What philosophy would benefit the "NWO"?

You can listen to the companion radio show here:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/v-radio/2010/02/01/what-philosophy-would-actually-benefit-the-nwo

One of the things we hear a lot about in debating the Venus Project is that people feel there is a similarity to what we propose and what the NWO proposes for the future of our planet. They also generally make a lot of references to things we might in their perception have in common with Communists or Socialists, and how these systems lead directly to Fascism.

I have reviewed all of those arguments and refuted them more then once. But it occurred to me that the attitude of the extreme right would equally be useful to any sort of NWO group of elites trying to dominate the world.

Consider for a moment the ideology we have been given by Free Market Capitalists, especially the Anarcho-Capitalists. They preach endlessly about how we owe all our economic woes to government intervention in the realm of business. That all of the success in the United States came from an absence of regulation that the rest of the world had.

I have spoken on the issue as I said more then once as far as to why I do not agree that this is the cause of all our economic woes. So I am not going to get into that as much. However, lets examine for a moment what negatives could come out of their proposals. And how they would benefit a rich elite intent on taking over the world.

I admit that some regulations are stupid. But some regulations exist to ensure that employers are treating their workers fair and humanely. And also so that a fair wage is given for a hard day's work. Ludwig Von Mises always suggests that if an employer offers less wages then another employer that the workers will simply leave the business and work elsewhere. This of course forcing the businessman to raise his wages to compete for the work force. We already see that technological unemployment and outright greed are proving this is no longer the case.

Another thing your going to find is that most Free Market advocates dislike unions. And demonize them. Now once again, I also warrant that some unions are out of control. But as we see with companies like Wal-Mart who have no unions, and the work conditions of the factories in third world countries with no unions it's pretty obvious that there should still be an organization of workers to stand up for worker's rights.

The game is no longer a matter of competing for a good work force. The game is one of destroying the local economy, and force workers to compete for whatever scraps you throw off the table.

Now who benefits from such a state of affairs? Certainly not the worker. But it does wonders for any rich elite.

Though I have known many wealthy free market advocates, the ones who actually terrify me far more are those who live in poverty who fight vehemently for the concepts of a free market. A lot of the activists who were helping the campaign for Ron Paul fit into this category. And looking back on it perplexes me. People are telling us that the Venus Project is just some sort of front to convince us to give up our rights. But what would be more effective to that end?

A solution that states that all humans should be treated equally and have equal access to the best lifestyle scientifically possible?

Or a solution that advocates eliminating all government intervention and giving all power to the people who are already seeking to exploit the masses as much as possible? To actively persecute anyone who suggests that there should be intervention on behalf of the people? To label them communists or socialists?

As pointed out in the film “Capitalism and other kids stuff” it was necessary for the elite to convince us that it is right and proper that the elite have all the money, and we do all the work. Which side of this argument benefits a N.W.O bent on turning us all into slaves?

So lets take a look at one of the “champions” of the Libertarian/Free Market types. Her pen name is Ayn Rand. She wrote several books both fiction and non-fiction. From the Wikipedia entry:

“Rand's political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by a constitutionally-limited government. She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, socialism, and the welfare state.”

She has been quoted comparing herself to Aristotle. Thinking rather highly of herself. And her worshipers echo these arrogant statements all the time.

Doesn't necessarily sound so bad at first right? She founded this philosophy called “Objectivism”. Her more famous books were “Atlas Shrugged” and “The Fountainhead.”.

My first exposure to the book “The Fountainhead” was in the movie “Dirty Dancing” where one of the characters in the movie was justifying that he had gotten a woman pregnant with no intention of helping her out by saying “Some people matter, and some people don't.” and pulling out a copy of the book indicating to the main character that she should read it to understand his callous attitude.

Objectivism is rather complicated but what it basically amounts to is the idea that everyone should be selfish.

In most of Ayn Rand's fictional books, the heroes are always in some way selfish and callous capitalists. And the villains are generally the masses.

In her book “We the Living”, Rand had her chief protagonist proclaim: "What are your masses...but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" 

Does that sound like something someone in the NWO might say? I can tell you it is certainly not something Jacque Fresco would ever say.

The following is a quote from another blog about Ayn Rand that can be found at the sources links at the end of this article.

“Rand's disdain for the bulk of humanity was, indeed, so extreme that in the aforementioned Atlas Shrugged--whose main character and "hero" John Galt has been referenced on numerous tea party signs--she indulges a pseudo-genocidal fantasy, in which virtually everyone except Galt and his few "perfect" producers is vanquished.”

Whoa now.... that sounds pretty familiar. Virtually everyone but these elite “perfect” producers is vanquished? That sounds dangerously like that stuff Alex Jones brings up in “End Game”.

Quoting more:

“This happy occurrence results from a "strike of the mind," in which Galt and his superior colleagues of industry withdraw their talents from the nation and hole up in a mountain retreat, rather than submit to things like government regulations. Those whom Galt condemns in the book, and thus, whom Rand is herself condemning, are referred to as "parasites" who are unworthy of life. Indeed, Galt's contempt for the weak of the world prompts he and his colleagues to banish the word "give" from their small utopian "gulch." Giving, after all, much like calls for community service, is for suckers.
Even though Galt feels certain that his strike may well kill the vast majority of the world's inhabitants (because they are simply too stupid to survive without he and the other "perfect producers"), he firmly believes, and thus, so does Rand, that this outcome is moral--more so, than say, taxes or charity. In keeping with his strange morality, he not only withdraws his superior talent, but also sabotages the nation's infrastructure (the roads and bridges) thereby making the transport of fuel and grain impossible, resulting in chaos, starvation and general suffering. 
This is what the Rand-bots are reading, the vision of society they endorse: one comprised of better people, and decided inferiors, sub-humans even, who are worthy of death for their laziness, their sloth, their lack of industriousness. No wonder people imbued with such a truly sadistic mindset as this would oppose health care reform. To this way of thought, those without health care deserve their suffering, and that suffering should be of no concern to the rest of us.”

Another blog made this astute observation about the above example:

“She explained her philosophy at first through pot-boilers like ‘The Fountainhead’. One of her heroes boasts that he is the polar opposite of Robin Hood: “He was the man who robbed the rich and gave to the poor. I’m the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich, or to be more exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to the productive rich.” If you want a sign of Rand’s quiet victory, close your eyes and realize this could be Dick Cheney in one of his more candid moments, explaining the logic behind his massive tax cuts for the wealthy.”

This example starts to draw the parallels I was talking about.

“Rand’s morality was a perfect fit for the age of the celebrity billionaire. She conjures a world where the CEO is Messiah, where the sign of the Cross is replaced with the sign of the dollar, and where hideous penis-proxies like Trump Towers are the pinnacle of human achievement. In her novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’, the world’s billionaires – the Ted Turners and Donald Trumps – go on strike in protest against the “insane regulations” and “exorbitant tax” handed down from Washington D.C. The country quickly regresses into anarchy, with businesses collapsing, food distribution networks falling apart, and America becoming a wasteland – until finally the grateful populace welcomes back their economic Overlords and promises to never again pester them with wild notions like taxation or regulation. “

Now these are assessments of Rand's work. So maybe something was lost in the interpretation. It's possible that her method of thinking is not being practiced by the world's elite right?

Lets take a look at some of her own words:

Take a look at this statement made by her to the 1974 Graduates of West Point:

"They didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using . . . . What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent."

The first time I read that quote, I became absolutely disgusted that I was ever involved in the Libertarian Party, or the Libertarian movement. That quote basically personifies the darkest side of capitalism. And I find it highly ironic that this woman is also supposedly the author of the “non-aggression principle”. That the Libertarians supposedly revere.

This same attitude could be very easily applied to justify all of the other wars this Capitalist system has brought about in the past. She says she is against physical aggression. But then she justifies it in the name of profit and progress. I suppose this means it's just fine for the United States to do this in any third world country that is less developed then our own? This notion that the rich and advanced not only can take over land held by people “inferior” to them but that they SHOULD is terrifying to me. And once again, where does that attitude prevail? The more I have delved into Ayn Rand's work the more I get the feeling that it's almost the equivalent of the “Mein Kamph” of the Neo-Conservative movement.

I am sure many of you remember my previous statements that several of the most Anarchistic authority hating personalities I encountered in the Libertarian party were in their personal lives rather tyrannical. In another article entitled: “The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” by Murray N. Rothbard the author exposed the very authoritarian way in which the Objectivist inner circle was controlled by Ayn Rand. She went on to pressure people into marriages they were not happy with. And pressuring her protege into having a sexual affair with her, when both he, and herself were already married. After an in depth analysis the author concludes with this:

“We conclude our analysis of the Rand cult with the observation that here was an extreme example of contradiction between the exoteric and the esoteric creed. That in the name of individuality, reason, and liberty, the Rand cult in effect preached something totally different. The Rand cult was concerned not with every man’s individuality, but only with Rand’s individuality, not with everyone’s right reason but only with Rand’s reason. The only individuality that flowered to the extent of blotting out all others, was Ayn Rand’s herself; everyone else was to become a cipher subject to Rand’s mind and will.”

