivist state that regards its subjects as mere fodders to its imperialistic or fascistic goal. Hitler used his power as Germany’s supreme fuhrer to send the Germans to a causeless, greed-inspired war. Also, George Bush sent the young Americans to Iraq, a country that never threatened a single American, for oil that now benefits the America’s elite. As a result, thousands of Iraqis died in a war that was based on lies while thousands of American soldiers were systematically killed by militant jihadists who refused to recognize the presence of foreign soldiers on the Mesopotamian soil.
    In order to survive, man must use his mind and reason. It is only through reason in which man could detect deception and understand the lies and the necessary illusion created by evil men in order to confuse or to mislead him.
    Alas, those fooled by its proponents and those who have chosen to be enslaved by this ideology, either consciously or unconsciously, will surely become “another brick in the wall…” A brick that would form part of the wall that protects those in power– the wall of slavery, of ruthless savagery and of thought control.
    I hope this would answer you. This is also to set the rule of the game.
    Individual,
    Vincent

  7. Duncan permalink
    May 4, 2008 3:38

    Vincent,

    You said:
    “It seems that wordpress moderator disallowed your email address. So that’s means there can be no way we could discuss matters via email. When I saw your reply, I observed that, I’m sorry to tell this, you’re not that consistent with your idea. Contradiction best describes your answer. Lemme show you.”

    I’ll look forward to it:)

    Then you said

    “You said: “The very idea of “rights” implies a society that is incapable of thought.” Hell, no!!! (forgive me for using such a word). Well, this is your premise, but it was later on contradicted by your statement- “I do not want to feel the fear of job loss; I do not want to have to fear becoming homeless without shelter or warmth; I do not want to fear being drafted to the army,” etc.”

    How does this show my “contradictions”? I’m being thick, sorry, you’ll have to spell it out.

    And you then said:
    “My conclusion, you did not read Ayn Rand”

    You are right my friend. I don’t have time for her idealist nonsense. I have better things to do with my time, like live in the real world:)

    Then you said
    “There is no such thing as society– and it is “really” INCAPABLE OF THOUGHT.”

    If there is no such thing as society, why do you have to qualify that “it” is incapable of thought? If “it” does not exist, it’s capable of nothing, surely? Though the society you live in brings you all the commodities you use on a daily basis; food, water, electricity, clothing, tables, forks, knifes etc,etc,etc…Only the most addled idealist world is there no such thing as society. Maybe when you walk down the street you see no one?

    You then said:
    “NO, physically maybe, I’m one of you, but not mentally.”.

    Well, of course we don’t think the same, otherwise this conversation would not be happening. However, that’s the central point, no matter what our thoughts are, we are humans, first and foremost and as such we tend to like the same things in life. We want security, food, we want to be protected from danger, we want the “right” to life etc etc. So in that respect we think exactly the same. We both, I dare say, want world peace, and end to war, no more famine, no more poverty? I do. Do you?

    The difference is that I accept the world as it is and know that it has to be changed from here, as a collective. After all, we are a collective, working, breathing, dying in each others pockets, every single second. We collaborate inside corporations to produce commodities and we compete between corporations for profit. That is the deal just now, fact. That’s our current society. Look around you, and you’ll see it, I’m sure.

    You then say:
    “A society is one collective entity. There are many kinds of collective entities. But the most powerful of the all is the state, the government. It is the most powerful because it dictates what kinds of law are to be implemented, it regulates trades, rights, and even the lives of the people, it sets moral codes, it implements standards, social norms, educational standards, and even religious beliefs. “

    And this bit it love. Do you not realise sir, that a “government” or anything such is only validated by our, as a collective, actions? Someone can have no sway over you if you decide that they don’t. It is about collective action. The whole current system, capitalism, is validated through our actions and it is a global system. We are all under the same system, without a doubt. No one escapes, and those that do are in a tiny minority. China, Russia, the USA, the UK, France, the rest of Europe etc.

    Furthermore, you need not point out, again, the obvious, for goodness sake; I do realise the role the state plays in our daily lives. You’ll be telling me that some trees have green leaves next.

    You then said:
    “You must have a great knowledge in history and philosophy to understand what I’m talking about.”

    Well, I don’t. I don’t study the past, I like to look forward. And to be honest, I think that even understanding when the Norman Conquest was, I’d still not be able to make head or tail of what you’re saying as you’re an idealist.

    Then you said:
    “One more thing— I and Ayn Rand do not in any way believe in excessive government regulation as what you tried to say. “

    Please, for the record, for our audience, for the sake of posterity, where did I say that? I don’t remember that. Please quote me.

    Then you said:

    “That’s why I said you’ve never really read me and Ayn Rand. You reply is littered with so many contradictions. I know because you’re very confused. You said you don’t want to witness men’s suffering, genocide, crimes, etc., and that you’re part of the society you call COLLECTIVE. But don’t you know that that society and collective you’re talking about has and is still killing millions of people.”

    Well, this made me laugh. Do you think that I don’t know that there are wars going on? Do you think that I don’t know that there is still famine in this world? Do you think that I, for one second, consider the current actions of this collective to be in the best interests of the collective? In case you’re in any doubt, I don’t:) However, we are still acting as a collective, of that you can not deny. You get all of your commodities, as stated, time and time again, by the very action of this collective. You are able to function due to the actions of humans that you will never meet and that you will never know:) That’s the very definition of a collective.

