476 Rome, 2008 Washington D.C.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

476 Rome, 2008 Washington D.C.

On the Dead End America Reached in Politics, and How the Way Out Has to Begin in Metaphysics

One of the many reasons why Ancient Greece was and remains the greatest among history's great nations is the fact that Greek civilization never collapsed. It never died the kind of ugly death that Rome died during the 5th century, or the United States has been dying in our days. The Greeks fell in battle: they were defeated by the Macedonians, and later the Romans. Their culture, which was respected and admired by their conquerors, lived on as part of the Macedonian and Roman empires, and took centuries to gradually fade away. The name of Greece continues to ring clean and honorable in our ears because the Greeks never chose their own destruction. They never surrendered their greatness out of their own will.

If one looks at American culture as a whole, it is evident that the United States no longer has a chance to earn such an honor. Thanks to our military strength, there has never been the remotest possibility of our being conquered by a nation like China or the United Arab Emirates--nations that, like Macedon and Rome of old, admire the material fruits of our culture and seek to imitate some of its concrete aspects, but lack the fundamental spirit that made it possible--and more importantly, American culture, taken as a whole, has been rejecting that fundamental spirit.  

The collapse of a civilization is a drawn-out process that does not happen within one day, nor even one year. Rome had been declining for centuries before Odoacer--the first Barbarian king--took it over in 476, and that particular year brought little visible change into the lives of the inhabitants of the empire, who continued to refer to themselves as Romans. Similarly, the United States has been adopting Socialist policies ever since the passage of the first "anti-trust" act in 1890; the 2008 election is just another step down a road we have been traveling on since before Ayn Rand was born. Assigning a date to the collapse of a civilization is an exercise in abstraction: one has to choose the date of an event that symbolizes the whole centuries-long process; an event that summarizes the essence of what brought about the downfall; an event that marks a point of no return.

Dr. Peikoff recenty called Obama "the first anti-American candidate." Indeed, while there have been many un-American candidates and Presidents in the past (in fact, most of the Presidents in the 20th century can be called un-American), none of them has been as avowedly anti-American as Obama. None of them kept hearing "God damn America!" as the gospel of God during their regular Sunday visits to the institution most responsible for shaping their sense of life, their ideas of morality, and their whole implicit philosophy. None of them had the likes of Bill Ayers as their closest associates. If we give them the benefit of the doubt, we might still say about all past Presidents that they were fundamentally well-meaning individuals who honestly wanted to secure a bright future for America, but were awfully handicapped as a result of the betrayal of the nation by its nihilist intellectual establishment. Obama's choice of his friends and mentors makes it clear that securing a bright future for America is definitely not his goal.

A nation cannot elect one of its enemies as its chief executive and survive for long. If we want to find a date symbolic of America's descent into statism, I cannot think of any event in the past, nor do I think there will be any event in the future, that captures it better than the election that turned the first anti-American candidate into the first anti-American president and gave him the full support of the House as well as the Senate. November 4, 2008, is the date history ought to record as the day the first American Republic fell.

Like all ideas, such historical symbolism has far more significance than most people realize. When told of an event that took place in the city of Rome in 450 A.D., most people will automatically consider it to have been an event in the Roman Empire. The more historically savvy among them might note that it was very late in the history of that empire, i.e. in its declining stage, but they will still be naturally inclined to think of it as a part of Rome's history and as a product of Rome's culture. Because 476 A.D. is the widely accepted year of the fall of Rome, very few would think of it as a medieval event. On the other hand, when told of an event in the year 500, everyone will easily recognize it as one that happened in the early medieval times, and one that had nothing to do with the original Roman culture.

Thus, like all abstractions, assigning a date to the fall of the original United States is much more than just an idle academic exercise. Until it becomes widely accepted that we have not been able to keep the constitutional Republic the Founders gave us, everything that happens in America will continue to be seen as an American event, and as a product of American culture, i.e. of capitalism. Only when people become aware that Washington has been taken over by an element foreign to the nation's founding spirit will they stop identifying Washington's actions with that of a capitalist government; only then will they naturally think of it as having nothing to do with the original American culture.

