Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Ron Paul,Gary Weiss and The Real Ayn Rand,Zionist Fascist and Racist

                                 Ron Paul,Gary Weiss and The Real Ayn Rand,Zionist Fascist

Since posting this blog I came across an aspect of Ayn Rand's life that unfortunately explains moree about her allure to right wing fascists and con artists of every stripe from Ron Paul and Rand Paul and Zionist stock fraud con artist and 'business' reporter Gary Weiss to virtually all Ludwig Von Mises 'libertarians' to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and sooooo many more:

By Mark Ames

There’s something deeply unsettling about living in a country where millions of people froth at the mouth at the idea of giving health care to the tens of millions of Americans who don’t have it, or who take pleasure at the thought of privatizing and slashing bedrock social programs like Social Security or Medicare. It might not be as hard to stomach if other Western countries also had a large, vocal chunk of the population who thought like this, but the US is seemingly the only place where right-wing elites can openly share their distaste for the working poor. Where do they find their philosophical justification for this kind of attitude?
It turns out, you can trace much of this thinking back to Ayn Rand, a popular cult-philosopher who plays Charlie to the American right-wing’s Manson Family. Read on and you’ll see why.
One reason why most countries don’t find the time to embrace her thinking is that Ayn Rand is a textbook sociopath. Literally a sociopath: Ayn Rand, in her notebooks, worshiped a notorious serial murderer-dismemberer, and used this killer as an early model for the type of “ideal man” that Rand promoted in her more famous books — ideas which were later picked up on and put into play by major right-wing figures of the past half decade, including the key architects of America’s most recent economic catastrophe — former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan and SEC Commissioner Chris Cox — along with other notable right-wing Republicans such as Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.



South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford Lauds Washington,D.C. Stock Fraud,Money Launderer James Dale Davidson !

'But his( South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford's)career took a dramatic turn after he heard James Dale Davidson, founder of the National Taxpayers Union, give what Sanford recalls as an "apocalyptic" speech about excessive government spending. Sanford decided to run for Congress, pledging to end the deficit, eschew pay hikes and serve only three terms.' - Dec 01, 2008 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services


The loudest of all the Republicans, right-wing attack-dog pundits and the Teabagger mobs fighting to kill health care reform and eviscerate “entitlement programs” increasingly hold up Ayn Rand as their guru. Sales of her books have soared in the past couple of years; one poll ranked “Atlas Shrugged” as the second most influential book of the 20th century, after The Bible.

So what, and who, was Ayn Rand for and against? The best way to get to the bottom of it is to take a look at how she developed the superhero of her novel, Atlas Shrugged, John Galt. Back in the late 1920s, as Ayn Rand was working out her philosophy, she became enthralled by a real-life American serial killer, William Edward Hickman, whose gruesome, sadistic dismemberment of 12-year-old girl named Marion Parker in 1927 shocked the nation. Rand filled her early notebooks with worshipful praise of Hickman. According to biographer Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Market, Rand was so smitten by Hickman that she modeled her first literary creation — Danny Renahan, the protagonist of her unfinished first novel, The Little Street — on him.
What did Rand admire so much about Hickman? His sociopathic qualities: “Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should,” she wrote, gushing that Hickman had “no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel ‘other people.’”
This echoes almost word for word Rand’s later description of her character Howard Roark, the hero of her novel The Fountainhead: “He was born without the ability to consider others.”
(The Fountainhead is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s favorite book — he even makes his clerks learn it.)..........



Ron Paul, "Ayn Rand" and "The Trust"
Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Ron Paul, like Alan Greenspan, was heavily influenced by the Russian Jewess "Ayn Rand". "Rand" was born Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum in St. Petersburg, Russia, in 1905. I became acquainted with Rosenbaum's subversive activities while battling against one of the most ardent modern proponents of her philosophies, a radical Zionist Jew who many years ago proposed the nuclear annihilation of Iran, and who defended Einstein's reputation with falsehoods and smears.
"Ayn Rand" came to America from Russia presenting herself as if a radical anti-Communist. Hers was the typical modus operandi of Bolshevik operatives working for an official Soviet organization known as "The Trust". These agents, many of them crypto-Jews, came to the West in search of anti-Communists and infiltrated anti-Communist organizations and Western intelligence agencies. Their objective was to forward the interests of Communism by creating a controlled opposition to Communism which would serve the interests of the Communists while pretending to fight them. They also subverted all authentic anti-Communist movements..........

google 'ayn rand kennedy nasser lumumba'
'ayn rand israel'
If you google 'jim garison ayan rand' you will see certain kennedy assassination writers claim he was a big fan of Ayn Rand.However they all appear to be Jewish and so far haven't seen a direct comment of praise of her by him.The  Zionist Ayan Rand who was not a Semite at all but a Jewish Russian racist also mentions Patrice Lumumba as well as the Egyptian leader Nasser in her tirade against John Kennedy shortly before both are assassinated.The ex CIA murderer and money launderer Frank Carlucci who was in and around the Congo 'coincidentally' and at the U.S. Embassy there at the time of Lumumba's murder is more recently a war profiteeer as former head of Bush and bin Laden family connected Carlyle military industril corportation and has been dirctly connected to stock fraud against his fellow Americans in the Technion Israeli penny stock fraud called Pluristem that National Taxpayers Union and CIA connected Agora Inc of Baltimore and internet fraud founder James Dale Davidson has also been part of.
Ex Businessweek 'reporter' Gary Weiss who recently wrote a disinfo book about Ayan Rand to 'correct' Ron Paul's followers supposed misconceptions about her did a piece about the 'mafia on wall street' in the 1990's.However it was also a disinfo series that was to make you belive all the criminals were Italians when in fact they were or for the most part still are Jewish.
Gary Weiss has apparently found aiding and abetting stock fraud a more lucrative 'business' than investigatng stock fraud.His most obvious but undoubtedly not only involvement with stock fraud money launderers is with his Jewish pals Sam Antar of Crazy Eddie stock fraud infamy who used Israel among other countries to launder stolen money in the 1980's as well as Barry Mankow a Jew  who ran a scam called ZZZ Best until he was convicted and found Jesus.Ha.He then began shorting stocks that he claimed to be exposing for the frauds they were along with Antar with Gary Weiss help.Where they get the money when they to short stocks when they  should still owe every penny and more to those who they defrauded only Jesus or Yawe or whatever only knows.
Gary Weiss actually openly aids and abets stock fraud and was allowed to edit, or more accurately censor,Wikipedia criticism of my biography of National Taxpayers Union and Agora Inc founder James Dle Davidson while he,(Gary Weiss),was employed by Steve Forbes 'Forbes' business magazine or digital rag. This says as much about Wikipedia's ChicagoMercantile porn trafficker and Jewish Zionist Jimbo Wales who allows Wikipedia to be censorored by Zionists such as whoever didn't like the truth about Rahm Emanuel's father's Israeli terrorist past but also Wales allows Wikipedia to be used by various stock selling 'public companies' for fraudulent promotion of their worthless shares.
And while Gary Weiss is the first to cry 'anti-Semite' whenever he is criticised,it is paradoxical to note that his editing alias on Wikipedia,or at leat one,was 'Mantanmoreland',which is made up from the name of a black or African American actor of the 1950's Mantan Moreland ! For grown white man who claims to be a Semite,using a deceasesd black actors name to commit and promote stock fraud on Wikipedia is as low as you can get.
Author: Pro-choice Ayn Rand 'would have hated Ron Paul' | The ...www.rawstory.com/.../author-pro-choice-ayn-rand-would-have-hate...Cached
 Rawstory.com should be very careful about allowing a known stock fraudster masquerading as a serios journalist such as Gary WEISS FROM USING THEIR SITE FOR HI OWN SELF SERVING DISINFO.
Weiss like his supposed nemesis Ron Paul and Patrick Byrne of Overstock.com for that matter are all connected to stock fraud and the fraudulent Baltimore money stealing and laundering operation Overstock.com with its connections to   CIA as well as UK elite such as Lord William Rees-Mogg and the Rothschild crime family.They have all spread lies about a made up term called 'naked short selling' to distract from real stock fraud and insiders manipulation of stock shares.
28 Feb 2012 – Ron Paul delegate: Romney Republicans changed the rules to keep me out ... Gary Weiss, the author of Ayn Rand Nation, said Tuesday that ...
Forbes on Wikipedia:Gary Weiss 'Edits' James Dale Davidson's and ... and His Own Biography 
18 Dec 2007 – !Thanks to Gary Weiss-MantanMoreland 'editing' you will find none of this on ... Below is from Mark Cuban re Gary Weiss and his Wikipedia ...


blog maverick » the mark cuban weblog


Mark Cuban
22 Aug 2006 – I hadn't check out my wiki page in a long time, so i go on there and ... If Mantanmoreland truly is Gary Weiss, is it ethical for a journalist to ... “Accidental billionnaire Mark Cuban is the master of using his blog and email to show ...

As for Ron Paul who like Gary Weiss is also a big fan the of deceased hateful Russian white woman and Zionist Ayn Rand who erroneously thought she was a Semite, but superior to Arab Semites.Ron Pauk also is connected to James Dale Davidson's and Bill Bonner's and UK Lord William Rees-Mogg's and Porter Stansberry's Agora Inc stock fraud and money laundering and gold touting operation,Agora Inc, that Gary Weiss covers up for and censors James Dale Davidson's Wikipedia biography for.Agora is also CIA connected and also appears to be Rothschild crime family connected as well.Certainly Agora Inc.'s Lord William Rees-Mogg is Rothschild connected and among their long history of war and financial crimes they also helped finance Israeli ICTS International that 'gusarded' Logan Airport Boston on 9/11/01.
Texas Congressman Ron Paul has lied about unnamed stocks being 'naked shorted' to the SEC and only the neccessity of naming companies he held shares in to get federal funds for his presidential campaign led to his disclosure of one penny stock he held shares in called POIG that lied about its shares being 'naked shorted'.But this is no problem because both ex SEC Chair Chris Cox as well as his Barack Obama selelected replacement and Bernie Madoff cronie Mary Schapiro have lied about stocks being 'naked shoreted' as well ! And this fraudulent claim has benefited Israeli government connected securities and corporate saboteurs in the U.S. stock fraud 'business' such as the Grin or Grinshpon brothers David,Abraham and Eugene who are in turn connected to Israeli Austrian billionaire and money launderer Martin Schlaff.So not only is self proclaimed Ayn Rand authority Gary Weiss a crook and a fraud but so is Ayn Rand admirer Ron Paul.I think that says as much for Ayn Rand herself as it does for them but her own statements and beliefs below only confirm that she should have been made to stay in Russia or allowed to emigrate to Israel rather than being given free entrance to the U.S. to spew her right wing Zionist BS and given a very large soapbox to stand on and interfere in U.S. politics in favor of greed,lies, and the state of Israel.
 Ayn Rand commented on his presidency in 1969 during the Q&A period of her Ford Hall Forum talk “Apollo and Dionysus,”  when Richard Nixon was president. She said that though she is not an apologist for the Nixon administration:
“I think Nixon is a great improvement over his predecessors, several of them, including Eisenhower.” [3]
The following article appeared in Human Events magazine, issue dated September 1, 1960. The illustrations are from a different periodical and dated 1957.

This below from a right wing website by someone who seems to have an Italian like name but looks like a German Jew.:


''Just watched a fascinating 2-hour doco on Henry Kissinger on National Geographic. It was more interesting for what it reiterated about Nixon than about Kissinger, who was rather dull by comparison, and a sycophant.
''Even though she had him well tagged, Ayn Rand voted for Nixon. Twice. Against Humphrey and McGovern....''

J.F.K.—High Class Beatnik?

by Ayn Rand

The first question to ask of a Presidential candidate is: does he regard the American voters as adult, responsible human beings who need all the specific knowledge he can give them, in order to pass judgment on crucial issues—or does he regard them as blind masses, incapable of connecting two paragraphs within the same speech, seeking to be taken by any leader who’ll relieve them of the responsibility of decision?
The keynote of Senator Kennedy’s acceptance speech is that there exists a “New Frontier” which requires that we elect him to the Presidency of the United States. It is, therefore, important that we understand the exact nature of that New Frontier. Here is his description of it: “We stand today on the edge of a new frontier—the frontier of the Nineteen Sixties—the frontier of unknown opportunities and perils—the frontier of unfulfilled hopes and unfilled threats.”
This sounds impressive, until one notices that instead of saying: “the frontier of the Nineteen Sixties,” one could say: “The frontier of the Nineteen-Fifties” (or “the Eighteen-Thirties” or “the Seventeen-Forties”) and that the rest of the sentence would be equally applicable. In fact, there is no decade of history to which he would not be applicable. So the only specific thing Senator Kennedy has told us about his “New Frontier” is the date. If he meant something more than what any calendar could tell us, what did he mean?
The answer is scattered through his speech like the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that the listener has to assemble. “We must prove all over again to a watching world . . . ” says Senator Kennedy, “whether this nation—conceived as it is with its freedom of choice, its breath of opportunity, its range of alternatives—can compete with a single-minded advance of the Communist system. Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure?”
Senator Kennedy does not answer that question directly. But if one puts together the scattered half-answers, they add up to a loud: “No.” If any listener was left uneasy, with the dimly anxious impression that the American system was being obliterated in that speech, you will find the reasons listed below.
“Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom,” says Senator Kennedy, “promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises—it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer to the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, it appeals to our pride, not our security—it holds out the promise of more sacrifice, instead of more security.”
Sacrifice—of what and to whom? Senator Kennedy does not specify.
Now remember that Woodrow Wilson’s policy plunged the United States into World War I and, instead of “making the world safe for democracy,” as promised, it brought into existence three new “economic and political frameworks”: Communist Russia, Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany. Franklin Roosevelt’s policy plunged the United States into World War II and, instead of achieving the “Four Freedoms,” as promised, it surrendered one-third of the world’s population into slavery to Communist Russia. In both cases, the results were the exact opposite of the promises.

If a man held those promises as his political goal, such a record would make him pause and reconsider those policies. He would ask: haven’t the American people sacrificed enough? Have their enormous sacrifices of blood, wealth and effort brought about a better world—or a chronic state of crises, emergencies and ever greater dangers, and a growing spread of dictatorships? And, asking it, he would repudiate those policies as a ghastly failure.
But if a man approved of these actual results, if he held these results—not the verbal promises—as his political goal, he would not repudiate those policies.
Senator Kennedy does not repudiate those policies. He claims them and declares his intention to carry them farther—but, this time, without the hampering pretense of any promises. Farther—where? He does not specify. He is scornful of “security,” of “normalcy,” of “private comfort.” He is scornful of “those who wish to hear more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and subsidies are always high.” He envisions a government that takes, but does not give—takes taxes, but gives no subsidies, takes sacrifices, but gives no promises.
He is scornful of the Republican party as “the party of the past—the party of memory. . . .  Their pledge is to the same status-quo—and today there is no status quo.” Since the American past is the political system of freedom (and Free Enterprise), it is this system that Senator Kennedy regards as only a memory. If “there is no status quo,” if we are a country with a dead past and no political system—what does Senator Kennedy intend to create for us?
“All over the world,” he says, “particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power—men who are not bound by the traditions of the past—men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries—young men who can cast off the old slogans and the old delusions.”
Young men like Castro—or Nasser—or Lumumba?
There are no young men anywhere in today’s world who are coming to power to establish a system of political freedom. But there are many varieties of ambitious, power-lusting young statists of the Communist-Fascist kind, who have no political program save the use of violence, and no system, save the rule of brute force.
In the newer nations of the world, “the old slogans and the old delusions”—which those young men “cast off”—belonged to various kinds of old tyrannies (which they replace with new tyrannies of their own). But in America “the old slogans and the old delusions” to be “cast off” are the ideas and the principles of political freedom. And we ought to take Senator Kennedy’s word for the fact that he has cast them off.
“The only valid test of leadership,” he states, “is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously.”
To lead—where?
Senator Kennedy does not specify.

To a civilized mind, that “where?” is the first test of leadership, by which one judges the qualifications of any would-be leader. But to Senator Kennedy, “vigor” is the only qualification necessary. Yet the vigor of a prizefighter is not the same thing as the vigor of a scientist—the vigor of a thug is not the same thing as the vigor of a thinker—the vigor of a dictatorship is not the same thing as the vigor of the President of a free country.
Which did he mean? Senator Kennedy does not specify.
“That is the question of the New Frontier,” says Senator Kennedy. “That is the choice that our nation must make—a choice that lies not merely between two men and two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort—between national greatness and national decline—between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of ‘normalcy’—between dedication or mediocrity.”
Does this awaken any echoes in your memory? Do you remember who regarded “normalcy” as “mediocrity,” scorned “private comfort” in the name of “national greatness,” and demanded the production of guns instead of butter? It was Goering.
And this seems to be the key to the riddle of Senator Kennedy. Yes, he is opposed to communism. But is he opposed to it as an advocate of the American system—or as an advocate of some “new,” home-grown version of fascism which he seeks the power to establish?
His is not the line or the style of an advocate of the American system. The American system does not regard “private comfort” and “public interest” as opposites: it regards the “public interest” of a country as consisting of the “private comfort” of its citizens. The American system has achieved the highest standard of living ever known on earth, and its progress has raised that standard ever higher for all people on all economic levels. But that is what Senator Kennedy calls “national decline” and “the stale, dank atmosphere of ‘normalcy.’” What, then, is the “abnormalcy” he advocates? What does he regard as more efficient, more practical, more conducive to national greatness? There is only one alternative: the “single-mindedness” of a dictatorship.
His is not the line or the style of a liberal, nor of a middle-of-the-road’er, nor even a naive, old-fashioned Socialist—all of whom profess to hold the welfare, the comfort, the security of their citizens as the standard of the nation’s greatness.
When a man extols “leadership”—leadership without direction—leadership without any stated purpose, program or ideal—leadership for the sake of leadership—you may be sure that you are hearing the voice of a man motivated by power-lust. It is specifically the power-lust of the Fascist variety, because the Communists promised their victims an alleged social ideal, while the Fascists offer nothing but loose talk about some unspecified form of racial or national “greatness.”

And if one keeps this in mind, the nature of the “New Frontier” becomes intelligible, and the figure emerging from the Democratic National Convention seems to step out into a different light. Is it the figure of a bright young man, or is it the figure of an irresponsible young beatnik, a high-class beatnik, who, with unlimited means at his disposal, chose the power-game, as others choose hot-rod racing—for kicks?
That figure seems to suggest the image of a cynical young man, reared in an authoritarian tradition, in the post-New Deal era, who, substituting insolence for self-confidence, seeing nothing but the range of the immediate moment, brashly proclaims that political freedom is out, dead, old-fashioned or “square,” that dictatorships are here to stay, that the rule of brute force is the mode of the future—and who longs to get into the big league of the muscle-men, to run “a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men’s minds”—to “compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system”—to compete in the art of enslavement, expropriation, mass slaughter and military conquest—and to justify it all by means of a mysterious “New Frontier” that turns out to be nothing but the shabby old “Wave of the Future.”

illustrations: Ayn Rand photographed while Atlas Shrugged was nearing its publication date.  (Photographer: Bob Sleppy)

[Web site proprietor’s note: the text above has been corrected to add two end-quote characters where these failed to appear in the Human Events published version. I have retained the text as it appeared in the magazine insofar as “status quo” having a hyphen within it the first time the term is used but not the second and third.]
[Second web site proprietor’s note: the references within the article to Nasser and Lumumba concern African leaders of the time. Follow the links for more information.]

This page was prepared and uploaded after an examination of the pertinent copyright documents (on file at the United States Copyright Office) and follow-up endeavors undertaken to ensure that I committed no violation of the rights of copyright holders.
New content © 2010 David P. Hayes

Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East 


Sunday, November 8, 2009

Ayn Rand on Israel

Arabs: Savages that resent the civilized Israelis.  
So sayeth the guru Ayn Rand.  
The video below shows what Palestine looked like 
before the Zionist takeover.

When Ayn Rand spoke at the Ford Hall Forum she frequently got asked about Israel – whose supporters are anything if not vociferous – during the question and answer periods, which were open to any question. 

Her reply would go along the following lines: I support Israel; though Israel is a socialist country, [2]  in that region of the world Israel is the vanguard of civilization.

In other words, the gray of Israel is white compared to the surrounding near-black of Arabia. There is something to be said for that kind of argument, but of course it fails when the gray gets dark enough. 

Did Ayn Rand know how dark Israel really was? The year she wrote her essay, 1975, was long before Israeli torture came to light in the 1993 New York Times exposé, over 20 years after her death. 1975 was long before Israel’s massacre of Beirut in 1982, the year of her death. [3] 

Ayn Rand believed that Israel was America’s ally. Did she know how treacherous Israel really was? 1975 was long before the exposure of the Pollard Affair in 1985, three years after her death. Not to mention the USS Liberty attack (though it occurred in 1967 it was not made public until 1980), and many other acts by Israel against America. [4] And long before the publication of such exposés as Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception (1990) and Ari Ben-Menashe’s Profits of War (1992).

It is far more probable that Ayn Rand was ignorant of Israel’s brutality and deceit than that she thought Israel’s brutality and deceit were comparatively unimportant.

Still, she must be held partly responsible for her ignorance. With some effort even in 1975 one could break through the cloud of propaganda thrown out by Israel and its worshippers. Her mistake was surrounding herself with people like Leonard Peikoff, and – very likely – relying on their research, or lack of it. [5]

Even if Israel were truly civilized and our ally, it would not justify forcing American citizens to pay for Israel’s support. Ayn Rand did not have John Galt say:

“I swear – by my life and my love of it – that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine ... uh ... except in the case of Israel.”

Israel is no exception, and one would like to think Ayn Rand did not make it one. She was mistaken about the nature of Israel and sincerely believed that helping the Israeli government was in our interest. A mistake preserved in amber which ARI’s (Ayn Rand Institute) supporters bring forth at every opportunity. [6] 
Source:  Ayn Rand Institute Watch


Anonymous said...
Fair dinkum. Back in those days I knew where Palestine was and understood that "israel" was a country next to it. I thought they were just two dirty little countries with a boring border dispute. It wasn't until I saw a modern map with "israel" wiping Palestine off the map that I understood what my classmates had been protesting against.
Anonymous said...
She would not have been so thoroughly one-sided about the whole thing if she wasn't a zion-collaborator of some sort...I do't think...

No comments:

Post a Comment