Who was William Shakespeare Secret Mysteries Of America's Beginnings - Vol 1 - The New Atlantis

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
[/QUOTE]

ATLAS SHRUGGED

In 1957, a 1,168 page book by Ayn Rand, called Atlas Shrugged, was published. According to one source, Rand was alleged to be a mistress to Philippe Rothschild, who instructed her to write the book in order to show that through the raising of oil prices, then destroying the oil fields and shutting down the coal mines, the Illuminati would take over the world. It also related how they would blow up grain mills, derail trains, bankrupt and destroy their own companies, till they had destroyed the economy of the entire world; and yet, they would be so wealthy, that it would not substantially affect their vast holdings. The novel is about a man who stops the motor of the world, of what happens when “the men of the mind, the intellectuals of the world, the originators and innovators in every line of industry go on strike; when the men of creative ability in every profession, in protest against regulation, quit and disappear.”

If we are to believe that the book represents the Illuminati’s plans for the future, then the following excerpts may provide some insight to the mentality of the elitists who are preparing us for one-world government.


One of the characters, Francisco d’Anconia, a copper industrialist and heir to a great fortune, the first to join the strike, says:


“I am destroying d’Anconia Copper, consciously, deliberately, by plan and by my own hand. I have to plan it carefully and work as hard as if I were producing a fortune- in order not to let them notice it and stop me, in order not to let them seize the mines until it is too late ... I shall destroy every last bit of it and every last penny of my fortune and every ounce of copper that could feed the looters. I shall not leave it as I found it- I shall leave it as Sebastian d’Anconia found it- then let them try to exist without him or me!”


A bit later, d’Anconia says: “We produced the wealth of the world- but we let our enemies write its moral code.” Still later, he says: “We’ll survive without it. They won’t.”


Dagney Taggart, the main character of the book, is the head of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad. Her goal was to find out who John Galt was. She discovered that he was a young inventor with the Twentieth Century Motor Company, who said he would put an end to the regulations which bound a man to his job indefinitely. Before disappearing, he said: “I will stop the motor of the world.” He told her:


“Dagney, we who’ve been called ‘materialists’ ... we’re the only ones who know how little value or meaning there is in material objects ... we’re the ones who create their value and meaning. We can afford to give them up ... We are the soul, of which railroads, copper mines, steel mines, and oil wells are the body- and they are living entities that beat day and night, like our hearts, in the sacred function of supporting human life, but only so long as they remain our body, only so long as they remain the expression, the reward and the property of achievement. Without us, they are corpses and their sole product is poison, not wealth or food, the poison of disintegration that turns men into hordes of scavengers ... You do not have to depend on any material possessions, they depend on you, you create them, you own the one and only tool of production ... leave them the carcass of that railroad, leave them all the rusted nails and rotted ties and gutted engines- but don’t leave them your mind.”


Later in the book, Galt says:


“And the same will be happening in every other industry, wherever machines are used- the machines which they thought could replace our minds. Plane crashes, oil tank explosions, blast furnace breakouts, high tension wire electrocutions, subway cave-ins, and trestle collapses- they’ll see them all. The very machines that made their life so safe- will now make it a continuous peril ... You know that the cities will be hit worst of all. The cities were made by the railroads and will go with them ... When the rails are cut, the city of New York will starve in two days. That’s all the supply of food its got. It’s fed by a continent three thousand miles long. How will they carry food to New York? By directive and ox-cart? But first, before it happens, they’ll go through the whole of the agony- through the shrinking, the shortages, the hunger riots, the stampeding violence in the midst of the growing stillness ... They’ll lose the airplanes first, then their automobiles, then their trucks, then their horsecarts .. Their factories will stop, then their furnaces and their radios. Then their electric light system will go.”


Francisco d’Anconia, who blew up all the copper mines in the world, said of Galt:


“He had quit the Twentieth Century. He was living in a garret in a slum neighborhood. He stepped to the window and pointed at the skyscrapers of the city. He said that we had to extinguish the lights of the world, and when we would see the lights of New York go out, we would know that our job was done.”

Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
Atlas Shrugged
is a 1957 novel by Ayn Rand. Rand's fourth and last novel, To produce Atlas Shrugged, Rand conducted research on the American railroad industry.




the rest is here http://www.illuminati-news.com/2007/0322a.htm
Is Atlas Shrugged a coded blueprint for the Illuminati’s plans of bringing this world to a point where they can institute a one world government? It certainly is thought provoking, and it is included only for the sake of conjecture. Being that the Illuminati is destroying our economy, and they do control the corporate structure of the United States, if not the world, there just may be something to this book, and maybe we should consider it a warning.

http://www.amazon.ca/Atlas-Shrugged-Ayn-Rand/dp/0451191145

the novel shows its heroes persecuted for years by statists - fascist/communist types who destroy freedom at the point of a gun and send the country (and the world) down the drain. In response, the heroes do no violence to the villains. They don't lift a hand against them. Instead, they withdraw to a secret valley where they can no longer be harmed. As a result, their talents are no longer available for the villains to take advantange of and the villains' society and government collapses. (The resulting state is described as being akin to the "chaos" of pre-industrial China.) Just after this happens, the heroes return to rebuild and their rights are better appreciated.
By A Customer on May 6 2004
Format: Mass Market Paperback
As noted above, Atlas Shrugged is the "second most influential book for Americans today" after the Bible, according to a joint survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, gives you a good starting reference on how enduring the story is, decades after publishing.
I'll name examples. The only basic science researcher (an Einstein of sorts) is portrayed as a buffoon who ends up a gov't tool, having ultimately contributed meagerly to his society with his silly fixation on stellar events. An engineer as a mere appetizer creates a new theory of physics allowing, for his 'static engine', what amounts to 'zero point energy' from nothing
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
I don't have the time right now to respond to the rest of this reply in full ( and I'm probably not qualified to respond to any of this), but it deserves a response because I would not agree with most of that. Just as a sampler using that drug fiasco as an example is a bit much. It's an outlier and an extreme example at best, and a little disingenuous to use that as an example of what would happen if we had no government or church to run everyone's lives to some extent, if that's what you're getting at.

Most of the price-fixing or manipulation that happens as I understand it is because government allows it to happen or the corrupt environment makes fertile ground for these types of situations, or you've just simply got a convergence of public-private partnership's which influences the corruption, and we're back to synarchism or syndicalism, which it can be argued is the situation we're in right now . The situation you're describing is also happening under the watchful eyes of a Government regulatory structure, the same one that is supposed to safeguard people from this happening. Is this not proving my point, in an extreme sense? I just don't understand what that is an example of besides what we are seeing today, the problem being paraded around as an excuse for the root cause of the issue.

This is my understanding of the current use of the term neoliberalism, which is in line with laissez faire economic attitudes, or at least that's how I'm using the term.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Thanks for your clarification of the term 'Neoliberal'. I guess I have been using it, whenever I occasionally do, to mirror the political term 'neo-conservative', as it applies to wider policy aspects than merely economics. The general problem with terms and labels, and as your link admits, that term itself has shifted over time.

The point of the drug fiasco, and what you are trying to argue below that, is that there are always people who want to game whatever the system is. Your logic doesn't address this. I don't understand the mechanism that says that if this is happening under a regulatory regime (is it?) that it will suddenly stop once there is no regulatory regime. Perhaps we should stop the incestuous corruptions between powerful interests and the regulators?

This seems to me that you are saying that you want to remove the spring from your car's accelerator and when you want to stop you'll simply reach down and use your hand to raise the pedal, or burn up your brakes instead, or jump out the door. And speed limits are evil as well. When we get rid of them, there will be no more car accidents, because everyone will automatically do the right thing.

And the libertarian response, I know, is that a market will provide competitors. This is a nice sounding Theory and in many circumstances can be true. But there are many situations where a market dynamic doesn't address the respective issues at hand, or always provide the most optimal solution for a situation. Sometimes markets do not want to address situations, and therefore the society's answer must be Tough S***.

People are not created equal, except perhaps in some abstract sense, and do not start out with equal access to all matter of things that can significantly affect their future outcomes. But even if they did start out with equal access to those things, economic activities mean there is risk involved, and it seems to me that many people translate their relative success in the system to their proximity to the magical Hidden Hand, their Daddy, or God, forgetting that any number of risky things, beyond their control, might have been their undoing. I'm not against people getting rewarded for legitimate meritorious activities, but at the same time, it is not much of a system to say that some (dubious) individuals merit hundred million dollar severance packages (for running a failing business - whether their fault or not) while everyone else gets to piss in the wind. I know, this is the government's fault again, because whatever business that might be would obviously not have failed in the first place had it not been for the government.
 

ousia

Member
loren,

I suggest you actually read what you are criticizing because you often post ridiculous propaganda that is obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subjects you pontificate on....

Example:
Francisco d’Anconia, who blew up all the copper mines in the world, said of Galt:
This is a complete fabrication! Franscisco blew up HIS OWN mines to prevent them from being nationalized by parasitic government thugs!

You are protesting the rite of a host to rid themselves of parasites that feed off the energy of others life sustaining, productive effort. Would you keep tape worms? Fleas?
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
loren,

I suggest you actually read what you are criticizing because you often post ridiculous propaganda that is obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subjects you pontificate on....

Example:


This is a complete fabrication! Franscisco blew up HIS OWN mines to prevent them from being nationalized by parasitic government thugs!

You are protesting the rite of a host to rid themselves of parasites that feed off the energy of others life sustaining, productive effort. Would you keep tape worms? Fleas?
in her own words she talks about here book and movie about 23 min on atlas shrugged.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
You are protesting the rite of a host to rid themselves of parasites that feed off the energy of others life sustaining, productive effort. Would you keep tape worms? Fleas?
>who is the parasites? who are the host? do you like being controlled by nuclear pollution?
Population control nuclear pollution, : By Arthur R Tamplin, John W. Gofman ·
Discussion in 'Technology' started by lorenhough, Monday at 8:07 PM.

Unwatch Thread

  1. lorenhoughActive Member
    Population control through nuclear pollution, : Hardcover – November 27, 1970

    by Arthur R Tamplin (Author), John W. Gofman (Author)

    http://www.amazon.com/Population-control-through-nuclear-pollution/dp/0911012109
    www.amazon.com/Population-control-through-nuclear-pollution/dp/...
 
Last edited:

ousia

Member
No loren, make an argument for yourself!

What part of the video do you claim makes the false claim that Franscisco "blew up all the copper mines in the world", or even anyone else's property???? Substantiate this nonsense or retract it!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your clarification of the term 'Neoliberal'. I guess I have been using it, whenever I occasionally do, to mirror the political term 'neo-conservative', as it applies to wider policy aspects than merely economics. The general problem with terms and labels, and as your link admits, that term itself has shifted over time.

The point of the drug fiasco, and what you are trying to argue below that, is that there are always people who want to game whatever the system is. Your logic doesn't address this. I don't understand the mechanism that says that if this is happening under a regulatory regime (is it?) that it will suddenly stop once there is no regulatory regime. Perhaps we should stop the incestuous corruptions between powerful interests and the regulators?

This seems to me that you are saying that you want to remove the spring from your car's accelerator and when you want to stop you'll simply reach down and use your hand to raise the pedal, or burn up your brakes instead, or jump out the door. And speed limits are evil as well. When we get rid of them, there will be no more car accidents, because everyone will automatically do the right thing.

And the libertarian response, I know, is that a market will provide competitors. This is a nice sounding Theory and in many circumstances can be true. But there are many situations where a market dynamic doesn't address the respective issues at hand, or always provide the most optimal solution for a situation. Sometimes markets do not want to address situations, and therefore the society's answer must be Tough S***.

People are not created equal, except perhaps in some abstract sense, and do not start out with equal access to all matter of things that can significantly affect their future outcomes. But even if they did start out with equal access to those things, economic activities mean there is risk involved, and it seems to me that many people translate their relative success in the system to their proximity to the magical Hidden Hand, their Daddy, or God, forgetting that any number of risky things, beyond their control, might have been their undoing. I'm not against people getting rewarded for legitimate meritorious activities, but at the same time, it is not much of a system to say that some (dubious) individuals merit hundred million dollar severance packages (for running a failing business - whether their fault or not) while everyone else gets to piss in the wind. I know, this is the government's fault again, because whatever business that might be would obviously not have failed in the first place had it not been for the government.
Wow. I literally don't know what you are talking about now, so I'm going to back away from this conversation. I guess I was right, this is over my head, or you are not making any sense at this point, or maybe a little of both. I truly don't know. I guess I'm pleading ignorance, or we are not talking about the same thing with the same emphasis on the same context (or we have some drastically different value perspectives) and I'm going to say no hard feelings.

I'm also not getting into a huff and running away from the forum, as I understand many people have been doing lately per Jerry's reference to this happening in one of the recent podcast shows. Just signing off for now.
 

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
loren,

I suggest you actually read what you are criticizing because you often post ridiculous propaganda that is obvious to anyone who has any familiarity with the subjects you pontificate on....

Example:


This is a complete fabrication! Franscisco blew up HIS OWN mines to prevent them from being nationalized by parasitic government thugs!

You are protesting the rite of a host to rid themselves of parasites that feed off the energy of others life sustaining, productive effort. Would you keep tape worms? Fleas?
almost 7000 hits on my post have you looked at it? I was on joes podcast on the georga guide stones on 4/13did you here that ? http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?forums/oysters-beware-of-walrus.22/
Sitting on a cornflake; Decoding typology.
lorenhough, Feb 1, 2015 ... 5 6 7
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?threads/sitting-on-a-cornflake-decoding-typology.5/
Replies:
132
Views:
6,970
http://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?forums/any-podcast.21/ 4/13

listen here http://postflaviana.org/podcasts/ loren hough with joe and jerry 4/13
.
 
Last edited:

lorenhough

Well-Known Member
No loren, make an argument for yourself!

What part of the video do you claim makes the false claim that Franscisco "blew up all the copper mines in the world", or even anyone else's property???? Substantiate your nonsense or retract it!
the rules are not to make attacks on the person I ask jerry to uphold them
 

ousia

Member
Loren said:

almost 7000 hits on my post have you looked at it? I was on joes podcast on the georga guide stones on 4/13did you here that ?
What part of that post answers my question about your fabricated claims concerning Atlas Shrugged?
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Hi Loren & Ousia,

As per Loren's request to enforce the forum rules, I have edited Ousia's statement above to read "Substantiate this nonsense or retract it!" instead of "Substantiate your nonsense or retract it!" It's a subtle point, and I agree completely that Ousia did not mean to make an ad hominem; but on the other hand, I don't think it's fair to blame Loren for the contents of whatever third party materials he posts on the site. Nor would it be fair to hold the publisher (that's me) responsible. All materials on the site are offered for consideration & conversation, but are not warranted to be accurate. So, Ousia, I hope you'll forgive me for making this very minor edit to your statement.

I believe the claim that D'Anconia "blew up all the copper mines in the world" in Rand's novel, is incorrect. But the novel portrays a conspiracy to shut down and destroy the world economy. In context, I'd say this is a minor error.

D'anconia does claim the moral authority to carry out this plan, stating "We produced the wealth of the world". By "We" he means himself and his fellow capitalists, captains of industry. But this is a false claim: D'Anconia did not create the earth from which his wealth was mined, nor did he create the copper in his mines, nor did he create the wealth he inherited as a youth which became the basis for his fortune, nor could he have built any mines without the dedicated efforts of thousands of his employees.
 

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Wow. I literally don't know what you are talking about now, so I'm going to back away from this conversation. I guess I was right, this is over my head, or you are not making any sense at this point, or maybe a little of both. I truly don't know. I guess I'm pleading ignorance, or we are not talking about the same thing with the same emphasis on the same context (or we have some drastically different value perspectives) and I'm going to say no hard feelings.

I'm also not getting into a huff and running away from the forum, as I understand many people have been doing lately per Jerry's reference to this happening in one of the recent podcast shows. Just signing off for now.
Hi Craig,

Sorry that I have put you off. Yes, it's quite possible that we don't understand each other. In any case, in my various posts (and Jerry's as well) I have been slowly laying out my position, which comes from my perspective as a former radical libertarian. That said, I am neither an economist or a philosopher, but rather a former engineer that realized that he got badly conned when trying to replace one bad (Republicrat) ideology with another bad one, that originally seemed better (and appealed to my youthful and unrealistic vanity).

There were pluses and minuses with making this forum's and blog's focus so wide, and this is the downside IMHO, especially as I would much rather be focusing soly on the historical and religious aspects (with my vastly limited energy these days). But it's hard for me to be restrictive to those matters when they have so many noodly appendages into the other matters. And such as those (not you) who claim privy knowledge to divine and possibly salvic prophecy and Aristotle's ousia hypocritically refuse to elaborate on them (beyond dropping names and links ad nauseum), especially after launching into their opening and anonymous ad hominem or other odd (non)collectivist tactics, don't improve my cranky disposition.

In any case, I have just posted the following new thread that discusses a similar viewpoint to Jerry's and mine position on false dialectics in regards to the same larger picture, but from someone having had a different religious and social background than Jerry's and mine.
 
Top