Many patriotic Americans will say that it is premature at this point to declare the end of the Republic. Shouldn't I at least wait to see what policies Obama actually implements (given that he has yet to fully disclose the exact nature and extent of the changes he has in store for us) before pronouncing him the Odoacer of America? But I think, if anything, one has to wonder whether November 4 of this year is too late a date to name: the United States has been much closer to a democracy than a republic for several decades now. This was not the first election in which a candidate tried to gain the support of 51 per cent of the voters by promising them a little money, to be taken from the remaining 49 per cent--and did not even find it necessary to try and explain how his plan was to be reconciled with the inalienable rights Jefferson had written about. However, it was the first election in which the candidate flatly said into the face of a member of the victimized 49 per cent that his intention was to spread their wealth around, and that he knew this will make them vote against him, but it was the other 51 per cent whose vote he was counting on.

But have we really passed a point of no return? Many are hoping to see a repeat of the 1994 elections in 2010 that will give Obama a Republican Congress, making him as impotent to do too much harm as Bill Clinton was. One has to realize, though, that the Republican Party is in a very different situation today than it was sixteen years ago. Back then, the more patriotic half of America's population still had confidence in them as the representatives of their principles and ideals. The elder George Bush was seen as a bad apple among them, and his four years of pseudo-capitalism as an aberration. Today, after having witnessed how the Republicans rose to full power in all branches of the Federal Government and how they used that power to deliver the nation into the hands of its enemies, it is much more difficult not to notice that all the apples are rotten. A defeated, demoralized, and discredited party cannot mount an effective opposition to a determined gang of ruthless power-lusters they have just surrendered to without a fight.

Restrictions on free speech, such as the Campaign Finance "Reform," which was personally gift-wrapped for the Democrats by Senator McCain and autographed for them by President Bush, and the "Fairness" Doctrine whose hideous ghost has risen from the grave to haunt us, will make it even more difficult for any opponent to challenge the Democrats' power.

A genuinely pro-American idealist in the Republican Party who is a good communicator, and also happens to have a lot of his own funds, might yet bring about a second Reagan Revolution. But such people are very rare--and you have to realize that this very period, the last couple of lame-duck months of the Bush administration, is nothing other than the final petering out of the Reagan presidency's afterglow in the Republican Party's fortunes. A second such Republican resurgence would bring a very welcome break from the onmarch of nihilism, but the nature of the Republican Party precludes it from being anything more than a temporary respite, after which the nihilist destroyers are bound to continue marching on. The rare revolutionary is inevitably going to be succeeded by compromisers, "compassionates," "mavericks," and collaborators like the ones who have succeeded Reagan and handed power back to the Democrats. He may delay them by a couple of decades, but he will not bring about a restoration of the Republic.

It is time to make it official: Washington, D.C. has fallen to the Barbarians.

America, however, consists of more than the District of Columbia. American culture consists of more than the nation's intellectual establishment. As the heroic spirit of Greece lived on within the empires that conquered it, the true American sense of life has continued to persist under the rule of the nihilist intelligentsia. The antagonism between these two elements is so sharp and irreconcilable that it is a mistake to "look at American culture as a whole." It would be an injustice to many freedom-loving, independent-souled individuals to accuse them of having chosen their own destruction, or willfully surrendered their own greatness. What has in truth happened to them is that they have become a minority in a what is now a democracy. The ancient Greeks were conquered on the battlefield; the modern Americans, the ones who truly deserve the name, have been outgunned in the cold civil war of a democracy's voting booths.

They will continue to be outgunned until they are armed with and have learned the use of the only weapon that can allow them to defeat the Barbarians and successfully establish a new Republic of freedom and justice: a rational philosophy. That weapon has been manufactured and is ready to be delivered--but it has yet to be ordered in the first place. Most Americans have not yet realized that their current guns are and will forever remain useless against the Barbarians and will rarely allow them to achieve anything but to shoot themselves in the foot. And most of them are genuinely at a loss to understand how a philosophy--the abstractest of all the abstract ideas, the most "academic" of all "academic exercises"--is going to help defend them from the very concrete machine guns of Obama's agents. In this respect, too many Americans are still with Stalin: "How many divisions does the Pope have?"

In the Iliad, it was not until the death of Patroclos that Achilles decided to rejoin the fight against the Trojans, armed with a brilliant new shield made for him by Hephaistos and delivered by Thetis. The role of Antilochos--who brought Achilles the news of his friend's death--now falls upon us: we have to awaken people to the fact that the Republic that was born in 1788 is no longer alive; that conservative political activism has failed to conserve it, and will be equally unable to bring it back to life.

The second part of our task has more to do with metaphysics than with politics: We have to get Americans to recognize that there is something that can give them back their country. We have to shed light on the fact that philosophy, far from being an idle ivory-tower pastime, has a momentuous influence on a nation's life (as it has on life in general). We have to explain them why it is crucial for their survival to know the truth not only as far as concretes are concerned, but also to form the right abstractions. We have to make them see why they cannot afford to rely on faith in any area of life. In a nutshell: we have to clear up the confusion surrounding the relationship of consciousness and existence--we have to explain why ideas matter.

[Paul's Here 0]

476 Rome, 2008 Washington D.C.

On the Dead End America Reached in Politics, and How the Way Out Has to Begin in Metaphysics

One of the many reasons why Ancient Greece was and remains the greatest among history's great nations is the fact that Greek civilization never collapsed. It never died the kind of ugly death that Rome died during the 5th century, or the United States has been dying in our days. The Greeks fell in battle: they were defeated by the Macedonians, and later the Romans. Their culture, which was respected and admired by their conquerors, lived on as part of the Macedonian and Roman empires, and took centuries to gradually fade away. The name of Greece continues to ring clean and honorable in our ears because the Greeks never chose their own destruction. They never surrendered their greatness out of their own will.

--------------------------

In the Iliad, it was not until the death of Patroclos that Achilles decided to rejoin the fight against the Trojans, armed with a brilliant new shield made for him by Hephaistos and delivered by Thetis. The role of Antilochos--who brought Achilles the news of his friend's death--now falls upon us: we have to awaken people to the fact that the Republic that was born in 1788 is no longer alive; that conservative political activism has failed to conserve it, and will be equally unable to bring it back to life.

The second part of our task has more to do with metaphysics than with politics: We have to get Americans to recognize that there is something that can give them back their country. We have to shed light on the fact that philosophy, far from being an idle ivory-tower pastime, has a momentuous influence on a nation's life (as it has on life in general). We have to explain them why it is crucial for their survival to know the truth not only as far as concretes are concerned, but also to form the right abstractions. We have to make them see why they cannot afford to rely on faith in any area of life. In a nutshell: we have to clear up the confusion surrounding the relationship of consciousness and existence--we have to explain why ideas matter.

Excellent Post, Cap.

[piz 0]

Magnificent.

[PhilO 0]

This is a very good essay.

On this, however:

The second part of our task has more to do with metaphysics than with politics: We have to get Americans to recognize that there is something that can give them back their country. We have to shed light on the fact that philosophy, far from being an idle ivory-tower pastime, has a momentuous influence on a nation's life (as it has on life in general). We have to explain them why it is crucial for their survival to know the truth not only as far as concretes are concerned, but also to form the right abstractions. We have to make them see why they cannot afford to rely on faith in any area of life. In a nutshell: we have to clear up the confusion surrounding the relationship of consciousness and existence--we have to explain why ideas matter.

Why is this a proper goal for those who *already* understand that ideas matter? What in the nature of actual existence makes such a goal metaphysically possible?

Has anyone on this board *ever* been able to convince a religious individual to stop using faith and start using consistent logical thinking?

If 99% of the population had a fatal cancer that kills in 5 years, a cancer treatment that would take 25 years to heal some of those particular individuals isn't really a cure. If, on top of that, that same population is more concerned with plundering, via Democracy and the point of a government gun, the 1% who are not so afflicted, why should the unafflicted make it the top priority of their lives to try to assist them?

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Why is this a proper goal for those who *already* understand that ideas matter? [...] why should the unafflicted make it the top priority of their lives to try to assist them?

I did not mean to imply that it should be a top priority of the life of all Objectivists. I meant that intellectuals who are interested in metaphysics and feel capable of writing persuasively on the subject might make it a priority of theirs--as opposed to, say, focusing too much on politics.

What in the nature of actual existence makes such a goal metaphysically possible?

Has anyone on this board *ever* been able to convince a religious individual to stop using faith and start using consistent logical thinking?

I was tending to be religious before I learned of Objectivism. It was as a result of a post I read on an Objectivist board that I ultimately discarded the idea of a God.

I may be a special case because I was brought up as an atheist, and was even a somewhat militant little atheist until about age 16. I became softened to the idea of religion as the result of some false metaphysical ideas (I imagined the Universe to be a mathematical function, i.e. I did not grasp the primacy of existence) and I was pushed in that direction by the widely-prevalent association of Americanism with religiosity. I began to like religion because it gave irrational people a moral code that, I thought, made them behave in a way that did less damage to me.

I think this latter part of the story may actually be shared by many Americans that are otherwise rational. There are two major motives for religiosity that I have been able to identify: 1., the fear of death and the resulting desire for an immortal soul (we cannot really help these people), and 2., the desire to uphold a moral code that one subconsciously accepts, but cannot rationally explain. (I think it was Onkar Ghate who gave the example of "Thou shalst not kill" in his lecture.) If somebody is only holding on to religion because of #2, showing him a rational morality can remove his psychological need for religion and make him open to accepting "existence exists" as the basis of metaphysics.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

I became softened to the idea of religion as the result of some false metaphysical ideas (I imagined the Universe to be a mathematical function, i.e. I did not grasp the primacy of existence) and I was pushed in that direction by the widely-prevalent association of Americanism with religiosity.

Oh, and there's something else I just thought of. It was when I had to make my first decisions as an adult, job-related decisions that I knew would affect my career and my life, that I first really became aware of the fact that I had free will. As an atheist kid, I had completely rejected the idea of free will, since I had only heard of it in a religious context. I had thought of it as completely un-scientific, as irreconcilable with the laws of physics. When I eventually did form the concept of free will, my then-held ideas left me no choice but to perceive it as something shrouded in mysticism. This was a MAJOR push toward religion for me!

And what was the source of my confusion? My lack of enlightenment regarding the relationship of existence and consciousness.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

The Federal Republic that the Founders crafted for us in 1787 ceased with the nullification of State sovereignty under the courts interpretation of the 14 th and 15 th Amendments (two of the three post Civil War Amendments). The final blow came with the 17-th Amendment requiring the direct election of Senators. The States were taken out of the loop. Now there is the Central Government and the people. The States have effectively become departments as in the case of France under the 5th Republic.

ruveyn

[PhilO 0]

I was tending to be religious before I learned of Objectivism. It was as a result of a post I read on an Objectivist board that I ultimately discarded the idea of a God.

Ok, but you were self-motivated to look for the truth, as well as a thinker, and apparently never took the religion seriously at all. It did not take some concerted external effort (which I argue is unlikely to work.)

[Mercury 0]

I was tending to be religious before I learned of Objectivism. It was as a result of a post I read on an Objectivist board that I ultimately discarded the idea of a God.

Ok, but you were self-motivated to look for the truth, as well as a thinker, and apparently never took the religion seriously at all. It did not take some concerted external effort (which I argue is unlikely to work.)

But, notice that he grew up in an atheistic environment, which required atheistic philosophy to foster it. I think we can profit from CF's approach. At the very least, it will weaken the sense of moral certainty the religionists have always used to dominate the moral sphere.

Having people working in different aspects -- some in metaphysics, some in epistemology, some in ethics, some in politics, some in art -- can't hurt.

I really enjoyed your sweeping essay, CF.

[Arnold 0]

A well put perspective. History will tell if you are correct; but it is a history that can still be decided.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

Ok, but you were self-motivated to look for the truth, as well as a thinker, and apparently never took the religion seriously at all. It did not take some concerted external effort (which I argue is unlikely to work.)

Didn't it? First, let me note that it took external ideas to make me interested in religion in the first place. If capitalism had not been widely thought of as more religious than socialism, and if science had not been commonly described as implying determinism, I would have had no motivation to give religion a second thought. Second, if not for the efforts of the Ayn Rand Institute, I would never have seen a reason to discard religion once I accepted it.

It literally went like this: On a Monday around the middle of summer 2003, I still considered myself a Christian, and although I never went to church, I definitely sympathized with Christians. On Tuesday, I found the ARI's website and read Dr. Peikoff's essay "The Philosophy of Objectivism: A Brief Summary." Then, I listened to Dr. Peikoff's and Gary Hull's lectures introducing Objectivism that were available for free on the ARI website. On Thursday afternoon, I found myself noticing that I was being successfully "converted" away from my sympathy with Christianity and convinced of Objectivism. I am not sure about the exact days of week, but the timeframe was literally a couple of days, and the trigger for the process was Dr. Peikoff's essay--i.e. external information. Then, after a few months of reading Objectivist literature, I began to understand concepts such as "primacy of existence" and "arbitrary," and as a result of reading the above-mentioned post--an external input--I saw that I had to reject not only Christianity, but all forms of theism.

I am not trying to make the point that you can turn most Americans into Objectivists in days or months; you can't. My point is that, if exposed to the wrong premises, even the most independent thinkers can adopt mistaken ideas, and that showing them the right premises can make it much easier for them to correct their mistakes.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I am not trying to make the point that you can turn most Americans into Objectivists in days or months; you can't.

They have to be Good Objectivist Material ™ to begin with.

My point is that, if exposed to the wrong premises, even the most independent thinkers can adopt mistaken ideas, and that showing them the right premises can make it much easier for them to correct their mistakes.

Definitely. All of my dozens of successful "converts" to Objectivism, except two, were theists when they first met me.

[PhilO 0]

Didn't it? First, let me note that it took external ideas to make me interested in religion in the first place.

You misunderstand me. Certainly the availability of the *ideas* is extremely important. I have been and *still* am interested in making them much more widely available exactly so that those who are capable of grasping them, know about them. The issue is that the vast majority of people are evidently not interested and not capable of grasping them and no amount of discussion with them (for such short time as it can be sustained) will change that.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

The issue is that the vast majority of people are evidently not interested and not capable of grasping them and no amount of discussion with them (for such short time as it can be sustained) will change that.

Those are the kind of people who will go along with whatever ideas are most prevalent in the culture. They will follow where the intellectual leaders take them. So the job is to convince the intellectual leaders of rational ideas, and the honest ones among them will be interested and will listen.

[PhilO 0]

Those are the kind of people who will go along with whatever ideas are most prevalent in the culture. They will follow where the intellectual leaders take them.

So 300 million Americans are going to drop religion because those with better ideas inform them that thinking logically all of the time is the proper way to live?

The problem with the "intellectual leader" theory is that there's a fundamental difference between independent logical thinking and *following*. It's consistent to have mystical/altruist/collectivist philosophies with that setup, because they all involve passive non-thinkers obediently following a leader. The reason why Objectivism has *not* taken off in 50 years is exactly because of that.

Independent logical thinkers do not follow, and they do not "lead" unthinking people. They just want to be left the hell alone to live their life and to form voluntary associations with other such men.

