Objectivists Divide Over Trump

As early as middle school and certainly by high school, I noticed I’d have these gut feelings and anger well up inside of me when certain teachers taught. But at that time, I couldn’t always put my finger on why. I’d often overhear Michael Savage’s voice on the radio while my dad was cooking dinner, explaining current events. Then I remember listening attentively to my dad’s interpretation of what my teachers said at the dinner table. Finally, after discovering Ayn Rand and her work, I had answers to all my gut feelings. I found the individual, the “I” that was me, and the liberal ideology that possessed many of my teachers.

Objectivism gave me the oxygen I needed amidst the barrage of confusion, trolley problems, anti-reality, magical, supernatural, illogical thinking washing over me from all sides of my higher education. She showed me that life doesn’t have to be complicated, with one tragedy inevitably following another because man has original sin. She revealed that focusing on reality and the truth will allow me to create the life I want to live, one that increases my happiness.

I truly wish that Ayn Rand was still alive today because I’m having that same gut feeling again without the answers and it is all over: Donald Trump. There is this growing rift between what seems to be the scholars at the Ayn Rand Institute and other outside Objectivists. The scholars seem to hate Trump while the outsiders tend to love him. It’s like watching my parents divorce all over again. Most of my close family and friends love Trump. But every time I listen to another ARI podcast or see a post on X from someone heavily involved in ARI, all I hear are negatives about him and my stomach squirms.

I should note, however, that endorsing a specific political candidate does not make you an Objectivist or not. It is when you agree with her four basic pillars of Objectivism and its overall goal that makes you one, so really this should not give people a reason to drop a philosophical label that they want to carry.

If Ayn Rand was here today, I believe that she would surprise the people at ARI and give a clarifying answer as to why Trump is not Hitler but now an American icon. I say this with the deep conviction that the only person left on this earth to have spent the most time with her when she was alive and named him her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, stated at the end of a video in 2020 that “I wanna add one sentence: I am voting for Trump. That’s it. Okay. […] I’m not arguing, but I heard somebody say, ‘No Objectivist would vote for Trump.’ And I’m still steaming over that, so I’m tryin’ to publicize the fact that whoever said that is crazy.” Please read the comments to this video that I’ll link below to read who may have been the one to say that if you’re curious. I will not be bringing in any ARI-related people’s names into this video. However, I believe that ARI cut the end of this video section off. Now, I understand that they as a nonprofit cannot and will not endorse a particular candidate, but they could have left Peikoff’s commentary in. To me, it is a huge slap in the face to the creator of the Institute itself. He’s not old and losing his mind, like Biden.

Not to mention that Peikoff is the very man who wrote the DIM Hypothesis, which sends out the warning call about our country falling into religious totalitarianism and, yet, he does not view Trump as that exact type of threat that the Democrats are pointing to. That should tell Objectivists something. Trump has never seemed that religious, which is precisely why he chose Pence as his vice president back in 2016 in order to win the vote of the evangelical Christians. Now, if this was all about Pence running, who talked about god every time he opened his mouth, then I’d be more worried.

I think that Ayn Rand is much more conservative, at least morally, than many modern-day Objectivist intellectuals are acknowledging. Remember her scenes in Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, where the male lead is always sexually dominant over the submissive female? Remember how she said that no woman would even want to be president because she wouldn’t have a man to look up to? Remember how she had a distaste for feminists even back then? Rand certainly has articles or statements about the border and immigration and abortion that are considered anti-conservative stances today, and she makes that known, but to talk about those topics constantly as if those political policies made up the entire system is foolish. The same goes for placing a spotlight on sexism and racism. Ayn Rand wrote one essay on the topic and moved on. She is not like the tribal leftists of today who are making those topics the central theme of their entire lives, a religion. Conservatives do not want the propaganda shoved down their throats anymore.

In a recent ARI podcast, the hosts do not call this a right or left issue but a pro-Enlightenment versus an anti-Enlightenment one. While I believe that is true, I also can see how the right tends to be more pro-reality than the anti-reality liberals in this day and age. As long as the religious right is able to keep their god in the sky and not affect those of us on earth, I see no real threat from that side. Whereas, the liberals are actively attempting to change our language, utterly obscuring it with made-up terms and pulling statistics out of nothing in order to alter what is right in front of them: reality. For example, they refuse to acknowledge that a child with XY chromosomes is a man and XX chromosomes is a woman. They refuse to admit that communism in any form will never work based simply on human nature. They refuse to see that the nuclear family is the best way to raise children. I do not get these ideas from god but from observing other people and animals. Nature guided Darwin just as well back then as today. There are natural laws set in place, and the only way to ever attain true happiness is to adhere to those laws. That’s why we exercise, eat a healthy diet, brush our teeth to avoid decay. Therefore, I see the left as a much larger threat than the right.

Sure, when you just watch the news, you see tribalistic and often idiotic things said from both sides, but they are anchors breaking real time news with very little time to think or a long time to elaborate, that’s how you get sound bites. There has always been this kind of “yellow journalism” or bickering in politics—that’s just the nature of the game. But if you talk to the men and women who are not in the spotlight, they all are bringing more than just “tribalistic views” to the table. I have seen people talking about what our founding fathers wanted for this country and others who still take the time to reread the Declaration of Independence—true patriots are to be found in this country and they hate to see the American culture damaged by anti-reality groups. It is these patriots who are bringing their morals with them to vote for Trump—you will just not hear it on the news. I think many scholars are simplifying the real cultural issues at stake here, perhaps because they are surrounded by an echo chamber of their friends and not out in the middle of the noise like I am. There is a way of life that many Americans feel they must protect. I’ve seen the “trad wives” on social media and the conservative men who just want to live out in the prairie in peace—without any news or politicians in sight. There is a culture of family first still left in America, of parents responsibly shaping the next generation, which is being incessantly chiseled away at by the left. That is the threat. Trump may be their antidote to the “woke virus.”

