Ayn Rand On Tape

[Brant Gaede]

I have just acquired from eBay Ayn Rand On Tape circa 1963. There are 18 professionally packaged tapes of lectures or talks by her. They were originally sold by www.AynRandOnTape.com which is a defunct address.

What I have is On Campus 1-6, On Campus 7-12, and In the Studio 1-13 (six tapes).

Never heard of this material before in this format. Can anybody explain this? I think they were issued in the year 2000.

--Brant

[Reidy]

What did you want explained? The "on campus" part is presumably the series she did on the Coumbia University radio station in the early 60s. The station used to sell the tapes; the UCLA club bought them and played them when I was there. Hospers and NB are on some of them, so ARI would have no interest in distributing them. I don't recall this from NBI, either. Hospers has recollected his part in helping to select the signature music.

She did occasional radio interviews or talks at around the same time, and that's probably where the rest came from. I wonder if AynRandOnTape.com was a bootleg operation.

[Robert Campbell]

Brant and Peter,

The Ayn Rand Institute has made some of this material available. I used the question and answer periods from several of these radio broadcasts in preparing my analysis of the Mayhew book. The lectures and talks I paid less attention to, because she circulated them as pamphlets later on.

According to Roger Bissell, ARI released a recording (on esthetics) from a WKCR broadcast that originally included John Hospers. But, of course, they cut Hospers' part out.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

What did you want explained? The "on campus" part is presumably the series she did on the Coumbia University radio station in the early 60s. The station used to sell the tapes; the UCLA club bought them and played them when I was there. Hospers and NB are on some of them, so ARI would have no interest in distributing them. I don't recall this from NBI, either. Hospers has recollected his part in helping to select the signature music.

She did occasional radio interviews or talks at around the same time, and that's probably where the rest came from. I wonder if AynRandOnTape.com was a bootleg operation.

I just noticed no one is claiming copyright. I bet the distributor was shut down.

--Brant

[Mark]

In 1964 Ayn Rand gave two radio interviews mostly about Goldwater, one before and one after the election. Are they in the Ayn Rand On Campus series?

The book Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz, is a selection of interview transcriptions. I haven't seen this book and I wonder -- given ARI's attempt to bury Ron Paul -- if there is anything positive in it about Goldwater.

The reason Goldwater is relevant to Ron Paul is pretty obvious. Using ">" as shorthand for

"more consistent with Objectivist application,"

ARI must realize:

Goldwater >> Romney

Ron Paul >> Goldwater

Therefore

Ron Paul >>>> Romney

Ayn Rand’s endorsement of Goldwater must be an embarrassment to every good ARI-person. Protests to the contrary they are probably itching to see Romney in the Whitehouse because of the neocon baggage he comes with.

Mark

[Selene]

In 1964 Ayn Rand gave two radio interviews mostly about Goldwater, one before and one after the election. Are they in the Ayn Rand On Campus series?

The book Objectively Speaking: Ayn Rand Interviewed, edited by Marlene Podritske and Peter Schwartz, is a selection of interview transcriptions. I haven't seen this book and I wonder -- given ARI's attempt to bury Ron Paul -- if there is anything positive in it about Goldwater.

The reason Goldwater is relevant to Ron Paul is pretty obvious. Using ">" as shorthand for

"more consistent with Objectivist application,"

ARI must realize:

Goldwater >> Romney

Ron Paul >> Goldwater

Therefore

Ron Paul >>>> Romney

Ayn Rand’s endorsement of Goldwater must be an embarrassment to every good ARI-person. Protests to the contrary they are probably itching to see Romney in the Whitehouse because of the neocon baggage he comes with.

Mark

I'll waive consecutive translation on your post, Mark.

Can you spell out your point for us stupid folks please?

[9thdoctor]

I just noticed no one is claiming copyright. I bet the distributor was shut down.

Are these tapes unexpurgated? Is Hospers on them? What, you haven’t listened to them all yet?

Can you spell out your point for us stupid folks please?

He’s saying since Ayn Rand endorsed Goldwater, ARI ought to endorse Ron Paul. But Romney is closer to their real neocon position, and so they prefer Romney. They aren’t true Scotsmen at ARI. The > business, if I may translate it into Newspeak, means Goldwater was double plus gooder than Romney, Ron Paul is double plus gooder than Goldwater, therefore Ron Paul is double double plus gooder than Romney.

[Mark]

Selene,

Obviously you're not stupid, so I must have been obscure.

The main part of the post was two questions, one about the tapes and one about a book. Then I tried to explain why I was interested in Goldwater vis-a-vis Ron Paul.

From an Objectivist point of view, if we take each candidate's position on various "concretes" and "add up those concretes and judge him accordingly" (quoting Ayn Rand), then clearly Ron Paul is better than Goldwater, who in turn is better than Romney. Thus -- what is obvious to begin with, but I just wanted to rub it in -- Ron Paul is better, Objectively speaking, than Romney.

Yaron Brook may say out loud that Neoconservatism is the greatest danger to America, but he doesn't really mean it. He supports neoconservatives in everything of importance and keeps quiet about the rest when he should be speaking out. Like Bush before, Romney has a great many neoconservative advisors (see the fifth footnote to www.ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm ). Even though Yaron Brook criticizes Romney, this is the same deception as his criticizing neoconservatism and he really would love to see Romney as the next president.

Mark

[Selene]

Selene,

Obviously you're not stupid, so I must have been obscure.

The main part of the post was two questions, one about the tapes and one about a book. Then I tried to explain why I was interested in Goldwater vis-a-vis Ron Paul.

From an Objectivist point of view, if we take each candidate's position on various "concretes" and "add up those concretes and judge him accordingly" (quoting Ayn Rand), then clearly Ron Paul is better than Goldwater, who in turn is better than Romney. Thus -- what is obvious to begin with, but I just wanted to rub it in -- Ron Paul is better, Objectively speaking, than Romney.

Yaron Brook may say out loud that Neoconservatism is the greatest danger to America, but he doesn't really mean it. He supports neoconservatives in everything of importance and keeps quiet about the rest when he should be speaking out. Like Bush before, Romney has a great many neoconservative advisors (see the fifth footnote to www.ARIwatch.com/ARIvsRonPaul.htm ). Even though Yaron Brook criticizes Romney, this is the same deception as his criticizing neoconservatism and he really would love to see Romney as the next president.

Mark

Mark:

"...then clearly Ron Paul is better than Goldwater..." <<<<I'm not convinced of that conclusion. However, I do not believe there is not too much substantial difference between them. Goldwater was anti-Communist at a time when the US was clearly in a global "luke warm" war that was intermittently waged with surrogates.

Additionally, the "Great Society" and exponentially expansive centralized government had not truly launched on it's destructive economic path.

However, even though these men came from different times, I see your point. Dr. Paul is much more centered in "Objectivist" principles than Goldwater which is not surprising since "Objectivism" did not "exist" as a formal philosophical presence in out culture in 1963-64.

Good clarification. Thanks.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

My thread--my precious thread--has been taken over by barbarians.

--Brant

~sob~