That is the *fundamental* and *unique* aspect of Objectivism, it's for individuals one mind at a time, not for leaders/followers. A society of individuals who do *not* want or who are not capable of thinking logically all of the time will not "follow" Objectivism - that's an impossibility. Unthinking individuals need mystical, power-hungry leaders - in their churches, in rights-violating governments - and they will never have trouble finding them.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

So 300 million Americans are going to drop religion because those with better ideas inform them that thinking logically all of the time is the proper way to live?

Yes!

Maybe not the 300 million Americans alive now who are past the "sensitive period" for developing their personal moralities, but all the under-25s and those yet to be born if we can get to enough of them at the right times in their lives.

Independent logical thinkers do not follow, and they do not "lead" unthinking people. They just want to be left the hell alone to live their life and to form voluntary associations with other such men.

Independent logical thinkers do not follow, but they learn. They do not lead unthinking people but they can teach thinking people what is true and why. We can do that.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

So 300 million Americans are going to drop religion because those with better ideas inform them that thinking logically all of the time is the proper way to live?

Your premise is that the 300 million Americans are unthinking lemmings. But when have you seen 300 million unthinking lemmings form a civilization whose flag is flying on the Moon and whose vehicles have made it past the outer reaches of the Solar System?

A few isolated thinkers in an overwhelmingly irrational society could never achieve what Americans have achieved. The greatest scientists and inventors are few, yes, but it takes many intelligent and rational engineers, designers, computer programmers, real estate developers, financial planners, air traffic controllers, radio technicians, etc. etc. to turn the science and the inventions into a well-organized and functioning technological civilization. Oh, and I forgot to mention PLUMBERS! Did Joe strike you as an unthinking lemming? I don't know if he is religious, but given the statistics, the odds are that he is--as are most of America's astronauts, and all the other intelligent and productive people who make the nation run.

There do exist people in America who are barely intelligent enough to know how to cash a welfare check, but if you put those aside, you'll find that, despite being religious, Americans on the whole are pretty bright. Looking back at the computer programs I wrote before 2003, while I was a "Christian," I notice that I was just as intelligent back then as I am now. I was the same person. What has changed since then is that I have, as Betsy well put it, learned some things about the basic nature of the Universe. There are many intelligent Americans among the 300 million, and many of them are willing to learn, too, if provided with the right material.

[PhilO 0]

So 300 million Americans are going to drop religion because those with better ideas inform them that thinking logically all of the time is the proper way to live?

Your premise is that the 300 million Americans are unthinking lemmings.

No, it isn't. My premise is that given the destructive philosophies in existence today that suppress rational thought, only a small minority has the type of intelligence needed to abstract beyond their own upbringing, including a strong intellectual independence and drive to know the truth. This has created a situation that will take a long time to fix, and there is probably not that much time left, and certainly not in *my* lifetime.

But when have you seen 300 million unthinking lemmings form a civilization whose flag is flying on the Moon and whose vehicles have made it past the outer reaches of the Solar System?

The U.S. tapped Werner von Braun to head the Apollo program. As you know, *his* experience came from building the first ballistic missiles (the V-2) for the Nazis. Germany was highly industrialized; did that fact make it rational or *capable* of rationality in a short timeframe?

A few isolated thinkers in an overwhelmingly irrational society could never achieve what Americans have achieved. The greatest scientists and inventors are few, yes, but it takes many intelligent and rational engineers, designers, computer programmers, real estate developers, financial planners, air traffic controllers, radio technicians, etc. etc. to turn the science and the inventions into a well-organized and functioning technological civilization. Oh, and I forgot to mention PLUMBERS! Did Joe strike you as an unthinking lemming? I don't know if he is religious, but given the statistics, the odds are that he is--as are most of America's astronauts, and all the other intelligent and productive people who make the nation run.

Sure. I also see lots of smart people at the university every single day. So why aren't Objectivists, after tens of millions of books, and in the last few years, about 1 million high school aged readers, also numbering in the millions?

This is the fact to be explained. There are different theories for it, but few argue with the fact of it. Are you?

