Robert Tracinski, Rich Hoffman and Matt Clark on WAAM: Why ‘Star Wars’ is better than ‘Star Trek’

Matt Clark had me on his show to actually co-host with him as we spoke to Robert Tracinski who writes for The Federalist. He had written an interesting article about how it was unlikely that J.J. Abrams could screw up the new Star Wars film, The Force Awakens, so long as he stuck with the formula. There were some condescending aspects to Tracisnski’s article which I was willing to overlook, because he was right about a lot of things. But more than anything Tracisnski had been dismissive of the original trilogy as not being very good—which I thought was odd. So I was eager to talk to him. It only took a few moments into the interview however to learn the root of his issues—he was a Star Trek fan and had only come to Star Wars through his children. His position was that Star Trek was philosophically superior to Star Wars and that these new movies were kid stuff that he was enjoying with his children. Listen to that interview here:

I don’t care much for Star Trek, to me it is the United Nations in space. While Robert Tracinski is not a liberal and is a pretty committed Objectivist, which is Ayn Rand’s philosophy—it was clear to me quickly why Robert didn’t like Star Wars much in his article. I disagree with him on a number of topics regarding the formula of Star Wars, or its appeal. I think the Star Wars films are deeply philosophical; especially The Empire Strikes Back—much more so than Star Trek. I mean, people are not lining up across the world to see the latest Star Trek movie, and Star Wars isn’t as popular as it is because it’s just adults living out their childhoods once again through a movie. It’s more complicated than that. As we were talking to Tracinski, because of his background with Ayn Rand I kept wondering if I had met him someplace before, so I wanted to cut him some slack. Everyone comes to things in their own time and if he came to Star Wars late in life through his kids—so be it. One aspect that Tracinski got right in his article was the perception that Han Solo is the key to the franchise—so I stuck to that topic in our conversation.

Matt and I spent the first segment of his Saturday WAAM show talking about Disney and their progressive activism with a gentle warning about messing with the formula of Star Wars and the impact that might have on their massive investment. Matt and I love Disney—the Uncle Walt version. I love that Disney is a family friendly entertainment group—so I am willing to overlook a little of their liberal activism. Something that Robert Tracinski did bring up on his show that was true.  George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were the best conservative filmmakers coming out of the 80s. I personally think they were both seduced by Bill Clinton in the 90s and have lost their minds since. The reason their early films were so successful was because they all had conservative leanings to them. Once both directors had achieved their monstrous success and essentially stepped away from the Objectivist roots of their film careers, their movies started making a lot less money. Without question George Lucas was at least attracted to Ayn Rand in his early days—when she was at the height of her influence—and Han Solo was a character that represented that struggle within George. As he become more liberal with age and success—perhaps feeling a little guilty that all his liberal employees were constantly berating him for his capitalist tendencies, he softened up on his stance for individualism and began to accept collectivism to a much higher degree, which was clearly represented in the prequel  films—which were noticeably absent of the Han Solo type of character.

Where I disagree with Tracinski about the prequel films is that I don’t think George Lucas ever intended those films to be successes. They were dark movies about the failure of a Republic—and have great political merit to them. They are very philosophical from the position of how poorly constructed philosophies can destroy a body of government. Even though Lucas had been moving to the left—politically, his message about the failure of groups to detect evil, and how institutional failure is indicative of all government cycles is powerful stuff that set the stage for some pretty deep storytelling. As much as people dismiss the prequel films as silly, they are important in the larger scope of the intended message. The movies did lack heroics on the scale of a Han Solo, but that was on purpose. A lot of characters including Yoda and Obi-wan Kenobi made mistakes that they spent the rest of their lives correcting. So the films were never supposed to be heroic repeats of the original trilogy. For that story Han Solo was the savior, he kept Luke alive, married his sister Leia and that set up the events of these new films. Solo is an Ayn Rand character and Disney even with all their activism against conservative causes—can’t ignore that the magic of Star Wars isn’t Luke Skywalker, or anything about the Force—it’s about Han Solo’s position against hooky religions and ancient weapons not being as competent as a good blaster at your side.

