THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It's called "Objectivism" and Ayn Rand is considered it's founder. It is in today's world what Karl Marx's "Socialism" was to the world of the late 19th century. Today it is nothing more than an ideal, a dream if you will, which the movers and shakers of tomorrow salivate over with anticipation. The Socialist Revolution of the early 20th century (in Russia, America and Europe) gave birth to the bloodiest epic in human history - World War I, World War II and the Cold War. Will the 21st century see the birth of Socialism's nemesis - Objectivism? If so, what carnage will that bring?
To understand the question we must first look at the players in today's world. I first learned of Rand's "Objectivism" while listening to the Rush Limbaugh radio show back in the early 1990s. Limbaugh, one of the godfathers of modern political conservatism, was pushing Rand's book on his radio show, singing the praises of Rand and her ideology. Of course I immediately went out and bought the book "Atlas Shrugged" and found it to be a disappointing bore. I thought perhaps if I purchased the audiobook I might get something more out of it. Again, I was unimpressed. That's just me though. Other conservative radio talk show hosts seem to get a lot more out of it. Over and over again, I heard Rand's books pushed by one conservative talk show host after another, the latest of which is Glenn Beck.
The irony of the modern Conservative movement in American politics is it's seeming willingness to embrace the philosophy of Rand and somehow ignore it's ultimately conclusion - Atheism! Why is that? Do they believe they can play with fire and not get burned? Or is there something more sinister afoot here? Have they already been burned, but would like you to believe they haven't?
In recent days we've seen a paradigm shift in both the Republican Party and the Conservative movement in general. In the wake of the most radical Socialist Congress and Whitehouse in American history, Conservative leaders have pushed to the sidelines moral issues, like abortion and gay-marriage, in favor of a pure economic focus. Many Conservative media icons (including Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh) have actually come out in favor of legally embracing sodomy through gay-marriage and civil unions. This of course came to the shock and dismay of many of their Christian supporters throughout the United States. Again, we won't find such behavior backed by Ayn Rand, who disliked homosexuality, but it does become a logical conclusion to the philosophy of Objectivism she championed. The influence of Objectivism over the Conservative leaders of our time is starting to rear it's ugly head.
Pluralism is the idea that religious truth is different for different people. At it's core it is Objectivist and Existential. This is the religion of the Freemasons and it is the religion upon which the American Republic was founded. Under Pluralism, all religions are "equal," there is no objective truth outside of reason, and in the political ideal, all religions are embraced. Secularism in contrast, is the idea that religion should be completely separated from all public life, including business and society, but most especially in government. Religion becomes a purely private matter. While modern Democrats and Liberals have embraced both Socialism and Secularism, rooted in Karl Marx, it would appear the modern Republicans and Conservatives are in the process of embracing unbridled Capitalism and Pluralism - both Objectivist at heart and rooted in Ayn Rand.
As Catholics, this should be particularly disturbing to us. While we will inevitably find some points of common alliance with the Modern Conservative (a.k.a. "Neoconservative") struggle against Socialist Marxism, we're going to eventually clash with it in a very serious way.
5 comments; post here:
No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and Eve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.
The Scriptures plainly say the first sin was eating of the forbidden fruit against God's command. There is nothing in this that is of a sexual nature, and I have never heard it taught that way. As much of a sin as sodomy is, I am very skeptical of such an interpretation of Genesis 3.
More likely the case is the sin embodied in Ayn Rand's Objectivism. It's the notion that we ourselves are gods and may follow our own rules.
First to Mr. Hagedorn: Going on with what TCK said, the first sin in existence was Satan's "Non serviam" ("I will not serve"), choosing himself and his pride over God and His plan. This sin is the start of sin, and is what Satan tempted Eve with, to chose her own satisfaction of eating the fruit instead of obeying and trusting God (also, what real instance in the Bible is up for such interpretation? To be seen as something symbolic when not named as a symbol?) With this in mind, God sending them from the garden is a charity, since if they were to live forever in paradise, they would never be able to stand up to temptation, having never learned what it was to "stand up" or "struggle" for anything.
In regards to this post, we can see this happening in our times, too, can't we? Since things are so accessible, being used to pain and problems fixed in minutes, the easy way out that this objectivism offers may seem appealing to some. Still, I can't help but feel that the Republican party might just be feeling a little defeatist now, being so outnumbered, that they want to at least try and fix what their opponents would allow them to fix. I can't say if it's a matter of priority or a matter of cowardice, but I don't think I would write them off as purely objectivist just yet. After all, media icons are just icons, right?
-'Wings
Mr Knight, with all the evidence pointing to a massive swing away from the socialist----err, democrats in november, that in itself is a tectonic shift. My concern is, ok assuming the GOP (aka the stupid party) gains control of the House and maybe the Senate, what are THEY going to do with their mandate? squander it away on more useless spending? (but more responsibly?) The GOP was not entirely out of the loop for this current crisis, both economic and moral. We just cant go back to the "old ways" under GWB. This is why some sort of 3rd party needs to arise and force the GOP to the moral right. Pete Frey
What can I say but "I object"! Scotju
Post a Comment