Det Kristian Jensen burde have sagt om Robin Hood...

Dette sagde han. Dette burde han have sagt:

“… I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.”
“What man?”
“Robin Hood.”
…
“It is said that he fought against the looting rulers and returned the loot to those who had been robbed, but that is not the meaning of the legend which has survived. He is remembered, not as a champion of property, but as a champion of need, not as a defender of the robbed, but as a provider of the poor. He is held to be the first man who assumed a halo of virtue by practicing charity with wealth which he did not own, by giving away goods which he had not produced, buy making others pay for the luxury of his pity. He is the man who became the symbol of the idea that need, not achievement, is the source of rights, that we don’t have to produce, only to want, that the earned does not belong to us, but the unearned does. He became a justification for every mediocrity who, unable to make his own living, has demanded the power to dispose of the property of his betters, by proclaiming his willingness to devote his life to his inferiors at the price of robbing his superiors. It is this foulest of creatures – the double-parasite who lives on the sores of the poor and the blood of the rich – whom men have come to regard as a moral ideal. And this has brought us to a world where the more a man produces, the closer he comes to the loss of all his rights, until, if his ability is great enough, he becomes a rightless creature delivered as prey to any claimant – while in order to be placed above rights, above principles, above morality, placed where anything is permitted to him, even plunder and murder, all a man has to do is to be in need. Do you wonder why the world is collapsing around us? That is what I am fighting, Mr. Rearden. Until men learn that of all human symbols, Robin Hood is the most immoral and the most contemptible, there will be no justice on earth and no way for mankind to survive.”

Det er selvfølgelig Ragnar Danneskjöld, der har æren for ovenstående passage fra Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged. Skal jeg vælge mellem helteskikkelserne fra bogen, er han sandsynligvis min yndling. Den primære årsag til dette er, at han GØR noget. Noget der for nogle faktisk kan lade sig gøre i den virkelige verden.

Kristian Jensen gør det ikke. Han siger det heller ikke. Og han er muligvis den af os, der har den mest oplagte mulighed. Istedet vil han "redde" Robin Hood. Han har selv forelsket sig i redder-mentaliteten, som myten foreskriver og venstrefløjen forguder. Men han begår nøjagtig den samme fejl: Han gør det ufortjent og på andres bekostning.

Robin Hood ville ikke være venstremand, som Kristian Jensen tror. Han ville være Danneskjöld. Han ville ikke være politiker, han ville være en handlingens mand. Han ville ikke leve et dobbeltliv, hvor han sagde ét og gjorde et andet.

Hvis Kristian Jensen virkelig ville vinde sin kamp for den ægte Robin Hood, er der kun én eneste ting, han burde at gøre. Han burde gøre som Danneskjöld.