Do you think they are trying to throw Rand and Orwell in there to make them seem associated with these people so people willl vilify them too? I think some Neo-cons may have liked Rand a bit, and I know all the Objectivist groups suck shit and are warmongers, but I wouldn’t put Rand in there…
Nor would I. I don’t know all that much about her or the Randians really, but my understanding is that those who claim to be her followers now are much more like neocons than libertarians. There was a bit of overlap between the libertarians and neocons back in the day due to the ethnic and economic similarities of the movements’ founders (mostly lower and middle class Jews and Catholics) as well as certain areas of domestic policy.
Er, well, that’s what Angela told me and she was raised on that shit in New York.
Hey Scott, now that Ghouliania is out who is the Pod man supporting? Is he gonna be an advisor for the McCainiac?
Someone ought to take that cheesey Hall and Oates song from the ’80s “She’s a Maniac” and change the lyrics for the McCainiac. “He’s a McCainiac, McCainiac on the floor and he’s gonna bomb Iran like never before.” Damn, that song was cheesey.
Hey, did y’all catch this? I’m sure there’s much worse that happens everyday all over Amerika but it’s still damn infuriating. Look at what these pig bastards did
Was that Hall and Oates? I’ guess I can say I’m glad I don’t know who sings that, but, I’m still sad enough to know who Hall and Oates is…
As for your response to the book Scott, it looks like they are trying to throw many 20th century Jewish intellectuals together. I don’t know about the followers standpoint. Peikoff’s advisor at NY University was Sidney Hook, but that doesn’ really mean anything. But I wouldn’t agree about putting Rand into this.
I guess if you can consider Mises and Rand as Conservatives, but why? But then again, why consider any of these people as Conservatives? As for Objectivist followers, I would agree that some could be thrown in here, Objectivist Center, or Atlas Society or whatever the hell they are called now are pathetic. That Robert Bidonotto might as well be a full out NeoCon in my opinion, that guy makes me sick. Ayn Rand Institute also, that Yaron Brook is a piece of crap. But I certainly wouldn’t put all Objectivist in here.
I would like to know who are the major funders of these think tanks and insitutes, American Enterprise Institute, Reason, Cato, Objectivst Center etc. They all pretty much spouted the same line when the war was heating up.
Someone ought to take that cheesey Hall and Oates song from the ’80s “She’s a Maniac” and change the lyrics for the McCainiac. “He’s a McCainiac, McCainiac on the floor and he’s gonna bomb Iran like never before.” Damn, that song was cheesey.
That song your thinking of by HALL & OATES is MANEATER…..not Maniac….
Maniac was by Michael Sembello……for the film Flashdancer starring Jennifer Beals….
Also…..Bayard Rustin has nothing to do with the Neo – Con Movement…..He was with the Commies pre WWII but when they minimized their involvement in Civil Rights and concentrated their efforts on getting the USA into WWI – Bayard got PO’ed at the Stalinists…..that doesn’t make him a neo-con progenitor….
Dang stevec, I stand corrected. I think yer right although I think Hall and Oatmeal put it in one of their albums but maybe not. Anyway, you know yer ’80s crappola. I try to remember as little as possible from that suckey decade.
But since yer the Maniac expert why don’t ya create a McCainiac spoof of it. Something along these lines…
interesting that Wash Po does not name CIA though agency has been a big promoter in more than one ways of many of these characters .
but then pigs will fly before Wah Po has any meaningful and fundamental critique of empire’s organs .
I would also say I’m sometimes suspicious of books that say ” the jewish influence on this and that”
I.e- Freud and Marx are always some nice scapegoats on how the Jews were out to destroy the world
They leave out …
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Greek tragedy, Greek philosophy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau , Marquis de Sade, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Kant and god knows who else…
I always like to look and see how things influenced people along the way. This is why I like Leo Strauss even though I don’t agree with some of what he says or the nuts who are his “supposed” followers. But, he did a lot to get me more interested in Greek philosophy and this makes you want to go back and look into the different influences on philosophers and philosophy. In the end philosophy and political philosophy really can’t be seperated. If you begin asking questions about the nature of life and being, you will eventually come to political questions. Science too can’t be seperated from this. I also think it is good to ask the question ” Is Libertarian theory as put forth by Rothbard or Rand utopian?”
It is interesting that there really was no such thing as “Self” or conscious self in ancient greek thought.
Also, I sometimes find it strange when some people try to tie Aristotle with libertarian theory. I think we have to ask ourselves if Aristotle would really have gone for this, did he believe in equality, was it just that he was “prejudiced” and “blinded by his cuture”?
I personally think Aristotle and Nietzsche would be closer.
Although I have always been skeptical of Darwinism, a convincing argument could be made here for the Theory of De-Evolution with this group of knuckle-draggers.
