Add a Comment   Up to OJB's Blog List

Second-Handers

Entry 2416, on 2025-10-31 at 18:55:25 (Rating 2, Philosophy)

Ayn Rand is a controversial figure in the area of politics and philosophy. She was an American (originally Russian, which is undoubtedly significant) novelist and philosopher, who created a philosophical system (or ideology if you wish) called "Objectivism". One of her novels, "Atlas Shrugged", has a reputation for being like a starting point for extreme libertarianism.

Wikipedia sees it as work of mystery, science fiction, romance, and philosophy, so it is not a simple novel to categorise. It is also one of the longest novels in English at well over 1000 pages, and contains a speech by the main character which itself is about 100 pages long. And yes, I have read it (I have previously discussed it, with a mixture of positivity and negativity, in "Atlas Yawned" from 2012-11-30, and "Greed is Good" from 2012-11-20).

The book was surprisingly entertaining and I read it before I "converted to libertarianism" myself, so I wasn't necessarily convinced by all the concepts presented there. Of course, I'm not convinced by all the ideas presented anywhere, then or now, which ironically is something Rand would probably have approved of.

Which brings me on to the reason for this post: the importance of individuality. Here's a quote from Rand about what she calls "second-handers"...

They have no concern for facts, ideas, work. They're concerned only with people. They don't ask: "Is this true?" They ask: "Is this what others think is true?" Not to judge, but to repeat. Not to do, but to give the impression of doing. Not creation, but show. Not ability, but friendship. Not merit, but pull.

At this point you should be able to see how this fits in with my beliefs regarding personal autonomy, freedom of thought, and rejection of ideology. I often criticise people, especially those I consider "woke" as having no original thought and just saying what they think they should to enable virtue signalling with minimum effort.

So when I see protestors, especially young people, waving their meaningless signs and chanting cliched slogans I immediately see them as "second-handers". They aren't revealing their own thoughts, they are parroting what they have been told they should think.

Here are some examples...

Pro-Palestinian protestors commonly chant "from the river to the sea", but when asked about that many of them cannot say which river or sea they are referring to. And for those who do know, they often fail to realise they are effectively calling not for a "two state solution" but for the elimination of Israel giving a one state solution: just Palestine.

Clearly these idiots have put no real thought into what they are protesting about, and are simply saying what they think they should, so they appear to others as being "on the right side of history" (a phrase which I have said before shows they are talking about ideology, not facts).

And how much thought has gone into the protest actions of groups like "Queers for Palestine"? Do they know what fundamentalist Islamic regimes do to anyone with alternative sexuality? If they don't, how can they be so ignorant; if they do, how can they be so hypocritical to support a regime which would not allow them to live?

And then there's our old friends, the climate protestors. They want to dispense "climate justice" and avoid a "climate crisis". As soon as you see these emotive terms being thrown around you know you're being gaslit. These people have no clue about the genuine facts and what might be effective in reducing CO2 emissions, or even if they can realistically be reduced at all.

In many protests I have seen participants being interviewed and asked to explain the meaning of their placards, only to admit they can't, and just collected them from a pile provided by the protest organisers. They are so obviously second-handers.

Finally, what about those who would like to censor what others have to say. A common excuse for their excesses I see is that "free speech has consequences". By this they mean that personal abuse, cancellation, and sometimes physical force are all justified if you say something they don't like.

Well, OK, I can accept that free speech has consequences, but I would like to think those consequences are exposure to a diversity of ideas, fair and reasonable debate of different perspectives, and the possibility of changing your or your opponent's mind. I hardly think being fired from your job, or enduring verbal or physical abuse, or even being assassinated (like Charlie Kirk was) is a reasonable consequence.

Where would this idea end? If I see someone waving a sign saying "from the river to the sea" is it OK for me to grab it off them and smack them over the head with it? After all, they exercised free speech and it has consequences, doesn't it?

Before I end this post, I do have to say that some people in the groups I have listed above are reasonable and are thinking for themselves, but I believe the vast majority aren't. They are the victims of political expediency, of social contagion, of manipulation by corrupt pressure groups. They are the second-handers.

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.