Rancid Individualism and Ayn Rand’s America

Rugged Individualism. The term became well known after Herbert Hoover delivered a 1928 speech cautioning the nation against shared response to national dilemmas. The term is entrenched as one of the myths that Americans cling to with white knuckles. Evidence wildly to the contrary doesn’t dissuade Americans of all social classes from believing in this core element they believe themselves to possess. This notion that the individual has worth, but the collective does not was peddled with great efficiency by author and theorist, Ayn Rand. Rand, certainly didn’t believe that rugged individualism was a common trait in all, just a select few, but the seed of this fabrication was firmly planted in the American psyche by the time her works came out, thus allowing her ideas to be utilized by the powerful and accepted by the many.

Though the vast majority of Americans do not recognize her name, Rand’s message dwells within many like an undiagnosed illness. The wildly improbable life Rand lived forms an almost too painful reflection of the basic natures that Americans don’t want to look into, mainly that of hypocrisy and entitlement. Rand advanced the absurd notion that selfishness truly is a virtue, a suggestion wildly contradictory to safe societal function. The other Randian mainstay involves that of artificial division in citizens, to that of “producers and parasites”. Her theories were advanced through massive (literally) novel publication as well as the mentoring of like minded followers. She delivered theory that justified delicious self interest, and her words were devoured by those who were drawn to the guilt free self agendas.

Much like the young United States, Rand began her life with great promise and resource. She had a bright mind, but was born to the world that was St Petersberg, Russia, 1905; a time of hardship for those of Jewish ancestry. She saw the work of her father literally given away when his pharmacy was reallocated to others during revolutionary activity. Rand took from this life experience an overwhelming hatred of those who did not in her mind “produce”. It is, of course, undeniable that this would breed a contempt for those taking these items, but Rand formulated a philosophy derived from a child’s lack of curiosity as to what spurred the unfair situation. Another ironic footnote is that the revolutions in progress allowed her to attend university, something not available prior to women. This was a trend that marked Rand’s life, the cynical use of collective resources all the while denigrating the processes that allowed them to exist.

Rand eventually made her way to America, and in keeping with the rags to riches plot she had created in her mind, she landed in Hollywood. She was determined to become a writer and for a time she resided at The Hollywood Studio Club, something of a sorority for women wanting to break into show business. Rand was working low level jobs , barely surviving , and for these reasons, she was deemed worthy of charity by other residents at the facility. They opted to give the hardworking Russian immigrant $50 in goodwill assistance. This largesse did not impress Rand, who accepted the money, but instead of paying debts, she utilized the sum to purchase black lingerie. This ridiculous moxie fit the times, the roaring 20’s prior to the crash. Rand never wavered in this core element of her personality.

An even more frightening trait emerged in Rand around this same time, that of glorifying any behavior which did not conform to the norms of society. She even went so far as to speak positively in her journal about a notorious kidnapper and child killer, William Hickman. She admired him simply because he didn’t observe conventional morality as others did. The pathological underpinnings were there in Rand’s persona but somehow in the improbable world of Hollywood, she thrived and eventually made a name for herself as a cutting edge author.

Rand’s self promoting schemes and philosophy of selfishness actually couldn’t have fit the times any better. America was emerging as a superpower and little concern was given to the ethics or the sustainability of it all. It was a time predicated on fossil fuel expansion, a notoriously untenable situation, but this was of no concern, much like the end result of advancing a philosophy of rampant selfishness.

Rand’s theories would merely be curiosity if so many now in power had not taken them to heart and found methods to advance her designs in concrete fashion. Alan Greenspan was a member of Rand’s inner circle of followers; he was able to advance many of her unfeasible socially disruptive tenets while Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Another vocal and noteworthy devotee of Rand is Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas. The frightening implications from his subscribing to her theories are too numerous to mention. There is a (not so) silent army of admirers incongruously occupying many levels of government today, in the midst of the very systems they decry.

The recent resurgence of Randian philosophy is best be exemplified by The Tea Party. Undeniably the movement has followers who truly idolize Rand, some even going so far as to carry signs in reference to Rand protagonist John Galt. It’s likely that many aren’t directly familiar with her works, other than having a knee jerk positive reaction to a theory that fits nicely with branding certain segments of the society as “parasites”.

One delectable irony in regard to Tea Party policy is the fact that the followers have no idea how astutely they are emulating Rand. The group, often was seen last year advancing the “no socialist healthcare” dogma, all the while, many were served by one quite successful collective program, that of Medicare. It’s a common theme with the group, the concept that one is deserving of these types of programs, yet “others” do not merit the same protections .

When Rand became ill with lung cancer late in life, she was faced with a similar issue. She knew Oncology care could be expensive and although the years had been relatively kind to Rand in terms of ability to make a living from her words, she opted to forego her convictions. She went on the very same successful, but very socialist program called Medicare. And mind you, this was early 80’s dollars, well before the runaway costs we now face from this profit driven system. Rugged individualism turned as rancid as the cancer inside of her.

Rand’s convenient ideological amnesia did not represent a death bed conversion, but a measured casting out of principles for self preservation and gain. The ultimate unmasking of an unworkable theory. The simple fact that this woman, with the advantage of wealth and friends in elevated places would not shoulder the responsibility of her own health care, exposed the philosophy for what it was: impractical and brutal. Those Medicare recipients at current tea party rallies are her mirror image displaying toothless convictions and self serving entitlement.

All of this has not been enough to sully the growing reputation of this woman and her theories. Rand’s books continue to sell at a brisk pace even now, and there have been indications that a cinematic version of Atlas Shrugged will be offered to the public in 2011. One wonders if this film will be viewed at Tea Party rallies of the future. The advancement of ideas that promote eventual cruelty and systemic collapse continue unabated.

What is there to do for America? Is the nation doomed for allowing charlatan ideals to be ingrained in the national consciousness? The trajectory is not looking good, but a spreading awareness of the pathology that brought here would be a pragmatic first course of action. One must know exactly what the problem is before it can be solved.

We’ve become a nation addled by this rancid individualism. The question is do we continue to allow the bankrupt ideologies to color the end of Empire Americana? There is an opportunity to go down with something akin to dignity, to carve out a smaller, but equitable place in the world. A chance to realign with poise and empathy is possible, if improbable, but this will certainly never be the case until the disjointed, pathological theories of Ayn Rand are discarded once and for all.

Kathleen Wallace Peine welcomes reader response. She can be reached at: kathypeine@gmail.com. Read other articles by Kathleen.

32 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Maien said on March 26th, 2011 at 9:53am #

    Truly enjoyed this article. Excellent summary of the self-survival (reactive ) techniques of Ayn Rand. This author was my hero for a few years before I reached age 20. By then the glaring contradictions in her world view had become evident. It continues to amaze that so many greed-addicted individuals consider her an intellectual hero.

  2. Hue Longer said on March 26th, 2011 at 11:29am #

    great piece.

    Didn’t know about her medicare…Did she have any comments concerning it at the time? I imagine she didn’t try to hide it but instead justified it and grumbled something about her decision being a statement of self interest

  3. commoner3 said on March 26th, 2011 at 12:25pm #

    This is an excellent enlightening informing article.

  4. Angie Tibbs said on March 26th, 2011 at 1:38pm #

    A well written, informative, and highly readable article. Well done, Kathleen!

  5. diane said on March 26th, 2011 at 3:50pm #

    Sometimes it is easier to deal in abstractions rather than tease out the complexity of forces working out under capitalism. To me Ayn Rand was a useful tool for those who have a vested interest in promoting social darwinism. Adherents of social darwinism exist on both the left and right of the political spectrum. Just observe the number of leftist who continue to support nuclear power because of the entrenched scientism underlying their belief structures.
    Marx, in his analysis of class, made a definite distinction between the working class and the lumpen proletariat. I guess one could consider Tea Party members to be lumpen prol though I would classify them more as peasants. Traditionally peasants paid allegiance to the lords and owners of the land as this was how they received protection, Loyalty to the Lord put bread on the table. Another factor that should be taken into consideration is that whilst they gave allegiance to the Lord (in this case the Republicans) they were well aware of the unequal relationships that existed within the system. The Democrats on the other hand pretend to be on the side of the lower classes, just like you, the same as me (Bob Dylan) and their betrayal cuts much more deeply. Better to know the enemy, than to be constantly stabbed in the back by so called friends.
    Please dont underestimate the Class’s intelligent as Marx said, the Class does not have to read Das Kapital because it lives it.
    Diane

