I have received many gifts from people over the years that were expensive, and well crafted. However, some of the best gifts I have received came from children whose minds were just coming into their own and what they gave me was a scribble on a piece of paper that to them looked like a da Vinci painting. To me it looked like scribbles but I saw within their gift all the hopes and dreams of their thoughts which have more meaning personally than a Rolex watch, or a new Mercedes car. Society the world over may look at such scribbles and think them inferior to the diamonds, and other luxury items, but not me. I’d rather have the childlike scribbles of ambition and innocence than the refinement of cultural creations. And that is exactly how I felt walking out of the new film Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt. The film itself was far from technically perfect—the filmmakers themselves without the polished background of the greater Hollywood community are like children coming of age—but even their shortcomings garner superiority when compared to the standard product coming from the vast ocean of entertainment culture. I’d rather see two or three movies per year like Atlas Shrugged Part III than twenty polished blockbusters lacking a heart and soul.
Regarding Galt, Kristoffer Polaha played one of the most iconic literary creations wonderfully. There hasn’t been a better character of such swagger and confidence since many of the old Clint Eastwood movies. Polaha was wonderful in the role and the movie could have excelled if it could have featured him more prominently—but there were a lot of characters and a limited time to get to the point of the movie. So Polaha had to share a lot of screen time. Of those other characters, they were as portrayed in Atlantis, the hidden world deep in the Colorado Mountains unlike any other characters in cinema. Leading up to the movie the previews for upcoming releases featured two Reese Witherspoon films and a Bill Murray picture that were politically and ideologically 180 degrees in the opposite direction as Atlas. In those films the characters in the Gulch would have been the villains. In Atlas Shrugged those characters are the heroes. It was clear that the target demographic for the typical Hollywood product had no idea who the viewer for Atlas Shrugged Part III would be because it was evident in the previews before the film. Another television series was previewed at the Regal Cinemas called The Affair—as if the ideal of illicit romance was conducive to the message of Atlas Shrugged Part III—which of course it wasn’t. One actress from The Affair declared during the preview—“We are all just trying to get by,” as opposed to the message of Atlas III by John Galt, “The world you desire can be won. It exists…it is real…it is possible…it is yours.” The philosophy of Atlas III is unlike anything being put out by Hollywood in any capacity—so for many people it is a very foreign concept.
My wife and I went to see Atlas III with our kids at the Regal in Mason, and didn’t expect much by way of a crowd. We arrived about 25 minutes early to get a good seat. I was a bit shocked to see that the only seats available for the 8:10 PM showing were high up in the stadium seating, which is not where I normally like to sit. By the time the movie started, the theater was nearly full. It was very close to a sellout, which was very encouraging. Several times during the movie people cheered. At the end of the film the audience clapped. It had been a long time since I have seen that occur at the end of a movie. So in spite of the parade of bad reviews and complaints about the technical aspects of the film, the audience I saw the picture with loved it—and were hungry for the message. Most of the audience was above 40 years of age, and most were couples—(a man and a wife.) However, dotted among the male and female heads of the audience were a few intelligent looking college students bright-eyed and excited—as if they were on the edge of a wave in thought. There was rebellion in their eyes as if by coming to the movie, they were participating in a dirty little secret that the rest of society wish to conceal—and they’d be right. Those same snickers came from young people who used to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show in 1975 and routinely since attend the midnight showings which promotes homosexual relationships and transgender exploits. The Rocky Horror film is a terrible monstrosity of a movie that is now considered mainstream. Any critic of the quality of the Atlas films needs to think long and hard about talking low quality cinematography, editing, and acting but praising The Rocky Horror Picture Show. They can’t have it both ways. Refreshingly, Atlas Shrugged Part III did have a sex scene that was very PG. As written in the novel, it could have been rated NC17, but under John Aglialoro’s production value, it was greatly scaled back to nearly a G rating. The filmmakers wisely knew that their audience was conservative and did not want the uncomfortable distraction of gross sexual imposition which comes in droves at the Rocky Horror Picture Show screenings. For today’s young people, Atlas Shrugged is the new rebellion—and that delights me to no end. It’s about time!
I will see Atlas III many more times and will treasure it for it’s worth. I see the Atlas films as difficult to make and attribute most of their technical challenges to pushing the philosophy of Objectivism up an extremely steep hill. My experience tells me that the panic of Mr. Thompson at the end of the movie is true and that the few people flying away in the helicopter at the end was 100% accurate. There are always only a few people who do everything and that is a terrifying message to the masses who hope and pray that Mr. Thompson’s view of the world can be true. Atlas Shrugged Part III tells them that it isn’t—and it is in that utterance that the anger toward the film is shouted loudest. Atlas III is a work and offering of love by filmmakers who are coming into their own with the best tools available to them, like children trying to prove to the adults of the entertainment world that they have something important to say too. The adults look at their offerings and see a scribble which they laugh off and make fun of. But for me, I’d rather have the scribble of the Atlas Shrugged film makers than the polished diamond of Hollywood with messages that are false and completely ignorant. It is for that reason that going to see Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt was more like a gift than an entertainment experience. And it is one that I will proudly hang from my refrigerator like many of the fine art pieces that my kids have provided over the years on their progression toward expertise, to enjoy as a daily reminder of something that has value where others only see a scribble.
