Mike Renzulli

Hey Everyone, I just realized that in December of next year, The Fountainhead will turn 65 years old. Since bookstores missed or dissed Atlas Shrugged, may I suggest a concerted effort be made to commemorate this book be made by all of you by contacting bookstores, like Barnes and Noble and Borders, asking them to commemorate the publishing of this novel. The Atlas Society and local Objectivist groups might want to consider doing something to commemorate this. I know I plan on doing something with my group.

Exactly

Pardon my gushing but Angie's photography is EXCELLENT! With the kind of pictures at her site I am surprised that she hasn't been picked by someone to do this professionally. I am proud to consider myself her BIGGEST fan! Keep up the grrrrreat work, Angie!! You rock!

With all of the hoo-hah about Rep. Ron Paul, I have been suspicious of him for quite some time. While Paul is anti-abortion, there are a number of other issues he supports that social conservatives love, but libertarians and Objectivists would loathe. I did an analysis of his voting record and, while Paul has been critical of earmarks (i.e. pork barrel spending) for members of Congress, the man has accepted federal money for his district. Ron Paul is not a libertarian nor is he the freedom-loving candidate that he makes himself out to be. http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Editorial-P...m?InfoNo=021896

Well it looks like my hosting a radio show has been postponed since the last radio hosts got into with the board op/producer last week. Apparently, someone called in being obnoxious and the guy would not disconnect the call or put the caller on hold. As a result, the 2 hosts nearly left. Someone else whom the producer likes and has some experience is going to take the helm. I guess my time on the radio will have to wait. <SIGH!>

I could take you to task for many of the historical points you bring up but will not since it will distract from the overall discussion. What it comes down to is this: we have a philosophy that empowers people to think for themselves and act morally towards others. There is no better philosophy out there that I know of that is better than Objectivism. Now, it order to get to point B you have to start from point A. In other words, in order to achieve the goal you want, you have to work to get it. It takes time and effort but it can be done. Our enemies, the Socialists, are a good example of an ideologically driven movement that has achieved their aims. Literally overnight FDR enacted almost every plank in the Socialist Party's platform of 1932. With time and effort we can reverse these policies. However, from my vantage point, it seems like you whine, moan and argue here more than try to take time to try to make an Objectivist society or reverse the trend you point out a reality. If history is any guide, people don't just follow leaders, they follow people with convictions. Think about it. John Adams pointed out that one third of the adult population was in favor of independence, one third favored staying with England and one third took a wait-see attitude. The Revolution succeeded because of French aid. The Principles of the Few were not sufficient for the success of the Revolution. And the Revolution produced a failed government under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution of 1787 also failed and was "saved" only by a Civil war that killed 620,000 Americans and maimed over a million and a half (this in a country whose total population was about thirty million). Somehow the Canadians have produced a country with about the same degree of liberty as ours, and without a Revolution and a Civil War. The Canadians also did not have to slaughter the aboriginal population either. Ba'al Chatzaf

Actually there is one that seems very promising. If my memory serves me correctly, this book was recommended in The New Individualist. Its called The Science of Success by Charles G. Koch. According to a review of the book at Amazon.com: "Koch is an engineer, born and raised in the Midwest, and he's an autodidact, with a passion for the free market theories of Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises." The review goes on to say: "Readers expecting a recipe book for business success will be disappointed, but those of a more philosophical bent will find Koch's observations fascinating. Not only has he digested the entire Ayn Rand syllabus of free market theory, but he's had the chance to put it to work from his headquarters on the plains north of Wichita." I look forward to adding this to my library.

This altogether is of much frustration among Objectivists and libertarians too. With all of the bad things happening, the end result could be (for lack of a better term) a blessing down the line. I think with things going the way they are, that the US is going to experience a return to the kind of inflation or stagnation seen since the 1970s. Fortunately, things can be reversed. For example, although I do not like Ronald Reagan, but when he got elected, he was able to reverse many of the things that contributed to the malaise at the time, like economic controls and taxes. I believe once he took over the White House, his appointees to federal agencies did little to nothing to enforce or create new federal regulations. I believe that was one of the contentions Democrats had with Clarence Thomas when he was being appointed to the Supreme Court. Thomas was Reagan's director of the EEOC for a time. The same in Britain with Margaret Thatcher with her ideas considered radical at the time of deregulation, privatization and tax reductions. As Objectivists, we have to realize that while we ascribe to a philosophy and advocate a type of utopian view of the world, it may not turn out the way we expect at first. However, with enough time and effort I believe that the view of society we envision can become a reality. It will take time and effort but it can be done. Its just a matter of keeping the ideas out there for people to subscribe to. If our own American Revolution is any indication, all it takes is a small, determined, radical minority to set fire in people's minds.

Point well taken with a little chuckle thrown in. You are right that never before has, as you say, an explicit, rational, integrated and comprehensive view of existence been brought about until Rand formulated and dramatized Objectivism. I agree it is the younger generation that will hear the voice of reason for a change, challenging not only their religious upbringings (like I did) but also the ancien regime seen today. However and in my view, the only way the young will hear it is for it to be communicated. Mediums like the internet can be effective. However, the ability to meet with and talk to individuals one-on-one is crucial to winning over people. This is the reason why religion is so successful because it is accessible and there are a wide variety of them for people to pick and choose from along with many who have core values and principles that give people a point of focus to live their lives. I believe one of the things Austrian economists point out as being the wellspring of human progress is dissatisfaction on the part of individuals. Once people are dissatisfied with the current state of things, new ideas and people who subscribe to them will be sought. In my view, making your Objectivist salon more accessible to the public via advertising and even starting one is crucial to making this change happen alot faster.

I understand that but all of what you are seeing can be reversed. With enough time and effort, all of what you are seeing now can be changed. I think Objectivists can lead the charge to do so. Do you really think so? I read a poll recently that shows fifty three percent of the American public believes in Angels and ghosts. What do you propose to do about that? We have a school system that is designed to destroy the ability to think critically about anything. What do you propose to do about that? Short of a total breakdown of the nation, nothing major is going to change. Even in -Atlas Shrugged-, the country had to grind to a halt and break down before there was even a chance of change. How much harder will it be in the Real World, where there is no sign whatsoever of grinding to a halt? Atlas is NOT shrugging. Ba'al Chatzaf

I guess I will post this as kind of a follow up to the Rise of the Global South post and let you all chew on it. This is also an FYI too as I also wanted to put this out so it would appear on the internet. As it turns out, not only are right-wing or culturally conservative religions supporting political groups (like the Christian Coalition) to push their agendas in government forcing their view of morality on others, the left or liberal religions are doing the same thing. Here in Arizona, there is a politically active group called Valley Interfaith Network. This group has been active in a number of issues mainly via the state legislature. However, they have ties to many other organizations that are associated with the Democratic Party, like the teachers unions. Also, it just so happens that many of the groups associated with VIN are also linked to the Arizona Ecumenical Council which is affiliated with the National Council of Churches. If you look at VIN's website, you can see many similarities in activities comparing VIN with the Christian Coalition. When I and other Libertarians joined a coalition group to stop Proposition 200 from passing in this state in 2004, members of VIN were in attendance. I distinctly remember one of them talking about how they were going to talk to rectors of some protestant churches they knew and I believe they also stated they recruited members from VIN affiliated churches as well. While many of you may be yawning or saying "so what?" to this news, I think it speaks volumes of the influence of religion now-a-days. And with all of the broo-ha-ha the media makes about religious conservatives, they tend to turn a blind eye to religious liberal organizations like this. Also, this goes to show how organized religions in general will work in unison with like-minded politicians which lead to manipulation and control of the populace. A liberal religious group could be coming to a parish near you or it may already have arrived. As it turns out, a national group known as the North American Interfaith Network is up and running which has affiliates in many states around the country. Fortunately, Objectivists can be the counterbalance to movements like this just like they can be with churches from the Global South. Our emphasis on reason and rejection of mysticism can stem this tide that is occuring. I have made it a point to make my Objectivist group as public as possible. Holding meeting in places easily accessible to people and, if you Objectivist group does not do this, I would suggest that you start. I would like to think that it was Rand's writings and philosophy that helped stem the tide of collectivism in this country. She was the right person at the right time. Objectivists can are in the right place at the right time to stem this tide of mystical collectivism. Now is an excellent time to start.

I really have little interest to see any interviews by Brook or many of the folks at ARI as I am wary of their brand of Objectivism, which is looking less and less like it is true Objectivist philosophy. Especially their supporting neo-conservative policies (like pre-emptive war) and dressing them up in Objectivist rhetoric. Did you happen to see it? If so, what did you think of it?

Your post is pertinent and very well articulated. However, I tend to disagree in terms of your assessment of Iran. You are right local politics would have existed with or without the USA. However, the evidence speaks for itself in terms of what happened in Iran with Mossadegh and was the shot heard round the middle east, if not the world, that the US had become an empire. The operation the CIA carried out for this was called Operation Ajax and what happened is all detailed in a book still in print written by Stephen Kinzer called All the Shah's Men. It goes into the events that lead to the Shah's installation in Iran. According to Kinzer's book, the only sources in Iran used to help stage the coup were radio stations and newspapers whom the CIA bought off to churn out propaganda to favoring the Shah that were written by CIA desk officers. The main player in this was someone named Kermit Roosevelt who was related to Theodore (and possibly Franklin) Roosevelt. The details of Kinzer's book point squarely at CIA personnel doing this in Iran itself in which, oddly enough, this entire fiasco had the sanctioning of President Eisenhower. I agree with your premise that the US should not be in the business of interfering in other country's affairs like backing dictators as was seen in Latin American countries (like Brazil, Chile and Argentinia) and it most certainly should not promote commercial interests overseas or anywhere else. However, I disagree with your assessment of the subject of the installation of the Shah since promoting and securing commercial interests in that country was exactly the U.S. government did. It was all CIA all the time. Martin, This is one of the excesses of rhetoric that characterizes this kind of debate and, unfortunately, it clouds the message to those who would be sympathetic. I agree in full with you about the monkeyshines and pure incompetence of the USA government in its Middle Ease policies (remember in the Afghanistan war that hardly anybody on our side even spoke Farsi, although that was the language of Iran?), but it did not overthrow anybody in Iran. It backed Iranians who did the overthrowing (and they had to speak in English to get that backing). There was the element of local politics that would have existed with or without the USA. I know this scenario well from having seen it up close in Brazil. (The USA government supported the military dictatorship of the 60's and 70's there.) The USA keeps a distance in a dictator's local politics despite some covert operations and funding, but USA businesses come in full force in providing infrastructure works to his government. The aura of the American presence—the public image fostered—in such a country is geared toward competitive business, but in reality this is merely the old boy club. The only direct military part is in providing training to the secret police of the dictators, selling ordnance to the government, and maybe getting permission to set up a military base for strictly USA interests. The amount of hard feelings this creates in a foreign society is hard to communicate to people here. A mother whose son has been killed by the secret police is told by the American representatives in her country, "We had nothing to do with that." Yet she looks and sees that the soldiers of the dictator's secret police were trained by the agents of the Americans talking. She sees the dictator filling his coffers with money coming from those Americans while she sees none of it. Her taxes constantly go up to help pay for the new infrastructure projects and many are abandoned within a year or two after the PR splash. I can't think of a better recipe for instilling hatred for Americans. USA business has no business doing business with foreign dictators. And the USA government has no business doing business in the first place. Michael

Thank you all very much. Your recommendations are very much appreciated!

Hey just an update. My filling in on Ernie Hancock's Declare Your Independence show on Air America Phoenix has been moved to next Sunday.

I would have to say Leadership since I doubt I will be doing much on the marketing side of business.

Hey All, Can anyone recommend an author that has written good books on business management? I plan on going into management at my job and am looking for great authors to reinforce and enhance my knowledge about management.

I can't agree with your statement since the Objectivist view of atheism is a statement of the fact that no gods of any kind exist. Same goes for other mystical creatures, an after life or paranormal phenomenon, like psychics, reincarnation or ghosts. Our denial of the existence of any gods isn't grounded in dogmatism, its a statement of fact and also cuts the proponents off at their knees since they have nothing they can argue with you other than the onus would be on them to prove their god exists. If believers take our denial of their god's existence as dogmatic, I say so be it. Its about time belief in such mythologies should finally be thrown into the dustbin of history where it belongs. If Objectivist's denial of any Supreme Being or mysticism speeds this up, so much the better. One book you may want to look up that I will be buying but was recommended to me by another long time Objectivist is God: The Failed Hypothesis by Victor Stenger. In this book Stenger proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist using scientific proof as well as logic deconstructing the arguments in favor of God's existence. A summary of what Stenger's book entails can be found here: http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenge...ess/Summary.htm

post deleted

Hey Selene, I appreciate your response but do not have time for the clarification you request. If your issue is the (for lack of a better term) fundamentals of my statement, I am open to and would appreciate any input or constructive criticism to correct any errors in judgement or phraseology as I am relatively new to Objectivism. Otherwise, I look forward to exchanging views with you on the issues I have raised in this post.

Ultimately they do. I think both the RC Church and the evanglicals have a distrust of each other that lies below the surface since, ultimately, both factions independently believe they are God's chosen people and believe the other is wrong though they don't openly say it. I will never forget one news report I read back in the 80s where one evangelical or fundamentalist church leader commented that he felt that a visit by Pope John Paul II to the U.S. was a visit by Satan himself. Before he died, I believe the Pope also said that he felt that the Anglican church was "not a church in the proper sense". He later retracted this. However, the present Pope has said essentially the same thing. With this kind of sentiment existing within the 2 factions, it could come to a head at one point and their alliance will splinter.

I would like to comment and, in a way, warn you all about potential events that are occuring that can have a huge impact on us globally. What I am about to say confirms the fact that religion and politics are intertwined (one way or another). Like I said in a former post, I am a former Christian. However, not only am I a former Christian, I am also the son of a clergyman. My dad is a priest in the Episcopal Church which, as you all are aware, is on the verge of being kicked out of the Anglican Communion which is all but defunct itself. During the time I spent in the Church, I was active when Bishop V. Gene Robinson (who is openly gay and non-celibate) was ordained Bishop of New Hampshire. It was because of Robinson's ordination that set off the backlash that has lead to the splinter not only in Episcopal Church and Anglican Communion worldwide. Many conservative Episcopalians (whom my father counts as one) have allied themselves with conservative Anglican Diocese in Africa in which it is in Africa, Asia and Latin America that is influencing the cultural conservatism seen in Christianity today. Much like the U.S. is seeing with the growth of cultural conservative Christian denominations in the southern United States. At the expense of sounding ominous or alarmist, because of the growth of conservative sects of Christianity in the Global South, this can have an impact on the U.S. even more so since it can re-enforce the brand of Christianity coming from the southern U.S. An example of this is the quasi-alliance being seen with the Catholic Church and evangelical Protestants using the cloak of Intelligent Design to bring creationism back into educational institutions as well as their active and hostile activities towards social issues like abortion rights. What is happening with countries in Europe with the activities of Muslims that are hostile towards the countries they settle in can also happen here too and, while immigration should remain mostly free, the influx of immigrants from countries, like Latin America, can have an impact since many can and will be influenced by their religious leaders. I know for a fact that there is an Anglican Mission in America that hails from Africa in which the head of this effort is an Anglican Bishop who is known not only for his opposition to gay clergy but I believe has also allied himself with authorities in his country sanctioning the open persecution of gays and lesbians. I think as Objectivists, we need to be more pro-active in terms of not only spreading our ideas but also ready to be a philosophical counter-balance to the potential "onslaught" that can happen. While I am glad to see atheists, like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, becoming more outspoken about religion, what these gentlemen lack is a distinct moral and philisophical base to make their arguments against the existence of God. Also, some of them are not solid in their arguments against God's existence and it can come back to bite them. For example, Richard Dawkins says in his book The God Delusion that the existence of God is "very highly unlikely". While I understand his reasons for saying this since he is a scientist and obviously wants to leave open the possibility of a god's existence, this can come back to haunt him since he leaves room for this possibility. The religionists can have a field day with this. At least Objectivists see and embrace reality for what it is and our atheism is grounded in the fact that there are no gods of any kind to believe in or that exist. The influence of religion in this country and Europe down the line can happen and can lead to the west experiencing a dark ages similar to what happened in Europe during the 4th and 5th centuries. I think we ignore this potential threat at our own peril. If you would like a source to read that further explains what I am talking about, check out The Next Christendom by Phillip Jenkins.

Thanks, Chris! Not only have I head of Judge Buttrick, he has spoken at my group and we talk all the time. He gave a very good speech on Individual Rights and the Legal System. I also supported John for the AZ state house in central Phoenix when I became a Libertarian in 1998.

I can see your point, Chris. However, my reading of history is that Iran's radicalization came about after the U.S. had deposed their elected Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah of Iran. As a result of his iron-fisted rule ala the secret police force SAVAK which were trained by the C.I.A., this enabled the radical mullahs in the country to come to power. The hatred of the west was seething and was finally able to come about when the Shah's power and health came to diminish during the 1970s. Don't get me wrong, the taking of the hostages and our embassy was wrong and could be considered hostile but, in my view, was a reaction to the U.S. government's actions in the 1950s. The C.I.A. term Blowback comes to mind.

Hey Everyone, Since I have come to post regularly, I might as well formally introduce myself. My name is Mike Renzulli and I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I am originally from New York and moved here in 1991. I have been involved in a number of Libertarian political campaigns and activities. I am also an officer of the Maricopa County and Arizona Libertarian Parties and head my own Objectivist group. A little over a year ago I de-converted from Christianity after 37 years in the fold and I guess you could consider me an evangelical Objectivist. ;-) I love this philosophy and all of the "doors" it opens in terms of empowering its adherents to not only think for themselves but also the appreciation for life and how to live it. I am looking forward to exchanging ideas and thoughts with you all. Cheers, Mike Renzulli