  6. jayn0t said on March 26th, 2011 at 3:54pm #

    This is a piece of gossip, not a critique of Ayn Rand: ‘rancid’, ‘convenient amnesia’, ‘cynical’, ‘bankrupt’, ‘black lingerie’. Rand’s novels should be seen as a popular introduction to the philosophy of libertarianism, which make a genuine challenge to left-wing ideas. Defenders of the latter should attempt to answer these challenges, not sneer at them. Rand adopted Nietzsche’s philosophy, substituting the US capitalist class for Nietzsche’s aristocracy. The story of capitalists going on strike is inspired and funny, and the final scene in ‘Atlas Shrugged’, when people travel east from California in wagon trains, is brilliant. Her savage parodies of the personalities of wannabe commissars in liberals clothing is as relevant to today’s left as ever. The problem of collectivism vs. the individual is a real one, which cannot be erased by sneering and self-righteousness.

  7. 3bancan said on March 26th, 2011 at 4:29pm #

    jayn0t said on March 26th, 2011 at 3:54pm #

    jaynot’s comment really IS an eye-opener – into his world of “successful culture”!…

  8. Richard Stands said on March 26th, 2011 at 10:31pm #

    An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

  9. Deadbeat said on March 26th, 2011 at 11:23pm #

    What started out as a pretty good analysis of the contradictions of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and behavior, turned into a slam on the Tea Party. There was really no attempt by Ms. Peine to understand the Tea Party outside of her own disdain for Ayn Rand. I would like to refer Ms. Peine to the Marxist Economist Richard Wolff, who does a much better job putting the Tea Party’s angst into perspective in a way that is not as judgmental.

    As Professor Wolff points out, the American worker has been accustomed to expect rising living standards from generation to generation. Worker expectations should not be dismissed as merely “consumerism”. The U.S. experienced unprecedented growth for nearly 150 years. During this time as productivity grew, so did wages and standards of living.

    However since 1975, rising productivity has not resulted in any growth in real wages. Sadly, most American workers have not been offered a truthful analysis that really explains this phenomena. Professor Wolff refers to this truth, as being a “major trauma” for the masses of American workers who’ve become so confused and angry at the resulting fall in their living standards and old “ways of life”.

  10. 3bancan said on March 26th, 2011 at 11:38pm #

    I can’t remember the name of “a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is accepted as valid/true on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is given high praise (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this praise is taken to be evidence for the validity/truth of the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)”…

  11. Don Hawkins said on March 27th, 2011 at 2:41am #

    {http://deepdodo.wordpress.com/}

    Kathleen that was wonderful, brilliant. That above web address is my blog or just click on my name there it is again. Here’s how I started it off.

    The Greatest Story Never Told In The Land Of Oz
    March 27, 2011 by deepdodo

    Ok then about the blog is there such a thing as off topic not on this blog. So far we have Einstein, Sagan, Dickens and I will add a few more Plato, James Hansen a few more and since everything should be make as simple as possible but not simpler heck just keep that the way it is for a year or so. Write what you like on any subject and after a week or so maybe longer I will delete all the comment’s and we start again. Try and not use to many four letter words although in the first part of the twenty first century I can see why you might. Thinking outside the box go for it. Ok let’s get started and I away’s like a cup of coffee and from time to time put on my boot’s help’s me think. My name is Don Hawkins and I will write comment’s and sometimes my spelling well you will see.

  12. AynsView said on March 27th, 2011 at 4:45am #

    Kathleen Wallace Peine = Ivy Starnes

  13. commoner3 said on March 27th, 2011 at 8:09am #

    Re: jayn0t said on March 26th, 2011 at 3:54pm #

    Jaynot wrote:
    “The problem of collectivism vs. the individual is a real one, which cannot be erased by sneering and self-righteousness. ”
    ——————————————————————————–
    Jaynot,
    Yes, we have the problem of “collectivism vs. the individual”, but it is the collectivism for the super-rich and indiviualism for the rest for us. To put in another way, it is that only the profits go to the super-rich and the costs and losses go to the rest of the citizens.
    Libertarianism is nothing but an ideological bullshit invented by the super-rich to give it a license to run amock free from any restrictions or regulations accumulating wealth and exploiting and abusing the rest of us , fouling and polluting the environment, and dumping shoddy and dangerous products on the people.

