Is It Time to Shrug?

Roger Bissell · November 2, 2008

Henry Mark Holzer (Ayn Rand's attorney back in the 1960s and 1970s) says yes! Here is a brief announcement/essay from Holzer's web site. (Henry Mark Holzer) He sounds like he's worn out (perhaps stressed out from seeing our culture going down hill so badly) and ready to retire to a more serene existence. I don't blame him!....reb

===============================================================================

TO A SELECT GROUP OF FRIENDS, ACQUAINTANCES AND OTHERS:

At the end of this month I will celebrate my 75th birthday. During my three-quarters of a century our country has gone from the 1930’s “Great Depression” to 2008’s politically-caused financial/economic debacle.

At the time of my birth, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” ushered in programs which were the antithesis of the principles upon which the Constitution of the United States of America was based: individual rights, limited government, free markets and national sovereignty.

The founding principles were replaced with collectivism, statism and internationalism (an across-the-ocean version of statism) epitomized by bigger and bigger government which, despite ebbs and flows over the years, has grown so large that today a virtually admitted socialist, Barack Obama, is on the edge of becoming President of the United States.

Obama has accomplished this by cobbling together a coalition of racist Negroes, brainless youths, America haters, hard leftists, frightened investors, scared retirees, anti-Bush Republicans, mainstream democrats, suicidal Jews, anti-war activists, rank opportunists, corrupt politicians, crypto socialists, and unprincipled media. (Some have the dubious distinction of fitting into more than one category.)

Obama’s success, the enablers who have made that possible, and the reasons for their enablement are not a pretty story. But that doesn’t mean that’s what has happened to our beloved country is unintelligible.

On a strictly political, not philosophical, level, Dennis Prager’s recent article “There are two irreconcilable Americas” (Jewish World Review, October 17, 2008) goes some of the way to explaining what has befallen the United States of America.

Prager’s thesis is that “[f]or the most part, right and left differ in their visions for America. . . . Right and left do not want the same America. The left wants to look as much like Western European countries as possible.” Prager goes on to illustrate his thesis using concrete examples that are now commonplace. Then, he makes an essential identification:

The left subscribes to the French Revolution, whose guiding principles were ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.’ The right subscribes to the American formula, “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.’ The French/European notion of equality is not mentioned. The right rejects the French Revolution and does not hold Western Europe as a model. The left does. That alone makes right and left irreconcilable. (My emphasis.)

Although they are irreconcilable, often admirably, about concretes (e.g., abortion, gun control, strong national defense), sadly left and right are too reconcilable philosophically (i.e., that rights are not inherent in human beings, but come (or not) either from society (left) or from God (right).)

It pains me to say that the roots of the right’s core philosophy are planted in the same soil as the left’s, and are fed by the same collectivist, statist, internationalist toxins.

What does all this have to do with me?

During my seventy-five years I have been a child, student, soldier, lawyer, writer.

And as a soldier, lawyer, writer, I did my best to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, and the principles in which it was rooted: individual rights, limited government, free markets, national sovereignty.

In recent years, especially as a writer of books, articles, essays and reviews I have tried to defend those principles.

But recently I realized that, at best, I have been preaching to the converted (a guess, because I rarely heard from them) and that the unwashed could not have cared less.

No more.

My most recent article, “Barack Obama is No Patriot,” is the last of my writing I will make public on legal, political, cultural, economic or related subjects. Writing on these topics is no longer in my best interests.

My decision is firm. There are no appeals.

I value those of you have appreciated my work in the past, and will not soon forget the many kinds words you have had about it.

As for Erika and me………….figuratively, if not yet literally, we’re heading for Galt’s Gulch.

Selene · November 2, 2008

The simple answer is yes and way past the time, but most "Objectivists" talk the talk, but have all the "it was only a novelic <[might be a new word]device excuse for not walking the walk.

