About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, January 23, 2010 - 11:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
By Murray Rothbard

Since every cult is grounded on a faith in the infallibility of the guru, it becomes necessary to keep its disciples in ignorance of contradictory infidel writings which may wean cult members away from the fold. The Catholic Church maintained an Index of Prohibited Books; more sweeping was the ancient Muslim cry: "Burn all books, for all truth is in the Koran!" But cults, which attempt to mold every member into a rigidly integrated world view, must go further. Just as Communists are often instructed not to read anti-Communist literature, the Rand cult went further to disseminate what was virtually an Index of Permitted Books. Since most neophyte Randians were both young and relatively ignorant, a careful channeling of their reading insured that they would remain ignorant of non- or anti-Randian ideas or arguments permanently (except as they were taken up briefly, brusquely, and in a highly distorted and hectoring fashion in Randian publications).

The philosophical rationale for keeping Rand cultists in blissful ignorance was the Randian theory of "not giving your sanction to the Enemy." Reading the Enemy (which, with a few carefully selected exceptions, meant all non- or anti-Randians) meant "giving him your moral sanction," which was strictly forbidden as irrational. In a few selected cases, limited exceptions were made for leading cult members who could prove that they had to read certain Enemy works in order to refute them. This book-banning reached its apogee after the titanic Rand-Branden split in late 1968, a split which was the moral equivalent in miniature of, say, a split between Marx and Lenin, or between Jesus and St. Paul. In a development eerily reminiscent of the organized hatred directed against the arch-heretic Emanuel Goldstein in Orwell’s 1984, Rand cultists were required to sign a loyalty oath to Rand; essential to the loyalty oath was a declaration that the signer would henceforth never read any future works of the apostate and arch-heretic Branden. After the split, any Rand cultist seen carrying a book or writing by Branden was promptly excommunicated. Close relatives of Branden were expected to – and did – break with him completely.

Interestingly enough for a movement which proclaimed its devotion to the individual exertion of reason, to curiosity, and to the question "Why?" cultists were required to swear their unquestioning belief that Rand was right and Branden wrong, even though they were not permitted to learn the facts behind the split. In fact, the mere failure to take a stand, the mere attempt to find the facts, or the statement that one could not take a stand on such a grave matter without knowledge of the facts was sufficient for instant expulsion. For such an attitude was conclusive proof of the defective "loyalty" of the disciple to his guru, Ayn Rand.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 7:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
LOL!

Post 2

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 8:05amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa,

Rothbard used the word "forbidden." But I only used the word "advised" in the same context. Are you going to be fair and limit Rothbard to the dissent forum too?

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 8:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Are you going to be fair...
Robert wants to use any virtue he imagines his opponents might have against them, to harm them. It is like a stolen concept, but much boader... he steals the essence of morality to use as club against those who are moral. He asks to be treated fairly while he comes to do harm. "Let me get a little closer (so I can stab you again)"

Banning him to dissent was fair. Banning him altogether would be fair. Ignoring him would be fair. He really doesn't want fair - he wants to use "fair," unfairly.

Post 4

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

Murray Rothbard (1926 - 1995) doesn't visit this forum so it was obviously a joke.
(Edited by Robert Keele on 1/24, 8:21am)


Post 5

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve,

You wrote: He [yours truly] uses the essence of morality, namely, fairness, to use as a club against those who are moral.

Fairness is the essence of Objectivist morality?

Sigh...

I'm not blaming you, Steve. After all, we all have our little personality quirks.

Our only choice in the matter is either to treat them as innocuous, or to "identify" them as pure EEEE-vil in case we don't happen to like someone.

Post 6

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 11:56amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Does anyone see ANY value that Robert brings to this site?

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rothbard had an ax to grind. That's why I laughed. 

After a few encounters however, Rand and Rothbard had a falling out and the two were at odds for the remainder of their lives.

 You really should bone up on these personalities you're tossing around, Robert, and at least make an attempt to understand why Rand would possibly advise against reading something as dense, and opaque as Kant.  Rand appreciated clarity, which Kant lacked.  There's no way she'd "advise" a newbie to ideas to read something as difficult as Kant, no more than I'd advise a 6 year old to read Atlas Shrugged.  I'd strongly discourage it, myself.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 1/24, 12:18pm)


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 1:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've moderated him as well.  Moderators, feel free to delete any of his attention-seeking posts.

Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 12, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There was clearly no love lost between Rand and Rothbard, and I take anything from Rothbard's 'The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult' (the article you quoted, Robert) with a *huge* grain of salt.

Particularly claims of Rothbard such as:

"Rand cultists were required to sign a loyalty oath to Rand; essential to the loyalty oath was a declaration that the signer would henceforth never read any future works of the apostate and arch-heretic Branden. After the split, any Rand cultist seen carrying a book or writing by Branden was promptly excommunicated"

should have corroborating evidence from Objectivists forced to sign such a loyalty at the time. I'd even expect some to have saved such oaths and therefore have indisputable, written evidence of Rand requiring such an oath to not read the Brandens. However, I've not seen such evidence, and unless you have something to back Murray's claims, consider it an unfair attack to attempt to diminish Rand.

Aaron

Post 10

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 2:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Awesome. Thanks, Joe.


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Sunday, January 24, 2010 - 3:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You have to wonder how Rothbard would have known this.  The Rand/Branden split was a decade after his run-in with the circle, and I have a hard time believing he knew any of the loyalists at that point.  Has anyone ever seen one of these signed documents or attested to the story?
\
I liked what Burns had to say about Rothbard: he tried to take credit for libertarianism and to move it left, and he failed at both.


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.