Do They Know It's Randmass-Time At All?

So often we have been told, by people who should and obviously do know better, that Objectivism is a 'cult' or 'religion'.
To believe in a religion of any sort, one must first undergo a conviction by-pass, a short circuit of neuronic association, which literally means that the subject is in possession of beliefs which are beyond all evidence and discussion.
But in the case of a religion, these beliefs must necessarily have come about through random, revelatory means, the acquisition of the belief system being a complex descent from an initial premise or position which is held above all conviction-based argument.

The only similarity between Objectivism and religion, therefore, is that Objectivists will certainly believe truths which they do not regard as open to discussion, and it is this outward similarity that might lead to foolish, or even culpable, attempts to label Objectivism a religion.

The similarity, however, is only outward.
Recognising that you can only displace the depth of human influence that religious fundamentalism arrogates by countering with an equivalent depth of reasoned conviction, Objectivists maintain an impervious zeal which is yet not zealotry.

This is the crux of the matter; to millions of people who have since the earliest age been pressured into a conviction by-pass, that is, being taught to accept as an article of faith things which are really counter-intuitive, the step to replacing one set of articles with another is like throwing a switch; the load doesn't change, only the direction of the current, and these people are not Objectivists, despite their outward conformity to a system of truths.

What makes an Objectivist an Objectivist is the recognition that nothing is to be believed unless it is true.
Which is definitely not an excuse for equally religious persecutions of those around them to 'expose' the underlying lies(which are created by that persecution like a self-fulfilling prophecy).


So, to ask an Objectivist whether he or she believes in Randmass should be nothing more than a mildly amusing irrelevance; a militant ideologist Objectivist might see in this a method in the (presumed) struggle to influence the world.
But obviously such a person would be more of a communist than an Objectivist, since they would be making the effect on others the central motivation of the action.

Indeed, it might be said that any private group of private people gathered for the purpose of the expression of truth was more objectivist than any person or persons who simple rote-recite Ayn Rand's works.