ARI always points out that we can’t be proponents of a negative, such as atheism. And yet, all I’ve heard are negatives on the state of the world and the people running it from the Institute lately. What happened to that moral spirit that Ayn Rand could conjure up and lighten an entire room with? Unfortunately, one thing that scholars do to language is beat it to death and then suck out every last ounce of emotion left for the reader or listener. It is also very easy to stay morally “pure” as a scholar in their tower while a presidential candidate is meant to represent the voice of an entire nation. Trump must be open to hearing and helping all different kinds of people.

Yes, I think the first election cycle around, he was on the defensive and his method was to resort to childish name-calling. I don’t think his speeches were focused enough and they did sound very pragmatic, as if he had no philosophical stance. However, even an older man can learn. I, along with the world, have watched Trump learn, mature, and grow into the leader we see today. That was proven on July 13, 2024, when the twenty-year-old loner, who probably was just severely depressed and not particularly politically motivated, got up on that roof and took a shot at the former president.

If that were me up on that stage I would have screamed, peed myself, and cried running off with my Secret Service agents (and, yes, I will grant you that I am a woman who is currently pregnant), but still I would have been petrified. Instead, here we see a man raise himself up with a sense of defiance and anger written all over his face. This was not a “marketing moment” as someone (who shall not be named) said about him. This was the face of a man asking openly, “How dare you try to extinguish my life? A life that I have made and poured all my values into it. I will fight, fight, fight for my right to live.” He was a man in those first shocking moments, not just a presidential candidate. And I do believe that Ayn Rand would have seen that heroic picture of the blood on his face and the flag waving proudly behind him with a tear in her eye. I do not believe that she would have skeptically rolled her eyes, called him a narcissist, and yawned about how he is so lost in himself that he knew this would become a historic picture moment for himself. It’s that kind of attempt at character assassination that makes my gut hurt (and, again, not just because I’m pregnant).

In the days following, Trump has not taken the time to even digest what happened, but the look on his face at the Republican National Convention was different. Being directly shot at and nearly killed, and acknowledging that fact, changes a man. You could see it on his face. There is trauma there. But the liberals will call him “weak” and “elderly looking” and “tired.” No, he is a man with growing pains, a man beginning to understand that people believe in him, a man who cannot let them down no matter what.

Trump is coming out as more moderate too these days. Supposedly, he has left abortion out of his conservative party stance. Now, perhaps this, again, shows that he is a pragmatist or “has no ideas,” but he may also just be listening to the middle of his base. Trump wants to unify the American people together, as long as we are all moving in the right direction, toward reality and not away from it. One president is not going to be able to turn all of America into Galt’s Gulch overnight. That’s a fantasy.

Go with me for a moment on a trip to the future. Perhaps borders are still needed right now until we all become one global country, essentially. I see it already happening with all our translation apps and social media since I can easily communicate now with people from all over the world regardless of the language barrier. Foreign nations have been for a while now learning English as their second language, and I foresee that everyone will because it is a mongrel language anyway, with many of its roots coming from other cultures.

The news is international at this point and there will be no stopping it now. The longer we have the Internet, the more integrated everyone will be on this planet. Someday, I think we will all simply become the human race with the individual as truly the smallest minority. Cultures will become a thing that historians study and people engage in just for fun and entertainment. The further along science gets to answering our deepest questions, the more religion will atrophy, and nations will become less and less dissimilar.

A free market working on an international scale would bring all of us up and perhaps Bryan Johnson’s message of “Don’t Die” might finally be the only mission we all have. But until then, there are terrorists and criminals and even cultural differences that still make borders something that every nation desires. Until new generations are raised in similar environments, we cannot have the free-for-all that we in the West, at least, desire. Religion (the kind found on both the right and the left) has, can, and does still kill.

This brings me closer to one of my final points: I think it’s absolutely offensive that people are calling it “an act of god” that Trump survived when a rally attendant was shot to death just behind him and two others severely injured. Was Corey’s life less worthy of living? Would his daughters rather have kept their dad alive or Trump? Did god ignore Corey to shine his light on Trump? No, this was pure luck.

Let’s say I took Pascal’s wager seriously, which allow me to remind my audience is “the argument that it is in one’s own best interest to behave as if God exists, since the possibility of eternal punishment in hell outweighs any advantage in believing otherwise.” Let’s say I was wrong. Then I’d be banished to hell, along with all the other wonderful people who have walked this earth and questioned and maintained their goodness, like Ayn Rand herself and, yes, even Donald Trump.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phxhzlWsl0o&ab_channel=AdamSmasher; https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803100308948#:~:text=Pascal’s%20wager%20the%20argument%20that,any%20advantage%20in%20believing%20otherwise.; https://www.radiohalloffame.com/michael-savage; https://theobjectivestandard.com/2016/11/ayn-rands-intellectual-development/;
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Donald-Trump/images-videos; https://courses.aynrand.org/people/leonard-peikoff/; https://aynrand.org/novels/; https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/new-ideal-from-the-ayn-rand-institute/id1515023771; https://www.vox.com/culture/360711/trump-fist-pump-photo-explained-expert-media-savvy-politics; https://abc7.com/live-updates/rnc-2024-donald-trump-makes-appearance-on-day-1-of-the-republican-national-convention-in-milwaukee/15060290/; https://x.com/bryan_johnson/status/1788256385224024236; https://conflictedcollegechristians.wordpress.com/2013/01/22/pascals-wager/

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Race and Gender Do Not Matter

I would like to open this piece with two different excerpts:

Here is the first one:

The bond between husband and wife is a strong one. Suppose the man had hunted her out and brought her back. The memory of her acts would still be there, and inevitably, sooner or later, it would be cause for rancor. When there are crises, incidents, a woman should try to overlook them, for better or for worse, and make the bond into something durable. The wounds will remain, with the woman and with the man, when there are crises such as I have described. It is very foolish for a woman to let a little dalliance upset her so much that she shows her resentment openly. He has his adventures–but if he has fond memories of their early days together, his and hers, she may be sure that she matters. 

And here is the second one:

You are part of my existence, part of myself. You have been in every line I have ever read, since I first came here, the rough common boy whose poor heart you wounded even then. You have been in every prospect I have ever seen since – on the river, on the sails of the ships, on the marshes, in the clouds, in the light, in the darkness, in the wind, in the woods, in the sea, in the streets. You have been the embodiment of every graceful fancy that my mind has ever become acquainted with. The stones of which the strongest London buildings are made, are not more real, or more impossible to displace with your hands, than your presence and influence have been to me, there and everywhere, and will be.

The first excerpt is from The Tale of Genji by Murasaki Shikibu, which is widely considered to be the first novel in the world. The author lived from around 973 to 1014 or 1025 CE, and the book was written between 1000 and 1012 CE.

Now, the second excerpt is from Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, who is a more modern author of novels. The author lived from 1813 to 1870 CE, and the book was written in 1861 CE.

One was written by a Japanese woman living in the Heian period (or the High Middle Ages in European history).

The other was written by an English man living in the Victorian era.

Besides languages changing and translations done, are either of these texts unintelligible? Is there any sense of loss in meaning or emotion across time? Does understanding cease with one being from another race or gender than our own? No, no, and no again.

People today are falling into the tribalist trap. Just because you are, let’s say, a young Hispanic woman who has not seen a flash drive or a cassette tape outside of museums, does not mean that you cannot read a book from any time period and empathize with that writer. That is truly the magic of literature. Modern people can still have a dialogue of sorts with other people who have long since gone back into the earth, regardless of skin color or gender. It doesn’t matter! What literature does is bring honest thoughts to the fore.

Still unconvinced? Let’s take another example. But, first, let me warn you that these images may be a bit too graphic for some viewers as they are of real human cadaver arms. I recently came across the Institute of Human Anatomy’s YouTube channel, and in a couple of their videos, they go into the complex anatomy of the human hand.

Can you tell what race either arm is? Neither could I. The screenshot on the left is of a black man and the one on the right is of a white woman. Race is not a scientific concept but simply a social one. Even Shakespeare points this out in The Merchant of Venice when Shylock says, “If you prick us, do we not bleed?” We all migrated out of Africa and have not had that much time to evolve, so there is only a superficial difference between us based on environmental factors (that is only 0.1% of our DNA). Underneath our skin, we look the same. An apt Ayn Rand quote from The Virtue of Selfishness deserves its place here: “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man’s genetic lineage—the notion that a man’s intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors.” She also famously says in her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, that “[t]he smallest minority on earth is the individual.”

The same thinking goes for sexism. Like many other people I’ve heard speak on this subject, I was one of those tomboy girls. I wore jeans and a T-shirt for my entire academic career. I found that these clothes were the most comfortable to live in because that way my outfits didn’t distract away from my studies. Did I think I was attracted to girls because of the way I dressed? No. Did I feel like I was in the wrong body because of it? No. I really did not feel “feminine” until I started having sex. Being with the opposite sex made me feel more submissive and I fit into the other half of the puzzle piece well. The bond between a man and a woman does feel very natural. However, all that time beforehand was purely a time for the mind to grow without restraint. In today’s day and age, my education was not withheld or manipulated to be on a different level or about different subjects from the boys. I learned about anything and everything I could (and I still am today). All of that to say, sex does not, nor should it, play a role in the education of a child.

The human mind is our tool of survival, and there is no race or gender divide that can stop us from using it and communicating our thoughts clearly with one another. There is no “separate reality” or “my truth.” There is no “black perspective” or “white perspective.” There is no age too old or young to understand one another once language is attained and maintained. There is no beauty standard that makes us unable to speak to each other. There is no reason a man cannot explain something to a woman and vice versa.

The only difference to be found concerns varying cultures. While Ayn Rand talks about culture as “not the anonymous product of undifferentiated masses, but the sum of the intellectual achievements of individual men (The Virtue of Selfishness),” I do think that there can be bad cultures that uphold negative things as values.

The battles of ideas and values play out in various cultures, but most of them sink and only a few of them swim over the long term. For example, history proves to us that killing off a group based on superficial reasons causes war and loss and suffering. The culture quickly forgoes that as a value once they lose the war. A culture centered around gang violence and stealing from stores only tears down its followers and destroys itself from the inside out. But a culture where individual happiness is the focus provides people with diets and exercise plans and enlightenment ideas. There are numerous examples I could run through concerning what makes up a good culture versus a bad one, but I do not have time for that here. Come up with your own. What divides us, at least in first-world countries today, is not race or gender but a culture war where tribalism is rearing its ugly head.

I am here to remind you that race and gender do not matter. Period. Stop listening to the news that is telling you otherwise. Stop teaching students that there is a veil between us that separates our “realities” and our “truths” from being acknowledged by “the other.” Stop saying that this group can’t be held accountable because of the color of their skin. Stop whispering the things that should be said aloud. Stop playing the victim and remember that there is only one race: the human race.

***

Links: https://www.amazon.com/Tale-Genji-Penguin-Classics-Deluxe/dp/014243714X/ref=asc_df_014243714X/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&psc=1&mcid=adaf1d9913d1301d99b5adca204c77c3&tag=&ref=&adgrpid=79744846988&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvadid=353567357648&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=261658845120380685&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9018402&hvtargid=pla-433833151184&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIzt_m_vH2gwMVySitBh3w8gDmEAQYASABEgJdE_D_BwE; https://www.amazon.com/Great-Expectations-Barnes-Noble-Classics/dp/1593080069; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y69D76RdMs&ab_channel=InstituteofHumanAnatomy; https://www.amazon.com/Merchant-Venice-Folger-Shakespeare-Library/dp/0743477561/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2IMMOBYCCR9BS&keywords=the+merchant+of+venice&qid=1706129264&s=books&sprefix=the+merchant+of+venice%2Cstripbooks%2C122&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2R0VQVTO930S9&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1706129274&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+%2Cstripbooks%2C108&sr=1-1; https://www.amazon.com/Capitalism-Ideal-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451147952

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

Victimization Risks, Murder, and How to Morally Judge an Individual

I have said before and will continue to say that the less you focus on reality, the more compounded your problems become. The police are familiar with what is called “victimization risk,” which is when an individual is engaged in lifestyle choices that may lead to a higher likelihood of a crime being committed on that person. For example, when an individual works as a prostitute and walks the street alone at night looking for customers, they are engaging in activities where there is a high victimization risk to them. It is not “blaming the victim” but understanding the reality of that person’s choices. What comes with being aware of reality and surviving another day as a human being is a code of rational ethics. Therefore, that prostitute should lower her risk by going out with a buddy at night or leaving the business entirely in search of a new, less risky line of work. Their chances of surviving another day increase when mitigating and rational actions are taken. An individual who locks their doors at night is engaging in low victimization risk behavior and, therefore, making the rational, moral choice.

We must use this type of moral judgment properly based on a person’s actions. I believe that is what is attracting so many people nowadays to Dr. Grande’s YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande). He is a mental health counselor who has taken an interest in analyzing criminal cases and their outcomes. He looks at each context like a rational juror and tries to make sense of the seemingly senseless violence a person commits. It is not just another true crime channel but one where the “why” that everyone so longs for is answered to the best of his ability.

We should all aspire to understand people in the way Dr. Grande does because we certainly all have the capacity to understand, empathize, and analyze each other’s actions through moral judgment. In fact, I believe that more people could prevent crimes if they only knew how to judge a person’s actions properly because, unfortunately, by the time the law intervenes, they can only look at the actions of a person after their morality has thoroughly disintegrated. I believe it is often too late to change a person once they have committed a serious crime. They needed moral guidance or help long before they thought of committing any kind of wrongdoing.

As a bit of an aside, the writer Dostoyevsky has one of his characters, from The Brothers Karamazov, say that “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted.” He believed atheists would murder without a second thought, unlike his conscience-stricken Raskolnikov character in Crime and Punishment who “finds God” in the end. But this is entirely false. This abstract thing we call conscience is what keeps us from crossing the line drawn in ethics between good and evil. We would all feel as guilty as Raskolnikov for killing a person with or without god. Our desire to survive and thrive keeps us from murdering each other. A rational morality keeps us from destruction.

It is in this spirit of moral judgment and admiration for Dr. Grande’s work that I am presenting an essay I wrote the day after Elliot Rodger on May 23, 2014, killed six people and injured fourteen others. He shot, stabbed, and ran over with his vehicle as many people as he could find in what would later be named the “2014 Isla Vista killings,” forever labeling him as an infamous mass murderer. He left a YouTube video of his own titled “Elliot Rodger’s Retribution” and a long manifesto called “My Twisted World: The Story of Elliot Rodger,” both of which I have seen and read and have linked down in the description section. And so without further ado:

***

My Thoughts on the CA Mass Murderer, Elliot Rodger

[Note: This article is not meant to sympathize or place the predator’s life above those of the victims. To all of those involved in this tragedy, I hope that this psychological look into the murderer’s past will prevent instances of this happening again in the future.]

The first thing I dared to watch was Elliot Rodger’s final video. In it, he struck me as just a kid trying to build himself up as a tragic anti-hero. He was lost in a story concocted by his own mind, and that was what made me want to research this horrific tragedy. Since that final video, I have read the 140-page long manifesto and watched the other YouTube videos he had posted before the final one. These were all highly disturbing, and I think that many of my conclusions do not include the fact that he did have Asperger’s syndrome. Asperger’s syndrome is clear here with his unusual facial expressions, his difficulty socializing, and his apparent lack of empathy. However, that does not excuse his violent outburst on the evening of May 23, 2014.

