No man can get rich himself unless...

Michael Stuart Kelly · July 13, 2010

Here is a quote that, I believe, brings home the full force of one critical aspect of Rand's morality. It is a talk by Earl Nightingale from over half a century ago called “The Strangest Secret In The World.”

No man can get rich himself unless he enriches others.

Is this altruism?

Heh.

Not a chance.

Here's a video of the speech, although calling this a video is a bit of a stretch. It's just a picture of Earl Nightingale with the audio. But it is well worth watching.

I listened to this once before about a year ago and loved it. Then I forgot about it. Well, I just listened to it again. I'm glad I did. Really, really glad...

I read somewhere that this self-help speech is the one that has most been listened to in human history.

I believe it.

There are two parts I found really interesting this time around.

1. The high-end achievers and producers of yesteryear had a vision of Christianity that differed greatly from the vision that is now popular in the mainstream. They saw it as a recipe for self-reliance and self-responsibility in first priority, not as a command to take care of the weak. For those who get turned off by the Christian messages in Nightingale's talk, it's good to remember this.

Notice that Nightengale's advice is to establish something you desperately want as your main goal, not serve God or serve the weak. He talks about serving others, but within the context that we live in a society fundamentally based on trade, not charity. (He even goes further and insinuates that this is the way the universe works, but I let that slide. It's a little too simplistic, although it works great on the metaphorical level.)

This is very much in line with Rand's view. She ranted and railed against "looters" who pilfered wealth from others instead of providing it. Her heroes "enriched others" through productive work well before they received their own wealth. And they did so out of commitment to their own personal goal. They wanted something for themselves, they wanted it dearly, so they obtained that something by providing wealth to others, who then paid them back a rich reward.

It sounds like altruism, but this is selfishness to the nth degree.

2. Nightingale's secret "law"--that we become what we think--certainly operated on Rand's life. When she thought in grandiose positive themes and provide effort, she overcame enormous odds and shot to the top of her profession. Once she started thinking negatively, she attracted so many negative things around her that her life and career essentially stagnated. After reading many accounts--attacks, defenses and otherwise--of Rand's life by people who knew her or observed her, including her televised interviews and recorded speeches, I don't see any other conclusion than she was not a happy woman at the end of her life. It seems that the more negative she became, the more bitter and unhappy she became. If you go though the material available, there is a definite descending line up to her death.

Rand literally became what she thought.

When I take the glorious part from Rand's works, this is something I have made it a point to be careful about. Rand articulated well her outrage and contempt. I find it very easy to fall off into imitating that, even as I pursue my own goals. Especially when I think about politics. But then, I notice that when I get into that state, my own life starts going in that direction. And I don't get very much done.

So I am grateful for the Earl Nightingales out there along with Ayn Rand. He, and other inspirational thinkers, help keep me focused on my own happiness, on becoming a source of wealth for others and on achieving my own wealth. And most of all, remembering to keep my thoughts centered on what I want to become and achieve.

I hope this little speech by Earl Nightingale has the same effect on some of you. After all, we are all good people who can become great or evil depending on how and what we think. That's our nature.

I wish greatness for you.

Michael

Brant Gaede · July 13, 2010

Nightingale-Conant was a big publisher of self-improvement tapes in the 1980s. I have Nathaniel Branden's 6-tape "The Psychology of High Self-Esteem."

--Brant

Michael Stuart Kelly · July 13, 2010

Here is a bio by Mark Victor Hansen: Earl Nightingale Biography

Just in case the video ever goes down, you can listen to it on Mark's page (which is where I first heard it) and download the mp3 for free "with permission from the Nightingale Conant Corporation."

