• Announcements

    • Michael Stuart Kelly

      Evil emoticon   04/16/2016

      We now have a devil emoticon. Type colon, evil, colon, all together, then space. See an example by opening this message. Here's the example  .
Selene

Mark Levin Opens his show with Ayn Rand quotes for almost 10 minutes

27 posts in this topic

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

I listened to his show. It was good to hear him quote Rand's views on socialism.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

I listened to his show. It was good to hear him quote Rand's views on socialism.

yep - more importantly, the reach of the show which is prime time rush hour on the East coast and it makes Rand "safer" for certain religious conservatives, which, guys and dolls, we fucking need. Home schoolers. Independent "non gender feminist" women's groups - if there are any.

Glad you enjoyed it, he is very passionate and persuasive and brilliant intellectually. He ran for his Pennsylvania school board when he was 19 and got elected.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Edited by Philip Coates
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.

"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.

"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam

I specifically remember reading about some churches denouncing Madea when the most recent film came out--black churches. But it came as a random blip on the news radar, so I didn't keep track of the references.

Sorry for the vagueness, but that's the best info I can supply. (And please note I said "some" not "most".)

Jeff S.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now. On the flip side, has anyone seen the movies of (the very religious) Tyler Perry? Great Movies! If you can get past the God talk (and it isn't that overdone), the values he espouses and the way he portrays them are very good, very moving.

His movies are often about personal responsibility and are inspiring. Like Cosby, he has an impact in the black community but these movies are not just for that community.

And when TP dresses up and drag and plays Madea he is just SIYP funny!

Which last fact is why some church groups condemned his movies (because he performs in drag, not because it's funny. Although possibly the fact that it's funny also offends them.)

Jeff S.

"...some church groups..." got a source there Jeff? I do not mind broad brushes when I am painting....but when there is a most statement, my fact checker goes off.

Adam

I specifically remember reading about some churches denouncing Madea when the most recent film came out--black churches. But it came as a random blip on the news radar, so I didn't keep track of the references.

Sorry for the vagueness, but that's the best info I can supply. (And please note I said "some" not "most".)

Jeff S.

I have heard the same "rumor" and from real life black christian folk. I didn't ask for names. Leviticus condemns cross dressing, doesn't it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.

Just to ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that there is a Rand "bible" and there can be no improvement or enhancement or change in her positions? I am not sure Ayn would have the same positions on some issues as she did then.

It is not her positions or her statements that survives and breaths, it is her originating assumptions and foundation truths that carry forward.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more likely that a very religious or very marxist person will either convert to or find some affinities with Objectivism, despite diametric opposite views on some issues than it is a person with no firm principles or who doesn't believe in principles.

If you believe in nothing, you are unreachable.

So it's no surprise very religious conservatives are finding aspects to admire right now.

To the extent that a "very religious or very Marxist person" is extremely dissatisfied with his faith - and to the extent that they are searching for a replacement ideology that also presents a system or comprehensive world view - they may be somewhat attracted to aspects of Objectivism. But they will most likely lose their interest when they come up against one of Rand's core beliefs that they cannot tolerate. For a Marxist, that would be individualism and laissez faire capitalism. For a religious conservative, Rand's atheism and her support of a woman's right to choose an abortion will cause them to abandon Objectivism. Additionally, National Review conservatives have also criticized Rand for being a system-builder, claiming that comprehensive systems that "explain everything" (ignoring that this line of criticism could also be applied to some Christian philosophies) ultimately become intolerant of dissent and degenerate into advocating a totalitarian state.

Remember that the most hostile criticism of Rand has come from the religious conservatives that dominate National Review. In addition to Buckley commissioning and publishing Whittaker Chambers' virulent attack on Atlas Shrugged,in 1957, NR has seen fit to reprint that same article for their 25th and 50th Annversary editions.

The "neo-conservative" Weekly Standard has occasionally printed brief disparaging remarks about Rand. I don't think that they have (yet) published a whole article or book review attacking Rand, but sooner or later, they will get around to it. There is too much disagreement on essentials between Rand and the neo-cons' "patron saint," Irving Kristol.

I have read that the other main conservative journal (and, ironically, one that had printed a few of Rand's articles many decades ago), Human Events, had some very unfavorable things to say about Rand on the occasion of her centennial.

For the above reasons, religious conservatives will ultimately drop Ayn Rand, particularly when they see that their attempts to "pick and choose" certain parts of Rand's views will not get many converts from Objectivism. Of course, what will disturb them even more is finding out that advocating young conservatives to read Rand will lead to some of them abandoning religion.

Watch what happens when a significant amount of Rush's "ditto heads" start complaining to him that his recommendation to read Rand has led to their kids dropping their religious faith. The identical problem will ultimately impact Mark Levine, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity.

As for Marxists, Rand lived and was famous during the time (1940-1970s) that many communists left the party. Many went to work for National Review (damn near their whole editorial staff!) or other conservative journals or organizations. I cannot think of even one prominent ex-communist who chose to stand up publicly for Ayn Rand or who embraced her system. I think that says something about the appeal of Objectivism to disaffected Marxists.

Just to ask a clarifying question. Are you arguing that there is a Rand "bible" and there can be no improvement or enhancement or change in her positions? I am not sure Ayn would have the same positions on some issues as she did then.

It is not her positions or her statements that survives and breaths, it is her originating assumptions and foundation truths that carry forward.

Adam

Adam,

Where, in my post above, did I say anything related to a Rand "bible?" I was referring to how religious conservatives and Marxists responded to Rand and Objectivism, in the past, present and future. I did not say anything about how Objectivists have, are, or will respond to conservatives.