Adams

Barbara Branden · November 2, 2008

The simple answer is yes and way past the time, but most "Objectivists" talk the talk, but have all the "it was only a novelic <[might be a new word]device excuse for not walking the walk.
Adams

Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why many people don't agree with you before you condemn them as hypocrites? (I should make a recording of this thought, so I won't have to keep retyping it.)

Barbara

Brant Gaede · November 2, 2008

Well, he either took it down or you gave the wrong link or it wasn't meant for general public consumption.

If he still lives in Santa Fe he's not far from Galt's Gultch aka Ouray, Colorado. Probably overrun by Obama supporters now.

I think it's right to strongly bring back "selfishness" since Obama wants to know about its "virtue"--or does he? Maybe Rand's intransigence is the right approach after all. That'd require the Objectivist definition.

--Brant

Alfonso Jones · November 2, 2008

Well, he either took it down or you gave the wrong link or it wasn't meant for general public consumption.
If he still lives in Santa Fe he's not far from Galt's Gultch aka Ouray, Colorado. Probably overrun by Obama supporters now.
I think it's right to strongly bring back "selfishness" since Obama wants to know about its "virtue"--or does he? Maybe Rand's intransigence is the right approach after all. That'd require the Objectivist definition.
--Brant

It was up there, at that link. It has been moved (as of this moment - just checked) to

http://www.henrymarkholzer.citymax.com/miscellaneous.html

Bill P (Alfonso)

Selene · November 2, 2008

The simple answer is yes and way past the time, but most "Objectivists" talk the talk, but have all the "it was only a novelic <[might be a new word]device excuse for not walking the walk.
Adams
Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why many people don't agree with you before you condemn them as hypocrites? (I should make a recording of this thought, so I won't have to keep retyping it.)
Barbara

My apologies. Not calling them hypocrites at all. I have fluctuated between vanishing and building businesses and raising a family. However, with perfect hindsight, I should have vanished November 7th 1964. The overall handwriting was on every wall I encountered and I kept re-reading it at the college level as a teacher, as an administrator in City government and as a citizen being productive and being penalized for productivity. Certainly, there were short periods of semi-sanity governmentally, but the "Ellsworths" just continued to encyst themselves at the central core of education, the courts, the arts and sciences until the tipping points kept presenting themselves.

I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara.

Adam

kiaer.ts · November 2, 2008

Roger, is Holzer's original post not available?

Alfonso Jones · November 2, 2008

Roger, is Holzer's original post not available?

Yes, it is. Just scroll up to my post about two posts above yours. Then, click on the link there. The post is there. (YOu will have to scroll down a couple of screens to get to it...).

Just checked again,

Bill P (Alfonso)

Roger Bissell · November 2, 2008

Sorry for the confusion--and thanks, Bill, for putting up the actual link to the essay.

When I put up the link for the web site, I was just doing it for everyone's general convenience, so they could start from the Home Page and peruse all the interesting stuff HMH has there. I'm sorry that anyone thought the link was intended to take them directly to the essay. I had no thought that anyone would want or need to "check on me" to see if I had done it accurately. I hope that was not the case, but I do realize that, in this day and age, you shouldn't be too trusting. :-/

And as to when it is appropriate to shrug, I had never considered that it might be appropriate to do so in the 1960s, so I was somewhat shocked to see Adam suggest that he should (perhaps?) have done so then. When I read Atlas in 1966, the main impression I got of its truth to reality was how accurately and sharply she had portrayed some of the evil I had experienced in people around me. I didn't then sense that the world was disturbingly, threateningly like the world of Atlas. That has all changed. In borrowed Pentacostal terms, it "feels to me" like we may well be "living in the End Times." I certainly hope not...

I hope that many strong pieces will be written about Obama's attack on "selfishness" (not wanting to pay higher taxes) and his call for a "new Bill of Rights" (to include economic rights). I intend to write one for the Orange County Register yet this evening, and I will share it here when it's finished.