Here is the bio:

As a Depression-era child, Earl Nightingale was hungry for knowledge. From the time he was a young boy, he would frequent the Long Beach Public Library in California, searching for the answer to the question, "How can a person, starting from scratch, who has no particular advantage in the world, reach the goals that he feels are important to him, and by so doing, make a major contribution to others?" His desire to find an answer, coupled with his natural curiosity about the world and its workings spurred him to become one of the world's foremost experts on success and what makes people successful.
Earl Nightingale's early career began when, as a member of the Marine Corps, he volunteered to work at a local radio station as an announcer. The Marines also gave him a chance to travel, although he only got as far as Hawaii when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Earl managed to be one of the few survivors aboard the battleship Arizona. After five more years in the service, Earl and his wife moved first to Phoenix then Chicago to build what was to be a very fruitful career in network radio.
As the host of his own daily commentary program on WGN, Earl Nightingale arranged a deal that also gave him a commission on his own advertising sales. By 1957, he was so successful; he decided to retire at the age of 35. In the meantime, Earl had bought his own insurance company and had spent many hours motivating its sales force to greater accomplishments. When he decided to go on vacation for an extended period of time, his sales manager begged him to put his inspirational words on record. The result later became the recording entitled The Strangest Secret, the first spoken word message to win a Gold Record by selling over a million copies.
In The Strangest Secret, Earl had found an answer to the question that had inspired him as a youth and, in turn, found a way to leave a lasting legacy for others About this time, Earl met a successful businessman by the name of Lloyd Conant and together they began an "electronic publishing" company which eventually grew to become a multi-million dollar giant in the self-improvement field. They also developed a syndicated, 5-minute daily radio program, Our Changing World, which became the longest-running, most widely syndicated show in radio.
When Earl Nightingale died on March 28, 1989, Paul Harvey broke the news to the country on his radio program with the words, "The sonorous voice of the nightingale was stilled." In the words of his good friend and commercial announcer, Steve King, "Earl Nightingale never let a day go by that he didn't learn something new and, in turn, pass it on to others. It was his consuming passion."

Michael

DavidMcK · July 13, 2010

He was blessed with a rich sonorous speaking voice also; probably had as much to do with his success on the radio as his ideas.

Brant Gaede · July 13, 2010

Well I had time to listen to a little at the beginning. I have no idea where he got his data from. I kinda like his idea of success, but had to stop at that point.

As for Rand's post-Atlas years, Michael, we can speculate until the cows come home. I personally think she had too much invested in the book for the return she thought she should get--and she found herself stuck in there. It's just another variant on victimhood.

--Brant

Edited July 13, 2010 by Brant Gaede

Michael Stuart Kelly · July 13, 2010

Brant,

Victimhood is what if not negative thinking?

btw - In the USA's debt-based economy, is it an IQ test to figure out that most people are not independently wealthy at the end of their lives? That they conformed? For example, conformed to debt as a way of life?

Michael

Michael Stuart Kelly · July 13, 2010

Here is a more positive note on starting this way of thinking young. Cameron Herold gave a great talk recently at TED called "Let's raise kids to be entrepreneurs."

Some of his personal examples of deals sound a bit sleazy, but his overall gist of teaching the young self-reliance is something we do need in the USA right now.

When I post these things, my intention is not to discuss capitalism and self-reliance as a poetic ideal. Instead, it is to show how others do it and get results.

So whaddya do? I mean other than talk about this stuff on forums and read books about it.

I say surround yourself by these kinds of folks and, before you know it, you will be doing it, too. That might be a truism, but it's still true.

And on the Internet, we are blessed to have these kinds of people available instantly, both live and in all kinds of recorded supports.

I truly believe we are living in a wonderful time.

Enjoy Cameron Herold. I know I did. And I will probably watch this thing many more times.

Michael

durentu · February 7, 2012

I'm just skimming across the topic...

altruism is about trading something for something you don't really care for. But I think what vid is talking about is essentially trade. Because when you trade, between buyer and seller, both sides win. Either one can cancel the deal.

"no man can get rich, unless he enriches others" <- this really does sound like trade to me, not altruism. How does one really enrich another? by trading for it, for the things the other person wants or needs.

KorbenDallas · June 4, 2016

On 7/13/2010 at 2:08 PM, Brant Gaede said:

Nightingale-Conant was a big publisher of self-improvement tapes in the 1980s. I have Nathaniel Branden's 6-tape "The Psychology of High Self-Esteem."

--Brant

Reviving this one...

Brant, is the 6-tape The Psychology of High Self-Esteem lectures from the 1960s when NBI was still around?

thnx

BaalChatzaf · June 4, 2016

On 7/13/2010 at 1:46 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Here is a quote that, I believe, brings home the full force of one critical aspect of Rand's morality. It is a talk by Earl Nightingale from over half a century ago called “The Strangest Secret In The World.”

Is this altruism?

Heh.

Not a chance.

Here's a video of the speech, although calling this a video is a bit of a stretch. It's just a picture of Earl Nightingale with the audio. But it is well worth watching.

<object width="400" height="250"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11731116&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=11731116&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="250"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/11731116">Strangest Secret In The World - Earl Nightingale</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user3812463">Paulie Ciara</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

I listened to this once before about a year ago and loved it. Then I forgot about it. Well, I just listened to it again. I'm glad I did. Really, really glad...

I read somewhere that this self-help speech is the one that has most been listened to in human history.

I believe it.

There are two parts I found really interesting this time around.

1. The high-end achievers and producers of yesteryear had a vision of Christianity that differed greatly from the vision that is now popular in the mainstream. They saw it as a recipe for self-reliance and self-responsibility in first priority, not as a command to take care of the weak. For those who get turned off by the Christian messages in Nightingale's talk, it's good to remember this.

Notice that Nightengale's advice is to establish something you desperately want as your main goal, not serve God or serve the weak. He talks about serving others, but within the context that we live in a society fundamentally based on trade, not charity. (He even goes further and insinuates that this is the way the universe works, but I let that slide. It's a little too simplistic, although it works great on the metaphorical level.)

This is very much in line with Rand's view. She ranted and railed against "looters" who pilfered wealth from others instead of providing it. Her heroes "enriched others" through productive work well before they received their own wealth. And they did so out of commitment to their own personal goal. They wanted something for themselves, they wanted it dearly, so they obtained that something by providing wealth to others, who then paid them back a rich reward.

It sounds like altruism, but this is selfishness to the nth degree.

2. Nightingale's secret "law"--that we become what we think--certainly operated on Rand's life. When she thought in grandiose positive themes and provide effort, she overcame enormous odds and shot to the top of her profession. Once she started thinking negatively, she attracted so many negative things around her that her life and career essentially stagnated. After reading many accounts--attacks, defenses and otherwise--of Rand's life by people who knew her or observed her, including her televised interviews and recorded speeches, I don't see any other conclusion than she was not a happy woman at the end of her life. It seems that the more negative she became, the more bitter and unhappy she became. If you go though the material available, there is a definite descending line up to her death.

Rand literally became what she thought.

When I take the glorious part from Rand's works, this is something I have made it a point to be careful about. Rand articulated well her outrage and contempt. I find it very easy to fall off into imitating that, even as I pursue my own goals. Especially when I think about politics. But then, I notice that when I get into that state, my own life starts going in that direction. And I don't get very much done.

So I am grateful for the Earl Nightingales out there along with Ayn Rand. He, and other inspirational thinkers, help keep me focused on my own happiness, on becoming a source of wealth for others and on achieving my own wealth. And most of all, remembering to keep my thoughts centered on what I want to become and achieve.

I hope this little speech by Earl Nightingale has the same effect on some of you. After all, we are all good people who can become great or evil depending on how and what we think. That's our nature.

I wish greatness for you.

Michael

Service and usefulness to others is the Means not the End.

Brant Gaede · June 4, 2016

14 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Reviving this one...

Brant, is the 6-tape The Psychology of High Self-Esteem lectures from the 1960s when NBI was still around?