The philosopher, Hannah Arendt, wrote about the Eichmann trial that occurred in the 1960s. Eichmann was hired by the Nazi Party in Germany, and he was given the task of deporting all of the Jews—he sent hundreds of thousands of Jews to their deaths. People called him “evil” and a “villain,” but once Arendt began studying this wrinkled, pathetic old man—she coined the phrase, “banality of evil.” This phrase meant that Eichmann was really just a dumb, dependent, title-obsessive man. He was a cog in the machine, but a deadly one. Eichmann did not think that he was responsible because he truly believed that he was just “following orders.” Arendt believed that this weasel was telling the truth. Therefore, at the time, she did not believe that people were “radically evil”—that they were not born evil.

After researching this case, I have come to the conclusion that this was a broken boy. He lived his life on a “6th grade loop” which continuously played until he went to stop it by force. Even his manifesto is written at about the 6th grade level, albeit with a few “new” vocabulary words included toward the end. But his ideas are especially childish. He was given everything, and when he wasn’t, he would have temper tantrums.

Elliot Rodger was an irrationally selfish, materialistic, dependent child. If any of you have ever read Ayn Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, this child was a real Peter Keating. He built up absolutely no self-esteem whatsoever, and therefore, his ego (the “I” part of him) was nonexistent. This set him up for disaster.

He blames his parents for this, and so do I.

Parents are the most influential beings that a person can have—they tend to make or break the future adult. These parents did not give him a set of moral values to live by—and religion does not even need to factor in here. Learning philosophy is invaluable because it makes you question and reassess all of your most basic premises. You think logically and fix any emotionalist responses to rational concepts. This child needed a philosophy lesson badly.

Elliot Rodger emphasizes how much he was “living in the moment” and so thoroughly enjoyed his childhood, that when he was rejected by the outside world—he threw yet another tantrum…this time with tragic consequences. This could have been prevented had he been raised right—not by several nannies and several new houses, regardless of his Asperger’s syndrome.

This behavior was chosen, this is not an issue concerning his Asperger’s (although a symptom can be obsessive behavior, like the one he had toward objects, women, and difficulty socializing). But that cannot cause violence, and his premises were all wrong. The violence stemmed from a lack of knowledge. This is what Hannah Arendt and Ayn Rand meant when they both wrote about how “evil” occurs. It happens when people become irreparably broken. It happens when parents neglect their children emotionally and do not teach them about virtue. It happens when they are given everything, up until they hit the “real world” where they have to fight for survival. Capitalism forces men to prove themselves. It is the ultimate “Alpha Male” system which this child could not win—and so he tried to take it away from others.

Again, for those of you familiar with Ayn Rand’s character, Peter Keating, Peter quickly worked his way up the career ladder by stealing, looting, robbing other people, and passing their work off as his own. He was labeled a “second-hander” who took from the “first-handers” or else he would throw tantrums, similar to Rodger’s. In the beginning, he is hailed as the best architect in the country, but by the end, he is a miserable, broken, and “evil” man. This is the story of Elliot Rodger, who laughs at “the irony of the world” and feels holier-than-thou without any reasons to back up his premises.

But do not call this child a “madman”—he was a person robbed of morals. A madman is someone who is incomprehensible, someone who cannot go from Point A to Point B. That is a madman. This is someone who grew up in a surprisingly ordinary way (besides having a famous father). He talks about movies that all kids from the 90s have seen and video games that we’ve all played at some point. And even his concerns in middle school were shared by many other lonely kids at the time (myself included). But we saw ourselves as better than those who were considered “popular.” We had our set of values and we strived to achieve success, while the “popular kids” tended to fail. We grew up and moved on—allowing ourselves only to find better, more worthy people to include in our lives. But this child got caught in it, and would not budge until he got his way…

“I wanted to live in a world of fairness”—that is the common creed of the Communists and Socialists of our age, and that is exactly the creed that Elliot Rodger grew up living with. But that does not bring happiness. For material objects are not the ends, they are the products of a person’s labor. Labor is the means to get to happiness or living a good life—(if it is honest work, of course). But this boy was never taught that he had to work for his possessions.

Rodger then goes on and on for 40 pages in his manifesto about video games. This has been a controversial topic in many of these violent tragedies. But video games, in particular, seem to have destroyed many young people. However, I think it is important to note that his feelings began before ever playing a video game, but his situation grew exponentially worse when he was pretty much given free rein with these games during his adolescence. Parents need to watch what their kids are playing, watching, reading, and listening to because there is so much garbage out there today. In fact, in his manifesto, Rodger used video games as a way to fight the reality that he was facing. He used World of Warcraft as inspiration for his ideas of a “War on Women.” Elliot Rodger blurred games with real life because he was never taught the difference.

Elliot frequently uses the words “little,” “obsessed,” “weak,” “worthless,” and “starved” as terms of describing himself and his mental state. The kid never learned how to live on his own. He never was allowed to become self-reliant. He was extremely sheltered. “The more lonely I felt, the more angry I became,” he writes at one point. This is a typical feeling that “evil characters” feel before they lash out at the world. He was living out a fantasy storyline of his own—like when he wrote, “If I can’t have it, I will destroy it.” After that, sex became a negative thing for him and by 17 he wanted to outlaw sex. This means that for 6 years, he had been planning and plotting a way to seek revenge on others. There was no real instance where he “became a madman,” but a slow progression of events that were laid down on a boy without any moral guidance or principles.

On his “forced” plane trip to Morocco, Rodger decided that he wanted to die. That is the moment where he lost hope because he was never allowed to have any control over his life. He did not have any agency—no ego, no self-esteem—and this led him to the radical state that he worked himself up to in his twenties.

Movies and video games surrounded this kid, and he lived in a fantasy realm for most of his life. (And Soumaya, his stepmother, seemed to be the only adult capable of trying to teach Rodger something, albeit in the least effective way). Then, in his mid-teens, he turned to books, instead of thinking about his future and getting a job. These books provided him with the “anti-hero” type of mindset that he had always wanted, and he amateurishly clung to them.

By page 66 of Rodger’s manifesto, he begins using terms like “destiny” and “injustice” to prove that he was made by some “creator” to right all the unfairness that happened to him in the world. The amount of hate that he had for others was very high when he was only 18. He says at one point in his manifesto, “I am an intellectual who is destined for greatness. I would never perform a low-class service job.” But that is exactly the problem. A true intellectual or “great man,” as Aristotle discusses in depth, does not change based on external forces. The “great man” cares for a few things that bring happiness (eudemonia) to his life, and the rest is irrelevant. He has a proportionate amount of self-confidence, and he quietly respects himself for the virtues that he has learned over the years. This sentence is yet another temper tantrum, only in adult form, but it renders him more of a child than anything. Elliot Rodger was not an intellectual, but a bitter fool—a frustrated and miserable Peter Keating archetype due to his parents’ neglect.

Rodger repeatedly asked his mother (and later on several more occasions) to “sacrifice her well-being for the sake of [his] own happiness” by marrying another rich man. Elliot’s hope was only reignited when he thought that some base exterior change could fix all of his moral problems—only to be dismayed once again…and again…and again. This child calls his mother “selfish” for not remarrying into a rich family—when what he really is saying is that she is not “sacrificing” herself for his needs. She is not giving up her life for him. She is not being altruistic because that is a vice (read Ayn Rand’s The Virtue of Selfishness for more).

And yet, his “selfish” mother continued to support him and told him he had a talent for writing. But his motive from the beginning was to get rich quick off of his “bestseller” books, and then maybe girls would like him. This motivation never works. He didn’t even mention that perhaps some girl would like him for his talent to produce something of his own, proving just how lost he was. Elliot considered himself to be talentless and fervently refused to work or produce anything at all that would have given him some kind of value. Rodger continues to write in his manifesto that he “deserves” things when, in reality, he does not. Rodger did not earn (nor try to earn) a single thing in his life. He was never taught that money could not solve his problems. Money is merely another reward for the productive, creative thoughts that you make, but nothing more. Rodger looked to rewards as ends in themselves: money, girls, fame.

This kid never took the responsibility into his own hands of actually trying to change his life. He would pray to the stars and the universe, but never to himself and his own self-esteem. Rodger did not understand that money cannot replace moral values. Every time that he “actively” tried to change his life, he would never approach a girl or try to communicate with her. He made continual excuses due to his extremely low level of self-esteem. This isolated him further (not to mention looking for those bright and intelligent girls in all the wrong places). He writes at one point, “I was a ghost”—little did he know that he had died morally way before any of this took place.

He blamed society, not himself, for denying him pleasure. What a skewed view of reality is that? Rodger had to try to open himself up to new experiences. If people aren’t worth your time (usually the “popular kids”), then don’t even bat an eyelash at them. Focus on the positives.

Currently, in the media, he is being called racist, sexist, entitled, elitist, spoiled, and these labels are true. He had attacked groups because he lacked an ego of his own. He was shaped by groups himself. He didn’t know what being an individual entails. Rodger may have said to himself that he was special, but he didn’t really know what he was, besides what others said of him. Elliot Rodger was an altruist, a self-loathing looter who lived with an “anti-life” mentality. For by actively rejecting sex, he accepted death.

He could not be fixed after he grew up without any value-based foundations.

By page 87 of the manifesto, Rodger openly declares that he believed he could kill another man. He had prepared himself mentally, and truly felt “worthless” at this point. You see, there was no “snap in his mental state.” Rodger had been boiling over since his temper tantrums at the age of 3. This child never grew up, and could not handle living alone. His parents are to blame, just as much as he himself is to be blamed.

He was so completely self-absorbed without having a real “self.” I have heard people use the term “narcissist,” which may be the correct term because it has such a negative connotation with it. However, “rational selfishness” is not a bad thing, according to Ayn Rand (again, read The Virtue of Selfishness). There is an important distinction to be made between those who do things to promote their own happiness and those who are hurting others in order to obtain some unidentified fantasy.

On page 101 of Elliot’s manifesto, he mentions explicitly that he wanted “revenge.” At the age of 20, Elliot Rodger declared that he was done with hope and expecting things to change. He understood that he was living in a vicious cycle, but he didn’t understand why. It is here that he also begins talking about his “Day of Retribution.” He had been slowly concocting this plan for over a year. This was premeditated mass murder. Someone at any point could have stopped this, especially his parents. Yes, his parents did hire a few psychiatrists toward the end (according to Elliot), but it was already too late. His plan was already in action.

Rodger notes that, at first, he felt sick at the thought of holding a gun and possibly using it in his plan, which means that he had a conscience. By page 109 of the manifesto, he decided to plan out a “mass murder.” He felt compelled to do it because he was so focused on himself and what his world led him to. Rodger did not care about the world outside of his own narrative (he never mentions 9/11 or the war in Iraq), and that was a major mistake.

Elliot Rodger did not have a “twisted world,” but a “twisted logic.” He thought that Point A (money) would lead him to Point B (girls) which would equal Point C (“peaceful revenge”). If that line of thought did not work out, then he was a worthless outcast, and a loser, which could only equate to violent revenge in his mind.

There is a particularly female-hating passage on page 117 of Elliot’s manifesto, where he “comes up” with this “original” idea that women are like a plague that needs to be controlled and quarantined. This is where many people say that he is a “misogynistic psychopath.” However, he seems to be placing all of his frustrations on females, (even though he seemed to have a pretty good track record with his grandmothers and mother). He was venting his hatred for all of humanity onto a particular group, and once again—just as Hitler did with the Jews—it’s called selecting a scapegoat.

Rodger believed that his act would cause some tremendous change, but it didn’t. Instead, his case was added to the growing pile of an increasing problem concerning mass murderers in this country. He was not philosophically learned or intelligent to any degree, because the first thing that educated people do is think. Rationally. But Elliot Rodger behaved in exactly the same way that he claimed girls were by “behaving irrationally.”

One important idea that should be pointed out is the religious undertone that his manifesto espouses. He wanted to play god, but he also referred to the sex that people had as “heavenly” and that he was living in “hell.” Although he doesn’t seem to be very religious, this Judeo-Christian view of the world was ingrained in his perspective of it.

Elliot claims toward the end of his manifesto that he never lost that last flicker of hope—he thought that in some miraculous way, he could be saved—but it was all too late without him even realizing it.

“Give me, give me, give me” was this child’s war cry. It was just another tantrum…but it hurt so many. Rodger felt entitled, as many people have been stating. He was not “a madman,” but a kid who grew up without any values, and after a series of circular events—he concluded that man is evil. His last straw was in Santa Barbara.

Elliot Rodger professed himself as a “god” and as the “good guy” and wrote that “Finally, at long last, I can show the world my true worth” as the last line in his manifesto—but the thing is, he never had any worth.

***

Links: https://www.youtube.com/@DrGrande; https:www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLLy1Awig0E&ab_channel=IntoTheFireTrueCrimeStories; https://schoolshooters.info/sites/default/files/rodger_my_twisted_world.pdf; https://www.amazon.com/Virtue-Selfishness-Fiftieth-Anniversary/dp/0451163931/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1YXNM861KJ1O4&keywords=the+virtue+of+selfishness+by+ayn+rand&qid=1700164079&s=books&sprefix=the+virtue+of+sel%2Cstripbooks%2C178&sr=1-1

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.

“Nobody’s Perfect” and Other Garbage Idioms

Everyone always says “nobody’s perfect” to somehow arouse in you the feeling of freedom to experiment or try something uncomfortable. But I’m sick of that cliché. Why use the word “perfect” in such a way that is untouchable? Language, after all, is made by humans for humans. You are a human being—you have to learn and try things. That is perfection in my book. Human beings are not static. Nor do we reach a kind of state of perfection like the Eastern mystics talk about. We live in a world of values that we have to choose every day. And I feel the same way about morality.

To be moral does not mean to be omniscient or all-knowing in order to be good. Another one of my pet peeves is when people say, “Morality isn’t black and white.” Well, Ayn Rand would tell you that it most certainly is. And here is how: It’s true that there can be some gray actions on a day-to-day basis. However, the culmination of those actions and the motivation behind each of them leads to being moral (good) or immoral (bad) as a whole person. An individual is made up of values, and those values can only be achieved and kept when they are identified and morally achieved. For example, if you want a greater sense of self-esteem, then you practice really hard to ace a test, truly learn the subject matter, and get that good grade. If you want to damage that sense of self-esteem, then you cheat on the test, not learn the material, but still get an A.

I have “made it.” I am happy. I have a wonderful, supportive husband. We hope to have our own children soon. I have a beautiful home to live in. I have fresh food and water to eat and drink. I am almost thirty and healthy in body and mind. Yes, I may want an updated wardrobe or neighbors that weren’t living so close to us, but that’s just “icing on the cake.” They are wants and not necessities. How did I get here? Was it hard? Was I ridiculed? Yes…but that is, unfortunately, what it takes today when you choose to be good.

I spent most of my time in school refusing sexual advances, avoiding physical fights, and not attending parties where I knew that drugs might be involved. Instead, I spent my waking moments attentively in the classroom, ferociously reading at home, and eventually finding school friends whom I could readily learn with and be around. Once I graduated, I found myself in my first normal nine-to-five job as a receptionist. And that is when my moral choices became more complex. After the first year or so, I began to get fidgety, then I started to resent my job. I felt like I woke up there and fell asleep there most days, especially on those cold, dark winter months… I learned the ins and outs of the job by that point and I needed to move on. I should have moved on earlier, but the “golden handcuffs” of the money were on. So, I began to search out innocuous things on the internet at work when no one needed my assistance. I started with taking typing tests and then searching for other types of work, all reasonable things, in my mind, to look up within the framework of my receptionist job. I was making myself better for the job at hand—continuous training, I told myself. But then I landed on the idea of transcript proofreading from home. From home…oh how I missed my haven of books and culture and not having a long commute shoved in a public bus with everyone else who worked in the city. I stayed sardine-shaped at work, my spine poking out through the skin to shield myself from the outside world.

