caroljane

Would Ayn Rand have voted for Trump?

Recommended Posts

On 7/7/2018 at 1:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

LOL...

In other words, Rand would possibly support the abstraction, but definitely not the reality...

(scratching head)...

:)

It sure gets fun when we channel Rand. I'll try to come up with a practicing psychic soon... Since Carol started the thread with this premise, I wonder if her skill stack includes communion with the dead...

:) 

Michael

Missed this but yes! As an Anglican I regularly  am in touch with  "the communion of saints" ( did you know the definition of saints has at least 2 meanings?) Also I feel somewhat qualified to channel Rand, whom I would never have dared to come near when she was living, and I would rather not be haunted by her now that she isn't. I play the gender card which I have never done before, and you in your fairness will attest.

I feel I have an insight which our male members do not have because they are not females.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, caroljane said:

I feel I have an insight which our male members do not have because they are not females.

Carol,

Females are psychic and males are not?

Dayaamm!

I've been saying it all wrong for years.

I've been saying females are psycho and males are not.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Carol,

Females are psychic and males are not?

Dayaamm!

I've been saying it all wrong for years.

I've been saying females are psycho and males are not.

:evil:  :) 

Michael

Dearest cousin Michael, we are both right. And wrong too, but that is life.

Hopefully, C,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ayn in 2015: I vould advise sitting out the election in 2016.  

Ayn in 2019: I vould advise voting for the Best President, my adopted country America, has ever had! Vee are freer. Vee are better off. Vee are safer with President Trump. And I am happier too. Aren’t you? Even Leonard is voting for Trump.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's dead simple, self-sacrifice is the name of the game today. In its newest manifestation, this is obvious everywhere under the meme: Universal Love. The constant message is not only the duty to serve others, equally to "love" them - iow, altruism plus nice feelings.

The not-so-secret secret is that the "lovers" love finding new victims (fresh meat) to love, and hate anyone else refusing to be sacrificed to their "love". 

"Liberals hate people". PJ O'Rourke. But Lefties sure do love the idea of loving people and *really* love exhibiting their love, for others to love. A blurry concept of "people" and "humanity", especially a suffering people, is easy to "love" - from a distance --the "individual" and 'man', they don't, um, love.

President Trump of course is the prime stumbling block to universal love. He's too damned self-interested about America's self-interests. The Left-Progressive-Socialist sacrificers have come out all around the world in lock-step to try and thwart him, and by your enemies you are known(sometimes).

 

 What was the question? Would Rand have voted for Trump...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOVE. Is a Suburu. I hate that moronic commercial. When I see a stupid altruist type of commercial I make a mental note to never buy that product. Do it for love, for the children, for the puppies. Bah~Humbug!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 1:32 PM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

 

It sure gets fun when we channel Rand.

How about we look at comparable examples from her life?  1. she supported Wendell Wilkie, who was a successful businessman with no government experience and virtually no military experience.  2. she "supported" Nixon, even in 1972, because she judged the alternative to be much worse.  3. she admired Muhammad Ali, specifically for his public persona, that wild braggadocio that reminds me of Trump at his (to my taste) most repulsive.  Ali pulled it off, Trump...well I sure don't like it but plenty of people must, after all he did win.

I voted for Johnson, and like to think that she'd have revised her view of Libertarians by now. 

Abstain, Trump, Clinton, Johnson, she'd have picked one of those four options.  How about a poll of the channellers?  1 for Johnson. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

I voted for Johnson, and like to think that she'd have revised her view of Libertarians by now. 

Dennis,

Until Libertarians start basing the foundation of their view of capitalism on reason-based morality and not just NIOF, I doubt it.

She was pretty clear about that.

btw - I like the way you think in your examples of issues that Rand supported that run parallel to President Trump. I hadn't thought of doing that. I like it. :)

As to the question of who she would have voted for, I think it's a good possibility she would have voted for President Trump based on how the campaign unfolded. Besides, there is a hell of a lot of common ground between Trump's views and hers. They even think about foreign wars the same--don't get in them. But if you must, then win them.

btw - Where did she say she admired Muhammad Ali? I have heard of this at times, but I never paid much attention to it. So even if I have read it somewhere, I probably skimmed right on by. Now I'm curious... I Googled it, but Google is a mess these days. So if you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

How about we look at comparable examples from her life?  1. she supported Wendell Wilkie, who was a successful businessman with no government experience and virtually no military experience.  2. she "supported" Nixon, even in 1972, because she judged the alternative to be much worse.  3. she admired Muhammad Ali, specifically for his public persona, that wild braggadocio that reminds me of Trump at his (to my taste) most repulsive.  Ali pulled it off, Trump...well I sure don't like it but plenty of people must, after all he did win.

