Ayn Rand's Influence on the 21st Century

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Conservative Patron Saint of Screw you, I got mine!".

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Google "Neil Peart" and it will make sense.

The above quote followed by a "meh" emoji.


How about if you just explain it?? Or - nah......far be it from you to let us all know what you're talking about.....
whatever.

That would constitute me giving you something which you not only can obtain for yourself, but will treasure more if you do obtain it for yourself: knowledge. I think my position against handing out freebies and working towards subsidizing others has been pretty consistent here...

a reply to: burdman30ott6

He took a lot of grief from people over that before eventually recanting and claiming to be a more "humane" libertarian.

Okay, I think that's good.

Thanks. She does seem totally inhumane, to me, at this point.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Conservative Patron Saint of Screw you, I got mine!".

Conservative Patron Saint of Screw you, I EARNED mine! actually.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
No, I honestly don't believe he did. Neil Peart, Rush's drummer was a big supporter of Rand's ideal at one time. He took a lot of grief from people over that before eventually recanting and claiming to be a more "humane" libertarian.

Go figure.

I actually thought he meant Limbaugh who, while he does advoacte for some Rand-ian principals, never struck me as an Objectivist.

That'll teach me to be a wise ass.


(Actually, it probably won't.)

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ya know, burdman....??? I don't know what "rise" you're trying to get out of readers and participants.
If you want to be cryptic and oppositional, then - obviously go right ahead.

Just so you know - I'm still not clear on your position about Ayn Rand.
Your ball.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nah not so much. She had no qualms about theft and exploitation.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Ok, in a nutshell. The album 2112 has a side long piece about the individual against the masses, so to speak. Neil Peart, who wrote it, figured out that he kinda ripped off a story from Rand titled, I believe, Anthem. So he gave acknowledgement to her for that and then got labeled all sorts of nonsense for years.

So even though he wasn't really using her ideas, just a story, even with the me vs. them theme, it's not as if he was directly espousing all the Rand had talked about. He caught a lot of crap for it.

Sorry, I didn't mean to cause a ruckus. BUT, seriously, you don't know the band Rush? Have you been living under a rock in a cave flooded with water and devoid of sunlight?

Nah, I get it. It's easy to associate Rush with Rush Limbaugh when this type of debate happens unless it's explicitly said, and I was ambiguous. My fault.

Okay, yeah - @burdman and Augustus.....
you both are confusing me.
I sense hostility on one hand, and understanding on the other, and frankly I don't know where burdman stands at all; I know Augustus a little bit.

So - can this squabble be publicly recorded right here?
I think we all need to know what the people think about Ayn Rand.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Ya know, burdman....??? I don't know what "rise" you're trying to get out of readers and participants.
If you want to be cryptic and oppositional, then - obviously go right ahead.

I do not think he is being cryptic, I actually googled 'Neil Peart' after I made my wise ass remark and learned the guy was a Rand supporter.

I then followed some of the links relating to this and learned he had to walk that stance back for all the crap he got for stating his position on her and her works.

Interesting read.

a reply to: TheSpanishArcher

I don't think it was you at all - I thought burdman was the one who introduced "Rush" and "Neal Peart" here.
Perhaps I misread.

Anyway, thank you.


OOohhhHH!! I see. Archer brought it up - burdman played off of it. I didn't get it, and so on.....

Okay, I think I see here.


@burdman, I still don't know what your stance is.
But, if you don't want to help me understand, of course that's up to you.

Thanks, guys, for expounding.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
I think we all need to know what the people think about Ayn Rand.

I think she is like many talented writers, I agree with some things she wrote and did while I disagree with others.

As my political views mature I find that not one single person can encapsulate all of my political sentiments and leanings completely.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Got a linky? That I'm unaware of.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I think my position against handing out freebies and working towards subsidizing others has been pretty consistent here...

That may very well be, but to be honest, I'm not a "follower" of your posts and threads.
I don't know you....except just a glancing awareness that you are here.