But to answer your question: No, I believe in the concept of an "open Objectivism" - although I don't particularly like that term). I don't buy Peikoff's view that Objectivism is a "closed" system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood.

I agree with you about the "open" system and I also do not like the term.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, re your post #9, I agree that those who are firmly anti-Rand on ideological grounds (especially groups or magazines organized specifically around those principles) are likely to stay firmly anti-Rand, but I was talking about individuals. Certainly not the majority of them. More importantly, I was comparing the likelihood of a person who has a strong ideology becoming an Oist or sympathetic to Rand to someone who has no principles, doesn't believe in principles.

I can't count the number of times I've heard someone say "I was a devout Christian or a flaming socialist. Then I read Rand." As compared to those who say I was a total non-thinker, subjectivist, nihilist, [or] didn't believe man's mind can know reality or ethics, then I became an Objectivist."

If someone thinks in principles, rules, values then you can swap out those principles, but you can't insert them upon a base of jello or sand. Entirely alien psychoepistemology.

Put it another way: the first category of 'principled people' can often find a flaw in their structure of beliefs and then be led to question and reject and seek a replacement (not necessarily Objectivism as in the case of the neocons, those disillusioned by Stalin, etc. - especially before Oism was fully developed, taught, known.) But the second category -- skeptics, pragmatists, and non-believers in principles -- if even they adhere to anything, when they find a flaw are more likely to simply shrug and say that's okay, there are flaws in everything.

Edited by Philip Coates
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark Levin reading from "The Monument Builders"?

More power to him!

Robert Campbell

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?

Friday 23rd of October and I do not know about the podcast - http://marklevinshow.com/home.asp

Here is his website.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

Adam; I am getting tired of people who know better not learning or having learned mis-pronounce Miss Rand's first name.

I think with some people is it a deliberate act of disrespect. For anyone Miss Rand's first name rhymes with "mine".

If Mr Levine really admires her he should pronounce her name right.

Edited by Chris Grieb
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the date of this broadcast? Is it available on line as a podcast at his site? Is there a transcript? A clip at youtube?

One easy way to get the podcast is through iTunes. Inside iTunes, go to the Store and search for Mark Levin.

Bill P

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am asking some of you to put this purity of essence concept aside and walk with these folks because they agree with us on the freedom agenda.

Mark Levin has the 3rd or fourth most listened to show. He just read from The New Intellectual and the Monument Builders.

Rush has the number one show.

Beck is either two three or four.

Hannity is also 2,3 or 4.

Now, they have the microphone, with real power. I would say that Mark Levin sounded a monumental shout tonight to advance the "sound" of Ayn's words. He is a fair man, he stated that you do not have to agree with all of "ANN" Rand's positions, but when she gets it right, she gets it dead right.

And then he gave a powerful opening.

Adam

Adam; I am getting tired of people who know better not learning or having learned mis-pronounce Miss Rand's first name.

I think with some people is it a deliberate act of disrespect. For anyone Miss Rand's first name rhymes with "mine".

If Mr Levine really admires her he should pronounce her name right.

Agreed and I have an email to his producer - I expect to here him correct it - as he is a stickler for proper credit to the person whose quotes or ideas he talks about.

Adam

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link will take you directly to the podcast.

Edited by Ted Keer
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This link will take you directly to the podcast.

Thanks Ted, for the link.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to get too upset at people mispronouncing Rand's name. The pronuniciation Ain, rhymes with pain is a reasonable guess. Ann Rand is simply stupid. Who has ever heard of a silent wye in English? Levin's "Ian Rand" at least isn't an attempt to ignore the wye.

The problem is that most Americans have not a clue about any foreign languages, and hence they are also helpless with their own.

Look at how many people, including Presidents, and Victor Davis Hanson say "nucular." The word is nuclear. Nu-clear. What could be more obvious and clear?

And of course foreign words are butchered. In German, "ei" is always rhymed with English "eye" and "ie" is always rhymed with "fiend." So how do we spell wiener as in hot dog or wimp? Weiner, of course.

And what about Moulin Rouge? The first word rhymes with Julianne, not with nylon. But everyone says moul-on when they should say moul-anne.

So I will try not to let "Ian Rand" bother me tee mich.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ted,

You should see what they did with my name in Brazil. And when got it right, many spelled it this way if they hadn't seen it written first: Maiko Kali.

I knew one gay named Aristone (pronounced ah-ree-stone'-ee). He was named after a guy named Harry Stone who used to represent Hollywood interests in Brazil.

My favorite is my friend Valdisnei (pronounced vahl-deez-nay'). He was named after Walt Disney.

:)

Michael

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most Anglophones see the letter sequence -ay- and assume it's the dipthong found in hay, may, etc.

I don't know of any use of the letter -a- in English which is pronounced -i-, so the "correct" pronounciation is not the one that most Anglophones would pick without previous information that Ayn Rand equals Ine Rand.

Until I knew the correct pronounciation, I assumed Rand had a total ignorance of Hebrew, since the "wrong" pronounciation (Ain) has the meaning of "nothing", "is not", "nothingness". This in Kabbalah you have God described successively as Ain (the No-thing), Ain Sof (the Unlimited, Sof=End or Limit), and Ain Sof Or (the Unlimited Light, Or-Light).

It would be rather wierd for the woman who based herself on "existence exists" to name herself "nothingness".

Jeff S.

Edited by jeffrey smith
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now