REB

Brant Gaede · November 2, 2008

The simple answer is yes and way past the time, but most "Objectivists" talk the talk, but have all the "it was only a novelic <[might be a new word]device excuse for not walking the walk.
Adams
Don't you think it might be a good idea to find out why many people don't agree with you before you condemn them as hypocrites? (I should make a recording of this thought, so I won't have to keep retyping it.)
Barbara
My apologies. Not calling them hypocrites at all. I have fluctuated between vanishing and building businesses and raising a family. However, with perfect hindsight, I should have vanished November 7th 1964. The overall handwriting was on every wall I encountered and I kept re-reading it at the college level as a teacher, as an administrator in City government and as a citizen being productive and being penalized for productivity. Certainly, there were short periods of semi-sanity governmentally, but the "Ellsworths" just continued to encyst themselves at the central core of education, the courts, the arts and sciences until the tipping points kept presenting themselves.
I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara.
Adam

Oh, government gets bigger and bigger and more and more degenerative. Finally it all collapses. After Obama, if we get him, will come a fascist reaction and eventually the U.S. will end up like Argentina. After the parasites kill off the hosts they'll die off too. The trick is not to be a host. Viscerily I still like the Daddy Warbucks template. An international man if there ever was one. Much more dynamic and efficacious than John Galt, tinkering with his motor in Galt's Gultch. JG didn't start being heroic until the bad guys got their hands on him. Francisco had it all over Galt the human God. The problem with being a man-worshipper is the man invariably defaults into being a man. Then things, in real life, can get complicated if not delusional. Personally, I'm a human being admirer, most particularly of competence and ability. Integrity is much more elusive for me for it devolves into morality and morality is something you use to control yourself and others and others are trying to do the same to you within the common social dynamic. Usually they are just trying to rip you off with their altruistic allusions and political facts and taxes even sending you to jail or the slavery of national service or defrauding you into indebitness. That is why the economy is going to hell: The slaves are waking up and walking away from their financial "obligations." Why not? The government is sending their money--taxes and inflation--into the banks' back-door while the banks are taking their money in mortgage payments on over-valued properties the banks lent freely for in the first place. You see, the banks have no integrity, only smiley faces at the door. The politicians have none either, but they smile too. Nobody better than Obama. But they expect you to have what they lack and keep the racket going. But if you lose your job you'll soon stop paying off your credit card debt with its 23% interest rate. The world-wide empire of debt is being destroyed and that destruction has only just begun. That destruction will be propelled by both necessity and increasing anger--and eventually into war, I'd bet, if the political interference with freedom continues--and I don't mean that little thing going on in Iraq.

--Brant

Edited November 2, 2008 by Brant Gaede

Roger Bissell · November 2, 2008

Here's what I plan to send to the Orange County Register, after running it by my wife in the morning:

A Letter to the Editor of the Orange County Register:

On Oct. 28, (soon to be President?) Barack Obama told us that he wants a second Bill of Rights, an economic Bill of Rights, that will guarantee the "right" to a job, to a house, to medical care, to education, etc. Unlike the rights guaranteed to us in the original Bill of Rights, these new, distinctly Marxist (take from those who have to give to those who have not) "rights" are to be provided at the expense of the taxpayers--by borrowing to be repaid by future taxpayers and by higher taxes paid by those of us who Mr. Obama thinks make too much money.

And what if you object to Mr. Obama's proposed tax increase for those making over $250,000 a year (or is it $200,000 -- or $150,000 -- or $120,000), and you would rather keep more of what you earned and decide for yourself how it should be spent? Then you aren't being "neighborly" or "patriotic." Even worse, you are being like John McCain and Sarah Palin who, Mr. Obama says, in best scary fashion on Oct. 31, are trying to make a "virtue out of selfishness."

