Ayn Rand - Conspiracy Theorist?


caroljane

Recommended Posts

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers. Being a left leaner I tend to subscribe to this theory myself. From what I have read and heard about Ayn Rand, as well as from her own writings, my impression is that she acknowledged coincidence and accidents, but distrusted deeply the idea that they influence events more than the intentional concerted actions of motivated collectivists, mystics etc..

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

Now that is a possibility that the Drive By Media will use.

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers.

There is? I don't agree with that at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read and heard about Ayn Rand, as well as from her own writings, my impression is that she acknowledged coincidence and accidents, but distrusted deeply the idea that they influence events more than the intentional concerted actions of motivated collectivists, mystics etc..

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

Ayn Rand believed that the power of ideas was all that was necessary to understand most of the important events that have determined the course of history. She discounted conspiracy theories (e.g., the nonsense propagated by The John Birch Society) as superfluous because such explanations are not needed to understand the growth of mysticism/collectivism.

Many conservatives do subscribe to conspiracy theories because they fail to grasp that their own religious and moral ideas are fundamentally the same as those of liberals. Liberals and socialists are simply more consistent advocates of the same mystical-altruist philosophy. Given their own religious-traditional world view, conservatives need to believe that nefarious forces are working behind the scenes to destroy the world. They resort to conspiracy theories in order to evade the need to check their own premises. Using Occam's razor, however, we simply do not need paranoid foolishness to explain what is happening.

The main relevance to Ron Paul is that, as a libertarian, he is just as ignorant of the destructiveness of his underlying premises (e.g, God, religion, altruism) as most conservatives are. And that explains why his views are a bewildering mixture of economic brilliance and moral-political corruption (anti-abortion, military impotence, apologizing for America's influence, et..al.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have read and heard about Ayn Rand, as well as from her own writings, my impression is that she acknowledged coincidence and accidents, but distrusted deeply the idea that they influence events more than the intentional concerted actions of motivated collectivists, mystics etc..

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

Ayn Rand believed that the power of ideas was all that was necessary to understand most of the important events that have determined the course of history. She discounted conspiracy theories (e.g., the nonsense propagated by The John Birch Society) as superfluous because such explanations are not needed to understand the growth of mysticism/collectivism.

Dennis:

Out of curiosity, are you asserting that all of the alleged negative conspiracies asserted by the John Birch Society, do not exist?

The John Birch Society defines a conspiracy as "...when two or more people work in secret for evil purposes."

And, that they believe this definition "...fits a number of groups working against the independence of the United States. Extensive study has shown us that history is rarely accidental."

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

Out of curiosity, are you asserting that all of the alleged negative conspiracies asserted by the John Birch Society, do not exist?

The John Birch Society defines a conspiracy as "...when two or more people work in secret for evil purposes."

And, that they believe this definition "...fits a number of groups working against the independence of the United States. Extensive study has shown us that history is rarely accidental."

Adam

Adam,

I don't know enough about the current theories being put forth by the Birchers to say one way or the other. Clearly, people do work in secret for political purposes all the time. History is replete with assassination plots, to cite an obvious example.

Not all such conspiracies are eviI, of course. (Think of the number of lives that might have been saved if Tom Cruise had managed to knock off Hitler. :laugh: )

I simply regard all such conspiracies as inconsequential over the long-term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers. Being a left leaner I tend to subscribe to this theory myself.

Placing Randians in the same category as conservatives is itself an error. Unless you define "right" as "anything that isn't the left."

That said, there are tons of leftist conspiracy mongers. Pretty much anyone from the left that discusses the "Kochtopus" fits into the category, as are those that go on about "the financial elite" (big nameless 'elites' who are postulated to be in control of everything but with no real suggestion about the nature of this elite...).

Conspiracy theories are a bipartisan phenomenon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers. Being a left leaner I tend to subscribe to this theory myself.

Placing Randians in the same category as conservatives is itself an error. Unless you define "right" as "anything that isn't the left."

That said, there are tons of leftist conspiracy mongers. Pretty much anyone from the left that discusses the "Kochtopus" fits into the category, as are those that go on about "the financial elite" (big nameless 'elites' who are postulated to be in control of everything but with no real suggestion about the nature of this elite...).

Conspiracy theories are a bipartisan phenomenon.

Andrew.

Correct! Human phenomenon actually.

Adam

Masonic member of the biggest conspiracy of them all, but damned if I know what the hell it is,... and I am a Mason!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In recent decades conspiracy theories have been more a left-wing than a right-wing thing. The Kennedy asassination. H. L. Hunt, the vast right-wing conspiracy, the neocons and the Koch brothers are all cases in point. A thought occurred to me a few years ago that I later read in The Economist: conspiracy theories play to whoever is on the losing side of history, because they offer a more palatable explanation than believing that one's ideas have been discredited or that one has failed to sell them. Fifty or sixty years ago this applied to conservatives, but today it applies to socialists, welfare-statists and corporate-statists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I think that people see patterns of behavior and, rather than attribute that to natural tendencies in human nature, they assume a malignant force behind it. It's understandable - people similarly see the world and assume a creator. There's no reason (generally) to assume malevolence when ignorance will suffice. :)

Of course, "ignorance" didn't kill JFK - that was the Federal Reserve. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assassination of a U.S. president is no joking manner.