I’m not very skeptical of Darwinism. In the animal kingdom there are lions, there are elephants, and there is T. gondii.
Organisms have apparently evolved with the capability of altering the behavior of the host such that the host behaves in a manner that is good for the parasite.
The Washington Post is an interesting paper, that’s all I have to say…I wouldn’t trust those people. (But then why trust any of the main stream newspapers) Some of the articles or even better, some of the ads that get in the Washington Post, you have to wonder about… and yes I would also say badri you are asking an interesting question…
Also, just for the record, I am a Libertarian, in the Jeffersonian sense. So I think it is the best form of government, the one thing I think will be an interesting issue for us humans as we go along though is technology. Will it make us better? Has it made us better? Could it even change our nature as human beings? Is it doing it now? Yes it is making our lives more pleasant, easy, pleasurable, and “livable”. All these are Epicurean arguments, what I want to know is… has it made us better as human beings?
Also, I fear what technology can do in the hands of elite, a small group of people can now control so many people through technology.
More off topic rambling: I have a big problem with many of the supposed libertarian economists today promoting positive liberty. I also grew suspicious of the Cato Insitute and Reason when I saw their banners flying on the Weekly Standard website, don’t know if they still are, but they were at one time.
I’m really amazed that this chart was published at all in the Washington Post! It is very comprehensive, even if the inclusion of Rand and Orwell is questionable. I always considered the WP to be in the same category as the NY Times or the War Street Journal. Perhaps they are a little bit better? This is not the sort of chart the neocons themselves would want to see published.
I understand Orwell was a socialist (But I think 1984 is a must-read for everyone — wouldn’t force it though). Rand certainly had disdain for libertarians — considered them all hippies. Rand also fell for Ronald Reagan as did many who considered themselves or pretended to be “conservatives”. I certainly did not consider Reagan an economic conservative — though in retrospect, he APPEARED to lean more in that direction than others in the major parties — he still spent way too much money on the military and other federal agencies.
Rand was oblivious to the effects of rising militarism (and “War Collectivism” to use a phrase Justin Raimondo used during the Reagan years) under Reagan would have on America. Apparently forgot the morals of her early works, or she was going senile. But her later works exalted the ultra-wealthy and disdained the little guy. Then it starts to become understandable why neocons and her followers would cozy up to one another. So the inclusion of her on the chart as an influence, while controversial, is arguable in its favor.
I think w/ Rand and Orwell, the inclusion is because these two (who saw Communism forst hand) became MILITANTLY anti – communist…..much the way a German Jewish late 1930is emigre (to America) may become an Uncritical Zionist……
The translation is a bit simplistic……Militant Anti Communist = Neo – Con…. for the Washington Post Article.
“Do you think they are trying to throw Rand and Orwell in there to make them seem associated with these people so people willl vilify them too? I think some Neo-cons may have liked Rand a bit, and I know all the Objectivist groups suck shit and are warmongers, but I wouldn’t put Rand in there…”
Yes, the official Objectivists might be warmongers but most objectivists (people influenced by Rand’s ideas) are people like me, who are usually anarcho-capitalists and paleo-libertarians, anti-war folks. Eastern establishment liberals love to hate Rand as soon as they hit 25. Like pot, no one is supposed to admit to it or her after that. The corollary is that everyone claims to love The Fountainhead including socialist douche, Angelina Jolie. Obviously, few who read it get the message since if they did, we’d be living in a very different world.
Doherty is reading everything about Whittaker Chambers. There’s a very twisted Burning Man connection…more to follow.
In case anyone wants to know why I broke my on line silence, read this thread on TWP. The same site in which a troll named “Itch” insists I’m a shemale.
george orwell, ayn rand? They left out thomas jefferson and Barry Bonds…
Do you think they are trying to throw Rand and Orwell in there to make them seem associated with these people so people willl vilify them too? I think some Neo-cons may have liked Rand a bit, and I know all the Objectivist groups suck shit and are warmongers, but I wouldn’t put Rand in there…
Hey man. How’s it going?
Nor would I. I don’t know all that much about her or the Randians really, but my understanding is that those who claim to be her followers now are much more like neocons than libertarians. There was a bit of overlap between the libertarians and neocons back in the day due to the ethnic and economic similarities of the movements’ founders (mostly lower and middle class Jews and Catholics) as well as certain areas of domestic policy.
Er, well, that’s what Angela told me and she was raised on that shit in New York.
But her as part of the origins of the neocon movement? I wouldn’t think so. I haven’t read the book though…
Hey Scott, now that Ghouliania is out who is the Pod man supporting? Is he gonna be an advisor for the McCainiac?
Someone ought to take that cheesey Hall and Oates song from the ’80s “She’s a Maniac” and change the lyrics for the McCainiac. “He’s a McCainiac, McCainiac on the floor and he’s gonna bomb Iran like never before.” Damn, that song was cheesey.
Hey, did y’all catch this? I’m sure there’s much worse that happens everyday all over Amerika but it’s still damn infuriating. Look at what these pig bastards did
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1yUsYIk2EM
yeh i saw that earlier, pretty rough going, the video looks like they’re about to rape her or something, sick bastards.
I hope Will Grigg does a piece on that.
Was that Hall and Oates? I’ guess I can say I’m glad I don’t know who sings that, but, I’m still sad enough to know who Hall and Oates is…
As for your response to the book Scott, it looks like they are trying to throw many 20th century Jewish intellectuals together. I don’t know about the followers standpoint. Peikoff’s advisor at NY University was Sidney Hook, but that doesn’ really mean anything. But I wouldn’t agree about putting Rand into this.
The book I link to below they even mention Mises:
http://www.amazon.com/Neoconservative-Revolution-Jewish-Intellectuals-Shaping/dp/0521836565/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202068111&sr=1-1
I guess if you can consider Mises and Rand as Conservatives, but why? But then again, why consider any of these people as Conservatives? As for Objectivist followers, I would agree that some could be thrown in here, Objectivist Center, or Atlas Society or whatever the hell they are called now are pathetic. That Robert Bidonotto might as well be a full out NeoCon in my opinion, that guy makes me sick. Ayn Rand Institute also, that Yaron Brook is a piece of crap. But I certainly wouldn’t put all Objectivist in here.
I would like to know who are the major funders of these think tanks and insitutes, American Enterprise Institute, Reason, Cato, Objectivst Center etc. They all pretty much spouted the same line when the war was heating up.
A couple other interesting resources:
http://www.amazon.com/Arguing-World-Alan-Rosenberg/dp/B0006Z2NKY/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1202069073&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Jewish-Century-Yuri-Slezkine/dp/0691127603/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202068671&sr=1-1
Someone ought to take that cheesey Hall and Oates song from the ’80s “She’s a Maniac” and change the lyrics for the McCainiac. “He’s a McCainiac, McCainiac on the floor and he’s gonna bomb Iran like never before.” Damn, that song was cheesey.
That song your thinking of by HALL & OATES is MANEATER…..not Maniac….
Maniac was by Michael Sembello……for the film Flashdancer starring Jennifer Beals….
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8292152942950833407&q=Maniac&total=18916&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
MANIAC
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7683015874653605358&q=Maneater&total=5162&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
MANEATER
Oh….. And I posted the prior comment BEFORE checking on youtube…..does that speak well of me…..or ill….
Oh, Phil…. What did you think of WWE wannabe Lessner being turned into a little bitch last night by a post – motorcycle accident Frank Mir?
Also…..Bayard Rustin has nothing to do with the Neo – Con Movement…..He was with the Commies pre WWII but when they minimized their involvement in Civil Rights and concentrated their efforts on getting the USA into WWI – Bayard got PO’ed at the Stalinists…..that doesn’t make him a neo-con progenitor….
Dang stevec, I stand corrected. I think yer right although I think Hall and Oatmeal put it in one of their albums but maybe not. Anyway, you know yer ’80s crappola. I try to remember as little as possible from that suckey decade.
But since yer the Maniac expert why don’t ya create a McCainiac spoof of it. Something along these lines…
http://voksprung7.blogspot.com/2007/07/video-spoof-hall-oates-maniac.html
I checked around the web and I see a few sights have Hall & Oates credited with this….so I’m thinking, maybe they wrote it and Sembello performed it….
So I Wikied it…… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_(song)
No, its all Sembello….. It really stood out in my mind…..because that was his one big fucking hit.
Hah! Stevec ya knew yer shit! And check these lyrics out from the original serial killer Maniac song at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maniac_%28song%29
He’s a maniac, maniac that’s for sure,
He will kill your cat and nail him to the door.
Dang it Stevec, there’s a McCain song in there fer sure!
interesting that Wash Po does not name CIA though agency has been a big promoter in more than one ways of many of these characters .
but then pigs will fly before Wah Po has any meaningful and fundamental critique of empire’s organs .
I would also say I’m sometimes suspicious of books that say ” the jewish influence on this and that”
I.e- Freud and Marx are always some nice scapegoats on how the Jews were out to destroy the world
They leave out …
Nietzsche, Heidegger, Hegel, Greek tragedy, Greek philosophy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau , Marquis de Sade, David Hume, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Kant and god knows who else…
I always like to look and see how things influenced people along the way. This is why I like Leo Strauss even though I don’t agree with some of what he says or the nuts who are his “supposed” followers. But, he did a lot to get me more interested in Greek philosophy and this makes you want to go back and look into the different influences on philosophers and philosophy. In the end philosophy and political philosophy really can’t be seperated. If you begin asking questions about the nature of life and being, you will eventually come to political questions. Science too can’t be seperated from this. I also think it is good to ask the question ” Is Libertarian theory as put forth by Rothbard or Rand utopian?”
It is interesting that there really was no such thing as “Self” or conscious self in ancient greek thought.
Also, I sometimes find it strange when some people try to tie Aristotle with libertarian theory. I think we have to ask ourselves if Aristotle would really have gone for this, did he believe in equality, was it just that he was “prejudiced” and “blinded by his cuture”?
I personally think Aristotle and Nietzsche would be closer.
Although I have always been skeptical of Darwinism, a convincing argument could be made here for the Theory of De-Evolution with this group of knuckle-draggers.
I’m not very skeptical of Darwinism. In the animal kingdom there are lions, there are elephants, and there is T. gondii.
Organisms have apparently evolved with the capability of altering the behavior of the host such that the host behaves in a manner that is good for the parasite.
badri – Richard Cummings had some things to say about that at the end of this interview:
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2007/01/30/richard-cummings/
The Washington Post is an interesting paper, that’s all I have to say…I wouldn’t trust those people. (But then why trust any of the main stream newspapers) Some of the articles or even better, some of the ads that get in the Washington Post, you have to wonder about… and yes I would also say badri you are asking an interesting question…
Also, just for the record, I am a Libertarian, in the Jeffersonian sense. So I think it is the best form of government, the one thing I think will be an interesting issue for us humans as we go along though is technology. Will it make us better? Has it made us better? Could it even change our nature as human beings? Is it doing it now? Yes it is making our lives more pleasant, easy, pleasurable, and “livable”. All these are Epicurean arguments, what I want to know is… has it made us better as human beings?
Also, I fear what technology can do in the hands of elite, a small group of people can now control so many people through technology.
More off topic rambling: I have a big problem with many of the supposed libertarian economists today promoting positive liberty. I also grew suspicious of the Cato Insitute and Reason when I saw their banners flying on the Weekly Standard website, don’t know if they still are, but they were at one time.
I’m really amazed that this chart was published at all in the Washington Post! It is very comprehensive, even if the inclusion of Rand and Orwell is questionable. I always considered the WP to be in the same category as the NY Times or the War Street Journal. Perhaps they are a little bit better? This is not the sort of chart the neocons themselves would want to see published.
I understand Orwell was a socialist (But I think 1984 is a must-read for everyone — wouldn’t force it though). Rand certainly had disdain for libertarians — considered them all hippies. Rand also fell for Ronald Reagan as did many who considered themselves or pretended to be “conservatives”. I certainly did not consider Reagan an economic conservative — though in retrospect, he APPEARED to lean more in that direction than others in the major parties — he still spent way too much money on the military and other federal agencies.
Rand was oblivious to the effects of rising militarism (and “War Collectivism” to use a phrase Justin Raimondo used during the Reagan years) under Reagan would have on America. Apparently forgot the morals of her early works, or she was going senile. But her later works exalted the ultra-wealthy and disdained the little guy. Then it starts to become understandable why neocons and her followers would cozy up to one another. So the inclusion of her on the chart as an influence, while controversial, is arguable in its favor.
I think w/ Rand and Orwell, the inclusion is because these two (who saw Communism forst hand) became MILITANTLY anti – communist…..much the way a German Jewish late 1930is emigre (to America) may become an Uncritical Zionist……
The translation is a bit simplistic……Militant Anti Communist = Neo – Con…. for the Washington Post Article.
“Do you think they are trying to throw Rand and Orwell in there to make them seem associated with these people so people willl vilify them too? I think some Neo-cons may have liked Rand a bit, and I know all the Objectivist groups suck shit and are warmongers, but I wouldn’t put Rand in there…”
Yes, the official Objectivists might be warmongers but most objectivists (people influenced by Rand’s ideas) are people like me, who are usually anarcho-capitalists and paleo-libertarians, anti-war folks. Eastern establishment liberals love to hate Rand as soon as they hit 25. Like pot, no one is supposed to admit to it or her after that. The corollary is that everyone claims to love The Fountainhead including socialist douche, Angelina Jolie. Obviously, few who read it get the message since if they did, we’d be living in a very different world.
Doherty is reading everything about Whittaker Chambers. There’s a very twisted Burning Man connection…more to follow.
In case anyone wants to know why I broke my on line silence, read this thread on TWP. The same site in which a troll named “Itch” insists I’m a shemale.
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/02/01/libertarian-party-platform-survey-results/#comments (Platform)
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/11/bob-barr-teaching-privacy-policy/#comments (XXY)
The Stress bloggers could intellectually kick the crap out of most of the TWP regulars including me.