Actually, though, I think Mr. Obama is onto something there. Could he perhaps be referring to Ayn Rand's book of essays, The Virtue of Selfishness, which defines man's true individual rights and explodes the destructive notion of "economic rights" and explains how your life and the fruits of your labor belong to you, not the government? The same Ayn Rand who compiled a book of essays, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, one of which decried the Federal Reserve System as "putting a penny in a fuse box," and others written by Alan Greenspan, who later turned traitor to the most important things he learned from Rand and accepted control over our nation's money supply, generating a number of economic dislocations and crashes.? The same Ayn Rand who in 1957 wrote Atlas Shrugged, which sounds eerily like the America of today? Yup.

As I say, I think Mr. Obama has put his finger on a vital issue, the need for new rights to be recognized (though his proposals are 180 degrees in the wrong direction), and I don't think that Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin go far enough. Selfishness should not be just a virtue, but a right. To make it more palatable for the faint of heart, we could call it the right to "freedom of generosity," but the point is this. For the same reason that the Bill of Rights guarantees us the freedom of religion -- i.e., the freedom to choose when, how, toward whom, and even whether to be respectful and reverential toward our ideals -- we should be guaranteed the freedom to choose when, how, toward whom, and even whether to be kind and generous toward those in need.

Is it selfish to want these freedoms? You'd better believe it! Personal, individual freedom is a very selfish thing, as it should be. We need freedom from government coercion in order to live our own lives and enjoy the fruits of our labors in a social setting, and no one else can or should tell us how to do it.

Pretty selfish, all right. But consider the alternative. Is it right for the government to tell us when, whom, how, or whether to worship? Of course not. And for the same reason, it's not right for the government to tell us when, whom, how, or whether to be generous.

Neither generosity nor worshipfulness is genuine or moral when commanded at the point of a gun (which is the theocrat's and the tax collector's ultimate authority). No God deserving of reverence would accept coerced "worship," and no needy person deserving of help would accept coerced "generosity." Government mandated religion and welfare are both equally evil, for the same basic reason. Seeing how eager Mr. Obama is to institute the latter makes me wonder whether an assault on the First Amendment freedoms would be next.

My suggestion is for Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden to spend more time voluntarily practicing Christian charity toward the needy (including Obama's half-brother and aunt), and to allow the rest of us to do the same--as we see fit. They obviously are obsessed with the "mote" in the eye of their middle-class neighbors (that would be those of us making more than $250,000? a year), and cannot see the "beam" in their own rather well-to-do eyes.

Roger Bissell

Orange, CA

Barbara Branden · November 2, 2008

Roger, a brilliant letter! I especially like your suggestion for the right to "freedom of generosity," and the way you tie it to freedom of religion. And I love your concluding paragraph!

Barbara

Barbara Branden · November 2, 2008

Adam: "I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara."

You may very well be right, and in certain moods I think you are. Certainly, it does not appear promising. But notice that Oama did considerable damage to his campaign -- and perhaps gave the election to McCain -- when he spoke of "redistributing wealth," clearly revealing his Marxist credentials. Well, we shall see. But it's still possible to fight and to make one's voice heard. And as long as that is so -- to quote Rand -- "We can't give up the earth to all those others."

Barbara

Alfonso Jones · November 2, 2008

Adam: "I frankly believe that we will dodge another bullet this Tuesday, but the marxist pressure will continue at all levels. It does not appear promising Barbara."
You may very well be right, and in certain moods I think you are. Certainly, it does not appear promising. But notice that Oama did considerable damage to his campaign -- and perhaps gave the election to McCain -- when he spoke of "redistributing wealth," clearly revealing his Marxist credentials. Well, we shall see. But it's still possible to fight and to make one's voice heard. And as long as that is so -- to quote Rand -- "We can't give up the earth to all those others."
Barbara

We can certainly hope Adam is right. The polls appear to be quite volatile at the moment, and Obama is speaking more and more frankly in this last week about his collectivist agenda. Hopefully, the American public will respond to his increasing frankness with revulsion and a turning away from his agenda - but that still remains to be seen. Whether the American public is so terrified by the current financial situation that they cannot either see or think straight will be an important differentiator.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Paul Mawdsley · November 2, 2008

