In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, John Galt repeatedly says “A” is “A.” It is his simple way of saying reality is factual – it is not subject to interpretation, context, or lived experience. Facts and the laws of nature are inviolate. No repetition of a narrative can change fantasy into reality. “A” will always be “A,” and will never become “B.”
So, if “A” is “A,” what’s the point of the anti-reality narratives of the left? Propaganda – deception with a purpose. While reality can’t be changed, it can be hidden for a time, to achieve an objective.
A weak enemy may create a façade of invincibility to break an adversaries will. North Vietnam won its war with the United States by convincing us we had lost, even though we were winning. Iran is trying to do the same thing now, with much less success, because the reality of its collapse is too big to hide.
A Marxist may talk of a workman’s paradise, in hopes of consolidating power. Lenin and Mao both did it, and the Democrats have been attempting it for decades. But the failures of collectivism (communism, socialism, pure democracy) have become too big to hide.
“A” may always be “A,” but sometimes the masses can be deceived, just long enough to enslave them.
But narratives only work for a time. Eventually, reality intrudes on fantasy. The 20th Century ended as the era of the narrative: diversity is our strength, humans are destroying the planet, boys can be girls, and girls can be whatever. But facts still define reality, and “for a time” is expiring.
The 21st Century is becoming the era of truth, because the disconnect between reality and fantasy has become too great to sustain.
California sold the state’s population the fantasy that centralized control would provide utopia and social justice. The voters believed them “for a time” and gave the Dems virtual one-party rule. But redistribution didn’t provide prosperity, it created destitution. Criminal justice reform didn’t eliminate crime, it created chaos. “Going green” didn’t change the climate, it turned the state into a tinderbox.
Now reality overshadows the narrative. California’s streets are clogged with tents, trash, and drug addicts; its sidewalks are covered with feces; merchants can no longer absorb the cost of looting; the state is too debt ridden to maintain its infrastructure; and the only people prospering are the corrupt. The narrative is no longer convincing enough to hide the reality.
Axios recently ran a piece entitled “California Dysfunction Puts Backlash on the Ballot.” It summarized the current status of the Golden State thusly:
California is the ultimate paradox of Democratic rule. A state of immense wealth, innovation and cultural power is increasingly unable to deliver the basics of housing, public safety and disaster response.
Not even the propagandists can hide the reality of California’s failure, because it has become too obvious that “A” is still “A.” Capitalism works, socialism fails, and no amount of wishful thinking can make it otherwise.
Citizens of California have noticed, and they’re leaving for states where “A” is accepted as “A.” Where people work within the constraints of reality, rather than waste energy in vain attempts to change it.
The globalists sold us the narrative that human consumption was destroying the planet. They promised that if we gave bodies like the United Nations and the World Economic Forum control over every aspect of our lives, we could return to the Garden of Eden. As the narrative gained world acceptance, there were winners and losers.
The politicians gained power, the scientists gained grants, and crony capitalists got rich on “green” technology. But the rest of us were taxed, lost consumer choices, and were saddled with a generation of hysterical children who were convinced that their lives were about to end.
But eventually, reality intruded on fantasy. They told us the world would end by 2010 – it didn’t. They revised the scheduled apocalypse to 2020 – but it too passed with our coastal cities still above water. New modeling pushed the planet Earth’s expiration date to 2030. But now its 2026, and the climate looks remarkably unchanged. The poles aren’t melting, the oceans aren’t rising, storms aren’t getting more intense, and “A” is still “A.”
Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been forced to admit that reality is what it is, not what the climate models say it should be. The IPCC just published its review of next generation climate scenarios, and concluded:
The IPCC and broader research community has now admitted that the scenarios that have dominated climate research, assessment and policy during the past two cycles of the IPCC assessment process are implausible. They describe impossible futures.
Let me translate that. The models being used to drive political, economic and industrial decision making are wrong – based on junk science. Trillions of dollars have been wasted, and untold misery imposed, to support a lie that was easily debunked by looking out one’s front window.
The gap between reality and fantasy has become so great that the fantasy is no longer convincing. “For a time” is expiring.
Another notable character in Atlas Shrugged is Dr. Hugh Akston. He lectures his students that, “Contradictions do not exist in nature. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.”
If the socialism that California attempted didn’t raise everyone’s standard of living, perhaps its premise was wrong. Maybe wealth isn’t a fixed resource which must be redistributed to elevate the less fortunate. What if wealth is actually a product of work, with no limit on how much can be created to raise everyone’s standard of living?
If climate models don’t accurately predict changing environmental conditions, perhaps our premise in interpreting them is wrong. Were the models always about social engineering rather than climate change?
What other bad premises will be exposed by the realty of the 21st Century?
Will we realize that a person with gender dysphoria was not actually a person in the wrong body? Will we begin treating it as a psychological rather than physical condition?
Will we realize that “valuing diversity” is a counter-productive distraction – creating rather than preventing hatred? Will we redirect our efforts to value productivity, character, and justice?
Will we realize that most government spending actually impairs rather than stimulates the economy? Will we shift our economic policies to incentivize hard work and creativity?
An alarming number of policies of the 20th Century were built on false premises. Fortunately, the gap between reality and fantasy is becoming too great to sustain.
Author Bio: John Green is a political refugee from Minnesota, now residing in Idaho. He has written for American Thinker, The American Spectator, Convention of States Action, and American Free News Network. He can be reached at greenjeg@gmail.com.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/u