I voted for Johnson, and like to think that she'd have revised her view of Libertarians by now. 

Abstain, Trump, Clinton, Johnson, she'd have picked one of those four options.  How about a poll of the channellers?  1 for Johnson. 

Gary Johnson because he was the best looking, she would have been able to reconcile her views on libertarianism I think. This is not a quip comment.  She incorporated her personal sexuality into her philosophy in a variety of ways, and though Frank was an ideal husband , she would never have looked at him if he had not been handsome in the "Cyrus", Gary Cooper, Eric Braeden spectrum. She liked to think outer comeliness reflected character qualities, just as she said she could tell a man's characteer by who he slept with...but I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

How about we look at comparable examples from her life?  1. she supported Wendell Wilkie, who was a successful businessman with no government experience and virtually no military experience.  2. she "supported" Nixon, even in 1972, because she judged the alternative to be much worse.  3. she admired Muhammad Ali, specifically for his public persona, that wild braggadocio that reminds me of Trump at his (to my taste) most repulsive.  Ali pulled it off, Trump...well I sure don't like it but plenty of people must, after all he did win.

I voted for Johnson, and like to think that she'd have revised her view of Libertarians by now. 

Abstain, Trump, Clinton, Johnson, she'd have picked one of those four options.  How about a poll of the channellers?  1 for Johnson. 

I just ran across an Ali quote in a crossword puzzle. "If you even dream of beating me, you'd better wake up and apologize."

I think she would have urged people to use their reason and then to vote for Trump if he is the best, most rational choice to lead the nation, or even the better of two evils . . . if the other evil is a horrible choice as in the case of Hillary Clinton. Even when Trump "misspeaks," misquotes, or miscalculates she would voice her differences but still support Trump.

What would it take for Rand to stop supporting him or to denounce him? I think to answer the question, we the living must know what Rand said and we must have integrated into our own modes of thinking, her opinions and those of Aristotle. I know she always insisted, as does ARI, that no one speak for her but I do put credence in the concept of little "o" objectivism as when we who find Rand convincing, still speak for ourselves based on reason and her philosophy.

Other ARI sites like Objectivism Online will only accept parroting Rand and never saying anything wrong about her or ARI, no matter when your integrated, objective opinion differs from what Rand wrote. They say they want "honest" differences of opinion, but you better accept "the gospel" and "recant" or you are banned from the site. If that practice isn't religious then  . . . .      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

btw - I like the way you think in your examples of issues that Rand supported that run parallel to President Trump. I hadn't thought of doing that. I like it. :)

...

btw - Where did she say she admired Muhammad Ali? I have heard of this at times, but I never paid much attention to it. So even if I have read it somewhere, I probably skimmed right on by. Now I'm curious... I Googled it, but Google is a mess these days. So if you could point me in the right direction, I would appreciate it.

Michael

 

If you can think of more examples, add them in.  Those 3 were all I could think of but it's surely not an exhaustive list.

Re Muhammad Ali, I recall hearing Peikoff talk about it on one of his podcasts.  Looks like someone transcribed it here:

http://capitalistpig.com/news-media/peikoff-muhammad-ali/

But I must have heard/read about it somewhere else also, since I recall that she had (at some point) two cats, named Mo and Tommy.  Mo was named for Muhammad Ali, and Tommy for St. Thomas Aquinas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Peter said:

Other ARI sites like Objectivism Online will only accept parroting Rand and never saying anything wrong about her or ARI, no matter when your integrated, objective opinion differs from what Rand wrote. They say they want "honest" differences of opinion, but you better accept "the gospel" and "recant" or you are banned from the site. If that practice isn't religious then  . . . .      

That's not been my experience with Objectivism Online.  Though if you look at old threads you'll see some of the old cultist behavior on display.  I think that kind of thing, to the extent it still exists, has migrated to Facebook.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 9thdoctor said:

That's not been my experience with Objectivism Online.  Though if you look at old threads you'll see some of the old cultist behavior on display.  I think that kind of thing, to the extent it still exists, has migrated to Facebook.

