Yaron Brook — Free Market Revolution — Videos

Posted on April 17, 2016. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Constitution, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Trade Policiy, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work | Tags: , , , , , , |

free_market_revolution-brook_yaronyaron brook free market revolutionyaron brook

Yaron Brook: Free Market Revolution

Inequality: Should We Care?

Objectivism Is Radical (and Applying It Can Be Hard) (OCON 2013)

Why Bad Economics Won’t Go Away

Yaron Answers: How Can Scandinavian Countries Perform So Well Economically?

The Power of Choice: The Life and Ideas of Milton Friedman

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Classical Liberalism — Videos

Posted on April 17, 2016. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Trade, Video, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 ClassicalLiberalismvsPostmodernismliberalism-definition-then-and-now StateFunctionsNigel-Ashford-on-Classical-Liberalism-02j s mills Mises-liberty

Classical Liberalism: The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

Classical Liberalism: The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty

Dr Tibor Machan Ayn Rand and the Right to Liberty

Ayn Rand: A Leading Lady of the Classical Liberal Tradition

Libertarian Philosophy: Do you want to live in the world of Atlas Shrugged?

Classical Liberalism: A Primer – Economics, History, Law, Limited Government (2002)

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 1: Introduction

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 2: Milton Friedman and the Chicago School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 3: Public Choice

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 4: The Austrian School

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 6: Anarcho-Capitalism

Schools of Thought in Classical Liberalism, Part 7: Conclusion: What’s Your View?

Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

Milton Friedman on the Role of Government

Milton Friedman on Limiting the Role of Government

Milton Friedman – Should Higher Education Be Subsidized?

Milton Friedman – The role of government in a free society

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Yaron Brook: Free Market Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Capitalism vs. Socialism — Videos

Posted on January 9, 2016. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Fraud, government spending, Heroes, history, History of Economic Thought, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Money, Movies, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Transportation, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

mith marxsocialism capitalism 2capitalism_socialism_communismcapitalism-vs-socialism-vs-communismcommunism-vs-capitalism capitalism-socialism-and-communism-spelled-out-in-their-pros-political-poster   nolan-chart-basicphilosophies
nolan-chart-majorphilosophies

capitalism-vs-socialism
Capitalism_Socialism_Libertarianism_Anarchy_and_Fascisme__4
   jokejCapitalism_communism socialism-vs-capitalismposter

Capitalism vs Socialism

Cartoon – Ronald Reagan on Big Government Programs

Reagan and Obama Face-off in the Ring – I Want Your Money Movie Clip

Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman & Capitalism?

Ayn Rand on Socialism and Dictatorship

Ayn Rand Schools Socialist Phil Donahue

Ayn Rand on Donahue 1979

Atlas Shrugged – ‘The Money Speech’ Mike Maloney

Ayn Rand ‘Man’s Rights’ From ‘Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal’

Milton Friedman – Socialism vs. Capitalism

Milton Friedman – Socialism is Force

Odc.3 – Milton Friedman – Free to Choose (1990) – The Failure of Socialism Napisy PL

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

Thomas Sowell (former Marxist) Dismantles Leftist Ideology

Thomas Sowell on Capitalism Part 1/2

Thomas Sowell on Capitalism Part 2/2

Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell on the Vulgar Pride of Intellectuals

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Friedrich Hayek on Socialism

Friedrich Hayek: Free Market vs Socialism

Friedrich von Hayek: His Life and Thought

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Watermelon President Obama and Pope Francis — Green on The Outside and Red On The Inside — Neither Is An Authority On Science, Economics, Or Democides — Cosmic or Social Justice Is Using Coercion and Force To Steal — Leads To Democide and Genocide — Videos

Posted on September 23, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Catholic Church, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Love, Macroeconomics, media, Medicine, Microeconomics, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Movies, Newspapers, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Religious, Security, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Television, Television, Terrorism, Torture, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weather, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: Watermelon President Obama and Pope Francis — Green on The Outside and Red On The Inside — Neither Is An Authority On Science, Economics, Or Democides — Cosmic or Social Justice Is Using Coercion and Force To Steal — Leads To Democide and Genocide — Videos

Lord Acton on “Power Corrupts”

I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

letter that Acton wrote to Bishop Creighton

In The Shoes of the Fisherman (Last Scene)

Pope Francis in the USA- Welcome ceremony and visit to the President

Milton Friedman – Collectivism

AYN RAND PREDICTS OBAMAS END TO THE REPUBLIC

Milton Friedman – Socialism is Force

Milton Friedman discusses the moral values encouraged by economic systems and explains that a primary difference between capitalism and socialism is the difference between free choice and compulsory force.

Milton Friedman – Whats wrong with welfare? (Q&A)

Milton Friedman on Donahue #2

Milton Friedman Speaks – Is Capitalism Humane?

Rush Limbaugh Bashes Pope Francis

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Friedrich Hayek on Redistribution of Wealth

F A Hayek – Social Justice

Thomas Sowell – The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Full Video)

The reason Social Justice is fundamentally incompatible with equality of opportunity.

Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions

The Life & Thought of Friedrich Hayek

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Watermelons

ManBearPig, Climategate and Watermelons: A conversation with author James Delingpole

James Delingpole is a bestselling British author and blogger who helped expose the Climategate scandal back in 2009. Reason.tv caught up with Delingpole in Los Angeles recently to learn more about his entertaining and provocative new book Watermelons: The Green Movement’s True Colors. At its very roots, argues Delingpole, climate change is an ideological battle, not a scientific one. In other words, it’s green on the outside and red on the inside. At the end of the day, according to Delingpole, the “watermelons” of the modern environmental movement do not want to save the world. They want to rule it.

MAJOR REDUCTIONS IN CARBON EMISSIONS ARE NOT WORTH THE MONEY 4 /14- Intelligence Squared U.S.

Climate Change in 12 Minutes – The Skeptic’s Case

James Delingpole: Great Britain, the Green Movement, and the End of the World

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D. Lecture Deconstructs Global Warming Hysteria (High Quality Version)

Mind blowing speech by Robert Welch in 1958 predicting Insiders plans to destroy America

The Ten Planks of the 
Communist Manifesto
1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx

List of short-term demands, also known as the ten planks:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

The Left Has Its Pope

By Thomas Sowell

Pope Francis has created political controversy, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, by blaming capitalism for many of the problems of the poor. We can no doubt expect more of the same during his visit to the United States.

Pope Francis is part of a larger trend of the rise of the political left among Catholic intellectuals. He is, in a sense, the culmination of that trend.
There has long been a political left among Catholics, as among other Americans. Often they were part of the pragmatic left, as in the many old Irish-run, big city political machines that dispensed benefits to the poor in exchange for their votes, as somewhat romantically depicted in the movie classic, “The Last Hurrah.”

But there has also been a more ideological left. Where the Communists had their official newspaper, “The Daily Worker,” there was also “The Catholic Worker” published by Dorothy Day.

A landmark in the evolution of the ideological left among Catholics was a publication in the 1980s, by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, titled “Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy.”

Although this publication was said to be based on Catholic teachings, one of its principal contributors, Archbishop Rembert Weakland, said: “I think we should be up front and say that really we took this from the Enlightenment era.”

The specifics of the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter reflect far more of the secular Enlightenment of the 18th century than of Catholic traditions. Archbishop Weakland admitted that such an Enlightenment figure as Thomas Paine “is now coming back through a strange channel.”

Strange indeed. Paine rejected the teachings of “any church that I know of,” including “the Roman church.” He said: “My own mind is my own church.” Nor was Paine unusual among the leading figures of the 18th century Enlightenment.

To base social or moral principles on the philosophy of the 18th century Enlightenment, and then call the result “Catholic teachings” suggests something like bait-and-switch advertising.

But, putting aside religious or philosophical questions, we have more than two centuries of historical evidence of what has actually happened as the ideas of people like those Enlightenment figures were put into practice in the real world — beginning with the French Revolution and its disastrous aftermath.

Both the authors of the Bishops’ Pastoral Letter in the 1980s, and Pope Francis today, blithely throw around the phrase “the poor,” and blame poverty on what other people are doing or not doing to or for “the poor.”

Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things — none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.

Geographic settings are radically different, both among nations and within nations. So are demographic differences, with some nations and groups having a median age over 40 and others having a median age under 20. This means that some groups have several times as much adult work experience as others.

Cultures are also radically different in many ways.

As distinguished economic historian David S. Landes put it, “The world has never been a level playing field.” But which has a better track record of helping the less fortunate — fighting for a bigger slice of the economic pie, or producing a bigger pie?

In 1900, only 3 percent of American homes had electric lights but more than 99 percent had them before the end of the century. Infant mortality rates were 165 per thousand in 1900 and 7 per thousand by 1997. By 2001, most Americans living below the official poverty line had central air conditioning, a motor vehicle, cable television with multiple TV sets, and other amenities.

A scholar specializing in the study of Latin America said that the official poverty level in the United States is the upper middle class in Mexico. The much criticized market economy of the United States has done far more for the poor than the ideology of the left.

Pope Francis’ own native Argentina was once among the leading economies of the world, before it was ruined by the kind of ideological notions he is now promoting around the world.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/22/the_left_has_its_pope_128160.html

Pope Francis’s fact-free flamboyance

Opinion writer

Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert’s indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak — if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill.

Supporters of Francis have bought newspaper and broadcast advertisements to disseminate some of his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies. One example: “People occasionally forgive, but nature never does.” The Vatican’s majesty does not disguise the vacuity of this. Is Francis intimating that environmental damage is irreversible? He neglects what technology has accomplished regarding London’s air (see Page 1 of Dickens’s “Bleak House”) and other matters.

George F. Will writes a twice-weekly column on politics and domestic and foreign affairs. He began his column with The Post in 1974, and he received the Pulitzer Prize for Commentary in 1977. He is also a contributor to FOX News’ daytime and primetime programming.View Archive

And the Earth is becoming “an immense pile of filth”? Hyperbole is a predictable precursor of yet anotherU.N. Climate Change Conference — the 21st since 1995. Fortunately, rhetorical exhibitionism increases as its effectiveness diminishes. In his June encyclical and elsewhere, Francis lectures about our responsibilities, but neglects the duty to be as intelligent as one can be.This man who says “the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions” proceeds as though everything about which he declaims is settled, from imperiled plankton to air conditioning being among humanity’s “harmful habits.” The church that thought it was settled science that Galileo was heretical should be attentive to all evidence.

Francis deplores “compulsive consumerism,” a sin to which the 1.3 billion persons without even electricity can only aspire. He leaves the Vatican to jet around praising subsistence farming, a romance best enjoyed from 30,000 feet above the realities that such farmers yearn to escape.

The saint who is Francis’s namesake supposedly lived in sweet harmony with nature. For most of mankind, however, nature has been, and remains, scarcity, disease and natural — note the adjective — disasters. Our flourishing requires affordable, abundant energy for the production of everything from food to pharmaceuticals. Poverty has probably decreased more in the past two centuries than in the preceding three millennia because of industrialization powered by fossil fuels. Only economic growth has ever produced broad amelioration of poverty, and since growth began in the late 18th century, it has depended on such fuels.

Matt Ridley, author of “The Rational Optimist,” notes that coal supplanting wood fuel reversed deforestation, and that “fertilizer manufactured with gas halved the amount of land needed to produce a given amount of food.” The capitalist commerce that Francis disdains is the reason the portion of the planet’s population living in “absolute poverty” ($1.25 a day) declined from 53 percent to 17 percent in three decades after 1981. Even in low-income countries, writes economist Indur Goklany, life expectancy increased from between 25 to 30 years in 1900 to 62 years today. Sixty-three percent of fibers are synthetic and derived from fossil fuels; of the rest, 79 percent come from cotton, which requires synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. “Synthetic fertilizers and pesticides derived from fossil fuels,” he says, “are responsible for at least 60 percent of today’s global food supply.” Without fossil fuels, he says, global cropland would have to increase at least 150 percent — equal to the combined land areas of South America and the European Union — to meet current food demands.

Francis grew up around the rancid political culture of Peronist populism, the sterile redistributionism that has reduced his Argentina from the world’s 14th highest per-capita gross domestic product in 1900 to 63rd today. Francis’s agenda for the planet — “global regulatory norms” — would globalize Argentina’s downward mobility.

As the world spurns his church’s teachings about abortion, contraception, divorce, same-sex marriage and other matters, Francis jauntily makes his church congruent with the secular religion of “sustainability.” Because this is hostile to growth, it fits Francis’s seeming sympathy for medieval stasis, when his church ruled the roost, economic growth was essentially nonexistent and life expectancy was around 30.

Francis’s fact-free flamboyance reduces him to a shepherd whose selectively reverent flock, genuflecting only at green altars, is tiny relative to the publicity it receives from media otherwise disdainful of his church. Secular people with anti-Catholic agendas drain his prestige, a dwindling asset, into promotion of policies inimical to the most vulnerable people and unrelated to what once was the papacy’s very different salvific mission.

He stands against modernity, rationality, science and, ultimately, the spontaneous creativity of open societies in which people and their desires are not problems but precious resources. Americans cannot simultaneously honor him and celebrate their nation’s premises.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

Obama’s welcoming speech to Pope Francis, and the pope’s reply

President Barack Obama’s remarks came first Wednesday morning at the White House. Pope Francis’ own comments are below the president’s.

Obama

Good morning! What a beautiful day the Lord has made! Holy Father, on behalf of Michelle and myself, welcome to the White House. Our backyard is not typically this crowded – but the size and spirit of today’s gathering is just a small reflection of the deep devotion of some 70 million American Catholics . . . and the way your message of love and hope has inspired so many people, across our nation and around the world. On behalf of the American people, it is my great honor and privilege to welcome you to the United States of America.

Today, we mark many firsts. Your Holiness, you have been celebrated as the first pope from the Americas. This is your first visit to the United States. And you are also the first pontiff to share an encyclical through a Twitter account.

Holy Father, your visit not only allows me, in some small way, to reciprocate the extraordinary hospitality you extended to me at the Vatican last year. It also reveals how much all Americans, from every background and of every faith, value the role that the Catholic Church plays in strengthening America. From my time working in impoverished neighborhoods with the Catholic Church in Chicago to my travels as president, I’ve seen firsthand how, every day, Catholic communities, priests, nuns and laity feed the hungry, heal the sick, shelter the homeless, educate our children and fortify the faith that sustains so many.

What is true in America is true around the world. From the busy streets of Buenos Aires to remote villages in Kenya, Catholic organizations serve the poor, minister to prisoners, build schools and homes, and operate orphanages and hospitals. And just as the Church has stood with those struggling to break the chains of poverty, it has given voice and hope to those seeking to break the chains of violence and oppression.

And yet, I believe the excitement around your visit must be attributed not only to your role as pope, but to your unique qualities as a person. In your humility, your embrace of simplicity, the gentleness of your words and the generosity of your spirit, we see a living example of Jesus’ teachings, a leader whose moral authority comes not just through words but also through deeds.

You call on all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to put the “least of these” at the center of our concern. You remind us that in the eyes of God our measure as individuals, and as societies, is not determined by wealth or power or station or celebrity, but by how well we hew to Scripture’s call to lift up the poor and the marginalized, to stand up for justice and against inequality, and to ensure that every human being is able to live in dignity – because we are all made in the image of God.

You remind us that “the Lord’s most powerful message” is mercy. That means welcoming the stranger with empathy and a truly open heart – from the refugee who flees war-torn lands to the immigrant who leaves home in search of a better life. It means showing compassion and love for the marginalized and the outcast, those who have suffered and those who seek redemption.

You remind us of the costs of war, particularly on the powerless and defenseless, and urge us toward the imperative of peace. Holy Father, we are grateful for your invaluable support of our new beginning with the Cuban people, which holds out the promise of better relations between our countries, greater cooperation across our hemisphere and a better life for the Cuban people. We thank you for your passionate voice against the deadly conflicts that ravage the lives of so many men, women and children; and your call for nations to resist the sirens of war and resolve disputes through diplomacy.

You remind us that people are only truly free when they can practice their faith freely. Here in the United States, we cherish religious liberty. Yet around the world at this very moment, children of God, including Christians, are targeted and even killed because of their faith. Believers are prevented from gathering at their places of worship. The faithful are imprisoned. Churches are destroyed. So we stand with you in defense of religious freedom and interfaith dialogue, knowing that people everywhere must be able to live out their faith free from fear and intimidation.

And, Holy Father, you remind us that we have a sacred obligation to protect our planet – God’s magnificent gift to us. We support your call to all world leaders to support the communities most vulnerable to a changing climate and to come together to preserve our precious world for future generations.

Your Holiness, in your words and deeds, you set a profound moral example. And in these gentle but firm reminders of our obligations to God and to one another, you are shaking us out of complacency. All of us may, at times, experience discomfort when we contemplate the distance between how we lead our daily lives and what we know to be true and right. But I believe such discomfort is a blessing, for it points to something better. You shake our conscience from slumber; you call on us to rejoice in Good News, and give us confidence that we can come together, in humility and service, and pursue a world that is more loving, more just, and more free. Here at home and around the world, may our generation heed your call to “never remain on the sidelines of this march of living hope!”

For that great gift of hope, Holy Father, we thank you, and welcome you, with joy and gratitude, to the United States of America.

Pope Francis

Good morning. Mr. President, I am deeply grateful for your welcome in the name of the all Americans. As a son of an immigrant family, I am happy to be a guest in this country, which was largely built by such families.

I look forward to these days of encounter and dialogue in which I hope to listen to and share many of the hopes and dreams of the American people. During my visit, I will have the honor of addressing Congress, where I hope, as a brother of this country, to offer words of encouragement to those called to guide the nation’s political future in fidelity to its founding principles. I will also travel to Philadelphia for the eighth World Meeting of Families to celebrate and support the institutions of marriage and the family at this critical moment in the history of our civilization.

Mr. President, together with their fellow citizens, American Catholics are committed to building a society which is truly tolerant and inclusive, to safeguarding the rights of individuals and communities, and to rejecting every form of unjust discrimination. With countless other people of goodwill, they are likewise concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and the right to religious liberty. That freedom reminds one of America’s most precious possessions. And, as my brothers, the United States bishops, have reminded us, all are called to be vigilant, precisely as good citizens, to preserve and defend that freedom from everything that would threaten or compromise it.

Mr. President, I find it encouraging that you are proposing an initiative for reducing air pollution. Accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem which can no longer be left to our future generation. When it comes to the care of our common home, we are living at a critical moment of history. We still have time to make the change needed to bring about a sustainable and integral development, for we know that things can change.

Such change demands on our part a serious and responsible recognition not only of the kind of world we may be leaving to our children, but also to the millions of people living under a system which has overlooked them. Our common home has been part of this group of the excluded, which cries out to heaven and which today powerfully strikes our homes, our cities, our societies. To use a telling phrase of the Rev. Martin Luther King, we can say that we have defaulted on a promissory note, and now is the time to honor it.

We know by faith that the Creator does not abandon us; He never forsakes his loving plan or repents of having created us. Humanity has the ability to work together in building our common home. As Christians inspired by this certainty, we wish to commit ourselves to the conscious and responsible care of our common home.

Mr. President, the efforts which were recently made to mend broken relationships and to open new doors to cooperation within our human family represent positive steps along the path of reconciliation, justice and freedom.

I would like all men and women of goodwill in this great nation to support the efforts of the international community to protect the vulnerable in our world and to stimulate integral and inclusive models of development, so that our brothers and sisters everywhere may know the blessings of peace and prosperity which God wills for all his children.

Mr. President, once again I thank you for your welcome, and I look forward to these days in your country. God bless America.

Read Pope Francis’ Speech That He Gave at the White House

Obama to Bask in Pope’s Aura, But Francis Wants Economic Justice

When Pope Francis meets Barack Obama at the White House on Wednesday, the president will bask in his guest’s moral authority and iconic popularity. But the first pontiff from Latin America is likely to exploit those assets to pressure his host on U.S. global economic leadership.

On Francis’s first full day in the country, Obama and as many as 15,000 guests will welcome him on the South Lawn of the White House. For the president, it’s an opportunity to showcase the pope’s support for his initiatives on income inequality, immigration and climate change.

“These are issues that are going to define our future, and the pope I think is providing an incredible sense of motivation that they can and must be addressed,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes said in a conference call with reporters. “The pope’s voice could not be more timely and important.”

Contentious issues involving Church doctrine on the family — such as abortion rights and contraception coverage — will be swept under the carpet of the Oval Office. But the pope, who called for “a poor Church for the poor” on his election, is expected to elevate his concern for the downtrodden and the excluded for a global audience.

“There are points of tension, and the role of the U.S. as a world leader in economic justice is certainly going to be an issue — how much the U.S. is doing will be on the pope’s mind,” said veteran Vatican watcher John Thavis, author of The Vatican Prophecies. “The U.S. is in a position to drive some of these discussions, and the pope would like to see some leadership.”

At the White House on Wednesday morning, crowds began gathering well before sunrise to clear the security checkpoints before assembling on the South Lawn. A group of drummers banged on their instruments near the Treasury Department, and a man with a bullhorn disrupted the quiet near Lafayette Square on the north side of the White House complex.

Lines for those holding tickets to the White House ceremony grew after the gates opened at 5 a.m. Yellow and white Vatican flags were flying alongside U.S. flags around the White House ready for Francis’s arrival.

Extraordinary Pulpit

The political heft of the leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics will be underscored by crowds that security officials expect to be comparable to a presidential inauguration. Some 150,000 people may congregate on the route of his “popemobile” along the National Mall. Much of downtown Washington will be closed to traffic.

Francis faces a balancing act in crafting his message for the extraordinary pulpit that his first visit to the U.S. affords. He will be the first pope to address Congress, on Thursday, and then speaks to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday. He must tailor his criticisms of capitalism’s excesses for a country in which the philosophy is nearly a faith.

“He will make it clear that he is not attacking capitalism as an economic theory, but the way it plays out in the real world — he sees masses of people excluded from the benefits of capitalism, and I think he will say that greed cannot be a motivator in human society,” Thavis said.

Humble Symbol

In one small symbol, Francis chose a humble Fiat 500L to travel from Joint Base Andrews outside Washington, where his plane landed, to the Vatican envoy’s residence in the city. The compact car was dwarfed in his motorcade by the Secret Service’s hulking sport utility vehicles.

The Argentine pope’s priorities are reflected even in his choice of language. At the White House, he will deliver the first speech of his visit in English. But 14 of the 18 speeches scheduled in the country will be in his native Spanish.

“He’s more comfortable that way,” his spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said at a briefing last week. He’s also better able to reach the nation’s largest immigrant group in the language, a top item on his agenda.

It’s also in Spanish that Francis will celebrate his first Mass in the U.S. on Wednesday, and canonize a saint on U.S. soil for the first time, Hispanic missionary Junipero Serra.

Persuading the Hierarchy

Earlier in the day, Francis will speak to approximately 300 U.S. Catholic bishops at a prayer service at St. Matthew’s Cathedral, known to many Americans as the site of President John F. Kennedy’s funeral Mass.

Those remarks are significant, as it is the church’s U.S. hierarchy that is responsible for follow-through on Francis’s priorities through Sunday sermons, religious education programs, Catholic school curricula and parish activities, said Father Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and a senior analyst for the National Catholic Reporter.

“The bishops in the United States over the past 10 years have tended to focus on abortion, gay marriage and this religious freedom issue. He wants them to move in a different direction,” Reese said. “He’s not going to succeed unless the rest of the church gets behind him, particularly the bishops and the priests.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-23/obama-to-bask-in-pope-s-aura-but-francis-wants-economic-justice

White House compares Obama to Pope Francis

By NICOLE DURAN

Pope Francis and President Obama have both dedicated their lives to helping the less fortunate, and that commonality will be central to their meeting Wednesday during the pope’s first visit to the United States, a White House spokesman said hours before Obama left to greet the pontiff as he landed at Andrews Air Force Base Tuesday afternoon.

“[B]oth men have talked, quite publicly, about their commitment to social justice,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in previewing their Oval Office meeting scheduled for Wednesday morning. “And both men have dedicated their, not just their careers, but their lives, to that effort.”

“Certainly the kind of commitment that we’ve seen from Pope Francis is unique and singular,” Earnest allowed “but I think the values that both men live out have some common ground.”

Earnest talked about how Obama turned down high-paying jobs upon graduating law school to instead work in Chicago’s poor South Side, and how Francis is known for advocating on behalf of impoverished communities in his home country of Argentina before ascending through the Roman Catholic Church’s ranks.

“And you know, the president actually worked quite closely with other Catholics in that community, and the president has talked about that quite a bit … this has been a value that has animated the president’s career choices since he was a young man.”

Earnest said Francis’s story is similar.

“[P]rior to rising through the leadership ranks of the Catholic Church … Pope Francis earned a reputation in Latin America [as being someone] willing to roll up his sleeves” to help the less fortunate, “particularly those who were economically destitute,” Earnest said.

Earnest said many in the administration are looking forward to greeting Francis because they feel they are working toward the same goals.

They’re “animated by the same kinds of values that animate the pope,” Earnest said about White House staffers. “And I think that’s why the opportunity to have Pope Francis, somebody who shares those values, here in this building tomorrow, makes for a really special day.”

A crowd of 15,000 is expected to welcome Francis at a ceremony on the White House lawn Wednesday morning.

According to press reports, several hundred people were on hand at Maryland’s Andrews Air Force Base to watch “Shepherd One” land and cheer the pope as he deplaned.

“We love Francis, yes we do,” people reportedly chanted. “We love Francis, how about you?”

In addition to Obama, First Lady Michelle, Vice President Joe Biden his wife Jill, and their extended families, nearly 20 other dignitaries were on hand at Andrews, including all of the Washington and Baltimore areas’ Catholic bishops.

“Ho, ho, hey, hey, welcome to the USA,” the larger crowd chanted, welcoming Francis on his first trip ever to the United States.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-officials-are-now-comparing-obama-to-the-pope/article/2572634

Pope of the poor arrives in US denying he’s a liberal

By NICOLE WINFIELD and RACHEL ZOL

Pope of the poor arrives in US denying he’s a liberal

he pope of the poor arrived for his first-ever visit to the world’s wealthiest superpower Tuesday denying he is a leftist and riding in a frugal little family car, windows rolled down.

Pope Francis’ chartered plane from Cuba touched down at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, where President Barack Obama and his wife and daughters paid him the rare honor of meeting him at the bottom of the stairs on the red-carpeted tarmac. Presidents usually make important visitors come to them at the White House.

Emerging from the aircraft to loud cheers from a crowd of hundreds, the smiling 78-year-old pontiff removed his skullcap in the windy weather and made his way down the steps in his white robes.

He was welcomed by a military honor guard, chanting schoolchildren, politicians, and Roman Catholic clerics in black robes with vivid sashes of scarlet and purple. Joe Biden, the nation’s first Catholic vice president, and his wife were among those who greeted him.

Eschewing a limousine, the pope climbed into the back of a little Fiat sandwiched between huge black SUVs. He promptly rolled down the windows, enabling the cheering, whooping crowds to see him as his motorcade took him to the Vatican diplomatic mission in Washington, where he will stay while in the nation’s capital.

The choice of car was in keeping with his simple habits and his stand against consumerism. His decision to roll down the windows reflected his penchant for trying to connect to ordinary people despite the tight security around him.

During his six-day, three-city visit to the U.S., the pope will meet with the president on Wednesday, address Congress on Thursday, speak at the United Nations in New York on Friday and take part in a Vatican-sponsored conference on the family in Philadelphia over the weekend.

The Argentine known as the “slum pope” for ministering to the downtrodden in his native Buenos Aires is expected to urge America to take better care of the environment and the poor and return to its founding ideals of religious liberty and open arms toward immigrants.

During the flight, Francis defended himself against conservative criticism that his condemnation of trickle-down economics makes him a communist.

“I am certain that I have never said anything beyond what is in the social doctrine of the church,” he said. He said some may have misinterpreted his writings in a way that makes him sound “a little bit more left-leaning,” but he said that’s wrong.

Joking about doubts in some quarters over whether he is truly Catholic, he said, “If I have to recite the Creed, I’m ready.”

Francis is the fourth pope ever to visit the United States.

Francis’ enormous popularity, propensity for wading into crowds and insistence on using an open-sided Jeep rather than a bulletproof popemobile have complicated things for U.S. law enforcement, which has mounted one of the biggest security operations in American history to keep him safe.

The measures are unprecedented for a papal trip and could make it nearly impossible for many ordinary Americans to get anywhere close to Francis.

For all the attention likely to be paid to Francis’ speeches, including the first address from a pope to Congress, his more personal gestures — visiting with immigrants, prisoners and the homeless — could yield some of the most memorable images of the trip.

“What the pope does in the United States will be more important than what he says,” said Mat Schmalz, a religious studies professor at Holy Cross college in Worcester, Massachusetts. “There are a lot of things he will say about capitalism and about wealth inequality, but many Americans and politicians have already made up their minds on these issues. What I would look for is a particular gesture, an unscripted act, that will move people.”

In Cuba, Francis basked in the adulation of Cubans grateful to him for brokering the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the communist island.

On the plane, though, he told reporters he will not use his speech to Congress to call specifically for the U.S. to lift the Cold War-era trade embargo against Cuba.

He arrives at a moment of bitter infighting across the country over gay rights, immigration, abortion and race relations — issues that are always simmering in the U.S. but have boiled over in the heat of a presidential campaign.

Capitol Hill is consumed by disputes over abortion and federal funding for Planned Parenthood after hidden-camera videos showed its officials talking about the organization’s practice of sending tissue from aborted fetuses to medical researchers. While Francis has staunchly upheld church teaching against abortion, he has recently allowed ordinary priests, and not just bishops, to absolve women of the sin.

Francis’ visit comes three months after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage, putting U.S. bishops on the defensive and sharply dividing Americans over how much they should accommodate religious objectors. The pope has strongly upheld church teaching against same-sex marriage but adopted a welcoming tone toward gays themselves, saying, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about a supposedly gay priest.

Americans are also wrestling anew with issues of racism. A series of deaths in recent years of unarmed black men at the hands of law enforcement has intensified debate over the American criminal justice system. Francis will see that system up close when he meets with inmates at a Pennsylvania prison.

U.S. bishops, meanwhile, expect Francis will issue a strong call for immigration reform, a subject that has heated up with hardline anti-immigrant rhetoric from some of the Republican presidential candidates, especially Donald Trump.

Francis, the first Latin American pope, will be sending a powerful message on that front by delivering the vast majority of his speeches in his native Spanish.

“Our presidential candidates have been using immigrants as a wedge issue,” Miami Archbishop Thomas Wenski said. “It’s our hope that the visit of Pope Francis will change this narrative.”

Francis’ most eagerly watched speech will be his address to Congress. Republicans and many conservative Catholics have bristled at his indictment of the excesses of capitalism that he says impoverish people and risk turning the Earth into an “immense pile of filth.” Many conservatives have likewise rejected his call for urgent action against global warming.

Nevertheless, Francis enjoys popularity ratings in the U.S. that would be the envy of any world leader. A New York Times/CBS News poll conducted last week found 63 percent of Catholics have a favorable view of him, and nearly 8 in 10 approve the direction he is taking the church.

Just how far Francis presses his agenda in Washington is the big question.

Paul Vallely, author of “Pope Francis, The Struggle for the Soul of Catholicism,” predicted both “warmth” and “some finger-wagging” from the pope.

“He won’t necessarily confront people head-on,” Vallely said, “but he’ll change the priorities.”

http://news.yahoo.com/pope-ends-cuban-trip-address-families-heads-us-040511515.html

Pope Francis visits U.S. amid legal challenges to religious freedom


Pope Francis is arriving in the U.S. at a time when the faithful are facing broad challenges in court over the limits of religious liberty.

From the administration’s contraception mandate under Obamacare to the fallout from the Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage, church-affiliated institutions and individuals are confronting litigation to compel them to carry out policies contrary to their religious beliefs.

Some observers say the pope, with whom President Obama claims to hold a special relationship, shouldn’t pass up the opportunity to speak out in defense of religious liberty in the U.S.

“This is the time, right now,” said Joseph Prud’homme, director of the Institute for the Study of Religion, Politics, and Culture at Washington College in Chestertown, Maryland. “I think it’s an opportunity for the pope to speak clearly about the right of religious liberty in this country.”

From his behind-the-scenes role in brokering the restoration of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the U.S. to his issuing of an encyclical on the environment in June calling for renewable-fuel subsidies and energy efficiency, Francis has appeared to many to be on the same page with much of Mr. Obama’s agenda.

“He has established a considerable bridge with the secular left with his encyclical on the environment,” Mr. Prud’homme said. “And using that kind of bridge, he needs to now walk across it and say very clearly that the right of religious freedom needs to be guaranteed and the right of individuals to follow their conscience needs to be protected.”

Francis addressed the issue of his ideological leanings Tuesday on the plane from Cuba, saying that while some glosses on his writings and words may have created a view that he is “a little bit more left-leaning,” such narratives are wrong.

“I am certain that I have never said anything beyond what is in the social doctrine of the church,” he asserted, referring to more than 120 years of church criticism of the excesses of capitalism, repeated in various ways by every pope since Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum.

White House aides said the president’s meeting with the pope in the Oval Office on Wednesday will focus on their shared values and won’t address policy specifics.

“Their focus in the context of this meeting will not be about politics, not about specific policies, but rather about the kinds of values that both men have dedicated their lives to championing,” said White House press secretary Josh Earnest. “There is no plan or strategy that’s been put in place to try to stage an event that will advance anybody’s political agenda.”

Mr. Earnest, addressing the Islamic State’s persecution of Christians in Syria and Iraq, said one of the values that Mr. Obama shares with Pope Francis “is a commitment to religious liberty — standing up for the rights of religious minorities around the world.”

“That has long been a value that President Obama has prioritized,” he said.

Whether or not it was timed to coincide with the pope’s arrival, HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell gave a speech Tuesday at Howard University’s College of Medicine on progress made under the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court is increasingly likely to take up one or more challenges to the Obamacare contraception mandate. A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis ruled last week that forcing two Missouri organizations to offer contraceptive coverage to employees — even indirectly — would violate the groups’ religious freedoms.

Every other appeals court to consider the issue has ruled in opposition to the 8th Circuit, and the Supreme Court usually steps in to resolve such splits. The other courts have said the administration has done enough to accommodate the objections of religiously affiliated nonprofit organizations such as universities, hospitals and charities.

The Becket Fund’s petitions to the high court involve the Little Sisters of the Poor and Houston Baptist University, both of which are challenging the mandate on religious grounds. The court is expected to decide in October whether to hear one or more of the cases.

“I think it’s unlikely that the court would refuse to address the issue, which is affecting hundreds if not thousands of religious organizations across the country,” Mr. Baxter said.

“The administration shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religious organizations. The bishops who run the dioceses around the country have been exempted from the mandate, there’s no reason why the nuns, like Little Sisters of the Poor, or other religious organizations shouldn’t also be exempt,” he said.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/22/pope-francis-visits-us-amid-legal-challenges-to-re/?page=2

Ten Commandments

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
“Decalogue” redirects here. For other uses, see Decalogue (disambiguation).

This is an image of a copy of the 1675 Ten Commandments, at the Amsterdam Esnoga synagogue, produced on parchment in 1768 by Jekuthiel Sofer, a prolific Jewish eighteenth century scribe in Amsterdam. It has Hebrew language writing in two columns separated between, and surrounded by, ornate flowery patterns.

This 1768 parchment (612×502 mm) by Jekuthiel Sofer emulated the 1675 Ten Commandments at theAmsterdam Esnoga synagogue.[1]

The Ten Commandments, also known as the Decalogue, are a set of commandments which the Bible describes as being given to the Israelites by God at biblical Mount Sinai. The Ten Commandments appear twice in the Hebrew Bible, first atExodus 20:1–17, and then at Deuteronomy 5:4–21. According to Exodus, God inscribed them on two stone tablets, which he gave to Moses. Modern scholarship has found likely influences in Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and treaties, but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them. According to New Testament writers, the Ten Commandments are clearly attributed to Moses. John 7:19, Mark 7:10, Ephesians 6:2.

They include instructions to worship only God, to honour parents, and to keep the sabbath; as well as prohibitions againstidolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, theft, dishonesty, and coveting. Different religious groups follow different traditions for interpreting and numbering them.

Terminology

The second of two parchment sheets making up 4Q41, it contains Deuteronomy 5:1–6:1

Part of the All Souls Deuteronomy, containing one of the oldest extant copies of the Decalogue

In biblical Hebrew, the Ten Commandments are called עשרת הדברים (transliterated Asereth ha-D’bharîm) and in Rabbinical Hebrew עשרת הדברות (transliterated Asereth ha-Dibroth), both translatable as “the ten words”, “the ten sayings” or “the ten matters”.[2] The Tyndale and Coverdale English translations used “ten verses”. TheGeneva Bible appears to be the first to use “tenne commandements”, which was followed by the Bishops’ Bible and the Authorized Version (the “King James” version) as “ten commandments”. Most major English versions follow the Authorized Version.[3]

The English name “Decalogue” is derived from Greek δεκάλογος, dekalogos, the latter meaning and referring[4] to the Greek translation (in accusative) δέκα λόγους, deka logous, “ten words”, found in theSeptuagint (or LXX) at Exodus 34:28[3] and Deuteronomy 10:4.[5]

The stone tablets, as opposed to the commandments inscribed on them, are called לוחות הברית: Luchot HaBrit, meaning “the tablets of the covenant”.

Passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy

The biblical narrative of the revelation at Sinai begins in Exodus 19 after the arrival of the children of Israel at Mount Sinai (also called Horeb). on the morning of the third day of their encampment, “there were thunders and lightnings, and a thick cloud upon the mount, and the voice of the trumpet exceeding loud”, and the people assembled at the base of the mount. After “the LORD[6] came down upon mount Sinai”, Moses went up briefly and returned and prepared the people, and then in Exodus 20 “God spoke” to all the people the words of the covenant, “even ten commandments”[7] as it is written.

The people were afraid to hear more and moved “afar off”, and Moses responded with “Fear not.”[8] Nevertheless, he drew near the “thick darkness” where “the presence of the Lord” was[9] to hear the additional statutes and “judgments”, (Exodus 21–23) all which he “wrote”[10] in the “book of the covenant[11] which he read to the people the next morning, and they agreed to be obedient and do all that the LORD had said. Moses escorted a select group consisting of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and “seventy of the elders of Israel” to a location on the mount where they worshipped “afar off”[12] and they “saw the God of Israel” above a “paved work” like clear sapphire stone. (Exodus 24:1–11)

And the LORD said unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there: and I will give thee tablets of stone, and a law, and commandments which I have written; that thou mayest teach them. 13 And Moses rose up, and his minister Joshua: and Moses went up into the mount of God.

— First mention of the tablets in Exodus 24:12–13

The mount was covered by the cloud for six days, and on the seventh day Moses went into the midst of the cloud and was “in the mount forty days and forty nights.” (Exodus 24:16–18) And Moses said, “the LORD delivered unto me two tablets of stone written with the finger of God; and on them was written according to all the words, which the LORDspake with you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly.” (Deuteronomy 9:10) Before the full forty days expired, the children of Israel collectively decided that something happened to Moses, and compelled Aaron to fashion a golden calf, and he “built an altar before it” (Ex.32:1–5) and the people “worshipped” the calf. (Ex.32:6–8)

After the full forty days, Moses and Joshua came down from the mountain with the tablets of stone: “And it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tablets out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.” (Ex.32:19) After the events in chapters 32 and 33, the LORD told Moses, “Hew thee two tablets of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tablets the words that were in the first tablets, which thou brakest.” (Ex.34:1) “And he wrote on the tablets, according to the first writing, the ten commandments, which the LORD spake unto you in the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the assembly: and the LORD gave them unto me.” (Deuteronomy 10:4)

According to Jewish tradition, Exodus 20:1–17 constitutes God’s first recitation and inscription of the ten commandments on the two tablets,[13] which Moses broke in anger with his rebellious nation, and were later rewritten on replacement stones and placed in the ark of the covenant;[14] and Deuteronomy 5:4–20 consists of God’s re-telling of the Ten Commandments to the younger generation who were to enter the Promised Land. The passages in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5 contain more than ten imperative statements, totalling 14 or 15 in all.

Traditions for numbering

Different religious traditions divide the seventeen verses of Exodus 20:1–17 and their parallels at Deuteronomy 5:4–21 into ten “commandments” or “sayings” in different ways, shown in the table below. Some suggest that the number ten is a choice to aid memorization rather than a matter of theology.[15][16]

Traditions:

  • S: Septuagint, generally followed by Orthodox Christians.
  • P: Philo, same as the Septuagint, but with the prohibitions on killing and adultery reversed.
  • T: Jewish Talmud, makes the “prologue” the first “saying” or “matter” and combines the prohibition on worshiping deities other than Yahweh with the prohibition on idolatry.
  • A: Augustine follows the Talmud in combining verses 3–6, but omits the prologue as a commandment and divides the prohibition on coveting in two and following the word order of Deuteronomy 5:21 rather than Exodus 20:17.
  • C: Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely follows Augustine.
  • L: Lutherans follow Luther’s Large Catechism, which follows Augustine but omits the prohibition of images[17] and uses the word order of Exodus 20:17 rather than Deuteronomy 5:21 for the ninth and tenth commandments.
  • R: Reformed Christians follow John Calvin‘s Institutes of the Christian Religion, which follows the Septuagint.
The Ten Commandments
S P T A C L R Main article Exodus 20:1-17 Deuteronomy 5:4-21
1 1 (1) I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 2[18] 6[18]
1 1 2 1 1 1 1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me 3[19] 7[19]
2 2 2 1 1 2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image 4–6[20] 8–10[21]
3 3 3 2 2 2 3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain 7[22] 11[23]
4 4 4 3 3 3 4 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy 8–11[24] 12–15[25]
5 5 5 4 4 4 5 Honour thy father and thy mother 12[26] 16[27]
6 7 6 5 5 5 6 Thou shalt not kill 13[28] 17[28]
7 6 7 6 6 6 7 Thou shalt not commit adultery 14[29] 18[30]
8 8 8 7 7 7 8 Thou shalt not steal 15[31] 19[32]
9 9 9 8 8 8 9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour 16[33] 20[34]
10 10 10 10 10 9 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbor’s house) 17a[35] 21b[36]
10 10 10 9 9 10 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbor’s wife) 17b[37] 21a[38]
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Thou shalt not covet (neighbor’s servants, animals, or anything else) 17c[39] 21c[40]
  • All scripture quotes above are from the King James Version. Click on verses at top of columns for other versions.

Religious interpretations

The Ten Commandments concern matters of fundamental importance in both Judaism and Christianity: the greatest obligation (to worship only God), the greatest injury to a person (murder), the greatest injury to family bonds (adultery), the greatest injury to commerce and law (bearing false witness), the greatest inter-generational obligation (honor to parents), the greatest obligation to community (truthfulness), the greatest injury to moveable property (theft).[41]

The Ten Commandments are written with room for varying interpretation, reflecting their role as a summary of fundamental principles.[16][41][42][43] They are not as explicit[41] or detailed as rules[44] or many other biblical laws and commandments, because they provide guiding principles that apply universally, across changing circumstances. They do not specify punishments for their violation. Their precise import must be worked out in each separate situation.[44]

The Bible indicates the special status of the Ten Commandments among all other Old Testament laws in several ways. They have a uniquely terse style.[45] Of all the biblical laws and commandments, the Ten Commandments alone[45] were “written with the finger of God” (Exodus 31:18). And lastly, the stone tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant (Exodus 25:21).[45]

Judaism

In Judaism, the Ten Commandments provide God’s universal and timeless standard of right and wrong, unlike the other 613 commandments in the Torah, which include, for example, various duties and ceremonies such as the kashrut dietary laws and now unobservable rituals to be performed by priests in the Holy Temple.[46] They form the basis of Jewish law.[47] Jewish tradition considers the Ten Commandments the theological basis for the rest of the commandments; a number of works (starting with Rabbi Saadia Gaon) have made groupings of the commandments according to their links with the Ten Commandments.[citation needed]

The traditional Rabbinical Jewish belief is that the observance of these commandments and the other mitzvot are required solely of the Jewish people, and that the laws incumbent on humanity in general are outlined in the seven Noahide laws (several of which overlap with the Ten Commandments). In the era of the Sanhedrintransgressing any one of six of the Ten Commandments theoretically carried the death penalty, the exceptions being the First Commandment, honoring your father and mother, saying God’s name in vain, and coveting, though this was rarely enforced due to a large number of stringent evidentiary requirements imposed by theoral law.[48]

The two tablets

Main article: Tablets of Stone

The arrangement of the commandments on the two tablets is interpreted in different ways in the classical Jewish tradition. Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel says that each tablet contained five commandments, “but the Sages say ten on one tablet and ten on the other”, that is, that the tablets were duplicates.[49] This can be compared to diplomatic treaties of Ancient Egypt, in which a copy was made for each party.[50]

According to the Talmud, the compendium of traditional Rabbinic Jewish law, tradition, and interpretation, one interpretation of the biblical verse “the tablets were written on both their sides”,[51] is that the carving went through the full thickness of the tablets, yet was miraculously legible from both sides.[52]

Use in Jewish ritual

The Ten Commandments on a glass plate

During the period of the Second Temple, the Ten Commandments were recited daily.[53] The Mishnah records that in the Temple, it was the practice to recite them every day before the reading of the Shema Yisrael (as preserved, for example, in the Nash Papyrus, a Hebrew manuscript fragment from 150–100 BCE found in Egypt, containing a version of the ten commandments and the beginning of the Shema); but that this practice was abolished in the synagogues so as not to give ammunition to heretics who claimed that they were the only important part of Jewish law,[54][55] or to dispute a claim by early Christians that only the Ten Commandments were handed down at Mount Sinai rather than the whole Torah.[53]

In later centuries, rabbis continued to omit the Ten Commandments from daily liturgy in order to prevent a confusion among Jews that they are only bound by the Ten Commandments, and not also by many other biblical and talmudic laws, such as the requirement to observe holy days other than the sabbath.[53]

Today, the Ten Commandments are heard in the synagogue three times a year: as they come up during the readings of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and during the festival of Shavuot.[53] The Exodus version is read in parashat Yitro around late January–February, and on the festival of Shavuot, and the Deuteronomy version in parashat Va’etchanan in August–September. In some traditions, worshipers rise for the reading of the Ten Commandments to highlight their special significance[53] though many rabbis, including Maimonides, have opposed this custom since one may come to think that the Ten Commandments are more important than the rest of the Mitzvot.[56]

In printed Chumashim, as well as in those in manuscript form, the Ten Commandments carry two sets of cantillation marks. The ta’am ‘elyon (upper accentuation), which makes each Commandment into a separate verse, is used for public Torah reading, while the ta’am tachton (lower accentuation), which divides the text into verses of more even length, is used for private reading or study. The verse numbering in Jewish Bibles follows the ta’am tachton. In Jewish Bibles the references to the Ten Commandments are therefore Exodus 20:2–14 and Deuteronomy 5:6–18.

Samaritan

The Samaritan Pentateuch varies in the Ten Commandments passages, both in that the Samaritan Deuteronomical version of the passage is much closer to that in Exodus, and in that Samaritans count as nine commandments what others count as ten. The Samaritan tenth commandment is on the sanctity of Mount Gerizim.

The text of the Samaritan tenth commandment follows:

And it shall come to pass when the Lord thy God will bring thee into the land of the Canaanites whither thou goest to take possession of it, thou shalt erect unto thee large stones, and thou shalt cover them with lime, and thou shalt write upon the stones all the words of this Law, and it shall come to pass when ye cross the Jordan, ye shall erect these stones which I command thee upon Mount Gerizim, and thou shalt build there an altar unto the Lord thy God, an altar of stones, and thou shalt not lift upon them iron, of perfect stones shalt thou build thine altar, and thou shalt bring upon it burnt offerings to the Lord thy God, and thou shalt sacrifice peace offerings, and thou shalt eat there and rejoice before the Lord thy God. That mountain is on the other side of the Jordan at the end of the road towards the going down of the sun in the land of the Canaanites who dwell in the Arabah facing Gilgal close by Elon Moreh facing Shechem.[57]

Christianity

Christians believe that the Ten Commandments have divine authority and continue to be valid, though they have different interpretations and uses of them.[58]Through most of Christian history, the decalogue has been considered a summary of God’s law and standard of behavior, and has been central to Christian life, piety, and worship.[59]

References in the New Testament

During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus explicitly referenced the prohibitions against murder and adultery. In Matthew 19:16-19 Jesus repeated five of the Ten Commandments, followed by that commandment called “the second” (Matthew 22:34-40) after the first and great commandment.

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul the Apostle also mentioned five of the Ten Commandments and associated them with the neighbourly love commandment.

Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

— Romans 13:8-10 KJV

Roman Catholicism

In Roman Catholicism, Jesus freed Christians from Jewish religious law, but not from their obligation to keep the Ten Commandments.[60] They are to the moral order what the creation story is to the natural order.[60]

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church—the official exposition of the Catholic Church‘s Christian beliefs—the Commandments are considered essential for spiritual good health and growth,[61] and serve as the basis for social justice.[62] Church teaching of the Commandments is largely based on the Old and New Testaments and the writings of the early Church Fathers.[63] In the New Testament, Jesus acknowledged their validity and instructed his disciples to go further, demanding a righteousness exceeding that of the scribes and Pharisees.[64] Summarized by Jesus into two “great commandments” that teach the love of God and love of neighbor,[65] they instruct individuals on their relationships with both.

Orthodox

The Eastern Orthodox Church holds its moral truths to be chiefly contained in the Ten Commandments.[66] A confession begins with the Confessor reciting the Ten Commandments and asking the penitent which of them he has broken.[67]

Protestantism

See also: Law and Gospel

Even after rejecting the Roman Catholic moral theology, giving more importance to biblical law in order to better hear and be moved by the gospel, early Protestant theologians still took the Ten Commandments to be the starting point of Christian moral life.[68] Different versions of Christianity have varied in how they have translated the bare principles into the specifics that make up a full Christian ethic.[68] Where Catholicism emphasizes taking action to fulfill the Ten Commandments, Protestantism uses the Ten Commandments for two purposes: to outline the Christian life to each person, and to make each person realize, through their failure to live that life, that they lack the ability to do it on their own.[68]

A Christian school in India displays the Ten Commandments

Lutheranism

The Lutheran division of the commandments follows the one established by St. Augustine, following the then current synagogue scribal division. The first three commandments govern the relationship between God and humans, the fourth through eighth govern public relationships between people, and the last two govern private thoughts. See Luther’s Small Catechism[69] and Large Catechism.[17]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

According to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) doctrine, Jesus completed rather than rejected the Mosaic Law.[70] The Ten Commandments are considered eternal gospel principles necessary for exaltation.[71] They appear in the Book of Mosiah 12:34–36,[72] 13:15–16,[73] 13:21–24[74] and Doctrine and Covenants.[71] In Mosiah, a prophet named Abinadi taught the Ten Commandments in the court of King Noah and was martyred for his righteousness.[75] Abinadi knew the Ten Commandments from the brass plates.[76]

In an October, 2010 address, LDS president and prophet Thomas S. Monson taught “The Ten Commandments are just that — commandments. They are not suggestions.”[77]

Strangites[edit]

One Mormon fundamentalist faction, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite), offers a unique version of the Ten Commandments that is not found in any other religious tradition—including other Latter Day Saint churches. In his Book of the Law of the Lord, which Strangite founder James J. Strangclaimed to be the long-lost Plates of Laban described in the Book of Mormon, Strang offers a commandment which no other version of the Ten Commandments has: “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself,”[78] (which appears in the Hebrew Bible in Leviticus 19:18 and five times in the New Testament). In his “Note on the Decalogue,”[79] Strang asserted that no other version of the Decalogue contains more than nine commandments. He equally speculated that his fourth commandment was lost perhaps as early as Josephus‘ time (circa 37-100 AD). Strang’s version of the Decalogue (together with the rest of his teaching) are rejected by the mainline LDS Church, together with all other non-Strangite Mormon factions.

New Covenant Theology

Main article: New Covenant Theology

New Covenant Theology (NCT) is a recently expressed Christian theological view of redemptive history which claims that all Old Covenant laws have beencancelled[80] in favor of the Law of Christ or New Covenant law of the New Testament. This can be summarized as the ethical expectation found in the New Testament. New Covenant Theology does not reject all religious law, they only reject Old Covenant law. NCT is in contrast with other views on biblical law in that most others do not believe the Ten Commandments and Divine laws of the Old Covenant have been cancelled and prefer the term “Supersessionism” (rather than “cancelled” or “abrogated”) for the rest. In 2001, Richard Barcellos, an associate professor and pastor of a Reformed Baptist Church in California, published a critique of NCT for proposing that the Ten Commandments have been cancelled.[81]

Islam

The Qur’an includes a version of the Ten Commandments in sura Al-An’am 6:151:

  • “Say: “Come, I will rehearse what Allah hath (really) prohibited you from”: Join not anything with Him; be good to your parents; kill not your children on a plea of want;- We provide sustenance for you and for them;- come not nigh to indecent deeds. Whether open or secret; take not life, which Allah hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn wisdom. And come not nigh to the orphan’s property, except to improve it, until he attain the age of full strength; give measure and weight with (full) justice;- no burden do We place on any soul, but that which it can bear;- whenever ye speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is concerned; and fulfill the Covenant of Allah. thus doth He command you, that ye may remember.”[82]

Another Chapter of The Qur’an also includes a version of the Ten Commandments in Al-Isra According to Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Abbas °the verses of Chapter 17Al-Isra are the Quranic version of the ten Commandments[83] Commandment 1 Verse 22 “Set not up with Allah any other ilah (god), (O man)!”[84] Commandment 2Verse 23 “And your Lord has decreed that you worship none but Him. And that you be dutiful to your parents. If one of them or both of them attain old age in your life, say not to them a word of disrespect, nor shout at them but address them in terms of honour.” Verse 24 “And lower unto them the wing of submission and humility through mercy, and say: “My Lord! Bestow on them Your Mercy as they did bring me up when I was small.”[85] Commandment 3 Verse 26 “And give to the kindred his due and to the Miskin (poor) and to the wayfarer. But spend not wastefully (your wealth) in the manner of a spendthrift .”[86] Commandment 4 Verse 29“And let not your hand be tied (like a miser) to your neck, nor stretch it forth to its utmost reach (like a spendthrift), so that you become blameworthy and in severe poverty.”[87] Commandment 5 Verse 31 “And kill not your children for fear of poverty. We provide for them and for you. Surely, the killing of them is a great sin.”[88]Commandment 6 Verse 32 “And come not near to the unlawful sexual intercourse.”[89] Commandment 7 Verse 33 “And do not kill anyone which Allah has forbidden, except for a just cause.”[90] Commandment 8 Verse 34 “And come not near to the orphan’s property except to improve it, until he attains the age of full strength.”[91] Commandment 9 Verse 35 “And give full measure when you measure, and weigh with a balance that is straight.”[92] Commandment 10 Verse 36“And follow not (O man i.e., say not, or do not or witness not, etc.) that of which you have no knowledge (e.g. one’s saying: “I have seen,” while in fact he has not seen, or “I have heard,” while he has not heard). Verily! The hearing, and the sight, and the heart, of each of those you will be questioned (by Allah).”[93]

:22-37[94]

Main points of interpretative difference

Sabbath day

Main articles: Sabbath in Christianity and Shabbat

Sabbath in Christianity is a weekly day of rest or religious observance, derived from the sabbath.[95] Non-Sabbatarianism is the principle of Christian liberty from being bound to physical sabbath observance. Most dictionaries provide both first-day and seventh-day definitions for “sabbath” and “Sabbatarian”, among other related uses.

Until the 2nd and 3rd century, Christians kept the Jewish Sabbath[citation needed], which occurs from Friday night to Saturday night each week. Observing the Sabbath on Sunday, the day of resurrection, gradually became the dominant Christian practice from the Jewish-Roman wars onward. Before then, Christianity was predominantly still a Jewish sect. The Church’s general repudiation of Jewish practices during this period is apparent in the Council of Laodicea (4th Century AD) where Canons 37–38 state: “It is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them” and “It is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety”.[96]

Canon 29 of the Laodicean council specifically refers to the sabbath: “Christians must not judaize by resting on the [Jewish] Sabbath, but must work on that day, rather honoring the Lord’s Day; and, if they can, resting then as Christians. But if any shall be found to be judaizers, let them be anathema (excommunicated) from Christ.”[96]

Killing or murder

Main article: You shall not murder

The Sixth Commandment, as translated by the Book of Common Prayer (1549).
The image is from the altar screen of the Temple Church near the Law Courts in London.

Multiple translations exist of the fifth/sixth commandment; the Hebrew words לא תרצח (lo tirtzach) are variously translated as “thou shalt not kill” or “thou shalt not murder”.[97]

The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt.[98] The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare (1Kings 2:5–6), capital punishment(Leviticus 20:9–16) and self-defence (Exodus 22:2–3). The New Testament is in agreement that murder is a grave moral evil,[99] and maintains the Old Testament view of bloodguilt.[100]

You shall not steal

Main article: You shall not steal

Significant voices among academic theologians (such as German Old Testament scholar Albrecht Alt: Das Verbot des Diebstahls im Dekalog (1953)) suggest that commandment “you shall not steal” was originally intended against stealing people—against abductions and slavery, in agreement with the Talmudic interpretation of the statement as “you shall not kidnap” (Sanhedrin 86a).

Idolatry

In Christianity’s earliest centuries, some Christians had informally adorned their homes and places of worship with images of Christ and the saints, while some thought it inappropriate. No church council had ruled on whether such practices constituted idolatry. The controversy reached crisis level in the 8th century, during the period of iconoclasm: the smashing of icons.[101]

In 726, Emperor Leo III ordered all images removed from all churches; in 730, a council forbade veneration of images, citing the Second Commandment; in 787, theSeventh Ecumenical Council reversed the preceding rulings, condemning iconoclasm and sanctioning the veneration of images; in 815, Leo V called yet another council, which reinstated iconoclasm; in 843, Empress Theodora again reinstated veneration of icons.[101] This mostly settled the matter until the Protestant Reformation, when John Calvin declared that the ruling of the Seventh Ecumenical Council “emanated from Satan”.[101] Protestant iconoclasts at this time destroyed statues, pictures, stained glass, and artistic masterpieces.[101]

The Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Theodora’s restoration of the icons every year on the First Sunday of Great Lent.[101] Eastern Orthodox tradition teaches that while images of God, the Father, remain prohibited, depictions of Jesus as the incarnation of God as a visible human are permissible. To emphasize the theological importance of the incarnation, the Orthodox Church encourages the use of icons in church and private devotions, but prefers a two-dimensional depiction[102] as a reminder of this theological aspect. Icons depict the spiritual dimension of their subject rather than attempting a naturalistic portrayal.[101] In modern use (usually as a result of Roman Catholic influence), more naturalistic images and images of the Father, however, also appear occasionally in Orthodox churches, but statues, i.e. three-dimensional depictions, continue to be banned.[102]

The Roman Catholic Church holds that one may build and use “likenesses”, as long as the object is not worshipped. Many Roman Catholic Churches and services feature images; some feature statues. For Roman Catholics, this practice is understood as fulfilling the Second Commandment, as they understand that these images are not being worshipped.[citation needed]

For Jews and Muslims, veneration violates the Second Commandment. Jews and Muslims read this commandment as prohibiting the use of idols and images in any way. For this reason, Jewish Temples and Islamic Mosques do not have pictures of God, saints or prophets.[citation needed]

Some Protestants will picture Jesus in his human form, while refusing to make any image of God or Jesus in Heaven.[citation needed]

Strict Amish people forbid any sort of image, such as photographs.[citation needed]

Adultery

Originally this commandment forbade male Israelites to have sexual intercourse with the wife of another Israelite, though Israelite men were not forbidden to have sexual intercourse with the slaves belonging to their own household. Sexual intercourse between an Israelite man, even if he was married, and an unmarried or unbetrothed woman was not considered as adultery.[103] This concept of adultery stems from the economic aspect of Israelite marriage, as adultery constituted a violation of the husband’s exclusive right to his wife, whereas the wife, as the husband’s possession, had no such right.[104]

Critical historical analysis

Early theories

Critical scholarship is divided over its interpretation of the ten commandment texts.

In Julius Wellhausen‘s classic documentary hypothesis of the formation of the Pentateuch (see JEDP), first published in 1878, Exodus 20-23 and 34 were composed by the J or Jahwist writer and “might be regarded as the document which formed the starting point of the religious history of Israel.”[105] Deuteronomy 5 then reflects King Josiah’s attempt to link the document produced by his court to the older Mosaic tradition.

In a 2002 analysis of the history of this position, Bernard M. Levinson argued that this reconstruction assumes a Christian perspective, and dates back to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe‘s polemic against Judaism, which asserted that religions evolve from the more ritualistic to the more ethical. Goethe thus argued that the Ten Commandments revealed to Moses at Mt. Sinai would have emphasized rituals, and that the “ethical” Decalogue Christians recite in their own churches was composed at a later date, when Israelite prophets had begun to prophesy the coming of the messiah, Jesus Christ. Levinson points out that there is no evidence, internal to the Hebrew Bible or in external sources, to support this conjecture. He concludes that its vogue among later critical historians represents the persistence of this polemic that the supersession of Judaism by Christianity is part of a longer history of progress from the ritualistic to the ethical.[106]

By the 1930s, historians who accepted the basic premises of multiple authorship had come to reject the idea of an orderly evolution of Israelite religion. Critics instead began to suppose that law and ritual could be of equal importance, while taking different form, at different times. This means that there is no longer any a priori reason to believe that Exodus 20:2–17 and Exodus 34:10–28 were composed during different stages of Israelite history. For example, critical historian John Bright also dates the Jahwist texts to the tenth century BCE, but believes that they express a theology that “had already been normalized in the period of the Judges” (i.e., of the tribal alliance).[107] He concurs about the importance of the decalogue as “a central feature in the covenant that brought together Israel into being as a people”[108] but views the parallels between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, along with other evidence, as reason to believe that it is relatively close to its original form and Mosaic in origin.[109]

Hittite treaties

According to John Bright, however, there is an important distinction between the Decalogue and the “book of the covenant” (Exodus 21-23 and 34:10–24). The Decalogue, he argues, was modeled on the suzerainty treaties of the Hittites (and other Mesopotamian Empires), that is, represents the relationship between God and Israel as a relationship between king and vassal, and enacts that bond.[110]

“The prologue of the Hittite treaty reminds his vassals of his benevolent acts.. (compare with Exodus 20:2 “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery”). The Hittite treaty also stipulated the obligations imposed by the ruler on his vassals, which included a prohibition of relations with peoples outside the empire, or enmity between those within.”[111] (Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before Me”). Viewed as a treaty rather than a law code, its purpose is not so much to regulate human affairs as to define the scope of the king’s power.[112]

Julius Morgenstern argued that Exodus 34 is distinct from the Jahwist document, identifying it with king Asa’s reforms in 899 BCE.[113] Bright, however, believes that like the Decalogue this text has its origins in the time of the tribal alliance. The book of the covenant, he notes, bears a greater similarity to Mesopotamian law codes (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi which was inscribed on a stone stele). He argues that the function of this “book” is to move from the realm of treaty to the realm of law: “The Book of the Covenant (Ex., chs. 21 to 23; cf. ch. 34), which is no official state law, but a description of normative Israelite judicial procedure in the days of the Judges, is the best example of this process.”[114] According to Bright, then, this body of law too predates the monarchy.[115]

Hilton J. Blik writes that the phrasing in the Decalogue’s instructions suggests that it was conceived in a mainly polytheistic milieu, evident especially in the formulation of “no-other-gods-before-me” commandment.[116]

Dating

If the Ten Commandments are based on Hittite forms that would date it somewhere between the 14th-12th century BCE.[117] Archaeologists Israel Finkelstein andNeil Asher Silberman argue that “the astonishing composition came together … in the seventh century BCE”.[118] Critical scholar Yehezkel Kaufmann (1960) dates the oral form of the covenant to the time of Josiah.[119] An even later date (after 586 BCE) is suggested by David H. Aaron.[120]

The Ritual Decalogue

Main article: Ritual Decalogue

Some proponents of the Documentary hypothesis have argued that the biblical text in Exodus 34:28[121] identifies a different list as the ten commandments, that of Exodus 34:11–27.[122] Since this passage does not prohibit murder, adultery, theft, etc., but instead deals with the proper worship of Yahweh, some scholars call it the “Ritual Decalogue“, and disambiguate the ten commandments of traditional understanding as the “Ethical Decalogue”.[123][124][125][126]

According to these scholars the Bible includes multiple versions of events. On the basis of many points of analysis including linguistic it is shown as a patchwork of sources sometimes with bridging comments by the editor (Redactor) but otherwise left intact from the original, frequently side by side.[127]

Richard Elliott Friedman argues that the Ten Commandments at Exodus 20:1–17 “does not appear to belong to any of the major sources. It is likely to be an independent document, which was inserted here by the Redactor.”[128] In his view, the Covenant Code follows that version of the Ten Commandments in the northern Israel E narrative. In the J narrative in Exodus 34 the editor of the combined story known as the Redactor (or RJE), adds in an explanation that these are a replacement for the earlier tablets which were shattered. “In the combined JE text, it would be awkward to picture God just commanding Moses to make some tablets, as if there were no history to this matter, so RJE adds the explanation that these are a replacement for the earlier tablets that were shattered.”[129]

He writes that Exodus 34:14–26 is the J text of the Ten Commandments: “The first two commandments and the sabbath commandment have parallels in the other versions of the Ten Commandments. (Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5). … The other seven commandments here are completely different.”[130] He suggests that differences in the J and E versions of the Ten Commandments story are a result of power struggles in the priesthood. The writer has Moses smash the tablets “because this raised doubts about the Judah’s central religious shrine”.[131]

According to Kaufmann, the Decalogue and the book of the covenant represent two ways of manifesting God’s presence in Israel: the Ten Commandments taking the archaic and material form of stone tablets kept in the ark of the covenant, while the book of the covenant took oral form to be recited to the people.[119]

United States debate over display on public property

Picture of a large stone monument displaying the ten commandments with the Texas State Capitol in Austin in the background. The picture was part of a news release Wednesday, March second, 2005, by then Attorney General Abbott.

Ten Commandments display at theTexas State Capitol in Austin.

European Protestants replaced some visual art in their churches with plaques of the Ten Commandments after the Reformation. In England, such “Decalogue boards” also represented the English monarch’s emphasis on rule of royal law within the churches. In the United States, images of Moses and the tablets of the Decalogue also claim biblical roots to U.S. law (as on the pediment of the Supreme Court building in Washington). Images of the Ten Commandments, then, have long been contested symbols for the relationship of religion to national law.[132]

In the 1950s and 1960s, the Fraternal Order of Eagles placed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Ten Commandments displays in courthouses and school rooms, including many stone monuments on courthouse property.[133] Because displaying the commandments can reflect a sectarian position if they are numbered (see above), the Eagles developed an ecumenical version that omitted the numbers, as on the monument at the Texas capitol (shown here). Hundreds of monuments were also placed by director Cecil B. DeMille as a publicity stunt to promote his 1956 film The Ten Commandments.[134] Placing the plaques and monuments to the Ten Commandments in and around government buildings was another expression of mid-twentieth century U.S. civil religion, along with adding the phrase “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.[132]

By the beginning of the twenty-first century in the U.S., however, Decalogue monuments and plaques in government spaces had become a legal battleground between religious as well as political liberals and conservatives. Organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Americans United for Separation of Church and State launched lawsuits challenging the posting of the ten commandments in public buildings. The ACLU has been supported by a number of religious groups (such as the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.),[135] and the American Jewish Congress[136]), both because they do not want government to be issuing religious doctrine and because they feel strongly that the commandments are inherently religious. Many commentators see this issue as part of a widerculture war between liberal and conservative elements in American society. In response to the perceived attacks on traditional society, other legal organizations, such as the Liberty Counsel, have risen to advocate the conservative interpretation. Many Christian conservatives have taken the banning of officially sanctioned prayer from public schools by the U.S. Supreme Court as a threat to the expression of religion in public life. In response, they have successfully lobbied many state and local governments to display the ten commandments in public buildings.

Those who oppose the posting of the ten commandments on public property argue that it violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. In contrast, groups like the Fraternal Order of Eagles who support the public display of the ten commandments claim that the commandments are not necessarily religious but represent the moral and legal foundation of society, and are appropriate to be displayed as a historical source of present-day legal codes. Also, some argue like Judge Roy Moore that prohibiting the public practice of religion is a violation of the first amendment’s guarantee offreedom of religion.[132]

The Ten Commandments by Lucas Cranach the Elder in the townhall ofWittenberg, (detail)

U.S. courts have often ruled against displays of the Ten Commandments on government property. They conclude that the ten commandments are derived from Judeo-Christian religions, to the exclusion of others: the statement “Thou shalt have no other gods before me” excludes non-monotheistic religions like Hinduism, for example. Whether the Constitution prohibits the posting of the commandments or not, there are additional political and civil rights issues regarding the posting of what is construed as religious doctrine. Excluding religions that have not accepted the ten commandments creates the appearance of impropriety. The courts have been more accepting, however, of displays that place the Ten Commandments in a broader historical context of the development of law.

One result of these legal cases has been that proponents of displaying the Ten Commandments have sometimes surrounded them with other historical texts to portray them as historical, rather than religious. Another result has been that other religious organizations have tried to put monuments to their laws on public lands. For example, an organization calledSummum has won court cases against municipalities in Utah for refusing to allow the group to erect a monument of Summum aphorisms next to the ten commandments. The cases were won on the grounds that Summum’s right to freedom of speech was denied and the governments had engaged in discrimination. Instead of allowing Summum to erect its monument, the local governments chose to remove their ten commandments.

Cultural references

Two famous films of this name were directed by Cecil B. DeMille: a silent movie released in 1923 starring Theodore Roberts as Moses and a colour VistaVisionversion of 1956, starring Charlton Heston as Moses.

Both The Decalogue, a 1989 Polish film series directed by Krzysztof Kieślowski, and The Ten, a 2007 American film, use the ten commandments as a structure for 10 smaller stories.[137]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments

The Communist Manifesto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Communist Manifesto
Communist-manifesto.png

First edition, in German
Author Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Country United Kingdom
Language German (translated into several world languages)
Genre Manifesto
Publication date
21 February 1848

The Communist Manifesto (originally Manifesto of the Communist Party) is an 1848 political pamphlet by German philosophers Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Commissioned by the Communist League and originally published in London (in the German language as Manifest der kommunistischen Partei) just as the revolutions of 1848 began to erupt, the Manifesto was later recognised as one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. It presents an analytical approach to the class struggle (historical and present) and the problems of capitalism and the capitalist mode of production, rather than a prediction of communism’s potential future forms.

The Communist Manifesto summarises Marx and Engels’ theories about the nature of society and politics, that in their own words, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. It also briefly features their ideas for how the capitalist society of the time would eventually be replaced by socialism, and then finally communism.

Synopsis

A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.

— Opening sentence

Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, authors of the Manifesto

The Communist Manifesto is divided into a preamble and four sections, the last of these a short conclusion.

Preamble

The introduction begins by proclaiming “A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism. All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre”. Pointing out that parties everywhere—including those in government and those in the opposition—have flung the “branding reproach of communism” at each other, the authors infer from this that the powers-that-be acknowledge communism to be a power in itself. Subsequently, the introduction exhorts Communists to openly publish their views and aims, to “meet this nursery tale of the spectre of communism with a manifesto of the party itself”.

Bourgeois and Proletarians

The first section of the Manifesto, “Bourgeois and Proletarians”, elucidates the materialist conception of history, that “the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Societies have always taken the form of an oppressed majority living under the thumb of an oppressive minority. In capitalism, the industrial working class, or proletariat, engage in class struggle against the owners of the means of production, thebourgeoisie. As before, this struggle will end in a revolution that restructures society, or the “common ruin of the contending classes”. The bourgeoisie, through the “constant revolutionising of production [and] uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions” have emerged as the supreme class in society, displacing all the old powers of feudalism. The bourgeoisie constantly exploits the proletariat for its labour power, creating profit for themselves accumulating capital. However, by doing so the bourgeoisie “are its own grave-diggers”; the proletariat inevitably will become conscious of their own potential and rise to power through revolution, overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

Proletarians and Communists

“Proletarians and Communists”, the second section, starts by stating the relationship of conscious communists to the rest of the working class. The communists’ party will not oppose other working-class parties, but unlike them, it will express the general will and defend the common interests of the world’s proletariat as a whole, independent of all nationalities. The section goes on to defend communism from various objections, such as the claim that communists advocate “free love“, and the claim that people will not perform labour in a communist society because they have no incentive to work. The section ends by outlining a set of short-term demands—among them a progressive income tax; abolition of inheritances; free public education etc.—the implementation of which would be a precursor to a stateless and classless society.
List of short-term demands, also known as the ten planks:

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.[1]

Socialists and Communist Literature

The third section, “Socialist and Communist Literature”, distinguishes communism from other socialist doctrines prevalent at the time—these being broadly categorised as Reactionary Socialism; Conservative or Bourgeois Socialism; and Critical-Utopian Socialism and Communism. While the degree of reproach toward rival perspectives varies, all are dismissed for advocating reformism and failing to recognise the pre-eminent revolutionary role of the working class. “Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Opposition Parties”, the concluding section of the Manifesto, briefly discusses the communist position on struggles in specific countries in the mid-nineteenth century such as France, Switzerland, Poland, and Germany, this last being “on the eve of a bourgeois revolution”, and predicts that a world revolution will soon follow. It ends by declaring an alliance with the social democrats, boldly supporting other communist revolutions, and calling for united international proletarian action.

Writing

Only surviving page from the first draft of the Manifesto, handwritten by Marx

Friedrich Engels has often been credited with composing the first drafts which led to the Communist Manifesto. In July 1847, Engels was elected into the Communist League, where he was assigned to draw up a catechism. This became the Draft of a Communist Confession of Faith. It contained almost two dozen questions that expressed the ideas of both Engels and Karl Marx at the time. In October 1847, Engels composed his second draft for the League, The Principles of Communism (which went unpublished until 1914). Once commissioned by the Communist League, Marx combined these drafts with Engels’ 1844 work The Condition of the Working Class in England to write the Communist Manifesto.[2]

Although the names of both Engels and Marx appear on the title page alongside the “persistent assumption of joint-authorship”, Engels, in the preface to the 1883 German edition of the Manifesto, said it was “essentially Marx’s work” and that “the basic thought… belongs solely and exclusively to Marx.”[3] Engels wrote after Marx’s death:

I cannot deny that both before and during my forty years’ collaboration with Marx I had a certain independent share in laying the foundations of the theory, but the greater part of its leading basic principles belongs to Marx … Marx was a genius; we others were at best talented. Without him the theory would not be by far what it is today. It therefore rightly bears his name.[4]

Despite Engels’s modesty in this quotation, he made major contributions to the Manifesto, starting with the suggestion to abandon “the form of a catechism and entitle it the Communist Manifesto.” Moreover, Engels joined Marx in Brussels for the writing of the Manifesto. There is no evidence of what his contributions to the final writing were, but the Manifesto bears the stamp of Marx’s more rhetorical writing style. Nevertheless, it seems clear that Engels’s contributions justify his name’s appearance on the title page after Marx’s.[5]

Publication

Initial publication and obscurity, 1848–72

A scene from the German March Revolution in Berlin, 1848

In late February 1848, the Manifesto was anonymously published by the Workers’ Educational Association (Communistischer Arbeiterbildungsverein) at 46 Liverpool Street in the City of London. Written in German, the 23-page pamphlet was titled Manifest der kommunistischen Partei and had a dark-green cover. It was reprinted thrice and serialised in the Deutsche Londoner Zeitung, a newspaper for German émigrés. On 4 March, one day after the serialisation in theZeitung began, Marx was expelled by Belgian police. Two weeks later, around 20 March, a thousand copies of the Manifestoreached Paris, and from there to Germany in early April. In April–May the text was corrected for printing and punctuation mistakes; Marx and Engels would use this 30-page version as the basis for future editions of the Manifesto.

Although the Manifesto‍ ’​s prelude announced that it was “to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages”, the initial printings were only in German. Polish and Danish translations soon followed the German original in London, and by the end of 1848, a Swedish translation was published with a new title—The Voice of Communism: Declaration of the Communist Party. In June–November 1850 the Manifesto of the Communist Party was published in English for the first time when George Julian Harney serialised Helen Macfarlane‘s translation in his Chartist magazine The Red Republican. (“A frightful hobgoblin stalks throughout Europe”, her version begins, “We are haunted by a ghost, the ghost of Communism…”[6]) For her translation, the Lancashire-based Macfarlane probably consulted Engels, whose own English translation had been abandoned half way. Harney’s introduction revealed the Manifesto‍ ’​s hitherto-anonymous authors’ identities for the first time.

Immediately after the Cologne Communist Trial of late 1852, the Communist League disbanded itself.

Soon after the Manifesto was published, Paris erupted in revolution to overthrow King Louis Philippe. The Manifesto played no role in this; a French translation was not published in Paris until just before the working-class June Days Uprising was crushed. Its influence in the Europe-wide revolutions of 1848 was restricted to Germany, where the Cologne-based Communist League and its newspaper Neue Rheinische Zeitung, edited by Marx, played an important role. Within a year of its establishment, in May 1849, the Zeitung was suppressed; Marx was expelled from Germany and had to seek lifelong refuge in London. In 1851, members of the Communist League’s central board were arrested by the Prussian police. At theirtrial in Cologne 18 months later in late 1852 they were sentenced to 3–6 years’ imprisonment. For Engels, the revolution was “forced into the background by the reaction that began with the defeat of the Paris workers in June 1848, and was finally excommunicated ‘by law’ in the conviction of the Cologne Communists in November 1852”.

After the defeat of the 1848 revolutions the Manifesto fell into obscurity, where it remained throughout the 1850s and 1860s. Hobsbawm says that by November 1850 the Manifesto “had become sufficiently scarce for Marx to think it worth reprinting section III … in the last issue of his [short-lived] London magazine”. Over the next two decades only a few new editions were published; these include a Russian translation by Mikhail Bakunin in Geneva c. 1863 and a 1866 edition in Berlin—the first time the Manifesto was published in Germany. According to Hobsbawm, “By the middle 1860s virtually nothing that Marx had written in the past was any longer in print.”

Rise, 1872–1917

In the early 1870s, the Manifesto and its authors experienced a revival in fortunes. Hobsbawm identifies three reasons for this. The first is the leadership role Marx played in the International Workingmen’s Association (aka the First International). Secondly, Marx also came into much prominence among socialists—and equal notoriety among the authorities—for his support of the Paris Commune of 1871, elucidated in The Civil War in France. Lastly, and perhaps most significantly in the popularisation of the Manifesto, was the treason trial of German Social Democratic Party (SPD) leaders. During the trial prosecutors read the Manifesto out loud as evidence; this meant that the pamphlet could legally be published in Germany. Thus in 1872 Marx and Engels rushed out a new German-language edition, writing a preface that identified that several portions that became outdated in the quarter century since its original publication. This edition was also the first time the title was shortened to The Communist Manifesto (Das Kommunistische Manifest), and it became the bedrock the authors based future editions upon. Between 1871 and 1873, the Manifesto was published in over nine editions in six languages; in 1872 it was published in the United States for the first time, serialised in Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly of New York City. However, by the mid 1870s the Communist Manifesto remained Marx and Engels’ only work to be even moderately well-known.

Over the next forty years, as social-democratic parties rose across Europe and parts of the world, so did the publication of the Manifesto alongside them, in hundreds of editions in thirty languages. Marx and Engels wrote a new preface for the 1882 Russian edition, translated by Georgi Plekhanov in Geneva (but later attributed to “the heroic Vera Zasulich” by Engels). In it they wondered if Russia could directly become a communist society, or if she would become capitalist first like other European countries. After Marx’s death in 1883, Engels alone provided the prefaces for five editions between 1888 and 1893. Among these is the 1888 English edition, translated by Samuel Moore and approved by Engels, who also provided notes throughout the text. It has been the standard English-language edition ever since.

The principle region of its influence, in terms of editions published, was in the “central belt of Europe”, from Russia in the east to France in the west. In comparison, the pamphlet had little impact on politics in southwest and southeast Europe, and moderate presence in the north. Outside Europe, Chinese and Japanese translations were published, as were Spanish editions in Latin America. This uneven geographical spread in the Manifesto‍ ’​s popularity reflected the development of socialist movements in a particular region as well as the popularity of Marxist variety of socialism there. There wasn’t always a strong correlation between a social-democratic party’s strength and the Manifesto‍ ’​s popularity in that country. For instance, the German SPD printed only a few thousand copies of the Communist Manifesto every year, but a few hundred thousand copies of the Erfurt Programme. Further, the mass-based social-democratic parties of the Second Internationaldid not require their rank and file to be well-versed in theory; Marxist works such as the Manifesto or Capital were read primarily by party theoreticians. On the other hand, small, dedicated militant parties and Marxist sects in the West took pride in knowing the theory; Hobsbawm says “This was the milieu in which ‘the clearness of a comrade could be gauged invariably from the number of earmarks on his Manifesto'”.

Ubiquity, 1917–present

The Bolshevik (1920) by Boris Kustodiev.Following the 1917 Bolshevik takeover of Russia Marx/Engels classics like theCommunist Manifesto were distributed far and wide.

Following the October Revolution of 1917 that swept the Vladimir Lenin-led Bolsheviks to power in Russia, the world’s firstsocialist state was founded explicitly along Marxist lines. The Soviet Union, which Bolshevik Russia would become a part of, was a single-party state under the rule of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). Unlike their mass-based counterparts of the Second International, the CPSU and other Leninist parties like it in the Third International expected their members to know the classic works of Marx, Engels and Lenin. Further, party leaders were expected to base their policy decisions on Marxist-Leninist ideology. Therefore works such as the Manifesto were required reading for the party rank-and-file.

Therefore the widespread dissemination of Marx and Engels’ works became an important policy objective; backed by a sovereign state, the CPSU had relatively inexhaustible resources for this purpose. Works by Marx, Engels and Lenin were published on a very large scale, and cheap editions of their works were available in several languages across the world. These publications were either shorter writings or they were compendia such as the various editions of Marx and Engels’Selected Works, or their Collected Works. This affected the destiny of the Manifesto in several ways. Firstly, in terms of circulation; in 1932 the American and British Communist Parties printed several hundred thousand copies of a cheap edition for “probably the largest mass edition ever issued in English”. Secondly the work entered political-science syllabi in universities, which would only expand after the Second World War. For its centenary in 1948, its publication was no longer the exclusive domain of Marxists and academicians; general publishers too printed theManifesto in large numbers. “In short, it was no longer only a classic Marxist document,” Hobsbawm noted, “it had become a political classic tout court.”

Even after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism in the 1990s, the Communist Manifesto remains ubiquitous; Hobsbawm says that “In states without censorship, almost certainly anyone within reach of a good bookshop, and certainly anyone within reach of a good library, not to mention the internet, can have access to it.” The 150th anniversary once again brought a deluge of attention in the press and the academia, as well as new editions of the book fronted by introductions to the text by academics. One of these, The Communist Manifesto: A Modern Edition by Verso, was touted by a critic in the London Review of Books as being a “stylish red-ribboned edition of the work. It is designed as a sweet keepsake, an exquisite collector’s item. In Manhattan, a prominent Fifth Avenue store put copies of this choice new edition in the hands of shop-window mannequins, displayed in come-hither poses and fashionable décolletage.”

Influence

Soviet Union stamp commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Manifesto

A number of 21st-century writers have commented on the Communist Manifesto‍ ’​s continuing relevance. Academic John Raines in 2002 noted that “In our day this Capitalist Revolution has reached the farthest corners of the earth. The tool of money has produced the miracle of the new global market and the ubiquitous shopping mall. Read The Communist Manifesto, written more than one hundred and fifty years ago, and you will discover that Marx foresaw it all.”[7] In 2003, the English Marxist Chris Harman stated:

There is still a compulsive quality to its prose as it provides insight after insight into the society in which we live, where it comes from and where its going to. It is still able to explain, as mainstream economists and sociologists cannot, today’s world of recurrent wars and repeated economic crisis, of hunger for hundreds of millions on the one hand and ‘overproduction’ on the other. There are passages that could have come from the most recent writings on globalisation.[8]

The continued relevance of the Marxist theories found within the text has also been supported by Alex Callinicos, editor ofInternational Socialism, who stated that “This is indeed a manifesto for the 21st century.”[9] Writing in The London Evening Standardin 2012, Andrew Neather cited Verso Books‘ 2012 re-edition of The Communist Manifesto, with an introduction by Eric Hobsbawm, as part of a resurgence of left-wing-themed ideas which includes the publication of Owen Jones‘ best-selling Chavs: The Demonization of the Working Class, and Jason Barker‘s documentary Marx Reloaded.[10]

However, not all scholars have praised it. Revisionist Marxist and reformist socialist Eduard Bernstein distinguished between “immature” early Marxism—as exemplified by the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels in their youth—that he opposed for its violent Blanquist tendencies, and later “mature” Marxism that he supported.[11] This latter form refers to Marx in his later life acknowledging that socialism could be achieved through peaceful means through legislative reform in democratic societies.[12] Bernstein declared that the massive and homogeneous working-class claimed in the Communist Manifesto did not exist, and that contrary to claims of a proletarian majority emerging, the middle-class was growing under capitalism and not disappearing as Marx had claimed. Bernstein noted that the working-class was not homogeneous but heterogeneous, with divisions and factions within it, including socialist and non-socialist trade unions. Marx himself, later in his life, acknowledged that the middle-class was not disappearing, in his work Theories of Surplus Value (1863). The obscurity of the later work means that Marx’s acknowledgement of this error is not well known.[13]

George Boyer described the Manifesto as “very much a period piece, a document of what was called the ‘hungry’ 1840s.”[14]

Many have drawn attention to the passage in the Manifesto that seems to sneer at the stupidity of the rustic: “The bourgeoisie … draws all nations … into civilisation … It has created enormous cities … and thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy [sic!] of rural life”.[15] As Eric Hobsbawm noted, however:

[W]hile there is no doubt that Marx at this time shared the usual townsman’s contempt for, as well as ignorance of, the peasant milieu, the actual and analytically more interesting German phrase (“dem Idiotismus des Landlebens entrissen”) referred not to “stupidity” but to “the narrow horizons”, or “the isolation from the wider society” in which people in the countryside lived. It echoed the original meaning of the Greek term idiotes from which the current meaning of “idiot” or “idiocy” is derived, namely “a person concerned only with his own private affairs and not with those of the wider community”. In the course of the decades since the 1840s, and in movements whose members, unlike Marx, were not classically educated, the original sense was lost and was misread.[16]

End matter

Source text

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-539

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ayn Rand — Atlas Shrugged — Videos

Posted on September 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Documentary, Economics, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Friends, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literature, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Radio, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Atlas-Shrugged-1atlas shrugged AtlasShrugged  Atlas-Shrugged-3

Day at Night: Ayn Rand, author, “Atlas Shrugged”

Ayn Rand First Interview 1959 (Full)

Ayn Rand’s First Appearance on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, 1967

Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview

Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder

Ayn Rand’s Last Public Lecture: The Sanction of the Victims

Ayn Rand – Conservative Sellout of Capitalism

Ayn Rand – Individual Rights

Yaron Brook: Ayn Rand vs. Big Government

Ayn Rand – The Proper Role of Government

John Stossel – Atlas Shrugged (full)

Atlas Shrugged and the Struggle for Liberty: hosted by John Stossel

John Stossel: Ayn Rand and Business

Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand: A Leading Lady of the Classical Liberal Tradition

The History of Classical Liberalism

Goddess of the Market Author Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand: Prophet or Scapegoat?

Ayn Rand and the Prophecy of Atlas Shrugged 2011

John Galt Full Speech – Atlas Shrugged – Ayn Rand

Is Inequality Fair?

Dr. Yaron Brook | Why Be Selfish? | Full Length HD

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike

Atlas Shrugged: Part 3

Ayn Rand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand.jpg
Born Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum
February 2, 1905
St. Petersburg, Russia
Died March 6, 1982 (aged 77)
New York City, New York, U.S.
Resting place Kensico Cemetery
Valhalla, New York, U.S.
Pen name Ayn Rand
Occupation Writer
Language English
Ethnicity Russian Jewish
Citizenship 1905–22  Russian
1922–31  Soviet
1931–82  American
Alma mater Petrograd State University
Period 1934–1982
Subject Philosophy
Notable works The Fountainhead
Atlas Shrugged
Notable awards Prometheus Award Hall of Fame inductee in 1987 (forAnthem) and co-inaugural inductee in 1983 (for Atlas Shrugged)
Spouse Frank O’Connor (m. 1929;wid. 1979)

Signature Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand (/ˈn ˈrænd/;[1] born Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum, Russian: Али́са Зино́вьевна Розенба́ум; February 2 [O.S. January 20] 1905 – March 6, 1982) was a Russian-born American novelist, philosopher,[2] playwright, and screenwriter. She is known for her two best-selling novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and for developing a philosophical system she called Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, Rand moved to the United States in 1926. She had a play produced on Broadway in 1935–1936. After two early novels that were initially unsuccessful in America, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel, The Fountainhead.

In 1957, she published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged. Afterward, she turned to non-fiction to promote her philosophy, publishing her own magazines and releasing several collections of essays until her death in 1982. Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge and rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism, and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, instead supporting laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights.[4] In art, Rand promoted romantic realism. She was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for some Aristotelians and classical liberals.[5]

Literary critics received Rand’s fiction with mixed reviews,[6] and academia generally ignored or rejected her philosophy, though academic interest has increased in recent decades.[7][8][9] The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.[10] She has been a significant influence amonglibertarians and American conservatives.[11]

Life

Early life

Rand was born Alisa Zinov’yevna Rosenbaum (Russian: Али́са Зиновьевна Розенбаум) on February 2, 1905, to a Russian Jewish bourgeois[12] family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of the three daughters of Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum and his wife, Anna Borisovna (née Kaplan), largely non-observant Jews. Zinovy Rosenbaum was a successful pharmacist and businessman, eventually owning a pharmacy and the building in which it was located.[13] With a passion for the liberal arts, Rand later said she found school unchallenging and she began writing screenplays at the age of eight and novels at the age of ten.[14] At the prestigious Stoiunina Gymnasium, her closest friend was Vladimir Nabokov‘s younger sister, Olga. The two girls shared an intense interest in politics and would engage in debates at theNabokov mansion: while Nabokova defended constitutional monarchy, Rand supported republican ideals.[15] She was twelve at the time of the February Revolution of 1917, during which she favored Alexander Kerensky over Tsar Nicholas II.

The subsequent October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the life the family had previously enjoyed. Her father’s business was confiscated and the family displaced. They fled to the Crimean Peninsula, which was initially under control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. She later recalled that, while in high school, she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued reason above any other human virtue. After graduating from high school in the Crimea at 16, Rand returned with her family to Petrograd (as Saint Petersburg was renamed at that time), where they faced desperate conditions, on occasion nearly starving.[16][17]

The Twelve Collegia of what was then Petrograd State University

Rand completed a three-year program at Petrograd State University.

After the Russian Revolution, universities were opened to women, allowing Rand to be in the first group of women to enroll at Petrograd State University,[18] where, at the age of 16, she began her studies in the department of social pedagogy, majoring in history.[19] At the university she was introduced to the writings of Aristotle and Plato,[20] who would be her greatest influence and counter-influence, respectively.[21] A third figure whose philosophical works she studied heavily was Friedrich Nietzsche.[22] Able to read French, German and Russian, Rand also discovered the writers Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, Edmond Rostand, and Friedrich Schiller, who became her perennial favorites.[23]

Along with many other “bourgeois” students, Rand was purged from the university shortly before graduating. However, after complaints from a group of visiting foreign scientists, many of the purged students were allowed to complete their work and graduate,[24] which Rand did in October 1924.[25] She subsequently studied for a year at the State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad. For one of her assignments, she wrote an essay about the Polish-American actress Pola Negri, which became her first published work.[26]

By this time she had decided her professional surname for writing would be Rand,[27] possibly as a Cyrillic contraction of her birth surname,[28] and she adopted the first nameAyn, either from a Finnish name Aino or from the Hebrew word עין (ayin, meaning “eye”).[29]

Arrival in the United States

A brown book cover with black-and-white drawings and text in Russian. The drawing on the left is a portrait of a woman with dark hair; the drawing on the right is of skyscrapers.

Cover of Rand’s first published work, a 2,500-word monograph on femme fatalePola Negri published in 1925.[26]

In the autumn of 1925, Rand was granted a visa to visit American relatives.[30] She departed on January 17, 1926.[31] When she arrived in New York City on February 19, 1926, she was so impressed with the skyline of Manhattan that she cried what she later called “tears of splendor”.[32] Intent on staying in the United States to become a screenwriter, she lived for a few months with relatives in Chicago, one of whom owned a movie theater and allowed her to watch dozens of films for free. She then set out for Hollywood, California.[33]

Initially, Rand struggled in Hollywood and took odd jobs to pay her basic living expenses. A chance meeting with famed director Cecil B. DeMille led to a job as an extra in his film The King of Kings as well as subsequent work as a junior screenwriter.[34] While working on The King of Kings, she met an aspiring young actor, Frank O’Connor; the two were married on April 15, 1929, around the time her last visa extension was set to expire. She became a permanent US resident in July 1929, and became an American citizen on March 3, 1931.[35]Taking various jobs during the 1930s to support her writing, she worked for a time as the head of the costume department at RKO Studios.[36] She made several attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to acquire permission to emigrate.[37]

Early fiction

Rand’s first literary success came with the sale of her screenplay Red Pawn to Universal Studios in 1932, although it was never produced.[38] This was followed by the courtroom drama Night of January 16th, first produced by E.E. Clive in Hollywood in 1934 and then successfully reopened on Broadway in 1935. Each night the “jury” was selected from members of the audience, and one of the two different endings, depending on the jury’s “verdict”, would then be performed.[39] In 1941, Paramount Pictures produced a movie loosely based on the play. Rand did not participate in the production and was highly critical of the result.[40] Ideal is a novel and play written in 1934 which were first published in 2015 by her estate. The heroine is an actress who embodies Randian ideals.[41]

Rand’s first published novel, the semi-autobiographical We the Living, was published in 1936. Set in Soviet Russia, it focused on the struggle between the individual and the state. In a 1959 foreword to the novel, Rand stated that We the Living “is as near to an autobiography as I will ever write. It is not an autobiography in the literal, but only in the intellectual sense. The plot is invented, the background is not…”[42] Initial sales were slow and the American publisher let it go out of print,[43] although European editions continued to sell.[44] After the success of her later novels, Rand was able to release a revised version in 1959 that has since sold over three million copies.[45] In 1942, without Rand’s knowledge or permission, the novel was made into a pair of Italian films, Noi vivi and Addio, Kira. Rediscovered in the 1960s, these films were re-edited into a new version which was approved by Rand and re-released as We the Living in 1986.[46]

Her novella Anthem was written during a break from the writing of her next major novel, The Fountainhead. It presents a vision of a dystopian future world in which totalitarian collectivism has triumphed to such an extent that even the word ‘I’ has been forgotten and replaced with ‘we’.[47] It was published in England in 1938, but Rand initially could not find an American publisher. As with We the Living, Rand’s later success allowed her to get a revised version published in 1946, which has sold more than 3.5 million copies.[48]

The Fountainhead and political activism

During the 1940s, Rand became politically active. Both she and her husband worked full-time in volunteer positions for the 1940 presidential campaign of Republican Wendell Willkie. This work led to Rand’s first public speaking experiences, including fielding the sometimes hostile questions from New York City audiences who had just viewed pro-Willkie newsreels, an experience she greatly enjoyed.[49] This activity also brought her into contact with other intellectuals sympathetic to free-market capitalism. She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Once Mises referred to Rand as “the most courageous man in America”, a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said “man” instead of “woman”.[50] Rand also developed a friendship with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned the well-informed Paterson about American history and politics long into the night during their numerous meetings and gave Paterson ideas for her only nonfiction book, The God of the Machine.[51]

Rand’s first major success as a writer came with The Fountainhead in 1943, a romantic and philosophical novel that she wrote over a period of seven years.[52] The novel centers on an uncompromising young architect named Howard Roark and his struggle against what Rand described as “second-handers”—those who attempt to live through others, placing others above themselves. It was rejected by twelve publishers before finally being accepted by the Bobbs-Merrill Company on the insistence of editor Archibald Ogden, who threatened to quit if his employer did not publish it.[53] While completing the novel, Rand was prescribedBenzedrine, a brand of amphetamine, to fight fatigue.[54] The drug helped her to work long hours to meet her deadline for delivering the finished novel, but when the book was done, she was so exhausted that her doctor ordered two weeks’ rest.[55] Her use of the drug for approximately three decades may have contributed to what some of her later associates described as volatile mood swings.[56]

The Fountainhead eventually became a worldwide success, bringing Rand fame and financial security.[57] In 1943, Rand sold the rights for a film version to Warner Bros., and she returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay. Finishing her work on that screenplay, she was hired by producer Hal Wallis as a screenwriter and script-doctor. Her work for Wallis included the screenplays for the Oscar-nominated Love Letters andYou Came Along.[58] This role gave Rand time to work on other projects, including a planned nonfiction treatment of her philosophy to be called The Moral Basis of Individualism. Although the planned book was never completed, a condensed version was published as an essay titled “The Only Path to Tomorrow”, in the January 1944 edition of Reader’s Digest magazine.[59]

Rand extended her involvement with free-market and anti-communist activism while working in Hollywood. She became involved with the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals, a Hollywood anti-Communist group, and wrote articles on the group’s behalf. She also joined the anti-Communist American Writers Association.[60] A visit by Isabel Paterson to meet with Rand’s California associates led to a final falling out between the two when Paterson made comments to valued political allies, which Rand considered rude.[61] In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a “friendly witness” before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee. Her testimony described the disparity between her personal experiences in the Soviet Union and the portrayal of it in the 1944 film Song of Russia.[62] Rand argued that the film grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as being much better and happier than it actually was.[63] She wanted to also criticize the lauded 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives for what she interpreted as its negative presentation of the business world, but she was not allowed to testify about it.[64] When asked after the hearings about her feelings on the effectiveness of the investigations, Rand described the process as “futile”.[65]

After several delays, the film version of The Fountainhead was released in 1949. Although it used Rand’s screenplay with minimal alterations, she “disliked the movie from beginning to end”, complaining about its editing, acting, and other elements.[66]

Atlas Shrugged and Objectivism

In the years following the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand received numerous letters from readers, some of whom it profoundly influenced. In 1951 Rand moved from Los Angeles to New York City, where she gathered a group of these admirers around her. This group (jokingly designated “The Collective”) included future Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara’s cousin Leonard Peikoff. At first the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand on weekends at her apartment to discuss philosophy. Later she began allowing them to read the drafts of her new novel, Atlas Shrugged, as the manuscript pages were written. In 1954 Rand’s close relationship with the younger Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the consent of their spouses.[67]

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, was considered Rand’s magnum opus.[68] Rand described the theme of the novel as “the role of the mind in man’s existence—and, as a corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest.”[69] It advocates the core tenets of Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. The plot involves a dystopian United States in which the most creative industrialists, scientists, and artists go on strike and retreat to a mountainous hideaway where they build an independent free economy. The novel’s hero and leader of the strike,John Galt, describes the strike as “stopping the motor of the world” by withdrawing the minds of the individuals most contributing to the nation’s wealth and achievement. With this fictional strike, Rand intended to illustrate that without the efforts of the rational and productive, the economy would collapse and society would fall apart. The novel includes elements of romance,[70][71] mystery, and science fiction,[72] and it contains Rand’s most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction, a lengthy monologue delivered by Galt.

Despite many negative reviews, Atlas Shrugged became an international bestseller, and in an interview with Mike Wallace, Rand declared herself “the most creative thinker alive”.[73] After completing the novel, Rand fell into a severe depression.[74] Atlas Shrugged was Rand’s last completed work of fiction; a turning point in her life, it marked the end of Rand’s career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher.[75]

In 1958 Nathaniel Branden established Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later incorporated as the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), to promote Rand’s philosophy. Collective members gave lectures for NBI and wrote articles for Objectivist periodicals that she edited. Rand later published some of these articles in book form. Critics, including some former NBI students and Branden himself, have described the culture of NBI as one of intellectual conformity and excessive reverence for Rand, with some describing NBI or the Objectivist movement itself as a cult or religion.[76] Rand expressed opinions on a wide range of topics, from literature and music to sexuality and facial hair, and some of her followers mimicked her preferences, wearing clothes to match characters from her novels and buying furniture like hers.[77] Rand was unimpressed with many of the NBI students[78] and held them to strict standards, sometimes reacting coldly or angrily to those who disagreed with her.[79] However, some former NBI students believe the extent of these behaviors has been exaggerated, with the problem being concentrated among Rand’s closest followers in New York.[80]

Later years

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks to students at institutions such as Yale, Princeton, Columbia,[81] Harvard, and MIT.[82] She received an honorary doctorate from Lewis & Clark College in 1963.[83] She also began delivering annual lectures at the Ford Hall Forum, responding afterward to questions from the audience.[84]During these speeches and Q&A sessions, she often took controversial stances on political and social issues of the day. These included supporting abortion rights,[85] opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft(but condemning many draft dodgers as “bums”),[86] supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations as “civilized men fighting savages”,[87] saying European colonists had the right to develop land taken from American Indians,[88] and calling homosexuality “immoral” and “disgusting”, while also advocating the repeal of all laws about it.[89] She also endorsed several Republican candidates for President of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.[90]

A twin gravestone bearing the name "Frank O'Connor" on the left, and "Ayn Rand O'Connor" on the right

Grave marker for Rand and her husband at Kensico Cemetery inValhalla, New York

In 1964 Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended,[91] Rand terminated her relationship with both Brandens, which led to the closure of NBI.[92] Rand published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other “irrational behavior in his private life”.[93] Branden later apologized in an interview to “every student of Objectivism” for “perpetuating the Ayn Rand mystique” and for “contributing to that dreadful atmosphere of intellectual repressiveness that pervades the Objectivist movement.”[94] In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.[95]

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking.[96] In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, despite her initial objections, allowed Evva Pryor, a social worker from her attorney’s office, 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 the heir to her estate.[104]

Philosophy

Rand called her philosophy “Objectivism”, describing its essence as “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”[105] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics,epistemology, ethics, political philosophy and aesthetics.[106]Main article: Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism, and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[107]

In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[108] and reason, which she described as “the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.”[109] She rejected all claims of non-perceptual or a priori knowledge, including “‘instinct,’ ‘intuition,’ ‘revelation,’ or any form of ‘just knowing.'”[110] Rand argued that the requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization, which she summarized in the form of a philosophical razor. Known as “Rand’s razor,” it states that “concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity.”[111] In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand presented a theory of concept formation and rejected the analytic–synthetic dichotomy.[112]

In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should “exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”[113] She referred to egoism as “the virtue of selfishness” in her book of that title,[114] in which she presented her solution to the is-ought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of “man’s survival qua man”.[115] She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness,[9] and held that the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that “Force and mind are opposites.”[116]

Rand’s political philosophy emphasized individual rights (including property rights),[117] and she considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on the protection of those rights.[4] She opposed statism, which she understood to include theocracy, absolute monarchy, Nazism, fascism,communism, democratic socialism, and dictatorship.[118] Rand believed that natural rights should be enforced by a constitutionally limited government.[119] Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, she preferred the term “radical for capitalism”. She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics.[120] She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism.[121] She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.[122]

Rand’s aesthetics defined art as a “selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments.” According to Rand, art allows philosophical concepts to be presented in a concrete form that can be easily grasped, thereby fulfilling a need of human consciousness.[123] As a writer, the art form Rand focused on most closely was literature, where she considered romanticism to be the approach that most accurately reflected the existence of human free will.[124] She described her own approach to literature as “romantic realism“.[125]

Rand acknowledged Aristotle as her greatest influence[126] and remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend “three A’s”—Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand.[127] In a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she responded, “Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me. I devised the rest of my philosophy myself.”[128] However, she also found early inspiration in Friedrich Nietzsche,[129] and scholars have found indications of his influence in early notes from Rand’s journals,[130] in passages from the first edition of We the Living (which Rand later revised),[131] and in her overall writing style.[132] However, by the time she wrote The Fountainhead, Rand had turned against Nietzsche’s ideas,[133] and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.[134] Among the philosophers Rand held in particular disdain was Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as a “monster”,[135] although philosophers George Walsh[136] and Fred Seddon[137] have argued that she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences.

Rand said her most important contributions to philosophy were her “theory of concepts, [her] ethics, and [her] discovery in politics that evil—the violation of rights—consists of the initiation of force.”[138] She believed epistemology was a foundational branch of philosophy and considered the advocacy of reason to be the single most significant aspect of her philosophy,[139] stating, “I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.”[140]

Reception and legacy

Reviews[edit]

During Rand’s lifetime, her work evoked both extreme praise and condemnation. Rand’s first novel, We the Living, was admired by the literary critic H. L. Mencken,[141] her Broadway play Night of January 16th was both a critical and popular success,[142] and The Fountainhead was hailed by a reviewer in The New York Times as “masterful”.[143] Rand’s novels were derided by some critics when they were first published as being long and melodramatic.[6] However, they became bestsellers largely through word of mouth.[144]

The first reviews Rand received were for Night of January 16th. Reviews of the production were largely positive, but Rand considered even positive reviews to be embarrassing because of significant changes made to her script by the producer.[142] Rand believed that her first novel, We the Living, was not widely reviewed, but Rand scholar Michael S. Berliner says “it was the most reviewed of any of her works”, with approximately 125 different reviews being published in more than 200 publications. Overall these reviews were more positive than the reviews she received for her later work.[145] Her 1938 novella Anthem received little attention from reviewers, both for its first publication in England and for subsequent re-issues.[146]

Rand’s first bestseller, The Fountainhead, received far fewer reviews than We the Living, and reviewers’ opinions were mixed.[147] There was a positive review in The New York Times that Rand greatly appreciated.[148] The reviewer called Rand “a writer of great power” who wrote “brilliantly, beautifully and bitterly”, and stated that “you will not be able to read this masterful book without thinking through some of the basic concepts of our time”.[143] There were other positive reviews, but Rand dismissed most of them as either not understanding her message or as being from unimportant publications.[147] Some negative reviews focused on the length of the novel,[6] such as one that called it “a whale of a book” and another that said “anyone who is taken in by it deserves a stern lecture on paper-rationing”. Other negative reviews called the characters unsympathetic and Rand’s style “offensively pedestrian”.[147]

Rand’s 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged was widely reviewed, and many of the reviews were strongly negative.[6][149] In the National Review, conservative author Whittaker Chambers called the book “sophomoric” and “remarkably silly”. He described the tone of the book as “shrillness without reprieve” and accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming “From almost any page ofAtlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber—go!'”[150] Atlas Shrugged received positive reviews from a few publications, including praise from the noted book reviewer John Chamberlain,[149] but Rand scholar Mimi Reisel Gladstein later wrote that “reviewers seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs”, calling it “execrable claptrap” and “a nightmare”; they said it was “written out of hate” and showed “remorseless hectoring and prolixity”.[6] Author Flannery O’Connor wrote in a letter to a friend that “The fiction of Ayn Rand is as low as you can get re fiction. I hope you picked it up off the floor of the subway and threw it in the nearest garbage pail.”[151]

Rand’s nonfiction received far fewer reviews than her novels had. The tenor of the criticism for her first nonfiction book, For the New Intellectual, was similar to that for Atlas Shrugged,[152][153] with philosopher Sidney Hook likening her certainty to “the way philosophy is written in the Soviet Union”,[154] and author Gore Vidal calling her viewpoint “nearly perfect in its immorality”.[155] Her subsequent books got progressively less attention from reviewers.[152]

On the 100th anniversary of Rand’s birth in 2005, Edward Rothstein, writing for The New York Times, referred to her fictional writing as quaint utopian “retro fantasy” and programmatic neo-Romanticism of the misunderstood artist, while criticizing her characters’ “isolated rejection of democratic society”.[156] In 2007, book critic Leslie Clark described her fiction as “romance novels with a patina of pseudo-philosophy“.[157] In 2009, GQ‍ ’​s critic columnist Tom Carson described her books as “capitalism’s version of middlebrow religious novels” such as Ben-Hur and the Left Behind series.[158]

Popular interest

An engraving in all capital letters that reads: "Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision." Ayn Rand

A quote from Rand’s book The Fountainhead, on the wall directly across from the entrance to The American Adventure rotunda at Walt Disney World’s Epcot.

In 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent’s life was. Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.[159] Rand’s books continue to be widely sold and read, with over 29 million copies sold as of 2013 (with about 10% of that total purchased for free distribution to schools by the Ayn Rand Institute).[160] Although Rand’s influence has been greatest in the United States, there has been international interest in her work.[7][161] Rand’s work continues to be among the top sellers among books in India.[162]

Rand’s contemporary admirers included fellow novelists, such as Ira Levin, Kay Nolte Smith and L. Neil Smith, and later writers such as Erika Holzer and Terry Goodkind have been influenced by her.[163] Other artists who have cited Rand as an important influence on their lives and thought include comic book artist Steve Ditko[164] and musician Neil Peart of Rush.[165] Rand provided a positive view of business, and in response business executives and entrepreneurs have admired and promoted her work.[166] John Allisonof BB&T and Ed Snider of Comcast Spectacor have funded the promotion of Rand’s ideas,[167] while Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, and John P. Mackey, CEO of Whole Foods, among others, have said they consider Rand crucial to their success.[168]

Rand and her works have been referred to in a variety of media: on television shows including animated sitcoms, live-action comedies, dramas, and game shows,[169] as well as in movies and video games.[170] She, or a character based on her, figures prominently (in positive and negative lights) in literary and science fiction novels by prominent American authors.[171] Nick Gillespie, editor in chief of Reason, has remarked that “Rand’s is a tortured immortality, one in which she’s as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist…” and that “jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman, run through the popular culture”.[172] Two movies have been made about Rand’s life. A 1997 documentary film, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, was nominated for the Academy Award for Documentary Feature.[173] The Passion of Ayn Rand, a 1999 television adaptation of the book of the same name, won several awards.[174] Rand’s image also appears on a 1999 U.S. postage stamp designed by artist Nick Gaetano.[175][176]

Political influence

Although she rejected the labels “conservative” and “libertarian“,[177] Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism.[11] Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three most important women (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism,[178] and David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, stated that “without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist”.[179] In his history of the libertarian movement, journalist Brian Doherty described her as “the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large”,[159] and biographer Jennifer Burns referred to her as “the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right”.[180]

In a large outdoor crowd, a man holds up a poster with the words "I am John Galt" in all capital letters

A protester at an April 2009 Tea Party rally carries a sign referring toJohn Galt, the hero of Rand’s novelAtlas Shrugged

She faced intense opposition from William F. Buckley, Jr. and other contributors for the National Review magazine. They published numerous criticisms in the 1950s and 1960s by Whittaker Chambers, Garry Wills, and M. Stanton Evans. Nevertheless, her influence among conservatives forced Buckley and other National Review contributors to reconsider how traditional notions of virtue and Christianity could be integrated with support for capitalism.[181]

The political figures who cite Rand as an influence are usually conservatives (often members of the United States Republican Party),[182] despite Rand taking some positions that are atypical for conservatives, such as being pro-choice and an atheist.[183] A 1987 article in The New York Times referred to her as the Reagan administration‘s “novelist laureate”.[184] Republican Congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and recommended her novels.[185]

The late-2000s financial crisis spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis,[186] and opinion articles compared real-world events with the plot of the novel.[187] During this time, signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests.[188] There was also increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left, with critics blaming the economic crisis on her support of selfishness and free markets, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan.[189] For example, Mother Jones remarked that “Rand’s particular genius has always been her ability to turn upside down traditional hierarchies and recast the wealthy, the talented, and the powerful as the oppressed”,[183] while equating Randian individual well-being with that of the Volk according to Goebbels. Corey Robin of The Nation alleged similarities between the “moral syntax of Randianism” and fascism.[190]

Academic reaction

During Rand’s lifetime her work received little attention from academic scholars.[10] When the first academic book about Rand’s philosophy appeared in 1971, its author declared writing about Rand “a treacherous undertaking” that could lead to “guilt by association” for taking her seriously.[191] A few articles about Rand’s ideas appeared in academic journals before her death in 1982, many of them in The Personalist.[192] One of these was “On the Randian Argument” by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who argued that her meta-ethical argument is unsound and fails to solve the is–ought problem posed by David Hume.[193] Some responses to Nozick by other academic philosophers were also published in The Personalist arguing that Nozick misstated Rand’s case.[192] Academic consideration of Rand as a literary figure during her life was even more limited. Academic Mimi Gladstein was unable to find any scholarly articles about Rand’s novels when she began researching her in 1973, and only three such articles appeared during the rest of the 1970s.[194]

Since Rand’s death, interest in her work has gradually increased.[195] Historian Jennifer Burns has identified “three overlapping waves” of scholarly interest in Rand, the most recent of which is “an explosion of scholarship” since the year 2000.[196] However, few universities currently include Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical specialty or research area, with many literature and philosophy departments dismissing her as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a subject for serious study.[197]

Gladstein, Chris Matthew Sciabarra, Allan Gotthelf, Edwin A. Locke and Tara Smith have taught her work in academic institutions. Sciabarra co-edits the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a nonpartisan peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the study of Rand’s philosophical and literary work.[198] In 1987 Gotthelf helped found the Ayn Rand Society with George Walsh and David Kelley, and has been active in sponsoring seminars about Rand and her ideas.[199] Smith has written several academic books and papers on Rand’s ideas, including Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, a volume on Rand’s ethical theory published byCambridge University Press. Rand’s ideas have also been made subjects of study at Clemson and Duke universities.[200] Scholars of English and American literature have largely ignored her work,[201] although attention to her literary work has increased since the 1990s.[202]

Rand scholars Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen, while stressing the importance and originality of her thought, describe her style as “literary, hyperbolic and emotional”.[203] Philosopher Jack Wheeler says that despite “the incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage”, Rand’s ethics are “a most immense achievement, the study of which is vastly more fruitful than any other in contemporary thought.”[204] In the Literary Encyclopedia entry for Rand written in 2001, John David Lewis declared that “Rand wrote the most intellectually challenging fiction of her generation”.[205] In a 1999 interview in theChronicle of Higher Education, Sciabarra commented, “I know they laugh at Rand”, while forecasting a growth of interest in her work in the academic community.[206]

Libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer has argued that very few people find Rand’s ideas convincing, especially her ethics,[207] which he believes is difficult to interpret and may lack logical coherence.[208] He attributes the attention she receives to her being a “compelling writer”, especially as a novelist. Thus, Atlas Shrugged outsells not only the works of other philosophers of classical liberalism such as Ludwig von Mises,Friedrich Hayek, or Frederic Bastiat, but also Rand’s own non-fiction works.[207]

Political scientist Charles Murray, while praising Rand’s literary accomplishments, criticizes her claim that her only “philosophical debt” was to Aristotle, instead asserting that her ideas were derivative of previous thinkers such as John Locke and Friedrich Nietzsche.[209]

Although Rand maintained that Objectivism was an integrated philosophical system, philosopher Robert H. Bass has argued that her central ethical ideas are inconsistent and contradictory to her central political ideas.[210]

Objectivist movement

Main article: Objectivist movement

In 1985, Rand’s heir Leonard Peikoff established the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Rand’s ideas and works. In 1990, philosopher David Kelley founded the Institute for Objectivist Studies, now known as The Atlas Society.[211] In 2001 historian John McCaskey organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.[212] The charitable foundation of BB&T Corporation has also given grants for teaching Rand’s ideas or works. The University of Texas at Austin, the University of Pittsburgh, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill are among the schools that have received grants. In some cases these grants have been controversial due to their requiring research or teaching related to Rand.[213]

Selected works

Novels
Other fiction
Non-fiction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand 

External links

Listen to this article (2 parts) · (info)
This audio file was created from a revision of the “Ayn Rand” article dated 2007-06-02, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the article. (Audio help)
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Individualism vs. Collectivism — Videos

Posted on December 21, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

individualism_collectivism

ClassicalLiberalism

Ayn Rand – Individualism

Cultural Dimension: me or we

Individualism Vs Collectivism

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Milton Friedman ~ The Escape From Collectivism

Milton Friedman-Collectivism

Hayek on Socialism

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2

Milton Friedman Discusses Collectivism vs Liberalism

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Ayn Rand: Racism VS. Individualism

Ayn Rand – In Defense of Capitalism

Yaron Brook – Objectivism Is Radical (and Applying It Can Be Hard)

Milton Friedman Interview with Gary Becker (2003)

In Depth with Milton Friedman w/ Q&A (2000)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Brian Doherty — Radicals For Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement — Videos

Posted on June 8, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Required reading for all lovers of liberty and capitalism. Recommend all Americans read this book.

brian_doherty

radicalsforcapitalism

How Brian Doherty Became a Libertarian

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement

Featuring the author, Brian Doherty; with comments by E. J. Dionne Jr., Columnist, Washington Post, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution; and moderator David Boaz, Executive Vice President, Cato Institute, Author, Libertarianism: A Primer.