I think things are just starting to get interesting. As things start to reach points of crisis realities become clear. The truth about people's position come into focus. As the truth comes into focus we get to see beneath the covers and get a chance to make sense of the world anew. This is not a time to disappear. This is a time to point to the truth while it is exposed for all to see. The truth about how mistaken the vision of human nature, ethics and politics, that has shaped our political landscapes, is being exposed. We are seeing the ugly mess that has resulted from a distorted vision of reality. This mess will continue to grow to the point where it will break down. As it breaks down the causes will need to be identified clearly and marketed to the public at large. And a new vision will need to emerge.

Yes...It's just starting to get interesting...

Paul

Roger Bissell · November 2, 2008

I think things are just starting to get interesting. As things start to reach points of crisis realities become clear. The truth about people's position come into focus. As the truth comes into focus we get to see beneath the covers and get a chance to make sense of the world anew. This is not a time to disappear. This is a time to point to the truth while it is exposed for all to see. The truth about how mistaken the vision of human nature, ethics and politics, that has shaped our political landscapes, is being exposed. We are seeing the ugly mess that has resulted from a distorted vision of reality. This mess will continue to grow to the point where it will break down. As it breaks down the causes will need to be identified clearly and marketed to the public at large. And a new vision will need to emerge.
Yes...It's just starting to get interesting...
Paul

Amen, brother, amen!

It's amazing how similar the Obama candidacy is to the McGovern candidacy in 1972. Despite all the superficial differences, it all seems to boil down to a doubt as to whether they would protect us from our foreign enemies, and a fear that they will redistribute us into poverty and economic disaster.

When you have a chance, re-read Ayn Rand's monthly letters from 1971 and 1972 (not the book of her private correspondence, but her newsletter). Amazing stuff. Still vital and true today.

reb

Brant Gaede · November 2, 2008

I think things are just starting to get interesting. As things start to reach points of crisis realities become clear. The truth about people's position come into focus. As the truth comes into focus we get to see beneath the covers and get a chance to make sense of the world anew. This is not a time to disappear. This is a time to point to the truth while it is exposed for all to see. The truth about how mistaken the vision of human nature, ethics and politics, that has shaped our political landscapes, is being exposed. We are seeing the ugly mess that has resulted from a distorted vision of reality. This mess will continue to grow to the point where it will break down. As it breaks down the causes will need to be identified clearly and marketed to the public at large. And a new vision will need to emerge.
Yes...It's just starting to get interesting...

Interesting and horribly tragic. The human carnage will be beyond belief. And so unnecessary, even so near at hand.

--Brant

Paul Mawdsley · November 2, 2008

I think things are just starting to get interesting. As things start to reach points of crisis realities become clear. The truth about people's position come into focus. As the truth comes into focus we get to see beneath the covers and get a chance to make sense of the world anew. This is not a time to disappear. This is a time to point to the truth while it is exposed for all to see. The truth about how mistaken the vision of human nature, ethics and politics, that has shaped our political landscapes, is being exposed. We are seeing the ugly mess that has resulted from a distorted vision of reality. This mess will continue to grow to the point where it will break down. As it breaks down the causes will need to be identified clearly and marketed to the public at large. And a new vision will need to emerge.
Yes...It's just starting to get interesting...
Interesting and horribly tragic. The human carnage will be beyond belief. And so unnecessary, even so near at hand.
--Brant

The suffering is always tragic. I hate to see it. It is also what provides the impulse for change when people don't have a capacity for a clear vision of life based on projecting realities and positive potentials. The "human carnage" is unfortunately necessary. Most of the world is not able to find the truth via abstract reasonong or creative, systematic visualization. They need to be hit over the head with the truth. We are in the process of being hit over the head. Our world is in the process of learning some spiritual/philosophical lessons..."Take what you want...and pay for it!" Reality will unfold, the truth of bad ideas will be exposed, and there will emerge a space for new ideas to occupy. The bad ideas have to finish running their course for everyone to see them for what they are. You cannot skip a step in personal or cultural development. Our culture is evolving. Old structures, old ideas, old ways of being have to struggle and die before the space opens up for new species to take their place and evolve. This is the process we are witnessing, and have been witnessing for decades.

