Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dystopian Fiction of Yesterday is the NWO of Tomorrow


Recommended Posts

Dystopian Fiction of Yesterday is the NWO of Tomorrow: “The Shift is Toward Totalitarianism"

Also see Jeremiah Johnson's: http://www.shtfplan.com/

The shift is toward totalitarianism, and the populations have been (and are being) conditioned to accept, if not embrace, collectivist thought and socialism.  A good example was a film called “the Mutant Chronicles,” in which there were four great super-states that were organized not as nations but as corporations, that made war with one another over resources.  We see the blending of government and corporation today in virtually every facet of life, with the illusion of elections and the illusion of choice upheld to keep the population around the dullard state of consciousness.

What will save us from this?  Will we be able to save ourselves from it?  The more and more one watches freedoms disappearing by the day, the more one must wonder if there is a way to stem the tide.  Orwell and Solzhenitsyn…visionary and historian…gave us blueprints to follow…checklists with which to use as frameworks of reference for what is befalling us daily.  Someday it may be that the brief period of freedom enjoyed by the American people may be categorized as a “work of fiction” in a future that may not even allow anyone to read it.

George Orwell's 1984, I'd toss in Animal Farm, Fahrenheit 451, and take issue with conditioned to accept. The History of Philosophy is marked with a pendulum that swung back and forth between mysticism and skepticism, each at their respective peaks becoming disillusioned by the one and turning to the other. Aristotle was ignored at the time while mysticism began an upswing. When mysticism didn't provide satisfactory answers, it was met by increasing skepticism. Thomas Aquinas rediscovered Aristotle and altered the dominant transmission belt of mysticism. Reason altered the course of the pendulum from bi-directional to tri-directional.

What will save us from the shift toward totalitarianism, collectivist thought and socialism? How about introducing another work of  dystopian fiction, although I have second thoughts as to the dystopian categorization of Atlas Shrugged. The answer should be reason. If we are watching freedoms disappearing, they do so in tempo with the disappearance of reason. Will we be able to save ourselves from such a shift? Not by following the historical blueprints.

The thing about being built to blueprint specifications is that the finished product meets the criteria outlined on the blueprint. In the past, we have built dictatorships, monarchies, oligarchies, theocracies, caste, feudalistic fiefdoms,  and have the benefit of retrospect(ion?) to see the results, if the historic results were to be properly examined wearing a corrective lens prescription of hindsight (is it really 20/20?).

One of the reasons for having second thoughts about Atlas Shrugged being dystopian, is a line from Galt's Speech: "I have foreshortened the usual course of history and have let you discover the nature of the payment you had hoped to switch to the shoulders of others." Combine this with her speaking through Fransisco, "There's something wrong in the world. There's always been. Something no one has ever named or explained." She later names, and indicates where the explanation for it is through John Galt speaking: "Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it.

Is Atlas Shrugged really a dystopian novel, or is "The John Galt Line" (Who is John Galt?) perhaps some form of code for the underlying symphony—correction—concerto being conducted and/or orchestrated for a potential deliverance? As I seek to tie in her rule of her life work: "Aristotle said that fiction is of greater philosophical importance than history, because history represents things only as they are, while fiction represents them "as they might be and ought to be."

As a scientific or philosophical discovery, this is not an exclusive property of Ayn Rand's. She did not create it, nor is she demanding that men continue to pursue or practice falsehoods except by her permission.

If the freedom enjoyed by the American people is brief, it will only be for lack of due diligence.

Edited by dream_weaver
Added proper attribution.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...