thnx

I don't think so. He wouldn't have given a six lecture course on this for NBI. NBI wanted at least ten lectures. (And he would have been wrapped up in/with his Rand troubles in the mid 1960s through 1968.) I think he had two mainstay courses: BPO and The Psychology of Romantic Love. The other mainstay NBI course was Barbara's PET. There were some minor courses that were ad hoc and likely not sent out too much to the hinterlands. Peikoff gave one on his work in progress, "The Ominous Parallels," (finally published 14 years later) in the spring of 1968. I watched Nathaniel adjust the mic around Leonard's neck up on the NBI auditorium stage and make a humorous remark. That was in April or May. These were Big people being Big people being perceived as Big people by people who yearned to be Big People--if they didn't think that already qua Objecevism and qua Rand--and everybody was delusional about that confusing Rand's bigness with their own when it was basically all parasitical. Instead, they--we--were very smart people who were trapped inside Rand's genius box created by her world of Atlas Shrugged and didn't even know it. Even Nathaniel. He had to be blown out to find out where he had been. For that he became extremely grateful. He discovered he wasn't John Galt ("with a 'few flaws'") and rediscovered he was Nathaniel Branden (who, ironically, really was a big man). Likely that had a lot to do with calling his 1972 book, The Disowned Self. How big we are always starts with how authentic we are. Absent that our foundation is made out of sand. This is the social foundation and it's pretense. We can be better inside--or worse. Better or worse, it gets sublimated. The trap is reading Rand's great novels, especially her magnum opus, and sharing her experience of dealing with the Sublime--I hope I got that Sublime part right--seeing that in oneself, so it's almost instant marriage made in heaven now requiring a good think through to objectify and transcend what needs to be transcended, but it's beyond you for you are too young and ignorant to know WTF really happened, was happening and that you were her prisoner (by your own choice).

Apropos "The Break of '68," I hadn't been into NBI for a month. (I lived in northern New Jersey.) So I decided to come into NY for--I'm not too sure, maybe "movie night" [if it was at night if not afternoon]--likely Saturday or Friday evening and there was NBI being taken apart with chairs and such for sale. I was stunned. At the front desk facing me sat Barbara Branden. "What happened?" I asked. She then daid that Nathaniel and Ayn had had a falling out and NBI was closing. I then walked around and probably purchased a few pamphlets and left. The date was September 20. The shit had hit the fan three weeks earlier.

--Brant

edit: 9/20/68 was a Friday so it was Friday evening: movie night was put on by Kerry O'Quinn (not sure who called it "movie night" except myself)--I remember seeing on previous evenings The Guns of Navarone and Captain Horatio Hornblower (only 93.6% sure of this last one)

Michael Stuart Kelly · June 4, 2016

54 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Service and usefulness to others is the Means not the End.

Bob,

Not true. Not when it's a trade, which is Nightingale's focus.

The essence of a trade--the end--is to have two sides. Service and usefulness to others is one of those sides if it is money you want.

This is important. In this concept, service and usefulness to others is a component of an end (a trade), not a means to it. Trade does not exist without it. Claiming it is The Means not The End is like saying the head is a means to the human being, not the end. That isn't just false. It doesn't make any sense as a dichotomy. One does not cause the other. A component of a whole is not a means to it. It is a part of it.

Think about it. There is only one way to get money and that is from another person. And there is only one way to spend money to get things and that is to convey your money to another person.

There is no money without other people.

If the concept of trade is an end, a whole--as something humans do when they get together, as one of their social characteristics, then providing service and usefulness within a trade is a characteristic of humans. It is part of human nature.

The ONLY way trade is not an end, i.e., not a whole, is if one of the two sides simple takes from the other (steals or plunders, which is a toxic end, but still an end) or wants nothing from the other and does nothing with the other.

On an individual level, providing service and usefulness to others can be an end that releases certain neurochemicals, too. This creates habits by creating neural pathways. Our brain is made so this is true (especially with oxytocin). That makes the actions of providing service and usefulness to others an end, not a means. You do it because you do it--it's a habit. Your brain is wired that way.

On the other side, providing service and usefulness to others without trade or habit is not an end, but a component of slavery (another toxic end). And altruism as a philosophy is a great way to get people to agree to this by confusing ends and means.

Or it is just plain stupidity. How many times have you received "service and usefulness" from others you simply don't want? And you wish the goody-goody two-shoes busybody would go away?

Michael

BaalChatzaf · June 4, 2016

53 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

Not true. Not when it's a trade, which is Nightingale's focus.

The essence of a trade--the end--is to have two sides. Service and usefulness to others is one of those sides if it is money you want.

This is important. In this concept, service and usefulness to others is a component of an end (a trade), not a means to it. Trade does not exist without it. Claiming it is The Means not The End is like saying the head is a means to the human being, not the end. That isn't just false. It doesn't make any sense as a dichotomy. One does not cause the other. A component of a whole is not a means to it. It is a part of it.

Think about it. There is only one way to get money and that is from another person. And there is only one way to spend money to get things and that is to convey your money to another person.

