Objectivism, to me, is an ideology best compared to a brilliant child reared in a broken home. Good genetics, poor environment. What beauty results is forever crippled by the realization of what could have been.
Many today are content with simply bashing the Objectivist ideology; it is my intent to present to you, dear reader, a more somber narrative. This is because, to me, there exists no modern ideology more incomplete, and therefore more tragic, than this one.
Drive through most any town in the United States, and you will notice a recurrent theme, our societal leitmotif: at least one street (usually several) blighted by, sacrificed to, consumptive postmodernism.
Large and gaudy signs, unimaginative architecture, mass-produced imagery, welfare disguised as diversionary hourly make-work (Now hiring 4th assistant manager!). All of this designed for the singular, mechanical, amoral purpose of pandering already obsolescent shit to an ever lower common denominator.
Is there really any rational basis for the idea of gun control? Or is it just a desperate grasping for some kind of symbolic control after an outbreak of mass violence? Or is it something even deeper? On its face the idea of gun control is ridiculous. Conservatives, libertarians and gun enthusiasts have been making the same basic points for years whenever the issue comes up in response to whatever the latest mass shooting incident happens to be. The fact that there will be such incidents is a social inevitability at this point.
The simple argument is that whatever the latest mass murder happens to be, it was the act of a deranged or vengeful criminal and law abiding folks ought not be deprived of their means of recreation and self defense for the crimes of another. Such shooting rampages inevitably happen in areas where the shooter is the only armed individual and thus faces no resistance. Criminals, and particularly those driven enough to carry out such a rampage, will find a way to arm themselves one way or the other no matter what the law may be. Gun restrictions would only leave the law abiding defenseless against such psychopaths. Some even assert that the proper response ought to be putting more guns in more hands rather than vice-versa.
Shooting rampages, while not an exclusive invention of the 21st century, are certainly much more common now than they were 50 years ago. While some of us might nod our heads and reach some sober conclusions about the effect of the modern lifestyle on the personal psychology of humans in general, men in particular, the rest of the oxygen thieves with groundless opinions fall into one of two general camps:
1. Cowardly liberals who think the only thing scarier than a gun is a white man with a gun.
These sniveling brats are mostly women and emasculated beta males with children. Since firearms such as AR-15s look like “evil black rifles of mass destruction” and subconsciously project the virility of the male sex organ, they find them about as appealing as hiring David Duke as a babysitter. These people have so effectively repressed any normal human aggressive urges, that they actually find it difficult to understand why people would shoot other people at all, and why anyone would want to own a gun. It’s easier to direct their attention towards regulating guns more since this provides them a modicum of much needed control over the situation and obviates them from any real uncomfortable discussion about why people feel like mowing down dozens of men, women, and children in the first damn place.
Anarchy for you is a means to avoid (actual) criticism, which is to say, reflection. Anarchy is therefore a form of #postmodern #ironic living. A means to ignore that horrible stranger you see in the mirror every morning. A means to ignore your existence as a battery for the system you are supposed to hate, and yet are quietly and secretly terrified of losing. Yours is an ideological battered spouse syndrome. Get back in the kitchen.
Anarchism is a nonsensical and immature political philosophy. To even call it a philosophy is probably being far too generous. In order to mitigate the inevitable bleating of “No True Scotsman” from various unwashed packs of self-styled “anarchist” rabble across the internets, allow me to define my term. When I say “anarchism” here I am talking about the utopian and fantastical ideology promoted by leftist intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and described in the Anarchist FAQ. So yes, I am talking about your kind of anarchist Mr. Scotsman.
The theory (if you can call it that) behind anarchism is based on two interlocking principles. The first and most important is that hierarchy is a form of oppression (hint: oppression is bad, mmmkay). The second is that private property is a form of hierarchy. Private property in the anarchist view is the absolute worst form of oppression. It is the social institution that the envious soul of the anarchist rages against most fiercely. Private property is bad because it creates hierarchy in terms of relationships to specific resources. If one person owns something, then another person is necessarily deprived of it. Exclusion of anyone from anything is intolerable.
There was man, and there was woman. Two different beings, separate and unequal. From their differences arose conflict, and born from that conflict: passion.
In time, their passions intermingled, and the two beings found that this combination was to both of their advantages. Society blossomed from there.
A greater, prior age would have called this process “dialectical,” but most today would use the term “love.” This derivation of meaning is an unfortunate reflection of an era without reflection. We will get to that shortly.
If there is one thing you ever take from my writings, let it be this: creation can only be birthed from passion, and passion can only ever exist through conflict.
I would like to preface this by conceding the fact that Buckley was further to the right than most Americans. But that doesn’t cut the mustard with the Right Stuff crew. His support for Pinochet and Franco was right-wing and his appreciation of the finer points from Burke and Kirk was commendable. Compared to the average media commentator there were many redeeming qualities in Buckley, but the way he treated paleocons and other radical rightists was unforgivable.
While Buckley was a remarkable intellectual in the midst of an intellectually bankrupt society, even he couldn’t escape from the leftist matrix; he was a half-assed reactionary at best. History has been a grand march leftward and Buckley, like most all of us, couldn’t help but be sucked into the vortex of leftist degeneracy. He was lured by the siren’s call of Democracy, Liberalism, market egalitarianism, enlightenment thinking, altruism, etc… the sub-ideologies that compose what we here at TRS describe as “leftism.”
Truly the postmodernist intellectual movement has become a postmodern joke unto itself. I came to this revelation during a recent viewing of this hysterical youtube video entitled “Butter Dance”. For those of you who cannot or choose not to view it, the video is a six minute dance routine in which a fat Asian woman in a tight dress and heels “dances” on/in several sticks of butter accompanied by the sound of Indonesian shamanistic drumming. As you would expect, occasionally she slips and falls into the mess of saturated fats. This is intentional. But she rises again, she perseveres. The falls are actually quite brutal and uncontrolled resulting in resounding wet slapping noises as she strikes the stage. At times I actually worried she would do herself harm, but no doubt this element of danger only adds to the gravity of the piece. The routine ends with her kneeling on the stage, thoroughly covered in butter, gazing out into the audience with an accusatory stare.
I don’t think I need to go into any deep analysis here to point out the “oppressive” social norms that this dance routine is deconstructing. The whole thing hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. She’s fat. She dances in butter. She falls. She gets up. She glares at us with an accusing expression. Obviously this is a jab at socially constructed, patriarchal norms of beauty and the oppression of fat women. Derp. Not too hard to grasp.
While atheism has clearly failed to provide a new source for human value and inspiration, there still seemed to be one gleaming light on the horizon. The promise of transhumanism held within it the pure apotheosis of Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of the Overman. Long before the idea of self directed evolution ever existed Nietzsche articulated that mankind was something to be surpassed; that creators of new values must blaze forward bravely, and burn down the old complacency. Human superiority could transcend self mastery and become flesh and blood reality through the science of genetic engineering and cybernetic enhancement. While Nietzsche’s prescience warned of nihilism’s deleterious effects on mankind, he did not clearly anticipate it might extend into efforts to transcend mankind.