Just a few days before Matt and I had our radio show together Harrison Ford was on with Jimmy Kimmel dressed up for Halloween as a hot dog. It was a funny segment and of course Ford was asked about the new Star Wars film. I thought his comments were interesting to say the least. He stated that nobody would be disappointed—at all. That was a remarkable statement considering what’s at stake. He knows the potential cost of over-anticipated hype—so his comments had me very curious in relation to Disney’s strategy going forward. Han Solo is going to be playing a larger role in Star Wars than he has in the past largely because the character tests well demographically. His children will without question be the subject of the new stories but Disney will find every opportunity to insert a younger Han Solo into the movies at every juncture. To be successful at that, Disney will have no choice but to adopt the obvious aspects of Han Solo’s Objectivism view points—his natural conservatism and love of capitalist endeavors if they want Star Wars to continue being successful.

After Matt’s show I spent time at my children’s house going trick or treating with my grandkids—and kids. Late into the night my oldest daughter and I spent time talking about Han Solo and how it seems obvious now that Disney will find a way to put him in the stand alone films as much as possible just to use him as a springboard to success. Like Robert Tracinski and I spoke about on Matt’s show, without Han Solo, I think the Star Wars saga crashes and burns. If they try to turn him into a sacrificial collectivist Disney will lose a lot of money because people will reject the premise. The ticket buying public will only accept the Objectivist Han Solo—and nothing less—the hero who acts in his own self-interest. Even though the moment at the end of A New Hope was intended to show that Solo was able to act for others, the need to save Luke at the last moment was out of Solo’s self-interest because he was starting to like the kid. Like I said, Star Wars is a lot more philosophical than people give it credit for, and I’d think that as much as Tracinski likes Ayn Rand, that he’d prefer Star Wars over the United Nations in space—Star Trek and all that “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” crap. Screw Spock and his pointy ears—he’s a damn collectivist. Solo is a rugged, gun slinging individualist who acts out of his own self-interest. That’s why Star Wars is better than Star Trek.

We’ll see what happens, time will tell. It was a good conversation that was worth listening to, especially given what Star Wars will mean when it opens in a few weeks. There will be no escape; the opening of The Force Awakens will impact just about everyone no matter where they live. It will be impossible to not notice something about it as the merchandising around Christmas will be everywhere. Just watch the Duracell commercial shown above. Star Wars will literally be everywhere in just a few weeks of this writing. There will be nothing like it ever—history is being made both commercially and philosophically. The question will be whether or not The Force Awakens will be as anticipated on the 19th of December as it was on the 18th after people start seeing the movie. To be as successful as Disney needs it to be people will need to see the film several times. And to have that kind of power over the mind of fans—Han Solo will have to be a part of it with an Objectivist approach—otherwise the whole thing falls apart. It’s not the lightsaber battles and space antics that make Star Wars so great—it’s the Objectivist leanings of its basic premise:

Han Solo—“marching into the detention area is not what I had in mind.”

Luke Skywalker—“but she’s rich.”

Han Solo—“How rich?”

Luke Skywalker—“More wealth than you can imagine.”

Han Solo—“I don’t know, I can imagine quite a bit.”

Luke Skywalker—“you’ll get it.”

Han Solo—“I better!”

Luke Skywalker—“You will!”

Han Solo—“Alright kid, what’s your plan?”

That’s Star Wars—it’s an Objectivist love fest designed before George Lucas was overly liberalized. It’s also why twice during the broadcast with Matt that I uttered to his millions and millions of listeners—“Han shot first!” When Lucas changed Star Wars in 1997 to have the bounty hunter Greedo shoot at Han first in the Mos Eisley cantina fans were angry. It was a liberalized mistake for Lucas to cave under the pressure from the liberal film community to make Han Solo not appear as such a blood thirsty killer. But Solo acting out of self-interest shot first because that is the nature of his character—he’s an Ayn Rand survivalist and the heart of what makes Star Wars great.

Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman

 CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

Listen to The Blaze Radio Network by CLICKING HERE.

