The Opening Polemic

“When you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing – When you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors – When you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you – When you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice – You may know that your society is doomed.” – Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Hillsboro, Texas

I am posting this location, familiar to LSP, home of many of his sermons, which differ sharply from the sermonettes you may have read on this blog.

The sermonettes here seem to lack the requisite fire and brimstone, however, the one for today is simple and will cause you to consider where we are as a people. Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

“…Choose you this day whom ye will serve…but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Life is nothing but a series of choices and based on those choices you will be good or not. (Matthew 7:14) “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which. leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”

 

Judge Not?

“The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”
― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

 

Closing Thoughts

Many turn from Jesus because of a bad experience with religious people.

We must remind them that Jesus also had a bad experience with religious people…they crucified him.

35 COMMENTS

  1. Very good Sermonette this AM…reminded me of something I read moons ago, “I don’t want to know who you say you are, I want to know what you do and how you act when faced with both good and bad, because in that I will know who you are.”

    Many people, especially these past ten months, put on masks as an excuse to hide behind. Trump hardly ever wore a face covering, Biden and President-Elect Harris always did (at least when the cameras were rolling). Who do I trust more, a straight shooter or a couple of pandering do-nothings? Yet there re plenty of people without sound judgement who want B&H. I am getting too far down the path to entertain willful fools.

    Rand’s admonitions were from personal witness, but will enough of society heed the warning signs and force a course change?. No, because as with the religious leaders of Jesus’ time they like their power, they serve themselves all the while professing to serve God.

    That 5600 pages of graft is yet another reason why Congress needs to be swept clean.

    • All incumbents tend to be re-elected. It’s like 90+ percent. RINOS, donkeys, and the lot. The only thing they fear is being dumped by voters and that seldom happens.

      Even the contemptible Swalwell, going bang-bang with Fang Fang the spy is unlikely to get him dumped from Congress by San Francisco voters. He may even stay on the Intel Committee, feeding secrets to a country we’re all but at war with.

      • Except for our President…who clearly won but the Dems and their lackey shills in the MSM defend the indefensible, that the Biden win defied every metric and historical trend. Just need a bridge to sell them…

        • I just heard a Fox News personality spoke of the Congress overturning an election.

          The election is not certified. The only people who called the election were corrupt democrat operatives in the media. That is not the law, and they are not the law, much as it may dismay them that I write this.

          The propaganda machine is hard at work.

  2. From Dr. Phil–

    “Life Law #6: There is no reality, only perception.”

    When I first heard that long ago, blew his cred’s with me right out of the water.

    April 23, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt–

    “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

    I would leave the fire and brimstone to LSP. Simple truth quietly posed as a question can move mountains and unmask demons.

  3. Another great sermon. And though I’m not a Randist, those quotes were excellent.

    That aside, the Hillsboro mission always reminds me of a garrison chapel in Aldershot. Hmmmm.

    • The notion of “going Galt” influenced my move to the White Wolf Mine. I haven’t been proven wrong yet. However, when you make that decision, you must also be ready to be self-reliant to a much greater degree than you would in a city, town, or hamlet.

    • Virtue doesn’t reside in one who commits unvirtuous acts. We may define virtue in different ways and much wrong has been done in this world in the name of God.

      • The reply Jesus made to someone who came up and tried to butter him up by starting with ‘Good teacher’ – the reply ‘no one is good save God alone’. Makes you step back and do some thinking.
        Doing evil in the name of God – Luke 6:46

  4. The quotes from Rand are mostly good (the first more than the second), but it bears noting that Rand was not the opposite of the “collectivists” she claimed to despise. She had many things in common with the Bolsheviks. We can more or less dismiss the superficial ones, namely that they mostly came from the same stock, and that they had a penchant for changing their names (Alice Rosenbaum became Ayn Rand, Lev Bronstein became Leon Trotsky, Hirsch Apfelbaum became Grigori Zinoviev, etc).

    The most important similarity is that both Rand and the Bolsheviks sincerely wanted to create an un-human (and inhumane) society, based on complete misunderstanding of human nature. Rand’s extreme “individualism” wherein every human interaction is an economic transaction, is no different than the Marxist view wherein everything is viewed (through the lens of class) as an economic power struggle. There is no room in these un-human world views for love, no room for faith, for honor, for charity, for kindness, for mercy.

    “Un-human” is actually not the best term. It would be more accurate to describe both Rand’s Objectivist Ideal and the Bolshevik’s New Soviet Man as ANTI-human ideologies.

