Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ayn Rand. Show all posts

Monday, October 19, 2009

Goldman Sachs, Ayn Rand, Going Galt and the American People.

Now that Goldman Sachs posted a profit of $3.19 billion, and plans to divvy up record breaking bonuses between them, despite their enormous part in collapsing our economy last year, which continues to leave the rest of us struggling, with no signs of recovering in sight - the unemployment and foreclosure rates are still escalating - it's only fitting that Goldman-Backed, Ayn Rand-Inspired Fund (Roark Capital Group) will invest a record amount at this time. Of course, the fund’s investors include Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

But why on earth is Ayn Rand, Greenspan's hero, more popular than ever amongst average, everyday people?

After all, Rand, worshipper of sociopathic killers, apparently, shares the same view of the common man as Goldman Sachs...that average people were "ugly, stupid and irrational." This quote, taken from her first book, We the Living, "What are your masses...but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" pretty much sums up her view of humanity, with the exception of the elite, of course.

“On the same day that you saw stories about these bonuses, you saw a story about how wages are at a 19-year low,” -- David Axelrod a senior adviser to President Barack Obama.
Goldman Sachs embodies the Randian philosophy so closely the entity should be called The Ayn Rand Corporation. But wait. Isn't most of the population ready to string Goldman Sachs up by their...well, their sachs? Yet, Rand's greatest selling book "Atlas Shrugged" had an all-time record year in 2008, and 2009 sales should shatter even last year's numbers.

It's more than ironic that this woman who preached the virtue of selfishness, and self-interest - the very thing that almost brought the world's economy to collapse - as man’s greatest moral responsibility, and altruism as a vice, who strongly believed that markets work best when corporations are free to pursue their own selfish interests, who believed the the wealthy and the powerful are the oppressed, and whose Objectivist philosophy equated unfettered capitalism with absolute morality is the same woman people are looking to as their savior.

Excerpt from Michael Prescott's blog:

"Was Ayn Rand "a narcissistic, manipulative sociopath" - or at least a borderline case?
Well, consider the portrait of Rand drawn by two biographies - Nathaniel Branden's My Years with Ayn Rand and Barbara Branden's The Passion of Ayn Rand - and by Jeff Walker's The Ayn Rand Cult. These are, admittedly, hostile sources, but in the absence of any biography by Rand's admirers, they are the only ones we have.

Anyone judging by these books would have to say that Rand was narcissistic in the extreme. She lacked empathy. She could be intensely charming (charm and charisma are common features of sociopathy) but was also prone to outbursts of rage and frustration.

She exploited young, emotionally vulnerable people and frequently sabotaged their self-image with her vindictive cruelty. She claimed to love her husband but carried on an affair with a younger man right in front of him, a situation that drove her husband to alcoholism.

She was a hypochondriac. She showed signs of paranoia. She had an addictive personality, smoked two packs of cigarettes daily, and gobbled handfuls of diet pills (amphetamines).

She despised "average" people, whom she regarded as ugly and stupid and irrational, while viewing herself in exalted terms as the greatest writer in history and the greatest philosopher since Aristotle.

She was concerned with no one's needs or wants or suffering except her own. She was able to claim in print that no one had ever helped her, when in fact she had benefited for years from the charity and goodwill of relatives and business associates and friends. She alienated nearly all her friends and allies by the end of her life, and died nearly alone.

She literally drove people crazy; ex-Objectivist Edith Efron once remarked that if you spent any time with Rand, you had to ask yourself if you were insane, or if she was (quoted in Walker). She was a megalomaniac. She was probably manic-depressive. She created heroic fictional characters who are deeply repressed, incapable of normal human interaction, and typically angry or disgusted with the world.

This is hardly a person who should be seen as the epitome of rationality and benevolence - yet this is how her followers do see her. In my Objectivist years I once hesitantly suggested to a fellow Objectivist that there might be a few character flaws to be found in Rand, only to be met with a blank stare and the appalled question, "Character flaws - in Ayn Rand?!" In Objectivist dogma it is always other people who were at fault in their dealings with "Miss Rand" (as they like to call her). Somehow it was always those irrational others who abused, deceived, and hurt Ayn Rand, and her rages and bitterness were entirely justified, entirely rational. How could they not be? Rand was the personification of reason, so by definition whatever she thought, felt, or did just had to be rational - Q.E.D.

When I look at the portrait of Ayn Rand drawn by a variety of people who knew her best, I see a person who is certainly larger and more theatrical than the run-of-the-mill sociopaths in Martha Stout's book, different from them in degree - but not very different in kind.

