Showing posts with label INDIVIDUALISM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label INDIVIDUALISM. Show all posts

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Food Fights and Class Warfare

There was a time when full tables signified prosperity and thick waistlines were considered attractive. The ability to eat one's fill was what separated the gentry from the peasant making do with a few crusts and salted leftovers. Fat was in because it represented leisure and wealth. Thin meant you were on the road to the poorhouse or to consumption, which meant your body was being consumed, not that you were the one doing the consuming.

Then feudalism went the way of the dodo, agriculture was revolutionized and starvation went extinct in the West. Between the widespread availability of cheap food and social welfare programs covering everything from soup kitchens to food stamps, it became hard to starve. Not only was the availability of food no longer associated with prosperity, but even the poor had begun to eat so well that fat began to carry working class and lower class associations.

Fat was no longer wealth, instead conscientious fitness became a mark of prosperity. The laden table made way for micro portions and exotic but barely edible foods. Thin was in on the plate and the waistline.

In Third World countries where feudalism never ended and the agriculture revolution never mattered, the values often never flipped. Instead of anorexia, teenage girls suffer from being force fed to make them more marriageable. The wealthy are fat and the feasts at the top never end.

In the West, weight stands in for class, at a time when explicit classism has become politically incorrect. When Europeans sneer at how fat Americans are, and American coastal elites sneer at the rest of the country for being fat, it's a class putdown that dressed up longstanding contempt in the colors of the welfare state.

Just because the left and its class warfare worldview, which pretends to be concerned about the plight of the underclass, dominates Western societies does not mean that it is not classist. The left is elitist and its underclass protectionism creates a new wave feudalism with a vast government funded upper and middle class dedicated to caring for the underclass, subsidizing it, caring for it and taxing it to pay for all those services.

The obesity concern trolling is a combination of classism and nanny statism that brings to mind the days when their ideological forebears thought that the way to deal with the poor was to sterilize those who seemed less capable than the rest to improve the breed. There is something equally Darwinian in the sneers aimed at Paula Deen. The breed being culled while the elites try to teach their less evolved cousins to survive by eating their arugula.

The nanny state is built on a technocratic confidence in the ability to create one size fits all solutions, overlaying that on a map of the current medical wisdom leads to the creation of single standards, which often have less to do with health than they do with the status symbols of the leisure class. 19th century popularized medicine created so many of these fads that some of them are still around today. The 20th century created even more.

Death though is not only inevitable, but it cannot be dodged with a one size fits all standard. Fitness guru Jim Fixx who helped kickstart the running craze died in his early fifties of a heart attack. Fixx had quit smoking and lost weight, and still died at an early age. Jackie Gleason who spent his life looking like a walking health attack, smoking and drinking, outlived him by nearly twenty years.

Medicine is individual and the collectivization of medicine is a technocratic solution that leads nowhere except to few doctors and ranks of unionized medical personnel nudging patients into following the script handed down to them by professors who have never actually practiced medicine a day in their life. This is the outcome of a nanny state outlook that sees individuals as dispensable, that is concerned only with group outcomes.

This view requires seeing all people as endowed with certain problems that require broad stroke solutions, like adding calories to menus and other rats in a maze tactics designed to modify human behavior on a national level. The targeting of fast food restaurants, public school meals and food stamps reeks of the same elitist arrogance that drives the nanny state.

The politicization of food by the elites of the left always comes down to class, no matter how it may be disguised in liberal colors. From exotic to locally grown, the trajectory of food politics follows the upselling of food prices The only difference is that the dominance of the left has wrapped the added cost with no added value in their own politics. The more affordable food becomes, the more the left finds ways to add cost to food, without adding value.

But the politicization of food goes beyond the fair trade and locally grown fetishes of the politically correct elites, the more politics ends up on your plate, the more the elites are driven to involve everyone else in their food fights. What begins as a way of raising prices while diminishing value to assert wealth and privilege becomes imposed on everyone in the name of their political morality. Once everyone else is paying more and getting less, then the classist left demands new ways to set its superior moral eating habits apart. Instead of everyone ending up with more food, everyone ends up with less.

