Is the past month what the end of Atlas Shrugged looks like?
With all of the Black Lives Matter protests, the shooting of both citizens and police, the negative reaction of the stock market to the British taking back their own sovereignty, the unwillingness of the FBI to prosecute an obvious case of national security protocol violations, and the worldwide terrorism spree, I am asking you to find parallels in Atlas Shrugged or in other Rand novels as to where we are at? Are we still near the beginning? Or is it getting close to the end?
Being a member of this forum means that I must not be in denial of reality. However, reality lately is getting a little hard to swallow. My 18-year-old younger daughter shares my worldview. She said that the news is getting a little too depressing, so we are watching Shrek 2 for a little bit of comedic escapism. As I recall from AS, didn't theatregoing become popular as an escape from reality?
Being a member of this forum means that I must not be in denial of reality. However, reality lately is getting a little hard to swallow. My 18-year-old younger daughter shares my worldview. She said that the news is getting a little too depressing, so we are watching Shrek 2 for a little bit of comedic escapism. As I recall from AS, didn't theatregoing become popular as an escape from reality?
In this case, we are cashing in on almost 8 years of the most divisive president since Lincoln.
We are cashing in on the influx of anti-American refugees.
We are cashing in on the conversion of fatherless black men and boys being converted to Islam. who were looking for a purpose in life and someone to blame.
We are cashing in for people who should know better hiding their heads in the sand.
We are cashing in for 100 years of liberal education.
The wonder would be if nothing happened.
It's pretty early in the timeline of AS.
I don't think we've approached the point of mass shortages, "frozen" transportation, people walking off jobs and into the night for who knows where, and a complete collapse of the infrastructure, e.g., as at the very end where New York City goes dark, and the implied beginning of the total breakdown of civil society is beginning. As Rand said, the novel is not prophetic, and actually meant to keep itself from being prophetic. Whether we get to an actual Atlas-like ending or just a massive worldwide depression that we somehow recover from, and with better principles...I don't think anyone knows right now.
And if you add in the wild card of mystic, terrorist extremists who care nothing of this Earth, and have nukes, to whom "mutually assured destruction" may mean nothing or actually be a good thing, it may be a quick, unAtlas-like ending...
And if the world avoids total destruction, but degrades into an Anthem-like society of a new Dark Ages, we can rest assured that millions of both printed and digital versions of Atlas and her other works will survive, somewhere, waiting to be discovered by some future John Galt. And to bring our progeny a new Renaissance.
I still hope the new Renaissance occurs and prevents the new Dark Ages. I don't I'll live to see which way it goes, but at least I'll die knowing which way it can, and should.
And regardless of your reading of history, and your implied solution of "turning the desert into glass", it just doesn't work. And wouldn't even be needed if Western leaders had even the faintest reflection of principle that those who opposed The Axis in WWII had. And still the only Constitutionalist among those was Churchill. But he was enough.
It would never have gotten to the point where those in the extreme Muslim minority are so close to weapons of mass destruction. And willing to turn the whole world into glass.
Anyone who does not realize that nukes are a complete game-changer in ALL of history, and make all the old adages of history irrelevant, is not looking at reality. Within the lifetime of my grandfathers, the machine gun and tank would lead to "the War to End All Wars". And how did that hypothesis work out? It didn't, and led to another World War that only ended when the US, properly, used two nukes on Japan.
Everything since then has been either proxy cold war (Vietnam) "wars" or repeated, brutal mini-wars which are only contained because neither side has nukes, or the rational side does and won't use them.
But thanks to the cowardice of the Western powers, having abandoned all semblance of "Western" principles, my "nightmare scenario" is based on not just ISIS, but Europe continuing to altruistically collapse to Eastern mystics based on the sickeningly puny of excuses: "Political Correctness". If and when, they get the democratic majority, as they have in London, they'll be handed control of nukes in countries like France.
I really have no idea if it will actually reach the point where fanatics can end the world, nobody does, but my reading of reality and history as of today is that The West is practically handing them the power to do it...
War is a breakdown in civilization, but crushing a dangerous aggressor is not uncivilized or a "thin veneer" of civilization. It is deliberate action on behalf of civilization.
In 1201, during the Battle of the 13 Sides one of the opposing archers shot an arrow through Genghis Khan's neck. After the battle Khan asked the defeated army who'd shot his horse through the neck. The archer came forward and said "I didn't shoot your horse. I shot you." Khan not only let him live, he made him one of his generals. Jebe went on to win major victories at the Battle of the Kalka River and, at Kiev and Rus.
I'd say this is one thing that separates Muslims from everyone else - the unwillingness to learn from and adapt to the outside world.
That said, a real currency collapse, or laws line 10-289 could speed that up quite a bit. We are living in a country with a lot of savings held in the financial system that could disappear overnight. That could mean that older and retired people would be instantly impoverished and really affect the economy.
I think with the deficits, entitlement programs, and entitled citizens, a currency collapse is our #1 danger. This could occur very quickly because of unforeseen things happening here or in foreign countries.
If nothing gets worse until election, if we elect more of the same, it will surely get worse after election. More division between income, sex, religion, and race. ( I list race last because poor white people have had it too. Race is just a special card the progressives play. If we don't like a policy, we must be racist.)
On the other hand, if we elect a law and order administration; say Gulliani for AG, Sheriff Clark for HSA Chief, Bolton as Sec of State, etc. it will get worse as well. Because of the current lawlessness there would be a time of major street sweeping, head banging (not music) and prison building to clean this up. For example; marijuana is still illegal under federal law. How many states are breaking federal law? Another? Sanctuary cities. How many cities are in violation of federal law protecting illegals? I could name several issue of this type.
It seems to me what our government has created is two Americas. One that is law abiding and plays by the rules and another that does what they wish and avoid the penalties by living under the radar. 2-3 false identities, all cash living, pay rent with money orders, no banking affiliations. Live in cities where prosecution is unlikely. As Dick Cheney once said talking about foreign affairs, "We are going to have a hell of mess to clean up after this administration leaves." The same is true for domestic affairs.
The day after analysis isn't included in the novel. In the process of the turmoil one would hope a few producers would see opportunities and fill the gap between anarchy and government.
But that is the whole point: if you try to obey the rules than the rules will be changed mid-stream without warning.
The rules will continue to be changed until you must break them in order to survive. Then you will be told that you have "broken the rules" and must help gather up others or pay the consequences of "breaking the rules".
Hitler and Stalin used this to great effect.
Anytime someone tells me "...for the greater good..." I check my wallet and walk away.
Just my .02 cents.
Why would any sane person decide to follow the rules dictated by that group of looters, thieves, and slave masters?
As for Ayn's foresight, the fact that AS was so lengthy is a testament to her ability to see "how bad it could get, or how very evil those against individual rights and liberty can be." Things were definitely worse in the Soviet Union then they are here now.
I have always tried to control my own reality, and have done a good job of it. There are, and have always been, some things beyond my control. However, now, there are more things beyond my control that are starting to become menacing and closer than I am comfortable with.
As too the question...I don't think we're at the end yet...parts of the end show up in one country or another but not the whole of it yet...I think it's sad to say...the worst is yet to come...but I do hope that our own awareness of it will shrug it off a bit till we figure out whom is our last hope OB1.
Fast forward to the Great Depression, it was the Movies, now it is the internet, TV and movies.Of course I'm generalizing and skipping an enormous blocks of time, the idea is there. Get your mind off of your problems. Whatever technology is available to do it, just do it.
If one wishes to make an impact, to sway society, history, that's the most important thing one can understand about the outside world; polemics don't work, rational discussions don't work; emotions work, emoting works, drama works. The outside world wants drama, It responds to drama. If you wish to argue a point, you must do it dramatically.
The Left has known and used this for a century, since mass media was invented. The Right came late and does it much less effectively. Ayn Rand did it well. Atlas Shrugged is dramatized philosophy although both dialogue and description are heavy with polemics, Hiram Hayden should have forced Rand to cut much of the polemics and dramatize them instead.
Robert McKee travels the world, teaching writers and businessmen this principle; don't tell it, don't say it, make them feel it, dramatize your message and let their feelings sell them your story or product.
This is what I want to do for Aglialoro, dramatize the message because, there's a big world outside this URL and, it's not very friendly.
The people in the Politburo lived quite good lifestyles, while the population barely subsisted.
The block captains in Havana lived in the largest, nicest homes on their blocks, while the Palestinos and others lived 3 to 12 per room in the lesser homes. Cuba's governing elite imported whatever they wanted, while their 10 million subjects weren't even allowed to own hard currency or enter the Dollar Stores. I used to have to buy soap, yes, soap, for my Cuban friends.
Socialism demotivates the producers but, as the economy crumbles the difference in living standards simply motives their rulers even more.
Principles of self interest are not natural reactions, they must be learned.
Socialism is unnatural and, must be learned and - enforced. That's why it has always failed. It isn't the natural state of man and, if there is any alternative, man takes it.
Selfishness, as the world defines it, is precisely the self-interest "of grabbing the loot of the moment."
Rand's definition of selfishness requires acceptance of the premise that "the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned". The problem here is that looters and moochers ... desire the unearned. Acting in their self-interests, but without the moral compass of the non-aggression principle, looters and moochers see no problem whatsoever in trampling others' rights in the pursuit of their own. This is precisely what the rest of the world (outside the Gulch) describes as selfishness. Rand was not wrong in what she said, but she would have been far more effective if she had defined a new term, rather than a new definition for selfishness.
What must be learned are not the principles of self-interest, but the morality behind the non-aggression principle. Two and three year olds do not understand the non-aggression principle (NAP). Most people do not understand that principle until receiving aggression in retaliation for their own violation of the NAP. For most young boys, that comes with a bloody lip or a black eye.
Fred Astaire dance scenes, Shirley Temple, singing cowboys, The Wizard of Oz, Flash Gordon in silver underwear, the fantasy list goes on . . .
That was one of my favorite parts, of "Atlas Shrugged".
Was that the Shrek movie about eminent domain or the conniving old woman trying gain political power? :)
Shrek 2 was the movie about the conniving old woman (the fairy godmother) trying to gain political power. She "reminds" the king that she turned him into a king from a frog, Blackmail of the first order. Eminent domain, however, was part of the original Shrek when the little pig said, "He huffed and he puffed and he... signed an eviction notice."
http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/books/ra...
Using this chronology I'd say we're in the early sixties. Nobody's started the strike yet or, if he or she has, we haven't noticed, haven't seen anybody important disappear. I'd say the closest we have to a hard driving smart young industrialist is Elon Musk, who's still slogging away at it.
I'm not sure we'll fall apart in dramatic time. Owning the world's reserve currency may keep us afloat awhile longer. Then again, the collapse, when it happens, because it appears to be financial instead of industrial, could happen in weeks instead of years.
I never liked Shrek. Don't know why. Want something to warm your hearts? "Dark Horse" a documentary about a Welsh village that bred a champion racehorse. Want something hillarious but, instructive? "Er ist Wieder Da" "Look Who's Back". It was on Netflix. Hillarious and enlightening though, one wonders, if it were made today, instead of several years ago, how much different would it be? She'll deal with it better than you. Young people find it easier than do we to mix fiction and reality.
The first Mighty Ducks same
Likewise Goal the three part on soccer third was ...major trash
Major Leagues one and two ok three garbage.
Even the last one or two Vigilante Films with Bronson.
The only series that ran junk rating start to series was Oceans 1 through infinity.
To work they have to have the original authorship and consistent cast of of something like Sharpes Rifles or the non black and white Star Trek''s whichlasted longeer.
Star Wars first and second release ok the rest...thumbs down.
But even great fiction can be ruined right out of the film can version . Jack Reacher and say no more.