As has been pointed out by others, “conspiracy theory” is, in Objectivist parlance, an anti-concept. It’s a package deal designed to obliterate the legitimate distinction between rational and irrational analysis of a crime.

Besides being called a “conspiracy theorist” usually anyone who doubts an official story is accused of being “crazy” to boot, which again in Objectivist parlance is the fallacy of Argument from Intimidation.

Ayn Rand herself recognized at least two crimes that the powers that be label “conspiracy theory”: (1) F. D. Roosevelt’s deliberately leaving the Pacific Fleet vulnerable so that something like Pearl Harbor was inevitable and he could use it as an excuse to convince a peace-loving people to enter Europe’s war. (2) Private industrialists’ financing and construction of Soviet Russia’s industrial base.

You’ll find more government corruption -- as in gangsters -- than you could read about in a month at:

Government Corruption

Kurt Haskell and the Underwear Bomber

Rodney Stich, former federal agent

Mark

www.ARIwatch.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers. Being a left leaner I tend to subscribe to this theory myself. From what I have read and heard about Ayn Rand, as well as from her own writings, my impression is that she acknowledged coincidence and accidents, but distrusted deeply the idea that they influence events more than the intentional concerted actions of motivated collectivists, mystics etc..

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

I think it depends on what you label a conspiracy theory. Do unfounded fears of the power of corporations/big business count? How about non-scientific predictions of human-caused environmental catastrophes? How about the belief that white men have all of the power and have the goal of waging a "war on women" and keeping members of other races down?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a general view that conservative, right-leaning thinkers are more susceptible to conspiracy theories than their opposite numbers. Being a left leaner I tend to subscribe to this theory myself. From what I have read and heard about Ayn Rand, as well as from her own writings, my impression is that she acknowledged coincidence and accidents, but distrusted deeply the idea that they influence events more than the intentional concerted actions of motivated collectivists, mystics etc..

This has some relevance to the politics of today, as Ron Paul's association with Alex Jones will probably soon get the MSM treatment.

What U think?

I think it depends on what you label a conspiracy theory. Do unfounded fears of the power of corporations/big business count? How about non-scientific predictions of human-caused environmental catastrophes? How about the belief that white men have all of the power and have the goal of waging a "war on women" and keeping members of other races down?

J

"All the conspirators save only he,

Did that they did in envy...

He only in a general honest thought

And common good to all, agreed with them..." with apologies to the Immortal.

I suppose all acceptors of c-theories consider themselves the "only he". I think I can consider the histories of race and gender relations, and the various outcomes in our own time, while knowing that all white men are not conspiring to rape or enslave me. I think I can try to learn about climate change while believing that all scientists are not conspiring to subvert their profession and lie to me. But in some quarters I would always be labelled the deluded dupe of drooling despots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhat related, an enthusiastic variant on the race wars narrative is being received currently on, where else, SOLO. The originator is one Mr Desai, a surname of the ancient Hindu top caste of scholars (Brahmins). Aryans anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SOLO: Sense of Life Objectivists, another discussion board, like this one -- well, not like this one at all... I could tell the tale, and maybe I will. They are actually SOLO PASSION. SOLO split into two different boards about five years ago. One side became Rebirth of Reason RoR. The other became SOLO Passion.

Do you know any other Objectivist discussion boards? Have you been to Objectivism Online or Rand Fans or Noodle Food?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ayn Rand was a conspiracy theorist. She believed Stalin deliberately starved millions of people to death. That would qualify the mass starvation as a conspiracy.

If someone like Alex Jones had been living at that time and tried to tell the people of the plan for mass starvation, he would have been just a conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theory would have been rejected for a bunch of reasons:

1. Such a big plan could not be kept secret.

2. Your own government would not do anything so evil. How dare you!

3. Various ad hominem attacks on the Alex Jones type guy, attributing motives, psychoanalyzing him.

All those arguments would be just as valid then as they are now.

But Agenda 21 and Codex Alimentarius are not theories; they are documented UN plans. Anyone with a computer and an internet connection can access the documentation (not to be confused with opinions about it). Ignorance is choice.

Perhaps the best way to keep something secret is to put it in plain view of the world but make it so evil that few people can wrap their brains around the magnitude of the evil.

Agenda 21 and Codex Alimentarius are everything Objectivism is opposed to - on steroids. And worldwide. And there is no escape, at least on planet Earth. May you die well, like a Klingon warrior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now