Captain Kirk watches the MTV Miley Cyrus performance: The destruction of the U.S.S. Enterprise

I recently expressed how I felt about the raunchy Miley Cyrus performance on the MTV VMA awards.  Well, it is good to see that I’m not the only one.  It appears that the good folks on the Starship Enterprise feel the same way as I do.  With all the alien life forms that Captain Kirk and the gang from Star Trek encountered, nothing could prepare them for the destruction that came from the Miley Cyrus performance. 

These are the times that try men’s souls, and at the very least give them headaches.  Captain’s log…………..September 4th 2013.

Rich Hoffman

 www.OVERMANWARRIOR.com

Give yourself the gift of ADVENTURE.  CLICK HERE!  

Building Star Trek’s U.S.S. Enterprise: How to create 10 of them, not just 1 with Objectivism

Dan over at Build the Enterprise.org made national news last week when Yahoo News featured his 20 year plan to build an actual U.S.S. Enterprise that costs approximately $50 billion a year for the next 20 years at a total cost of $1 trillion dollars. (CHECK IT OUT!) Even though that is a huge price tag in a country with an already $15 trillion-dollar deficient, he justifies the cost by pointing out that in 2008 the United States spent nearly that much on the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). Most people can agree who are not involved with politics that many of the bailouts the government spent money on during this depression era economy have been a complete waste, and the money was more or less tossed away with no R.O.I., so why not commit our science and military assets to the construction of an actual U.S.S Enterprise to begin an actual jump into a renewed space race?

Dan has it all figured out regarding how to engage in this massive project. His timeline has the first 9 years dedicated to research of the technology needed to build the project, with component testing followed by 11 years of manufacture and construction in space. At the conclusion of this assembly period the Enterprise will be ready for a moon flyby and be perfectly ready to begin routine 3 month flights to Mars. The benefit of Dan’s Enterprise design as opposed to the traditional NASA approach is that this Enterprise version will allow full 1g gravity for its 1000 occupants using ion propulsion electrically based from a nuclear generator to transport from the Earth to Mars and back again in 250 days. This means that the physical deterioration typically endured on the human body during long space flights will be eliminated allowing space travelers to roam about in an environment that is not much different from how they typically work and indulge in recreation today. For many of the U.S.S. Enterprise travelers their residences, work and leisure would be in a kind of giant shopping mall experience. They would eat, sleep and walk about just as they would on earth, and this would solve tremendous duration problems currently experienced by astronauts in zero g environments.

Dan’s plan is fantastic, and should be explored seriously by private investment. This would be a worthy goal for companies like Google, Facebook, and other giant corporations that have been able to generate tremendous amounts of capital. I disagree with Dan on two basic things which he has overlooked, primarily because he’s an engineer and naturally doesn’t deal with political science—that no government should be involved in this endeavor and that taxes should never be raised, which he proposes.

During this 20 year span of building the U.S.S. Enterprise the people of the entire world need an entirely new philosophy from which to think from. A philosophy is a kind of play book like any football player understands–it’s the way a sports player attacks the game as designed by the head coach. The philosophy of the team and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances will often be the exclusive factor between success and failure on the field of play. In the game of life, the same is true.

Currently mankind’s philosophy is rooted in Plato, and Immanuel Kant. This must change to one based more on Aristotle and refined by Ayn Rand. It will take a massive shift in human consciousness to accept these changes and avoid two hundred more years of stagnation, which is our current path because politicians and world governments think that Star Trek is for entertainment and the minds of geeks, as they hold onto their non rationality based philosophies given to them by Kant.

The process of this happening is already underway. The Ayn Rand Institute is publishing the extensive work of Ayn Rand which is selling well. It has taken most of a century already for Americans to finally begin to accept her work, and her philosophy of Objectivism is just the kind of national strategy that would bring about not just one U.S.S. Enterprise, but many. There is absolutely no reason the United States should settle to have just one of these ships, but ten. But to have them we would also have to reinvent the way our current government in the United States operates. We would have to reinvent education, political science; the emphasis on our wealth creation and many other factors for it to work, but ironically the blueprint was already created by Ayn Rand nearly a century ago. Click here for an introduction into Objectivism.