  14. Hue Longer said on March 27th, 2011 at 8:49am #

    commoner3,

    good point. Dianne referred to Marx asking to not underestimate prols (and presumably we shouldn’t with tea partiers), but times they are a changin (heheh). So yeah, at least they don’t believe the Dems but these “loyalist” serfs obediently staying rugged individuals sure as hell don’t seem to notice that the people they put their stock behind ARE in a union of sorts. If they just work hard enough, and get government off their backs, they will get employees too!

    I remember the Southern California grocery worker strikes and how even union people didn’t think it was right for anyone but grocery employees and ONLY grocery employees in Southern California to join. Meanwhile, none of the ones I talked to seemed to find it odd that supposedly unrelated grocery chains joined forces to crush it.

    today’s prol (much less a tea partier) is horribly misled and possess an untenable belief structure which makes it easy for them to be led around against their own interests. I’m all for not underestimating people, but it would be dangerous here to overestimate intelligence.

  15. Don Hawkins said on March 27th, 2011 at 10:18am #

    Over 200 people were arrested as extremists brought violent chaos to central London yesterday after hijacking the much-heralded trade union protest against public spending cuts.
    A massive clear-up operation was underway today after trouble continued to flare late into the night as hundreds of people clashed with officers in Trafalgar Square.
    Police confirmed 201 people were in custody and there had been 84 reported injuries during the protests. At least 31 police were hurt with 11 of them requiring hospital treatment. Mail

    Is the wedding still on as I know where I live it’s the talk of the town.

    “Mr. Ward, what is it that the foulest bastards on earth denounce us for, among other things? Oh yes, for our motto of ‘Business as usual.’ Well—business as usual, Mr. Ward!”
    — Hank Rearden Atlas Shrugged

    With known knowledge that for some strange reason is still not known BAU well Noam put it will.

    All done while pursuing their institutional role: maximizing short-term profit and putting aside externalities and the externalities is life on Earth that’s all. It’s a big one probably best to tell the truth.

  16. commoner3 said on March 27th, 2011 at 10:22am #

    Re:Deadbeat said on March 26th, 2011 at 11:23pm #

    Deadbeat wrote:
    “There was really no attempt by Ms. Peine to understand the Tea Party outside of her own disdain for Ayn Rand. I would like to refer Ms. Peine to the Marxist Economist Richard Wolff, who does a much better job putting the Tea Party’s angst into perspective in a way that is not as judgmental. ”
    ———————————————————————————
    Deadbeat,
    It is very hard to understand, or make sense of, a person or group of people, if they are politically naive and skilfully brain-washed by a very concerted sophisticated propoganda. How do someone understand a group who thinks any word comming out of charlatans like Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Hannity are the absolute truth ??!!
    Yes, the tea-baggers are angry and afraid and rightly so, but they are blaming the “imaginary entities” of the “liberals” and “leftists” for their plight instead of blaming the real culprits of the Finance/Corporate power-elite.
    We don’t have REAL liberals and leftists in this country anymore. What we are having are fake “liberals” and “leftists” who in reality are in collusion with the super-rich.
    Those fake “liberals” and “leftists” are dead silent against a barrage of accusations by the super-rich mouth-pieces accusing them of all kind accusations diverting the blame from the super-rich to them.
    Those fake “liberals” and “leftists” when they talk and show concern, they talk only about abortion, gay marriage, the glass ceiling etc etc showing utter lack of concern about the plight of the common people in the current difficult circumstances.
    The tea-baggers are a serious problem and they shouldn’t be taken lightly.

  17. mary said on March 27th, 2011 at 10:42am #

    Don – The BBC have succeeded in getting you to concentrate on the violence. Many of us think that agents provocateurs were at work. In any case if you kill a brown skinned human, you are a war hero. If you junk a bank or a hotel, you are a yob and an anarchist.

    There were upwards of 250,000 (some say as many as 500,000) protesters against the ConDem planned destruction of our society who marched peacefully and assembled in Hyde Park.

    ‘The TUC said the activities of a few hundred people should not detract from the main message of the official protest, which it said was attended by “between 250,000 and 500,000 people”.’

    {http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12873191}

    btw f*** the royal wedding and all the hangers on and sycophants.

  18. Deadbeat said on March 27th, 2011 at 12:27pm #

    commoner3 writes …

    The tea-baggers are a serious problem and they shouldn’t be taken lightly.

    Unfortunately commoner, your reference to the “tea-baggers” illustrates your disdain for these people. My argument is that such disdain doesn’t bring the Tea Party into perspective. It is the failure of the Left and its disdain towards the Tea Party shuts out analysis. This is no different than the Left yelling “War for Oil(tm)” which is designed to shut out analysis of Zionist influence.

    You’ve got Laura Flanders making $$$ writing books on the Tea Party that is more a diversion than providing analysis. This is why I referred to MARXIST economist Richard Wolff who doesn’t going around BASHING these people but puts them into the perspective of the last 40 years of rising productivity followed by stagnant wages. After 40 years the declining and fading “American Dream” has finally caught up with them. People of color understood this out right because they’ve been the economic victims much longer.

    The fading “American Dream” is the basis of the “individualism” the author talks about. It’s been THE Keynesian project since the end of WWII and this “dream” permeates all sectors of American society including the Liberals idea of “equal opportunity”. This couldn’t’ happened either without the idea of the “American Dream”. So Liberal are also in as much denial as the Tea Party folks. Thus UNDERSTANDING perspectives is not taking anything lightly but helps us to derive the PROPER RESPONSE and solutions unlike the direction of disdain the author and Ms. Flanders arguments offers.

  19. Deadbeat said on March 27th, 2011 at 2:03pm #

    3bancan said on March 26th, 2011 at 11:38pm #

    EXCELLENT RESPONSE!!!

    That is what you see all too often. That describes Chomskyism to a tee!

  20. Don Hawkins said on March 27th, 2011 at 2:12pm #

    DB you do have my blog address see you there.

  21. commoner3 said on March 27th, 2011 at 3:46pm #

    Re: Deadbeat said on March 27th, 2011 at 12:27pm #

    Deadbeat,

    Did you read my post slowly.?
    Nobody is disputing the “analysis” about why the tea-baggers are angry, and I said rightly so. The problem is that anger is directed at the wrong targets including their selfinterest and leaving the real culprits free to to screw them more and more, again and again. How dumb can that be.??!!
    You damn right, I have contempt and disdain for these brain washed, extremely politically naive simpletons who think Glenn Beck is “the Messiah”.
    You cannot reason with unreasonable brain-washed people, that why these people could develop into a very serious problem, especially, many of them wouldn’t hestitate to use violence against what they pereceive is “responsible” for their plight??!!.

  22. diane said on March 27th, 2011 at 5:35pm #

    John Ralston Saul’s Voltaires Bastards pretty much described the modernist process, without perhaps touching enough on how collective motivations work. We hate to think bad about ourselves, so we tend to ignore that the first world standard of living has been maintained on the backs of third world workers. I accept that the usa has put a particular tweek on it, with its stress on individualism, but I feel this is an excuse to ignore the underlying social dymanics of family, tribe and community, that shapes us, and let us say keeps us bound in chains to a social system which is way past its used by date
    Dianbe

  23. Richard Stands said on March 27th, 2011 at 7:19pm #

    So it appears many agree that making or refuting an argument based on the character of the arguer (for good or for ill) is a fallacy.

    Perhaps we can then dispense with any history or personality of Chomsky or Rand, and address what they actually assert.

  24. 3bancan said on March 28th, 2011 at 12:11am #

    Richard Stands said on March 27th, 2011 at 7:19pm #

    RS apparently loves zionazi blather…

  25. Deadbeat said on March 28th, 2011 at 1:08am #

    Commoner3 writes …

    You damn right, I have contempt and disdain for these brain washed, extremely politically naive simpletons who think Glenn Beck is “the Messiah”.
    You cannot reason with unreasonable brain-washed people, that why these people could develop into a very serious problem, especially, many of them wouldn’t hestitate to use violence against what they pereceive is “responsible” for their plight??!!.

    One can be FRUSTRATED by the Tea Party and their confusion and stubbornness but disdain misses the REAL problem and insights. You’ve touched on it somewhat in your prior response when you talked about the phony Left. Remember commoner, politics ABHORS a vacuum and the phony Left has created the political vacuum that ENABLES lousy politics and lousy analysis.

    My point is that this article provide LOUSY analysis because it chooses to use disdain to slam the Tea Party rather than to explain WHY these folks perspectives are so confused. It is much MORE than labeling it “individualism”. If the author is going to slam the Tea Party for being confused then why not also the Liberals who sold the notion of “equal opportunity” in a Capitalist system.

    Liberal ideology is considered “acceptable” discourse which only FURTHERS the brainwashing. Today you see a parade of “acceptable” Liberal discourse trying desperately to restore Keynesianism. (See Real News for their parade of Liberals from the PERI institute). That’s my point!

    Disdain doesn’t provide INFORMATION only prejudice and doesn’t aid us in the proper analysis needed to develop the responses and solutions needed going forward.

  26. Deadbeat said on March 28th, 2011 at 1:10am #

    Don Hawkins writes …

    DB you do have my blog address see you there.

    I don’t think I have it. Please post or send it to me.

  27. Deadbeat said on March 28th, 2011 at 1:16am #

    Richard Stands writes …

    Perhaps we can then dispense with any history or personality of Chomsky or Rand, and address what they actually assert.

    What Mr. Stands misses in my comment following up 3bancan’s BRILLIANT rejoinder is what I describe as Chomskyism. The issue is that the Left has puffed up Chomsky as its intellectual leader by INFLATING his persona rather than through actual analysis of his positions. Chomsky himself is a PROFESS Zionists and he himself has said that this influences his outlook on issues. Thus if one can accept Chomsky then similarly via Mr. Stands reasoning one can accept David Duke. The problem is I don’t see the Left embracing Mr. Duke’s anti-Zionists positions yet the Left embraces the position of a professed Zionist. That seems contradictory to me.

  28. Maien said on March 28th, 2011 at 1:26am #

    Thank-you Deadbeat for the reminder about disdain. I own it. I am guilty. I will add that emotional reaction is/can be the trigger for exploration and the author does state, “a spreading awareness of the pathology that brought here would be a pragmatic first course of action. One must know exactly what the problem is before it can be solved.” Disdain does not provide information, but like any triggered emotion it serves as the siren call to “pay attention”.

    And I will be checking Dons’ blog so that I can also continue reading your commentaries. I will be missing the words/thoughts of many commentators here.

  29. 3bancan said on March 28th, 2011 at 2:01am #

    Chomsky’s “philosophy” and “humanity” are best presented by himself in this video:

    [http://vimeo.com/14835834]

    RS, jaynot & Co. are apparently avid readers of Steven Silbiger’s book “The Jewish Phenomenon”. Cf. [http://www.blackelectorate.com/articles.asp?ID=793] where one reads:
    //1) Jews make up only 2% of the total U.S. population, yet 45% of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish 2) One-third of all American multimillionaires are Jewish 3) The percentage of Jewish households with income greater than $50,000 is double that of non-Jews while on the other hand, the percentage of Jewish households with income less than $20,000 is half that of non-Jews 4) 20% of professors at leading universities are Jewish 5) 40% of partners in leading New York and Washington D.C. law firms are Jewish and 25% percent of all American Nobel Prize winners are Jewish//

    Btw, not mentioned is the fact that nearly half of the world Jewry live as Jewish nazi racist supremacist genocidal invaders, occupiers and colonists on stolen land in historic Palestine…

  30. hayate said on March 28th, 2011 at 8:58pm #

    The country of israel has the highest percentage of billionaires of all countries.

    Obviously they made their fortunes selling Dead Sea mud, growing olives and raising goats….

  31. Don Hawkins said on March 29th, 2011 at 6:08am #

    {http://deepdodo.wordpress.com/} or just click on my name above no moderation on my blog comment’s go right in I told you I could figure it out. Hope to see you there.

  32. Don Hawkins said on March 29th, 2011 at 6:45am #

    DB on my blog just click on my name above there it is and you don’t have to put your e-mail to post a comment and no moderation they go right in and you can put two web sites if you like. Comments will delete in seven day’s; In the beginning……………………..