Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Strange Bedfellows and Lamb Chops

The lamb that lies down with the lion is dinner, ya know...

Ayn Rand's...antipathy? vitriol? against Libertarians is well-known, a stance which puts many Objectivish-people in a bind today in the fight against the Obama administration. Lucky for her, she's out of this mess. Most debates have revolved around Leonard Peikoff's infamous "fatwa," or about whether to support the Republicans, Libertarians, Ron Paul-tea parties, etc.. Then there's the matter of Fox News, the Glen Becks, O'Reilly's, and the ilk of Christian Conservatives being just as bad, and false friends of freedom. There's this bit of "hope without reason":
My hope therefore is based on the mere existence and popularity of men such as Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Men who (excepting Yaron Brooke and a handful of others at the ARI) are a hell of a lot more active in propagating their ideas than objectivists. I've long held that US Objectivists need to get into politics and have been met almost universally with derision. Until they do get some skin in the game - en masse - I'll place whatever hope I have on Glenn Beck and Ron Paul. Why? Because believing and supporting them is a better bet IMHO than praying for armed revolt or a devolution into chaos (aka the final chapters of Atlas Shrugged minus John Galt). I've studied enough history to know how dicey those ploys are.

Then there's this "call to arms":
The political battle for freedom is being waged right now, and Objectivism has fielded no army. Not a squad, not a piece of artillery.
We will not win this way, and losing is just a matter of time.
WE MUST ALL support Ron Paul and LPAC.
I do not guarantee victory or improvement, but maybe we can survive for a bit more and live to formulate new strategies.
And we MIGHT win. But victory is not going to be delivered to your door.
Do you remember the inner-city "community organizers" and ACORN-ites who were bussed in by the Dems to show "popular support" for national suicide?
Get off your dead asses, RIGHT NOW, and make a donation to the Campaing for Liberty and Ron Paul.
Contact LPAC and CFL and fucking volunteer.
Good cannot sit on its ass whilst evil promises its pawns an easy life paid for by YOU and gets THEM to show up and yell.
What kind of goddamned sissies are we, anyway?
There are a lot of people "talking 'bout a revolution." But the problem is they have different ideas of how that revolution should play out. It's ironic, then, in the Objectivish sphere of things, people will ignore Rand's warnings about the Libertarian AND Republican parties in order to "do something," but mindlessly reject anything that smacks of "anarchism," out of some Randian-inspired principle, while urging the "Mussolini Option" for the sitting president. Or, the fight for change is simply sold out, in statements such as this: "...Ironically, they advocated doing what I'm resolved to do - support the current system." Or this:
I'm not after conversion to Atlas Shrugged! I'd be happy enough with an understanding of the first Declaration of Independence. Hell, even Thomas Paine's Common Sense would suffice at a pinch. Would it be too much to ask for US citizens to watch the History Channel?

As for chaos, there is no way in hell I'm going to encourage it when there are still good people out there who get it and may be able to reverse it.
Obviously that will put me at odds with both the minor and major anarchists among us, but I don't give a flying fuck.

Listen, schmuck, I don't give a flying fuck if you give a flying fuck. Your reserve to preserve the status quo makes you nothing but an impediment. If the Declaration, Common Sense, or the Constitution were enough, we wouldn't have needed Atlas Shrugged, now would we?

I don't consider myself an anarchist, in the chaotic sense of the word, but, as That Man has put it, "for all he's really worth to Objectivism today, That Woman might as well never have devoted a single line to Ragnar Danneskjold." (And I'm not satisfied with Rand's own antipathy towards that character, either. "Who Watches the Watcher?")

My personal answer to forging alliances is still based on the idea of "ad-hoc committees," as postulated by Rand:
"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals...The only groups one may properly join today are ad hoc committees, i.e., groups organized to achieve a single, specific, clearly defined goal, on which men of differing views can agree. In such cases, no one may attempt to ascribe his views to the entire membership, or to use the group to serve some hidden ideological purpose (and this has to be watched very, very vigilantly)."
Personally, I don't hold any regard for Republicans or conservatives (c'mon. Really?? The lamb that lies down with the lion is dinner, ya know...) Though I have sympathy for a Ron Paul, I haven't accepted him as my personal lord and savior; if he's a politician, he's susceptible to the same pressures of power any other would-be-redeemer faces. What's he going to do, reform the system from the inside? If he's truly a freedom-fighter, then he's in the minority, like the rest of us, and has no more ability than we have individually to stop this thing. Besides, my life, my rights, and my freedom are not up for vote. So it's STILL up to the individual to find their own freedom in an unfree world, and any alliance one makes can't be counter-productive.

Here's the deal: I will fight alongside anyone else who values their freedom and respects mine. But when dealing with less-than-desirable "allies," you best be sure that I won't turn my back...To quote an old saying:

Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow.
Don't walk behind me, I may not lead.
Walk beside me, and be my friend.

And if you can't do that, then "get the hell out of my way."

No comments:

Post a Comment