The more I peeled away layer after layer of information about Ayn Rand, the more I stumbled on things that disturbed me. I would say the final nail in the coffin for me was the matter of her glorification of a man named William Edward Hickman. This next quote from another article about Ayn Rand entitled: “Romancing the Stone Cold Killer, Ayn Rand and William Hickman” by Michael Prescott.

“In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.)

At the time, she was planning a novel that was to be titled The Little Street, the projected hero of which was named Danny Renahan. According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)
William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes. You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.
The details of this man's crimes were given in the blog I mentioned, and as I said earlier I will link it below. But the short form is this. He abducted a 12 year old girl, sent taunting ransom notes to her family. They arranged to pay the ransom. After they received the money the driver tossed the mutilated corpse of the girl onto the street and drove away.

Now, while Rand never of course endorsed or praised his actions specifically in this instance. She did glorify him in other ways. She was extremely impressed with his lack of caring for others.

From that same article we have some quotes from Rand herself about the issue.
“"This is not just the case of a terrible crime. It is not the crime alone that has raised the fury of public hatred. It is the case of a daring challenge to society. It is the fact that a crime has been committed by one man, alone; that this man knew it was against all laws of humanity and intended that way; that he does not want to recognize it as a crime and that he feels superior to all. It is the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul."
“We get an idea of the "sins and crimes" of ordinary people when Rand discusses the jury in the case: "Average, everyday, rather stupid looking citizens. Shabbily dressed, dried, worn looking little men. Fat, overdressed, very average, 'dignified' housewives. How can they decide the fate of that boy? Or anyone's fate?"

Now here we have her glorifying him further, and then going on to state that the jury was in some way “unworthy” of judging him. That he was on some sort of pedestal of humanity.

“"And when we look at the other side of it -- there is a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy turned into a purposeless monster. By whom? By what? Is it not by that very society that is now yelling so virtuously in its role of innocent victim? He had a brilliant mind, a romantic, adventurous, impatient soul and a straight, uncompromising, proud character. What had society to offer him? A wretched, insane family as the ideal home, a Y.M.C.A. club as social honor, and a bank-page job as ambition and career...”

This blog post is already pretty darn long. But I want to make one more comment on this woman's feelings about this man. Then we get to the point. Also from that same article:

“At times, Rand -- who, we must remember, was still quite young when she wrote these notes -- appears to be rather infatuated with the famous and charismatic boy killer. She offers a long paragraph listing all the things she likes about Hickman, somewhat in the manner of a lovestruck teenager recording her favorite details about the lead singer in a boy band. Rand's inventory includes:
"The fact that he looks like 'a bad boy with a very winning grin,' that he makes you like him the whole time you're in his presence..."
You can practically hear the young aspiring author's heart fluttering. I have always been puzzled by the psychology of women who write love letters to serial killers in prison. Somehow I suspect Ayn Rand would have understood them better than I do.

So why is all of this relevant?
Consider for a moment, that many of the people in the Libertarian Party and the Free-Market capitalist movement revere this woman. They call her one of the greatest minds in the history of mankind. And what were her values? What message did she bring to the world?

She stated that people should be absolutely selfish.

She glorified the selfish elites, and demonized the common people.

She authored the “non-aggression principle” but then justified “Manifest Destiny” and conquering in the name of progress with her negative attitude towards the Native Americans.

She took a lot of control over the people around her. All the while preaching absolute individual rights.

People who follow her doctrine are generally fanatical about her. And any deviation from her teachings is treated as blasphemy. It's a great way to lose friendships with those who do value her.

She glorified a vicious child murderer, because of his “lack of caring for others”.
So I ask you again. Who's ideology would benefit an elite on the road to dominating the world?

The reverence for Ayn Rand's work in the Free Market loving Libertarian movement in some circles reaches religious proportions. Though in reviewing it closely, it seems like it probably had a lot of influence on some more mainstream politicians too. And not any that I would want in a position to control this world.

Some sources quoted in this post:
“Romancing the Stone Cold Killer, Ayn Rand and William Hickman” By Michael Prescot http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
“Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen” by Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/24/cult-of-ayn-rand-the-worship-of-fascist-supermen.htm
“The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult” by Murray N. Rothbard
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

"Am I the only person who notices Ayn Rand is an idiot?" by Christopher Bradley
http://www.epinions.com/review/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology_by_Ayn_Rand/book-review-30E2-EB75595-398D1CBA-prod1