Paul

Philip Coates · November 2, 2008

**the issue of ‘shrugging’ and character**

> I have been preaching to the converted (a guess, because I rarely heard from them) and that the unwashed could not have cared less. No more. . . [a piece on Obama is] the last of my writing I will make public on legal, political, cultural, economic or related subjects. Writing on these topics is no longer in my best interests. My decision is firm. There are no appeals. [Henry Holzer]

What a sad, defeated, gutless point of view.

> He sounds like he's worn out (perhaps stressed out from seeing our culture going down hill so badly) and ready to retire to a more serene existence. I don't blame him!....reb

I do. How wearying is it, how much time does it take, does it put you in the poor house to speak on talk radio, write a letter or article? Do you relieve 'stress' if you turn a blind eye to bad trends? I'm sick of the pampered whining of well-fed, prosperous people complaining about being overwhelmed by 'stress' because they see negative trends.

Buck up. Fight on.

You [generic 'you' - not you personally, Roger] will not find serenity if you ‘shrug’ and simply stop protesting, speaking out in defense of your values and the ideal society and proper human relationships. Ayn Rand didn't give up and roll over. She never stopped speaking, never stopped fighting. To her last breath.

It is only appropriate to ‘shrug’ in a world like that of Atlas. And even that was fiction. Things had fallen so far that only what Holzer calls the “unwashed” existed, the world was full of people’s states, all the producers had been nationalized, etc. In other words, totalitarianism. Loss of any ability whatsoever to fight or be heard. Risk of death or ruin or the gulag. And even then . . .

. . . When I was in my early teens, the most inspiring book I read was “The Bridge at Andau”, the story of the Hungarian freedom fighters in 1956. Even with their bare hands, even in the face of a crushing military power and a secret police that was everywhere, they resisted and fought on.

Or imagine Howard Roark giving up when the ‘commanding heights’ of architecture were occupied by those who only wanted to see Greek columns on the top of thirty story skyscrapers?

Imagine Roark as Cameron.

Old. Tired. Defeated. Broken.

.........

I just realized there is actually often an issue of *character* involved in the unjustified propensity to shrug or bail out or shutdown or quit, not in the sense of acting directly morally or immorally and the seven virtues: Someone is not immoral or a bad, deeply flawed person because he is fatalistic (a factual conclusion) or believes he’s been clear and people don’t want to hear (a form of fatalism, another mistake) or exhausted (personal circumstance). Not exactly. But in another wider sense, character goes a bit broader than that list of virtues. (Although it does relate to integrity.) But that is a subtle distinction, for another writing.

Philip Coates · November 2, 2008

After writing the above, I took a quick look at Mr. Holzer's website. My criticism of shrugging and bailing out is in no way a criticism of his long past track record as a fighter, one who has written and accomplished much. Much more than most Oists.

Brant Gaede · November 2, 2008

After writing the above, I took a quick look at Mr. Holzer's website. My criticism of shrugging and bailing out is in no way a criticism of his long past track record as a fighter, one who has written and accomplished much. Much more than most Oists.

Mr. Holzer is NOT an Objectivist. He is a hard-assed conservative. If he had wanted an Objectivist audience he would have made himself available to Objectivist Web sites such as this one. I had no idea he was writing all that stuff. At 75 or any age he's entitled to do what he wants for reasons sufficient to him. I wasn't impressed with his chasing Jane Fonda around with that treason rationalization of his. There was no declaration of war against North Vietnam. LBJ was responsible for millions of deaths in SE Asia, especially Vietnamese and Cambodians. He should have written a book about that, the real de facto treason.