There is no money without other people.

If the concept of trade is an end, a whole--as something humans do when they get together, as one of their social characteristics, then providing service and usefulness within a trade is a characteristic of humans. It is part of human nature.

The ONLY way trade is not an end, i.e., not a whole, is if one of the two sides simple takes from the other (steals or plunders, which is a toxic end, but still an end) or wants nothing from the other and does nothing with the other.

On an individual level, providing service and usefulness to others can be an end that releases certain neurochemicals, too. This creates habits by creating neural pathways. Our brain is made so this is true (especially with oxytocin). That makes the actions of providing service and usefulness to others an end, not a means. You do it because you do it--it's a habit. Your brain is wired that way.

On the other side, providing service and usefulness to others without trade or habit is not an end, but a component of slavery (another toxic end). And altruism as a philosophy is a great way to get people to agree to this by confusing ends and means.

Or it is just plain stupidity. How many times have you received "service and usefulness" from others you simply don't want? And you wish the goody-goody two-shoes busybody would go away?

Michael

I trade or work with/for others (means) in order to eat (end).

Michael Stuart Kelly · June 4, 2016

39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I trade or work with/for others (means) in order to eat (end).

Bob,

That's true from the perspective of you getting stuff. In other words, it's true for you as an individual. That does not make it a universal truth for all humans (qua means and end). You getting stuff is irrelevant to most humans.

In other words, it is not true in the same sense Rand meant when she said man is an end in himself, which is true for all humans.

Trading is a fundamental part of human nature, at least when humans live in groups. I know of no instance where trade is not present in groups of humans living together. Even in slave and caste societies, trade has always been present.

That makes trade part of an end in itself, not just a means toward creating that end.

In more Randian terms, trade for humans is part of the Law of Identity. It's what humans do. All humans.

Michael

BaalChatzaf · June 4, 2016

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

That's true from the perspective of you getting stuff. In other words, it's true for you as an individual. That does not make it a universal truth for all humans (qua means and end). You getting stuff is irrelevant to most humans.

In other words, it is not true in the same sense Rand meant when she said man is an end in himself, which is true for all humans.

Trading is a fundamental part of human nature, at least when humans live in groups. I know of no instance where trade is not present in groups of humans living together. Even in slave and caste societies, trade has always been present.

That makes trade part of an end in itself, not just a means toward creating that end.

In more Randian terms, trade for humans is part of the Law of Identity. It's what humans do. All humans.

Michael

How about when its -their getting stuff-?

Michael Stuart Kelly · June 4, 2016

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How about when its -their getting stuff-?

Bob,

I'm with Rand on this one (albeit I realize my formulation above uses different words than hers and seems like the opposite).

When it's voluntary, it's trade, whether one or many are involved. (Like talking. It's what humans do.)

All else is shit--ends of others where you are the means.

Babies and invalids excepted.

Michael

KorbenDallas · June 7, 2016

On 6/4/2016 at 11:50 AM, Brant Gaede said:

I don't think so. He wouldn't have given a six lecture course on this for NBI. NBI wanted at least ten lectures. (And he would have been wrapped up in/with his Rand troubles in the mid 1960s through 1968.) I think he had two mainstay courses: BPO and The Psychology of Romantic Love. The other mainstay NBI course was Barbara's PET. There were some minor courses that were ad hoc and likely not sent out too much to the hinterlands. Peikoff gave one on his work in progress, "The Ominous Parallels," (finally published 14 years later) in the spring of 1968. I watched Nathaniel adjust the mic around Leonard's neck up on the NBI auditorium stage and make a humorous remark. That was in April or May. These were Big people being Big people being perceived as Big people by people who yearned to be Big People--if they didn't think that already qua Objecevism and qua Rand--and everybody was delusional about that confusing Rand's bigness with their own when it was basically all parasitical. Instead, they--we--were very smart people who were trapped inside Rand's genius box created by her world of Atlas Shrugged and didn't even know it. Even Nathaniel. He had to be blown out to find out where he had been. For that he became extremely grateful. He discovered he wasn't John Galt ("with a 'few flaws'") and rediscovered he was Nathaniel Branden (who, ironically, really was a big man). Likely that had a lot to do with calling his 1972 book, The Disowned Self. How big we are always starts with how authentic we are. Absent that our foundation is made out of sand. This is the social foundation and it's pretense. We can be better inside--or worse. Better or worse, it gets sublimated. The trap is reading Rand's great novels, especially her magnum opus, and sharing her experience of dealing with the Sublime--I hope I got that Sublime part right--seeing that in oneself, so it's almost instant marriage made in heaven now requiring a good think through to objectify and transcend what needs to be transcended, but it's beyond you for you are too young and ignorant to know WTF really happened, was happening and that you were her prisoner (by your own choice).

