It's the white Evangelicals who are fueling this dumpster fire.

How did you come to that conclusion? I don't interpret Reich as letting anyone off the hook by focusing on Rand as an ideological precursor that influenced the trend.

I agree that there is a very strong influence and a theocratic movement by Right-Wing Evangelical fundamentalists, (to be precise) and that's another issue to contend with, but how would not covering all bases in a short, focused video be exonerating a faction? There are many players in the game and you could say that Rand's philosophy served to bolster and encourage the kind of people who play politics with anyone that will further their interests and that's clearly out in the open with the obvious pandering to Evangelicals at its most superficial level.

This is a very complex and detailed issue and it has several factions and lots of nuance, etc. I even refer to one at a time and try to not drag them all in in order to be concise and not overwhelm people. I mean, Milton Friedman and the Chicago School is a big and related subject as well.

In response, I would recommend that anyone interest in the religious faction of this to take a gander at documentaries that are more specific about their influence and theocratic intentions for this country, which is nothing new, BTW.

Last edited Thu Dec 19, 2019, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

a better one than Trump. Maybe neither one really gave a shit about it other than their own careers. That's how they could go Republican later. As bad a Reagan was, he didn't have the Federalist Society goons telling him to go full on fascist.

Is there any point ranking them?

They are both the devil.

Big Recs, familiarize yourself with this uber selfish, predator locust ideology if you don't know it.

Not is over a year old. Mar 4, 2018.

It is there under VIDEOS on his channel.

Do you really think he's read her?
"Miss Rand" is a snake, but it's a long shot imagining that tRump has any understanding of philosophy,
despite the fact that Objectivism is just another Conservative boondogle.

the point is that Trump has read and digested her brand of philosophy, but the context that brought him to power is influenced by that view and he reflects or exemplifies it.

I assume Mr. Reich is aware of the lack of sophistication in Trump's myopic and limited understanding of the World, reality, et al.

I just think that we must be very careful when ascribing influence, especially with these sorts of toxic ideas in the mix.
tRump is Norquist's dream because his ignorance and stupidity has provided the cover for those who do believe this stuff to enact it in numerous areas, some still unreported.
Sorry, I'm a phd student, and this issue touches on my dissertation work on The Spectacle, directly.

I appreciate your concern and attention to details, etc. Your caution is well received.

That's a great topic to do your dissertation on, IMHO. Maybe at some point you can share salient points along the way here in a post or two? The Spectacle is an interesting perspective.

How do you see Debord in relation to Baudrillard, McLuhan, Chomsky and Korzybski? While the latter two are more along the lines of linguistics, I tend consider that group related as far as media influence in the social and consumer propaganda context go. Baudrillard may have been rather deep and abstract, but his ideas about The Simulation, (which echoes The Spectacle in a way) are insightful and even prophetic in some ways to me.

Also, I tend to recommend an excellent BBC documentary called, The Century of the Self, which investigates the effect and work of Bernays in the early years of mass influence by way of advertising and then follows it forward. Have you seen it? It is basic stuff, but an excellent primer. Not that I am implying you need to see it considering the subject of your dissertation.

Thanks for the comment and sorry for the tangent. Triggered! I know nothing!

The only thing I didn't mention is that the main focus of the dissertation is the spectacle and disability. Aside from disability (I have MS and Diabetes), my other areas are digital technics, rhetoric and Transgressive, Postmodern American Literature as my content area.

My original chair is a tough one, and he originally had me rewriting Deleuze, Foucault, Badiou (ethics) and Steigler. I wrote 53 pages and was just getting to the theory aspect.
But I'm stuck at this last part of chapter 1, so I'm now trying to move the "Dis Diss" out of technics where I'm not so comfortable and into rhetoric where I am if I can convince my old rhetoric prof to take me on.

I'm actually more Barthesian and Latourian, but all those you note, especially Debord (both Society of the Spectacle and his own "Comments on The Society of the Spectacle" 1988), are helpful in my lit review and argument/thesis formation. Actually, once I dug into this (mostly through the lens of disability), the spectacle seemed to be everywhere. You're also correct about elements like simulacra as the spectacle has many imitators and derivatives. However, what I'm trying to show its influence in relation to discourses in disability, medicine, society and, of course, subjectivity, especially "at the interface."

But I also went ABD 5 years ago (University of California, Riverside), and even though I am very fortunate to now hold mini-tenure in UCR's writing program, there aren't many folks still around from my cohort who are available to talk about this, and the rest of my committee has retired, so your comments are sincerely appreciated and are not tangential to me, especially since you obviously know this stuff.

So, thank you and please stay in touch!

I am glad to know more about your activities along those lines. I am older now, but the topics and authors you are investigating were an interest of mine in days of yore. I sensed from what you said that there might be some simpatico, but I can see that you might be far more deeply entrenched in it for your dissertation.

I would like to encourage you though. It is my strong contention that, in a society that purports itself to be about information, a missing factor is the knowledge that gives the information value and meaning. Your line of study is commendable and worthwhile in that we most certainly need some light shed on those subjects for a host of reasons. With such a variety of resources, I imagine that your dissertation will provide an interesting and useful synthesis of that material.

Yes, I have also found that immersion in a topic has an impact on one's bias filters and you can, for a time, start to project it onto your overall view for a time, but that is an aspect of absorption and attention, of course.

Personally, I have been fond of exploring what I call a radical, empirical subjectivity on the personal level. To state it simply, it is the question of the knower that knows. An example of that would applying it to Descartes', I think therefore I am. Eastern philosophy and insights are applicable here. When you think, there is a thinker, but who/what knows that? For the sake of brevity, the implications stand out by way of the inquiry. Essentially, can the subject be any of the objects of its knowing? To say it is relies on some sort of a fusion of knower and known, so that is basically the focus. That's a transcendent can of self inquiry, but I thought I would share it for the fun of it. It's a good senior activity.

I fully understand your point about having people who are able and interested in discussing this are of interest, but it does require quite a bit of familiarity and even extensive knowledge in order to have coherent and relevant discussions.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful reply and the details. To me, that is a marvelous field of study on many logical levels. I wonder what your overall outcome will be with all that related information and immersion in great thinkers? I commend you for your efforts.

Best Wishes!

all of which of predate Rand.

All "isms" are conceived and implemented by fallible humans or sinners if you prefer, so all philosophies will ultimately be abused by the corrupt.

Hers is pre-made for the corrupt.

And leo Strauss. They are monsters.and they suck as philosophers.

Let's hope trump follows her lead, closely!

Yes and no...

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, she allowed social worker Evva Pryor, an employee of her attorney, to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare.[97][98] During the late 1970s her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November 9, 1979.[99] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.[100]

Rand died of heart failure on March 6, 1982, at her home in New York City,[101] and was interred in the Kensico Cemetery, Valhalla, New York.[102] Rand's funeral was attended by some of her prominent followers, including Alan Greenspan. A 6-foot (1.8 m) floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket.[103] In her will, Rand named Leonard Peikoff to inherit her estate.

When Rand died in 1982, she left nearly $800,000 in her estate, much of which she kept in a savings bank across the street from her apartment, Ms. Heller says in a telephone interview. “She was a timid woman. Fierce as she was, she was also a little frightened.... She didn’t trust anything she didn’t understand, and she lived incredibly modestly.”