And I wonder how a movement founded by a woman with such serious disorders could ever have been seen as a way to personal happiness or to a better world."
Greed was calculated by comparing average incomes with the total number of inhabitants living beneath the poverty line.

Read more...

Friday, October 03, 2008

Barney Frank Was Ambushed!

Years ago, when I used to watch Bill O'Reilly, I distinctly remember him refer to Barney Frank as perhaps the smartest man he's ever interviewed. O'Reilly said he didn't agree with Barney Frank on anything; however, looked forward to the challenge of interviewing him.

Fast forward to the latest interview. Bill O'Reilly becomes extremely angry right away, refusing to let Barney Frank talk. Why? Because O'Reilly knew if he gave Barney Frank an inch, he would take a mile. He knew that Frank wouldn't let him blame the entire financial meltdown on him and the Democratic party.

Prior to Bill O'Reilly's temper tantrum, O'Reilly lied, and said Barney Frank became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee (HFSC) in 2006 (9/30 episode). Barney Frank started the position in January of 2007, at the same time, the Democrats won over the House and the Senate. He also quoted Frank from 2003, and tried to apply it to his current position, further blaming him for the crisis.

This goes beyond Bill O'Reilly, although I'm sure O'Reilly enjoyed every moment. Fox News, the mouthpiece for the Republicans, has pegged Barney Frank as the "whipping boy" and the scapegoat for the financial crisis that they caused. Why Barney Frank? Well, aside from being Chairman (HFSC), the position he's held for less than two years, he is gay and we know how the Conservatives love to throw gay people to the lions to either promote their agenda or cover their ass.

Bill O'Reilly was foaming at the mouth and would have loved to call Barney Frank a faggot. However, O'Reilly knew that would be stepping over the line and might ruin this excellent opportunity to blame the Democrats. So, he did the next best thing and attacked Barney Frank's manhood, by calling Frank a coward and telling him that he's not a man, that he didn't "stand up" like a man, knowing that people who were watching, either knew, or would find out, that Barney Frank is gay. All of a sudden through the power of suggestion, O'Reilly's accusations make perfect "sense" to the average ignorant person.

The Neocons understand how important it is to keep the general public in the dark. That's the only way to maintain control and spread their bullying, scapegoating propaganda, essential to maintaining their control. They take advantage of our ignorance and manipulate us through our underlying biases, realizing that repetition of the lie will transform that lie into the "truth". My father, who watches Fox News, told me they replay this interview over and over.

“See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." -- George W. Bush.

“Propaganda proceeds by psychological manipulations, character modifications, by creation of stereotypes useful when the time comes - The two great routes that this sub-propaganda takes are the conditioned reflex and the myth” -- Jacques Ellul
Most people don't know all that much about Barney Frank. Most people don't know all that much about the financial crisis. It's easy to find a scapegoat when the public has no idea what's going on.

The Conservatives know Barney Frank is smart and they know he is not a coward. That's why they went for the jugular. Anyone who has watched Barney Frank knows he has no problem standing up for himself and for what he believes, thus the reason they used Bill O'Reilly, the biggest bully on T.V., to do their dirty work.

Is Barney Frank innocent of wrongdoing? Probably not. However, Barney Frank, who has championed the people's rights throughout most of his career, is not even close to being the cause of this mess.

Unfortunately, most people do not know the collapse of the banking industry did not start yesterday. It started thirty-years ago, when Ronald Reagan declared his extreme "free market" ideology and began the process of deregulating as much as he could, making sure his agenda would be carried out for years to come. It continued with Greenspan's wholehearted belief in an unregulated market; his belief in his hero, Ayn Rand and her philosophy of the morality of individual greed; his insistence on keeping interest rates artificially low, and inflating the housing and stock market bubbles...

Read more...

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Red-Scare Rhetoric Still Packs a Mean Punch

If you ask any American today what they think of McCarthyism, the vast majority will condemn it as a dark period in our nation's history yet more than likely these same people will cringe at anything associated with "Communism" even if what is associated, has nothing at all to do with that form of government.

Conservative politicians, very aware of the power "McCarthyism" still holds, figured out that by appropriating certain parts of the English language under the banner of communism, they could make most Americans vote counter to their own interests. In other words, they select benign words; soak them in a "communist red" solution until the whole spectrum of "red-scare rhetoric" is represented, ranging from "commie pinko" to full-blown "soviet crimson”, and then apply them to anything that interferes with their agenda. This tactic is so powerful it can convince the majority to deliver themselves into the hands of the enemy.