For the first time, the history of the modern libertarian movement is presented in one comprehensive book. Reason editor Brian Doherty has pored through archives across the country and conducted dozens of interviews. The result is a book that moves smoothly from the ideas of Ludwig von Mises, Ayn Rand, and F. A. Hayek to the growth of libertarian think tanks to the factional feuds within the Libertarian Party. Every reader, no matter how well informed, will learn things from this book. Radicals for Capitalism will take its place alongside other key books about American ideological and political movements. Don’t miss the unveiling of this impressive book.

Conservatism vs Libertarianism – Brian Doherty

Reason Magazine Senior Editor Brian Doherty discusses the differences between libertarianism and traditional conservative ideologies.

—–

Brian Doherty considers “Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.”

This illuminating, lively history of a political movement on the rise – told through the life stories of its standard bearers – casts new light on the intellectual and political history of post-WWII America. Doherty traces the evolution of libertarianism through the unconventional stories of Ludwig von Mises, F.A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman, and their personal battles, character flaws, love affairs, and historical events that altered its course. In so doing, he provides a fascinating new perspective on American history, from the New Deal through the culture wars of the 1060s to today’s divisiveness.

In February, the Wall Street Journal noted, “With ‘Radicals for Capitalism’, Brian Doherty finally gives libertarianism its due…Mr. Doherty has rescued libertarianism from its own obscurity, eloquently capturing the appeal of the ‘pure idea’, its origins in great minds and the feistiness of its many current champions.” – Cody’s Books

Brian Doherty is a senior editor of Reason, the libertarian monthly named one of “The 50 Best Magazines” three out of the past four years by the Chicago Tribune. Established in 1968 and a four-time finalist for National Magazine Awards, Reason has a print circulation of 40,000 and won the 2005 Western Publications Association “MAGGIE” Award for best political magazine.

Brian Doherty on The Forgotten History of the Antiwar Right

What Happened to the Antiwar Movement? 

Gun Rights on Trial: Brian Doherty Reacts to D.C. v. Heller

Gun Rights Under Obama – Brian Doherty

Brian Doherty on Ron Paul’s Revolution

Ron Paul Supporters Seek to Assert Presence at RNC and Influence Long Term Direction of GOP

Brian Doherty Discusses ‘Ron Paul’s Revolution’

Brian Doherty’s Favorite Obscure Libertarian: Thomas Szasz

Background Articles and Videos

Libertarianism From A to Z With Jeffrey Miron

What happened to the “libertarian moment”?

With Ron Paul retiring, who will pick up the mantle of the libertarian movement?

The Libertarian View: Liberty and the Path of History

Exploring Liberty: The History of Liberty, Pt. 1 (Tom G. Palmer)

The Morality of Capitalism | Tom G. Palmer 

Tom G. Palmer gives a speech based on his new book, “The Morality of Capitalism.” Presented at the John Locke Foundation on October 17, 2011.

Thomas Szasz on Socialism in Health Care

The health care debate is fundamentally broken, argues the great psychiatry skeptic Thomas Szasz, because it assumes a flawed premise. Namely, that “diseases require treatment, so the thing to do is to avoid diseases so you don’t need treatment.”

Szasz ties this to the problem of socialism in health care. Because of the way we think about disease, we have a health care system that removes control from individuals and gives it to state-enabled doctors and insurance companies. In psychology, for example, “diseases are no longer defined by pathologists but are defined essentially by a political process.”

This has lead to, among other things, more expensive health care. Szasz offers seven reasons why, many having to do with the way we think about disease, how it should be treated, and the relationship between citizens and medicine.

A Special Tribute to Thomas Szasz

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Yaron Brook–Ayn Rand’s Moral Defense of Capitalism–Videos

Posted on July 31, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Ayn Rand’s Moral Defense of Capitalism

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Block on Rothbard, Mises, and Rand–Videos

Posted on July 7, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Fiscal Policy, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Rothbard, Mises, Rand, and Me | Walter Block

Background Articles and Videos

An Evening with Walter Block – Mises Canada 

Austrian Economics and Libertarianism | Walter Block 

Labor, Unemployment, and Interventionism | Walter Block 

Founder of Jews for Ron Paul Walter Block, PhD – Why Obama/Romney is a Curse to America and Israel 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

‘Three of a Kind’–Big Government Neoconservative Progressives: Newt Gingrich–Serial Hypocrite; Rick Santorum–Counterfeit Conservative; Mitt Romney–Flip Flopper–vs. Ron Paul–Libertarian Conservative–Videos

Posted on January 17, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, Public Sector, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ron Paul: Three of a Kind

AYN RAND’s message to AMERICA

Ayn Rand on Socialism and Dictatorship in America

George Carlin -“Who Really Controls America”

“If the practice persists of covering government deficits with the issue of notes, then the day will come without fail, sooner or later, when the monetary systems of those nations pursuing this course will break down completely. The purchasing power of the monetary unit will decline more and more, until finally it disappears completely.”

~Ludwig von Mises, On the Manipulation of Money and Credit, page 5.

There are four neoconservative progressives still in the race for the Republican Party Presidential nomination–Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry.

Perry will be the next to drop out of the race, most likely in the next two weeks, if not sooner.

The only libertarian conservative in the race is Ron Paul.

Many progressives do not care who wins–Obama, Romney, Gingrich and Santorium– big government progressives are all acceptable to many progressive Democrats and Republicans.

The neoconservative progressives and the Republican Party establishment prefer Mitt Romney over the others.

The conservative base simply does not support Romney and many are waking up to the fact that Gingrich and Santorium are both big government neoconservative progressives as well.

Talk radio show hosts are divided as well.

However, most talk radio show hosts are united in their opposition to libertarian conservative Ron Paul.

It seems these so-called “conservatives” are Republicans first.

Actually these talk radio show hosts are neoconservative progressives forced out of the closet or bunker.

These hosts may talk “conservative” but support Republican Presidential candidates that are also talk “conservative” but walk big government neoconservative progressives.

The Bulwarks of the Conservative Movement

Making Sense of the Conservative Movement

What’s the Modern Definition of a Conservative?

Ronald Reagan Tapped Into Unspoken Conservatives

This includes Bennett, Beck, Limbaugh, Levin, Hewett and Medved just to name a few.

These talk radio show hosts differ only as to which big government Republican neoconservative progressives they support.

True conservatives must either support and vote for Paul or once again see another big government neoconservative progressive in the White House–Teddy Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, George H. W.Bush and George W. Bush were all big government progressives and not conservatives.

I have been in the conservative movement since Barry Goldwater.

I will no longer vote for any progressive of either party.

I will never vote for a neoconservative progressives, they are war mongers that get Americans and the innocent in other countries killed.

The neoconservatives have blood on their hands.

The time has come for conservatives to form a new political party consisting of four types of conservatives: economic/libertarian conservatives, traditional conservatives, religious/social conservatives and national defense/anti-communist conservatives.

Party Name: American Citizens Alliance Party

Tag-line: Faith, Family, Friends and Freedom First.

For all practical purposes the progressives in both parties have won.

The progressives control the leadership of both political parties.

In the next three months both parties will again propose  another unbalanced budget exceeding $3.5 trillion with a deficit greater than $1 trillion.

This is not fiscally responsible.

This is the victory of big government progressivism advocating warfare and welfare state intervention  over limited government conservatism advocating a peace and prosperity economy with a non-intervention state.

The battle is between the collectivists vs. the individualists.

It will take at least 100 years to undo what the progressives have done to this country.

I will support and vote for Ron Paul.

Let the neoconservatives and progressives and their friends in the media and talk radio fool the ignorant in their audiences.

The American people will and are waking up and will revolt.

Abandon both the Democratic and Republican Parties that have been well penetrated and captured by progressive statists–collectivists all.

Focus on building a new political party.

Support and vote for Ron Paul

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever.”

“The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises, Human Action, pages 854 and 858

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Big Government Conservatism

Serial Hypocrisy – The Real Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich: Selling Access

SA@TAC – Newt Gingrich is Not a Conservative

Who is Newt’s favorite President?

SA@TheDC – Does Newt Gingrich Want the Constitution to ‘Die?’

Ron Paul Ad – Rick Santorum “A Record of Betrayal”

Rick Santorum’s Big Government Problem

Rick Santorum-Big Government, Big Spending Conservative

Big Government Liberal Rick Santorum Exposed

Jeb Bush Misses Bribe Goal, Santorum Turnout So Sad It Hurts

 Ron Paul Ad – BIG DOG

Rand Paul Exposes Rick Santorum as a Fake Conservative

Rush Limbaugh Admits Mitt Romney is a GOP Disaster if nominated

Still Voting For ‘Mitt Romney’?

Rush Limbaugh: Mitt Romney ‘Is Not A Conservative’

When Mitt Romney Came To Town — Full, complete version

George Carlin – Divide and Conquer

Ron Paul Ad – Believe

Ron Paul Ad – Consistent

Ron Paul Ad – Secure

Ron Paul Ad TRUST

Ron Paul Ad – Plan

Ron Paul – “The one who can beat Obama”

Armed Chinese Troops in Texas! 

Why Ron Paul is Obama’s Toughest Competitor

We the People vs. Mitt Romney

Rothbard on Neoconservatives

SA@TAC – What’s a ‘Neoconservative?’ 

Conservative vs. Neoconservative

SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’

SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’ 

Nick Gillespie Discusses Ron Paul, Libertarianism & Iowa on C-SPAN

SA@TAC – Constant Conservative Ron Paul

TEA Party Movement Hijacked by Big Government NEO-Cons – Who will win?

Background Articles and Videos

Ron Paul: South Carolina Voter Fraud (Ron Paul can End the Push for WW3)

The Real Newt Gingrich

Rothbard destroys a common statist argument

Neoconservativism

“…Neoconservatism is a variant of the political ideology of conservatism which rejects the utopianism and egalitarianism of modern liberalism but sees a role for the welfare state.[1] Their main emphasis since 1990 has been using American power to foster democracy abroad, especially in the Middle East. They were notably visible in Republican administrations of George H.W. Bush (1989-93) and George W. Bush (2001-2009).

Neoconservatism was developed by former liberals, who in the late 1960s began to oppose many of the policies and principles associated with President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.[2]

Terminology

The term “neoconservative” was popularized in the United States in 1973 by Socialist leader Michael Harrington,, who applied it his opposition to the policy ideas of Daniel Bell, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and Irving Kristol.[3]

The “neoconservative” label was embraced by Irving Kristol in his 1979 article “Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.'”[4] His ideas have been influential since the 1950s, when he co-founded and edited Encounter magazine.[5] Another source was Norman Podhoretz, editor of Commentary magazine from 1960 to 1995. By 1982 Podhoretz was calling himself a neoconservative, in a New York Times Magazine article titled “The Neoconservative Anguish over Reagan’s Foreign Policy”.[6][7] In the late 1970s and early 1980s, the neoconservatives were driven by “the notion that liberalism” had failed and “no longer knew what it was talking about, ” according to E. J. Dionne,[8]

The term neoconservative, which originally was used by a socialist to criticize the politics of Social Democrats, USA,[9] has since 1980 been used as a criticism against proponents of American modern liberalism who had “moved to the right”.[4][10] The term “neoconservative” was the subject of increased media coverage during the presidency of George W. Bush,[11][12] with particular focus on a perceived neoconservative influence on American foreign policy, as part of the Bush Doctrine.[13] The term neocon is often used as pejorative in this context.

History

Through the 1950s and early 1960s the future neoconservatives had supported the American Civil Rights Movement, integration, and Martin Luther King, Jr..[14] From the 1950s to the 1960s, there was broad support among liberals to support military action to prevent a communist victory in Vietnam.[15]

Neoconservatism was triggered by the repudiation of coalition politics by the American New Left:

  • Black Power, which denounced coalition-politics and racial integration as “selling out” and “Uncle Tomism” and which frequently gave rise to anti-semitic outbursts,
  • anti-anticommunism, which seemed indifferent to the fate of Southern Vietnam, and which in the late 1960s included substantial support for Marxist Leninist movements, and
  • the “new politics” of the New left, which upheld students and alienated minorities as the agents of social change (replacing the majority of the population and the labor movement).[16] Irving Kristol edited the journal The Public Interest (1965–2005), featuring economists and political scientists, focused on ways that government planning in the liberal state had produced unintended harmful consequences.[17]

Norman Podhoretz’s magazine Commentary of the American Jewish Committee, originally a journal of the liberal left, became a major voice for neoconservatives in the 1970s. Commentary published an article by Jeanne Kirkpatrick, an early and prototypical neoconservative, albeit not a New Yorker.

New York Intellectuals

Many neoconservatives had been on the left in the 1930s and 1940s, where they opposed Stalinism. After WWII, they continued to oppose Stalinism and to support democracy during the Cold War. Of these, many were emerged from intellectual milieu of New York City.[26]

Michael Lind’s view

Michael Lind wrote:

“Most neoconservative defense intellectuals have their roots on the left, not the right. They are products of the influential Jewish-American sector of the Trotskyist movement of the 1930s and 1940s, which morphed into anti-communist liberalism between the 1950s and 1970s and finally into a kind of militaristic and imperial right with no precedents in American culture or political history. Their admiration for the Israeli Likud party’s tactics, including preventive warfare such as Israel’s 1981 raid on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, is mixed with odd bursts of ideological enthusiasm for “democracy.” They call their revolutionary ideology “Wilsonianism” (after President Woodrow Wilson), but it is really Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution mingled with the far-right Likud strain of Zionism. Genuine American Wilsonians believe in self-determination for people such as the Palestinians.””The major link between the conservative think tanks and the Israel lobby is the Washington-based and Likud-supporting Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (Jinsa), which co-opts many non-Jewish defense experts by sending them on trips to Israel.”[27]

Lind’s “amalgamation of the defense intellectuals with the traditions and theories of ‘the largely Jewish-American Trotskyist movement’ [in Lind’s words]” was criticized in 2003 by University of Michigan professor Alan M. Wald,[28] who had discussed Trotskyism in his history of “the New York intellectuals”.[29][30] Most were socialists, social-democrats, or liberal Democrats into the 1960s, when they were confronted with the New Left and rethought their positions. Many supported Senator Henry M. Jackson, a liberal Democrat in domestic affairs who criticized the human-rights violations of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.[31]

Rejecting the American New Left and McGovern’s New Politics

Kirkpatrick’s political evolution was similar to those of other socialists, social-democrats, and liberals who became neoconservatives. They rejected the counterculture of the 1960s New Left, and what they saw as anti-Americanism in the non-interventionism of the movement against the Vietnam War. When the anti-war element took control of the party in 1972 and nominated George McGovern, the democrats among them followed the lead of Washington Senator Henry Jackson and revolted. Historian Justin Vaïsse calls this the “Second Age” of Neoconservatism, with its emphasis on the Cold War.[32]

As the policies of the New Left pushed the Democrats to the Left, these intellectuals became disillusioned with President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society domestic programs. The influential 1970 bestseller The Real Majority by Ben Wattenberg expressed that the “real majority” of the electorate supported economic liberalism but social conservatism, and warned Democrats it could be disastrous to take liberal stances on certain social and crime issues.[33]

Many supported Democratic senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson in his unsuccessful 1972 and 1976 campaigns for president. Among those who worked for Jackson were future neoconservatives Paul Wolfowitz, Doug Feith, and Richard Perle. In the late 1970s neoconservative support moved to Ronald Reagan, the Republican hawk who promised to confront Soviet expansionism.

In another (2004) article, Michael Lind also wrote [34]

Neoconservatism… originated in the 1970s as a movement of anti-Soviet liberals and social democrats in the tradition of Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Humphrey and Henry (‘Scoop’) Jackson, many of whom preferred to call themselves ‘paleoliberals.’ [After the end of the Cold War]… many ‘paleoliberals’ drifted back to the Democratic center… Today’s neocons are a shrunken remnant of the original broad neocon coalition. Nevertheless, the origins of their ideology on the left are still apparent. The fact that most of the younger neocons were never on the left is irrelevant; they are the intellectual (and, in the case of William Kristol and John Podhoretz, the literal) heirs of older ex-leftists.

Leo Strauss and his students

Neoconservatism draws on several intellectual traditions. The students of political science Professor Leo Strauss (1899–1973) comprised one major group. Eugene Sheppard notes that, “Much scholarship tends to understand Strauss as an inspirational founder of American neoconservatism.”[35] Strauss was a refugee from Nazi Germany who taught at the New School for Social Research in New York (1939–49) and the University of Chicago (1949–1958).[36]

Strauss asserted that “the crisis of the West consists in the West’s having become uncertain of its purpose.” Resolution lay in a restoration of the vital ideas and faith that in the past had sustained the moral purpose of the West. Classical Greek political philosophy and the Judeo-Christian heritage are the pillars of the Great Tradition in Strauss’s work.[37] Strauss laid great emphasis on spirit of the Greek classics and West (1991) argues that for Strauss the American Founding Fathers were correct in their understanding of the classics in their principles of justice. For Strauss, political community is defined by convictions about justice and happiness rather than by sovereignty and force. He repudiated the philosophy of John Locke as a bridge to 20th-century historicism and nihilism, and defended liberal democracy as closer to the spirit of the classics than other modern regimes. For Strauss, the American awareness of ineradicable evil in human nature, and hence the need for morality, was a beneficial outgrowth of the premodern Western tradition.[38] O’Neill (2009) notes that Strauss wrote little about American topics but his students wrote a great deal, and that Strauss’s influence led his students to reject historicism and positivism. Instead they promoted an Aristotelian perspective on America that produced a qualified defense of its liberal constitutionalism.[39] Strauss influenced Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, editor John Podhoretz, and military strategist Paul Wolfowitz.[40][41]

1990s

During the 1990s, neoconservatives were once again in the opposition side of the foreign policy establishment, both under the Republican Administration of President George H. W. Bush and that of his Democratic successor, President Bill Clinton. Many critics charged that the neoconservatives lost their influence following the collapse of the Soviet Union.[42]

The movement was galvanized by the decision of George H. W. Bush and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell to leave Saddam Hussein in power after the first Gulf War in 1991. Many neoconservatives viewed this policy, and the decision not to support indigenous dissident groups such as the Kurds and Shiites in their 1991-1992 resistance to Hussein, as a betrayal of democratic principles.[citation needed]

Ironically, some of those same targets of criticism would later become fierce advocates of neoconservative policies. In 1992, referring to the first Gulf War, then United States Secretary of Defense and future Vice President Dick Cheney said:

I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…. And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam [Hussein] worth? And the answer is not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we’d achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.[43]

Within a few years of the Gulf War in Iraq, many neoconservatives were pushing to oust Saddam Hussein. On February 19, 1998, an open letter to President Clinton appeared, signed by dozens of pundits, many identified with neoconservatism and, later, related groups such as the PNAC, urging decisive action to remove Saddam from power.[44]

Neoconservatives were also members of the blue team, which argued for a confrontational policy toward the People’s Republic of China and strong military and diplomatic support for Taiwan.