The cultural ascendance of the left has meant that instead of conspicuous consumption, the consumption has to be disguised with conspicuous political pieties. The food may cost twice as much, but it's locally grown on a farm run by handicapped union workers who visit Cuba to receive free health care or by the indigenous peoples of Tuba-Tuba with the proceeds going to a complete sonic library of their chants and ceremonies. The entire thing is meaningfully meaningless, but it disguises the consumption in a hairshirt, which is the entire point.

Conspicuous consumption is now for the poor while conspicuous conservation is for liberal elites. Al Gore may live in a mansion but he still has the carbon footprint of a mouse. The problem is the truck driver whose vehicle emissions are killing the planet. Whole Foods is just fine, but we need to do something about McDonald's.

Conspicuous conservationism has made America a poorer country, destroyed millions of jobs and outsourced them overseas. Now it's beginning to make America a hungrier country. In a moment of horrifying tone deafness that makes Marie Antoinette seem enlightened, the left is cheering that fewer Americans are eating meat, without seeming to understand that it's because fewer Americans are able to afford it because of their economic policies.

What the left's food police can't accomplish with nudges and shaming, they can finish off with policies and regulations that end up raising the price of food or by making it too difficult to sell. As the left tries and fails to sell the general public on conservation as a status symbol, it moves in the heavy bureaucratic artillery.

It isn't unusual for elites to use the legal system to enforce their own values on the general public, though it was the kind of thing that the universal franchise was supposed to put a leash on, but there is something grim about their growing preoccupation with the habits and mortality of the population. It's the kind of concern that has a habit of ending in eugenics and the more medicine is universalized, the easier it is to start cutting off access to medical treatment for those who haven't been nudged far enough in the right direction.

Social medicine politicizes food consumption and a globalized economy politicizes food production. And the politicized American plate has less on it and at a higher price. While the left obsessively pursues its mission of destroying fast food in the name of lowering social medicine costs and being fairer to farmers, what they are truly accomplishing is to take affordable and filling food off the shelves, as they have done with countless other products that they have targeted.

By the time the left was done with Russia, it had gone from a wheat producer to a wheat importer and many basic food staples were hard to come by even in a country filled with collective farms. Finding modern day examples of that isn't hard. We only have to look as far south as Venezuela to see empty store shelves under the weight of government food policies. But one day that may be the local grocery store if the left gets its way.

By Daniel Greenfield at Sultan Knish  -  Cross-Posted at True Health is True Wealth  - h/t to TMH of the NoisyRoom

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Wicked Writ of the Midwest

clip_image001

Wicked indeed… It would seem the elitists in Houston County, Minnesota want to implement Agenda 21 and take away citizen’s property rights. Disparaging the Constitution and treating the local populace as if they were nothing more than serfs. The very arrogant face of Progressivism and evil without a doubt.

One of the strongest American freedoms we have is the right to own property. It is what makes us a free society and is the very cornerstone of liberty.

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Exercising their quintessential American rights, landowners in Houston County, Minnesota decided they had had enough five years ago and set out to reclaim their rights after the County Commissioners started making directives on how people could and could not use their own land. The fight continues today as threats, court proceedings, the stripping of Constitutional rights and lawyer’s fees fly frantically back and forth, egged on by Progressives in positions of power who are more interested in the environment and instituting Agenda 21 than they are in the rights of property owners. Cass Sunstein, is that you hiding behind the EPA again? Who’s a little Marxist?

Enter Houston County’s Commissioner who called the Constitution an ‘old document.’

“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed,” stated Commissioner Tom Bjerke.

Well sir… If you think that the Constitution is outdated, perhaps you should take your viewpoint and move to a more ‘Progressive’ country in Europe, or perhaps Russia would be a better fit for you. I’m sure you would be much happier with like-thinking comrades. Don’t let the American door hit you in the behind on the way out.

The County Commissioners have told those citizens attending meetings to sit down and shut up. The local paper has told them that they have said enough and have quit taking letters to the editor longer than 500 words. But if you are on the side of the Progressives, well have your say! The media propaganda machine is in full swing skewing the truth as usual as I understand it.

From The Blaze:

In 2007, Houston County sued a young, newly married couple due to the new land use plan. The couple, who had just legally bought the home, was given four options to “settle the situation.” The couple was required to move their house fifty feet, purchase an additional 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or tear their house down. Dealing with “impossible options,” the couple chose to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court refused to hear their case, thus leading them to sell their property. The couple is now renting the very house they once owned.

That’s ridiculous and just wrong. And they didn’t even get to have their day in court, which probably wouldn’t have mattered any way since the County and State have already decided that this couple had no rights, Constitutional or otherwise. What a farce. This makes me boiling mad. And this couple is not alone, there are over 50 landowners in the area facing similar situations. Ask yourself, what would you do?

The County Commissioners have ignored the petition requesting they resign – over 700 landowners signed that petition. For a small county in the southeast corner of the state, that is a huge number of petitioners. These Commissioners have ignored all efforts by the people to have their voices heard concerning their Constitutional rights as landowners. They are told at meetings, in no uncertain terms, not to bring up the Constitution.

But these patriots are not giving up:

A small group of landowners decided that it was time to educate others, and themselves. With easy-to-read handouts of the Declaration of independence, quotes of the Founding Fathers, and parts of the Constitution, the group spent their evenings going from door to door, talking to their fellow citizens and asking for support.

And the march to take back their freedom has brought them to the Minnesota Federal Court, where they will plead their case. Fighting oppressive regulations and the blatant violation of Constitutional rights, these patriots are also fighting the insidious label by the Progressives of restricting their property’s use for “the public good.” That is Progressive lingo indicating that they: a) don’t feel there is any such thing as private property, b) the Constitution is irrelevant and c) landowners are too stupid to know what is good for them. If they do not prevail in Federal Court, property rights will be gutted and zoning rights will be the standard. Mull that over for a second… It renders the Constitution meaningless – individuals will no longer have the right to say what they can and can’t do with their own property – bureaucrats will wield that power. How very Marxist.

From the Let Freedom Ring Blog:

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren’t taking the property. They’re just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.

This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn’t willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn’t have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.

Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.

I’m sure there are tons of legal documents being issued. This cannot stand. I’m beginning to see the scene from The Patriot where Benjamin Martin says to plead with the King and plead again if necessary. But pleading has been done on this over and over to no avail. Better yet, this is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson and his Manifest Destiny. The question is if the Federal Court rules against Constitutional rights, will we allow this wicked writ of the Midwest to stand? Or will it be time to take a stand that will shake this country to its very foundations?

I will leave it to each of you to search your souls and decide what side you are on. Remember the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution – remember what this country was founded upon. Here is the press release announcing the lawsuit:

The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of “We the People.” The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.

The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.

“We are not a litigious group,” said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. “We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters, but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights, and some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won’t even hear what we have to say.”

“At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, our land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren’t disrespectful to the County, but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns.”

The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County’s landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.

The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once and that can only be done in Federal Court.

“Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,” explained Ideker. “Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.

The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are ‘following the law.’”

“It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution,” said county land owner Tom Groeschner. “But we can’t really talk to them if they won’t listen to us. Don’t we have to put government back in the hands of ‘we the people?’”

By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton  -  the NoisyRoom

clip_image002

Thursday, March 10, 2011

Ayn Rand’s The Fountainhead - A Work That Endures…

Video:  The Fountainhead – Howard Roark Speech (Ayn Rand)

See full film The Fountainhead HERE

The Fountainhead

"Howard Roark laughed." So begins Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, the improbable bestseller that established Rand's fame and reputation as a novelist-philosopher.

Rejected by twelve publishers, The Fountainhead was finally accepted by Bobbs-Merrill when a young editor taken with the book threatened to quit if it were not. "If this is not the book for you," he wired the publisher's head office, "then I am not the editor for you." His confidence was justified: to date, The Fountainhead has sold some six million copies all told, and continues to sell over 100,000 copies each year. At the time of its publication, Lorine Pruette wrote in the New York Times that "it was the only novel of ideas written by an American woman that I can recall," with characters who are "amazingly literate, romanticized as larger-than-life representatives of good and evil." However, it was not critical adulation, but the incredible word of mouth that spread about the book that made it a bestseller.

From its memorable opening line, Rand's prose camera pans out to reveal Howard Roark, a young student of architecture, poised nude on a cliff's edge and preparing to dive into the lake below. The scene sets the tone for the book, and hints at the "sense of life" that animated Rand's fiction: Roark has just been expelled from architecture school for refusing to ape the styles of past masters in his designs. His response is not despair, but an indifference grounded in a supreme confidence in his own artistic vision. Explaining that vision to the school's dean several scenes later, Roark says:

Here are my rules: what can be done with one substance must never be done with another. No two materials are alike. No two sites on earth are alike. No two buildings have the same purpose. The purpose, the site, the materials determine the shape. Nothing can be reasonable or beautiful unless it's made by one central idea, and the idea sets ever detail. A building is alive, like a man. Its integrity is to follow its own truth, its one single theme, and to serve its own single purpose. A man doesn't borrow hunks of its soul. Its maker gives it the soul and every wall, window and stairway to express it.

Like Pruette, Rand saw her characters as ideal types, embodied principles. She always denied that her protagonists were modeled on any actual people, and in particular was adamant that Roark was not a fictionalized Frank Lloyd Wright. Still, it is hard not to hear in Roark's own theories of architecture echoes of Wright, especially his 1930–31 lectures at Princeton, which Rand had read. Wright had said of his own buildings: "Consistency from first to last will give you the result you seek and consistency alone." Even their biographies overlap: Roark's mentor Henry Cameron, a brilliant innovator whose star had faded, evokes Wright's own, Louis Sullivan.

Rand sought unsuccessfully to interview Wright as a source for The Fountainhead. (Instead, she gathered source material for the book by working without pay as a typist for New York architect Ely Jacques Kahn.) In her letter to Wright, Rand described her project as a "story of human integrity. That is what I am writing. That is what you have lived. And to my knowledge you are the only one among the men of this century who has lived it." She wanted to interview Wright, not for information, but for "the inspiration of seeing before me a living miracle." The two later became acquainted, and Wright even began designing a house for Rand, though it was never built.

The reference to "integrity" must be taken to refer not only to the internal coherence of Wright's architectural philosophy, but also his famous stubbornness with clients when it came to seeing his plans realized as he had intended. Roark's fidelity to his own vision makes it difficult for him to find work, despite his genius, and the conflicts this creates drive the book's plot.

Roark's own approach is thrown into relief by a parallel portrayal of the career of his classmate Peter Keating. A thorough mediocrity, Keating's sense of self is as derivative as his building designs. While Roark toils in obscurity, Keating rises through the ranks of the prestigious New York firm Francon & Heyer. But on major commissions, Keating's lack of inspiration forces him to seek help from Roark, who is the unacknowledged designer of Keating's most renowned buildings.

The contrast between the two is meant to illustrate what Rand would later call "the virtue of selfishness." A conventional story would have set up Roark's "selfless devotion to his art" against Keating's "grasping, selfish careerism." Rand reverses this expectation. Keating's pathology, Rand shows, is precisely the result of selflessness. Lacking a strong identity of his own, he seeks to construct one second-hand by absorbing the opinions of others. Lacking self-respect, he struggles to do whatever will please others and win him their adulation. Roark's apparent "sacrifice," on the other hand, is nothing of the sort. If he insists on his own methods and designs, it is because they arehis own. The true sacrifice, Rand makes clear, would be to compromise his artistic integrity for mere popular approval, or even material comfort.

That integrity makes it impossible for Roark to fit in with conventional architecture firms, and equally difficult to secure commissions when he opens his own office. Eventually, he leaves the city to work as a manual laborer at a granite quarry owned by Guy Francon of Francon & Heyer—which by now has become Francon & Keating. There, he meets Francon's fiercely independent daughter Dominique. Recognizing Roark as a kindred spirit, she begins to pursue him, and in what has become the book's most famous scene, they make violent, passionate love that, while consensual, seems on the surface like an act of rape. But Francon, unsure she is prepared for a serious romantic affair with Roark, pulls back. Soon, a businessman who admires the buildings Roark managed to have built finds him at the quarry and brings him back to New York to work on an apartment building. There, he finds growing success—and a new enemy.

While Keating is Roark's professional rival, he is not quite Roark's adversary: by turns contemptible and pathetic, Peter Keating is not up to the role of archenemy. That is left to journalist and architecture critic Ellsworth Toohey. Toohey is something of an aberration in Rand's fiction, in that he is perhaps her only really memorable villain.

In Rand's Objectivist philosophy, intelligence, rationality, and achievement are all associated with her own ethics, and therefore with her protagonists. Typically, these are opposed by bland, bromide-mouthing mobs who evoke nothing so much as Hannah Arendt's phrase "the banality of evil." Toohey is the exception: he is the one character in Rand's work who fully comprehends the difference between good and evil, between individualism and collectivism, and consciously chooses evil. Incapable of Roark's form of creative achievement, which he despises, Toohey has made his own goal power over the opinions of others. A clue to his motive is provided by his childhood reaction to the famous Biblical query: "What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Toohey asks in response: "Then in order to be truly wealthy, a man should collect souls?" His adult life has been devoted to precisely that end, through the formation of a series of organizations across many different fields, including a collective of fashionable second-rate writers who promote each other's work ceaselessly.

Determined to crush Roark, Toohey manipulates a spiritually inclined pawn, Hopton Stoddard, to commission an ecumenical temple from the atheistic architect. Stoddard, on Toohey's advice, convinces Roark to take the job by telling him: "But you're a profoundly religious man, Mr. Roark—in your own way. I can see that in your buildings." Toohey has detected, not religious reverence in the ordinary sense, but the reverence for the best in the human spirit that permeates Roark's designs. Once the temple—a masterpiece, of course—is complete, Toohey denounces it as blasphemous, and pushes Stoddard to sue Roark for breach of contract. Roark's defense is merely to offer the jury photographs of the temple—but swayed by the testimony of an architectural expert (Toohey, of course) they vote against him, destroying his reputation.

The verdict comes as a blow to Dominique Francon, who more than ever despairs that individual achievement and integrity have little chance of surviving in the world as it is. She resolves to purge herself of the capacity to appreciate heroic achievement—and to destroy Roark, who is a constant reminder of the individualism society cannot tolerate. Attempting to drown herself in inanity, she marries Peter Keating, only to leave him for newspaper tycoon Gail Wynand, publisher of the Banner, where Toohey's column appears. Like Roark in many ways, Wynand differs from the architect in having decided that the only way to survive and flourish is to pander to the public, which he does on a daily basis in his widely read newspaper. Wynand, though, cannot help but respond with admiration to Roark's work... and to Roark himself when they meet. Through Wynand's influence, Roark once again begins to work.

Keating's fortunes, in the meantime, have soured. Lacking his own creative voice, he is at a loss when the architectural trends he has spent his career emulating cease to be fashionable. Desperate to salvage his career, he begs Roark to design one last building for him: a low-income housing project to be called Cortland Homes. Roark, knowing that the project is under Toohey's control, and that a plan under his own name would never be accepted, agrees, on the condition that his plan be built precisely as designed.

When Toohey has some frivolous ornamentation added at the last moment, spoiling the integrity of the building, Roark dynamites it, with help from Dominique. Wynand believes he can use his media empire to sway public opinion in Roark's favor as the trial approaches, but he discovers that power over others is ephemeral. Once he is no longer telling the people what they want to hear, his papers stop selling. In a bid to take over the Banner, Toohey engineers a strike. Finally, Wynand caves and reverses his editorial position on Roark. At the trial, however, Roark offers an eloquent defense of his right to destroy his creation, whose integrity had already been destroyed in violation of his agreement with Keating. He tells the jury:

Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.
But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

Roark is acquitted. Wynand, realizing at last the necessity of integrity, shuts down the Banner rather than allow Toohey to control it in the wake of the strike. Roark is commissioned to rebuild the Cortland Homes by a private businessman, and Wynand decides the time has come to build his Wynand Building, which will be the city's tallest skyscraper. The book closes with Roark standing triumphant atop his work in progress, alongside an admiring Dominique.

The book's surprising success led to the production of a 1949 movie version of The Fountainhead starring Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal, and directed by King Vidor. Warner Brothers had sought to have Wright himself design the film's sets, but that plan was scrapped when Wright demanded 10 percent of the film's gross profits on top of his $250,000 fee. The screenplay was, of course, penned by Ayn Rand. It is safe to assume that Warner Brothers didn't dare change the dialogue.

Source:  The CATO Institute

Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Who is John Galt?

Video Trailer:  Atlas Shrugged Trailer

Video: John Galt’s Speech – Atlas Shrugged

Video:  Ayn Rand – Liberty vs Socialism

Video:  Ayn Rand – In Defense of Capitalism

Video:  Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East

Demand Atlas Shrugged to your town: http://www.AtlasShruggedPart1.com/get...

The Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Trailer. Atlas Shrugged Part 1 opens in theaters April 15th, 2011.

Sign up for the Atlas Newsletter: http://www.AtlasShruggedPart1.com/sig...
facebook: http://facebook.com/AtlasShruggedMovie
twitter: http://twitter.com/_AtlasShrugged

_t

Atlas Shrugged Striker:

Are you ready to stand up and be counted? It's not who's going to let us open on the 15th... it's who's going to stop us.

Tonight, our friend, JOHN STOSSEL, is on Hannity at 9pm ET on Fox . . . and the topic . . . “New Movie Hated by Hollywood?!”

Are the liberal elite trying to stop you from seeing an American classic brought to life on the silver screen? John Stossel has “reel” insight on the new movie “Atlas Shrugged.”

We need your support!

Please watch tonight and don't forget to "Demand!" Atlas to a theater near you at the Official Atlas Shrugged Movie Website and “Like” us on Facebook at our Official Facebook Fan Page

Thank you! Let’s create the noise this movie deserves!

Harmon Kaslow, Producer
Scott DeSapio, Director of Online Marketing and Strategy

And if you haven’t read Atlas Shrugged, it is a must read!! Or better yet the Ayn Rand Box Set of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in paperback if you haven’t read either.

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Breaking free of the “Herd”

What really drove Freud nuts?

Breaking Free of the Herd Audio

Check out the official site of The 7 here

Glenn had Dr. Keith Ablow as a guest on radio today and they continued their discussion about The 7, this time focusing on the wonder of “faith” – and of course

Glenn found a way to tie it into Edward Bernays.

1/18/11:  Glenn started off the interview by asking if Freud, who along with Bernays believed that man was led by base instincts and animalistic motivations, was still popular or if he had been discredited.

“I think he has his detractors.  But after all we’re talking about a guy who really plumbed the unconscious and gave us a lot of the tools that continue to help people heal,” Ablow said. “I would say some of his thoughts are discredited in the way that, you know, someone invented math and some of the outer reaches of calculus seemed rather esoteric or even just dead wrong.”

Ablow also pointed out that a lot of the themes of The 7 go against Freud’s beliefs. “One of the things that we noted as we created The Seven is that we were keeping afoot in spirituality and religion at the same time as in psychology.  Something that drove Freud nuts.  He really resisted the notion that religion was a sensible thing.  So do totalitarian states.  They don’t want people connected to their best instincts. They don’t want people to find individual courage.  It’s dangerous for the herd.”

Glenn also asked Dr. Ablow about the libertarian viewpoint and how, even though a person may not be deeply spiritual, they can still focus on the individual. He used his relationship with Penn Jillette as an example. According to Glenn, Penn Jillette strongly disagrees with Glenn’s belief in God, but still respects Glenn as an individual with the right to choose, and Glenn feels the same way towards Jillette.

“When libertarians, they listen to my message and they say, well, he’s so God,” Glenn said. “I don’t have a problem with Penn Jillette.  Now, he has a real problem with me because of my faith, he really is somebody who really despises religion and thinks that, you know, you’re a moron if you’re part of religion.  But I don’t have a problem with him saying that because he’s an individual.  He believes in my individual right to choose.  And so as long as you’re a libertarian, as long as you’re somebody who says, hey, it’s not a herd; we’re all individuals.  So you do what you do, and I’m not going to try to control your life, then it works.  Correct?”

Ablow responded, “Correct.  That’s exactly right.  What ‑‑ we know this across the board.  We know that until an alcoholic decides for him or herself to make a change, for himself to make a change, that nothing’s really going to make that change for that person.  That person needs to find solid ground.”

“We’re going to let you find your way.  Sure, if you fall down, will we try to pick you up?  Sure.  But not to the extent that we hobble you,” Ablow added.

Tomorrow, Glenn and Dr. Ablow will be appearing on The Today Show to talk about their new book. Glenn asked Dr. Ablow, “What do you think the odds are that we can even get one person on the Today Show, let alone the country to understand that the answers to our problems in the country really come from the individual and empowering the individual?  Because that’s the solution.”

“I always believe there’s hope.  You know that I think that people are worth fighting for.  They’re worth reminding that they’re good and decent and they have autonomy and power,” Ablow said.

** The duo appeared on The Today Show, today 01.19.11 at 7:40am and again at 9:00am to talk about The 7.  The Hope for America – Glenn Beck on Dr. Keith Ablow Interview **

“It is time to reverse the course of the herd!!”

Time for a Personal Revolution in the Hearts and Minds of Americans

Wilmington Ohio, An Example of Hope 

Wilmington Ohio… An Amazing Town to Give Us Hope

Friday, May 1, 2009

Amway Co-Founder Rich DeVos Knows Power of Positivity in Tough Times

If life came down to a jump shot at the buzzer, Rich DeVos would be taking it from well outside the 3-point line.

The Amway Corp. co-founder and owner of the NBA’s Orlando Magic rarely does anything in a small way. His unbending faith and knack for finding the motivational bright spot in even the darkest of moments turned this gritty World War II veteran into a leading businessman, philanthropist, and motivational speaker. [Editor's Note: See the full Rich DeVos interview by going here now]

Since starting selling vitamins in 1959 with his partner, Jay Van Andel,he has become one of the wealthiest men in the world (Forbes tallied his net worth at $3.5 billion in 2007). His Amway empire, and parent company Alticor, spans 40 countries and generated more than $7 billion in revenues in 2007. Clearly, DeVos, 83, likes challenges. He’s not only an evangelist for his Christian faith but also for his country and its free-enterprise system.

Instead of hitting the golf links or sailing aboard his yacht, DeVos penned a new book, "Ten Powerful Phrases for Positive People," which he says offers positive medicine for Americans during tough economic times. His phrases offer more than platitudes, he says. They are powerful thoughts that can change readers' lives.

He recently sat down with Newsmax.TV’s Ashley Martella to talk about his life’s work, his beloved basketball team, and his fervent hope that even those most negatively affected by the troubled economy can find hope in our great nation’s shared values. Asked the best advice for those struggling with lost jobs and a rough economy, DeVos stays decidedly upbeat.

“You are going to do just fine,” DeVos says he tells folks. “The Lord has a way of working in our lives, and sometimes he brings us down low to bring new values back to our life. A lot of the people who are unemployed today are going to take lower-level jobs, but because they have value and worth, they are going to rise very quickly. As we recover, there is going to be great need for these people and they are going find themselves in a new and better position.”

DeVos says the timing of his book is perfect, although unintentional, given today's economic circumstances.

“Don’t forget that when we started Amway, which is exactly 50 years ago, it is when Castro took over Cuba,” DeVos tells Newsmax. “It was when Russia was on the move around the world. They were establishing bases in Africa and other parts of the world and the word was that socialism was the wave of the future, if not communism.

“We decided to become a champion for free enterprise and extol its virtues when the world was beginning to question it. That’s why this book is appropriate for this time.”

Ultimately, he says, success comes down to faith: “Faith is my foundation because you work on a faith basis that you believe God has his hand on you. As business moves forward, you realize that God has his hand on the whole business and that he brought people to you who are like-minded. It starts with faith.”

DeVos, who relishes his role as owner of the Orlando Magic, tells Newsmax.TV’s Martella that he takes tat faith-based positivity right onto the court with his players.

“I have a wonderful relationship with my players,” he says. “I am always amazed at how many guys in the NBA have never met an owner much less ever been to an owner’s house. We bought the team so that we would be able to be a positive force, so that they in turn would be a positive force to young people everywhere. “

Editor's Notes:

  • See the full Rich DeVos interview by going here now.]
  • Get your copy of Rich DeVos' new book, "Ten Powerful Phrases for Positive People" - Go Here.  -  In this most inspirational and compelling interview, Richard DeVos, who became a billionaire through faith, hard work and perseverance tells Newsmax TV how his father never gave up hope during the Great Depression even though his dad was unemployed for three years. He explains how that inspired him to start a small company he and his partner called Amway 50 years ago. He has encouraging words for victims of the current economic crisis and as a World War II veteran, for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also reveals how he's no stranger to the players of the NBA basketball team he owns.

    Source:  Newsmax


  • Friday, February 13, 2009

    WE Surround Them


    We Surround Them-The Unveiling
     March 13th on FOX News 5pm ET


    Share this page with your friends and family...

    Do you watch the direction that America is being taken in and feel powerless to stop it?
    Do you believe that your voice isn’t loud enough to be heard above the noise anymore?
    Do you read the headlines everyday and feel an empty pit in your stomach…as if you’re completely alone?

    If so, then you’ve fallen for the Wizard of Oz lie. While the voices you hear in the distance may sound intimidating, as if they surround us from all sides—the reality is very different. Once you pull the curtain away you realize that there are only a few people pressing the buttons, and their voices are weak. The truth is that they don’t surround us at all.
    We surround them.

    So, how do we show America what’s really behind the curtain? Below are nine simple principles. If you believe in at least seven of them, then we have something in common. I urge you to read the instructions at the end for how to help make your voice heard.

    12 Values

    • Honesty
    • Reverence
    • Hope
    • Thrift
    • Humility
    • Charity
    • Sincerity
    • Moderation
    • Hard Work
    • Courage
    • Personal Responsibility
    • Friendship

    The Nine Principles

    1. America is good.
    2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life.
    3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
    4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
    5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
    6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
    7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
    8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
    9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
    You Are Not Alone

    If you agree with at least seven of those principles, then you are not alone. Please send a digital version of your picture to: wesurroundthem@foxnews.comand then stay tuned to the radio and television shows over the coming weeks to see how we intend to pull back the curtain.

    Picture updates...

    Source:  Glen Beck


    The 9/12 Project

    You are not alone

    Hope Now Doom and Gloom