How to Kill an Idea And a Futrue -- and Not Know it

Any philosophy consists of three components:

  1. The teachings, doctrine or content. For Objectivists, this means, as Rand stated over 45 years ago:
    • METAPHYSICS: Objective Reality
    • EPISTEMOLOGY: Reason
    • ETHICS: Rational self-interest
    • POLITICS: individual rights
    Of necessity, this includes the underlying concepts and principles, derivatives and implications, structure and integrations and knowable conequences. Observe a comment by Ayn Rand "If I had to choose between capitlaism not supported by reason, or not at all, then, 'not at all'"

  2. Methodology. How you operate: For Objectivism REASON defined as "the faculty that takes the material porvided by the senses and places it into a non-contradictory frame of reference" The paradigm is "factual premises and valid reasoning yield true conclusions". From Ayn Rand "Mine is a philosophy for living on earth: With happiness ans Man's proper goal and Reason as his sole guide to knowledge" - 1959. the inclusion of the method in the content puts Objectivism in caategory of "orthpractic"

  3. Institution: the persons, procedures and places that facilitate the advancement of that philosophy; the "infrastructure". The need for this should be apparent by the following thought experiment. Let us say that there was no such structure. Now the Definition of Objectivism from Ayn Rand is "A philosophy for living on earth with happiness as Man's proper goal and Reason as his sole guide to knowledge". On down the line is that the Objectivist Ethics is Egoism, the Politics is Individual Rights and the Political-economic system is Laissez-faire capitalism. This was made clear in the 1960's. Now someone comes along and tries to sell the idea that Objectivism is compatible with some kind of half-bred socialist political-economic system by using some very sophisticated argumentation: A good debater could convince the unwary or unknowing that a ham sandwich is a car; I know of an egoistic argument for socialism that starts with the idea that when all benefit, each benefits. What then? A good strong institutional arm would head that off by having the knowledge, resources and personnel in one place and ready to go, to check, challenge and chop up that attempt. In this case, though the statment is true existentially, as a philosophical statement, it is bass-ackwards; reversing cause and effect since the individual comes before the group existentially: You need a population (of individual members with one or more common attributes) to have a group. A good institutional arm also acts as a repository for resources that can be put at the disposal of those wishing to speard the philosophy or meet challenges or correct misinterpretations of the philosophy in the world at large, and a good institutional arm has the ability to bring persons together to facilitate the spread, development and expansion of that philosophy in the world and its application to real-world persons and situations. I take my cues for evaluating institutional Objectivism, what to do and what not to do from the churches and how they spread Christianity over the past 2,000+ years very successfully
In the case of Objectivism. this arm has been the Ayn Rand Institute. This has been headed by Yaron Brooks, Who is, to my knowledge, from Israel, which changed Objectivism from a US to a world-stage philosophy. As the head of the Ayn Rand Institute. Mr. Brooks is the chief spokesman for the philosophy

He has just destroyed Objectivism or at least the institutional arm of it.

How so?

First: And necessarily; READ THIS FACEBOOK POST

Now I will explain. First note, he is speaking as the spokesman for the philosphy. One may ask what my crdentials are to make this claim. At this writing,I am 66 years of age and know the shape of the world. A reading of my FACEBOOK NOTES and the other material in this site will show that. I have been a Randite since 1968, when I turned 23 so I understand Objectivism as well as any. A reading of the other material in this site will show that, too. One may ask why I am willing to put this out in the open where the enemies of Objectivism can find and use it. If it means the end of Objectivism. So be it. That would prove that the philosophy was unsupportable in reality due to lack of integrity. If Objectivism survives, it will do so by overcoming this. Beyond that, I did not perform the acts that would have led to the destruction of Objectivism and if Objectivism is destroyed, that makes room for a true philosophy. I am not a cultist so I am invested in what is true. Now I have no idea if Objecitivism will or can survive this. Aside from that, I would rather have this out than try to hide, cover it up or be implicated in either of those by inaction from which I, or any honest person, has nothing to gain and everthing to lose. Only cockroaches and evil fear light and discovery. Beyond that, if known in time, the institutional arm can be repaired or replaced if the content and methodology are any good and we can go on as before or better. The concept "elephant in the room" means that what persons are avoiding is a huge, readily visible item about which they are pleading the Sgt. Schultz Amendment: "We see nothing, we hear nothing, we know nothing and we want to see nothing"

Now; back to our regularly scheduled program

Steve Jobs once sais "I am John Galt"

Yaron Brooks agrees

For those not in the know.The Ayn Rand Institute is dedicated to the spread of Objectivism: So:

Since The Ayn Rand Institute is dedicated to the spread of Objectivism.I would have to thinhk that the"traits" that pertain to Atlas Shrugged would be 100% compatible with the principles of Objectivism, if not fully, then without any significant contradictions thereof. For instance you could not be a devout Catholic and be said to embody traits compatable with Objectivism. Since Mr Brooks says that Steve Jobs embodies the traits of Atlas Shrugged Then he would be telling us that Steve Jobs is the perfect Objectifist because he did not qualify or mitigate, therefore implying that he has full knowledge of both Objectivism and Jobs' activities so I must take him at his word: Advice given by Miss Rand numerous times. Mr. Brooks is not simply giving Jobs a nihil obstat but an imprimatur. A nihil obstat is just giving someoe a pass on some minor bad things because he has shown good perfoumance on others or on major things. It is what Rand used to do by sayinhg "While we cannot fully endorse [x], there is enough of value to make it worthwhile", making explicit what those minor bad things are, while an imprimatur is a full endorsement. Brooks in equating Jobs' actions with Objectivist principles

Well how about it?

Several of those responding to Mr. Brooks' post on the Facebook page brought up the issue of theft, claiming that Jobs stole the idea that he used from Xerox. I have heard a first-person interview with a co-worker that describes just what Jobs did and supports that claim to the point where, if it is not conclusive it is at least very credible by being both common knowledge and by the fact that I have heard first-person testimony to that effect

Isn't theft the actions of a looter? And just what kind of language did Ayn Rand take to looters; both in and out of Atlas Shrugged?

I have been told that Apple products are made in The Peoples' Republic of China. This was confirmed by Rush Limbaugh on Monday, 23 January, 2012 in comments about how the Apple factory is being organized and run by the "Chi coms". Do you know what a "Peoples' Republic" is? Ayn Rand did, and so would any Objectivist over the age of 40 It is a Communist state, the same kind from which Ayn Rand fled. Now one might say that they have loosened up. But this could semply be the equivalent of the 1924 Soviet "New Economic Policy". A temporary loosening up of the totalitarian economic policy by Lenin to keep the Soviet Union from becoming a full basket case. This generated the "nepmen" Rand wrote about in We the Living. So we've seen this before. Commuism is a totalitarian system. Until China repudiates this system, it must be seen as a totalitarian and therefore, a slave state.

As far as real Objectivists are concerned, this says flat out that Jobs was trafficking for profit with totalitarians and therefore used slave labor and that any resemblence to capitalism is 1) an abberation and 2) should be considered as ephemeral and subject to change without notice once the purposes of the leadership have been met. Not a thing upon which to hang one's hat; let alone give the highest form of accolade

Now, it could be argued here that Jobs was helping to demonstrate to the Chinese the virtues of capitalism and that this was to the good and it was no worse than other busiensses doing the same. While I could support that in the ordinary sense. We are talking here about Mr. Jobs' actions as they compare to Objectivist principles

Given the 50 years that Objectivist literature has spent defending capitalism and attacking collectivism and especially Communism, how is Mr. Brooks comfortable wih profiting from slave labor? I'm sure that Jobs could have used a freer country like India or even Mr. Brooks' own Israel: Yes? No?

In his "Health in the News" on the week of 1,November 2011, Dr.Dean Edell reported that "Steve Jobs died from a very curable form of pnacreatic cancer". Hwo come? "[he rejected normal medicine] for alternative medicine and psychic healers"

UPDATE EDIT: becuase of the grief I get from Objectivists about this claim. here is the account from SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: Here's a whole Google page on the matter tells a similar story

Can you say "mysticism"? and tell me how that squares with Reason?

Is this what it means to be an Objectivist? Apparently Yaron Broks thinks so

So we find that theft,trafficking with totalitarians and mysticism, at least according to Yaron Brooks, are not only to be given a pass but to be lauded as Objectivist virtues. How do you give these highest honors to someone who has actively; i.e. where it counts, totally nuked the Objectivist Politics, Ethics and Epistemology? From Ayn Rand's notes "Most of Philosophy is epistemology". Read; totally nuked Objectivism. Is this a John Galt or Orrin Boyle?

But Mr. Brooks is an honorable man. So are they all: All honerable men

Now compare the above with the second attribute of Objectivism in Miss Rand's description: Reason: That being the faculty that takes the material provided by the senses and places it into a non-contradictory frame of reference and tell me how Steve Jobs was not, philosophically and therefore, in persona and therefore in fact 180 degrees out of phase with Rand's ideal and how, by his endorsement; speaking as the highest member of institutional Objectivism since he expects his words to carry weight Mr. Brooks is not 180 degress out of phase with Miss Rand's philosophy and worse, as head of the Ayn Rand Institute, not sending it down the roead to a flaming self-destruction to rival a supernova

This blatant endorsement of theft, benefiting from totalitarianism and mysticism give the enemies of Objectivism a 100 megaton nuclear bomb. To just identify what Rand has said and then bring this up would totally discredit Mr. Brooks, The Ayn Rand Institute and give a misimpression of the methodology that would bring about the obliteration of Objectivism reminiscent of Aldaraan and the Death Star by destroying its credibility

I see only two possibilities here. 1. Mr.Brooks is incredibly and childishly naive; to the extent of having spent his life in a wicker basket, stupid or insane to think that any of this is not an effront to Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged. 2. he is out to destroy Objectivism for good and all by being an open hypocrite and thus descrediting Objectivism.