In the late 1990s Irving Kristol and other writers in neoconservative magazines began touting anti-Darwinist views, in support of intelligent design. Since these neoconservatives were largely of secular backgrounds, a few commentators have speculated that this – along with support for religion generally – may have been a case of a “noble lie”, intended to protect public morality, or even tactical politics, to attract religious supporters.[45] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state. Progressivism is often viewed by its advocates to be in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies.

The Progressive Movement began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working conditions for women.

The term progressivism emerged in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and, despite being associated with left-wing politics, to the various more radical streams of communism or anarchism.

Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism was embraced in the administrations of American Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1] Moreover, in the United States and Canada, the term “progressive” has occasionally been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942–2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party. …”

“…United States

In the United States there have been several periods where progressive political parties have developed. The first of these was around the turn of the 20th century.[6] This period notably included the emergence of the Progressive Party, founded in 1912 by President Theodore Roosevelt. This progressive party was the most successful third party in modern American history. The Progressive Party founded in 1924 and the Progressive Party founded in 1948 were less successful than the 1912 version. There are also two notable state progressive parties: the Wisconsin Progressive Party and the Vermont Progressive Party. The latter is still in operation and currently has several high ranking positions in state government.

Today, most progressive politicians in the United States associate with the Democratic Party or the Green Party of the United States. In the US Congress there exists the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is often in opposition to the more conservative Democrats, who form the Blue Dogs caucus. Some of the more notable progressive members of Congress have included Ted Kennedy, Russ Feingold,[7] Dennis Kucinich, Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, John Conyers, John Lewis, and Paul Wellstone.[citation needed] ….”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

Libertarianism

“…Libertarianism is a term describing philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, voluntary association and respect of property rights. Based on these, libertarians advocate a society with small or no government power.

Overview

Libertarian schools of thought differ over the degree to which the state should be reduced. Anarchists advocate complete elimination of the state. Minarchists advocate a state which is limited to protecting its citizens from aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud. Some libertarians go further, such as by supporting minimal public assistance for the poor.[1] Additionally, some schools are supportive of private property rights in the ownership of unappropriated land and natural resources while others reject such private ownership and often support common ownership instead.[2][3][4] Another distinction can be made among libertarians who support private ownership and those that support common ownership of the means of production; the former generally supporting a capitalist economy, the latter a libertarian socialist economic system. In some parts of the world, the term “libertarianism” is synonymous with Left anarchism.[5]

Libertarians can broadly be characterized as holding four ethical views: consequentialism, deontological theories, contractarianism, and class-struggle normative beliefs. The main divide is between consequentialist libertarianism—which is support for a large degree of “liberty” because it leads to favorable consequences, such as prosperity or efficiency—and deontological libertarianism (also known as “rights-theorist libertarianism,” “natural rights libertarianism,” or “libertarian moralism”), which is a philosophy based on belief in moral self-ownership and opposition to “initiation of force” and fraud.[6] [7] Others combine a hybrid of consequentialist and deontologist thinking.[8] Another view, contractarian libertarianism, holds that any legitimate authority of government derives not from the consent of the governed, but from contract or mutual agreement,[9][10][11] though this can be seen as reducible to consequentialism or deontologism depending on what grounds contracts are justified. Some Libertarian Socialists with backgrounds influenced by Marxism reject deontological and consequential approaches and use normative class-struggle methodologies rooted in Hegelian thought to justify direct action in pursuit of liberty.[12]

In the United States, the term libertarian is commonly associated with those who have conservative positions on economic issues and liberal positions on social issues.[13]

Alternative definitions

Philosopher Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[14]

Etymology

The use of the word “libertarian” to describe a set of political positions can be tracked to the French cognate, libertaire, which was coined in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Déjacque who used the term to distinguish his libertarian communist approach from the mutualism advocated by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon.[15] Hence libertarian has been used by some as a synonym for left-wing anarchism since the 1890s.[16] Libertarian socialists, such as Noam Chomsky and Colin Ward, assert that many still consider the term libertarianism a synonym of anarchism in countries other than the US.[5]

History

Origins

During the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, “liberal” ideas flourished in Europe and North America. Libertarians of various schools were influenced by classical liberal ideas.[17][Full citation needed] The term libertarian in a metaphysical or philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism.[18] The first recorded use was in 1789 by William Belsham in a discussion of free will and in opposition to “necessitarian” (or determinist) views.[19][20]

The first anarchist journal to use the term “libertarian” was La Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social and it was published in New York City between 1858 and 1861 by French anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque. “The next recorded use of the term was in Europe, when “libertarian communism” was used at a French regional anarchist Congress at Le Havre (16-22 November, 1880). January the following year saw a French manifesto issued on “Libertarian or Anarchist Communism.” Finally, 1895 saw leading anarchists Sébastien Faure and Louise Michel publish La Libertaire in France.” The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications. In this tradition, the term “libertarianism” in “libertarian socialism” is generally used as a synonym for anarchism, which some say is the original meaning of the term; hence “libertarian socialism” is equivalent to “socialist anarchism” to these scholars.[21] In the context of the European socialist movement, libertarian has conventionally been used to describe those who opposed state socialism, such as Mikhail Bakunin. The association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States.[22]

Twentieth century

During the early 20th century modern liberalism in the United States began to take a more state-oriented approach to economic regulation. While conservatism in Europe continued to mean conserving hierarchical class structures through state control of society and the economy, some conservatives in the United States began to refer to conserving traditions of liberty. This was especially true of the Old Right, who opposed the New Deal and U.S. military interventions in World War I and World War II. Those who held to the earlier liberal views began to call themselves market liberals, classic liberals or libertarians to distinguish themselves. The Austrian School of economics, influenced by Frédéric Bastiat and later by Ludwig von Mises, also had an impact on what is now right-libertarianism.

In the 1950s many with “Old Right” or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.” Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s right-libertarian leaning challenge to authority also influenced the US libertarian movement.[23]

During the 1960s, the Vietnam War divided right-libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and conservatives.[citation needed] Right-libertarians and left-libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[24] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance[25] and the Society for Individual Liberty.[26]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the U.S. Libertarian Party. Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, the party has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Over the years, dozens of capitalism-supporting libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.

Right-libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[27][28] Nozick disavowed some of his theory late in life.[29] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market capitalist libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the United States since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties.[30]

…”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Libertarianism in the United States

“…Libertarianism in the United States is a movement promoting limited government and individual liberties.[1] Although libertarianism exists in two major forms worldwide, right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism,[2] right-leaning libertarianism tends to be the dominant form in the United States. The right-leaning Libertarian Party, the third largest political party in the United States[3] as of 2008 with 235,500 registered voters,[citation needed] asserts the following to be core beliefs of Libertarianism:

Libertarians support maximum liberty in both personal and economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence. Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.[4][5]

 History

In the 1950s many with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as “libertarian.”[6] Academics as well as proponents of the free market perspectives note that free-market libertarianism has been successfully propagated beyond the US since the 1970s via think tanks and political parties[7][8] and that libertarianism is increasingly viewed worldwide as a free market position.[9][10] However, Libertarian socialists Noam Chomsky, Colin Ward and others argue that the term “libertarianism” is globally considered a synonym for anarchism and that the United States is unique in widely associating it with free market ideology.[11][12][13]

Arizona United States Senator Barry Goldwater’s libertarian-oriented challenge to authority had a major impact on the libertarian movement,[14] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[15] Goldwater’s speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[16]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians, and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements and organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications, like Murray Rothbard’s The Libertarian Forum[17][18] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance.[19]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than 300 libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty, and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[20] The split was finalized in 1971 when conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., in a 1971 New York Times article, attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: “The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded.”[21]

In 1971, David Nolan and a few friends formed the Libertarian Party.[22] Attracting former Democrats, Republicans and independents, it has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. By 2006, polls showed that 15 percent of American voters identified themselves as libertarian.[23] Over the years, dozens of libertarian political parties have been formed worldwide. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[24]

Philosophical libertarianism gained a significant measure of recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974. The book won a National Book Award in 1975.[25] According to libertarian essayist Roy Childs, “Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia single-handedly established the legitimacy of libertarianism as a political theory in the world of academia.”[26]

Texas congressman Ron Paul’s campaign for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination was largely oriented towards libertarianism. Paul is affiliated with the libertarian-leaning Republican Liberty Caucus and founded the Campaign for Liberty, a libertarian-leaning membership and lobbying organization.

Organizations

Well-known libertarian organizations include the Center for Libertarian Studies, the Cato Institute, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), the International Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL) and the Ludwig von Mises Institute. The Libertarian Party of the United States is the world’s first such party.

The activist Free State Project, formed in 2001, works to bring 20,000 libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to influence state policy. In March 2009, the project website showed that more than 650 were resident there and more than 9,150 had pledged to move there.[27] Less successful similar projects include the Free West Alliance and Free State Wyoming.

Leaders

Politicians

United States Congressman Ron Paul and United States Senator Barry Goldwater popularized libertarian economics and anti-statist rhetoric in the United States and passed some reforms. United States President Ronald Reagan tried to appeal to them in a speech, though many libertarians are ambivalent about Reagan’s legacy.[28]

Intellectuals

Individuals influential to libertarianism in the United States include Ayn Rand, Ludwig Von Mises, William F. Buckley, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism_in_the_United_States


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ending The Crimes of Centuries–Ideas Whose Time Have Come–Constitutional Republics and Market Capitalism–Videos

Posted on April 20, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Nothing else in the world…not all the armies…is so powerful as an idea whose time has come.”

~Victor Hugo

An Idea Whose Time Has Come – G. Edward Griffin – Freedom Force International

 

The Capitalist Conspiracy – G Edward Griffin

 

G. Edward Griffin – Creature from Jekyll Island [Part 1]

 

G. Edward Griffin – Creature from Jekyll Island [Part 2]

 

G. Edward Griffin – Creature from Jekyll Island [Part 3]

 

G. Edward Griffin – Creature from Jekyll Island [Part 4]

 

G. Edward Griffin – Creature from Jekyll Island [Part 5] 

 

 

 The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 1 of 5)

The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 2 of 5)

 

The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 3 of 5)

 

The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 4 of 5)

 

The Movie: Federal Reserve (Part 5 of 5)

 

 

Greenspan Denies Blame for Crisis, Admits ‘flaw’

 

alan greenspan defends himself

 

Let Greenspan Tell You What Fed is!

 

THE GREAT CON JOB – DYLAN RATIGAN – 1 (APRIL 8 2010)

 

THE GREAT CON JOB – DYLAN RATIGAN – 2 (APRIL 8 2010)

 

Glenn Beck-04/19/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-04/19/11-B

Background Articles and Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

 

 

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

 

Ed Griffin Collectivism

 

Milton Friedman – Collectivism

 

Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government

Ayn Rand – Reason vs Force

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ayn Rand And Glenn Beck Are Back Attacking Progressive Radical Socialists–Three Cheers For Capitalism–Videos

Posted on April 19, 2011. Filed under: Agriculture, American History, Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Private Sector, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Rand-O-Rama: The Long Shelf Life of Ayn Rand’s Legacy

 

Ayn Rand – Liberty vs Socialism

 

Ayn Rand – In Defense of Capitalism

  

 

Glenn Beck -4/18/2011- The Rising Cost of Everything Part 1

Glenn Beck -4/18/2011- The Rising Cost of Everything Part 2

The Morality of Capitalism 1 – Ayn Rand Institute

The Morality of Capitalism 2 – Ayn Rand Institute

The Morality of Capitalism 3 – Ayn Rand Institute

 

The Morality of Capitalism 4 – Ayn Rand Institute

 

The Morality of Capitalism 5 – Ayn Rand Institute

 

The Morality of Capitalism 6 – Ayn Rand Institute

 

The Morality of Capitalism 7 – Ayn Rand Institute  

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ayn Rand–Videos

Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life–Videos

Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand?–Videos

John Galt Speech From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Francisco d’Anconia’s ‘Money Speech’ from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand–Videos

Posted on April 17, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Psychology, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Francisco’s Money Speech Part 1

Francisco’s money speech Part 2

1 of 2 Money, the root of all evil? Francisco d’Anconia

2 of 2 Money, the root of all evil? Francisco d’Anconia

Francisco d’Anconia’s ‘Money Speech’ from Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ayn Rand–Videos

Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life–Videos

Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand?–Videos

John Galt Speech From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life–Videos

Posted on April 16, 2011. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, European History, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life 01

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 02

Ayn Rand A Sense of Life 03

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 04

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 05

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 06

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 07

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 08

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 09

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 10

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand?–Videos

John Galt Speech From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand?–Videos

Posted on April 16, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Entertainment, Federal Government, Films, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Science, Security, Strategy, Technology, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Pronk Pops Show 24: April 19, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 23: April 12, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 2): April 7, 2011

Pronk Pops Show 22 (Part 1): April 7, 2011

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 22 (Part 2)-24

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22 (Part 1)

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

On the Set of Atlas Shrugged: 53 Years in the Making

Mr. Galt Goes to Washington: Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged Premiers Among DC’s Capitalist Elite

Atlas Shrugged The Movie Part 1 Review

Who Is John Galt?

Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives

Atlas Shrugged and the Tea Party Revolts

The Relevance of Atlas Shrugged in Today’s World – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder, (1 of 3)

Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder, (2 of 3)

Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder, (3 of 3)

AYN RAND’s message to AMERICA

Background Articles and Videos

Ayn Rand’s Ideas: An Introduction – Ayn Rand Center

Birth of Objectivism – John Hospers on Ayn Rand (excerpt)

Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life 01

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 02

Ayn Rand A Sense of Life 03

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 04

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 05

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 06

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 07

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 08

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 09

Ayn Rand – A Sense of Life 10

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Ayn Rand & The World She Made: Q&A with Anne Heller

Anne Heller on Ayn Rand–SHORT VERSION on The Woman’s Connection®

Ayn Rand: Prophet or Scapegoat?

Nathaniel Branden on “My Years With Ayn Rand”

Barbara Branden on the Passion of Ayn Rand

‘Atlas Shrugged’ at Fifty | by Barbara Branden

Reason Foundation Co-Founder Tibor Machan on Ayn Rand

Reason Foundation Co-Founder Manny Klausner on Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand Grave

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

John Galt Speech From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

John Galt Speech From Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2011. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Economics, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Who Is John Galt?

 

John Galt Speech FULL part 1 of 3

 

John Galt Speech FULL part 2 of 3

 

John Galt Speech FULL part 3 of 3

 

MALKIN on Going Galt

 

Background Articles and Videos

Is Rand Relevant?

 

Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives

Why Businessmen Love Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged and the Tea Party Revolts

What the Tea Party Movement Must Stand For

Intellectual Ammunition for Tea Party Activists

It’s a Matter of Justice

Related Posts From Pronk Palisades

 

Ayn Rand–Videos

Ayn Rand: A Sense Of Life–Videos

Who is John Galt? Who is Ayn Rand?–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

WordPress Is At It Again In Censoring Posts–This Time On The April 15, 2011 Opening Of Atlas Shrugged Movie and March On Washington D.C.–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Climate, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

The New Internet 2 and Censorship

Internet Censorship Alert! Alex Jones exposes agenda to ‘blacklist’ dissenting sites

I repeatedly tried to add a link under Related Posts On Pronk Palisades to my previous post on Ayn Rand and the link was not showing up.

The link below did not appear on this post as well under “Here are the links.”

The link shows up in edit view but when you update the post and then preview it, the link is not displayed.

I noticed that an ad on the Atlas Shrugged movie opening appeared on one of my posts about Ayn Rand.

Shame on WordPress once again.

Apparently WordPress has a script that searches for specific language.

When such a link or language is found, it  hides both the link and any content that follows the link or language.

I encountered a similar situation and posted this with the link below, which is also deleted and does not appear below.

I do however see the post in edit view.

These posts are getting increasing visits.

You should see two links below, but you will see white space instead of the two links!

Here are the links.

Is WordPress Censoring My Post Entitled: An Affront and Threat To The American People–The Ground Zero Mosque–Remembering 9/11 and The Unknown Falling Man–Videos

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark–Individualist–Replies To Barack Obama–Collectivist–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Entertainment, Movies, Private Sector, Public Sector, Unions, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Howard Roark makes a case against Barack Obama Individual vs collectivism

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

 

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

 

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3

 

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4

 

Tactics for socialist takeover of nations 1 of 2: Fabianism & Leninism

 

Tactics for socialist takeover of nations 2 of 2: Fabianism & Leninism

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Atlas Shrugged Part 1 Opens April 15, 2011–See The Movie and March On Washington D.C. For Tea Party Rally On April 15!–Videos

Posted on April 3, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Culture, Economics, Entertainment, Investments, Law, liberty, Links, media, Movies, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , |

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com./

Atlas Shrugged Movie Clip: Henry Rearden Comes Home

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Yaron Brook–How to be a Rational Egoist–Videos

Posted on February 16, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Yaron Brook, How to be a Rational Egoist

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Yaron Brook–Videos

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

American People Want Free Market Capitalism–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American People Want Free Market Capitalism–Videos

Posted on February 8, 2011. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Climate, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

“Yaron Brook explains why the free market has taken the blame for a crisis caused by government intervention, and why self-interest and the profit motive make capitalism the only moral social-economic system. This talk provides some hints of why only Ayn Rand’s provocative philosophy can make sense of today’s events.”

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 1 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 2 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 3 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 4 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 5 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 6 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 7 of 8)

 

Capitalism: Who Needs It (part 8 of 8)

Background Articles and Videos

Yaron Brook: You Are Not Your Neighbor’s Health Care Provider [Pt. 1 of 2]

Yaron Brook: You Are Not Your Neighbor’s Health Care Provider [Pt. 2 of 2]

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades 

Yaron Brook: When Is It Too Late?–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Atlas Shrugged, Capitalism, Individualism and Tea Party Patriots–Videos

Posted on July 6, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Demographics, Economics, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , |

Intellectual Ammunition for Tea Party Activists

The Relevance of Atlas Shrugged in Today’s World – Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

Atlas Shrugged and the Tea Party Revolts

Why Atlas Shrugged Changes Lives

Stossel On Atlas Shrugged Part 6

John Galt’s Speech – Atlas Shrugged

Tea Party Member Stuns Crowd! ORIGINAL!!!

The Cactus Cuties sing The National Anthem Original Video

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

When Fiction Becomes Reality: Vincent Flynn, Ayn Rand and Yaron Brooks–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Anne C. Heller–Ayn Rand And The World She Made–Videos

Jennifer Burns–Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right–Videos