I don’t propose Objectivsim as a personal preference, but as a viable solution. Dan needs a nuclear reactor to provide power for his Enterprise. America and the world need Objectivism as the thought process to build Enterprise deep space vehicles and space stations. It’s simply a thought structure that is needed to execute the sum desired.

As to the design of the Enterprise opposed to other designs, it is the U.S.S. Enterprise that is so well-known to millions and is a part of the public consciousness. It is true that other designs could be created, but why? Science fiction has already done the work of concept building, and society has come to recognize it. It is no different from NASA using Jules Vern’s classic novel From the Earth to the Moon to model their approach to space craft design over 70 years before the first rocket. Using Star Trek as the model for further space development is perfectly acceptable, and highly justified. The country that creates these U.S.S. Enterprises holding over 1000 people per flight to colonize space, manufacture goods outside of earth’s atmosphere, and mines for rare metals and other resources on other moons and planets solves many of our current worldly problems in a very short time. A vehicle the size of the U.S.S. Enterprise could hold not just one manufacturing facility within it, but many. The future of zero z manufacture and science is of utmost importance, and extremely practical.

For all the sci-fi geeks out there who want to see this happen in their lifetime I suggest you read Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead just as you’d read any work of fiction for Star Trek. Forget what your teachers and others tell you about Rand, because there are many functioning in our society who are just as scared of the future as there was during the dark ages of Europe. We are about to experience a tremendous breakthrough that hasn’t been seen since 1492 where adventure and discovery will change the human experience forever. But there were many who insisted that the earth was flat and that sea monsters would eat all ships that left the horizon. And ship building design didn’t change at all for another 400 years. The politicians, teachers, and leaders of science currently on a government pension want to keep the world closed off from new discovery because they are functioning from the failed philosophy of Immanuel Kant and this will hold the human race to the earth for another 400 years of imprisonment.

I spend a lot of time at this site showing readers how cancer could be cured right now, how food could never run out, how energy could be properly harnessed if not for the interference of politicians and world leaders who have broken ideas about how life should be because they are functioning from the wrong philosophy. A few weeks ago there was a similar sensation on Yahoo News about the next generation of flying car, which was cool, but didn’t come close to the great design of Paul Mollar out in California. Paul Mollar’s Skycar is a design that has been around for two decades and it works. But he can’t get our government to get behind him because of politics. There is a lot of money tied up in the current automotive industry, and nobody has the political will to upset the apple cart. So a great idea has been put on the back burner until society grows up, and into the idea of a personal car that can take off in your driveway and land wherever you want it to. This is because people in society are functioning from the wrong philosophy. Objectivism is the philosophy needed to expand our technological and mental barriers. CLICK HERE TO SEE THE REAL SKYCAR.

The same fate will befall Dan’s fantastic plan of building a U.S.S. Enterprise as has happened to Paul Mollar’s Skycar, the political will is not there because too many people function from the wrong philosophy. Before the first bit of research can be done on the U.S.S. Enterprise, America would have to change its current path of thinking away from Kant and into Rand, or to put it more technically, away from Plato, and more toward Aristotle. That is the key to being able to arrive at a space port in the middle of Iowa to leave earth and arrive at a future U.S.S. Enterprise waiting at an orbiting dock to leave for a Marriott hotel on the planet Mars within the next hundred years. The future is there, and great ideas like Dan’s are springing up and are conceivably possible. But it is our current human philosophy that is the major impediment, and that must change before any new developments can occur on the long human quest to push the limits of the imagination and arrive at a place of new understanding and high adventure!

____________________________________________________________

This is what people are saying about my new book–Tail of the Dragon

Just finished the book and am sweating profusely. Wow, what a ride !!!  Fasten your seat belts for one of the most thrilling rides ever in print.

While you wait for Tail of the Dragon, read my first book at Barnes and Nobel.com as they are now offering The Symposium of Justice at a discount which is the current lowest price available.

Rich Hoffman
https://overmanwarrior.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/ten-rules-to-live-by/
http://twitter.com/#!/overmanwarrior
www.overmanwarrior.com