Soon enough, I was sitting at my desk in another place entirely. I was no longer just the receptionist but a proofreader-in-training. Whenever my time was freed up, I was on their computer taking tests, learning about frequently confused homophones and transposed words. I printed off pages to work from since I didn’t have a printer at home. But the slope got more slippery in my head. I faked smiles and laughs and worked just enough to squeak by. And then I began to feel guilty. I was now having to make choices that left me either feeling used by the company or ashamed. These were some of my thoughts (see if you recognize some of these daily compromises you make in your job): Well, my boss didn’t tell me I’d have to stay this late, so I deserve the ten cents worth of paper. Or, this client on the phone was angry with me for no reason, so I should get an extra five minutes to eat my lunch today. Or, X always gets in late, so I’m going to arrive late just for today. And these kinds of calculations were constant. It was as if I was on this endless tightrope between making moral and immoral choices. Their policy was clear about not doing personal work during business hours, which probably included taking their paid-for paper and ink, taking extra time off, and arriving late. I knew what I was doing, but my own unhappiness made things seem even…fair.

I should have left earlier than I did, but I waited until I finished the proofreading program and started building up my business so that I no longer had to make tough and often poor moral decisions every day that I could feel were progressively eating away at my soul. I missed feeling the simplicity of just saying no to things in school and then following the schedule that was set by my parent and teachers. I no longer had that option. Life as an adult was my own, and I needed to spend my time wisely, make up my own schedule, and end up a lot happier than I was feeling in those days. As soon as I had a few clients under my belt, I resigned from my position.

Not everyone needs to quit their jobs and work for themselves. I’m sure there are plenty of people who love their jobs and are challenged enough on a daily basis to not start feeling resentful. But the moral degrees game, I believe, is very present in the “corporate world” today. Thankfully, when we do not cloud our emotions with drugs or alcohol, we have an easier time getting a clue about what we are doing—not only to the company we may work for but to ourselves. If you feel bad at the end of the day, then how have you spent it? Have you made compromises all day that only attacked your self-esteem and, thereby, your long-term happiness?

We are not static creatures. Every day we make moral choices, but we can make them easier or harder to choose. For instance, brushing your teeth comes automatically now since we’ve been doing it since childhood. Yet, it is an act of choosing life. You are taking care of your oral health to live another day healthy on earth. You have the option to skip it and risk cavities and all the deterioration of the body that follows, but that by definition is immoral since Ayn Rand states that “Life or death is man’s only fundamental alternative. To live is his basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, then a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course” (Philosophy: Who Needs It?). A dead man doesn’t need morality.

So was I behaving poorly in my receptionist job? Toward the end, I would say yes, I did immoral things. However, it was the good, moral choice that made me resign and not continue to suck off the money teat forever while just giving the minimum of my efforts to my job. I regained the tarnished bits of my self-esteem by leaving and venturing off on my own. Do I make “easy” money now? No. Do I make as much money yet? No. But am I happier? Yes. Am I still perfect after learning from such an experience? Yes.

We all live atop the scales of justice until our final breath is taken. There are days we will make mistakes and there will be repercussions. But we must have the courage to address the emotions that come with an immoral decision in order to be good. Clouding, hiding, submerging those feelings and the reality of the situation, which, sadly, so many adults do who don’t understand the way out, can only lead to the destruction of the soul. Bad, immoral, imperfect people are those who know that what they do makes them feel awful, they may even know it is immoral, and continue to do it anyway—in the face of reality. They refuse to change when all evidence suggests they must do so to continue living. They begin to become walking billboards for death, not life. Forget brushing my teeth, forget clocking into work on time, forget keeping my child fed, forget that the gun is going off into an innocent person’s body because life has no meaning for me. I am the absence of life now; I am death. It is not an irrational spiral that stirs people on the outside to shout “Madman!” It is a man who has lost his sense of morality and progressively allows the disease to weaken his values down to dust.

I believe that most people are good, perfect beings who would benefit from more of a culture that advocates paying attention to our emotions—not hiding them. They can oftentimes help detect a bad decision before reason can come in to explain. Books, especially literary fiction, are also saviors for their honest look into people’s good and bad decisions and the outcomes they face from them. I believe that morality can be learned and a good, perfect person should be open to its serious study. They will learn that there are varying degrees of values on a person’s set of priorities, and the more attuned they are to them, the happier they will be with a clearer vision of their goals in life. Perfection is all about making mistakes and learning from them. That struggle to understand cause and effect is what makes man quintessentially human.

***

Links: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com; https://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Who-Needs-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451138937

_____________________________________________________________

Views Expressed Disclaimer: The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the postings, strategies, or opinions of American Wordsmith, LLC. Please also know that while I consider myself an Objectivist and my work is inspired by Objectivism, it is not nor should it be considered Objectivist since I am not the creator of the philosophy. For more information about Ayn Rand’s philosophy visit: aynrand.org.