Speaking of that novel which has been made into three films, the third part of which is due out on September 12th of 2014 as shown on the new movie poster seen above—the filmmakers will likely fall within the same category as Bundy. I saw that movie poster weeks ago, well before it was released and I loved it. In it, John Galt essentially stands up to a group of Harry Reid types and declares in front of the American flag that he will not live his life in sacrifice to others. For progressives, this is a radical ideal, that a human being would declare that their life has more value than the collective sum of other people. In the novel, John Galt was considered a domestic terrorist by the corrupt government that was running around with a super weapon designed to control entire cities with fear of immediate annihilation. All John Galt did to be considered such a villain was to declare that his life was his own and he was free of their attempts at intimidation.
In the real world, Cliven Bundy has essentially stated the same, and he has been ridiculed, and threatened to no end. Snipers have had Bundy’s head in their cross-hairs moments away from taking a kill shot just because Cliven has refused to pay grazing fees for land grabbed by the federal government who write the laws that makes such actions legal. Harry Reid is at the center of the controversy apparently using such deals as ways to enrich his family members—and he is the one who thinks that Bundy is wrong.
The Atlas films have certainly provoked a similar hatred from the progressive left. My friends at Galt’s Gulch have certainly seen their share of harassment at the website linked below. (YOU CAN ALSO BUY THE MOVIE POSTER FROM THAT LINK) This third film looks to be the most profound of the three. Without question, some of the actors in the film were concerned about their future employment in the film industry because their affiliation with the project will be viewed harshly. Nobody wants to be considered a “domestic terrorist” just for acting in a film that has conservative/libertarian values in it—which go against progressive thinking of mass collectivism and sacrifice to the goddess Mother Earth.
I recently watched Arnold Schwarzenegger’s The Last Stand which opened with a domestic box office total of $12,050,299 and a foreign take of $36,280,458—which is considered a failure. The production budget was $45 million, so the film made back more than it spent and it has a healthy life in DVD sales and Netflix contracts—which isn’t bad for a January release. The move was a lot of fun from an action movie perspective, and it actually reminded me a lot of the type of characters in the Bundy case as well. I wanted to see the film for three reasons; Arnold wore my version of the U.S. Wings jacket, and used my .500 Smith and Wesson magnum. He was also telling my kind of story. I loved the movie, and I imagine that the people defending Bundy at his ranch love the film also. The movie was about small town self-reliance and bravery over terrorists. Several key scenes made no mistake about their intent; one was a scene where Schwarzenegger told the patrons of a local eatery to evacuate—which they refused because they were eating breakfast. Schwarzenegger as the sheriff respected them and left them alone even though tremendous danger was headed in their direction. Another was the scene where a farmer was killed off his tractor for defending his land against the encroachment of a drug cartel. A third was an old lady who shot one of the drug cartel members after telling the guy to leave her home. All three examples provided situations where older people were defending either their right to make personal decisions, or their concept of private property. That is something a person like Harry Reid considers “radical.”
The reviews for The Last Stand were scathing. They were so brutal that I didn’t even go see the movie at the theater, even though I had made a point to want to see it—because of the reasons mentioned. I missed the opening weekend and it didn’t last far into February and was pulled before I made it to the theater. I watched it on Netflix over the Holiday weekend because I actually had time to sit down long enough to catch up on movies like that, and the last Die Hard film, A Good Day to Die Hard. Bad reviews against movies like Atlas Shrugged, The Last Stand and A Good Day to Die Hard are provided for the same reasons that Harry Reid called the Bundy standoff a situation of domestic terrorism—because progressives are insulted by the concept of individual liberty over collective salvation. By the way, The Last Stand is so good that I will watch it many more times—I LOVED IT! LOVED IT!
Atlas Shrugged isn’t even about violence, but it does contain the same messages of self-reliance and that alone in the eyes of progressives is a sign of domestic terrorism—when defined by them that the most important attribute to a stable society is the concept of collective sacrifice. In Harry Reid’s case, he wishes to use collective sacrifice to enrich his son and political contributors—so he needs the ruse of justice to continue his scam, and the Bundy Ranch standoff is essentially no different from the anger the bad guys felt toward Arnold Schwarzenegger’s character from ruining their plans in The Last Stand. By the end of the film they were either dead or very pissed off. Reid isn’t angry that the Bundy’s don’t want to pay for grazing fees, he is afraid that other ranchers might feel embolden by the standoff and also challenge the federal government. To him—that is terrifying.
What is equally terrifying to writers at The Huffington Post, Move On.org, The Hollywood Reporter, and MSNBC is that people may actually want to see movies like Atlas Shrugged Part 3, The Last Stand, or God forbid, A Good Day to Die Hard over progressive films like American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club. If Americans ignore their bad reviews and see those types of films anyway, producers may feel emboldened to make more movies that speak against progressive policies and before anybody knows it—it’s the 80s all over again—and no progressive wants that. After all, progressives want communism, and in the 80s, capitalism was celebrated—music was awesome, movies where great, presidents were bold, and America was respected all over the world.
I will be one of the very first people to see the new film Atlas Shrugged: Who is John Galt. I may even get to see it at the premier in Vegas right down the road from the Bundy Ranch. I’m sure that progressives will see me as a domestic terrorist for enjoying a film where the hero declares that his life is not to be sacrificed away for the “greater good” as defined by people like Harry Reid. In the real world, Cliven Bundy is doing the same thing, and the culture behind him was shown beautifully in Arnold Schwarzenegger’s The Last Stand. I know many people like the characters in The Last Stand and Harry Reid knows now what progressives feared most—that once they leave their cities the rural population will fight them—and fight them hard. The United Nations will not gain control of America’s heartland with regulations and EPA legislation from the Federal government. Bundy is just the first—but he won’t be the last to take a Last Stand in America. The villains in the American senate bowing to the United Nations and Socialist International believe that self-reliance is an act of domestic terrorism.