Thanks, Doc. I think I was banned in 2011. I know Boydstun is there and I respect him, and Grames?, and some other moderator with a computerish online name.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went back to O online and I am still banned. Say? Maybe I will call myself Doctor Whowhat and pretend I ain't never been there before. Aye matey, that's the ticket. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Peter said:

I went back to O online and I am still banned. Say? Maybe I will call myself Doctor Whowhat and pretend I ain't never been there before. Aye matey, that's the ticket. 

I don't see how you would have gotten "unbanned".  If you're hankering to join, you may as well set up a new username, probably all you need to do is have it link to a different email address.  If you were banned in 2011, obviously I don't know what you did to get banned, but just look what I was able to write in 2012:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/23082-peikoff-on-date-rape/&tab=comments#comment-288348

There was someone calling for me to be banned, but it didn't happen.  I posted there pretty recently, within a week or so, something about music. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darned if I remember the reason for the ban. I remember talking about "coming to the nuisance" and property rights. And I like to quote old letters which is verboten if I remember. I remember thinking it weird that if I am being non rational why can't the pillars of the big O objectivist community not squash me like a bug with their reasoning? I saw one recent letter there saying Binswanger had gone off the deep end and there were no signs of anyone being aghast. But . . . the fact that a ban is still in place after all this time, is fine with me, if a bit odd.   

edit. The only other thing I will add is that going back to that site is creepy, like looking through the fence at the people in an insane asylum. I get it that "someone owns or monitors" the site as happens here on OL, but I was struck by the fact that I didn't cuss, denigrate, or otherwise behave in an unjust manner. I wanted to argue rationally. But, noooooo . . . . 

    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if you combine her expressed political ideology with the fact of her favoring voting for Nixon but hating libertarians then there is no telling whom she might vote for (except probably not people close to her professed ideology).  Over the years I have often accused Rand of being a recovering Platonist.  She seemed to feel that she could answer all manner of questions just reasoning them out in her NYC apartment.  I found her brilliant on theory but very unpredictable on applications and lacking in common sense.  For example, I think even her hair dresser could have told her it would be foolish to have an affair with NB.  There is another thread here on her smoking, another area where she drew a conclusion based on pure reason without much consideration of empirical data or scientific method.  I was pretty exasperated back when I got monthly examples of this sort of thing.  I think it did untold damage to her own life and that of her followers.  I so much wanted John Galt to show up and kick her ass, and I think she wanted that even more than I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I changed my mind. I am sorry about the 41 people at ARI losing their jobs. But still, their online forum, Objectivism Online, has a policy everyone here should read. For instance, you are forbidden from mentioning little o Objectivism or the name David Kelly.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob wrote: There is another thread here on her smoking, another area where she drew a conclusion based on pure reason without much consideration of empirical data or scientific method. end quote

Pure Reason, Bob, sounds like some other philosopher. I had to search my files and found Ayn Rand’s college transcript thanks to Mr. Sciabarra. I edited it for brevity. Peter

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: IN SEARCH OF THE RAND TRANSCRIPT By Chris Matthew Sciabarra The transcript confirms all of those facts that I had previously uncovered in the official Rosenbaum dossier, dated 6 August 1992, as part of my research for Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (1995).

It also provides an additional piece of information: that Rosenbaum received her Certificate of Graduation (Diploma No. 1552) on 13 October 1924. Most importantly, it tells us that during her period of study, Rosenbaum passed--or "received credit for" or "fulfilled the requirements of"--twenty-six courses. These are important qualifications for no grades are recorded therein. Rand’s claim to Barbara Branden (1986, 54) that she had "graduated from the university with the highest honors" remains unconfirmed. In fact, during this period, Rand may have done well on her exams, but academic performance was assessed simply as pass or fail, with a "retake" option for those students who received failing grades (Konecny 1994, 201).

As I indicate in my Liberty article detailing the relentless search for the Rosenbaum transcript, it was the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI) that first discovered the document. When I had been in negotiations with the ARI to secure a copy of the transcript--a negotiation that eventually failed--its officials had noted that the signatures on the transcript were illegible. That fact was confirmed by the university archivists, who were unable to decipher any of the signatures on the document. However, the ARI officials had insisted that they could not detect the signature of Nicholas Onufrievich Lossky. Its presence, they believed, would have confirmed, once and for all, that he was, indeed, one of Rand's teachers--a question raised by my own work in Russian Radical.

. . . . 1. General Theory of the State and the State Structure in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)5

This course was a fairly straightforward rendering of the Bolshevik politics of the Soviet Union, presented in proletarian class-conscious, Marxist-Leninist terms. Konecny (1994) informs us that during this period "obligatory courses on topics such as political economy, the history of the Russian Communist Party, and the Soviet Constitution" were introduced into the university (111). These party courses did not become compulsory until 1925. While there were few bona fide communist professors in 1921, the courses were still highly recommended for all students (117).

2. History of the Development of Social Forms

This examined the development of human social relations from the perspective of both Marxist and non-Marxist political thinkers. It included a study of social formations--and their effects on the lives of individuals--as they emerged over time. Heavily infused with notions of historical materialism and evolutionary development, the course was probably taught by the Marxist, K. M. Takhtarev.

3. Psychology

4. Logic

5. French Language

6. Historical Materialism

7. History of World-Views (Ancient Period)

In her interviews with Barbara Branden (1986), Rand claimed that she had taken "an elective course on the history of ancient philosophy" with the distinguished N. O. Lossky, wherein she studied the pre-Socratics, Plato, and Aristotle (42). In Russian Radical, I argued that the relationship between Rand and Lossky was "of paramount historical importance because it was probably Lossky who introduced Rand to dialectical methods of analysis" (41). But the book raised some doubts about Rand's claims. Because of these doubts, some critics dismissed my attempts to link Rand and Lossky, even though this dismissal damned the integrity of Rand's recollections.

When it first came to my awareness that the Estate of Ayn Rand had secured a copy of the transcript, it was the possibility of a full resolution of the Lossky puzzle that most interested me. In my failed negotiations to secure a copy of the transcript from the Estate, the ARI officials claimed that they could not identify any listed courses on the history of ancient philosophy. I had hypothesized originally that such a course might be untraceable, since it may have been offered as an elective through the university's annex, to which Lossky had been relegated in the 1921-22 academic year. But I was convinced that the ARI’s officials simply did not know what to look for in the transcript. When I finally received an official transcript copy from the Central State Archives, my suspicions were vindicated. The presence of this course--on the "History of World-Views" or Weltanschauungen in the "Ancient Period"--constitutes further evidence in support of Rand's memories of this period. Moreover, growing evidence since the publication of Russian Radical has lent greater credence to my case for a Lossky-Rand relationship. For instance, I had examined, in that book, Rand's discussion of the 1917-18 academic year, in which she befriended a classmate, Olga Vladimirovna, sister of the author, Vladimir Nabokov. I discovered that the Nabokov sisters, both Olga and Helene, had attended the Stoiunin Gymnasium during the period in question. The gymnasium was founded in 1881 by Maria Nikolaievna Stoiunina and Vladimir Stoiunin, the parents of Lossky's wife. Lossky actually taught classes in logic and psychology at the school from 1898 to 1922. It is now virtually certain that the young Rand learned of him while she studied at this famous school for young women . . . .  

8. Biology

9. History of Greece

10. History of Rome

11. Russian History

12. Medieval History

13. History of Socialism

14. Special Course: Social Movements in 14th Century France

15. Special Course: History of the Crusades

16. Modern History

17. Modern History of the West

18. History of Modern Russia

19. History of Pedagogical Doctrines

20. Methodology of the Social Sciences

21. The Politics and Organization of Popular Education in the USSR

22. Special Course: History of Medieval Trade

23. Political Economy

24. Seminar in Modern History (16th Century England)

25. Seminar in Modern History (17th Century France)

26. Seminar in the History of the Middle Ages (the Medieval Estate)

. . . . In her full-bodied study of ancient, medieval, and modern history--in courses on Greece (#9), Rome (#10), France (#14, #25), the West (#17), Russia (#18), England (#24), among others--Rand would have been taught to view each society as a structured, dynamic totality of many interrelated aspects. The university historians of the period taught their students to grasp the whole from the vantage point of any part--be it literature, architecture, or social structures--and to synthesize these diverse perspectives into a coherent totality. Through the use of such techniques, Rand's professors provided her with an interdisciplinary, multitextured approach to history that highlighted the integration of theory and practice.