Sorry if I've been remiss in that regard. I will go and check your profile and posts and threads - I know it's tedious to repeat oneself over and over again. Still, new audience members come and go rather quickly here.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
@burdman, I still don't know what your stance is.
But, if you don't want to help me understand, of course that's up to you.

From an earlier post:

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
I think she was on the money in regards to federal meddling, taxation, warfaring, and welfare. I think she was wrong as hell on her opposition to national economic protectionism. I think her prediction of the US collapsing under the crushing weight of a mass who have refused personal responsibility while the government ensures they are provided for via the blood, sweat, and tears of those who take responsibility and actually work was extremely accurate. I would argue that she tracked fairly close to what I call "Social Darwinism," which is an ideal I strongly support and believe in where governments are concerned.

Her religious slants I have zero opinion about. It's 2015, if we refused to acknowledge the opinions of those with vastly different religious panderings than our own, jack squat would get done.

What requires clarification?

originally posted by: TheSpanishArcher
Got a linky? That I'm unaware of.

Just the stuff at the bottom of the wiki page.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

Okay, thanks. I got discumbobulated and kerfuffled due to the conversation's direction.
Sorry.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Ah, that's a bit ambiguous. I don't think....THINK....he was that big into Rands total philosophy of things.

Peart has often been categorized as an Objectivist and an admirer of Ayn Rand. This is largely based on his work with Rush in the 1970s, particularly the song "Anthem" and the album 2112; the latter specifically credited Rand's work.[52] However, in his 1994 Rush Backstage Club Newsletter, while contending the "individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty," Peart specifically distanced himself from a strictly Objectivist line.[53] In a June 2012 Rolling Stone interview, when asked if Rand's words still speak to him, Peart replied, "Oh, no. That was forty years ago. But it was important to me at the time in a transition of finding myself and having faith that what I believed was worthwhile."[54] Peart has also ascribed to a philosophy that he has called "Tryism," which means that anything that one tries to attain will be attained if one tries hard enough.

Doesn't seem all that bad to me but I know nothing as anyone here can attest to. Certainly not wnough to crucify the guy as that's exactly what the rock press, and even the msm have done to him and the band. Look at his response to being accused of Satanism:

Editor's note: The following column was submitted by a member of the rock group Rush in response to Jim Hankins' July 19 coverage in the Daily Texan of a seminar entitled "No One Here Gets Out Alive." The seminar was sponsered by the Longhorn Christian Fellowship and centered on the theme that many popular rock music songs are trying to turn American youth against Christianity toward Satanism or other religions. The group contended that either blatantly or through subliminal means, musicians convey Satanic messages in their songI am writing in response to an article which was written by your reporter Jim Hankins in your issue of July 19, "Group seeks to show rock 'n roll Satanic." It was awhile ago, but the article was sent to me through several intermediary steps. Besides, it's never too late to discuss a matter like this, and as I happen to be a member of one of the groups mentioned, perhaps I can interject a little rationality and truth into such a hysterical exercise in propaganda. Satanism. Now here is a word that should be kept away from some people the way you should keep matches from children and guns from jealous husbands! There is a certain trait evident in human nature which some people seem to possess in greater degrees. It derives from a state of insecurity and low self-esteem and shows itself in the actions of those who wish to make themselves look good by making others look bad. You see it everywhere once you start to look for it. People who can't gain respect for their own merits feel obliged to try and tear down those who do. We see it in the failures who try to prove their aloofness by criticizing the actions of those who actually do something, or in cases like this one where the weak and pusillanimous prove their righteousness by trying to punish the "less-righteous." A big advantage to such an attitude is that it keeps them so involved in other peoples' lives that they need not examine their own. So these are the grim-faced hypocrites who are stirring around in the dark places of life hoping to find something - anything - dirtier than their own reflection. And if they can't find anything - no problem - they'll just make something up! And here they are accusing rock musicians of being sincere and dedicated Satanists attempting to poison the souls of America's youth with subliminal messages of devil-worship. You know that's almost a very good joke! Almost. As one who knows many of these "demonic figures" personally, especially some of those mentioned in the article, the idea of some of these sold-out, burnt-out, cynical, strutting peacocks being so deeply and religiously committed to anything (save their "image" and chart numbers) is also a bit of a joke. And a pretty lame one at that! These nameless mercenaries don't even demonstrate that kind of commitment in their music: why on earth would they be bothered to go to all that trouble to put anything else into it? All they need (and care) to do is find a kind of lowest common denominator of commercial "acceptability." Yes, you Christian crypto-fascists, it is a joke! The only problem is - you're not laughing. I'm not laughing anymore, either. I've started to receive too many questions and letters from confused and impressionable young people wanting to know if it's true that we worship the devil. Who is it that is corrupting the minds of young Americans? Let us not for one minute forget that this is the same self-righteous mentality that has put itself to work persecuting witches, Christians, Jews, Quakers, Indians, Catholics, Negroes, Communists, hippies and capitalists down through the ages. There's always somebody to kick you when you're down. It seems like every group has taken its turn at one end of the stick or the other. From the bitter oppressed to the righteous oppressor is a very short step. Speaking for myself, as lyricist and drummer for "Rush", and one of those accused of this heinous crime, I must object, Your Honors. Far from being a closet Satanist, I confess crudely, I don't even believe in the old bastard! I wonder if that's better or worse in your eyes, Grand Inquisitor? I can certainly assure you that my lyrics contain no "demonic" secret messages or cleverly concealed mystical commercials. Nothing like that, I'm afraid. It is not only absurd and pathetic, but it is also totally incompatible with my philosophy, my work and my beliefs. I get all kinds of letters from people like this whose perceptions are narrowed and distorted by pre-set values and ideas, telling me the most fantastic things that they have somehow "discovered" in my words! As is ever true - they find what they want to find. Fair enough. I know what I put in there. It isn't that, and it isn't this either. Period. I don't wish to offend anyone's genuine beliefs, as it is a fundamental tenet in my philosophy that people should believe what they choose to believe. It must be stated, though, that when you've "got" religion, like Siddhartha, you find it everywhere you look. And when you've got evil, you'll find it everywhere you look, too. Ah! It's the old "recorded backwards" trick again, is it Watson? Ha! I'm sure you could play "The Star Spangled Banner" backwards and find a secret message there too. Wouldn't Francis Scott Key be surprised at your cleverness! How do you suppose he knew what it said in 1812? Don't you think something as vague as this is rather like a Rorschach ink-blot, or cloud shapes? Interpretation is based on the perceiver's state of mind - not on any objective reality. An ink-blot is a cloud is a song - frontwards or backwards. One finds what one wishes to find. Yes, there's something subliminal at work here all right. The subliminal and poisonous sickness that dwells in the minds of these fearful and pompous so-called Christians. And they even call themselves a "Fellowship." Think about that for a minute. Then think about what this paper and others have accomplished by giving innocent ink and paper over to this kind of drivel. You readers don't know that I would never even use the kind of grammar that these people have attribu

I would never even use the kind of grammar that these people have attributed to me, let alone the insipid and valueless supposed message. Listen to this: "Oh Satan, you, you are the one who is shining. Walls of Satan, walls of sacrifice; I know it's you are the one I love." That's disgusting. I mean really. You just know these people have to be sick. If you don't believe me, ask my Mom!

Sorry, space issues. I also tried to paragraph the thing but it won't let me for some reason, so sorry it's a bit hard to read.

However, in his 1994 Rush Backstage Club Newsletter, while contending the "individual is paramount in matters of justice and liberty," Peart specifically distanced himself from a strictly Objectivist line.

I agree that the individual is paramount in matters of liberty and justice and cannot fault him from a shying from a 'strict Objectivist line' as I think it is almost impossible to hold a strict anything line when it comes to politics.