"Socialized" is an example of one of the words this group has chosen to soak in their "communist red" solution, allowing the word to absorb just enough of the color to manifest a distinct shade of pink. Any government-sponsored program that tries to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots is labeled with this pink word. Yet, what about all the Republicans who are in favor of publicly funding defense? What about publicly funding capitalism?

If the word socialized is defined as any program that is publicly financed or under government control, our defense program, and capitalism are most certainly, socialized. True, President Bush is trying to semi-privatize the military by using independent contractors in Iraq; however, defense and military spending consumes most of his budget, therefore it is socialized.

In contrast to the word, socialized, the term capitalism is pink-free, all-American, and totally supported by all those who circulate among the right-winged, wealthy elite. Yet despite the American flag, wrapped letters, only a very small part of the private sector reap the rewards of capitalism, and "we the people" always pay for its failure, especially every time the government bails out an industry or company. Not only that, between corporate welfare, rules, and regulations or lack thereof, created to benefit the rich, and a 28th grade level of education - or the money to hire people with that level of education required to figure it all out - American capitalism sounds pretty socialized to me.

As long as the socialized program does not enable or prop up the part of the population who struggle to make ends meet or who may have hit hard times, then, not only is it OK to bankroll, according to conservatives, its perfectly patriotic to run a deficit so large we can barely keep track of what it truly is.

Those who embody conservatism, whether they like Ayn Rand or not, embrace her egoistic ethics and believe in her "every man for himself" philosophy, totally discounting the importance of social structure and co-operation that allowed humanity to survive and evolve over time.

I am certainly not advocating Socialism, merely pointing out that just as each one of us is a complex composite of many different qualities, our society is also a composite of capitalism, democracy and yes, even socialism. Our job is to adjust, balance, and tweak the ratio of each element to create the kind of society our Founding Fathers so eloquently established in the Constitution.

Read more...

Sunday, November 18, 2007

The Hypocricy of Laissez-Faire and the "Utopia of Greed"

Robert Kuttner , author of "The Squandering of America: How Our Politics Undermines Our Prosperity", is convinced we are heading for a recession.

"The recent subprime mortgage collapse, and the hedgefunds that have contributed to the somewhat volatile stock market we see today have one thing in common. They have exploited loopholes in what remains of federal regulation."
Many Americans probably assume subprime lenders are put in business by some sleazy establishment, when the truth is, it's the bluest chip names on Wall Street including Citigroup, who can take credit for empowering this group. It's not the individual corruption that is the root cause of the numerous scandals, and the subprime fiasco we see today. Individual corruption is only the result of too much temptation created by the gradual process of deregulating the American economy that started in the 1960s and really took off once Alan Greenspan's "cheap money" policy and Ronald Reagan's "trickle- down" economics combined to create a "utopia of greed" giving birth to the mirror-image of the 1920s, the 1990s.

"‘Atlas Shrugged’ is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. -- Alan Greenspan in 1957 responding to a critic of Atlas Shrugged
Even in an ideal world, where everyone starts out on equal footing, Alan Greenspan's thinking is a little harsh, but considering the inequality and injustice that exist, he is either blind as a bat or ruthless as a rat. Alan Greenspan's strong belief in Laissez-Faire...that the government should not intervene to maintain a desired wealth distribution and that it should not protect people from poverty is steeped in hypocrisy considering he made sure the wealthiest citizens were insulated from the harsh mechanisms of the unfettered market.

"What she (Ayn Rand) did…was to make me think why capitalism is not only efficient and practical, but also moral," -- Alan Greenspan in 1974

Ayn Rand basically gave him the permission to blind himself to the ruthless effect "Laissez-Faire" could have on the *"parasites" he speaks of especially when he does not apply it to those who started life at the finish line...but has no problem reserving this sometimes brutal economic doctrine of opposing governmental regulation in commerce for the many people who cannot even begin to find the starting line.

The bottom line is deregulating our economy entirely, requires the regulation of unbridled greed, which requires reducing temptation in the market place which can only be accomplished through edict. Greed is here to stay because it is hardwired into human beings therefore cannot be eliminated, only regulated.

* In all fairness, Alan Greenspan was only 25-years old when he wrote that piece and should be given the benefit of the doubt. I know I have changed my views considerably since I was 25 and hopefully he has too. However, I do think that type of thinking influenced the decisions he made or neglected to make during the time he was Chairman.

Read more...

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP