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.
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.)
I first met Harmon Kaslow, one of the producers of the Atlas Shrugged films, in 2012 at the Duke Energy Center in Cincinnati, Ohio while we were both promoting the release of the second film, CLICK TO REVIEW. At the time he was under tremendous pressure—he had just completed the second film with John Aglialoro and was working hard to promote it against a tidal wave of dissent. Harmon is a Hollywood producer and his work on the Atlas films went against the general message of the entire entertainment industry—so it was a courageous move on his part to bring an independent film version of the novel Atlas Shrugged to the big screen when conventional career climbing wisdom said not to. The book came out in 1957 and was in development hell for over 40 years due to a number of influences. Ayn Rand’s biggest mistake to support her Objectivist philosophy which was the message behind the popular novel was in not allowing Albert S. Ruddy to make a film adaptions of Atlas Shrugged his way after the success of the Godfather films in 1972. Ruddy wanted to produce a version of the Atlas films with Clint Eastwood and Robert Redford playing the lead roles—but Rand wanted to maintain complete creative control the way she had on the movie version of her other novel, The Fountainhead many years earlier. The deal unfortunately fell through. Hollywood would have been a much different place if Rand and Ruddy had made Atlas Shrugged in the 1970s. Instead, it took another 40 years to get a movie version made after many attempts and it was Harmon Kaslow working with John Aglialoro who was able to pull off what nobody previously could. As recently as 1999 Aglialoro and Ruddy negotiated a deal with Turner Network Television for a four-hour miniseries, but that deal also fell through during an AOL merger with Time Warner. There were other attempts, but all failed until Kaslow and Aglialoro using the tools of the modern age to bypass the studio system were able actually get the job done. The third and final film is finally ready to be released to the public on September 12th 2014.
I am grateful for the films. For as long as I’ve been alive church leaders have sat me down and tried to tell me to assimilate more with the human world—to make more friends. School guidance councilors have done the same—spent many hours talking to me trying to convince me to drop my resistance to other people and make more friends. To this very day I can attend a crowded football game with 60,000 screaming fans—I can sit in a luxury box with 25 to 30 friends and power brokers—but I am always alone in the midst of the swarm. The advice given to me for all the years prior—which I have never listened to—was that I needed to compromise my values to maintain friendships with people who did not hold the same—because making friends and assimilating with the population at large was more important than personal integrity. But it’s not. That is some of the worst advice that anybody can receive and it is the primary reason that Atlas Shrugged had difficulty being made into a movie. How do you make a movie that is critical of how the masses of the population behave—intellectually?
To measure the typical Hollywood industry reaction to Ayn Rand and how threatened they are by her message the Futurama episode called, “I Second that Emotion” contains a library of books flushed down the drain into the sewers to be read by deformed mutants. Among those books one of the main characters sees Atlas Shrugged and dismisses the book saying “There is nothing but crumpled porn and Ayn Rand.” The popular video game Bioshock attacked the Objectivist premise of Atlas Shrugged for many of the same reasons showing how such a society could become dangerously suppressive. Always behind their revulsion of Atlas Shrugged is the fear that the message of Ayn Rand might seep into society and expose them for being second-handers who live exclusively off the efforts of others. So they attack Atlas Shrugged to protect their scheme against not only society at large—but themselves. The rock band Rush has had a fascination with Ayn Rand for years and was the back bone of their 2112 album when lyrist Neal Peart wrote the breakthrough song—“Anthem” dedicated to Ayn Rand which brought them unprecedented ridicule from British journalists. George Lucas essentially being in the know over the intentions of Albert S. Ruddy to make an Atlas Shrugged film molded his character of Han Solo in Star Wars as an answer to the individualism versus collectivism argument so prevalent in the 1970s. Back then Lucas wrote in his early screenplay draft, “May the force of others, be with you.” Han Solo was supposed to learn by the end of the film to think of others before he thought of himself. However by the time Harrison Ford applied his magic to the character, Han Solo became one of the most popular characters in the series and he stayed very Randian in subsequent movies. Case in point, Han Solo is about to be frozen and shipped off by the bounty hunter Boba Fett when Princess Leia says, “I love you.” Han Solo using a very profound pronoun replies simply, “I know.” Solo doesn’t care to reassure Leia that he too loves her, only that he knew all along. The premise of his declaration is that his knowledge is more important than her acknowledgment. They later get married have a daughter named Jaina who is the star of the new upcoming films. By the time Star Wars hit popular culture Lucas changed a bit in his perspective shortening the popular line to just, “May the force be with you.” These philosophic arguments are quite loud and many don’t even realize they are happening—but the battles rage on to this day and the stakes are quite high.
I have known this about people all of my life—well before I ever read Atlas Shrugged. The reason I’ve always been alone—even in crowds is due to my avoidance of letting second-handers too close to me. Most people live their lives as second-handers so Atlas Shrugged for them is dangerous—and insulting. They will not enjoy the movie Atlas Shrugged and this is why the movie was in development hell for such a long period of time. Movie producers and studio distributers by the nature of their jobs are second-handers themselves—the film business demands it of them—so they have problems with Atlas Shrugged. Politicians are also second-handers, most of them hate the book and the movie produced by Aglialoro and Kaslow. Movie critics are some of the biggest second-handers in existence—they are often film school drop-outs who couldn’t make their own movies so to be close to the industry, they write film reviews for newspapers and television shows. Atlas Shrugged challenges them in a way that frightens their values—and second-hander nature. When the third film hits theaters on September 12th 2014, they will pan the film not because the movie is bad—but because the story attacks their tendency to be second-handers and it makes them feel guilty.
The reason I have always been alone in crowds is that I do not allow myself to be looted from them socially, and literally. Government does steal my money as a second-hander entity through taxes—but as an individual I have a policy against second-handers and do not allow it. The new movie Atlas Shrugged III: Who is John Galt is a film made for people like me. There is a scene in the upcoming film where John Galt is offered the top job of Wesley Mouch which holds unlimited government power. John Galt laughs at the offer as his girlfriend Dagney Taggart is listening and instructs all those present that no such job should exist. Dagney is allowed to listen because the president Mr. Thompson thinks that she will learn a lesson when he breaks John Galt through temptation. Most people watching the movie and criticizing it after will not understand why John Galt laughs at the offer. Most people would take such a deal in less than a second. I do understand with great clarity. I have lived my whole life laughing at the same type of offers without always understanding clearly. I didn’t read any of Ayn Rand’s books until her books began to explode in popularity after the election of President Obama—in 2008. My enjoyment of those books was not because they changed my life. It was because reading those books and getting to know a bit about the people who made the recent movies—it was refreshing to see that there were others out there who thought the same way as I did—they resisted the waves of second-handers trying to impose a scheme against the productive hoping to remain concealed. Now three films later over the last five years, Kaslow and Aglialoro have done what seemed impossible—they made Atlas Shrugged into movies with the last coming out just ahead of the November elections.
So the answer to “Who Is John Galt” will be answered quite well in the new film. John Galt is a person who refuses to be consumed by second-handers, and when it is asked who talks and thinks like him by critics after they have seen the film and seek to hide their fear of the philosophy behind a bad review—I do. I have in many ways lived John Galt’s life with a remarkable parallel that made me think when I first read Atlas Shrugged that I was reading something written just for me. I have made similar decisions as John Galt for similar reasons at nearly the same time as that fictional character and in just the same kind of theatrical conditions.
My employers have always utilized my talents as an inventor of new ideas. I went so far to even begin processing some of those ideas as patents in my early 20s. When I learned that the industry was filled with second-handers and that virtually every connection to my endeavors was teeming with similar types, I withdrew. My wife and I live in our home like our own personal Galt’s Gulch. I took on several medial jobs—much the way that John Galt does in the new film for much the same reason but withdrew my talents from the second-handers so not to make them better at my expense. There have been a few times along the way such as the time of the present where I am paid on the front end to solve complicated problems. It takes more than money to conceive me of the worth—and if those values align, I agree to help, but generally, my wife and I live in a gulch of our own making—which is remarkably similar to the lifestyle shown in the new movie.
Due to a busy schedule I will not be able to attend the premier by invite which is occurring in Las Vegas just prior to the September 12th release date. But I am excessively happy to see that the film was made and is the best of the three films. For those who have seen the previous two either in theaters or on DVD later, then that should paint a picture of how good this new film should be for them. When it comes to the filmmakers and others I have gotten to know a bit from the literal Gulch that we all reside in, I don’t feel those same emotions where a crowd can be present, but that I am standing by myself—around them. The best part of the new movie is that it was made for people who are already like John Galt. It’s not a movie for everyone. Many will be curious enough to watch the film even if they don’t understand it. But for those who already know who John Galt is by looking in the mirror—they will have a rare treat that deserves thanks toward the producers for making such a wonderful film intended for those who are standing alone in the world on an island of creativity surrounded by the desperate needs of second-handers. It is rare that anything is ever made for people like that—because they always do the making. But thanks to John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt was made for them—and that is a real treat.
To find out where the movie is playing near you, click the link below, and learn where you can see the film on September 12th.
I have not yet seen the new film about Hercules by Dwayne Johnson but its release does bring up an interesting issue which needs to be addressed. Hercules was a failed hero—in spite of the world believing that he was the highest human beings had to offer. Hercules was a murderer and in the end sacrificed himself much the way Christ would many years later paving the way for a culture the world over obsessed with the notion of sacrifice as opposed to creation. The basic premise of Hercules if looked at beyond his extraordinary Paul Bunyan type of mythic folklore feats was that he was a troubled man easily manipulated by hidden spirits—in this case his jealous step mother Hera. Hercules killed and destroyed others and no matter how strong he was—his only way to divine settlement was through sacrifice. The constant resurrection of the Hercules myth as a superhero of human civilization is faulty and built on a terrible weakness imposed on history—the notion that sacrifice is the highest strength that even Hercules would eventually discover and that the moral to his story is that all who follow him may someday reach the same destination. The Hercules story is simply a prequel to Christ—both have a similar ending and the adventures leading up to that ultimate decision were extraordinary and laced with miracles. But it is the motive of Hercules to begin with which should bring great trepidation to all listeners of the old Greek tale of a half man-half god—created by a love affair through his father Zeus, the early prototype for Yahweh.
After killing his music tutor Linus with a lyre, Hercules was sent to tend cattle on a mountain by his foster father Amphitryon. Here, according to an allegorical parable, “The Choice of Heracles”, invented by the sophist Prodicus (c. 400 BCE) and reported in Xenophon‘s Memorabilia 2.1.21–34, he was visited by two nymphs—Pleasure and Virtue—who offered him a choice between a pleasant and easy life or a severe but glorious life: he chose the latter. This was part of a pattern of “ethicizing” Heracles over the 5th century BCE.[15]
Later in Thebes, Hercules married King Creon‘s daughter, Megara. In a fit of madness, induced by Hera—Zeus’ jealous wife, Heracles killed his children by Megara. After his madness had been cured with hellebore by Antikyreus, the founder of Antikyra,[16] he realized what he had done and fled to the Oracle of Delphi. The story at this point differs somewhat depending on various translations, in some stories Hercules also killed Megara bathing in the blood of his family. In others Heracles gave his wife, Megara, at the age of thirty three, to his nephew Iolaus, then only sixteen years old[4] – ostensibly because the sight of her reminded him of his murder of their three children. In either version, Hercules was a haunted man prone to murder and far from being a pillar of strength. Even with all his great strength, he failed to secure his family from the forces of the gods—which clearly promotes the ideal that no man can stand against the unseen forces of Mt Olympus.
Unbeknownst to him, the Oracle was guided by Hera. He was directed to serve King Eurystheus for ten years and perform any task Eurystheus required of him. Eurystheus decided to give Heracles ten labours, but after completing them, Heracles was cheated by Eurystheus when he added two more, resulting in the Twelve Labors of Heracles.
Hercules was the Roman name for the Greek divineheroHeracles. The Romans adapted the Greek hero’s iconography and myths for their literature and art under the name Hercules. In later Western art and literature and in popular culture, Hercules is more commonly used than Heracles as the name of the hero. Hercules was a multifaceted figure with contradictory characteristics, which enabled later artists and writers to pick and choose how to represent him.[1] This article provides an introduction to representations of Hercules in the later tradition.
Hercules is known for his many adventures, which took him to the far reaches of the Greco-Roman world. One cycle of these adventures became canonical as the “Twelve Labours,” but the list has variations. Driven mad by Hera, Heracles slew his own family. To expiate the crime, Heracles was required to carry out ten labors set by his archenemy, Eurystheus, who had become king in Heracles’ place. If he succeeded, he would be purified of his sin and, as myth says, he would be granted immortality. Heracles accomplished these tasks, but Eurystheus did not accept the cleansing of the Augean stables because Heracles was going to accept pay for the labor. Neither did he accept the killing of the Lernaean Hydra as Heracles’ nephew, Iolaus, had helped him burn the stumps of the heads. Eurysteus set two more tasks (fetching the Golden Apples of Hesperides and capturing Cerberus), which Heracles performed successfully, bringing the total number of tasks up to twelve.
One traditional order of the labours is found in the Bibliotheca as follows:[2]
This is described in Ovid‘s Metamorphoses Book IX. Having wrestled and defeated Achelous, god of the Acheloos river, Heracles takes Deianira as his wife. Travelling to Tiryns, a centaur, Nessus, offers to help Deianira across a fast flowing river while Heracles swims it. However, Nessus is true to the archetype of the mischievous centaur and tries to steal Deianira away while Heracles is still in the water. Angry, Heracles shoots him with his arrows dipped in the poisonous blood of the Lernaean Hydra. Thinking of revenge, Nessus gives Deianira his blood-soaked tunic before he dies, telling her it will “excite the love of her husband”.[54]
Several years later, rumor tells Deianira that she has a rival for the love of Heracles. Deianira, remembering Nessus’ words, gives Heracles the bloodstained shirt. Lichas, the herald, delivers the shirt to Heracles. However, it is still covered in the Hydra’s blood from Heracles’ arrows, and this poisons him, tearing his skin and exposing his bones. Before he dies, Heracles throws Lichas into the sea, thinking he was the one who poisoned him (according to several versions, Lichas turns to stone, becoming a rock standing in the sea, named for him). Heracles then uproots several trees and builds a funeral pyre, which Poeas, father of Philoctetes, lights. As his body burns, only his immortal side is left. Through Zeus’ apotheosis, Heracles rises to Olympus as he dies.
In addition to the life of Hercules he was not only a womanizing adulterer but a homosexual. Heracles had a number of male lovers. Plutarch, in his Eroticos, maintains that Heracles’ male lovers were beyond counting. Of these, the one most closely linked to Heracles is the ThebanIolaus. According to a myth thought to be of ancient origins, Iolaus was Heracles’ charioteer and squire. Heracles in the end helped Iolaus find a wife. Plutarch reports that down to his own time, male couples would go to Iolaus’s tomb in Thebes to swear an oath of loyalty to the hero and to each other.[20][21]
One of Heracles’ male lovers, and one represented in ancient as well as modern art, is Hylas. Though it is of more recent vintage (dated to the 3rd century) than that with Iolaus, it had themes of mentoring in the ways of a warrior and help finding a wife in the end. However it should be noted that there is nothing whatever in Apollonius’s account that suggests that Hylas was a sexual lover as opposed to a companion and servant.[22]
Another reputed male lover of Heracles is Elacatas, who was honored in Sparta with a sanctuary and yearly games, Elacatea. The myth of their love is an ancient one.[23]
Abdera‘s eponymous hero, Abderus, was another of Heracles’ lovers. He was said to have been entrusted with—and slain by—the carnivorous mares of Thracian Diomedes. Heracles founded the city of Abdera in Thrace in his memory, where he was honored with athletic games.[24]
Another story is the one of his love for Nireus, who was “the most beautiful man who came beneath Ilion” (Iliad, 673). But Ptolemy adds that certain authors made Nireus out to be a son of Heracles.[26]
Pausanias makes mention of Sostratus, a youth of Dyme, Achaea, as a lover of Heracles. Sostratus was said to have died young and to have been buried by Heracles outside the city. The tomb was still there in historical times, and the inhabitants of Dyme honored Sostratus as a hero.[27] The youth seems to have also been referred to as Polystratus.
There is also a series of lovers who are either later inventions or purely literary conceits. Among these are Admetus, who assisted in the hunt for the Calydonian Boar;[28]Adonis;[29]Corythus;[29] and Nestor, who was said to have been loved for his wisdom. His role as lover was perhaps to explain why he was the only son of Neleus to be spared by the hero.[30]
A scholiast on Argonautica lists the following male lovers of Heracles: “Hylas, Philoctetes, Diomus, Perithoas, and Phrix, after whom a city in Libya was named”.[31] Diomus is also mentioned by Stephanus of Byzantium as the eponym of the deme Diomeia of the Attic phyle Aegeis: Heracles is said to have fallen in love with Diomus when he was received as guest by Diomus’ father Collytus.[32] Perithoas and Phrix are otherwise unknown, and so is the version that suggests a sexual relationship between Heracles and Philoctetes.
Clearly the continued attempt to perpetuate the Hercules myth by contemporary society—frustrated by the pacifism of Christianity is to point them into the direction of the very flawed personality of Hercules. It should be no wonder then that men to this very day are confused as to how to act—as the heroes that history has pointed them to are men such as Hercules—men of strength who could create the rocks of Gibraltar, bed thousands of women and men, and still be considered a hero even though they killed their entire family.
The power of myth is far stronger than the rule of law—it is what people believe deep inside and what types of religions that they will seek to support that belief system which shapes society. Myth is what creates that belief system—it is the epistemology of philosophy. When Hercules is held as the highest form of man, then these are the parameters that mankind sets for themselves. If the Hercules story did not evolve into the Christ story which has then become the largest religion on planet earth and shaped the minds of most every human being that has ever breathed—then the faults of the story could be dismissed. But even after thousands of years, there is still a desire to resurrect such a flawed character as Hercules as the finest example of what a human being can be—which is pretty pathetic.
Hercules was nothing more than a sexually obsessed murderer easily manipulated by the forces of Mt Olympus—the spirit world—who ultimately killed himself to be free of its grip. And to this very day, human beings still believe wrongly that sacrifice is the way to heaven instead of higher virtues associated with production, enterprise, and genuine goodness.
When a guy in a bar on a business trip far from home is encountered by a woman also on a business trip far from home with a few drinks in her decide they want to play with each other sexually, the man might go through his list of heroes in his mind who helped shape his thoughts and think of Hercules. Even Disney has made a hero of the old Greek protagonist—so the modern references are there as most superheroes can point back to the old Greek myths for their origins. The man about to bed the woman might think of his wife back home and justify that Hercules did it, and so can he. After all, isn’t death awaiting all of us at some point—so all we must do is do some little appeasement to the gods and all will be forgiven—so why not bed the drunk woman in the bar?” And so the saga goes, and thus one more case of adultery, and the path to yet another destroyed family ensues where little kids lose hope that the men of their life can provide role models and that the state is all anyone can depend on. And those who run the state reside on Mt Olympus and live like gods and must be appeased with sacrifice. So long as those things happen, life is a free for all ending in death and resurrection—no matter how great the sins are. After all, Hercules killed his family and to atone for it he did many heroic deeds which serviced ultimately all of society and in the end sacrificed himself so that he could become a member of Olympus with the other gods and live happily ever after.
Our society needs new heroes to fill the void of mythic storytelling. Hercules was a loser, and not the type of character that should set the standard of behavior for our entire society. But as of now—he is—and Hollywood yet again is resurrecting him as a way to keep the old beliefs intact for a new generation. And what that generation will find if they follow Hercules is a pyre of wood at the end of their life and nothing else. Sacrificial redemption is the only value of such a society and the ultimate failure of the ancient past that is relevant to our modern times through art and myth. Hercules was a fallen hero who should be rejected, not honored, and points to the deep need that the human race has for better characters far more powerful than Hercules–and far more dependable.
The great fear that those who support the collegiate system of education most have is the revelation to their minds that all the money they spent and mental energy expended—that it was for nothing. Their fear—which is quite extensive and the root of much anxiety is the discovery by the world what they know themselves—that they were unable to purchase skill and prestige in society with a college degree—and that their path to success was paved with deception. There are many people who pursue degrees at colleges largely due to the marketing efforts of the last forty or so years by collegiate institutions and governments that education could be purchased by attendance—and on the back side of such endeavors good jobs and social respect awaited them. But that has not been the case. People who succeed in college do so because they tend to succeed in everything they do, and would in most cases succeed whether or not they ever attended a collegiate school at all. As for the rest—the masses—those most ardent supporters of higher education—and education in general—college has proven to be a scam that has not been able to buy respect from society in general just with the presence of a framed piece of paper.
College cannot make a poor mind into a good one. It cannot make a lazy person into a successful bastion of productivity. College cannot make the stupid into the smart—and this is in violation of the promise that has been made to those who have attended. The great crises of our day is when a highly educated bastion of collegiate endeavor sits down across the table with a person who is a truly hard worker, and has gained all their knowledge in life by doing, and applying skills directly to a task—that the collegiate supporter is out-witted in nearly every instance. The reason is that skill, and aptitude cannot be cheated with the purchase of an institutional endorsement. Experience cannot be bought with a yearly tuition and a life of ease not obtained by simply graduating college. This is what has been sold to America—and it was a lie.
It was a grand plan concocted by the same types of people who thought that communism was a good ideal in the 1930s, and to this day believe that global warming is caused by man, that equality in every human being is the highest form of endeavor, and that stylish diversity in hiring practices constitute quality. While those are noble features of an advanced civilization, the lack of understanding of what makes some people better than others and what truly drives innovation, productivity and ultimately national GDP the failures are self-evident. Rooted in the college system is the old socialism of lower case “communism” where all people are equal if given equal access to education. Like the atrocious experiment with public education called “Common Core” colleges have found that they must penalize the good so to prop up their bad and sell the whole package to the public through their sports programs to divert inquiring eyes away from the failures and ultimate castigation that will ensue once fault has nowhere else to go but to the perpetrator. That castigation is upon us due to the continued failure of the college system in America to do as it promised—but has instead delivered massive debt to families who spent money on the system and students heavily liberalized into a progressive mentally who are more dependent on government instead of less. The success that college graduates are finding is not the promise of a life of ease in the private sector unless they can secure a government job—because in private enterprise where nearly all innovation and productivity occurs—it is experience that counts most.
There is behind the collegiate system an old superstition that comes from the dawn of civilization—that kings were descendents of gods and that bloodlines deserved to be persevered. Those who believe in modern college are most apt to be concerned over a company’s organizational chart so that they can see on a map of progression who is above them and who is below them. Particularly in males is the concern over what males are superior to them and which are inferior. Males are and have always been most concerned about their place in the peeking order of other males—and for the collegiate supporter is the fantasy that they can gain superiority over others by obtaining a magic fleece called a college degree, which gives them some advantage. So long as the world functions from that old falsehood of bloodlines, and that social ordainment can be obtained through organizational charts—then the illusion of merit can be sustained. The crisis comes when they come face to face with a man or woman forged from the pressures of endeavor and has succeeded legitimately. When paired off with such a person—the collegiate supporter is unarmed and easily destroyed in every category—and this is the real terror of their present condition.
Not all things learned in college are a waste of time. Often students enter the work force knowing how to give PowerPoint presentations and to conduct conference calls. They learn how to interact professionally with the outside world—but they do not learn to think with a mind toward quality. They think with a mind toward deception—which they learned through their institutional instruction. They don’t learn to solve problems, but how to mask them with dialogue that would make Saul Alinsky proud. The are so good at it they deceive themselves and continue to until they come face to face with someone who does not play by their rules and can easily sidestep their authority.
The best path to success is not to think that it can be purchased, but to live every day honestly and with a curiosity toward solving problems. Experience has been and will always be the sure ticket to a good life—and the more experience one obtains, the greater their success in life. If a person wants success, they should not let organization charts stop them from learning, or doing the correct things in life. Success will not be obtained allowing some scholastic peasant stuck in the old European ways to bottleneck innovation so to protect their status in the peeking order of corporate politics. The most terrifying thing in the world for such people is for a person they believe is beneath them to shut their office door and instruct them on how little they really know about the world around them and to destroy their perception of peaking order reality. Large displays of embarrassment are not needed—only the knowledge that there are people functioning that are beyond the reach of a chart of hierarchy which was supposed to protect them from the knowledge that they aren’t all that smart and that their purchased status did not magically make them into quality people—but buffoons on parade using excuses as masks for their incompetency.
College is not a ticket to success—but only a stepping stone. For those able, it is best to leap over the stepping-stones all together and proceed through life with bold action that leads to the most experience. But for those not so strong, and not so able, college can help obtain experience—but success cannot be purchased. Anyone who has said such things is lying and is either a proponent of communist beliefs, or a victim of them. The frame-work for our modern tendency toward collegiate autocracy is rooted in a time in American society where communism was entering a capitalist culture with a promise that anybody who paid the money could enter the gates of the able and productive. But that is not, and never has been the case. Still, the only way to real success is through experience and hard work. To truly obtain such things, they cannot be cheated. They simply must be acquired with adventure and curiosity followed by a strong desire to persevere.
I’m not surprised and neither should you dear reader. For around a decade now I’ve been warning about the world we’re living in. People have avoided direct knowledge of this crisis by removing the evidence—which has resulted in many firings from jobs, editorial censorship, and social castigation. They have also sought to inebriate themselves with intoxicants, or hide behind those mind altering substances with social orthodox. But they cannot hide from the terrible reality that under their watch—they have destroyed the world and the United States for the next generation out of their sheer stupidity, arrogance, and pretension. The impact of this debacle was covered on a recent O’Reilly Factor Talking Points Memo which released the most recent poll numbers from Americans who normally lean left. The situation is not good at all, and the people who have avoided knowing about the severity of this problem are to blame. You get the world you deserve—due to the contents of what you put into your minds. This is what you get.
In a lot of ways I’ve already moved on beyond this crisis. I know longer feel a need to report daily on the kind of issues warning like Paul Revere what threats are on the horizon. The threats are now here and people either used the knowledge or they are suffering as a result. But there is no debate as to the validity of my warnings—or those others out there who have spent considerable time trying to save fools from the plight of their own stupidity.
Sadly most of my articles most read on a daily basis are those I wrote years ago—as people are just now arriving at the conclusion that they need to learn more about those particular issues. While it is nice to see that they are interested, they are about 3 to 4 years too late now to avert the impact. It’s too late. It is as if a light suddenly came on and the masses turned off E Television, or the afternoon tabloids and realized that they screwed everything up and want to suddenly fix it—but can’t. It takes a long time to arrive at this point, and it requires so much apathy—and it’s simply too late. It will take generations to repair the damage now—the inevitable debacle of mismanagement is unavoidable.
My daily emphasis naturally will change from warnings to repair. There is no longer time to save who we can—it is now time to write off those who have failed, or will fail and concentrate on those who can fix things. So my tone and content will naturally change. I have to help those who can be helped. Just like I spent the last dozen years writing about how to avoid this current America, I will now put the needs of the world a dozen years out from now so that those people will have the tools to solve the riddles presented then. But there is no time for regret at the sense of loss in seeing the first generation of America leave the world less than it found it drifting out to sea lost to time and sympathy. They did it to themselves with sheer apathy and neglect.
On Adult Swim recently I watched the premier of Black Jesus—a comedy show about a modern Black Jesus who smokes pot and tries to save members of the “hood” with compassion. It was a ridiculously stupid show and was terrifying ignorant. But—it represents modern culture and there is no way the people those actors are portraying which have real life counterparts in urban areas—are equipped intellectually to deal with modern problems. After Black Jesus sat with a group of guys smoking dope I turned the show off and found on VH1 a show where a couple were swimming together naked, then showered next to the pool. It was a dating show, and the ritual of romance had been cheapened to such an extent that their public nudity wasn’t a big deal in the least. There was nothing taboo in the presentation—and that’s the problem. There is no way the couple presented will ever be equipped to solve any problems in their lives let alone their country. They represent a generation lost to sheer animal action between promiscuity and bodily pleasure. There is nothing intellectual about their life—so they have no capacity to solve intellectual problems—only physical ones. Out of 60+ channels on television at 11:00 PM there was really nothing on and society is feeding off that content. The by-product is the collapse of politics, philosophy, art, entertainment, economic power, and every endeavor of productive enterprise. Welcome to the wasteland of T.S. Eliot—a creation directly brought to America by Europe.
I warned you people………………….
People thought they could neglect the topics of the day and not pay attention to what was being written in the newspapers. They thought they could have government employees teach their children without impact, and adhere to ideals that are corrupt to logic. But they couldn’t. And now there is Hell to pay, and we have only seen the first payment. It will get much, much worse from here. The old school ways still function in the world to a small extent. In a few years, there will be no common sense left. Our society the world over will be filled with the kind of people who think that Black Jesus is a funny show, and have filled their minds with tripe from VH1 reality television shows—and lived nearly exclusively existences in social media.
My focus will change to the next decade, to the people who are not yet lost—to their hopes and ambition. Everyone else had their time and chance, and they blew it.
I remember well when a bunch of us as young men—Gery Deer, Chris Camp, and of course myself were watching the work of Mark Allen and Alex Green out in Las Vegas and trying to improve on the western arts that they were putting on for America. And we became faster, more accurate and more exciting as a result. Gery Deer and Chris Camp have in fact really elevated the western arts act to new levels throughout the last two decades and I have done some work in Hollywood and literature that we all hoped would ignite the next generation. And while we are far from done, the seeds of all that hard work are finally paying off. Last year I spoke about the “Rise of Adam Winrich” who came out of the Ohio WWAC class of 2005, CLICK HERE TO REVIEW, and even as the national WWAC (Wild West Arts Club) ran by Mark Allen which I was a member of for many years finally died out in the late 2000s,it looks like the legacy is living on in the young man named Loop Rawlins. Loop is just a few years older than my oldest son-in-law and is of around the same age as Adam—and like those vigorous, hungry youth who want to surpass the efforts of their elders—in this case—us, Loop has taken the various western arts, gun spinning, whip work, and particularly the lasso and really moved them to a new level as a recent member of America’s Got Talent during the month of July 2014.
Loop did a fabulous job on America’s Got Talent and even though he is very good with bullwhips, he chose to do an act with the lasso. His musical selection was wonderful and his on stage presence was energetic proving that there is quite a dramatic hunger for this art form that is uniquely American. Gery has appeared on that show and so has Chris, but Loop has taken the energy to a new level. Loop had in fact met at an early age many of the same people I call friends, he was at the 2002 Wild West Arts Convention conducted by Mark Allen and it is there that he won five international awards as a young burgeoning talent. He has since worked for Cirque Du Soleil and shot some commercials for McDonald’s, MTV and an award-winning Western film.
For people who still look at western arts performers and wonder why they do it, there is a purity to them that simply isn’t found anywhere else in any other professional venue. Loop represents the best of what America has to offer the world and it is for people like him that programs like America’s Got Talent are designed. It should be noticed that many of the young men performing regularly in Wild West Arts today have beautiful young women on their arms—particularly Adam and Loop. They are today’s “rock stars.” When I was their age, heavy metal band members attracted the type of women that are now flocking to see Adam and Loop perform. But what’s different about these young Wild West Performers is that they are straight-laced and dedicated. With the same energy they put into the thousands of hours of practice it takes to become good at these art forms, they are able to maintain long-standing relationships with attractive women.
For women with limited options these days, where 9 ½ out of 10 men in the world from the ages 16 to 60 are just absolute douches—low ambition slugs who struggle to wake up every morning with a positive thought—they know that people like Loop Rawlins is a wonderful catch. Even with all his success so far, it is hard to make a living with the Western Arts—it is hard to do what you love to do, because there aren’t many people willing to pay for it. The reason is that there just aren’t very many people in show business who know how to write about the Western Arts in an exciting way that modern audiences find attractive. In many ways, I have dedicated my efforts at resolving that end of the business—by writing content that producers might want to hire people like Loop and Adam for. My friend Gery Deer was brought in as a whip consultant for the movie The Rundown. His whip holstering system worked great, and we still use them to this day primarily because of his experience working on films like that. But the amount of motion pictures produced that calls for those skills is just dismal. Television is even worse—ironically. As I’ve reported, this is largely due to the perseverance of progressive politics which has entered show business. One of the founders of the Wild West Arts Club, Alex Green appeared in thousands of television shows and movies because in his day, Hollywood produced them and needed a Western Arts performer. These days, Anthony DeLongis is the only whip coach in Hollywood—primarily—because there just isn’t enough production going on to justify more. But in spite of the cool reception among popular culture, the new rebellion for attractive young women hoping to land a real man who thinks, loves, and lives life with traditional passion—Western Arts performers are their ticket to a good husband—feminism has left most women with few options that their biological clocks can be set by—and for them, they know Loop is the catch of a century.
When my own son-in-law was young and was attending the Ohio WWAC conventions, he had the ambition to do all the things that Loop is doing now. He wanted to learn roping, knife throwing, gun spinning, but he managed to get pretty good with a bullwhip. He even managed to win for several years the bullwhip fast draw. But he had to make a living and it is hard to get really good at what you love and still make a living that doesn’t involve that passion. I’ve managed in unique ways. I wear my whip holster with me everywhere I go, the one that Gery made for me after his experiences at The Rundown set—to remind me of what’s important. Everyone who deals with me knows about my real passion and it’s not unusual for me to pull my whips out in a parking lot of an expensive restaurant dressed in a suit and tie and crack targets out of the mouth of the curious. Like Loop, I have a family and the choices I made during my child raising years was to not take the hard life of a performer and enter business so I could make the kind of money needed to care for them. Recently I was with Chris Camp as he was unloading his “show” from the back of his van. Chris Camp is one of the best Western Acts around—he is the current high mark—but even after all his years and passion, he works hard to make ends meet. It’s not easy to say the least and he has traveled all over the world to do shows—much the way Loop is currently. Chris’s van likely has over 200,000 miles on it and it’s hardly new. But he approaches every show with enthusiasm and love no matter if the audience is several thousand to just twenty-five. When Loop said at the beginning of his America’s Got Talent presentation that he wanted to make a living for his family doing what he loved, it hit even Howard Stern hard—because like anybody who has been around knows—that is the real trick. The real dream we all have in life is to do what we love—not just work to make money. It is best to have those values aligned.
So it was nice to see Loop pushing the limits of those set before him and taking Western Arts to new levels. I wish America was filled with millions of young men just like Loop, and if I have it my way, they will be. The best thing that could happen in America is that the ratio of good men might evolve from 9 ½ out of 10 bad ones to something like 6 out of 10. Women who want good husbands deserve that opportunity if they want it, and right now—even those that want it can’t have one–because they don’t exist. But Loop is one of the good ones and it is good to see that he is pushing to break through barriers which are quite thick, and that he is determined, hopeful, and resolute to keep trying, to keep practicing, and to find that secret treasure in life defined by aligning what we do as a living with our passions. Loop’s energy at America’s Got Talent is derived from that hope and the promise that people might see the need for his art in the quest we all share toward creating a productive society built by values rooted in American culture.
Because of his work over the Veterans Affairs scandal and trying to rectify the errors of management directly on the doorstep of Washington politics, Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont has been receiving a lot of press—even being featured on the O’Reilly Factor. Noticeably he is listed as one of the rare “Independents” in the Senate as he doesn’t recognize himself as neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Many who do not know the real story might think that Sanders is an Independent in the way that a Tea Party candidate might be—but they would be woefully mistaken. Instead, Sanders is the exact opposite, he is so radically to the left that he doesn’t even call himself a Democrat, or a Progressive to hide his real intentions. Instead, he is a devoted Socialist, but lists his party affiliation as an “I” instead of an “S.” His interest in the VA issue is one to defend the role that government can play in managing social needs—to protect the brand of socialism he supports most, Scandinavian socialism—which unknown to most of America—is all the rage in the Beltway of Washington.
Scandinavian socialism is a mix of high taxes to support cradle to grave welfare mixed with lower regulations against business to churn growth. These types of socialists have learned that to generate tax money for government to loot off of, they must have businesses that can generate things to tax. So they lowered barriers for businesses to start so that they could tax them to support their welfare state. Their primary focus is to eliminate the gap between the “rich and the poor” so to provide an equalitarian society under the managed care of government. But what Sanders and his fellow socialists in the Democratic Party and Progressive caucuses refuse to learn is that the success of such societies are far from being equalitarian, but have more to do with their Viking past and low immigrant population—which will be explored at the end of this article. But first let us learn more about Bernie Sanders and the tremendous push from the progressive invasion that is intent on insurgency in the United States starting in such bastions of liberalism like Vermont, Massachusetts, and New York. The following information is from none other than the New York Times in 2007. After the election of Sanders they were very happy and produced a very long and glowing story on Sanders as they felt their kind of candidate had just been elected into the Senate—an open and honest Socialist who refused to run from the designation—unlike Chuck Schumer and at the time Barney Frank.
Sanders has always been an easier fit in Vermont than in Washington. Being a Socialist in the seat of two-party orthodoxy will do that. While he has generally championed liberal Democratic positions over the years — and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee endorsed his Senate campaign — Sanders has strenuously resisted calling himself a Democrat. And he has clung to a mantle — socialism — that brings considerable stigma, in large part for its association with authoritarian communist regimes (which Sanders is quick to disavow).
But he does little to airbrush the red “S” from his political profile. On the wall of his Congressional office hangs a portrait of Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist Party presidential candidate of the early 20th century. A poster in a conference room marks Burlington’s sister-city relationship with Puerto Cabeza, Nicaragua — one of a few such alliances he forged with cities in Marxist states during his 10-year stint as mayor of Vermont’s biggest city in the 1980s.
Socialism brings Sanders instant novelty in Washington and, in many circles, instant dismissal as a freak. But Sanders’s outcast status in Washington probably owes as much to his jackhammer style as to any stubborn ideology. It is a town filled with student body president types — and Sanders, for his part, finished a distant third when he ran to be president of his class at James Madison High School in Brooklyn.
“I’m not afraid of being called a troublemaker,” Sanders says, something he’s been called many times, in many different ways, many of them unprintable. “But you have to be smart. And being smart means not creating needless enemies for yourself.”
In this regard, Sanders has not always been smart, especially when he was first elected to the House in 1990. He called Congress “impotent” and dismissed the two major parties as indistinguishable tools of the wealthy. He said it wouldn’t bother him if 80 percent of his colleagues lost re-election — not the best way to win friends in a new workplace.
“Bernie alienates his natural allies,” Representative Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, said at the time. “His holier-than-thou attitude — saying in a very loud voice he is smarter than everyone else and purer than everyone else — really undercuts his effectiveness.” The late Joe Moakley, another Massachusetts Democrat, waxed almost poetic in his derision for Sanders. “He is out there wailing on his own,” Moakley said. “He screams and hollers, but he is all alone.”
Frank says he came to like and work well with Sanders, with whom he served on the House Financial Services Committee. His early objections were over Sanders’s railing against both parties as if they were the same. “I think when he first got here, Bernie underestimated the degree that Republicans had moved to the right,” Frank told me. “I get sick of people saying ‘a curse on both your houses.’ When you point out to them that you agree with them on most things, they’ll say, ‘Yeah, well, I hold my friends up to a higher standard.’ Well, O.K., but remember that we’re your friends.”
Among his House colleagues, “Bernie’s not a bad guy,” is something I heard a lot of. “You appreciate Bernie the more you see him in action,” says Senator Chuck Schumer, the head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, who served with him for several years in the House. A fellow Brooklynite who is nine years younger, Schumer attended the same elementary school as Sanders (P.S. 197) and the same high school (James Madison, which also graduated a third United States senator, Norm Coleman, Republican of Minnesota). “Bernie does tend to grow on people, whether it’s in the House or in Vermont,” Schumer says.
But again: Could Sanders be elected to the Senate anywhere else?
No, not as a Socialist, Schumer says. “Even in New York State it would be hard.”
Massachusetts? “Maybe this year he could,” Frank says, meaning 2006. “But if he were running in any other state, he probably would have to comb his hair.”
Leahy says that just any Socialist probably couldn’t get elected in Vermont, either. But Sanders has made himself known in a state small enough — physically and in terms of population — for someone, particularly a tireless someone, to insinuate himself into neighborly dialogues and build a following that skirts ideological pigeonholes. Indeed, there are no shortages of war veterans or struggling farmers in Vermont who would seemingly have no use for a humorless aging hippie peacenik Socialist from Brooklyn, except that Sanders has dealt with many of them personally, and it’s a good bet his office has helped them procure some government benefit.
“People have gotten to know him as Bernie,” Leahy says. “Not as the Socialist.”
Sanders calls himself as a “democratic Socialist.” When I asked him what this meant, as a practical matter, in capitalist America circa 2007, he did what he often does: he donned his rhetorical Viking’s helmet and waxed lovingly about the Socialist governments of Scandinavia. He mentioned that Scandinavian countries have nearly wiped out poverty in children — as opposed to the United States, where 18 to 20 percent of kids live in poverty. The Finnish government provides free day care to all children; Norwegian workers get 42 weeks of maternity leave at full pay.
But would Americans ever accept the kinds of taxes that finance the Scandinavian welfare state? And would Sanders himself trade in the United States government for the Finnish one? He is curiously, frustratingly non-responsive to questions like this. “I think there is a great deal we can learn from Scandinavia,” he said after a long pause. And then he returns to railing about economic justice and the rising gap between rich and poor, things he speaks of with a sense of outrage that always seems freshly summoned.
Economic inequality is caused because some people don’t wish to do things productively that others do. The ratio of those who have versus those who have not is not manageable by comparing their social or economic output which is typical of socialism. The value of initiative is always ignored—but it is because of initiative that some have wealth and others don’t in a capitalist society. Some show up to invent, create, and do productive work while others wait for the products of that enterprise to enhance their lives. But in their quest for equality—they hope to be labeled with sameness with the productive through socialism.
In Scandinavian socialism the big secret of their success is that they are a series of small countries that have not had massive quantities of immigration—due to their regional location largely. They also benefit from their heritage of a hardy people who descended from the enterprising—and war like Vikings. Scandinavians are not lazy, but are used to tribal rule, which is why their collective socialism works somewhat for them. They aren’t producing massive new inventions carrying mankind into space, or developing new medical breakthroughs, but they are producing enough economic activity to support their welfare culture—to some extent that can be viewed as not catastrophic. They get this from their heritage as Vikings who served kings and other nobles in spite of their independence—and they did it willingly. Their culture has not changed demographically a great deal because of their lack of an immigrant population. To a large degree, the people of Scandinavia are the same hard-working Vikings they were in the past. For more proof of this the following captions from Frontpage Magazine will further illustrate the point:
Because the US, Canada, UK, France and Germany are large countries, the absolute numbers of their immigrants are also very high, not just in percentages.
So is poverty low in Scandinavian countries because their “socialism” works, or because they have relatively few poor immigrants entering? And if poverty is low because Scandinavian “socialism” works, should it not be working for migrants in those countries as well?
Separate poverty data for the migrant populations in Scandinavian countries are available and there are numerous indications that these are quite high. According to one study, “While first and second generation immigrants constituted 44% of the poor children in 1997, they were 65% of all poor children in Sweden in 2008. Only 5% of native Swedish children live in poverty. For immigrant children with both parents born outside of the Sweden, the child poverty rate is 39%.” Poverty rates have also been shown to be high for immigrants in Denmark. According to a recent study of poverty rates among immigrants in all Scandinavian countries, “While native children face yearly poverty risks of less than 10 percent in all three countries and for all years investigated the increasing proportion of immigrant children with an origin in middle and low-income countries have poverty risks that varies from 38 and up to as much as 58 percent.”
So Scandinavian “socialism” is doing a remarkably poor job in eliminating poverty among non-Scandinavians living in those Scandinavian utopias.
The conclusion can only be one thing. The low poverty rate among Scandinavians in Scandinavian countries is thanks to the fact that Scandinavians work. It is NOT because socialism works!
For a guy who has a portrait of the extreme socialist Eugene V. Debs and maintained a relationship with Puerto Cabeza, Nicaragua during his stint as a mayor, the intentions of Bernie Sanders political affiliation is evident. The difference between him and Chuck Schumer or those like him in the Democratic Party is that Sanders is honest about his intentions while the others feel they must deceive and change the names of things to avoid the backlash of an American society built by capitalism. Sanders and the Democrats who work with him through progressive caucuses desire socialism—specifically Scandinavian socialism—and they know what they are doing.
In America, the people are not like Scandinavia—the people who have settled North America are uniquely from every corner of the world. Their heritage is not built by a Viking past but by pasts that caused them to flee wherever they came from in favor of the opportunity to work and produce without government intrusion. The secret behind the open boarder policy that many Democrats support is they hope to create a more equalitarian world by bringing immigrants in from Marxist countries, like Nicaragua and Honduras—and integrating them into American society to water down the immigrants who have come to North America with a hard-driving work ethic. Democrats achieve two things with this method, they destroy the work ethic that is making most immigrants desirable hires for a society built by capitalism, but they also bring with them the conditioned socialism which has impoverished their native lands. Slowly over time, these new immigrants from socialist sources will change America from a capitalist country into a socialist one paving the way for people like Bernie Sanders to initiate his version of Scandinavian socialism.
Not even Fox News will put the “S” next to Bernie’s name and call him what he really is, or talk about what he truly stands for. They allow the charade of politics to continue because as part of the New York culture, they see this push for Scandinavian socialism coming from virtually every politician, from Mitt Romney to Chuck Schumer—so they ignore the stereotypes against socialism that persists all across the flyover states. Bernie hopes to repair the relationship that the government has with the VA so that other government programs will not receive scandalous appraisal in the future as the Democratic immigration assault performs their strategic effect. But now, for those who didn’t know it, you know dear reader what Bernie Sanders really is. He’s not an “Independent.” He’s a socialist, and the media does not put an “S” next to his name because they hope to deceive viewers from the real intentions of the Democratic Party. Since Bernie is so unapologetically “socialist” the media helps him by changing the “S” to an “I” so not to scare voters. And the deception is so great that it was even perpetrated on the O’Reilly Factor—which shows just how deep socialism has already penetrated American culture for a destination of full-fledged Marxism which is supported so fervently by the New York Times and every other political figure in entertainment or public office that calls themselves “progressives.” The crime in this case is that a willing deception has taken place and virtually everyone is playing along—even Bill O’Reilly.