    WHY Rand, and Marx, and the Bolsheviks, promulgated the sick ideas that they did is open for discussion, but I would suggest that it was in large part borne of envy, resentment, and poorly hidden self-loathing. This has been noted in multiple biographies of Karl Marx. I would suggest that there was something similar going on with the 5’2″, stumpy [1] and toothy Rand, whose “ideal” men and women were tall, blonde, Nordic types. It is a pity, because Rand did have some intelligent observations, and Anthem is a beautiful work [2], but her personal life was a mess, and her behavior appalling. (q.v affair with her disciple Nathaniel Branden, among others). Ultimately, the woman who created “Objectivism” and was the self-proclaimed “second-greatest philosopher to have ever lived” (after only Aristotle), was a sad, hollow, and destructive narcissist.

    [1] I have no idea what Rand’s natural weight was, seeing as she gobbled “weight control pills” (amphetamines) and apparently lived off of those and nicotine.

    [2] Anthem was a beautiful work. Atlas Shrugged was a gigantic, self-indulgent mess. Worse, the characters are monsters. The ones that Rand intended to be monsters (which we see reflected in many of today’s media personalities and government office holders) are both familiar and horrid. But the heroes are worse. The key event that sickened me was a scene where Dagny Taggart’s loyal assistant is abandoned by the side of the railroad tracks miles in the middle of nowhere, only because he didn’t meet some arbitrary standard to win admission to Colorado Valhalla, sorry, I meant Galt’s Gulch. The assistant didn’t betray her, nor do anything wrong, he just wasn’t one of the Elect. Rand’s characters talk a big deal about rugged individualism, but their behavior demands loyalty (and adulation) from those “below”. What they fail to understand is that loyalty must flow in both directions. In that, they are very similar to many of our elected officials, and to our creators and arbiters of popular culture, who are paranoid, insecure, self-loathing persons who both play the helpless, innocent victim card and simultaneously demand that we worship them for their cleverness and power.

    • Taking the quotes offered in and of themselves, without regard for the other 900 pages or so of the book, how do you think they square?

      • The first quote (“Opening polemic”) is good.

        The highlighted part of the long second quote is okay, so long as one understands it to be an exaggeration to make a point dramatically. But as for the extended quote, if one literally believes “There are two sides to EVERY issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil,” then I would say that person is wrong.

        Most conflicts between groups are not pure right vs pure wrong. Many conflicts are muddled up bullshit over stupid stuff (where you wish that both sides could lose), and/or have so much historical baggage that who is “good” vs “bad” depends on how far back you go, and at some point you have no idea who really “started it”. I’m obviously talking about ethnic and ethnoreligious conflicts here, for the most part.

        Now if one applies her dictum to certain policy issues, say 2A, then yes, there can be a right and a wrong. But her premise that the wrong side (gun grabbers, duh) are such that “The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth” is completely unsupported. Plenty of people on the wrong side KNOW they’re lying through their teeth. They are NOT arguing from good faith, they’re pulling a scam. And to demonize those in the middle is foolish because it is bad strategy. Unless you have a system where self-evidently superior Gods on Earth with “angular” names such as Ragnar, Hank, and Dagny literally ruling the earth, one should strive to educate and convince the undecided. True that SOME people choose the middle out of cowardice and calculation, but most are simply ignorant. To beat the 2A example to death, I’ve met plenty of people who argue for “a compromise” on gun control, but they were neither evil nor cowardly; they were simply misinformed by nearly all “legitimate authority”. I’ve turned no few of the undecided into 2A advocates, by talking with them and answering their points seriously, not by calling them evil and then mocking them.

        And there’s plenty of things where I have no opinion because they are matters of taste, and I simply don’t give a hoot in hell about either side.

        I’m kind of beating this to death because I was quite into Rand from about age 14 to 18. Once I got off to college and actually went to Objectivist meetings and Libertarian Party gatherings (back when it was not just the party of “legalize drugs, doodz”), I was very disappointed to find that about 90% of the attendees were high-IQ and well-meaning but VERY underachieving and socially awkward people who believed that when the revolution came (magically, somehow) that they’d be recognized for their intelligence and integrity and rise to power. The other 10% were hucksters. So I can totally see persons from amongst the 90% taking the second quote completely literally. (NB I’m not saying that everyone into Rand is an underachieving loser, I AM saying that the people I met at those meetings mostly were. Maybe the non-losers were too busy with their lives to attend meetings on college campuses; I dunno.)

        TL;DR. Yes, there absolutely are some things that are plain wrong, to the point of being evil. Those things are not relative, nor a matter of taste, nor negotiable. But the entire world is not that way. Many things ARE a matter of taste and custom. It’s important to know the difference. Never compromise on the things that are truly good vs evil. But to treat everything as absolute right vs wrong is not only silly, it is literally insane behavior. (More accurately, it is often the world view of a person with a severe personality disorder. Such as Narcissistic Personality Disorder.)

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here