Category Archives: Atlas Shrugged

June 7, 2017

By Zara Abrams The Daily Climate

Editors note: Climate Characters follows five people with varied views on climate change with the goal of bringing a greater degree of compassion and understanding to the highly polarized conversation.

As an engineer working in the defense industry, John Albright has designed everything from body armor for the U.S. Marines to solar energy plants in Southern Californias Mojave Desert.

Like Michael Casey, a martial arts instructor we profiled Monday, both Albrights career and his upbringing led him to doubt the authority and motives of experts. Specifically, he thinks leading climate researchers and government officials exaggerate the human contribution to global warming in a grab for more money and power.

Albright, whose name has been changed because he worked on classified projects, expected his work as an engineer to be straightforward, honest, cut and dried. To his astonishment, that was not the case.

"People say I'm unscientific. They say I don't believe in science, but that's not true." -John Albright

In the defense industry, he explained in an interview, contractors set unrealistically high goals. For example, a company will promise to provide 150,000 units of body armor in six months, fully aware that the project will take at least a year to complete. Then they request an extensionand more moneyto complete the half-finished work.

The trick in the defense industry is to never complete your project, Albright says. If you just finished your project, youd be out of your job.

Albright sees the government as disingenuous, a suspicion that had roots in his childhood. At his fathers prompting, Albright read Ayn Rands 1957 cult novel, Atlas Shrugged, during junior high. The novel depicts a dystopian society where a petty bureaucratic government over-regulates, making it impossible for brilliant entrepreneurs to prosper and stimulate the economy by creating jobs. He says the books individualistic message, which champions free will, reinforced his beliefs and has shaped his views of the U.S. government ever since.

Recently, he was particularly bothered by internal contradictions he saw firsthand in the environmental movement. During his work on a solar plant in the Mojave Desert, the same environmental lobby that advocated for clean power also fought against the plants construction because it overlapped with the habitat of the desert tortoise, a threatened species.

In Albrights experience, authorities are often inconsistent and even dishonest, especially when the goals they wish to achieve conflict. Sometimes, governments will go so far as to deny the truth when it conflicts with their ideology. In cases where scientific research has unpopular policy implications, authorities may strategically exploit the doubt inherent to the scientific process to make the evidence appear shaky.

Doubt is crucial to sciencebut it also makes science vulnerable to misrepresentation, writes Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway in Merchants of Doubt, a groundbreaking 2010 book that analyzed the history of science denial in the U.S. government.

Anti-science campaigns entered the public sphere when research linking cigarette smoke to lung cancer and other respiratory diseases started piling up. For decades, tobacco industry executives funded misleading marketing campaigns to convince the public that the science of tobacco smoke was as yet unresolved. Of course, science can never provide a definite yes or no on any subject, but even that innate uncertainty doesnt stop most people from acknowledging that gravity is real.

In America, the denial that plagues the modern environmental movement was historically linked to a fear of communism, and an impassioned defense of free enterprise. In 1962, when marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, which spelled out the destructive power of the pesticide DDT, traditionalists were instantly suspicious. If what she said was true, it would mean increased federal regulation could hurt the profits of major corporations such as the agriculture giant Monsanto.

After Silent Spring was published, critics fired back both publicly and privately. A review of the book in Time magazine called Carsons writing emotion-fanning and her argument hysterically overemphatic. In a private letter to President Eisenhower, the Secretary of Agriculture, Ezra Taft Benson, said Carson was probably a communist. Monsanto even released a satirical response, a story called The Desolate Year in its monthly magazine, which claimed incorrectly that Carsons DDT-free world would be riddled with malaria. Others riffed on the idea that women were far too emotional to be scientifically accurate, personally vilifying Carson until her untimely death from breast cancer two years later.

As a female scientist, Carson faced difficulty even before she sounded the alarm. Though she had penned several best-sellers, including The Sea Around Us and Under the Sea Wind, it took her years to find a publisher willing to release Silent Spring.

The attacks Carson endured were only the beginning of anti-environmental sentiment in America. On the first annual Earth Day in 1970, the FBI conducted widespread surveillance of antipollution rallies, according to a report published the following year in the New York Times. Leaders of the intelligence community feared that Earth Day, which happened to fall on Lenins birthday, was a Soviet plot to undermine the U.S. government.

Fred Singer and Robert Jastrow, right-wing physicists who respectively held leadership positions in the EPA and NASA, called proponents of regulating air and water pollution communist sympathizers. They even nicknamed environmentalists watermelons green on the outside, red on the insideas chronicled in Merchants of Doubt.

Protecting the environment is still seen by some as anti-American, the enemy of free-market enterprise. The modern anti-science campaign relies on conservative think tanks such as the Heartland Institute, which releases misleading documents that mimic scientific reports but do not contain peer-reviewed data, and on media voices such as right-wing radio host Glenn Beck, who has called former President Obama a socialist for his efforts to regulate carbon.

Its not just the radical right thats uncertain. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international task force created by the United Nations, has proclaimed that human action is the dominant cause of global warming in the past century. But a fall 2016 Pew poll revealed that more than half the country, including the current occupant of the Oval Office, still believes that global warming is either caused by natural cycles or not occurring at all.

The deception works because the public doesnt want to change. Just as Americans believed the ploys of the tobacco industry because they didnt want to quit smoking, people believe the Heartland Institute and Glenn Beck because they dont want to give up their SUVs or their houses in the suburbs.

Many conservatives see action on climate change as really an attack on a way of life, says Republican former Congressman Bob Inglis in the Merchants of Doubt film. Along come some people sowing some doubt and its pretty effective, because Im looking for that answer. I want it to be that the science is not real.

Albright, the defense contractor, insists that in his case, hes not falling for a misinformation campaign. People say Im unscientific. They say I dont believe in science, but thats not true.

Hes read the most recent IPCC report on climate change, he says, and researches topics he cares aboutincluding climate changeon a daily basis from sources across the political spectrum. He resents people assuming hes ill-informed, just because his beliefs are unpopular.

And like anyone deeply immersed in an issue they deem significant, Albright genuinely appreciates anyone who listens to him and takes him seriously.

Zara Abrams is a freelance journalist and masters student in USCs Specialized Journalism program. Climate characters was her thesis project. Follow her at @ZaraAbrams.

The Daily Climate is an independent, foundation-funded news service covering energy, the environment and climate change. Find us on Twitter @TheDailyClimate or email editor Brian Bienkowski at bbienkowski [at] EHN.org

Top Photo: eflon/flickr; Second photo: NYCandre/flickr

Find more Daily Climate stories in theTDC Newsroom

Read the original post:

Climate Characters: Skeptical engineer questions government motives - The Daily Climate

Pat Grady, Co-Owner, Founder of RhinoFish Media joined me to chat on my podcast, This is Affiliate Marketing with Shawn Collins.

I wanted to learn more about the real Pat, so I asked him a variety of questions I figured he had not been asked in previous interviews.

Links from this episode

Subscribe to This is Affiliate Marketing with Shawn Collins on iTunes.

If you enjoyed this episode of This is Affiliate Marketing with Shawn Collins, please share it.

This is Affiliate Marketing with Shawn Collins is focused on the people behind the affiliate management/OPM companies, advertisers/merchants, affiliates/publishers, and affiliate networks.

On each episode, Shawn interviews a new guest related to the industry, so you can learn more about the people of affiliate marketing.

After all, affiliate marketing is about the people; not the companies.

More here:

Pat Grady on Atlas Shrugged, Sleep Deprivation, and Spud Webb - FeedFront Magazine (blog)

Home > Film > Northern Exposure Cast Could Make Time In Busy Schedules For Revival

Northern Exposure, the CBS series about weirdos in Alaskathat ran for six seasons from 1990 to 1995, could be coming back to the airwaves. Theres no official plans in the works from CBS, but pretty much everyone on the cast is willing to do it, according to a report from Entertainment Weekly. Cast members Rob Morrow, Adam Arkin, Janine Turner, and Cynthia Gearygot together with series creator Josh Brand and producers Robin Green, Mitchell Burgess, and Cheryl Bloch for a Northern Exposure panel at theATX Television Festival in Austin, Texas this week.

We would love it, said Brand about the prospect of a revival, something that it seems every TV show from the 90s is getting nowadays. Rob has been working trying to get them to do it. Im sure wed all agree we would love to see it because I think it is of a time, but its also not of a time. The show was sort of like salted caramel ice cream, which is the best ice cream because its sweet and its got salt. The show was buoyant and it was optimistic, but if you live on the planet, you experience loss and you feel it.Theres a lot of loss in the show but its not depressing because its a part of living. And thats something that in our culture, our television shows dont like to do.

Thats the sort of insight weve all been missing out on since Northern Exposure went off the air. And as for that reboot, with the success of shows like The X-Files and Twin Peaks, it seems only fair that it be Northern Exposures turn. And pretty much everybody ison board.

We all want it to happen, said Geary. Darrens trying. Robs trying.

So yall write letters or send emails! said Turner, hinting at a streaming service as a possible home. We want to get it streamed.

Please, please god, let this happen, said Morrow, probably, as one of his most recent roles was in the second sequel to the movie adaptation of Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

(Last Updated June 10, 2017 3:14 am )

Legendary Batman Actor Adam West Has Died

With Eva Marie And Maybe Paige Gone, Alexa Bliss And Nia Jax Could Join Total Divas Cast

See more here:

Northern Exposure Cast Could Make Time In Busy Schedules For Revival - Bleeding Cool News

Sunday June 11 2017

US President Donald Trump makes his way to board Air Force One before departing from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on June 9, 2017. PHOTO | MANDEL NGAN | AFP

The Roark character is an architect, a breed of professionals Trump came to know well and work with as a real estate developer.

He came to power claiming affinity with the American working class, not the elites.

The top honchos of the Donald Trump administration have a particular writer they ardently worship.

She is none other than Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant who made a name in America as a novelist and fringe philosopher. Two of her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead attracted a cultic following in her day. They still do.

Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State, says Atlas Shrugged is his favourite book.

Mike Pompeo, the boss of the CIA, calls Rand a major inspiration. And Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, famously required his staff members to read Ayn Rand as part of their job description.

Trump himself says he is a Rand fan and that he identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist in The Fountainhead.

The Roark character is an architect, a breed of professionals Trump came to know well and work with as a real estate developer.

Roark dynamites a building he had designed because the builders did not follow his blueprints. That is the sort of action Trump would admire.

At some point in our lives, Rand was the kind of writer who would leave us drooling.

We would strut around with her books with a superior air when other colleagues were reading unremarkable West African novellas with cheap themes.

Rand has a very powerful mind and a very compelling way of writing that leaves a deep impression in everybody who reads her.

But once her novelty wears off, you discover you are dealing with an arrogant polemicist peddling a dangerous philosophy.

It is a philosophy which exalts the cult of so-called superior individuals who invent things and run big corporations which produce the goods that the world relies on. These are the people Rand praises as the brains of the world while the rest of humanity are dismissed as second-raters and third-raters who just consume what the supermen produce.

This lower hierarchy of humankind, Rand preaches, are of little consequence in the direction of world history. Such ideas, when you think about them, are outright crazy.

I get puzzled by adults who dont overgrow Rand.

One such was former US Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan.

Most people I know went through her as an infatuation during a particular phase of their lives, not as a lifelong obsession.

I dont know about Trump, but Bill Clinton has a very mature and wide-ranging reading list, from historians like David M. Kennedy to biologists like Stephen Jay Gould.

He even fell for Philip Gourevitchs masterpiece on the Rwandan genocide, We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families.

Trump remains a big contradiction even in his professed love for Rand.

He came to power claiming affinity with the American working class, not the elites.

But again, one can never be sure with Trump. This professed affinity for the ordinary Joe is probably fake. His real aim seems to be to ensure the rich make even more money. Just look at the billionaires who fill up his cabinet.

Trumps economic nationalism would repel Rand, who thought differently on this score. But his proposed budget cuts on non-military spending and his war on Obamacare would gladden her heart. (It threatens to strip health coverage for 24 million low-income Americans.)

I wouldnt know what some of our leaders read. Once upon a time, I read somewhere of Uhuru Kenyatta praising the book titled From Third World To First, authored by Singapores founding leader Lee Kwan Yew.

I too admire Lee but, like with most political tracts, books by politicians tend to veer to the self-promoting and are not always riveting.

Lee was a greater leader than he was writer. Anyway, he never pretended to be otherwise.

As for Raila Odinga, I have no clue the titles he most prefers in his personal library. Still, his unabashed adoration of Nelson Mandela has remained constant.

He has plenty of company there, not least Barack Obama.

In fact, Obama is one of the better writers among contemporary world political leaders, as his book Dreams From My Father amply attests.

However, I do recall a recent American critic who felt parts of it were a bit contrived.

Trump remains a big contradiction even in his professed love for Rand.

Sitting arrangement at fundraising dinner categorised according to amount of contribution.

Opposition leader dismisses claim that the centre will be hosted out of Kenya.

See original here:

I find Donald Trump contradictory going by his preferred reading list - Daily Nation

The Fountainhead, part 1, chapter 8

Jobless again, Roark goes back to pounding the pavement. He makes a list of architects the ones whose work he resented least and methodically works his way through it, applying to one firm after another. But at each one, he meets with rejection (not surprising considering his interview technique):

It was not a judgment passed upon his merit. They did not think he was worthless. They simply did not care to find out whether he was good. Sometimes, he was asked to show his sketches; he extended them across a desk, feeling a contraction of shame in the muscles of his hand; it was like having the clothes torn off his body, and the shame was not, that his body was exposed, but that it was exposed to indifferent eyes.

Not to be pedantic, but if these architects asked to see his sketches, they did pass judgment on his merit, didnt they?

As the unsuccessful days run together into weeks and then months, Roark sits at his window and smokes. He feels a sense of threat in the air all around him, a nameless sense of hostility rising from the city below, as if each window, each strip of pavement, had set itself closed grimly, in wordless resistance. The text asserts that this doesnt bother him, because hes implacable and emotionless like all Randian protagonists. Nevertheless, it seems the constant rejection takes a toll:

As the summer months passed, as his list was exhausted and he returned again to the places that had refused him once, Roark found that a few things were known about him and he heard the same words spoken bluntly or timidly or angrily or apologetically You were kicked out of Stanton. You were kicked out of Francons office. All the different voices saying it had one note in common: a note of relief in the certainty that the decision had been made for them.

As always, Rands villains know theyre the villains, whether they admit it or not. She writes as if all the other architects are afraid to acknowledge Roarks secret greatness and need a plausible excuse not to hire him.

But these arent excuses! They say something about his basic fitness to be an employee. Roark was expelled from school for refusing assignments and fired from his last job for insubordination. His bad behavior isnt an isolated incident, but a pattern. Thats the best possible reason not to hire someone: because they wont do the job youre paying them for.

If I were the interviewer, to give him even a chance, Id want a very good explanation of what lessons hes learned and what hes going to do differently in the future. But Roark hasnt learned any lessons and wont behave differently in the future, as Im sure he would confirm if anyone asked him.

The only respite Roark has from the long string of rejections is when he visits Henry Cameron, whos convalescing at his retirement home in New Jersey. Cameron again offers to write him a recommendation Want me to give you a letter to one of the bastards? but Roark refuses. Instead, they pass the time sitting on the porch and gazing at the distant skyline of New York:

When Roark came to him, Cameron spoke of architecture with the simple confidence of a private possession. They sat together, looking at the city in the distance, on the edge of the sky, beyond the river. The sky was growing dark and luminous as blue-green glass; the buildings looked like clouds condensed on the glass, gray-blue clouds frozen for an instant in straight angles and vertical shafts, with the sunset caught in the spires

We saw this in Atlas Shrugged as well, this idolizing New York City as a sacred temple of human industry. Its not surprising that Ayn Rand loved the New York skyline; its probably the first sight she ever had of America.

But while she habitually gave her protagonists the same opinions as herself, in this case it doesnt make sense. Why does Roark feel that New York City is deserving of his admiration?

After all, isnt this the city that was built by evil classical architects? Isnt it the city that spurned his mentor Henry Cameron and consigned him to a miserable retirement? Isnt it the city, we were just told, that emanates a sense of implacable hostility toward him and all his works?

Remember, in The Fountainhead, Guy Francons absurdly ornate Frink Building in lower Manhattan is famous and beloved. Its widely considered the best building of the city. Meanwhile, Henry Camerons crowning achievement, the Dana Building, is half-empty and largely ignored (New Yorkers seldom looked at the Dana Building), if not outright hated. And while Francon is the worst of the lot, we just saw that there are no architects still working in New York whom Roark likes or respects. Every last one of them is hopelessly corrupted by classicism.

By their standards, Roark and Cameron should consider New York City a monument to conformity and philistinism. Rather than something to admire while they smoke and reminisce, the sight of its twinkling skyline from Camerons porch should feel like further mockery. Its one more symbol of how the world has rejected them, and like John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, the only pleasure they should derive from it is the thought of how theyll one day erase it from the earth.

Other posts in this series:

Excerpt from:

The Fountainhead: New York, New York - Patheos (blog)

Some say politics is just Hollywood for ugly people but today the lines are more blurred than ever. Beloved Hollywood figures run for political office as easily as politicians jump in front of the cameras these days.

Sometimes its all a little cringe-inducing, and sometimes its rather amusing. Heres a look at some of the worst and some of the best political cameos ever in television and film.

Ron Paul, Atlas Shrugged III: Who Is John Galt? (2013).Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) has arguably been the biggest influencer on modern libertarianism next to novelist Ayn Rand, whose 1,000-plus-page 1957 novel Atlas Shrugged is reportedly the second highest-selling book after the Bible.

So when producers John Aglialoro and Harmon Kaslow adapted Rand's novel into three films, it was only natural they'd reach out to Paul to do a cameo as himself. Fox News host Sean Hannity also appeared in a collection of segments showing real-life political figures reacting to a fictional speech made by John Galt, the man working to "stop the motor of the world."

It was a fitting moment for Paul, as he's often said the book was a major influence on him. "Shrugged" follows a world in which the concept of the individual is quickly eroding and the public and government are more violent and angry toward entrepreneurs and creators than ever. When various business leaders and artists begin disappearing, business leaders and free market believers Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden begin down a road that leads them to the mysterious John Galt and the ideal world he's working to build away from government.

See the original post here:

Best and Worst Political Cameos in Movies and TV - LifeZette

Americans now live in a political environment dominated by extremes.

One burgeoning faction, looking through red tinted lenses, seeks "freedom from." Another, looking through blue tinted lenses, seeks "access to." A fading faction, looking through clear lenses, fears all will become tinted.

The grassroots conservative movement sees national government as the great enemy and seeks freedom from oppressive taxation and regulation, while the grassroots liberal movement sees national government as the great provider and seeks access to expanded government succor.

No representative democracy can survive for long with either extreme in power. Indeed, our founding fathers, whom Providence blessed with the uncanny collective ability to see through clear lenses during the stressful birthing of our nation, designed the U.S. Constitution to force balance among extremes. They put in place checks and balances, deliberately gave different roles and representation to the House and Senate, limited the power of the federal government, and mitigated the power of the majority through the first 10 Amendments.

Regrettably, those willing and able to peer through clear lenses to protect us from extremism are fading away. Red and blue tint has seeped into most of our institutions and the processes by which our leaders are chosen. Even judges, the intended ultimate stronghold of clear-seeing patriots, are now chosen based on their tinted views of the law. Our Constitutions intent for balance is largely ignored.

The founders also intended for this Providence favored nation to be steeped in virtue. The growing and intense hatred of conservatives for liberals and vice versa Americans all shows America's virtue is fading, too.

All this, essentially, because of greed.

Ayn Rand schooled us about greed in her 1957 epic work Atlas Shrugged. Looters and moochers she called them, the profiteering businesses and non-productive masses who thrive off the accomplishments of productive citizens and siphon off their opportunities for prosperity.

A great irony for grassroots conservatives is that they may become the victims in this political environment, not the grassroots liberals who portray themselves as victims. The freedom dogma attractive to so many sounds good, but if established will primarily benefit the profiteers who fund the tinted foundations and advocacy groups spreading this creed. Big business profits would soar exponentially more than livable wages and broad prosperity.

On the moocher side, we already see government unable to sustain Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs at current levels, much less at the expanded programmatic and funding levels desired by grassroots liberals.

Government's role is not to benefit either looters or moochers, but to bring competing politics into balance so as to determine the appropriate level of taxation and regulation needed to sustain the national defense, commerce, homeland security, and public safety while providing adequate support for the general welfare. Representative democracy expects the push and pull of politics, but relies on clear-eyed patriots of good will from all sides who will come together to provide balanced government.

Sadly, there is no mood for compromise between the red and the blue, nor much good will. A nation cannot be indivisible and under God, or debt free, without both.

Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Meridian crawfolk@gmail.com.

Continued here:

American politics declining into profiteers vs. moochers - Meridian Star

Bill Crawford, Special to the American 7:47 a.m. CT June 4, 2017

Bill Crawford(Photo: Special to Hattiesburg American)Buy Photo

Americans now live in a political environment dominated by extremes.

One burgeoning faction, looking through red-tinted lenses, seeks "freedom from." Another, looking through blue-tinted lenses, seeks "access to." A fading faction, looking through clear lenses, fears all will become tinted.

The grassroots conservative movement sees national government as the great enemy and seeks freedom from oppressive taxation and regulation, while the grassroots liberal movement sees national government as the great provider and seeks access to expanded government succor.

No representative democracy can survive for long with either extreme in power. Indeed, our founding fathers, whom Providence blessed with the uncanny collective ability to see through clear lenses during the stressful birthing of our nation, designed the U.S. Constitution to force balance among extremes. They put in place checks and balances, deliberately gave different roles and representation to the House and Senate, limited the power of the federal government, and mitigated the power of the majority through the first 10 amendments.

More: Crawford: Health care not priority for Mississippi

Regrettably, those willing and able to peer through clear lenses to protect us from extremism are fading away. Red and blue tint has seeped into most of our institutions and the processes by which our leaders are chosen. Even judges, the intended ultimate stronghold of clear-seeing patriots, are now chosen based on their tinted views of the law. Our Constitutions intent for balance is largely ignored.

The founders also intended for this Providence-favored nation to be steeped in virtue. The growing and intense hatred of conservatives for liberals and vice versa Americans all shows America's virtue is fading, too.

All this, essentially, because of greed.

More: Crawford: Closed stores impact local economy

Ayn Rand schooled us about greed in her 1957 epic work Atlas Shrugged. Looters and moochers she called them, the profiteering businesses and non-productive masses who thrive off the accomplishments of productive citizens and siphon off their opportunities for prosperity.

A great irony for grassroots conservatives is that they may become the victims in this political environment, not the grassroots liberals who portray themselves as victims. The freedom dogma attractive to so many sounds good, but if established will primarily benefit the profiteers who fund the tinted foundations and advocacy groups spreading this creed. Big business profits would soar exponentially more than livable wages and broad prosperity.

On the moocher side, we already see government unable to sustain Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other entitlement programs at current levels, much less at the expanded programmatic and funding levels desired by grassroots liberals.

More: Mississippi back on bottom in senior health rankings

Government's role is not to benefit either looters or moochers, but to bring competing politics into balance so as to determine the appropriate level of taxation and regulation needed to sustain the national defense, commerce, homeland security and public safety, while providing adequate support for the general welfare. Representative democracy expects the push and pull of politics, but relies on clear-eyed patriots of good will from all sides who will come together to provide balanced government.

Sadly, there is no mood for compromise between the red and the blue, nor much good will. A nation cannot be indivisible and under God, or debt free, without both.

Bill Crawford is a syndicated columnist from Meridian. Contact him at crawfolk@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: http://hatne.ws/2sDxnve

More:

Crawford: American politics declining into profiteers vs. moochers - Hattiesburg American

Ayn Rand valued Aristotles philosophy and developed her own philosophy of reason called Objectivism. Aristotles philosophy adhered to the logic of A is A, but Alfred Korzybski took is away. Frank R Wallace replaced it all with Neo-Tech Objectivism.

Frank R Wallace quoted Ayn Rand saying save me from the Radians. Ayn Rand was her self repulsed by the cult-ish obsession coming from Objectivists at that time.

Ayn Rand, the founder of Objectivism, was an inspiration to Frank R Wallace. Ayn Rands influence on early versions of Neo-Tech Power is obvious. Wallace showed great admiration for Objectivism, particularly Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged.

Neo-Tech sought to convert that rigid dogmatic cult following of Ayn Rand into a highly leveraged force of intelligence and influence.

Wallace once suggested that Ayn Rands character John Galt had influential powers probably beyond realistic possibility. Ayn Rand claimed that her heros revealed the reality of man. Ayn Rands Objectivism seems to have provided no such real life hero (that I am aware of). Wallaces Neo-Tech later went on to describe The Greatest Discovery Ever! and the wpgsh phenomenon of societal influence.

In fact, reading Ayn Rands early fiction, you can clearly see a natural dislike of reality that Rand seems to have imbued. Cuts from The Fountainhead show Howard Roarke as almost schizophrenic in his lack of mindfulness. I seem to remember the character even claiming he was incapable of love. He clearly seemed that way in the cut edits that never made it into the published version of The Fountainhead. Neo-Tech approaches human experience from a very different angle. Neo-Techs evolution rises from research into the history of love, with human happiness as being the primary goal. This was not clearly expressed in Ayn Rands writings. Perhaps it would have been her next novel.

I believe Ayn Rands Objectivism cleared a path for Neo-Tech to evolve for providing the human side of the hard facts of reality.

What differences are there between Neo-Tech and Objectivism?

Objectivism used 5 classifications of philosophy. Here they are with Objectivism keyword for each category in the brackets.

Im going to call them Objectivism Metaphysics (Reality), Objectivism Epistemology (Reason), Objectivism Politics (Capitalism), Objectivism Aesthetics (never defined), and Objectivism Ethics (self-interest).

Neo-Techs definitions for Neo-Tech Metaphysics (Business), Neo-Tech Epistemology (Neo-Think), Neo-Tech Politics (Free competition), Neo-Tech Ethics (Value production), and Neo-Tech Aesthetics (Value reflection).

Perhaps Frank R Wallace and Ayn Rand would have come to rather narrow agreements in a personal discussion. Wallace would certainly have seen far and wide. Ayn Rand might have slapped his face.

Neo-Tech broadens the reach of Objectivism, both philosophically, and commercially.

Similarities between Neo-Tech and Objectivism

Both Neo-Tech and Objectivism posit the primacy of existence to consciousness. In easier language that simply means that reality exists before consciousness has a place to exist. Platonic mysticism and Kant would argue that consciousness is primary, that reality is seated within this thing we call consciousness. Both Neo-Tech and Objectivism strongly disagree.

Nathan Shaw has begun a site on Neo-Tech history, Neo-Tech Publishing, and The Neo-Tech Discovery and Nouveau-Tech . Nathan has also created an Life Direction and Career Development Workshop program online at Life Direction

Photo By PIRO4D from Pixabay

Read the original:

Neo-Tech Views On Ayn Rand and Objectivism - Good Herald

Organizations such as VIDA work to hold reviews and awards committees accountable for not only their coverage of women, but of all kinds of women. However, they tend to focus on the so-called literary genre. So, how do women in other genres science fiction, mystery, street lit, womens lit fare?

Ahead of a panel at the Bay Area Book Festival centered on Feminist Activism Through Popular Fiction, authors Meg Elison, Aya de Leon and Kate Raphael weighed in on the challenges they face as women writing in their respective genres. Raphael, an activist who writes mystery books, says theres an active feminist community among her fellow mystery writers. But, she says she struggles to publish stories about women characters who indulge in the same antics as their noir-ish male counterparts.

Meanwhile, Elison and de Leon a dystopian writer and a street lit writer, respectively both say there is a dearth of the types of stories they want to tell, stories about the reality of womens struggles, amid an action-centered plot. Below, they discuss the specific road blocks that women who write popular fiction face:

HPMG

Meg Elison, author of The Book of the Unnamed Midwife: I write speculative fiction, which comes under the big umbrella of science fiction. My first books are post-apocalyptic stories. Science fiction was invented by a woman, and most of my favorite writers in the genre are women. Post-apocalyptic fiction, however, is crazily unbalanced. Most of the stories that take place after the end of the world are by men, about men and written for men.

I read hundreds of books in the genre where women were irrelevant, used as plot devices and barely verbal. They almost never needed birth control and they definitely never needed tampons. I realized that the story that I wanted to read really hadnt been written yet: What if the apocalypse was very asymmetrical? What if it (like everything else) was harder on women and children than it was on men?

Aya de Leon, author of the Justice Hustlers series: My Justice Hustlers series mixes elements of womens fiction, street lit and erotic romance. They are politically charged tales of labor organizing, womens health care and wealth redistribution that center on the planning and execution of multimillion dollar heists.

Street lit is traditionally male-dominated, and as in most parts of the literary industry male gatekeepers and audiences tend to ignore womens writing. Every genre has its trademark cover art imagery.They function like signals to genre audiences:This is your type of book. The symbols of urban fiction are guns, money, jewelry and urban landscapes. While male cover models are sometimes shirtless, they are generally heavily muscled and often armed. Typically, womens book covers in the genre skew toward romance tropes, rather than action.

In order to be consistent with other books in the imprint, my novel covers have a single young woman of color looking sexy in a sort of come hither way. A more accurate representation of my series would be a sexy, multi-racial group of armed women in the midst of a heist operation. A male writer wouldnt have the same problem, because the mainstream images of male strength and sexiness are the same: power is sexy and power is power.

Kate Raphael, author of Murder Under the Bridge: I write mysteries, and women actually make up over 50 percent of published mystery and crime fiction writers, but as Sisters in Crime hasdocumented, get fewer than 50 percent of reviews and far fewer in the most prestigious outlets. There is also a narrower range of characters that are acceptable for women in crime fiction. An agent rejected my book because my main character, a Palestinian policewoman, disobeyed her boss.So many mysteries involve a male detective pursuing an investigation after hes been ordered not to, having his badge and gun confiscated, that its a clich.

Elison: The strong female lead is just another trope. Too often, it means a stereotypical cool girl who eschews femininity to be one of the guys and wield weapons. Too often she carries her own internalized misogyny, or shes just a regulation hot chick who happens to know kung fu.

Its insufficient because the movement for the correct representation of the wild spectrum of human gender and sexuality is just getting started. Were just staring to see tender boys in films like Moonlight, or fully realized tough women in books like Chuck Wendigs Atlanta Burns. Were just now seeing realistic trans and nonbinary characters, asexual characters and so many more. Ripley in a mecha suit is great, but not enough. A disabled Furiosa is a wonderful start, but its got to keep rolling.

De Leon: Pop culture stories with a strong female lead are an important component of feminism, especially in a media world that skews so strongly toward men: Male writers of books, and male protagonists on-screen with male creators behind the scenes. But Andi Zeislers recent book,We Were Feminists Once, reminds us that the ultimate goal of feminism isnt to applaud an individual woman being empowered, but about creating gender equality for all women. I am most excited about the feminist potential of stories that have a broader scope of what they envision as far as interrupting and ultimately ending sexism in the world.

Raphael: So many of the strong female leads are still very stereotyped. Theres still an expectation that a woman can be beautiful, fashionable, f**kable, vulnerable, not shrill and at the same time be kickass.Of course some women are all those things, but many arent. The real-life struggles of women are often oversimplified. Like, whos doing the childcare?And how does the driven woman cop or spy or agent or lawyer feel about leaving her kids to go running off after the murderer at all hours?If shes heterosexual, is her husband resentful, and if so, what does she do about it?I try to introduce those dilemmas in my books. In a feminist novel, women should see characters like themselves women of different races and cultures, different body types, dykes, mothers, single women, poor women and hopefully not in a United Colors of Benetton way, but in the messy, complex way that exists in the real world.

Elison: Absolutely, unequivocally, yes. There is no part of my outlook or my work that is not shaped by my experience as a woman, and my belief that we are entitled to equality and almost always denied it. Writers and artists will often try to dodge or soften this label, claiming their work is for everybody, that its just a story about people. My work is for everybody who agrees that women are people. That isnt too much to ask.

De Leon: Definitely. Im not interested in turning readers on or off with the feminist label. Im interested in embodying feminist values.

Raphael: Feminism is really core to who I am so I cant conceive of not writing a feminist book.

Elison: The story must come first and definitely did for me. Wrapping a story around your politics invariably turns out a monstrosity like Atlas Shrugged, where somebody just rants for 40 pages about your philosophy. Nobody is fooled. Letting your life and your truth come through in a story without fear cannot help but be built partly of your own politics. My stories contain myself, my sexuality, my identity. Those things are political; they do not come apart. If a writer finds that their politics work against their story, it is likely because there is some part of themselves about which they cannot or will not tell the truth.

De Leon: I was really interested in reaching beyond the traditional feminist audience. Thats why I wrote a book that has elements of chick lit and romance. I wanted to mainstream subversive political ideas by serving them in the forms that women have been taught to consume. And I was interested in remixing tropes of romance and chick lit that seemed to conflict with feminism: hunky men, swooning moments, stiletto heels, shopping, competition between women. I wanted to engage all those mainstream appetites, but challenge them, as well.

Raphael: Its a tough question.Again, the crime genre lends itself to political storytelling because its concerned fundamentally with questions of justice and injustice.A good crime story lays bare the power relations in a society in my case, in Palestine and Israel. So it was well suited to what I wanted to do.I could never set aside my politics to tell a story, because a radical analysis of social relations is how I view the world. If I didnt bring in radical politics, and activism, I wouldnt be telling a true story and certainly not one about Palestine. I just am not interested in apolitical stories, they seem flat and devoid of meaning to me.I can barely stand to read one, so I could definitely not write one.

Elison: I dont know ifcomfortable is the right word to describe it, but it has always felt right. The obstacles are mostly that people whose opinions dont matter will shout them at me on the internet. Im perfectly capable of handling that. Ive had a lot of thoughtful conversations about my depictions of gender and sexuality, and its fascinating to hear different interpretations of my work. But the difference between that conversation and an anonymous all-caps accusation of feminazism is pretty easy to discern. Though I respect the work of authors like Roxane Gay and Lindy West who give of their time and patience to try and educate trolls, I find it a poor investment of both in my case.

De Leon: In the past, I think I was more preachy. I had a harder time writing flawed protagonists. I wanted everyone to be much more honorable, but they werent very interesting. [] I hope to bridge some of that with a book that is politically charged but delivers all the feels in the romantic arc, and a good heist plot, as well as upending stereotypes of race, gender, sexuality, gender identity, nationality, and class. Ultimately, thats what I want to do, whatever the cover or the genre or the shelf in the bookstore.

Raphael: I have no choice because if anyone Googles me, the first hundred things that come up are going to be my activism. I do a feminist radio show, I used to write for feminist and queer newspapers, I was interviewed by the FBI after 9/11 because of my feminist and antiwar organizing, there are stories about me being deported from Israel thats just who I am. For sure, it narrows the market.

Read the original here:

Women Writers Face Major Hurdles, Especially In Bestselling Genres - HuffPost