While we will never be completely sure just what Rand learned from her studies, we are now in a better position to understand, at the very least, what Rand studied. On the basis of the transcript, I reaffirm my deeply-held conviction that Rand was educated in the methods of dialectical inquiry, and that this sensibility informed her entire literary and philosophical corpus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 6:52 PM, Peter said:

LOVE. Is a Suburu. I hate that moronic commercial. When I see a stupid altruist type of commercial I make a mental note to never buy that product. Do it for love, for the children, for the puppies. Bah~Humbug!  

Bah! A rational response to being manipulated - and too, for a person who knows that love is too special a currency to be commonly devalued in every sphere, and given to all people. It's no wonder, then, by being an impossibility to the single mind, that generalized 'love for all' will always be accompanied by hatred, in the same minds. An "altruist type of commercial" is essential technique of the advertisers who know how buyers are influenced by association. Remember those ads with lovely bikini girls spread across car hoods? To think I shot a few... in many ways we've definitely progressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, anthony said:

Bah! A rational response to being manipulated - and too, for a person who knows that love is too special a currency to be commonly devalued in every sphere, and given to all people. It's no wonder, then, by being an impossibility to the single mind, that generalized 'love for all' will always be accompanied by hatred, in the same minds. An "altruist type of commercial" is essential technique of the advertisers who know how buyers are influenced by association. Remember those ads with lovely bikini girls spread across car hoods? To think I shot a few... in many ways we've definitely progressed.

I want to see the ad with bikini clad girls on the hood of a car, yelling, "Ouch damn it! That burns!" 

AARP jokes.

Fred: I’ve been dating a girl who carries a Taser everywhere.

Ted: What’s she like?

Fred: Stunning!

Sarah: I hate blood tests.

Farrah: Me, too. My blood’s under enough pressure as it is.

M: I have your next assignment Double Oh Seven. I am sending you to a party.

007: What are my orders?

M: Mingle. Meet people. Make friends and bond, James . . . bond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd. I went back to Obj. Online and I did not find the banning of any speech about David Kelley. I started to create an online account, but then it asks for your name and email address. I will pass on that. And I will never give another dollar to ARI, though it may be time to give a buck to The Atlas Society.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2018 at 2:10 PM, Peter said:

Darned if I remember the reason for the ban. I remember talking about "coming to the nuisance" and property rights.

I finally remembered my password at OO. Peter, it looks to me like the software at ObjectivismOnline doesn't mark a member as banned (at least it doesn't show for logged-in me). So there is still one Peter Taylor account that doesn't seem to be restricted. You will know better, of course, if your posting is restricted or blocked. Below is a post in one of the threads you last participated in over there.

I also note that (at least with my browser) OO doesn't let a person alter the HTML 'code' in a reply.

This is taken from one OO thread:

On 4/23/2011 at 11:20 PM, Trebor said:
On 4/23/2011 at 8:08 PM, Peter Taylor said:

Expletive deleted. Son, could you dumb that down a little more? You are obviously refusing to think beyond your catechism of stock Randian phrases.

Given that you have confused me with your son, along with the rest of the nonsensical gibberish you've written, I have to wonder if you are perhaps senile. Or if perhaps you simply failed to take your medication and are having trouble thinking clearly.

Snark!  Snarl!

And this is one of the penultimate posts of yours over there:

On 4/28/2011 at 5:35 AM, Peter Taylor said:

I was told this by a moderator:

Quote
Please do not post to this thread until you answer this question succinctly, without your usual rambling. I will probably delete any other answer you post here.

It is sufficient if the readers just stop reading my posts, there is no reason . . .

Ah what the hell. I may check back at a later date to see if this has become a forum for rational discourse, that would welcome my support. I withdraw mine.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

"So, was I banned, or did I 'flounce'?"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. Thanks William. How does one locate those messages of mine on OO? I must have later gone back and tried to log in and was locked out.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Peter said:

How does one locate those messages of mine on OO?

Try this:  http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/profile/10069-peter-taylor/

You can click on the other URL  embedded above, to get to one of those final posts ...

13 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

And this is one of the penultimate posts of yours over there:

 

 

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...