Given my recent comments about the importance of mythology, it should come as no surprise when I do these occasional articles about the Star Wars Miniatures game, X-wing. It is a participatory mythology that is a real step up from the old days of exclusively verbal and written myth. As a strategy game it has a real power to it that never ceases to impress me—as a creative endeavor. I find it an amazing game which I play often. With that said, within the game I have a new love which nearly mimics the response of a new ship called the E-wing from the video below. The Millennium Falcon, which is my favorite ship, now has a rival, the E-Wing fighter has become a close second. A ship for the Rebellion, it is their best offering and fits nicely within a 100 point squad at the lowest pilot rating or the highest which features Corran Horn—one of my favorite Star Wars characters. For anybody who has played the game, the reaction of Steven should not come as a surprise once they have been used in a combat engagement.
I thought the Fantasy Flight Games inclusion of the E-wing was interesting. They have to get all their designs approved through Lucas Licensing—who already knows the contents of the new Star Wars films. Corran Horn and the E-Wing in general are exclusively creations of the Expanded Universe which supposedly Lucasfilm is abandoning with Disney’s urging. I am not one of those people who believe that Disney is scrapping the EU—as the media currently advocates. In fact, I think I know the entire plot—at least how Episode VII begins—but I’m not going to trample on what the filmmakers are trying to do. They are deliberately creating rumors to throw people off the truth of the film’s plot—so it is important to them to maintain that for their own reasons. So don’t believe what the media is reporting—because most of it is wrong. To confirm my beliefs about Episode VII, the inclusion of the E-Wing to the game X-wing speaks loudly about how much value the EU will maintain in the creation of further Star Wars stories. The E-wing was a ship that Corran Horn flew with Rogue Squadron several years after the initial Star Wars films and are comfortably into the years following the original trilogy, which delights me as to how it fits into the overall mythology. But the ship itself is one of the best that the rebels have. All Rebel squads should include at least one after I have spent some considerable time using them.
For those who do not know much about the E-wing this Wiki article should shine some light on how they fit into the EU story. The E-wing escort starfighter was a single-pilotstarfighter developed by FreiTek Inc. It was the first fighter designed entirely under the support of the New Republic.
As designed, the E-wing was intended to match, or exceed, the performance of the preceding X-wing series in nearly every respect, and was originally intended to replace the older design in New Republic service. However, the craft suffered from some significant problems when first deployed among front-line squadrons, including malfunction issues with the laser cannons and the new R7 astromech units. As a result, many pilots continued to fly upgraded versions of the venerable X-wing.
Despite the initial problems, improved models of the E-wing would see wide-spread use by the New Republic, particularly by the Fifth Fleet, and later by the Galactic Alliance. They would play a significant role in every engagement from the Black Fleet Crisis, through the Yuuzhan Vong War, and beyond.
By the time of the Second Galactic Civil War, the E-wing had matured into an excellent starfighter design and equipped several elite squadrons of the Galactic Alliance. However, it never achieved the same popularity or wide-spread use as the X-wing.
The E-wing was considered an excellent combination of firepower, maneuverability, speed, and armor, but initial models required the use of the R7-series astromech droid, which was exclusively built for the E-wing.
The spaceframe of the E-wing was surrounded by two aerodynamic foils which provided stability and increased weapons ability. The nosecone contained the starfighter’s powerful sensors, while a concealed astromech droid could easily be positioned midway through the craft. Directly in front of the astromech slot was the cockpit.
The fighter was heavily armed with three laser cannons and oneproton torpedo launcher with a magazine of sixteen torpedoes. Like most Rebel designs, the lasers were spread out and could be set to converge at varying distances.
Much of the great cost of the E-wing came from the use of the R7 droid, a much more sophisticated and expensive astromech than the classic R2 and R5 astromechs. Later models of the E-wing starfighters were however able to interface with earlier astromech models, such as an R2 or R5 unit.
The Republic introduced the E-wing during Grand AdmiralThrawn‘s campaign to rebuild the fallenEmpire. The fighter later served in the fight against the “resurrected” Palpatine. Built with cutting-edge weapons, shielding, and propulsion systems, the fighter was extremely powerful and well-rounded. It was intended as an escort fighter and could also serve as a medium-range assault craft. It had enough speed to counter TIE/In starfighters and had better armor than other New Republic starfighters, including the X-wing. They were used by the Galactic Federation of Free Alliances during the Second Galactic Civil War, during early skirmishes with Corellia.
The E-wing had some initial teething problems relating to the placement of the wing lasers near the outboard engines. The synthetic Tibanna used for the lasers tended to degrade at accelerated rates, which swiftly rendered those guns near-useless (and cutting gun firepower to a third). Rebel engineers came up with a temporary solution during the World Devastator assault on Mon Calamari. Those problems were eventually resolved and the fighter entered fleet service. It is known to have served at least with the New Republic’s Fifth Fleet as the primary fleet space superiority fighter. When the Fifth Fleet was moved to the Koornacht Cluster during the Black Fleet Crisis, many E-wings saw action against the Yevetha in the conflict that ensued.
Four major models appeared to have been designed; the last (Series IV) was introduced around the time of the capture of Coruscant by the Yuuzhan Vong. By that point in the war, the XJ X-wing was rapidly equipping most squadrons in the massive military expansion; the more sophisticated E-wing may have been limited to some elite squadrons. The Series IV E-wing remained in service through the transition from New Republic to Galactic Alliance, and was still in operation as of the Second Galactic Civil War.
During the era of the New Republic the Rogue Squadron was expanded vastly, turned into a multi-fighter unit based around E-wings and B-wings, and based on Lusankya, which Antilles departed the squadron to command, leaving Celchu as Rogue Leader. This unit first saw combat conquering Phaeda.[30] Shortly after that campaign, the last leaders of the unified Empire were defeated, and the former galactic power dissolved into warlordism.[29] Horn stayed and weathered these changes, which were only temporary, as the squadron was back in X-wings and at regular strength within the year.[8]
After reading all that it is quickly evident that if Disney were abandoning the EU, they would not have approved the inclusion of the E-wing into the canon of the X-wing Miniatures game. The game will continue selling for years and once the story is out upon the release of the new Star Wars film, the market potential for a non canon ship would be extremely weak. There is just too much story and history present to abandon those stories in favor of an alternate timeline within the Star Wars Universe. Time will tell the truth but for now, the E-wing is encouraging and brings with it a very rich history directly from the EU. There is so much potential for Disney and Lucasfilm to explode their merchandising base off the EU it would seem evident that the E-wing is just the tip of an iceberg. There should be much more to come. It is possible the decision to use the E-wing was exclusively to milk everything that could be milked to bring forth new ships for the hot selling strategy game, but as important as story has always been, and will always be in Star Wars—the E-wing is an exciting inclusion that points to wonderful things on the horizon.
For one of my nephews, Corran Horn was his favorite character created during an Expanded Universe novel series called X-wing. Corran would later become a Jedi Knight under Luke Skywalker and eventually serve on the council being a big part of the Yuuzhan Vong War. The literature produced for Star Wars far exceeds the content of the movies, so watching those EU elements percolate into the gaming world is a lot of fun.
Strategically speaking however, the E-wing is one of the best ships made in the game. It is a must for any collector and player. I doubt ever again I will create a squad of ships that does not in some way include an E-wing—they are just too powerful and nimble not to. I have spent many hours dazzled by mine and enjoyed the immense game play that they bring to a table. But what is most fun of all is knowing that the X-wing game is reflecting all the wonderful aspects of that larger world which is the Expanded Universe. While reporters are hinging on every morsel of information and scrap photo taken from the paparazzi about the new Episode VII movie, some of the best secrets are those hidden in plain site. Behind the E-wing are the answers that many Star Wars fans are looking for. Nobody is hiding the information, it’s there for all to see—if you know a little about the mythology of Star Wars—and in our house, we have one room full of every Star Wars book ever written, then its obvious. Nobody in the business of making money—which Disney is—would let those rich stories fall into decline and disrespect. The E-wing is a part of the EU that is very important only to the values of events after the movie Return of the Jedi. And it was given a dominate role in X-wing which greatly enhances the game play. Needless to say, Steven was right about that ship—it is a thing of wonder and beauty for more reasons than that it gives players a strategic advantage. It is a member of the cherished EU and hopefully a sign of great things to come.
The only way to measure the level of socialism that is in America today is to go to the source when communism was advocated around the world by Joseph Stalin and socialism by President Roosevelt. In 2014 and beyond socialism has become so much a part of people’s lives right down to their Social Security cards and their public schools. They accept socialism as a reality against pure market capitalism. Unfortunately the argument over time has been captured by those opposed to capitalism for so long that they changed the rules and the dialogue to what is now accepted. So to understand how much and to what degree you must go back to the source. One of the best ways to understand the vehement desire for global socialism by second-hander types—especially in America is to study the beliefs of the popular science fiction writer H.G. Wells and the leader of communist Russia. Below is an interview conducted by Wells of Stalin taken in 1937, before World War II became the defining premise of fascism—hiding the full impact of communism from the world for several decades behind an iron curtain. It is hard to enter a public school these days without finding the praise of H.G. Wells somewhere within it, and many do not understand to what degree an advocate of socialism he was—and used his popularity to advance socialism and liberalism among other writers. But by reading the interview below, which is long, you will see how many of the ridiculous beliefs that society has today were shaped by these two men. In contrast, once you have read the following interview, read the warning by Ayn Rand, Walt Disney and many others during the 30s and 40s about the spread of communism and socialism in America to see that the battles fought against collectivism did not take place in World War II, Korea, or Vietnam—but took place in our back yards without a single bullet shot. And America lost that war…….CLICK HERE TO REVIEW.
Read below to grapple with the chilling words of H.G. Wells and Joseph Stalin together and openly speaking about the advance of socialism across the globe against capitalists. Then and only then will it become understood how much ground socialists gained in America while nobody paid any attention for over 80 years of subtle erosion against creativity and productivity in the United States free market society.
Joseph Stalin and H. G. Wells, Marxism VS. Liberalism: An Interview
EXHIBIT No. 44
[New York, New Century Publishers, September 1937; reprinted October 1950. Joseph Stalin and H. G. Wells, Marxism VS. Liberalism: An Interview.]
NOTE H. G. Wells visited the Soviet Union in 1934 and on July 23 he inter¬viewed Joseph Stalin. The conversation, lasting from 4 P. M. to 6:50 P. M., was recorded by Constantine Oumansky, then head of the Press Bureau of the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs. The text, as printed in this pamphlet, has been approved by Mr. Wells.
WELLS: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Stalin, for agreeing to see me. I was in the United States recently. I had a long conversation With President Roosevelt and tried to ascertain what his leading ideas were. Now I have come to you to ask you what you are doing to change the world. . . .
STALIN: Not so very much. . . .
WELLS: I wander around the world as a common man and, as a common man, observe what is going on around me.
STALIN: Important public men like yourself are not “common men.” Of course, history alone can show how important this or that public man has been; at all events you do not look at the world as a “common man.”
WELLS: I am not pretending humility. What I mean is that I try to see the world through the eyes of the common man, and not as a party politician or a responsible administrator. My visit to the United States excited my mind. The old financial world is collapsing; the economic life of the country is being reorganized on new lines. Lenin said: “We must learn to do business,” learn this from the capitalists. Today the capitalists have to learn from you, to grasp the spirit of socialism. It seems to me that what is taking place in the United States is a profound reorganization, the creation of planned, that is, socialist, economy. You and Roosevelt begin from two different starting points. But is there not a relation in ideas, a kinship of ideas, between Washington and Moscow? In Washington I was struck by the same thing I see going on here; they are building offices, they are creating a number of new state regulation bodies, they are organizing a long-needed Civil Service. Their need, like yours, is directive ability. STALIN: The United States is pursuing a different aim from that which we are pursuing in the U.S.S.R. The aim which the Americans are pursuing arose out of the economic troubles, out of the economic crisis. The Americans want to rid themselves of the crisis on the basis of private capitalist activity without changing the economic basis. They are trying to reduce to a minimum the ruin, the losses caused by the existing economic system. Here, however, as you know, in place of the old destroyed economic basis an entirely different, a new economic basis has been created. Even if the Americans you mention partly achieve their aim, i.e., reduce these losses to a minimum, they will not destroy the roots of the anarchy which is inherent in the existing capitalist system. They are preserving the economic system which must inevitably lead, and cannot but lead, to anarchy in production. Thus, at best, it will be a matter, not of the reorganization of society, not of abolishing the old social system which gives rise to anarchy and crises, but of restricting certain of its bad
290
features, restricting certain of its excesses. Subjectively, perhaps, these Americans think they are reorganizing society; objectively, however, they are preserving the present basis of society. That is why, objectively, there will be no reorganization of society. Nor will there be planned economy. What is planned economy? What are some of its attributes? Planned economy tries to abolish unemployment. Let us suppose it is possible, while preserving the capitalist system, to reduce unemployment to a certain minimum. But surely, no capitalist would ever agree to the complete abolition of unemployment, to the abolition of the reserve army of unemployed, the purpose of which is to bring pressure on the labor market, to ensure a supply of cheap labor. Here you have one of the rents in the “planned economy” of bourgeois society. Furthermore, planned economy presupposes increased output in those branches of industry which produce goods that the masses of the people need particularly. But you know that the expansion of production under capitalism takes place for entirely different motives, that capital flows into those branches of economy in which the rate of profit is highest. You will never compel a capitalist to incur loss to himself and agree to a lower rate of profit for the sake of satisfying the needs of the people. Without getting rid of the capitalists, without abolishing the principle of private property in the means of production, it is impossible to create planned economy.
WELLS: I agree with much of what you have said. But I would like to stress the point that if a country as a whole adopts the principle of planned economy, if the government, gradually, step by step, begins consistently to apply this principle, the financial oligarchy will at last be abolished and socialism, in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, will be brought about. The effect of the ideas of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” is most powerful, and in my opinion they are socialist ideas. It seems to me that instead of stressing the antagonism between the two worlds, we should, in the present circumstances, strive to establish a common tongue for all the constructive forces.
STALIN: In speaking of the impossibility of realizing the principles of planned economy while preserving the economic basis of capitalism I do not in the least desire to belittle the outstanding personal qualities of Roosevelt, his initiative, courage, and determination. Undoubtedly Roosevelt stands out as one of the strongest figures among all the captains of the contemporary capitalist world. That is why I would like once again to emphasize the point that my conviction that planned economy is impossible under the conditions of capitalism does not mean that I have any doubts about the personal abilities, talent, and courage of President Roosevelt. But if the circumstances are unfavorable, the most talented captain cannot reach the goal you refer to. Theoretically, of course, the possibility of marching gradually, step by step, under the conditions of capitalism, towards the goal which you call socialism in the Anglo-Saxon meaning of the word, is not precluded. But what will this “socialism” be? At best, bridling to some extent the most unbridled of individual representatives of capitalist profit, some increase in the application of the principle of regulation in national economy. That is all very well. But as soon as Roosevelt, or any other captain in the contemporary bourgeois world, proceeds to undertake something serious against the foundation of capitalism, he will inevitably suffer utter defeat.
291
The banks, the industries, the large enterprises, the large farms are not in Roosevelt’s hands. All these are private property. The rail¬roads, the mercantile fleet, all these belong to private owners. And finally, the army of skilled workers, the engineers, the technicians, these too are not at Roosevelt’s command, they are at the command of the private owners; they all work for the private owners. We must not forget the functions of the State in the bourgeois world. The State is an institution that organizes the defense of the country, organizes the maintenance of “order”; it is an apparatus for collecting taxes. The capitalist State does not deal much with economy in the strict sense of the word; the latter is not in the hands of the State. On the contrary, the State is in the hands of capitalist economy. That is why I fear that, in spite of all his energy and abilities, Roosevelt will not achieve the goal you mention, if indeed that is his goal. Perhaps, in the course of several generations, it will be possible to approach this goal somewhat; but I personally think that even this is not very probable. .
WELLS: Perhaps I believe more strongly in the economic interpretation of politics than you do. Huge forces driving towards better organization, for the better functioning of the community, that is, for socialism, have been brought into action by invention and modern science. Organization, and the regulation of individual action, have become mechanical necessities, irrespective of social theories. If we begin with the State control of the banks. and then follow with the control of transport, of the heavy industries, of industry in general, of commerce, etc., such an all-embracing control will be equivalent to the State ownership of all branches of national economy. This will be the process of socialization. Socialism and individualism are not opposites like black and white. There are many intermediate stages between them. There is individualism that borders on brig¬andage, and there is discipline and organization that are the equiva¬lent of socialism. The introduction of planned economy depends, to a large degree, upon the organizers of economy, upon the skilled technical intelligentsia, who, step by step, can be converted to the socialist principles of organization. And this is the most important thing. Because organization comes before socialism. It is the more important fact. Without organization the socialist idea is a mere idea.
STALIN: There is no, nor should there be, irreconcilable contrast between the individual and the collective, between the interests of the individual person and the interests of the collective, There should be no such contrast, because collectivism, socialism, does not deny, but combines individual interests with the interests of the collective. Socialism cannot abstract itself from individual interests. Socialist society alone can most fully satisfy these personal interests. More than that; socialist society alone can firmly safeguard the interests of the individual. In this sense there is no irreconcilable contrast between “individualism” and socialism. But can we deny the contrast between classes, between the propertied class, the capitalist class, and the toiling class, the proletarian class? On the one hand we have the propertied class which owns the banks, the factories, the mines, transport, the plantations in colonies. These people see nothing but their own interests, their striving after profits. They do not submit to the will of the collective; they strive to subordinate every collective to their will. On the other hand we have
292
the class of the poor, the exploited Class, which owns neither factories nor works, nor banks, which is compelled to live by selling its labor power to the capitalists and which lacks the opportunity to satisfy its most elementary requirements. How can such opposite interests and strivings be reconciled? As far as I know, Roosevelt has not succeeded in finding the path of conciliation between these interests. And it is impossible, as experience has shown. Incidentally, you know the situation in the United States better than I do as I have never been there and I watch American affairs mainly from literature. But I have some experience in fighting for socialism and this experience tells me that if Roosevelt makes a real attempt to satisfy the interests of the proletarian class at the expense of the capitalist class, the latter will put another president in his place. The capitalists will say: Presidents come and presidents go, but we go on forever; if this or that president does not protect our interests, we shall find another. What can the president oppose to the will of the capitalist class?
WELLS: I object to this simplified classification of mankind into poor and rich. Of course there is a category of people which strives only for profit. But are not these people regarded as nuisances in the West just as much as here? Are there not plenty of people in the West for whom profit is not an end, who own a certain amount of wealth, who want to invest and obtain a profit from this investment, but who do not regard this as the main object? They regard invest¬ment as an inconvenient necessity. Are there not plenty of capable and devoted engineers, organizers of industry, whose activities are stimulated by something other than profit? In my opinion there is a numerous class of capable people who admit that the present system is unsatisfactory. and who are destined to playa great role in future socialist society. During the past few years I have been much engaged in and have thought of the need for conducting propaganda in favor of socialism and cosmopolitanism among wide circles of engineers, airmen, military-technical people, etc. It is useless approaching these circles with two track class war propaganda. These people understand the condition of the world. They understand that it is a bloody muddle, but they regard your simple class¬war antagonism as nonsense.
STALIN: You object to the simplified classification of mankind into rich and poor. Of course there is a middle stratum, there is the technical intelligentsia that you have mentioned and among which there are very good and very honest people. Among them there are also dishonest and wicked people, there are all sorts of people among them. But first of all mankind is divided into. rich and poor, into property owners and exploited; and to abstract oneself from this fundamental division and from the antagonism between poor and rich means abstracting oneself from the fundamental fact. I do not deny the existence of intermediate, middle strata, which either take the side of one or other of these two conflicting classes, or else take up a neutral or semineutral position in this struggle. But, I repeat, to abstract oneself from this fundamental division in society and from the fundamental struggle between the two main classes means ignoring facts. This struggle is going on and will continue. The outcome of the struggle will be determined by the proletarian class, the working class.
WELLS: But are there not many people who are not poor, but who work and work productively? .
STALIN: Of course, there are small landowners, artisans, small traders, but it is not these people who decide the fate of a country, but the toiling masses, who produce all the things society requires.
WELLS: But there are very different kinds of capitalists. There are capitalists who only think about profit, about getting rich; but there are also those who are prepared to make sacrifices. Take old Morgan for example. He only thought about profit; he was a parasite on society, simply, he merely accumulated wealth. But take Rocke¬feller. He is a brilliant organizer; he has set an example of how to organize the delivery of oil that is worthy of emulation. Or take Ford. Of course Ford is selfish. But is he not a passionate organizer of rationalized production from whom you take lessons? I would like to emphasize the fact that recently an important change in opinion towards the U.S.S.R. has taken place in English speaking countries. The reason for this, first of all, is the position of Japan and the events in Germany. But there are other reasons besides those arising from international politics. There is a more profound reason, namely, the recognition by many people of the fact that the system based on private profit is breaking down. Under these circumstances, it seems to me, we must not bring to the forefront the antagonism between the two worlds, but should strive to combine all the constructive movements, all the constructive forces in one line as much as possible. It seems to me that I am more to the Left than you, Mr. Stalin; I think the old system is nearer to its end than you think.
STALIN: In speaking of the capitalists who strive only for profit, only to get rich, I do not want to say that these are the most worthless people, capable of nothing else. Many of them undoubtedly possess great organizing talent, Which I do not dream of denying. We Soviet people learn a great deal from the capitalists. And Morgan, whom you characterize so unfavorably, was undoubtedly a good, capable organizer. But if you mean people who are prepared to reconstruct the world, of course, you will not be able to find them in the ranks of those who faithfully serve the cause of profit. We and they stand at opposite poles. You mentioned Ford. Of course, he is a capable organizer of production. But don’t you know his attitude towards the working class? Don’t you know how many workers he throws on the street? The capitalist is riveted to profit; and no power on earth can tear him away from it. Capitalism will be abolished, not, by “organizers” of production, not by the technical intelligentsia, but by the working class, because the aforementioned strata do not play an independent role. The engineer, the organizer of production, does not work as he would like to, but as he is ordered, in such a way as to serve the interests of his employers. There are exceptions of course; there are people in this stratum who have awakened from the intoxication of capitalism the technical intelligentsia can, under certain conditions, perform miracles and greatly benefit mankind. But It can also cause great harm. We Soviet people have not a little experience of the technical intelligentsia. After the October Revolution, a certain section of the technical intelligentsia refused to take part in the work of constructing the new society; they opposed this work of construction and sabotaged it. We did all we possibly could to bring the technical intelligentsia into this work of construction
293
we tried this way and that. Not a little time passed before our technical intelligentsia agreed actively to assist the new system. Today the best section of this technical intelligentsia are in the front rank of the builders of socialist society. Having this experience, we are far from underestimating the good and the bad sides of the technical intelligentsia and we know that on the one hand it can do harm, and on the other hand, it can perform “miracles.” Of course, things would be different if it were possible, at one stroke, spiritually to tear the technical intelligentsia away from the capitalist world. But that is utopia. Are there many of the technical intelligentsia who would dare break away from the bourgeois world and set to work to reconstruct society? Do you think there are many people of this kind, say, in England or in France? No, there are few who would be willing to break away from their employers and begin reconstructing the world. Besides, can we lose sight of the fact that in order to transform the world it is necessary’to have political power? It seems to me, Mr. Wells, that you greatly underestimate the question of political power, that it entirely drops out of your conception. What can those, even with the best intentions in the world, do if they are unable to raise the question of seizing power, and do not possess power? At best they can help the class which takes power, but they cannot change the world themselves. This can only be done by a great class which will take the place of the capitalist class and become the sovereign master as the latter was before. This class is the working class. Of course, the assistance of the technical intelligentsia must be accepted; and the latter, in turn, must be assisted. But it must not be thought that the technical intelligentsia can play an independent historical role. The transformation of the world is a great, complicated and painful process. For this great task a great class is required. Big ships go on long voyages.
WELLS: Yes, but for long voyages a captain and a navigator are required.
STALIN: That is true; but what is first required for a long voyage is a big ship. What is a navigator without a ship? An idle man.
WELLS: The big ship is humanity, not a class.
STALIN: You, Mr. Wells, evidently start out with the assumption that all men are good. I, however, do not forget that there are many wicked men. I do not believe in the goodness of the bourgeoisie.
WELLS: I remember the situation with regard to the technical intelligentsia several decades ago. At that time the technical intelli¬gentsia was numerically small, but there was much to do and every engineer, technician and intellectual found his opportunity. That is why the technical intelligentsia was the least revolutionary class. Now, however, there is a superabundance of technical intellectuals, and their mentality has changed very sharply. The skilled man, who would formerly never listen to revolutionary talk, is now greatly interested in it. Recently I was dining with the Royal Society, our great English scientific society. The President’s speech was a speech for social planning and scientific control. Thirty years ago, they would not have listened to what I say to them now. Today, the man at the head of the Royal Society holds revolutionary views and insists on the scientific reorganization of human society. Mentality changes. Your class-war propaganda has not. kept pace with these facts.
294
STALIN : Yes, I know this, and this is to be explained by the fact that capitalist society is now in a cul-de-sac. The capitalists are seeking, but cannot find, a way out of this cul-de-sac that would be compatible with the dignity of this class, compatible with the interests of this class. They could, to some extent, crawl out of the crisis on their hands and knees, but they cannot find an exit that would enable them to walk out of it with head raised high, a way out that would not. fundamentally disturb the interests of capitalism. This, of course, is realized by wide circles of the technical intelligentsia. A large section of it is beginning to realize the community of its interests with those of the class which is capable of pointing the way out of the cul-de-sac.
WELLS: You of all people know something about revolutions, Mr. Stalin, from the practical side. Do the masses ever rise? Is it not an established truth that all revolutions are made by a minority?
STALIN: To bring about a revolution a leading revolutionary minority is required; but the most talented, devoted and energetic minority would be helpless if it did not rely upon the at least passive support of millions.
WELLS: At least passive? Perhaps sub-conscious?
STALIN: Partly also the semi-instinctive and semiconscious, but without the support of millions, the best minority is impotent.
WELLS: I watch communist propaganda in the West and it seems to me that in modern conditions this propaganda sounds very old¬fashioned, because it is insurrectionary propaganda. Propaganda in favor of the violent overthrow of the social system ,was all very well when it was directed against tyranny. But under modern conditions, when the system is collapsing anyhow, stress should be laid on efficiency, on competence, on productiveness, and not on insurrection. It seems to me that the insurrectionary note is obsolete. The communist propaganda in the West is a nuisance to constructive minded people.
STALIN: Of course the old system is breaking down, decaying. That is true. But it is also true that new efforts are being made by other methods, by every means, to protect, to save this dying system. You draw a wrong conclusion from a correct postulate. You rightly state that the old world is breaking down. But you are wrong in thinking that it is breaking down of its own accord No, the substitution of one social system for another is a complicated and long revolutionary process. It is not simply a spontaneous process, but a struggle, it is a process connected with the clash of classes. Capitalism is decaying, but it must not be compared simply with a tree which has decayed to such an extent that it must fall to the ground of its own accord. No, revolution, the substitution of one social system for another, has always been a struggle, a painful and a cruel struggle, a life and death struggle. And every time the people of the new world came into power, they had to defend themselves against the attempts of the old world to restore the old order by force; these people of the new world always had to be on the alert, always had to be ready to repel the attacks of the old world upon the new system. Yes, you are right when you say that the old social system is breaking down; but it is not breaking down of its own accord. Take Fascism for example. Fascism is a reactionary force which is trying to preserve the old world by means of violence. What will you do
295
with the fascists? Argue with them? Try to convince them? But this will have no effect upon them at all. Communists do not in the least idealize the methods of violence. But they, the Communists, do not want to be taken by surprise, they cannot count on the old world voluntarily departing from the stage, they see that the old system is violently defending itself, and that is why the Communists say to the working class: Answer violence with violence; do all you can to prevent the old dying order from crushing you, do ,not permit it to put manacles on your hands, on the hands with which you will overthrow the old system. As you see, the Communists regard the substitution of one social system for another, not simply as a spontaneous and peaceful process, but as a complicated, long and violent process. Communists cannot ignore facts.
WELLS: But look at what is now going on in the capitalist world. The collapse is not a simple one: it is the outbreak of reactionary violence which is degenerating to gangsterism. And it seems to me that when it comes to a conflict with reactionary and unintelligent violence, socialists can appeal to the law, and instead of regarding the police as the enemy they should support them in the fight against the reactionaries. I think that it is useless operating with the methods of the old rigid insurrectionary socialism.
STALIN: The Communists base themselves on rich historical experience which teaches that obsolete classes do not voluntarily abandon the stage of history. Recall the history of England in the seventeenth century. Did not many say that the old social system had decayed? But did it not, nevertheless, require a Cromwell to crush it by force?
WELLS: Cromwell operated on the basis of the constitution and in the name of constitutional order.
STALIN: In the name of the constitution he resorted to violence, beheaded the king, dispersed Parliament, arrested some and beheaded others! Or take an example from our history. Was it not clear for a long time that the tsarist system was decaying, was breaking down? But how much blood had to be shed in order to overthrow it? And what about the October Revolution? Were there not plenty of people who knew that we alone, the Bolsheviks, were indicating the only correct way out? Was it not clear that Russian capitalism had decayed? But you know how great was the resistance, how much blood had to be shed in order to defend the October Revolution from all its enemies, internal and external. Or take France at the end of the eighteenth century. Long before 1789 it was clear to many how rotten the royal power, the feudal system was. But a popular insurrection, a clash of classes was not, ,could not be avoided. Why? Because the classes which must abandon the stage of history are the last to become convinced that their role is ended. It is impossible to convince them of this. They think that the fissures in the decaying edifice of the old order can be mended, that the tottering edifice of the old order can be repaired and saved. That is why dying classes take to arms and resort to every means to save their existence as a ruling class.
WELLS: But there were not a few lawyers at the head of the Great French Revolution.
STALIN: Do you deny the role of the intelligentsia in revolutionary movements? Was the Great French Revolution a lawyers’ revolution and not a popular revolution, which achieved victory by rousing vast masses of the people against feudalism and championed the interests of the Third Estate? And did the lawyers among the leaders of the Great French Revolution act in accordance with the laws of the old order? Did they not introduce new, bourgeois-revolutionary laws? The rich experience of history teaches that up to now not a single class has voluntarily made way for another class. There is no such precedent in world history. The Communists have learned this lesson of history. Communists would welcome the voluntary departure of the bourgeoisie. But such a turn of affairs is improbable: that is what experience teaches. That is why the Communists want to be prepared for the worst and call upon the working class to be vigilant, to be prepared for battle. Who wants a captain who lulls the vigilance of his army, a captain who does not understand that the enemy will not surrender, that he must be crushed? To be such a captain means deceiving, betraying the working class. That is why r think that what seems to you to be old-fashioned is in fact a measure of revolutionary expediency for the working class.
WELLS: I do not deny that force has to be used, but I think the forms of the struggle should fit as closely as possible to the opportunities presented by the existing laws, which must be defended against reactionary attacks. There is no need to disorganize the old system because it is’ disorganizing itself enough as it is. That is why it seems to me insurrection against the old order, against the law, is<‘obsolete, old-fashioned. Incidentally, I deliberately exaggerate in order to bring the truth out more clearly. I can formulate my point of view in the following way: first, I am for order; second, I attack the present system in so far as it cannot assure order: third, I think that class war propaganda may detach from socialism just those educated people whom socialism needs.
STALIN: In order to achieve a great object, an important social object, there must be a main force, a bulwark, a revolutionary class. Next it is necessary to organize the assistance of an auxiliary force for this main force: in this case this auxiliary force is the Party, to which the best forces of the intelligentsia belong. Just now you spoke about “educated people;” But what educated people did you have in mind? Were there not plenty of educated people on the side of the old order in England in the seventeenth century, in France at the end of the eighteenth century, and in Russia in the epoch of the October Revolution? The old order: had in its service many highly educated people who defended the old order, who opposed the new order. Education is a weapon the effect of which be struck down. Of course, the proletariat, socialism, needs is determined by the hands which wield it, by who is to highly educated people. Clearly, simpletons cannot help the proletariat to fight for socialism, to build a new society. I do not underestimate the role of the intelligentsia; on the contrary, emphasize it. The question is, however, which intelligentsia are we discussing? Because there are different kinds of intelligentsia.
WELLS: There can be no revolution without a radical change in the educational system. It is sufficient to quote two examples: The example of the German Republic, which did not touch the old educational system, and therefore never became a republic: and the example
297
of the British Labor Party, which lacks the determination to insist on a radical change in the educational system.
STALIN: That is a correct observation. Permit me now to reply to, your three points. First, the main thing for the revolution is the existence of a social bulwark. This bulwark of the revolution is the working class. Second, an auxiliary force is required, that which the Communists call a Party. To the Party belong the intelligent workers and those elements of the technical intelligentsia which are closely connected with the working class. The intelligentsia can be strong only if it combines with the working class. If it opposes the working class it becomes a cipher. Third, political power is required as a lever for change. The new political power creates the new laws, the new order, which is revolutionary order. I do not stand for any kind of order. I stand for order that corresponds to the interests of the working class. If however, any of the laws of the old order can be utilized in the interests of the struggle for the new order, the old laws should be utilized. I cannot object to your postulate that the present system should be attacked in so far as it does not insure the necessary order for the people. And, finally, you are wrong if you think that the Communists are enamored with violence. They would be very pleased to drop violent methods if the ruling class agreed to give way to the working class. But the experience of history speaks against such an assumption.
WELLS: There was a case in the history of England, however, of a class voluntarily handing over power to another class. In the period between 1830 and 1870, the aristocracy, whose influence was still very considerable at the end of the eighteenth century, voluntarily, without a severe struggle, surrendered power to the bourgeoisie, which serves as a sentimental support of the monarchy. Subsequently, this transference of power led to the establishment of the rule of the financial oligarchy.
STALIN: But you have imperceptibly passed from questions of revolution to questions of reform. This is not the same thing. Don’t you think that the Chartist movement played a great role in the Reforms in England in the nineteenth century?
WELLS: The Chartists did little and disappeared without leaving a trace.
STALIN: I do not agree with you. The Chartists, and the strike movement which they organized, played a great role; they compelled the ruling classes to make a number of concessions in regard to the franchise, in regard to abolishing the so-called “rotten boroughs,” and in regard to some of the points of the “Charter.” Chartism played a not unimportant historical role and compelled a section of the ruling classes to make certain concessions, reforms, in order to avert great shocks. Generally speaking, it must be said that of all the ruling classes, the ruling classes of England, both the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, proved to be the cleverest, most flexible from the point of view of their class interests, from the point of view of maintaining their power. Take as an example, say, from modern history, the general strike in England in 1926. The first thing any other bourgeoisie would have done in the face. of such an event, when the General Council of Trade Unions called for a strike, would have been to arrest the trade union leaders. The British bourgeoisie did not do that, and it acted cleverly from the point of view of its own interests. I cannot conceive of such a flexible strategy being employed by the bourgeoisie in the United States, Germany or France. In order to maintain their rule, the ruling classes of Great Britain have never foresworn small concessions, reforms. But it would be a mistake to think that these reforms were revolutionary.
WELLS: You have a higher opinion of the ruling classes of my country than I have. But is there a great difference between a small revolution and a great reform? Is not a reform a small revolution?
STALIN: Owing to pressure from below, the pressure of the masses, the bourgeoisie may sometimes concede certain partial reforms while remaining on the basis of the existing social-economic system. Acting in this way, it calculates that these concessions are necessary in order to preserve its class rule. This is the essence of reform. Revolution, however, means the transference of power from one class to another. That is why it is impossible to describe any reform as revolution. That is why we cannot count on the change of social systems taking place as an imperceptible transition from one system to another by means, of reforms, by the ruling class making concessions. .
WELLS: I am very grateful to you for this talk which has meant a great deal to me. In explaining things to me you probably called to mind how you had to explain the fundamentals of socialism in the illegal circles before the revolution. At the present time there are in the world only two persons to whose opinion, to whose every word, millions are listening: you and Roosevelt. Others may preach as much as they like; what they say will never be printed or heeded. I cannot yet appreciate what has been done in your country; I only arrived yesterday. But I have already seen the happy faces of healthy men and women and I know that something very considerable is being done here. The contrast with 1920 is astounding.
STALIN: Much more could have been done had we Bolsheviks been cleverer.
WELLS: No, if human beings were cleverer it would be a good thing to invent a five-year plan for the reconstruction of the human brain which obviously lacks many things needed for a perfect social order. (Laughter).
STALIN: Don’t you intend to stay for the Congress of the Soviet Writers Union?
WELLS: Unfortunately, I have various engagements to fulfill and can stay in the U.S.S.R. only for a week. I came to see you and I am very satisfied by our talk. But I intend to discuss with such Soviet writers as I can meet the possibility of their affiliating to the P.E.N. club. This is an international organization of writers founded by Galsworthy; after his death I became president. The organization is still weak, but it has branches in many countries, and what is more important, the speeches of its members, are widely reported in the press. It insists upon this free expression of opinion, even of opposition opinion. I hope to discuss this point with Gorky. I do not know if you are prepared yet for that much freedom here.
298
STALIN: We Bolsheviks call it “self-criticism.” It is widely used in the ,U.S.S.R. If there is anything I can do to help you I shall be glad to do so. WELLS: (Expresses thanks.) STALIN: (Expresses thanks for the visit.)
Labor unions have quietly been percolating in the background trying to repair their image after several years of close scrutiny. They are trying to re-tool their public presence carefully which they unleashed shortly after their Labor Day holiday by providing their intrusive input into the upcoming NFL season of which largely consists of labor union representation. When it is wondered why Hollywood leans left no matter what the industry—music or motion pictures—it is because they are all members of an entertainment union. And within those unions progressive values are constantly espoused. I should know, the Writers Guild of America came close to representing me during the 90s on a few occasions putting me on their mailing list and I received a constant parade of pro Bill Clinton propaganda. I was also a part of a manufacturing facility around the time of the controversial Al Gore, George Bush election of 2000, and clearly the labor union was in support of Gore. Typically when speaking with these types of people I have always taken a hard-line in favor of conservatives which has most of the time been a deal killer for my projects—so I know all about discrimination against conservatives in labor unions—especially in entertainment and manufacturing.
Recently the NFL floated a proposal that their half time acts at the Super Bowl should pay them for the public exposure on such a large stage which was met with a general utterance that the football sports organization was acting greedily. Union pushback is mounting. The AFL-CIO’s Department of Professional Employees just joined the American Federation of Musicians in condemning such a plan.
“No one should ever pay to work. No organization should ever get a kickback from a worker they employ,” the labor organization said of the plan, first detailed in the Wall Street Journal. “The Department of Professional Employees, AFL-CIO, its affiliates in the entertainment industry, and the other unions, 22 in all, will stand with the AFM in condemning and will fight back against any attempts to make workers pay to perform,” the group said of the plan to convince music acts to cough up cash to play the halftime show, most likely in the form of a cut of post-show ticket sales, downloads, etc.
“It’s not like the NFL and its Super Bowl organizers don’t have any money and can’t afford to pay for halftime show performances, it’s about the insatiable thirst for profits at the expense of great musical entertainment and those who create it,” AFM President Ray Hair said last week. “You can find kickback schemes like this coming from unscrupulous bar and nightclub owners, but for the NFL to descend to such depths would be unconscionable.”
The dialogue against the NFL by most people—especially union leaders like that Ray Hair fellow–is wrong especially in regard to the entertainment unions who on one hand preach against greed while they force collective bargaining agreements for their players valued at millions of dollars for kids in their mid-twenties fresh out of college. Musicians who are superstars are in much the same boat and are typically young and fall hook line and sinker for the union propaganda that comes with their memberships. But they are all confused as to what creates value and who is responsible for what.
The NFL has created the value which all these parties seek to be a part. The NFL Super Bowl was created in its value by the efforts of the National Football League. Aerosmith, Prince, or any other headline acts which plays at the Super Bowl did not create the value of such a large game—it was created by the NFL owners who put a product on the field that millions of people enjoy. Players come and go, but the product of the NFL continues on season after season because the management of that product is successful. Yet the labor unions want and expect equal value for their participation—which is clearly barbaric and ignorant—if value is the measuring unit utilized. Players are not equal to owners, and halftime acts are not equal to the players which make the Superbowl such an exciting enterprise.
Most musical acts benefit from sales of their recordings after they perform for over a billion people on live television. I would argue that groups like the Rolling Stones and Aerosmith are equal to the NFL in value and should just be honored to be a part of the festivities. Those classic bands who are household names have built their reputation to such a level that they benefit very little from performing at a halftime show during the Superbowl. Their participation is purely out of respect and nostalgia. But for smaller acts like Lady Gaga or Bruno Mars, they will receive a spike in sales just for appearing in a Super Bowl and they should pay for that advertising just like every other vendor trying to make money off the product that the NFL created.
Every labor union who argues that their members participate equally to the product of the NFL just because they show up and play a part during a few years of their life are thinking about the whole thing incorrectly—their philosophy is framed by socialism, not capitalism. The NFL itself is a capitalist organization, and it is not greedy to expect payment for using their product—their intellectual property. People who have a problem with this are functioning socialists. It is anti capitalist to refer to the NFL as greedy for expecting compensation from those riding their product to success.
If Bruno Mars sings a song in the middle of the woods deep in the mountains, nobody cares. If the Superbowl puts him on stage for billions of people that they organized for the event Bruno Mars benefits as does the NFL. But the NFL has to make a business decision as to who should play in their halftime show and it is up to them if they want payment in financial compensation, or if they want to honor musical legends like the Stones or Aerosmith with a free party and chance to have some fun during one of the biggest American events of the year. The players, and other entertainment professionals participating in the Super Bowl do not make the value of the game. They simple play a part. If they refuse there are other Russell Wilsons in the world who are willing to throw a football in front of millions of viewers. Some people would do it for free just for the opportunity to do it. The unions have only one function that is anti-capitalist in its desire and that is to loot off the productive enterprise of value creators like the NFL create. They are leeches that are beneath contempt and are dead wrong in their assertion about payment regarding halftime entertainment. As usual the collective bargaining agreements of these labor unions are more appropriate in Soviet Russia during the 60s and 70s than in capitalist America during a football game that embodies the economy of the most successful country on earth. The labor unions are purely second-handers looting value from those who created it and trying to make it appear that those who created that value are greedy for not wanting to “share the wealth” with their members. Their basic premise is that the NFL has money and we want it. That is the bottom line—and why the labor unions are wrong.
As I spoke yesterday about the importance that Joseph Campbell played in my personal education, one of the people who most helped the JCF get off the ground and become that resolute organization was George Lucas. Of course he is known for the Star Wars films and was the creator of Indiana Jones—but I think George’s best work as a filmmaker was a little known television project that was shown on ABC by Bob Igor, today’s CEO of Disney way back in 1992 to 1996. That project was called The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles and was considered “edutainment.” Just prior to the release of the last Indiana Jones feature film, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Lucasfilm released all of the Young Indy television shows on DVD, which of course I snagged up the moment they were released. I literally pulled them off the delivery truck at Best Buy. The DVD set was released in three gigantic collections and feature what I think is some of the best television ever done—not just because I enjoy the Indiana Jones character, but because the production quality, and content of each of the shows was impeccable. Lucas used the character of Indiana Jones to essentially tell the history of the start of the 20th century and it was a remarkable undertaking. For instance—one of my favorite episodes is the one shown below in several parts. It is called “Winds of Change” and is about the Treaty of Versailles and covers nothing less than the modern troubles in the Middle East, the cause of the Vietnam War, and the reason for World War II all in a one hour episode. It is really quite brilliant and if you want your child to know anything about history—or you want to fill the gaps of your own understanding, this is a great place to start. Because of the modern pertinence to the trouble in the Middle East, watch the “Winds of Change” now through the clips below. If you enjoy it, consider picking up the entire DVD set. They are tremendous treasures.
The series explores the childhood and youth of the fictional character Indiana Jones and primarily stars Sean Patrick Flanery and Corey Carrier as the title character, with George Hall playing an elderly version of Jones for the bookends of most episodes, though Harrison Ford bookended one episode. The show was created and executively produced by George Lucas, who also created, co-wrote and executively produced the Indiana Jones feature films.
Due to its enormous budget, the series was canceled in 1993. However, following the series’ cancellation, four made-for-television films were produced from 1994 to 1996 in an attempt to continue the series. In 1999, the series was re-edited into 22 television films under the title The Adventures of Young Indiana Jones.
Between 1992 and 1997, the series was nominated for 27 Emmy Awards and won 12.[25] In 1993, Corey Carrier was nominated for the Young Artist Award in the category of “Best Young Actor Starring in a Television Series”. In 1994, David Tattersall was nominated for the ASC Award in the category of “Outstanding Achievement in Cinematography in Regular Series”. At the 1994 Golden Globes, the series was nominated for “Best TV-Series — Drama”.[26]
In 2002, series producer Rick McCallum confirmed in an interview with Variety that DVDs of the series were in development, but would not be released for “about three or four years”.[8] At the October 2005 press conference for the Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith DVD, McCallum explained that he expected the release to consist of 22 DVDs, which would include around 100 documentaries which would explore the real-life historical aspects that are fictionalized in the show. For the DVDs, Lucasfilm upgraded the picture quality of the original 16 mm prints and remastered the soundtracks. This, along with efforts to get best quality masters and bonus materials on the sets, delayed the release.[9] It was ultimately decided that the release would tie into the release of the fourth Indiana Jones feature film.
Two variations of Volume 1 were released by CBS DVD, one simply as “Volume One”, and the other as “Volume One — The Early Years” in order to match the subtitle of Volume 2.
The History Channel acquired television rights to all 94 of the DVD historical documentaries.[10][11] The airing of the documentaries was meant to bring in ratings for the History Channel and serve as marketing for the DVD release and the theatrical release ofIndiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.[12] The History Channel and History International began airing the series every Saturday morning at 7AM/6C on The History Channel, and every Sunday morning at 8AM ET/PT on History International. A new division of History.com was created devoted to the show. As Paramount and Lucasfilm had already reserved IndianaJones.com solely for news and updates related to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, StarWars.com temporarily served as the official site for the DVDs—providing regular updates, insider looks and promotions related to them.[13] However, Lucasfilm and Paramount soon set up an official website proper for the series—YoungIndy.com.[14] Paramount released a press kit for the media promoting the DVDs, which consists of a .pdf file[15] and several videos with interviews with Lucas and McCallum, and footage from the DVDs.[16] A trailer for the DVDs was also published on YoungIndy.com, with a shorter version being shown on The History Channel and History International.
Lucas and McCallum hoped that the DVDs would be helpful to schools, as they believed the series was a good way to aid in teaching history. Lucas explained that the series’ DVD release will be shopped as “films for a modern day high school history class.”[17] He believes the series is a good way to teach high school students 20th Century history.[18] The plan was always to tie the DVD release of the series to the theatrical release of the fourth Indiana Jones feature film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which was released on May 22, 2008.[8][19][20][21]
After watching the Lawrence of Arabia recently I had to go back and watch the Young Indy episode “Winds of Change.” It was after all through Young Indy that I was introduced to T.E. Lawrence who was a personal friend to Indiana Jones on the show. Jones met T.E. Lawrence in Cairo at the pyramids when he was a very young child being homeschooled by a private tutor. The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles is an answer to the education void found today. The work has been done by producers like Lucas and is available for a relatively cheap price. The series is television at its absolute best—it was entertaining, fun, but best of all—educational. After watching all those episodes so many years ago, then again with my family when the DVDs hit the market once again with their 90 one hour long documentaries produced exclusively by Lucasfilm what is found is a phenomenal effort not even surpassed by the National Geographic Society or the Smithsonian.
Often I would read more about the characters in the Young Indy episodes after seeing them for the first time during the broadcasts and would marvel at how accurate the writers for the show were at capturing their historical significance with precision. In the cynical world that we see today in most entertainment formats, do yourself a favor that will help directly in understanding the modern world—watch the DVDs of the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles with your family and learn together about history. Because I can’t think of a better way to tell about the events that have shaped our lives better than through the character of Indiana Jones as he become the kind of action hero so well known to motion pictures presently. The character became the kind of person he was due to his vast education with the most significant figures of the past who shaped the world for good and bad—but none-the-less—shaped it all the same.
If you care about the education of your family, click the link below to start an unforgettable journey.
I am certainly not one of those people who look back into the past and declare that those were the best days of my life. I enjoy every day as much as possible and can typically dig fun out of a dry rock. However, I felt the enthusiasm clearly at this year’s WEBN 2014 fireworks when for the first time they produced a soundtrack to the show that was exclusively dedicated to the optimistic music of the 1980’s. Every generation believes that their music was the best—but this is in belief only. The explosion of fresh music that followed the dog days of communism, socialism—Watergate and Jimmy Carter were an unbelievable period of American optimism established by the former movie actor and GE spokesman for capitalism—Ronald Reagan. Reagan told America that capitalism was alright, so the guilt of the past that hangs over the heads of typical Democrats was thrown off and this attitude was reflected in the art produced by American society during the period of the so-called 80s. I should know, because I came to age during the 80’s and they were a unique period of unmitigated optimism and American success. Those who have come to age since, or before have not had such an opportunity as those who saw America as young uncorrupted teenagers during the 1980’s. I am very much a product of that time when WEBN put together their soundtrack featuring a range of music from E.T., Ghostbusters, and Rocky III to Motley Crue’s “Kickstart My Heart.” The Ohio River between Newport, Kentucky and Cincinnati, Ohio was absolutely rocking by hammering the sky with fireworks to an incredible soundtrack.
Even young people who are teenagers now were dancing openly to the songs as the crowd roared with an unmitigated lack of constraint while fireworks filled the air closing out a summer that I won’t soon forget. There didn’t appear to be a lax soul among the half million viewers as the music poured from virtually everywhere. The riverside condos and boats filling the river contained people in my age group who had thrown off their constraints and let the music overtake them leaving the question to be answered—what happened to that kind of optimism in our art?
Even for a product of the 80’s which was pretty hard-core American—I was a radicalized example. I didn’t drink or smoke anything and I was never what anybody would term a “partier” but the soundtrack from WEBN sounded like it came directly off my mix tape from that age stolen from an old car that still sits in my garage. I was an unmitigated reckless individual and unapologetic capitalist during the 1980’s. I remember like it was yesterday storming through the streets of Hamilton racing a rival from the West Side across the Great Miami River with a parade of cop cars behind us—my radio blaring Quiet Riot’s “Bang Your Head.” I passed the courthouse at over 100 MPH and won the race by beating a train the old-fashioned way—barely scooting in front of it while the other guy just a bit behind me threw on the brakes. Miles to the east all the cops finally caught up to me as every Butler County police officer in the area was radioed to my location. Pulled over with my Confederate Flag license plates and tires still smelling like burnt rubber and guns trained on me as I tossed my drivers licenses across the hood of my car, I felt no fear. The cops knowing me from other antics and tired of my court appearances were not sure what to do with me until I called in a favor from one of the police car’s primitive cell phone to a judge who supported me from Sharonville. That judge talked the cops away from prosecution for maybe the fifth time in a two month period.
I have thought often of writing a series of stories from that period as I lived it gloriously. The closest I’ve come was my novel Tail of the Dragon—but those weren’t the best days of my life. They appeared to be for the American nation. I knew at the time what I was doing and the rest of the nation appeared to be riding along joyously. Back in the 80’s our military used to play some of those songs to terrify our enemies in Russia, El Salvador and Cuba. Capitalism was on full display and Americans during that decade from 1980 to 1990 didn’t feel guilty about it. This gave filmmakers and music producers an open template for creation—which is what I think is behind the joy of hearing that music to this day. It is why many young people love those old songs even though they were not born until two decades later.
George Bush senior started the downward trend which accelerated under Bill Clinton as president by letting America feel less than exceptional on the world stage. Both men were globalists and the arts in America took shape around their national outlook—unfortunately. The situation became much worse under George W. Bush and eventually the communist leaning Barack Obama. American culture has declined proportionally since and young people are aware of it. Much thought isn’t given to these kinds of things until the music is put on from that period in such a mass gathering like what happened at the 2014 fireworks display—and the restraints come off—intellectually.
Most people thought I would be dead before I hit my 17th birthday. The grim reaper was often trailing me everywhere I went. I remember another story from the time when I had to drop off a friend to his West Chester home and we were in downtown Cincinnati during the summer of 1985. He had strict parents who demanded he be home before his curfew. I dropped him off with 30 seconds to spare after leaving the St. Bernard area with just 10 minutes to spare. It was one of the fastest times I had ever driven dodging in and out of traffic at such a pace that I was moving sometimes two times the speed of the highway traffic up I-75. Some of the songs blaring from my car radio were some of the same ones played at the 2014 Fireworks. But I survived and really haven’t tempered off. Over time I was able to apply that recklessness to focused directions instead of just outwardly rebellious behavior—but it is still very much there. Like the music and movies of the time, I didn’t feel I needed to apologize for anything in America. Alan Greenspan—a member of Ayn Rand’s elite inner circle was running the Fed, money was being made in America and Ronald Reagan was using that unprecedented productivity to destroy communism throughout the world. University professors and old hippies didn’t like Reagan or the music which made me want to turn it up even louder
America wants to feel that way about itself again and as the show closed I can see it coming. I remember how the situation was set up before and it can happen again—the nation is primed for it. In so many ways America is worse now by far than it was transferring from 1979 to 1980. Our current president is far worse than Jimmy Carter was and the repressed emotions so voluminous during the 60’s and 70’s are today exacerbated. I knew what I was rebelling against in the 80’s. I was a Reagan Republican and very proud of it. I had no sympathy then as I don’t currently for radical old hippies from the past—from the folk songs of the Charlie Manson sex communes filled with marijuana smoke and communist rhetoric. For the parents of the kids I called friends who used to be those loser hippies and the school teachers and college professors who thought Ronald Reagan was the devil himself for his unmitigated support of capitalism—I sought to rub it in their faces at every chance and the reason the 80’s were so much fun was that the rest of society was on board with that. In the 90’s and the period from 2000 to 2010 America went back to feeling guilty for its Excepetionalism and people are sick of it. They want to feel good about themselves once again which is evident in the superhero movies that are dominating the box-office at the moment. Guardians of the Galaxy is not only the box office champ of the summer; it is also the top-selling soundtrack directly having an impact on the music industry. 2015 will be a mother load of positive films that may very well look like 1977 all over again when a string of movies starting with Jaws in 1975 to Close Encounters,Smokey and the Bandit, Saturday Night Fever and Star Wars knocked the rust off American consciousness and created the optimism of the 80’s nearly singlehandedly. Coming up in 2015 is Jurassic World, Mad Max 4, The Avengers 2 and of course Star Wars—among many other titles that will be surprises the way Guardians of the Galaxy is this summer. People are poised to admit that Obama was a joke, they are tired of not having money, and they are sick of the rest of the world thumbing their noses at America. They are ready to reflect these emotions in their art and we may be seeing a period like the 80’s coming soon. Very soon.
Send this video to ISIS, forget the air raids.
That is fine with me, I still drive fast and am every bit as rebellious as I was then and am ready to do my part. I expected to be melancholy as I normally am at the WEBN fireworks because I love summer, and typically Labor Day weekend is the close of that glorious time culturally in America. But not this year—the music and people’s reaction to it was a light of hope where there wasn’t any before for me. It’s not the reflection down memory lane so much as it’s the hunger for rebellion that was even present on Tricia Macke’s Channel 19 broadcast. It’s more than buying cloths at the Merry-Go-Round at Kenwood Mall, or Michael Jackson songs—the 1980’s were a decade of not feeling guilty for America’s love of capitalism—and our culture prospered. It can again if only it had a president who no longer allowed America to feel that guilt letting the arts of the period reflect that sentiment. By the reaction of the audience at this year’s fireworks—society is primed and ready.
My education began actually right out of high school—literally within months and ended about 20 years later. It started with Joseph Campbell’s own published works—which are extensive. He was a prolific writer and some of his style can be noticed undeniably by my own to this day, the long paragraphs, the extensive use of commas—the type of writing that comes out sounding like a lecturer talking. Much of his Masks of God series was written like this—and it irrevocably entered my consciousness in how I present material—both on a written page, and during public speeches. Like Campbell, I do not use notes when I talk. Even when I do radio broadcasts it is all from memory because the challenge is to gain that knowledge so that you interact with it, not simply regurgitate it to sound smart. Because of Campbell I see magic in the toy aisles of Wal-Mart and deep literary sophistication on a restaurant menu—at times.
I spent a solid 10 years from age 18 to 28 reading Campbell’s work incessantly. I often stayed out all night in 24 hour restaurants eating hamburgers, drinking Cokes and reading Joseph Campbell’s books until the sun appeared in the sky once again from the previous day. When I finished with those, I read the authors that he always talked about, thinkers like Thomas Mann, James Joyce, and Friedrich Nietzsche. The list is really too voluminous to include here—but it took me nearly 20 years. The last ten of that twenty my reading rate had increased to where I could read some of those large and involved books within a few weeks as opposed to months so the speed of completion increased dramatically. But it all started with Campbell. Once I completed all of those works—much of it framed the progressive arguments to this very age—and was misread, or not understood by people who simply took college classes and were too lazy to absorb the material properly. Eventually I was ready for Ayn Rand. Without Campbell, I may not have enjoyed Rand so much, but because of him, I felt I could properly appreciate the anti institutional stance articulated so strongly in her writing with the follow your bliss teachings Campbell always possessed. Campbell, even as an intellectual elite from the turn of the 20th century would have been aghast by the proposal of Common Core today—because of its presupposition against the individual needs of a child.
So for those who want to take a similar journey, I am pointing you in the right direction with the information below. If you are over 50 years of age, fear not. I have friends who are in their 70s and they still read every day. It keeps their minds sharp and they behave physically like much younger people. So taking a twenty year journey should not stop you from starting now—even late in life. For young people cheated out of a proper education by institutionalized public schools and colleges—feel free to start at the sources listed below. It will point you in the right direction one way or another—just by going through the process of reading. You can’t go wrong—but must reach those destinations on your own terms. When it comes to Campbell, he is one of the most preeminent thinkers and scholars of the 20th century and because of the Joseph Campbell Foundation his work lives on to fill the huge gaps left by modern education. Filling those gaps is the task I am most concerned with—so feel free to begin that journey at the links below from the press release by the JCF—a group I am very grateful to and support with immense enthusiasm.
Reading About Myth
Joseph Campbell observed that one of the best ways to delve deep into any subject is to find an author whose work touches you and read the books that writer read. But, as noted in a recent email to JCF, for those moved by Campbell’s own work it’s a tedious task to search through the footnotes and bibliographies of every book he’s written.
Other correspondents ask about the state of mythology in the post-Campbell era: who are the scholars and authors contributing to the field today, and where can their work be found?
One place to seek the answers is JCF’s online bookstore. Here you’ll find not only all of Joseph Campbell’s titles, but also books by scholars who influenced Campbell, authors Campbell cited, contemporary contributions to the field of mythology aimed at general and academic audiences, and much more.
(“The Fairy Tale” section leads off with Lucy Cooper’s worthy The Element Encyclopedia of Fairies, pictured here. This work, published in the United Kingdom on August 28, will soon be available through to United States residents through the JCF Bookstore—but for now, those who live in England, Scotland, Wales, and the Emerald Isle can click on this image to order Ms. Cooper’s book at Amazon UK).
After clicking on the link to the JCF Bookstore, the menu on the right of each page lists 20 separate categories—”Campbell’s Reading List,” “Sacred Voices,” “Shapers of the Field,” etc.—many with multiple subcategories (e.g. “Ritual Studies,” “Feminine Images in Myth,” “Shamanism,” and more, collected under the broad category of “Contemporary Voices”). This can seem confusing to first-time visitors. Though once you click on a category in the list you’ll find its description at the top of the page, feel free to scroll though the brief rundown below for a sense of what each category contains:
Sacred Voices– collections of myths, folklore, and fairy tales from around the globe (the category at the top of the list will change from time to time).
Campbell’s Published Works
Campbell’s Reading List– titles Campbell assigned in his mythology course at Sarah Lawrence
Edited by Joseph Campbell– includes the brilliant Heinrich Zimmer volumes Campbell completed after Zimmer’s untimely passing
E-Books(those available through Kindle)
Video on Demand(streaming through Amazon)
DVDs– Campbell lectures and interviews, including the Power of Myth
Recorded Lectures– physical CDs now only available through third-party sellers (though all these lectures and more can be downloaded from JCF in our Contributions area)
About Joseph Campbell– books that focus on aspects of Campbell’s personal history, including interviews, journal excerpts, and an extensive biography.
Sources & Inspirations– authors who served as major inspirations in the development of Campbell’s own thought
Shapers of the Field– anthropologists, archaeologists, and classical scholars in the late 19th and early 20th centuries who paved the way for the field of mythological studies.
Campbell References– authors and scholars Campbell frequently cited in his work.
Colleagues, Companions, and Kindred Spirits– writings by colleagues and personal friends of Campbell (18 individuals, from Alan Watts to James Hillman, each with their own section in the drop-down menu when you click on this category)
JCF Fellows– writings and performances of individuals selected by the Foundation who have demonstrated in their work, and in their lives, a commitment to furthering Campbell’s vision
Contemporary Voices– sixty general works by contemporary scholars on mythological studies and related academic fields, plus another hundred titles collected under specific subjects in the drop-down menu when you click on this category.
Popular Voices– works that have broad popular appeal, written with the layperson in mind. Forty-five works of a general nature are on the main pages, with another one hundred twenty volumes divided among specific subjects in the drop-down menu when you click on this category.
Dictionaries of Symbolism & Word Etymology– reference works on symbols and word origins. – invaluable tools for myth scholars.
Mythological Resources– titles that have been nominated by JCF Associates.
RoundTable Selections– volumes in this category have been featured at meetings of one or more of JCF’s 50 different local Mythological RoundTable® groups.
Criticism– academic works that evaluate Campbell’s contributions to the field of comparative mythology.
If you begin your Amazon shopping in our online store (which is powered by Amazon), then JCF receives 5% of everything you place in your Amazon cart that you purchase the next 24 hours—even if not from our store, or not even a book (JCF has received fees on items from lawnmowers to computers—not sure if that’s intentional, but we are grateful!).
However, should you prefer a local brick-and-mortar store, or one of Amazon’s online competitors, browsing the selections in the JCF bookstore first can still be of value in helping you decide what to purchase through other outlets.
Of course, current titles just scratch the surface. More selections will be added over time.
Joseph Campbell Foundation relies on donations to help fulfill its mission of perpetuating Campbell’s ground-breaking work. Joseph Campbell Foundation is a US registered 501c(3) not-for-profit corporation (Federal Tax I.D. #99-0285097); contributions should be fully tax-deductible. Please consult your tax professional regarding deductibility.
Tax-deductible donations can be made online by clicking here, or by sending a check to:
Joseph Campbell Foundation P.O. Box 36 San Anselmo, CA 94979-0036
I first met Harmon Kaslow, one of the producers of the Atlas Shrugged films, in 2012 at the Duke Energy Center in Cincinnati, Ohio while we were both promoting the release of the second film, CLICK TO REVIEW. At the time he was under tremendous pressure—he had just completed the second film with John Aglialoro and was working hard to promote it against a tidal wave of dissent. Harmon is a Hollywood producer and his work on the Atlas films went against the general message of the entire entertainment industry—so it was a courageous move on his part to bring an independent film version of the novel Atlas Shrugged to the big screen when conventional career climbing wisdom said not to. The book came out in 1957 and was in development hell for over 40 years due to a number of influences. Ayn Rand’s biggest mistake to support her Objectivist philosophy which was the message behind the popular novel was in not allowing Albert S. Ruddy to make a film adaptions of Atlas Shrugged his way after the success of the Godfather films in 1972. Ruddy wanted to produce a version of the Atlas films with Clint Eastwood and Robert Redford playing the lead roles—but Rand wanted to maintain complete creative control the way she had on the movie version of her other novel, The Fountainhead many years earlier. The deal unfortunately fell through. Hollywood would have been a much different place if Rand and Ruddy had made Atlas Shrugged in the 1970s. Instead, it took another 40 years to get a movie version made after many attempts and it was Harmon Kaslow working with John Aglialoro who was able to pull off what nobody previously could. As recently as 1999 Aglialoro and Ruddy negotiated a deal with Turner Network Television for a four-hour miniseries, but that deal also fell through during an AOL merger with Time Warner. There were other attempts, but all failed until Kaslow and Aglialoro using the tools of the modern age to bypass the studio system were able actually get the job done. The third and final film is finally ready to be released to the public on September 12th 2014.
I am grateful for the films. For as long as I’ve been alive church leaders have sat me down and tried to tell me to assimilate more with the human world—to make more friends. School guidance councilors have done the same—spent many hours talking to me trying to convince me to drop my resistance to other people and make more friends. To this very day I can attend a crowded football game with 60,000 screaming fans—I can sit in a luxury box with 25 to 30 friends and power brokers—but I am always alone in the midst of the swarm. The advice given to me for all the years prior—which I have never listened to—was that I needed to compromise my values to maintain friendships with people who did not hold the same—because making friends and assimilating with the population at large was more important than personal integrity. But it’s not. That is some of the worst advice that anybody can receive and it is the primary reason that Atlas Shrugged had difficulty being made into a movie. How do you make a movie that is critical of how the masses of the population behave—intellectually?
To measure the typical Hollywood industry reaction to Ayn Rand and how threatened they are by her message the Futurama episode called, “I Second that Emotion” contains a library of books flushed down the drain into the sewers to be read by deformed mutants. Among those books one of the main characters sees Atlas Shrugged and dismisses the book saying “There is nothing but crumpled porn and Ayn Rand.” The popular video game Bioshock attacked the Objectivist premise of Atlas Shrugged for many of the same reasons showing how such a society could become dangerously suppressive. Always behind their revulsion of Atlas Shrugged is the fear that the message of Ayn Rand might seep into society and expose them for being second-handers who live exclusively off the efforts of others. So they attack Atlas Shrugged to protect their scheme against not only society at large—but themselves. The rock band Rush has had a fascination with Ayn Rand for years and was the back bone of their 2112 album when lyrist Neal Peart wrote the breakthrough song—“Anthem” dedicated to Ayn Rand which brought them unprecedented ridicule from British journalists. George Lucas essentially being in the know over the intentions of Albert S. Ruddy to make an Atlas Shrugged film molded his character of Han Solo in Star Wars as an answer to the individualism versus collectivism argument so prevalent in the 1970s. Back then Lucas wrote in his early screenplay draft, “May the force of others, be with you.” Han Solo was supposed to learn by the end of the film to think of others before he thought of himself. However by the time Harrison Ford applied his magic to the character, Han Solo became one of the most popular characters in the series and he stayed very Randian in subsequent movies. Case in point, Han Solo is about to be frozen and shipped off by the bounty hunter Boba Fett when Princess Leia says, “I love you.” Han Solo using a very profound pronoun replies simply, “I know.” Solo doesn’t care to reassure Leia that he too loves her, only that he knew all along. The premise of his declaration is that his knowledge is more important than her acknowledgment. They later get married have a daughter named Jaina who is the star of the new upcoming films. By the time Star Wars hit popular culture Lucas changed a bit in his perspective shortening the popular line to just, “May the force be with you.” These philosophic arguments are quite loud and many don’t even realize they are happening—but the battles rage on to this day and the stakes are quite high.
I have known this about people all of my life—well before I ever read Atlas Shrugged. The reason I’ve always been alone—even in crowds is due to my avoidance of letting second-handers too close to me. Most people live their lives as second-handers so Atlas Shrugged for them is dangerous—and insulting. They will not enjoy the movie Atlas Shrugged and this is why the movie was in development hell for such a long period of time. Movie producers and studio distributers by the nature of their jobs are second-handers themselves—the film business demands it of them—so they have problems with Atlas Shrugged. Politicians are also second-handers, most of them hate the book and the movie produced by Aglialoro and Kaslow. Movie critics are some of the biggest second-handers in existence—they are often film school drop-outs who couldn’t make their own movies so to be close to the industry, they write film reviews for newspapers and television shows. Atlas Shrugged challenges them in a way that frightens their values—and second-hander nature. When the third film hits theaters on September 12th 2014, they will pan the film not because the movie is bad—but because the story attacks their tendency to be second-handers and it makes them feel guilty.
The reason I have always been alone in crowds is that I do not allow myself to be looted from them socially, and literally. Government does steal my money as a second-hander entity through taxes—but as an individual I have a policy against second-handers and do not allow it. The new movie Atlas Shrugged III: Who is John Galt is a film made for people like me. There is a scene in the upcoming film where John Galt is offered the top job of Wesley Mouch which holds unlimited government power. John Galt laughs at the offer as his girlfriend Dagney Taggart is listening and instructs all those present that no such job should exist. Dagney is allowed to listen because the president Mr. Thompson thinks that she will learn a lesson when he breaks John Galt through temptation. Most people watching the movie and criticizing it after will not understand why John Galt laughs at the offer. Most people would take such a deal in less than a second. I do understand with great clarity. I have lived my whole life laughing at the same type of offers without always understanding clearly. I didn’t read any of Ayn Rand’s books until her books began to explode in popularity after the election of President Obama—in 2008. My enjoyment of those books was not because they changed my life. It was because reading those books and getting to know a bit about the people who made the recent movies—it was refreshing to see that there were others out there who thought the same way as I did—they resisted the waves of second-handers trying to impose a scheme against the productive hoping to remain concealed. Now three films later over the last five years, Kaslow and Aglialoro have done what seemed impossible—they made Atlas Shrugged into movies with the last coming out just ahead of the November elections.
So the answer to “Who Is John Galt” will be answered quite well in the new film. John Galt is a person who refuses to be consumed by second-handers, and when it is asked who talks and thinks like him by critics after they have seen the film and seek to hide their fear of the philosophy behind a bad review—I do. I have in many ways lived John Galt’s life with a remarkable parallel that made me think when I first read Atlas Shrugged that I was reading something written just for me. I have made similar decisions as John Galt for similar reasons at nearly the same time as that fictional character and in just the same kind of theatrical conditions.
My employers have always utilized my talents as an inventor of new ideas. I went so far to even begin processing some of those ideas as patents in my early 20s. When I learned that the industry was filled with second-handers and that virtually every connection to my endeavors was teeming with similar types, I withdrew. My wife and I live in our home like our own personal Galt’s Gulch. I took on several medial jobs—much the way that John Galt does in the new film for much the same reason but withdrew my talents from the second-handers so not to make them better at my expense. There have been a few times along the way such as the time of the present where I am paid on the front end to solve complicated problems. It takes more than money to conceive me of the worth—and if those values align, I agree to help, but generally, my wife and I live in a gulch of our own making—which is remarkably similar to the lifestyle shown in the new movie.
Due to a busy schedule I will not be able to attend the premier by invite which is occurring in Las Vegas just prior to the September 12th release date. But I am excessively happy to see that the film was made and is the best of the three films. For those who have seen the previous two either in theaters or on DVD later, then that should paint a picture of how good this new film should be for them. When it comes to the filmmakers and others I have gotten to know a bit from the literal Gulch that we all reside in, I don’t feel those same emotions where a crowd can be present, but that I am standing by myself—around them. The best part of the new movie is that it was made for people who are already like John Galt. It’s not a movie for everyone. Many will be curious enough to watch the film even if they don’t understand it. But for those who already know who John Galt is by looking in the mirror—they will have a rare treat that deserves thanks toward the producers for making such a wonderful film intended for those who are standing alone in the world on an island of creativity surrounded by the desperate needs of second-handers. It is rare that anything is ever made for people like that—because they always do the making. But thanks to John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt was made for them—and that is a real treat.
To find out where the movie is playing near you, click the link below, and learn where you can see the film on September 12th.
To a large extent progressive politicians who wish to redistribute the wealth of America to smaller—less productive countries created this monster—but now those same politicians are feeling the wrath of their failure surrounding the tax inversion tactics created by the federal government. Tax inversions are where United States corporations move their headquarters to other countries to avoid paying corporate taxes. While those same progressive activists in government wanted this to happen to some extent—they did not bother to do the math on the potential impact to loss in the United States treasury. When Burger King recently announced that they were about to move to Canada to avoid the high corporate taxes in the United States, it forced politicians like Obama and Ohio’s Sharrod Brown to confront the issue as “unpatriotic.”
To the progressive politician patriotism means supporting their system of government schools, their high monopolistic wages for road maintenance, their social infrastructure created by government for government through an intrusive tax system. Obama’s response to the Burger King exodus was that their failure to pay future taxes would lead to tax increases for individual citizens who would be forced to cover the federal bill for services rendered. However, it never occurred to Obama, or Brown that their progressive policies which cost a lot of money—their wealth redistribution schemes, their ridiculously inefficient education system, their welfare policies were unsolicited by a large portion of the thinkers in the United States. Just because the producers, thinkers, and general entrepreneurs are in the minority in America does not mean that the masses through democracy can vote themselves the legal ability to loot and pillage enterprise. Corporate taxes in America are among the highest in the world because of intrusive progressive politicians representing the degenerate masses. They did not consider what would happen if those corporations picked up and left because the looting of their profit would be deemed too costly.
President Obama intensified his criticism of U.S. firms that shift their headquarters overseas Thursday, arguing the tax-saving tactic is unfairly “gaming the system.”
“This is basically taking advantage of tax provisions that are technically legal,” Obama said in an exclusive CNBC interview, referring to a surge of U.S. corporations transferring their official addresses to Ireland, Bermuda or other lower-tax jurisdictions.
“But I think most people would say: If you’re doing business here, if you’re basically still an American country, but you’re simply changing your mailing address to avoid paying taxes, then you’re really not doing right by the country and by the American people,” said Obama.
He acknowledged that corporate executives and board members are paid to maximize company profits and expand business operations. “But people are also paid to be good corporate citizens, they’re also paid to make sure that they’re thinking about, in addition to shareholder value, how do you grow a company over the long-term,” said Obama.
NEW YORK (CBS Cleveland/AP) — Burger King says it struck a deal to buy Tim Hortons Inc. for about $11 billion, a move that creates the world’s third-largest fast-food company and could accelerate the international expansion of the Canadian coffee and doughnut chain.
The corporate headquarters of the new company will be in Canada. The two brands will continue to be run as stand-alone chains, with Burger King still operating out of Miami.
Some analysts have suggested that Canada’s lower tax rates stand to benefit Burger King over time. But Burger King said that’s the not main motivation for the deal.
During a conference call with analysts and investors, Burger King Executive Chairman Alex Behring stressed that international growth possibilities are driving the deal. He noted that 3G Capital, the investment firm that owns a majority stake in Burger King, has turned the hamburger company into one of the fastest-growing chains since buying it in 2010. He said that experience will be applied to Tim Hortons.
Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, is calling for a boycott of Burger King.
“Burger King’s decision to abandon the United States means consumers should turn to Wendy’s Old Fashioned Hamburgers or White Castle sliders. Burger King has always said ‘Have it Your Way’; well my way is to support two Ohio companies that haven’t abandoned their country or customers,” Brown said in a statement. “To help business grow in America, taxpayers have funded public infrastructure, workforce training, and incentives to encourage R&D and capital investment. Runaway corporations benefited from those policies but want U.S. companies to pay their share of the tab.”
Tax inversions, newly popularized by the law firm Skadden Arps Meagher & Flom four years ago, have taken on a new popularity this year as many corporations struggle to appease shareholders looking askance at growing corporate cash piles. While corporate cash piles act as a bulwark during recessionary times, the recovering economy has made the multibillion-dollar cash hoards look like bad financial management.
Many US corporations have complained loudly about US tax rates, even though it’s rare that they pay the full burden of 35% to 39%. Out of the Fortune 500 of prominent US companies, 288 paid an effective US federal tax rate of just 19.4% between 2008 and 2012, according to advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice.
The conflict really centers around the profits that US companies generate overseas. These foreign profits have flooded the coffers of US companies, making up the bulk of an estimated $1.5 trillion in excess cash. Some, like Apple, have burned down some of the money by returning it to shareholders in the form of dividends, or have bought back their own stock in an attempt to drive their share prices higher on the open market. Still, the trillions remain out of reach until the companies make peace with the taxes they will have to pay, and Apple CEO Tim Cook has testified to federal officials in favor of a tax holiday.
What is ignored by politicians like Obama, and Brown—progressives who falsely believed they could build an empire of dependents in America and that corporations and the productive entrepreneurs of industry would gladly pay for services, schools, roads, and government infrastructure that they don’t support—for the greater good as defined by those same progressives, is that people might not want to pay for their view of the world. Brown’s statements specifically about Burger King was that the business of the fast food chain was built by those same infrastructure items and that the restaurant chain does not want to pay their fair share. But consider that roads to nowhere have no value unless there is a Burger King to drive to, or an Apple product to purchase at a shopping mall. Education has no value unless it is to prepare young people to live in the world created by entrepreneurs—people who will eventually eat at Burger King or drive a car to make an Apple Store purchase. In a capitalist society entrepreneurship comes first, dedication to social causes that win Democratic elections second. The “egg” comes first in that kind of society and it is under a capitalist society that Burger King was created. Socialist countries don’t create such places.
It is patriotic to leave America when progressives have infiltrated capitalism so ridiculously that it has weakened the capitalist system which built all these marvelous businesses. It is patriotic to say no to higher taxes because most taxes only serve politicians who benefit from the demographic receiving wealth redistribution. Most politicians, especially those like Obama and Brown have no ideal how two quarters are made into .50 cents and how the value was created to begin with. All they see is that somebody has money and that they feel it is their duty to social justice to take that money and give it to somebody who doesn’t have it. Most of their public education systems teach the same behavior and their road construction crews are artificially high in cost because of their monopoly on that particular construction industry. The system really only benefits progressives and their politicians—it does not benefit the job creator. Without a job creator there is no place for a road to go, or even the need for an education—because the destination is created by the few for the many. Not the other way around.
I don’t normally eat at Burger King, but this week I will to support the restaurant chain in their desire to use a tax inversion to save some corporate tax. Not paying a tax is the only way to vote against the big spending wealth redistribution policies of typical progressives who attack everything about the system of job creation that they can without restraint. Progressives should not wonder why Burger King and many other companies want to avoid the tax—if they understood the nature of profit and how important it is to any economy—especially a capitalist one like the United States. But Obama and Brown are career politicians—they get paid to steal the wealth of companies like Burger King, and to give it to those too lazy to be enterprising. So their befuddled nature in this case is amusing. What is insulting is when they insist that others will have to pay the taxes Burger King is avoiding because in their minds they have already spent the money. It is in that condition that they prove themselves to be so detrimental to the human race and intelligence of any kind. So help Burger King by purchasing a Whopper today. I am!
Bill O’Reilly and Megan Kelly from Fox News had an interesting debate about the perceived disparity of the black population and the so-called white privilege that is so much talked about regarding minorities. Kelly rattled off a series of statistics which showed that blacks are clearly falling behind in virtually every category of social measurement and she leaned in favor of the argument supporting “white privilege.” O’Reilly proposed a number of opposition arguments which provided clarity refuting the designation favoring whites. That discussion can be seen below and is worth noting.
I have had more personal friends who were black than white over the years and understand the issue very well. Megan is only talking about the result of statistics, but not the cause—whereas Bill O’Reilly began to touch on the real issues. There is no white privilege in America. The suppression of the whites against the blacks is a thing of the past and is only still considered by the very ignorant. The cause of the disparity between the statistical facts rattled off by Megan Kelly is that blacks tend to support by default the position of collectivism versus the personal responsibility of individualism. Collectivists associate all the things that happen to them as a group allowing many in that group to hide their bad behavior behind the mask of consensus. In poor populations where fathers are infrequent, government sustains personal incomes, and the general philosophy is a collectivist oriented belief system statistics like the ones Megan Kelly discussed will take place regardless of the color of anybody’s skin.
If personal responsibility is not present in a culture, it will fail and resemble the kind of conditions seen in Ferguson. The cries for equality by blacks and accusations of white privilege only come from those who decry personal responsibility and seek more collective mandates to hide their crimes. The crimes of the typical perpetrator of the Ferguson riots would be loose moral attributes, poor family structure, terrible work ethics and deplorable personal conduct—all traits that center on collectivism. Those who are successful in society tend to be those who conduct themselves with a code of some valor, personal responsibility, and awareness of their impact on the world around them not as a collective mass—but exclusively as an individual.
Being an avid motorcyclist I can name countless times that I have watched a person in another car throw a smoked cigarette out of a window. A lot of the time the same cars displaying environmental concerns are the worst perpetrators. Think how hypocritical it is for a lover a nature to liter the streets of earth with cigarettes freshly consumed and still smoking. But whenever a car is seen with bumper stickers displaying rainbows of support for mother earth, and cigarette smoke dances from a cracked window, 9 times out of 10 that same person will throw their empty cigarettes into the road while sitting at a stop light. Many times they throw them out the window while driving not even caring that I’m on a motorcycle behind them.
I have studied this behavior for many years and this is the conclusion resulting from those observations. People who throw their cigarettes out of windows tend to be collectivist oriented people who do not hold personal responsibility in high regard. They assume that they are hidden behind a mask of anonymity provided by collectivist identification. Because personal responsibility is not what they are functioning from they can’t imagine why or how their small cigarette thrown from a window could harm the earth. What they fail to see is that if 30 to 40% of all people in a 300 million person population did the same, the roadways would be littered with pollution caused by the cigarettes. But if the same person believes that a corporation—which is a collective group is harming the earth with pollution, then they will march with signs of activism and proclaim with fervor—“down with the rich CEO” the individuals at the top of large companies. Their lack of personal responsibility has a double edge to it, first they hate individuals who control groups of people—so they attack CEOs, second they only understand things in terms of collective reference. Anything outside of those parameters are invisible to them—like the thought that a simple cigarette might cause pollution in the world.
The same can be said of the welfare recipient, or the louse who blows off a free public education because their fatherless households failed to instruct them of the value, or the drug addict who shrugs away the value of their life in favor of getting high—the removal of personal responsibility during times intoxication. The collectivist cannot associate responsibility with personal behavior because their lives are constructed around avoiding that diagnosis. Thus you have race baiters like Al Sharpton declaring to a mass of angry blacks that “police have the money for guns, but not for education,” as if spending money on public education would solve the problem in poor black neighborhoods. Billions of dollars in additional funding could be thrown into public education in a black neighborhood and nothing would improve—just as nothing has improved in public education in spite of additional spending for decades now—because personal responsibility for education is not being taught as an entry-level criteria. Until that happens nothing will improve.
No matter what the topic when collectivism is involved, the result is always the same. Decaying circumstances follow no matter what the skin color or sex involved entails. If personal responsibility is vacant, corruption follows in every case. There are no exceptions.
It is a lack of personal responsibility that is killing black America. It is a lack of individual assessment and family structure that causes most of the trouble in communities like Ferguson. During the last election, I supported Herman Cain and in the future I hope that Ben Carson runs for president, just as I have supported Alan Keys in the past. They are all black politicians who I adore, so nobody can call me a racist. I have more affiliations with more minorities than most people have in their entire lives, so I can speak fluently when I say that personal responsibly is the key to success in life. The lack of personal responsibly is the cause of failure almost every time—even considering the misfortune of hard luck.
White privilege only comes to those who are taught to conduct their lives responsibly. White people who adhere to collectivism as their guiding philosophy are just as wrecked as blacks who do the same. Color has nothing to do with it—personal responsibility is everything. I have known many blacks who are quite successful. I know whites who are very successful. And I have known many other types men and women who are very successful—and what they all have in common is a belief in themselves as individuals. All the failures in life that I have ever known all share in common a belief in collectivism—in the hope that they can live forever concealed from responsibility. They of course cannot, but the fault of their circumstances are their own. They can read these words and become angry, but they can offer no argument in favor of collectivism that cannot be refuted easily. Notice the lack of comments on this article—which is free to the world—yet the lack of a defense of collectivism. That is because they can’t defend it. Collectivism is the reason that black communities, white communities and groups of all kinds fail. It is no mystery, only a carefully concealed secret driven by a desire for waking intoxication of personal irresponsibility.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened”. – Norman Thomas Socialist Candidate for President of the United States 1944.
Didn’t see that on the American news networks, did you? Yet there it is.
Even European media deeply troubled by the radical amount of Muslim extremists so prevalent in the many nations of the European Union are seeing the comparisons which should have always been clear from the outset. While studying the behavior of the Muslim Brotherhood a German media group finally started to connect the dots centering on “The Project” a 20-year-old document established to take over the Western world with a strategy eerily similar to the Communist Manifesto, also covered previously at this site. Apparently, this is the first time any German media outlet has ever told the truth about the global hegemonic aspirations of the Muslim Brotherhood, and its resemblance to Nazism, Communism, and other totalitarian political movements.
Again, from Frontline magazine they state, “one might be led to think that if international law enforcement authorities and Western intelligence agencies had discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of “cultural invasion” and eventual conquest of the West that virtually mirrors the tactics used by Islamists for more than two decades, that such news would scream from headlines published on the front pages and above the fold of the New York Times, Washington Post, London Times, Le Monde, Bild, and La Repubblica.
“If that’s what you might think, you would be wrong.
“In fact, such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counterterrorism circles as “The Project”, and discussion regarding its content has been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities. Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l’Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists’ Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as “a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies.”
“Rather than focusing on various terrorist groups or organizations, the use of terror falls into a multiplicity of options available to progressively infiltrate, confront, and eventually establish Islamic domination over the West.” Tactics and techniques are among the many recommendations made in The Project, drafted in 1982 when tensions and terrorist activities in the Middle East were still very nascent. The Project is extremely discerning for outlining the bulk of Islamist action, whether by “moderate” Islamist organizations or outright terror groups, over the past two decades. Investigate various Islamic organizations such as CAIR, ISNA, ICNA, Muslim Brotherhood in key agencies our government like DHS, DOJ, DOD. Research Socialist/Communist influence in Muslim countries during WWII and the two will be found to be jointly aligned. Below are the intentions outlined by The Project which can be seen active in the modern age and at the core of the current caliphate movement surrounding the Mediterranean Sea area cultures.
Networking and coordinating actions between likeminded Islamist organizations;
Avoiding open alliances with known terrorist organizations and individuals to maintain the appearance of “moderation”;
Infiltrating and taking over existing Muslim organizations to realign them towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s collective goals;
Using deception to mask the intended goals of Islamist actions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with shari’a law;
Avoiding social conflicts with Westerners locally, nationally or globally, that might damage the long-term ability to expand the Islamist powerbase in the West or provoke a lash back against Muslims;
Establishing financial networks to fund the work of conversion of the West, including the support of full-time administrators and workers;
Conducting surveillance, obtaining data, and establishing collection and data storage capabilities;
Putting into place a watchdog system for monitoring Western media to warn Muslims of “international plots fomented against them”;
Cultivating an Islamist intellectual community, including the establishment of think-tanks and advocacy groups, and publishing “academic” studies, to legitimize Islamist positions and to chronicle the history of Islamist movements;
Developing a comprehensive 100-year plan to advance Islamist ideology throughout the world;
Balancing international objectives with local flexibility;
Building extensive social networks of schools, hospitals and charitable organizations dedicated to Islamist ideals so that contact with the movement for Muslims in the West is constant;
Involving ideologically committed Muslims in democratically-elected institutions on all levels in the West, including government, NGOs, private organizations and labor unions;
Instrumentally using existing Western institutions until they can be converted and put into service of Islam;
Drafting Islamic constitutions, laws and policies for eventual implementation;
Avoiding conflict within the Islamist movements on all levels, including the development of processes for conflict resolution;
Instituting alliances with Western “progressive” organizations that share similar goals;
Creating autonomous “security forces” to protect Muslims in the West;
Inflaming violence and keeping Muslims living in the West “in a jihad frame of mind”;
Supporting jihad movements across the Muslim world through preaching, propaganda, personnel, funding, and technical and operational support;
Making the Palestinian cause a global wedge issue for Muslims;
Adopting the total liberation of Palestine from Israel and the creation of an Islamic state as a keystone in the plan for global Islamic domination;
Instigating a constant campaign to incite hatred by Muslims against Jews and rejecting any discussions of conciliation or coexistence with them;
Actively creating jihad terror cells within Palestine;
Linking the terrorist activities in Palestine with the global terror movement;
Collecting sufficient funds to indefinitely perpetuate and support jihad around the world;
Most of the radical Islamic groups rising to power all over the world who are involved with the Muslim Brotherhood have under their masks of religion the political philosophy communism at its back. They are following the playbook of The Project to implement their strategy.
There will never be peace in the Middle East so long as the masses are following communism and specifically The Project designed by the Muslim Brotherhood to destroy the Western world. At the heart of every matter are beliefs like the ones above, and behind those strategies is the old foe of communism that wears the mask of Islam like a mask to penetrate western societies featuring capitalism as a Trojan horse to get behind enemy lines to destroy those cultures. There is no mistake in the intentions. Any group that does not discuss this Muslim objective is purposely participating.
When it is wondered why the popular media gives a free pass to Islamic terrorism, but chooses to chastise Christian and other religions—it is because they are following the teachings of The Project. Like the communist threat of yesteryear where the hazard was identified by name, it now wears the mask of Islam to hide its vile conquest of capitalism and the freedoms of the West. The situation is further exacerbated by the large number of organizations that have a difficult time discussing the evils of ISIS (ISIL) and the events of turmoil centering around the Middle East with everything but the truth. The problems in the Middle East are not as complicated as everyone pretends. The reason is that behind all the actions of the aggressors is a push for communism. The complication comes from trying to explain the irrationality of the Middle East without talking about communism—which is impossible. It is the reason why nobody is given the real story of what is going on behind the Palestinian HAMAS, the greater efforts of the Muslim Brotherhood, and ISIS—because they are all groups advocating communism with the same bravado as the Bolsheviks did in Russia during 1917. Marxism and communism were inventions of Germany, and during World War I it was they who lost the Middle East ally of the Turks causing great trouble with resolutions given to them by the Treaty of Versailles. Germans sent communists to Russia to overthrow that land from the previous Tsarist regime. After World War I Germans and Russians under communist command did the same in the Middle East and the result to this day are the Muslim Brotherhood and all their offshoots. Using Islam, they have hid their intentions of communism behind the face of a religion following the Quran. But now dear reader you know otherwise—and it is best that you began to take action to fight it off. Now you know how they have arrived in your life and can take action to remove them—decisively.
But do not make the mistake again that what I am telling you is over-the-top and inflammatory—don’t wait for a magic moment to confirm these results. Because there isn’t any time. Act now, or find them at your doorstep with haste. When they arrive, they will not show mercy. Communists—unlike Muslims—do not recognize individuals. They only serve the collective whether that collective is dedicated to Allah, or economic theories—it is all the same.