Apropos "The Break of '68," I hadn't been into NBI for a month. (I lived in northern New Jersey.) So I decided to come into NY for--I'm not too sure, maybe "movie night" [if it was at night if not afternoon]--likely Saturday or Friday evening and there was NBI being taken apart with chairs and such for sale. I was stunned. At the front desk facing me sat Barbara Branden. "What happened?" I asked. She then daid that Nathaniel and Ayn had had a falling out and NBI was closing. I then walked around and probably purchased a few pamphlets and left. The date was September 20. The shit had hit the fan three weeks earlier.

--Brant

edit: 9/20/68 was a Friday so it was Friday evening: movie night was put on by Kerry O'Quinn (not sure who called it "movie night" except myself)--I remember seeing on previous evenings The Guns of Navarone and Captain Horatio Hornblower (only 93.6% sure of this last one)

Thanks Brant. It seems what happened in '68 was an event, and though I wasn't around for it, I've read some about it and am picking up what it meant to people.

At the end of The Principles of Efficient Thinking, Barbara reads a quote from Nathaniel's "lectures on psychology", and I'm trying to track down the lecture series, and know which one it is because I'd like to hear it. The Culture of Reason has a product "New Lectures on the Psychology of Self-Esteem" by Nathaniel ( http://thecultureofreasoncenter.com/new-lectures-on-the-psychology-of-self-esteem.html ) that was recorded in 1976, and in the description mentions, "This course is not the same as NBI's "Principles of Objectivist Psychology" and was recorded circa 1976." It's the NBI one that I believe Barbara was referencing, and the one I'm after. (But I'm not sure if it exists today, and might be lost...).

Brant Gaede · June 7, 2016

The Psychology lectures were sold as vinyl by Academic Associates. I don't know if they were re-recorded from the NBI version or merely switched from reel to reel to vinyl. Any re-recording would have been to remove his NBI years' too heavy moralizing. He gave a lecture or lectures on self esteem in NYC in 1975 if not elsewhere which was released as a one or two record vinyl. Something like Nath Bran Lectures in NYC. (I'll buff this up later.)

--Brant

edit: 20 NBI lectures on BPO; 16 on Romantic Love (Nathaniel); 10 on PET (Barbara). No info on any course on psychology as such from NBI

Edited June 8, 2016 by Brant Gaede

KorbenDallas · June 12, 2016

On 6/7/2016 at 4:25 PM, Brant Gaede said:

The Psychology lectures were sold as vinyl by Academic Associates. I don't know if they were re-recorded from the NBI version or merely switched from reel to reel to vinyl. Any re-recording would have been to remove his NBI years' too heavy moralizing. He gave a lecture or lectures on self esteem in NYC in 1975 if not elsewhere which was released as a one or two record vinyl. Something like Nath Bran Lectures in NYC. (I'll buff this up later.)

--Brant

edit: 20 NBI lectures on BPO; 16 on Romantic Love (Nathaniel); 10 on PET (Barbara). No info on any course on psychology as such from NBI

Thanks Brant, I wonder what Barbara was referring to at the end of her PET lectures

Brant Gaede · June 13, 2016

I haven't listened to them in decades. I can't answer.

BaalChatzaf · June 13, 2016

5 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I haven't listened to them in decades. I can't answer.

Who, which? The Brandons or vinyl records?

Brant Gaede · June 13, 2016

It's "Brandens," Bob, and it's the records.

BaalChatzaf · June 13, 2016

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's "Brandens," Bob, and it's the records.

Duly noted

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

It's "Brandens," Bob, and it's the records.

No man can get rich himself unless...

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in