While I am in the process of riding down the giant straight razor of sedition using my balls as bearings, according to some people's concerns, I may as well keep going...
Here is a link to one of my heros, the Internet's most influential and yet strangely least well-paid guru -- I've mentioned him before -- c'mon on down -- RageBoy! (a.k.a. Christopher Locke, co-author of The Cluetrain Manifesto. [New and Used From $0.27])
This post has some marvels in it; his reference to his own writing mannerisms is another of his gems:
"...in the usual elliptically discursive and maddeningly en passant manner that substitutes for style on this blog (see, even I know it)."
(Dick, in case you're wondering where I get my "ironic self-detachment" from... Well maybe not entirely here - I write the same as I did in Year 8!)
He goes through some more, as yet, arcane historico-philosophical issues regarding whether Hannah Arendt dated Nazis or not. Which is kinda interesting in itself but fascinating in RB's greater scheme of things. I say "as yet" because in his book, it's all going to be linked back to further his thesis - that "New Age" mumbo-jumbo is all inextricably linked to, not LEFT-wing liberalism as you might at first think, but RIGHT-wing mumbo-jumbo of the eugenics kind, something which we all sort of knew but somehow sort of have allowed ourselves to somehow forget.
But the real blockbuster here, and why I am talking about it, is his linking of three 1hr videos from the BBC about American philosopher Leo Strauss and his crucial role in the history of current American and world neo-conservatism. I have seen the first 30 mins of the 1st one and then my streaming failed, but it was brilliant!
Breaking News: Kissinger was a good guy after all!
My initial and no doubt extremely jejune concern over this Strauss theory is how its "anti-individualism" slots into the psyche of those conservatives who simultaneously trumpet the "individualism" of Ayn Rand? Seems like a conflict of essential philosophies there...
Surely these people can't hold mutually exclusive beliefs in their heads and stay sane?
What's the scoop, RB?
Answer to Skippy-san. Yes, I do "worry about the thought police coming and shutting [me] down"...
Addendum: Here's a comment I lifted from the BBC's comment site for their documentary. It raises a very good point, I think.
Terrorism is a real, very dangerous, but small threat, probably our death-toll will never be larger than that from traffic accident[s]. Tyranny on the part of a very close, very powerful, and inescapable government is less immediately dangerous, but a lot harder to resist and to roll back. I think Bush is one ten thousandth as evil as bin Laden; unfortunately, he's about ten million times as powerful.
John Guilt, Boston, MA, USA
OTHER MONKEYS SAID
If you consider Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" to be an "essential philosophy" ... well, that's your *first* problem. heh. but I think part of the answer is that Rand's notion of the genuine individual included anyone whose views had zero variance from her own. as ever, thanx for the linx. ~ RB
I meant "essential" as in "the essence of" not as in "mandatory"...
So she could an individual, just like everybody else?