[Scott A. 0]

I enjoyed your essay. Thank you for posting it.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I also see lots of smart people at the university every single day. So why aren't Objectivists, after tens of millions of books, and in the last few years, about 1 million high school aged readers, also numbering in the millions?

There doesn't have to be millions. How many Aristotles did it take?

Not so long ago, there was only one Objectivist and look at the huge influence she made. Now that there are a few hundred of us, with reality on our side, who are deliberately out to change the culture, we can't be stopped.

Such is the power of true ideas.

[jasonlockwood 0]

I also see lots of smart people at the university every single day. So why aren't Objectivists, after tens of millions of books, and in the last few years, about 1 million high school aged readers, also numbering in the millions?

There doesn't have to be millions. How many Aristotles did it take?

Not so long ago, there was only one Objectivist and look at the huge influence she made. Now that there are a few hundred of us, with reality on our side, who are deliberately out to change the culture, we can't be stopped.

Such is the power of true ideas.

There are Objectivists around the world, too. When I'm out in the book stores in Sydney and elsewhere in Australia/New Zealand, I've noticed that Ayn Rand's books are readily available. There are even new British Penguin editions of Atlas and Fountainhead here. That, I think, is a positive thing. The trick will be to engage in good intellectual activism even outside the US. I am willing to assist in that battle.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

My premise is that given the destructive philosophies in existence today that suppress rational thought, only a small minority has the type of intelligence needed to abstract beyond their own upbringing, including a strong intellectual independence and drive to know the truth. This has created a situation that will take a long time to fix, and there is probably not that much time left, and certainly not in *my* lifetime.

Well, if you mean the time left to save America's constitutional Republic, there is literally no time left, because that Republic is already history. This was the first major point of my essay.

The second major point was that there are many Americans who loved that Republic and are eager to find out what brought it down, and what they need to do so they can live in a free country again. They may have many misconceptions, but if we can make them see that ideas matter and that you need true ideas in order to succeed, many of them will understand that they need to check some of their premises.

Germany was highly industrialized; did that fact make it rational or *capable* of rationality in a short timeframe?

The fact that it was industrialized had to come from some amount of rationality previously existing in the culture. If Fuhrer-worship had been all there was to German culture, they would have been no more industrialized than Afghanistan is now.

And forget about short timeframes. I am talking long term.

So why aren't Objectivists, after tens of millions of books, and in the last few years, about 1 million high school aged readers, also numbering in the millions?

Because cultures don't change overnight. The Renaissance didn't begin the year after Thomas Aquinas wrote his first treatise. If you are looking for a way to live in a perfectly rational society starting from Christmas 2009, then I'm afraid I cannot help you. The intended audience of my essay are those intellectuals who want to have a part of the future in their lives by creating the future themselves.

[Capitalism Forever 0]

What I wrote four years ago still applies today. Democracy is still delivering power into the hands of the most brazen of the demagogs, conservatism is still incapable of conserving that which is already gone, and every skirmish fought in the realm of politics by guilt-ridden, confused, disoriented Americans still continues to be lost. It is only a rational philosophy, built up from the fundamental level of metaphysics, that can arm a civilization with the pride and confidence necessary to assert itself against the Barbarians and send them back into the caves where they belong.

[HundredDollar 0]

Last night I was watching my country electing itself new handouts and remembering this post from several years ago and I came here to read it today. Yes. It still applies. Sadly.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

What I wrote four years ago still applies today. Democracy is still delivering power into the hands of the most brazen of the demagogs, conservatism is still incapable of conserving that which is already gone, and every skirmish fought in the realm of politics by guilt-ridden, confused, disoriented Americans still continues to be lost. It is only a rational philosophy, built up from the fundamental level of metaphysics, that can arm a civilization with the pride and confidence necessary to assert itself against the Barbarians and send them back into the caves where they belong.

What alternative to Democracy would you propose. Philosopher Kings such as Plato proposed, perhaps? Or perhaps rule byh an advanced technological oligarchy such as in H.G. Wells "Things to Come"? If not these, then what?

ruveyn