This day has been prepared for: That is why I call myself a "Randite" and describe this site as "outlaw" and "Jihad" with respect to the Objectivist establishment. The first inklings of this came in 2003 when the Intellectual Activist supported the Iraq invasion.SEE MY TAKE ON THAT WAR WRITTEN IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF '02.That was a wake-up call and I woke up. However, this is not my preferred state of affairs. There shouold be at least an institutional arm of some sort

If this is not ended and sharply and totally reversed, and just how that is to be done, I don't have a clue; which is why I don't do things like that, Mr. Brooks will have accomplished that total destruction. Who can believe a philosphy that preaches scrupulous honesty and endorsed theft? What twisted sort of soul would hold to a philosphy that preaches individual rights while giving its support to trafficking with slave holders? How could I, as an advocate of reason and science, give my loyalty to a philosphy that, in its definition, claims "...Reason as the sole guide to knowledge" and says it is good to use psychic healers?

ADDED 16 August '12: It was stated within the last week and a half that Steve Jobs voted for Obama-Biden. Now, that in itself means nothing. I was prepared to do so myself BECAUSE and so did Col David Hunt, but was unable to and it didn't matter. However, given the abouve, Do you think Mr. Jobs' reasons were the same as mine? Some John Galt: Some neck: Some chicken

Just where does the rubber meet the road here? This is not a happy Fizzies party!

If Mr. Brooks wanted to destroy Objectivism in toto, he has succeeded well beyond the dreams of Elsworth Toohey or James Taggart. If he did not wish to obliterate Objectivism, he has still succeeded in doing so beyond the wildest dreams of Elsworth Toohey and James Taggart by obliterating its credibility which is what happens when the institutional arm of a movement acts or speaks in a way that is contrary to the content and especially the methodology of said movement. This is a resutlt of two contradictory statements 1) "Objectivism is not an orgaized Moevemtn"-Ayn Rand: 1959, 2) "there is a hierarchical division of labor. We are the theoreticians"; Objectivist Newsletter, which established the institutional arm of Objectivism, and since it is hierarchical, it is organized, which would have happenede anyway if the whole thing was not to degrade into chaos. but that has the danger that when the institutional arm contradicts the content or methodology, the whole thing degrades into chaos of which opponents can take advantage to try to discredit the system

UPDATE EDIT: 23, Dec 2012 This on the Facebook page of The Objectivist standard. "capitlaism in action"?!? In a Communist dictatorship?!? Umm...Toto?...Kansas?...Earth?...Any planet or universe where "A is A" is active?!? Am I the only Randite who gets this? Both times there was push-back from the rank and file membership with legitimate concerns about the Objectivist leadership jumping into bed with Apple. This is the second time I hope we do not need a Gallileo moment here but I can see Chaucer writing something about "a shiten shepherd and clene sheep"

Now, just how you walk that back, I have no idea, which is why I would not have done that in the first place. Contradictions of that order are deal-breakers because they open a breach through which Helen Keller could cleanly pilot the Death Star. I guess this was a practical demonstration of something Rand said when asked why there was no "good guys" counterpart of the Horror File saying that she could not ascertain, and would not take the responsibility for, the actual motives for what other persons with whom she had no connection did and therefore could not factually state that they reflected Objectivism or the values of Atlas Shrugged. Back then, it went over my head, too. Now I get it

"So what?' you ask, "Aside from some theoretical: Read; minor, problems, what's the practical danger or threat here?"

In the first decade of the twenty-first century. Steve Jobs said "I am John Galt" while either doing business or preparing to do business with Communist China: Read; trafficking witht the major totalitiarina regime and of the type specifically condemned by the first (original), second (beginning with the publication of The Objectivist Newletter, since that marked the first large scale dissemination of the philosophy) and third (1968-80) generations of Objecitivsts. Now supposing Apple decides to name one of it's computers the "Ayn Rand", leading to a situation where an item named for Miss Rand, therefore, pertaining to all things Randian, is made in a country under a slave system specifically condemned by her and most of the other Objectivists. To quote the famous Chester A. Riley "Wotta revoltin' development this is!". To quote me: "That's gotta suck like a nuculer Hoover-Matic set on 'black hole'"

The only advice I can offer is, ironically, from the Bible.Christ, or more correctly Yashua bar Yussuf, was himself a "rabbinical Pharasee" in religious orientation. Commenting on the Pharasaic Establishment he said "Do as they say, but not as they do". Also from Captain Kirk "Brace for impact"