There has been a lot of talk in the news lately about abused wives who stay with husbands who beat them—primarily due to the latest round of NFL domestic violence cases. The level of amazement persists from millions who wonder why gold digging women would stay with men who beat them routinely. But for the answer, all anyone need to do is look at themselves and wonder why they allow the same type of abuse when their government is doing the same on a larger scale. That abuse tends to be more psychological as opposed to physical, but it is still abuse and representative of a dysfunctional household. Below are 11 ways that you know you live in a country run by idiots prone to abuse. To continue to allow these idiots to have such power over the population is allow an abusive relationship to continue. Here they are:
1. If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally, you live in a country run by idiots.
2. If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion, you live in a country run by idiots.
3. If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor or check out a library book, but not to vote on who runs the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
4. If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy leaders in Egypt, you live in a country run by idiots.
5. If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat, you live in a country run by idiots.
6. If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched, you live in a country run by idiots.
7. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more, you live in a country run by idiots.
8. If a seven-year old boy can be thrown out of grade school for saying his teacher’s “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable, you live in a country run by idiots.
9. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones, you live in a country run by idiots.
10. If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working, with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work, you live in a country run by idiots.
11. If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government, you live in a country run by idiots.
There is no dispute in these assertions. Yet they continue and prosper—and the reason comes from the same people who point to the NFL and call for Rodger Goodell’s head for allowing domestic violence to occur from his players. The government is engaging in far worse abuses—yet we keep coming back time and time again. The reason is the same as the abused NFL wife—because people become comfortable even within abusive relationships as they function from low self-esteem—which a predator like the government will always take advantage of.
Every time I watch Aglialoro in an interview it is easy to see the hurt behind his eyes. Like Rand, who thought that the unspoken and neglected businessmen would flock to her support of them after the release of her 1957 novel, most cowered in the darkness like idiots paralyzed by the political left into silence. Aglialoro during the second film premiered Atlas II in Washington D.C. right before the 2012 election. Not a single politician, not Ted Cruz, not Rand Paul and certainly not Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan showed up for the movie as they tried to maintain their political distance—so not to have people from the left call them names. Ryan had been an open Ayn Rand supporter before being put on the national ticket with Mitt Romney. Nobody from the political class showed up in Washington D.C. to show their support of a conservative leaning movie featuring ideals that the political right should have openly embraced with great enthusiasm. Republicans played it safe and guess what………….they lost in the 2012 elections all across the nation.
I have felt the bite of that kind of pain a time or two, most recently when I was on 700 WLW radio dealing with a controversy—a sexist accusation by my political enemies who were trying to the same smear tactic used against Rush Limbaugh and Mitt Romney at the time. Unlike those guys, I defended my position proudly. In 2012 I was a spokesman for a group standing against higher school taxes, which was a very unpopular position. I had in my circle a number of high-profile movers and shakers and was proud of them for supporting such a controversial topic. My plan with the pro tax people was in full swing, they were attacking our side by calling us greedy businessmen, so I attacked back with the truth—that a majority of the pro tax advocates were fat assed, out-of-touched parents. Of course they didn’t like it—because the truth hurt. I meant for it to. So I was on the air ready to defend our position and those prominent local businessmen and politicians sent a press release to the station while I was on the air distancing themselves from me. The controversy I didn’t mind at all. The betrayal did bother me. I shut off interviews for the rest of the day as I recalibrated my position. It hurt terribly to trust people then watch them fall for the old liberal tricks of guilt abasement. I couldn’t let that hurt come out in my public statements—which is a really tough thing to do when an entire city is ready to pounce on your every word.
The motivations of those fearful dissidents are the same at every spectrum, from Ayn Rand, to John Aglialoro, to me—we have all been left at the alter by those we were trying to help. It feels like being cheated on by a spouse—just as you are declaring your love for that significant other, you learn that they have been doing the horizontal shuffle with the very people you are fighting—and it hurts. It hurts whether it is sex or politics—in both cases you end up screwed. It is that screwed look that Aglialoro has on his face with each interview he does. He was much more hopeful after Atlas I did respectable opening night numbers, but by the time Atlas III hit theaters he had a hurt look on his face from all the betrayals he had experienced over the last couple of years, while making the movie. For him he continued to make the movies even though very few supported the endeavor. The enemies of the movie were perplexed as to why he continued even though the films were box office failures and did not have majority support from the public. What those same people did not understand was that John Aglialoro made the movies for himself, not for the public. He did it to accomplish a task, not to win approval as a second-hander. Since most of society functions as second-handers, they don’t understand Aglialoro, or his movie. So there is sadness when he talks about the films. He knows as the words leave his mouth that nobody really is going to understand why he made the films—yet he does it anyway in a hope that something will change—someday.
Atlas III won’t be any different. People who understand it will love it, various others who have skin in some type of political game, even within Ayn Rand circles, will hate it. They’ll hate it for Aglialoro’s point of view in making the movie—they’ll complain about the lack of sex, the lack of depth, the lack of good actors, the lack of budget, the lack of public support, the lack of technical aptitude, and every lack of anything else they can think of. But what they can’t accuse John Aglialoro of is a lack of heart and determination. What he did was hard and deserves admiration in the face of much hurt which only those who have been betrayed in a similar fashion can understand.
I’ve been involved with literary driven “think-tanks” for several occasions in years past covering everything from James Joyce to Thomas Mann. All those authors were wonderful in their own way, even the collectivist Victor Hugo and Russian recluse Leo Tolstoy. But they were not as good as Ayn Rand who changed the literary narrative with her larger-than-life characters. Rand’s characters are not like Marvel Comics superheroes, they are every day people lacking magical powers, but they are non-the-less super. They are an inspiration to all who ever wanted to be a superhero as a corporate businessman or woman—and continue to resonate particularly in America as a mold to follow. Ayn Rand is one of the most prolific and most important writers in American history which is saying a lot. Her work of most importance was Atlas Shrugged and began as a kind of science fiction fantasy in 1957 and has proven itself to be astonishingly prophetic in 2014 just prior to the third release of a movie adoption based on John Aglialoro’s interpretation of the novel. The movie hits theaters on September 12th, but the book continues to sell, and sell, and sell because the content which appeared sensational at first—and unrealistic is occurring almost on queue just as Rand always thought it would. The producers of the new movie have put together a wonderful little documentary which features clips from the new film seen below called Atlas Shrugged: Now, Non-Fiction and is well worth watching. In addition to clips from ASP3, this video includes commentary from liberty leaders including Ron Paul, Matt Kibbe, Jonathan Hoenig, Phil Valentine, David Kelley and more.
Atlas Shrugged is not for everyone. It is however for the kind of people who work hard and try every day to be the best they can be. If you are the kind of employee who usually works later at the office and is the first to arrive in the morning—you will like Atlas Shrugged. If you are the kind of person who runs over rate in a union shop—even though there is intense opposition against you for doing so, Atlas Shrugged is for you. If you are the kind of person who is constantly hounded by family and friends to step down off your “high horse” so that you are more “likable” and approachable, you will like and enjoy Atlas Shrugged. However, if you are the kind of person who hates those who do all or even part of the above—you will hate Atlas Shrugged and will do everything in your power to disgrace the literary work from being recognized as a literary endeavor.
For the same reason that the co-worker who feels guilty by leaving the office before the star of the company does attempts to put pressure on that person by saying “it’s time to get out of here” Atlas Shrugged is slammed and ridiculed. Not because it is a bad novel written poorly—but because it makes guilty people feel bad about themselves. They feel bad because they have sold out. Their ideal of a superhero has been regulated to someone who is bit by a magic spider—or someone who comes from another planet. They don’t look in their mirror and see anything super about themselves and they are too lazy to develop it on their own. Atlas Shrugged shows how average people are super just by having values and fighting to maintain those values. It is also about how it is that adherence to value which makes the engine of the world run, culturally, economically, and philosophically.
When John Galt proclaims that he will stop the engine of the world in the new film version titled Atlas Shrugged Part III he is stating that by removing his value from an organization, or society in general that the parasites of reality will have nowhere to hide and civilization will collapse. What prevents this collapse from occurring is that the few protect the masses with their values. But over time it gets harder and harder leaving the looted few to eventually become depleted and perish. The masses expect this sacrifice to occur—they expect the few to serve the many and those with value to give it to them in their vacancy. It is this belief that destroys the world and why the classic novel Atlas Shrugged has now been declared non-fiction—because it has all come true.
The people who hate Atlas Shrugged are also the same people who hate those who try to be good—too good. They are advocates for complacency—for setting the bar low so that they can easily achieve success in life. Ayn Rand’s novel points to that tendency as the invisible destroyer of the world and spits on it placing value where it deservedly always belonged with the heroes of creation—those who work late, early and often—who don’t live their lives through others, but in spite of the efforts to stop them. That hatred is very real. The masses of existence—who advocate so loudly for democracy are the same people who wish to believe that because they outnumber the truly good they can capture the definition of good, and bad, profitable, and unprofitable, and of success or failure. Atlas Shrugged was not written for those people—it was written for those who see heroic deeds in getting up in the morning to face the troubles of the world as an individual without apologizing for working every day to do the best in every aspect of their lives that they can. Ayn Rand’s heroes are not drunks, sexual deviants, or crooked politicians. They are not truly fearful of anything—because they know that it is they who are ultimately in control—so they trust themselves to overcome any problem that comes their way. This gives the heroes a god-like presence in the Atlas Shrugged novel as interpreted by the weak, frightened, and complacent.
Atlas Shrugged was so brilliant because it goes literally against thousands of years of sacrificial belief by the human race. Rand could have played it safe and given the world a novel reminiscent of War and Peace. But she didn’t instead she wrote an epic book of similar length and content but along the way tackled directly the philosophical failure inherit in human beings ridiculous belief that achievement of anything is caused by “sacrifice.” Rand challenges that premise and her heroes refuse it revealing the true success of all societies that prosper. It is literally the best kept secret—and Ayn Rand exploited it putting it in story form so that it would be easy to understand. It has taken literally a half of a century for most of America to figure out the meaning of Atlas Shrugged. Even today, after decades of contemplation, only a handful of the population anywhere in the world understand the message because in any company, any institution, any endeavor what-so-ever, there are only a few who work 12 hour days for the joy of it, get up before the sun even considers rising, because they are trying to squeeze more life out of daylight once it arrives, and do good work not for the pat on the head, or even a pay raise—but because it makes them feel good to do good work.
Atlas Shrugged is essentially the first major literary work in human history that recognizes the benefit of good work and productivity over the emotional pleas of the democratic masses who lobby with every effort to stop the productive who make them feel guilty for being less than robust. It is for that reason that Atlas Shrugged continues to draw scorn from intelligentsia because they want a monopoly on social opinion built upon the foundations of laziness. It is also why Atlas Shrugged is only playing in a few hundred movie theaters and why even in those theaters there will be only 5 or 6 groups of people seeing the movie. The people attending will tend to be the last to leave at their places of business, and the first to arrive, they work hard and take pride in doing a good job—and they can relate to the kind of society that John Galt builds in Atlantis during the film. And as every organization in the country knows, there are always those few who do most of the work. Atlas Shrugged is made for them, not the other idiots who stand at a time clock five minutes before the end of a day and flee to the parking lot like escaped convicts once their work is over for the day only to complain and bitch about how sucky their lives are for the rest of the evening. What happens when people stop doing the extra work for the pure enjoyment of it? You get the events of Atlas Shrugged—now-nonfiction.
If you read this site there is only one place you should be on Friday September 12th, and that is the Regal cinemas in Mason, Ohio. The reason is that Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt hits theaters that day and the only place in Cincinnati that it can be seen is at the Regal. The Regal has been very supportive of the Atlas films over the years and I can’t think of a better theater than that one to see this new movie at. I have been to every theater in the Cincinnati area for some reason or another and the Regal is one of my favorites. I love the way it sits on a hill looking out over all the development of the Fields Ertel region. For Atlas, after the kind of philosophy that is explored in that movie, those are the kinds of things you want to see while going to dinner after—development, excess, and elements of capitalism. You don’t want to see slums, decrepit people addicted to welfare, and you don’t want to see defeated people. In Mason, just down the road from the theater are million dollar homes, P&G is across the street, and countless restaurants of all varieties are available for selection. It is a wealthy area representative of the type of values that the Atlas films advocate. So the Regal is the place to see Who is John Galt. The premier for the film just occurred in Las Vegas as seen in the picture below with Laura Regan in the center who plays Dagny Taggart. She is a very good Dagny. Women should feel honored to see such an empowering woman in such a strong role.
It’s OK to be a little snobby especially in regard to surroundings while seeing certain kinds of movies for leisure entertainment. So often hypocritical assessment is applied to these types of things—the same women who declare that they support feminism and a helping hand to the poor—along with other progressive values are the same women who shop at the Fields Ertel area because they are afraid of the gangs of youth that accost them at the shopping malls to the southwest and avoid Ayn Rand because she is against their system of beliefs. But in regard to that, no author has ever written a stronger female lead character than Dagny Taggart. She’s in charge of a railroad, she has the heart of the strongest most profound male character in classic literature and she is unyielding during the entire Atlas Shrugged story—right up until the end. You’d think that feminists would flock to see Laura Regan’s portrayal of Dagny Taggart—but of course they won’t, and can’t. Their politics betray them. So it was nice to see Laura Regan posing proudly with the producers during the premier. The producers worked their asses off to make that movie and it is good to see her embrace the role without political shame. Atlas Shrugged punches through much of that modern hypocrisy of politically correct behavior. So in tribute to that honesty, I can be quite forthright—when I see Atlas Shrugged Part III at a theater, I want that theater to be nice—I don’t want it to smell like dirty kids, I don’t want to park next to beat up pieces of shit cars, I don’t want to sit next to walking zombies of people slack-jawed and stupid, and I want to drive down roads to and from the theater lined with wealthy businesses oozing with creativity.
One such place that embodies the kind of business that might be found in Atlantis featured in Atlas III is the Blaze Pizza which is just down the road from the Regal Theater. Mason was one of the test locations for this burgeoning franchise which was quite an honor. The reason is that the demographics of the area are conducive to their market research. The Blaze Pizza is about to explode all across the nation, but there are still only a few locations and Mason is one of them. What makes them unique from other pizza places is that they make customized pizzas in a fast food style. The pizza is literally made right in front of the customer and fired in a gas fired oven and ready by the time you pay for it. They are the Chipotle of pizza making. Their pizzas are typically a $15 of value which they sell for around $7 to $8.
The Blaze does great numbers and is changing the industry of pizza making. My daughters introduced me to the place and we plan to visit there after seeing Atlas Shrugged Part III. Also, we have plans to bring The Blaze Pizza to my grandson’s birthday party which is coming up quick because what they do is so good and unique that it is worth it. It is in that type of business creativity that the movie Who is John Galt is all about. So it is fitting to have the film playing at the Regal while burgeoning businesses like The Blaze Pizza are changing the industry right next door.
The Blaze Pizza is not the only regional business in the Fields Ertel location that I enjoy. Although it is dated, I happen to like the Pizza Tower which is also down the road. I love the Kings Auto Mall, I like White Castle, Frisch’s and the half-dozen other fine restaurants up and down the strip all with wonderful market niches that they have carved out for themselves in the Mason, Deerfield township area. But the reason they are there is because the area is wealthy, and that wealth was created by cleaver ideas like The Blaze Pizza and capitalism in general. In Mason, there is some socialism around the government school, and the city politics, but it is still minimal. The character of Mason has been shaped by the amusement park Kings Island which is also down the road, the PGA Tennis tournament, and the Jack Nicklaus Golf Center which is right across the highway from Kings Island. Next to Kings Island is The Great Wolf Lodge, a giant hotel chain with and indoor water park on-site. I love the region because capitalism still rules in that area which is why it is fitting that Atlas Shrugged Part III play there and no place else in the city of Cincinnati.
Elsewhere, socialism has taken hold. For instance much as been made about the failed restaurant on The Banks in Cincinnati called Mahogany’s. That restaurant is a government planned project where money was poured into the deal by the city to prop up a minority owned business. Liz Rogers is the owner and has been losing money for over two years forcing the city to consider further bailouts of her. Her attorney recently plead her case to the Cincinnati Enquirer reporting, “General Electric has a tax credit worth $51 million dollars for its new banks project , and Liz has worked for two-plus years without drawing a salary, which is more than you can say for the top dogs at GE. But why has she done this? Because she has a dream and a vision of a better Cincinnati, one that appreciates Southern cuisine.” The Enquirer—a very progressive newspaper owned by Gannett goes on to say, “on the other hand, we have had the dubious distinction of race riots. The federal government has monitored our police force after accusations of brutality, and some undoubtedly legitimate complaints. Our schools are integrated (by busing) but our churches and social life are largely segregated (by choice and comfort level) It goes on and on like that discussing Harriet Beecher Stowe, Jackie Robinson and Louis Armstrong.
But what the Enquirer doesn’t deal with is that people don’t want to go to a restaurant that they don’t support through free market capitalism. Cincinnati as a government should have never become involved in tampering with the free market hoping to prop up an owner just because of the color of her skin. Basically here is the gist, the city government in Cincinnati thought it would be cool to have a black owner of a restaurant on their coveted banks project which has taken over 20 years to build. I’ve been to The Banks on several occasions, and it’s nice. I typically eat at Great American Ball Park or at the Christian Moerlein Larger House (wonderful place by the way). Liz has not been successful because with other options at The Banks that are better, Liz is sinking. The socialism of Cincinnati and the Enquirer failed because they put value on skin diversity over values of intellect—resulting in the failure of Mahogany’s.
The Blaze Pizza is doing well in Mason because they did market research and used private investment to make a proper business decision. When it came to Mahogany’s all the socialist civil servants thought it would be wonderful to have a “woman” and a “minority” member an owner of a restaurant on The Banks. They thought it would be “stylish.” They made their decision based on feel good politics, not free market considerations. If Liz Rogers made a product with Southern cuisine that people actually wanted, the restaurant would be doing booming business, but people obviously don’t want that kind of food in that location, so it is failing. Meanwhile, The Blaze Pizza is doing smashing business in its location and is now expanding. It’s not because the owners are white, or male, but because they are competent and enterprising. This is essentially what Atlas Shrugged Part III is all about. Only in the movie it is Laura Regan playing Dagny Taggart who has all the answers for her railroad company that none of her male counterparts have a single answer for. It doesn’t matter the color of her skin, but rather the contents of her mind that makes her either successful, or a failure. Thus, the same goes for the success of The Blaze Pizza, and the failure of Mahogany’s.
This is why it is such a relief to see Atlas Shrugged Part III in Mason at the Regal as opposed to somewhere else. After such a movie nobody wants to come out and see evidence of socialism and its failures with degenerate slack-jawed hippies, skate boarders, and gangs of thugs bobbing their heads to rap music. To see a movie like Atlas for people who enjoy thinking and being successful at things, it is nice to take a vacation away from the poverty created by government tampering and enjoy an evening of excess produced by the capitalism of Mason, Ohio. Those are many of the reasons and more that I am so happy that it is the Regal who is playing Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt on September 12th. It will be a lot of fun and a nice vacation away from socialism—at least for the evening.
Over the summer I ran into an ancient relic of a steam ship called The Sachem. Click the following link for a review. https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/saving-a-cincinnati-ghost-ship-history-and-methods-of-resurrecting-the-sachem/ As I toured that ship I couldn’t help but think of Ragnar Danneskjöld. Thomas Edison and the adventurer Jake Martin essentially used the ship in a similar way that Ragnar would have from the novel Atlas Shrugged—only Danneskjöld was not under official government backing. As I walked the deck of the ship known as the Cincinnati Ghost Ship hidden deep in the woods of Kentucky I couldn’t help but think of all the many hours of conversations that would have filled the cabins on the open sea with nothing else to do but to contemplate the advantages of Objectivism and the romanticism of the next great adventure.
I know a few people at The Blaze and contemplated having the ship resurrected by a film crew for its vast historic value not to become sea worthy again, but to set it up in a studio somewhere in front of a green screen to serve as a stage prop for countless episodes of thematic television exploring the Objectivist life of Ragnar Danneskjöld. After all, what museum would desire to preserve the old ghost ship and to what cost. It would have little value used in such a way—but what if the old ship were converted into an actual set complete with cannons and modern gadgets that would make the modern pirate vessel fast and nimble on the open seas able to outrun the sluggish military vessels of the world’s governments. But, the Atlas Company has more of an ability to do something like that and it’s currently their property. But it sure seemed like a good idea.
Lately I have been writing a lot about the new Disney XD television show called Star Wars: Rebels. That show will be a game changer both in thematic storytelling and content. One look at the clip below will indicate what kind of cartoon that show will be—and kids are not the only target audience. But what is bigger about the show is that it will give Disney XD an anchor that it currently doesn’t have. Until Rebels went into production, I didn’t know that there was a Disney XD channel—but I do now. The same thing could happen for The Blaze if it had the kind of show on it that people really wanted to see.
These days, a Ragnar television series could be done cheaply with models for wide shots in a tank and lots of night work. I imagine that Ragnar Danneskjöld as a pirate would spend most of his time traveling at night and resting during the day. Most of the scenes on the deck of his ship would have to take place at night, or below decks in the cabins where philosophical dilemmas would present themselves to advance the plot. Another good example of how such a thing could be achieved for television would be the old Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. A sample episode can be seen by clicking here. Most of the show would be Ragnar Danneskjöld talking about Objectivist philosophy on the deck of his pirate ship at night in front of a green screen. It would be up to writers to come up with some compelling narrative bookends to make people want to sit and listen to it all.
And while brainstorming here—it would not be out-of-line to have Howard Roark traveling with his wife Dominique mimicking the journey taken with Gail Wynand years before spending time with Ragnar in some of these adventures. Howard being the master architect who has also quit the world isn’t in the Gulch, but is sailing the world with his wife. There are opportunities for Objectivism there that are quite extensive.
For my own selfish reasons, I want such a show. My friend Doc works at The Blaze as a radio guy and has Beck’s ear. I want to help them out and get The Blaze to the level I know Beck wants to take it. I also want more Atlas Shrugged movies. I want television that is designed for people like me, because I don’t like much of anything that anybody makes—because it doesn’t hold my values. But most of all I am looking for some way to save that ship. Sure, it would be cheaper to build a ship like that from scratch, but a restoration in a dry dock condition would provide some much-needed press for such a project. The ship itself might just provide some cross-over ink in the media—who will otherwise be turned off by anything mentioning Atlas Shrugged.
I only bring all this up because I know that there is a desire to continue with these Atlas films. With each Atlas film culminating with Who is John Galt, they have only gotten better and it would be a shame to dismantle all that when Objectivism needs a voice to help usher it into the public. It might take another 15 years, but the world is primed for the message. It is only the delivery method that is in question—and the who, what, why, when and where. I have looked forward to each Atlas Shrugged movie and even though I am extremely busy, I have stuck around the virtual Gulch for several years now adding to the conversation when and where I could. I’d like to see that kind of thing continue to grow, and a good way to do that is to start another project if the money is there and a willing studio was in place that could pull off something like that affordably.
As Disney puts out their Star Wars: Rebels, the bar is set and primed for something like a Ragnar Danneskjöld television series. Imagine Howard Roark and Ragnar sitting on the deck of a pirate ship concealed from the governments of the world all looking for a way to track down the elusive pirate—talking about Objectivism under a star-lit sky. It could be a huge game changer in entertainment and that would be a suitable afterlife for the Ghost Ship of Cincinnati.
It is a shame that Leonard Peikoff and most of the people at the Ayn Rand Institute did not embrace more openly the John Aglialoro Atlas Shrugged films. I’ve read Peikoff’s book on Objectivism and would have thought that he would have supported the endeavor which premiered in Las Vegas last night showing the third and final film—which is clearly the best of the three film series. All the Atlas movies were good, but this third film certainly puts the proper end cap on the long cinematic journey which took so many years for Aglialoro to achieve. The key to the third film is in meeting for the first time the long talked about John Galt and seeing the kind of life that he inspired in a hidden valley called Atlantis. The Atlas Shrugged filmmakers have been very open to those who are part of their online world called Galt’s Gulch and after several years of work had a special showing for them in Vegas which was a wonderful idea. As for the work of Ayn Rand, I can’t think of anywhere better that Objectivism has gained the most ground than with the group that has emerged out of Galt’s Gulch at the Atlas Shrugged web site—and that would not have happened without Aglialoro’s films or his team behind one of the most ambitions independent films ever done.
The third film is titled, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who is John Galt and is clearly a work of philosophy draped with a love story between Dagny Taggart and John Galt. It has a wonderful message and for those who think in such a way was a comfortable place to spend a couple of hours. For the rest of the world—those who live their lives as second-handers—they will hate the movie. Because of the effort involved, I wish John Aglialoro would have had a larger presence from the Gulch and that online media buzz would have been more robust. But it has been ignored by virtually everyone, including The Ayn Rand Institute which has done a fantastic job over the years of keeping Rand’s books published and teaching Objectivism to people hungry for a functioning philosophy that actually works. I can’t think of a bigger Objectivist event than Atlas Shrugged Part III premiering in Vegas and opening to the world on September 12th, but on the morning of the premier, there was not a single mention of the film by the Institute even though they have their big benefit dinner in New York City on September 23rd. The closest that they have is that Yaron Brook is one of the guest speakers who was also a consultant for the movie. But there is no direct mention of Aglialoro or the new movie by the official gatekeepers of Ayn Rand’s legacy.
With that kind of in-fighting there is no way that the rest of the nation or the world can be expected to get behind an ambitious project like a film adaption of one of America’s most monstrously successful novels. Like it or not, Atlas Shrugged is the great American novel and is much better—and more relevant than any of Mark Twain’s work or John Steinbeck. Atlas Shrugged is what America was and will always be about and those who wish to change that definition absolutely hate the novel and refuse to recognize it—even though the public has bought the book for over half a century on pure word of mouth. It is the biggest underground classic in print, and the Ayn Rand Institute has helped make that so. They will only benefit from the John Aglialoro film as viewers wanting to know more will buy the book to get more details after watching.
To understand Atlas Shrugged and specifically this third film I recently drove my son-in-law who moved here from socialist England through the city of Norwood, Ohio. In the movie, John Galt gives a speech to the owners and workers of a manufacturing facility called the 20th Century Motor Company that is being overtaken by a socialist plan hatched by the company’s inherited owners. The labor union adopts socialism at the company which destroys the plant leaving it vacated of any life within a few years. What they made at the facility becomes quickly lost to history. Driving through modern-day Norwood I showed my son-in-law how the same thing had happened to that poor city just north of Cincinnati, Ohio. I showed him the vacant spot where the Cincinnati Milacron plant used to be. I worked there when I was young and felt very much like a young John Galt—the speech in the film hit home to me and was all too autobiographical. Shortly after I left Milacron, the company destroyed itself with socialism and is no longer there. It used to be a large sprawling campus in Oakley, but now it is empty except for a few small office buildings. Just a few miles to the west are the remains of the old General Motors plant that built Cameros during the hot selling 70s and 80s. Now it is an empty parking lot. Across the Norwood Lateral used to be the largest movie theater house in Cincinnati, the Showcase Cinemas of Norwood. I used to see small art films there like Clint Eastwood’s White Hunter Black Heart which played nowhere else in the city. It only played there because they had so many theaters they could afford to dedicate a few of them to pictures that were more philosophic than commercial. Back then, it was the kind of theater that would have shown Atlas Shrugged Part III. Now that theater is gone, it’s an empty parking lot. As Cincinnati Milacron died and the General Motors plant along with many other smaller businesses all for the same reasons—the investment money moved north to flee the high taxes of the city and parasitic nature of local governments who gain fame for themselves by spending other people’s money. Norwood is essentially a ghost town today after only 20 years of failed economic policy—just like the 20th Century Motor Company in the movie. The only theater that Atlas is playing now is where the money is currently, about 20 miles north in Mason, Ohio at the Regal. Many of the people who reside in neighborhoods around that theater moved from areas like Norwood years ago leaving only the parasites living through socialism to inhabit which collapsed the economy. Some of those Mason people understand the message of Atlas Shrugged because they have been through it, so the movie is showing there. But for the people of Norwood who are typically on welfare, jobless, and from families with several baby daddies coming in and out of their lives—the Objectivist message of the Atlas films are lost to them.
Burger King along with almost every large corporation is seeking to move their headquarters out of America for the same reasons that large companies closed in Norwood—the taxes were too high, and the socialism from their local governments were simply too intrusive, and costly. America has a corporate tax rate of 39.1% which is the highest rate in the entire world which is simply ridiculous. For anybody who has had to actually earn money it is known that for every dollar lost from productivity, that additional productivity must be generated to offset the cost. For an average parasite that is just happy to have food in their bellies, and cable television to watch, they may not wish to be productive so to earn extra money to pay for nice cars, expensive vacations and a life style that is generally comfortable. So they can’t conceive why a CEO would need millions of dollars to run a company because they have no concept of the risks involved in doing so, or the responsibility. When the profitability of responsibility becomes no longer worth it, most CEO’s knowing that they cannot possibly generate enough sales to offset their margins will simply cash out and retire—doing essentially what John Galt and his friends did in the new Atlas film. In the best cases they move their company somewhere where the tax rates are not so high, or they just shut down and retire off their earnings letting the world go to hell. That’s what happened in Norwood leaving the residents there to deal with the mess they created by electing socialist community leaders who thought that taxation could always be proportionally increased. They were wrong, the empty buildings and terrible real estate values are testimony.
When I was a kid my grandfather used to take pigs to slaughter at a meat market near Union Terminal. Back in those days there were several breweries, packaging houses and much industry along the Western Hills Viaduct. Now it is an area mired in poverty driven by an overload of the welfare system. The Viaduct itself is falling apart and nobody can figure out where to get the money to fix it. The Brent Spence Bridge just to the south of the Viaduct is also falling apart and needs replacement. It is major highway artery from the north of the United States to the south, but there are no politicians with any answers even as the highway runs by Paul Brown Stadium which hosts only eight events a year during football season costing $455 million to build in the year 2000 numbers which equates out with inflation to $623 million. Just the spike in inflation rates should be alarming in only 14 years. But worst than that, it was some of the only new construction to take place in downtown Cincinnati in decades. That construction is driven by pure entertainment value which is hardly sustainable for long-term growth and profitability. There has to be industry which actually makes things in order to sustain other businesses and landmarks like the Western Hills Viaduct. The city of Cincinnati is dying just like what was seen in Atlas Shrugged Part III.
Of course people who don’t wish to acknowledge these issues will hate the Atlas films for bringing it to their attention. They wish to remain second-handers forever and don’t want to give up on their illusions of socialism. But for the few who are bold enough to look at the situation squarely—and with honesty, Atlas Shrugged Part III is a blessing. There are already an extreme minority who find that kind of subject matter enjoyable and they are lucky that John Aglialoro made a film for them. It’s not financially profitable to do such a thing, but for a producer like Aglialoro, money can always be made. What cannot be recovered is the American nation and if one truly does love their country—they would obviously try to save it. The Atlas films are an attempt to save the country before everyone simply leaves. The new Atlas film might be called Who Is John Galt, but I suspect that John Aglialoro has more in common with Dagny Taggert from the film than John Galt. Aglialoro is still functioning in the world trying to warn people of what’s coming with his movie. The people at the Atlas Society are already in Atlantis and hope to see it all crumble away—which is the likely anxiety between the two groups.
I thought all this while watching the scene where Dagny decided to leave Atlantis and return back to the world and fix her railroad problems. John Galt, who is the leader in the Gulch decides to leave with her much to the shock of his friends. Because of his attachment to Dagny, John Galt is put in danger of being looted off of once discovered because the world is desperate for someone with some kind of answer. If Dangy had stayed put, it is likely that their paradise would survive forever as the world around them crumbled. But because Dagny chose to leave and continue to fight—it brought John Galt back into the world to provide a deciding blow against socialism. The Atlas Society wants to stay in the Gulch and John Aglialoro—at least a time or two more, wants to fight it out to save America. And that is the crux of the matter. It is a shame; because the Atlas Society has a lot that they could do and if they worked with the Atlas III film, would find that the cause of Objectivism is ripe for the many millions of empty minds out there looking desperately for something to fill them. For the Atlas Society to not attach themselves to the film Atlas Shrugged Part III, they are missing a strategic opportunity that won’t easily come again.
As for where I stand in the film, it is the character Ragnar Danneskjold. John Galt simply wants to cut off the parasites from their theft against the productive. Ragnar wants to take back what was stolen along the way.
In the upcoming television show Star Wars: Rebels one of the characters named Zeb is seen joyously dismantling squads of stormtroppers singlehandedly. This has provoked much online forum discussion about how easily the stormtroopers are defeated by a single person. For instance, after seeing the clip below one online commenter uttered the complaint, “If these stormtroopers are supposed to be the scourge of the galaxy and strike fear wherever they go by committing atrocities and striking down innocent people left and right, they sure ain’t getting that across here in this new Disney series. And to be honest, that might be the whole f**king problem right there—Disney.” Watch the clip in question for yourself.
One of the reasons that Star Wars as opposed to other kinds of entertainment hits such a nerve with people—and has for generations—is because it is essentially a realistic fantasy. It is true that one motivated rebel like Zeb could dismantle a whole squad of stormtroopers because it happens every day in real life. People like that complainer have been taught that there is strength in collectivism–in numbers. And while this may be true in physical force, often collective masses are cumbersome in their thinking and easy to exploit. This is certainly the case with the Empire in the Star Wars stories who have subjected themselves to the tyranny of an emperor.
A term that is used to discuss stormtroopers in Star Wars is “buckethead.” The big difference between the bucketheads from the period of the Clone Wars and these in Rebels is that as the Empire was built upon a premise of collectivism becoming larger and more robust, the individualism of the bucketheads became less developed. The key is that through individuality the traits of decision-making and strength are developed. If individuality is lacking then thought becomes less of a priority and a squad of bucketheads can find themselves defeated by a lone rebel.
Star Wars is a very anti-institutional storyline. Within that mythology, societies who are too collective fail and societies that prosper are often driven by very individualistic personalities. This period of the Rebels is just such an example. Strong individuals beat collectivists in the rock, paper, scissors game of life if pure mass can be avoided. A prime example of this is in the X-wing Miniatures game where the current reigning champion of strategy is to run 7 ship squads of TIE Fighters against 2 to 3 ship formations. For instance, I have been practicing a 6 ship squad against the Millennium Falcon and only one other ship—and if such a formation is taken on directly, the TIE Fighters will shoot six times to my two per each combat round, which is a great way to get killed. But, if I can get in behind that formation while they are forced to turn their entire formation around and get their guns pointed in the right direction again, I can disseminate them quite easily. Their TIE Fighter ships are unshielded and pretty weak one on one.
The same type of strategy can be applied to a board room with several executives sitting around a table. If taken as a group, they may appear daunting. But once you get in behind their defenses it will be discovered that they lack individual strength and can easily be picked off and out maneuvered by a single assailant. This ironically is exactly how the Obama administration has been behaving for years. As a collective ideological mass, they look overpowering—but if the efforts of Jen Psaki are measured individually, they look and act like girls trying to get a date to the prom in a high school cafeteria. No terrorist organization in the world is going to fear them once it is determined that individually they cannot take responsibility for anything—not even simple decisions like where to go for lunch. Meanwhile the ISIS army in Northern Iraq is driving around unorganized in beat-up cars posing as military vehicles striking terror to the high offices of the United Nations who scramble about like buffoons as to what to do next. The reason is that the collectivists are functioning from institutionalized behavior while the aggressors are driven by individual action—random—unpredictable conduct.
In Star Wars as the Empire rose to power, individual initiative was driven from the bucketheads. Even their pride to serve the Old Republic was driven by individual value—their fear of disgrace in not doing a job well. The bucketheads of the Rebels show is the result—beat down individuals who simply take orders and have lost the ability to think. So bucketheads are only dangerous if taken collectively. If they can be broken down and handled out of a collective formation—they can be easily defeated and this is the important lesson of the show and the overall Star Wars mythology. Collective institutionalization destroys value and without value bucketheads are easy to beat. Nations are easy to destroy if they are functioning from collectivism as opposed to individualism. The primary reason that the Second Amendment works in America is because it makes it difficult for an enemy to attack a nation of individuals as opposed to a collective mass such as the National Guard. If only a military had to be overcome, North Korea, China, or even Russia would have attacked a long time ago. But, it is impossible to overtake a society that is driven by individuality. While mass can defeat all in head to head combat, once a collective body is outflanked—they are vulnerable simply because they can’t out think their opponent.
So the concept of Zeb beating a whole squad of bucketheads by himself is quite realistic. The real threats in the upcoming series are not the stormtroppers but the people who give them their orders, individuals like the Inquisitor and ultimately Darth Vader. Most of the time the real fight to most battles occurs between two individuals, not collective masses—and the keys to victory are in identifying who are the motivating minds behind a collective mass. In a boardroom, once it is discovered who the mind is behind their institutional values—they can be beaten through direct exploitation of their poorly developed individuality. This is why Star Wars has more value for people than say, Star Trek or some other science fiction show—because it deals with a mysterious concept that is elusive to most people—why individualism beats collectivism when society has been taught the opposite. Star Wars is more than a fun show and entertainment venue—it is a philosophy that has value in individuals over collectivists—which is a primal concern as old as time itself.
For all those reasons, that is why Zeb rocks! And this new Star Wars: Rebels isn’t just for kids. It’s for everything that breaths and thinks. It is game changing in so many ways. Mark my words.
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.)
The Overmanwarrior 