    Then you said:
    “Really, every society is incapable of thinking, because it is formed by individuals of different intent, beliefs, background, etc. There are many ways for that COLLECTIVE TO CONTROL AND REGULATE EVEN THE LIVES OF THE PEOPLE. One is the concept of NATIONAL SECURITY. Through this concept you can be sent to war even if you don’t like to kill state enemies. People can be surveiled, tracked, detected and followed through hi-tech apparatuses. A dictator can also abolished private property and all kinds of rights for the sake of national security. Look at AMERICA, the most powerful collective in the world composed of evil and greedy men like Bush, Cheney and many others. Because of oil and world dominance, they initiated a global consensus to invade Iraq and Afghanistan to kill thousands of innocent people. Now, they’re slowly invading private lives. That is the collective you’re talking about.”

    We are on the same side here dude. I do not support the current system and the way that we, as humans are acting. It make no, logical, sense for us to continue this method of production. The time has come to make a change.

    You then said:
    “They set laws, norms, moral codes, regulations, etc. “

    You are just like every other human that I’ve spoken too, scared to take responsibly. There is only a “they” if you validate “their actions” by your actions. That is, as long as you cow-tail to “them”, “they” have sway. It’s time we stopped that.

    Then you said:
    “The world system of today is simply this– countries may now vote or elect what country to destroy through COLLECTIVE CONSENSUS. It is simple as this– you and your bunch of friends may conspire to destroy the reputation of or kill a person– you can do that because you may produce spurious testimonies and that you have the number, power, and much resources to end his life. You can use the power of votes or number to destroy and individual, thus disregarding and destroying his individual rights. That’s why I say you are very CONFUSED.”

    What are you talking about? How does that make *me* confused? What, because folk murder and lie and cheat and steal, somehow that’s my doing? Friend, what are you talking about?

    And the rest is your essay. I’ll not comment on that, I think your thoughts are enough to be going on with.

    You’ve consistently called me confused and full of contradictions yet you’ve failed, totally, to point any one of them out.

    So please sir, I ask you again, show me my contradictions. Show me my confusion. If I am saying anything that is less than consistent, I need to learn and shape my way forward so if you could elucidate, that would be wonderful:)

    Good luck,

    Peace,
    Dunk

  8. May 9, 2008 3:38

    Duncan,
    Hi Duncan,

    How are you, hope your fine.

    I was very busy the past few days. Today is just the best time for me to get back to you. I’m still studying and I had to attend to some tough school works.
    Instead of adding links to this particular page, I decided to make a full-blown article reply. You may check my blog title Contradiction. That is my answer to you.

    So long,

    Vincent

  9. Clayton permalink
    February 8, 2009 3:38

    Duncan,

    You seem to be confusing the definition of society with that of collectivism. You said
    “You are able to function due to the actions of humans that you will never meet and that you will never know That’s the very definition of a collective.”

    This is the definition of society. Society is good – primitive man did not have society. The only way society is maintained is with clear definitions of human rights. Ayn Rand defines collectivism here – “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

    Your definitions are clearly not accurate. The person who is debating with you is not helping any by accusing you of knowing nothing about history. I’m showing you why you are wrong.

    Your statement that a society with rights is a society incapable of thinking makes no sense. The world is black and white. There is good and evil. The government is here to protect your right to life and happiness from people who do not respect your rights.

    You are simply spinning words. From my limited understanding of your thoughts, I see that you seem to be associating these rights with the integrity of the government that governs them – you bring up “rights” to have to take off your shoes while boarding a plane – etc.. Ayn Rand did not say the government was perfect – these rights she argues exist without the existence of the “Bush Administration” for example. Your whole post assumes that people cannot think for themselves because you tie the idea of human rights with the idea of a government issuing those rights, which is nothing Ayn Rand said to begin with.

  10. Clayton permalink
    February 8, 2009 3:38

    Also, our society is not 100% capitalistic – it is mixed with socialism – especially now.

  11. DonVonChristo permalink
    June 27, 2009 3:38

    I know this thread is old, but I just stumbled upon it. I want to address what ‘Favela’ said regarding current global warming issues, and the author’s response.

    The fact is that Favela is 100% correct. I know this from some of Rand’s other writings, in which she explicitly names the Environmental Movement as perhaps the last great bastion and attempt at political collectivization. She wrote this decades in advance, and she named it’s philosophical underpinnings. She basically predicted it to a tee. I cannot think of the specific passage or even book I read this in, b/c I’ve read basically everything she’s written and I’ve sort of lost distinction between some of the books. However, it was either in “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”, “Philosophy: Who Needs It”, “The Return of the Primitive”, “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”, “Ayn Rand Answers”, or “The Romantic Manifesto” (although I really doubt it was that one).

    Anyhow, one of the things she discusses is Government influence in the field of science, and how studies purporting to research politically salient fields will receive grants, and especially those studies attempting to prove that which will enable a political end will receive much more Government money, leading obviously to a perversion of science in which the scientists seek money, prestige, and a hallowed name in the empowered establishment. When so much research is done at Public (Government) Universities in the first place, it potentially leads to a grotesque distortion of science. Ergo, Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize and having “An Inconvenient Truth” mandatory viewing in science classrooms the nation over, despite its obvious appeals to emotion rather than rational or scientific reasoning and intellectual honesty.

    • October 22, 2010 3:38

      Thanks to the guys who commented here. Yes, you’re all right and I was wrong. Now I can now consider myself a student of Objectivism and I can now understand the world better.

Trackbacks

  1. Contradiction « IDEOLOGICAL SOUP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: