Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/02/2020 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    And Gates. And WHO. And everyone else involved in the scheme. I'm very angry about the deaths from this "dastardly plot." I'm thinking of those who died as war casualties. Ellen
  2. 3 points
    The pandemics in 1957 and then again in 1968 killed roughly 100k Americans each, they were influenza viruses , I don't know of any societal wide reactions that match this one. Did we flatten a curve ? Or do curves just do what curves do? It doesn't seem like lockdowns did much other than economic damage. I mean pandemics suck , but yeah they suck. Hurricanes suck too . ? It's starting to really feel like we've been played , no ?
  3. 3 points
    Classic Objectivism absolutely opposes anti-trust. What wasn't addressed back then was State charted, created, sponsored corporations. There are 50 States. Where is there the room for public corporations in the ideologic rubric of libertarianism/Objectivism or in Randianism, if you will? Basically corporations are facets of economic fascism written large by today's social media. Hit them with anti-trust as a necessary stopgap. --Brant
  4. 3 points
    The single greatest advance in medicine was the germ theory of disease. It's precursor was smallpox vaccination. There is no handling flu with vaccine, just the pretense, but the pretense is a horse to ride into good doing the world. I'd never get a flu shot. The virus mutates too much too quickly. Money is a road to power. These money men, ironically, are being controlled and used by people who live in all ways high on the hogs. They aren't after a virus, but you and me through nation state destruction and globalization. Above all they must all belong to the same fraternity. If Bill Gates were a true hero he'd go after malaria with DDT advocacy. --Brant
  5. 2 points
    T, There's another possibility. The riots might be Stage 2 with the coronavirus being Stage 1. And in that case, I wonder what the other stages are going to be until November. Michael
  6. 2 points
    From "the particular" (this trade, today's sunrise, this water, etc.etc). to "the general" (all trades, all sunrises, all oceans) IS induction. And it requires cognitive effort to avoid drawing false propositions. You don't conclude that Capitalism is moral, initially: (for the moment let's assume this individual has no idea of "capitalism") - you observed that THIS deal was good and proper and moral - and this one, and the next - and then generalized. You have seen the philosophical definition of induction, do you not accept it? The reason people think that Capitalism "has failed" is from FAULTY induction. They see and hear of a single amoral/immoral aspect in this compromised "mixed economy" and generalize that the whole "Capitalist system" is rotten. Usually evasively. Always a straw man. Socialism only appears good and "sounds better" to those pampered dreamers who have and have implicitly enjoyed the benefits of Capitalism (or a large modicum of it). (The Stolen Concept fallacy, right?) If they were transported to a country to live under the real thing they'd run home in a jiffy.
  7. 2 points
    I find it a little ironic that on the one hand I advocate for a system where there would be little to no public property, state media, public utilities of any kind. Where all is privately owned, traded, rented, sold and used in the free market. Yet I almost am tempted to treat the various media service platforms as coming within the public sphere, I almost conflate their private with public good and their private action with government action...but reason brings me back from the brink. My only consolation is the double negative... that since we live in a mixed economy there no doubt is favouritism and cronyism which needs to be reined in by force of regulation.
  8. 2 points
  9. 2 points
    Ed, Jon is why We can’t have nice things, like..members that talk more than they do. Nice to see you!
  10. 2 points
    We've certainly been played as to the deadliness of it. It's a real virus, and extra-hard on particular categories of people. But it's no where near the killer it was projected as being. We've been played - by a "Disease X" scheme that was already planned out for potential use in early 2018. Ellen
  11. 2 points
    They need mail-in ballots in order to cheat enough to defeat Trump and keep their necks out of nooses. They need very intense fear to push mail-in through. Mentally prepare now for false flags and terror, (please start expecting that now so you don't lose your shit and become infinitely malleable when it hits.) It is coming, it is [THEM] -- so get angry when it hits, not fearful.
  12. 2 points
    Verified is a funny word , nowadays, perhaps always, but definitely nowadays.
  13. 2 points
    Might as well do to them now. If they get back in power they'll do it to us regardless. --Brant
  14. 2 points
    Cross-posted from Unz.com — I’m not a diehard China skeptic but I do hate totalitarianism. Instead of succumbing to martial law or waiting for a dangerous rushed-to-market vaccine (see Paul Craig Roberts on that), concentrate on curing, or ameliorating the effects of, the disease. Faucci and co-conspirators should be tried for murder for willfully ignoring strong evidence that Zinc (e.g. Zinc Sulfate) + Hydroxychloroquine + Vitamin D + Vitamin C cure the disease. About the first two see this. About the first see this and this. About the third and fourth see this. They also recommend anti-inflammatories.
  15. 2 points
    2,000 scumbags shitting their pants as their criminal careers in government catch up to them.
  16. 2 points
    President of Tanzania suspects bullshit, sends samples of a damned fruit for coronavirus testing, fires head of lab testing when returned results are positive. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-tanzania/tanzania-suspends-laboratory-head-after-president-questions-coronavirus-tests-idUSKBN22G295
  17. 2 points
    Have you seen this, yet? THE DEAD ZONE TV show from 2003 mentions a corona virus from China, a school lockdown, and talks about Hydroxychloroquine being the cure...[edit 5/5/20: NOT hydroxychloroquine, but chloroquine. 2 different drugs, but both being tested for use on coronavirus.]
  18. 1 point
    Jon, Here. I did a screenshot. Michael
  19. 1 point
    So was it that Plan A didn't work ? Take away the freedoms and livelihoods of the low, mid and mid-class( the 'deplorables') to foment insurrection? Only instead they used civil disobedience to force a return to civility and normalcy. So they resorted to inciting the rabble, exploiting the networks that infest the cultural left? Did they miscalculate ? Did they think the deplorables would join ? It's more than heartening to see the people in Minneapolis return to the riot scene the next day armed with brooms and shovels , I hope they keep returning and I hope they come back armed and ready to take out the Bolsheviks.
  20. 1 point
    (You have to ask, rhetorically: whose life is it, anyway?) Encouraging that everywhere there are minds which are free and aware like Dr. Vosloo. What stuns me still, is how quickly masses of people submitted to the blanket measures 'advised' by the WHO and enforced by various governments, those many who self-righteously turn on fellow citizens for not submitting as easily. Not to say that one doesn't take personal precautions depending on one's risk factors and/or protect others close to one. Not to say that a few govt's have not been reluctant to impose and ready to lift the authoritarian edicts. They are evidently the free-er ones. To the billions of other people who are healthy, are they and their lives and livelihoods - life, itself, the human necessity for "self-generated, self-directed action" - to be sacrificed for the few? They have already, many will not recover their life as it was.
  21. 1 point
    Trash. Crap. Don't step in it. edit. There are several threads, or topics for teens on Objectivist Living and I have NO doubt kids frequent these pages so for that guy to advertise sex acts with kids? other men? other women? himself? tag teams? criminal acts? public acts? Do you feel safe around these people? Do you want your kids playing around these people?
  22. 1 point
    S, AG Barr gives a pretty good short explanation of what happened in practice: bait and switch. You might be interested to know that all these tech giants, starting with Google, used a Marxist system to get where they are. That is part of the bait and switch AG Barr is talking about--the root, so to speak. I wrote about this last year. George Gilder is the one who made it clear to me. Gilder continues in the quote below. The reason I separated the passage (it continues from the previous one) is that, although it does not deal specifically with Marx, it shows how the Marxist model inevitably leads to "walled gardens" and "company stores" with arbitrary market practices, both of which need a massive security system in place for protection. He also shows the bait and switch of "free" software in this Marxist model. The free not only serves as the bait, it isolates Google from complying with many legal business requirements. The help on the way that Gilder talks about is blockchain and cryptocurrency. This is one of the reasons I am outside of the typical O-Land stance on private companies when talking about Internet tech giants. The issue is more complex than simply we live in a mixed economy. And there's this. The surveillance state cannot exist without these tech giants. Notice that all these tech giants are trying to harness blockchain and cryptocurrency with exclusivity, but they can't do it by its very nature. Also, they have no way to keep their censorship going if they do set up their own blockchain and cryptocurrency services and that is making them nuts. They need to get their hands on the government and shut down crypto before this stuff destroys them. That, to me, is one of the reasons why they are doing some really stupid stuff these days. They are in a panic mixed with the elation of almost getting away with their crap. Michael
  23. 1 point
    T, I never watch this so I had to look Peter Robinson up to see a picture of him. Here is his picture from his Wikipedia entry: LOL... That does look like our culprit, except our Nude Dude wannabe looked awfully stewed. As in higher than a mofo. Michael
  24. 1 point
    Yes, I think sometimes that some thinking folks and scholars don't get out much. It is more ivory towers and less hands on experience. I am convinced that induction has been down-played and ignored, not just by other philosophers, famously Hume, but it doesn't get the highest recognition it deserves from O'ists, too. We say rather glibly: This is a philosophy based in reality and reason, starting with one's senses. But how do we *know*? How to begin to "create" the concepts? Not without inductive reasoning, we don't. And then comes the support of deduction from induced principles, to test them out in practice, in reality. And then (critically) comes one's educated - learned - knowledge to support and to be integrated with both. The combination is powerful, an irrefutable methodology. In my reading of him, Hume almost totally eradicated induction. I reckon he (and his later university professor fans) has a lot to do with contemporary skepticism and the greatest loss of reasoning in a century. His one statement (roughly) " I have seen the sun rise every morning, but I have no assurance it will do so tomorrow". Which is so ludicrous it defies inductive inferences AND deduction AND educated knowledge (the properties of planetary motion, etc.etc.) Makes one realize the uncertainty and lack of *personal* knowledge many people live in, without independent minds. And why others' minds, pseudo-scientism and authoritarian control well suits them. They will demand: "You must "prove" to me the efficacy of (e.g.) Capitalism!!" To which the first rational reply is: Can you SEE? (if you can't, what more can be said).
  25. 1 point
    Dglgmut, I think what you could be circling around, is the mental process of induction. (e.g. Rand stated that she "wouldn't have had a philosophy without it"). Both ways: bottom up and top down 'meet' or correspond (ideally). A thinker will induce from the many specific instances of extensive experience and observation, from which he builds the higher concepts, then he applies those principles to fresh instances (deduction). The best (and only) testing ground for the principles is going up and down, continuously. The boon of having the great intellectuals to refer to, is that you have an idea of, and can learn, the good and effective principles, in advance, with little experience. They should never take the place of the effort of your own induction. Simply learning by rote the O'ist, Capitalist etc. principles (lazily, perhaps, and superficially) without perceiving/conceiving/evaluating the reality for oneself, is what gives rise to rationalism, prevalent in Objectivism and any philosophies.
  26. 1 point
    He pulled that off real sweet! What a bitch she is, getting in the way of important bicycle work like that. (I was sure we were going to see her knocked unconscious and him nevertheless hold the landing.)
  27. 1 point
    Top down and bottom up are not either-or. They are mental frames for perceiving and mentally processing reality. You need both to get a clear picture. Choosing one over the other is linear thinking, which is great for some things and not so great for others. This is why I like to use a circle as a metaphor for how both work together. If you go clockwise, that can represent top-down. If you go counter-clockwise, that can represent bottom-up. Now select any point on the circle. Notice that it is the start of one and the end of the other, but it's the same point. btw - Principles are not absolutes. Reality is. Michael
  28. 1 point
    Let’s just agree to disagree, and yes I have if you dig a little deeper over at RoR.
  29. 1 point
    From MSN. Trump says US won't close over second COVID-19 wave. President Trump is a great President and a hell of a nice guy. I applaud him. I do not want to see America go into a second depression. “F” the Chinese. Your dastardly plot, to turn American into a whimpering child, will not work. “F” you communists. “Make America Great Again.” That slogan now has a newer And grander meaning!!! Peter
  30. 1 point
    I went back and looked but I could not find it, but I don't think I was quoting the polling for one state like Tennessee where Trump is way ahead. General Election: Trump vs. Biden The Hill/HarrisX Biden 42, Trump 41 Biden +1 That is what I found today.
  31. 1 point
    Peter, In the interest of being helpful, this is hydroxychloroquine, the medication President Trump is taking. Here is how we take it. This is a vaccine: Here is how they want all of us to take it: Michael
  32. 1 point
    T, I know people have already figured out the following, but I think it needs to be said and repeated just like the mainstream fake news repeats shit. Note that China always came out ahead in international trade by lying and cheating mixed with deals that looked orthodox on the surface. Everyone called this a "new form of capitalism" and marveled how China was adapting to free markets. China needs economic dominance to take over the world, seeing that everything communism-wise aims at ruling all of mankind. That's why it lies and cheats. China signed a new trade deal and tried to lie and cheat when the time came to honor it. But this time, it couldn't pull off the shady stuff. Now China is now losing billions of dollars each year compared to former years just to stay in the international trade game. China is not amused at losing money. China hates losing money. China hates losing power over other countries. Suddenly, at the very moment this sinks in for China's rulers, the coronavirus appeared out of China and economies tanked in countries the world over because they shut down to contain the plague. China is still open for business and keeps knocking on doors. Nice coincidence, huh? In China's "new form of capitalism," I guess this is called creative destruction. Michael
  33. 1 point
    I've been wondering if whoever started "Q" was taking a page from L. Ron Hubbard's book and setting out to found a religion. Ellen PS: I haven't read the article yet. I anticipate that it will be sneery and "sophisticated"-superior in tone. I'm simply reacting to the article's title, which echoes my own question regarding "Q's" long-range intent.
  34. 1 point
    So far, YouTube is still allowing this to stay up. Bill Gates is turning out to be one of freedom's worst Trojan Horses. Storytelling-wise, Corbett shows cartoons aired on cartoon channels depicting Bill Gates as a superhero. By the end, he shows how Bill Gates, in reality, is a hell of a lot closer to a comic book super-villain. How about Gate's idea of implanting semi-permanent tracking devices under your skin, not through a hypodermic needle, but through a little patch with a grid of super-tiny needles you painlessly and quickly press on the skin, immediately throw away, and they leave the needle tips behind? He's already doing this in India. It's all under the guise of concerns about health and population control. And, of course, he is funding a massive swarm of new satellites to track everyone so implanted the world over. In this nightmare that is now a reality, you can literally livestock-tag an unsuspecting person in their sleep, or by putting a grid patch on something they have to bump up against or grab, and they won't even know it happened. Michael
  35. 1 point
    "Wadda ting , Meyer, wadda ting" Google TM, is quite da ting, and seemingly from day zero. I remember AltaVista the beta version as one of the first search engines and then somehow bam Google all revved up and never looking back, good to go from jump. Does it just seem that way ? or feels like that anyway? It's like they flipped a switch one day and the world went gaga for Google. Is there good , true story about their investments and capital outlays that allows for the computing/server capacity they had on what feels like the day they flipped the switch?or am I just paranoid and conspiracy laden? If Google is to Coca-Cola, blank is to Pepsi ?
  36. 1 point
    The antitrust stuff against tech giants is coming whether anyone likes it or not. But what were they thinking? It wasn't enough to shut down conservative voices, they are shutting down medical experts in the middle of a national emergency for disagreeing with the fake news media "controlled narrative." Michael
  37. 1 point
    If this guy Kevin Vesey wasn't before, he has now become a total elitist tribalist. I don't know anything about him, but from looking at his twitter feed, he used to be a standard run-of-the-mill aspiring media sellout personality. But then he tried to go "tell THEIR story," meaning the story of the human livestock. He didn't expect his reception, nor President Trump's tweet. He was so very shocked the livestock were not grateful that he was there to tell "THEIR story." I mean, for a day, they could pretend to be people, huh? Stupid people, but people. And in his benevolence, he was offering that opportunity to them. All by himself. Without being asked. He says so himself. But his tribe came to the rescue and gave him a feel-good moment. After all, he went into the unwashed masses to fight the good fight. Now he will never leave the bosom of his dear fellow sellouts. And there's a cherry on top. One of the biggest sellouts of them all noticed him. Kevin Vesey has to be in Media Sellout Heaven today. Michael
  38. 1 point
    An article by Adrienne LaFrance, "The Prophecies of Q," in the Atlantic.
  39. 1 point
    Do you believe literally the statements of that sort which you make? Ellen
  40. 1 point
    Michael, Well, I guess I should expect nothing less from you. Meaning a broad, specific answer to my post. Thx. My time is limited, really. Im not a scientist either, and I also did not stay at a Holiday Inn last night. Thats a joke. Do you remember it? As if I slept so well that now Im a know it all. Where to start.... "For whom and in what context? Do you mean she should be denied her first amendment rights? Or do you mean we should only listen to her or her establishment critics to tell us what to think?" Hows this instead? "Its really her mannerism for speaking glibly and for not keeping to specificity and that makes her seem as if shes not squarely on the rails." Have you ever heard the expression, running ones mouth? In the sense that people inarticulately spout off while others are looking for proofs. The interview didn't do justice to her claims of being railroaded but I know when I hear something worth looking at. So I had to look further and deeper because for me there was a story there and I felt sincerity. I like that you say and want to know what I meant. After I saw her interview, researched her interviewer and then heard MSM and FB hostilities come out against her without an ounce of information other than what I found on Wikipedia I wanted to take a deep dive into the rabbit hole of the web and see what I could discover on my own knowing all the while points of view and agendas differ and I would take them into account as noise and try to discern where Mikovits was coming from and what she is trying to say in a way that I can understand myself. Yes, Semmelweiss reflex, I read references other than Kennedys, and found a "good" rabbit hole and one whose perspective provides a way of seeing through to the things was looking at. There is what Mikovit's claims to have happened in the lab and I can see her patent on the discovery of XMRV's. And I can understand her points of contention with the VP62 clone that had the claims she made spiral out of context to the point that Science did what it did. But she hasnt wavered. She lost her PHD dissertation and all lab papers. I'm half way through her book and am asking myself is there any there/there. There are many tributaries. I find that often people allude to other things when telling their main story and I look to those to determine for myself whether the main story line is something I want to pursue. I was reading Prestons books and along with other sourcing found the Ebola story very fun. I recalled Mikovits saying something about Ebola, then found her saying it and found it puzzling. As most things are at times I suppose there could be an explanation for what she really meant. Again, when she rips off a verbal talking point she apparently doesn't view it as important as I do to her story. So, every step along the way I'm careful not to get pulled in where she seems to be building credibility so I look for holes. I had read an enormous amount of related and unrelated stuff and still cant square her Ebola comment as I said. In re to her claim, her step brother, Kevin, she said was the US Park Police officer to find Vince Fosters body. It was a clever thing to say as she worked it into her story and perhaps true but I had to look. What I found was a Kevin Fornshill, a USPP officer was there and has a presumed Ken (her stepfather she says) Fornshill with a Mikovits family member. Again not proof but Im leaning into to it now. I mentioned the Science fact check just to be helpful as a go to because those elements are germane. Use at your own risk. There are real gems in the book. I'm unsure as to the amount I can put here and wont do it again if I can understand what the standards are. "On July 26, 1961, the New York Times reported that Merck and Parke-Davis were withdrawing their Salk vaccines. The article said nothing about cancer. The Times ran the story next to an account about overdue library fines on page 33. While two drug companies, Merck and Parke-Davis, recalled their polio vaccine in 1961, NIH officials refused to pursue a total recall of the rest of the supply, fearing reputational injury to the vaccine program if Americans learned that PHS had infected them with a cancer-producing virus. As a result, millions of unsuspecting Americans received carcinogenic vaccines between 1961 and 1963. The Public Health Service then concealed that “secret” for forty years. In total, ninety-eight million Americans received shots potentially containing the cancer-producing virus, which is now part of the human genome. In 1996, government researchers identified SV-40 in 23 percent of the blood specimens and 45 percent of the sperm specimens collected from healthy adults. Six percent of the children born between 1980 and 1995 are infected. Public health officials gave millions of people the vaccine for years after they knew it was infected. They contaminated humanity with a monkey virus and refused to admit what they’d done. Today, SV-40 is used in research laboratories throughout the world because it is so reliably carcinogenic. Researchers use it to produce a wide variety of bone and soft-tissue cancers including mesothelioma and brain tumors in animals. These cancers have exploded in the baby boom generation, which received the Salk and Sabin polio vaccines between 1955 and 1963. Skin cancers are up by 70 percent, lymphoma and prostate by 66 percent, and brain cancer by 34 percent. Prior to 1950, mesothelioma was rare in humans. Today, doctors diagnose nearly 3,000 Americans with mesotheliomas every year; 60 percent of the tumors that were tested contained SV-40. Today, scientists find SV-40 in a wide range of deadly tumors, including between 33 percent and 90 percent of brain tumors, eight of eight ependymomas, and nearly half of the bone tumors tested. In successive measures, NIH forbade Bernice Eddy from speaking publicly or attending scholarly conferences, held up her papers, removed her from vaccine research altogether, and eventually destroyed her animals and took away access to her labs. Her treatment continues to mark an enduring scandal with the scientific community, yet NIH’s Bernice Eddy playbook has become a standardized template for Federal vaccine regulators in their treatment of dissident vaccine scientists who seek to tell the truth about vaccines." Heckenlively, Kent. Plague of Corruption: Restoring Faith in the Promise of Science (Children’s Health Defense) (pp. 16-17). Skyhorse. Kindle Edition. No problem, right? Maybe yours is the public Kindle preview. Mine is from the purchased book. It got me to thinking, there's a reason to get my dna tested knowing that I was involved in these timeframes with multiple vaccines over the years. Not in the way 23andme or Ancestry.com does it but in a way that delves deeper with health specific genetic pre-disposition charted and cataloged. There are all kinds of things to find in the vein of Mikovits story, some relevant to me, others relevant to the hysteria that vaccines are our only hope. There were more than one mysterious death so it has elements that so often cannot be solved adding to the overview she talks about with scientists and Big Pharma in lock step. So many holes, so few rabbits. Always knew you were a Va boy! ha ha Not me, although I've live in Va since I were 14. I was an Army brat of a snake eater and have the scars to prove it. Boy I hope that covers it.
  41. 1 point
    That may be but you are still a pussy and a batshit nutter.
  42. 1 point
    Trying to take a person’s kids to isolate them? They are already isolated in the household. Tooooooo Gestapo for me. Butttt going out to actively hunt down and kill uncivil servants? Glad the border is closed...Happy hunting Jon.
  43. 1 point
    Ha! That one must have hurt like a sumbich... Michael EDIT: And to add to this:
  44. 1 point
    Very evil things
  45. 1 point
    Dropping all charges. Those responsible for the attempted coup and attempted destruction of this three-star general and hero will hang.
  46. 1 point
    Ellen, By chance, I just now learned what the elitists call core story. They call it “cognitive immunity.” And where did I learn this term? Why Rush Limbaugh, who, according to elitist ruling class apologist supreme, Thomas L. Friedman, is the destroyer of cognitive immunity. From Rush today: Thomas L. Friedman Accuses Me of Destroying “Cognitive Immunity” There you have it. What does this have to do with core story? Well, in core story terms, people like Thomas L. Friedman, meaning the fearless heroes of Science, the Keepers of the Fact and Truth, the Vanquishers of Vile Prevarication of the Vulgus, the Protectors of the Planet by Technocratic Fiat, the Order of the Captains of Climate Change, the Aristocracy of Mainstream Media Morality, the Engineers of Human Husbandry, are no longer the good guys. They have become the villains. Their cognitive immunity has been stolen from them, nay, stolen from the very society that was assigned to feed, clothe and house them in the lap of luxury. Nobody believes them anymore just because they are awesome, poor things. What's worse, the Russians were probably behind it all. Michael
  47. 1 point
    Well I dodged a bullet, got my test results of negative today. Just a cold.
  48. 1 point
    Michael, Simple. Curiosity is one early symptom and aspect of "the need to know". That you'll agree, is the most powerful of human drives. Early, because it's a precognitive precondition of one making identifications - What is it? Our senses which are constantly, actively searching our environments, hit upon many potentialities of interest to be curious about, curiosities that ~may~ be followed up and become actualities, new knowledge. But in any given day one will be curious about many random, little to larger things, all of which one can't have time or doesn't need, or loses interest to pursue (to my observation). One's priorities of purpose would determine and choose which to spend effort on. People are often awed by the power their emotions can have, and make the error they are causeless, springing out of nowhere - quite mysteriously. The "need to know" has as much and more power as any emotion, it also may seem causeless, and so it gets conflated with them. I see it now. Frame curiosity as "an emotion" - and by that, all genuine emotions may also be considered "tools of cognition"!
  49. 1 point
    And, to add to this, I think people love the lead-up to love more than love itself. Here's a recent example. I just read Ready Player One by Ernest Cline. Spielberg is releasing the movie on March 30 so there is going to be a lot of buzz about it. I read this thing because Rush Limbaugh said it gave a good overview of what Millennials think and believe. And, sure, there was the climate change garbage, some diversity stuff, the evil cheating corporation as the villain, etc. And video games galore. (And an overdose of 1980's nostalgia for the parents of Millennials--sneaky, sneaky Mr. Cline. ) But this book actually made me more hopeful of Millennials, especially seeing the massive success it has achieved. The story is essentially a good old fashioned Hero's Journey in the classical Joseph Campbell mold. And the book is pure Hollywood. The hero is a badass who suffers unduly (he's even an orphan). After going through all kinds of trials and tribulations that lead to a massive climax (SPOILER ALERT), he kicks the ass of the bad guy, gets the girl in the end, and becomes a hero for the entire world. (Surprise surprise surprise... ) But, man, did he suffer to get the girl. He was hopelessly in love for most of the book. He only got the kiss at the very end, after Cline squeezed all the emotional juice out of the hope/fear page-turning anticipation for the reader. And, as a reader, I can attest that this kiss (of course, accompanied by the pattern-completing declarations of love--whew! finally! ) was a supremely satisfying moment. Man, did the oxytocin flow... If the young folks love romantic heroes like this enough to blast an unknown author straight up into the Spielberg category, they're just fine. We can straighten them out on political policies as we go along. Emotionally, they love life and the good things life can provide, including old-fashioned heroism and love, so I believe reason will penetrate over time with the rest. That thought makes me happy since I was starting to go negative on the entire generation. I don't mind correcting myself here. In fact, it's a pleasure. Michael
  50. 1 point
    I want to add to this thought with a comment I made to a screenwriting friend I interact with on Facebook (a fantastic teacher, too--Peter Russell). He was discussing the Fifty Shades thing. I'm posting this because, as I work through these ideas myself, I believe some of them will be useful to aspiring authors (or even authors) who read OL. I wrote: I think the most important thought in that quote is that people love seduction more than sex. It's all in the anticipation. That's Storytelling 101 as I have been learning it. It works, too. It causes all kinds of emotions in the minds of readers. Rand certainly knew how to do this. That's one of the big reasons her fiction still sells. Michael