PART 2: The Temptation of Angélique
FADE IN TO MARIGOLD WAKING UP IN A LUXURIOUS UNDERGROUND SUITE. SHE’S PERPLEXED AND SEARCHES THE ROOM FOR ANY OF HER OWN CLOTHES OR PERSONAL ITEMS. SHE WEARS A SILVER RAW SILK GOWN AND SAYS TO HERSELF:
“Where, on Earth, am I now, and where is Marc?”
FRANCESCO ROVERY ENTERS HER ROOM AND SAYS:
“You are with me here in my underground bunker, my dear, and Marc is in his own room — recovering.”
Ayn Rand’s False Dichotomy of Whim Worshiping Subjectivism Versus Emotional Repression was caused by her inability to get affects into her theoretical ethics.
Potentially and ideally ethics is an objective guide which would be taken literally. Ideally it is a non-contradictory, unambiguous, unequivocal, understandable, practical, functioning, fundamental, and effective guide, to achieve happiness (for those who choose happiness as their ultimate end, needing no justification as Rand said in “We The Living”).
Most men’s lives are generally complicated. Just as humans are bombarded with millions of percepts and the Objectivist epistemology effectively guides us to forming thousands of concepts to simplify all of those percepts so we can grasp reality; similarly, a proper objective ethics would give a method for developing a constellation of objective moral values from countless affects and percepts. This is what is needed for an effective ethical guide to happiness.
However, the way that the “Objectivist Ethics” is currently and virtually universally understood, by those interested in her secular ethics, models that there are only a few objective moral values: only those ethical values that are universal. There are a few basic moral values (like reason, purpose and self esteem) and a few universal derivatives like a productive career. But in Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” there is no method for developing personal objective moral values that incorporate personal desires. Instead, niche personal values are widely viewed as outside of the moral landscape because they are not universal.
Analogously, imagine limiting objective knowledge to a few basic concepts: existence, consciousness and identity, and a few others that Ayn Rand defined, and then saying that every other concept is not objective knowledge. That approach would be obviously absurd. Instead there is a method – reason/logic — that anyone can use to integrate their percepts to get new concepts and new knowledge.
But the “Objectivist Ethics” has no similar method of evaluation for the thousands of personal objective moral values needed for happiness. There is no way to validate that architect for Rand’s fictional character Peter Keating is objectively immoral, while the same career choice — architecture –is objectively moral for her fictional hero Howard Roark. Rand gives us no practical and technical ethical guidance for evaluating the myriad of personal values an individual’s happiness requires. Rand does give us her dramatized moral evaluations that Roark is moral while Keating immoral for choosing the same career but she does not give us the ethical manual for achieving the objectively validated moral value that Roark achieves by choosing architecture as his “Central Integrating Purpose.”
Further, the Objectivist Ethics actually excludes emotions from the process of objective moral evaluation. Rand conceives of objective moral evaluation as a type of epistemological objectivity. Therefore, since emotions are not tools of cognition — we agree they are not — it follows for Rand that emotions cannot be tools of objective moral evaluation either.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff states in his “History of Philosophy” course that there has been a 500 year long emphasis on epistemology over ethics. We approach this this issue from the reverse ranking, in other words, reasoning as a part of moral objectivity rather than (objective) moral evaluation as a type of reasoning,
For Rand the ethicist, emotions are seen as a necessarily distorting element and therefore in objective moral evaluation as well. For Rand the fiction writer dramatizing the proper moral conduct of her characters, they dramatize the opposite ranking of affects over conscious moral convictions at key places in her fiction.
Again, in Rand’s formal ethics she has no method of objectively validating moral values that include desires or affects because here, personal desires and personal (non-universal) values can be NO part of objective moral evaluation. However, Rand contradicts her technical ethics in her fiction. A few examples are the following: Rand dramatizes her morally perfect (according to her) hero, Hank Rearden acting on his desire to start an affair with the heroine Dagny, even though his reason told him an affair was immoral because he was married. Yet, in Rand’s fiction Rearden having this affair was the moral thing to do (as long as he continued to try to understand why he desired Dagny and not his wife). Tragically, there is no support for Rearden’s behavior in Rand’s technical ethics; which supports only moral condemnation for Rearden according to Rand’s “Objectivist Ethics” standard: “reason is one’s ONLY judge of values & one’s ONLY guide to action”
Echoing Rand, we read this from Dr. Leonard Peikoff’s book “Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand” that we should conclude that Rearden should NOT have had the affair before he understood why it was moral: “I must add that anyone, for perfectly innocent reasons, may in some issue experience a clash between emotions and ideas. The rational course then is to DEFER ACTION on the issue until the clash has been resolved. First, one should discover where one’s error lies and correct it; then one can act — assuming time permits such deliberation. If it doesn’t, if some emergency requires an immediate decision, then the person in conflict has to act without full self-knowledge. In such a case, he must be guided by his mind, i.e., by his best conscious judgment of what is consonant with reality, even if his emotions protest. When the crisis is over, he can inquire into the source of his emotional dissent and reestablish mental harmony.” (OPAR, p. 229)
The problem is that if an objective ethical system and practical morality is to be sufficient guide to happiness it would have to incorporate personal desires into the objective moral evaluation process. How could you decide on a particular career, romantic partner, friends, art, or a myriad other values your happiness depends on without reference to your desires. Yet her “Objectivist Ethics” excludes desires on principle. Therefore it can’t be a sufficient guide to happiness as it claims to be.
~UNITING THE PERSONAL AND THE MORAL~
The undefined crutch-like term “Optional Values” is a widespread term used amongst many trying to practice Rand’s secular ethics to achieve happiness.
The choice between architect and painter is considered “morally optional” or an “Optional Value” because it is optional for mankind UNIVERSALLY — even though it is NOT optional for Rand’s characters Keating or Roark. In other words, according to this fallacious “Optional Value/s” approach, Keating’s choice of architect could not be morally wrong for him because it would NOT be a morally wrong for everyone, i.e., not wrong UNIVERSALLY. But in fact, it is not “morally optional” for Keating or Roark to choose architecture. Like most men, their personal happiness was greatly effected by their career choice, or “Central Integrating Purpose.” As dramatized in Rand’s “The Fountainhead,” architecture as a career was objectively immoral for Keating and objectively moral for Roark. However, the Objectivist movement’s official position says that anyone’s productive career choices is “morally optional,” thus, dispensing with “moral objectivity” in one fell swoop.
One of the essential reasons Roark’s career choice as architect was moral — and conversely Keating’s was not moral — was that Roark validly desired to be an architect. In part, without reference to one’s own desires (versus the desires of others like Keating’s mother) one could not justify the morality of Roark’s, or any personal moral choice. Though not an infallible guide — just as logic or reason is not an infallible guide — affects are part of an objective moral value. Specifically moral affects like pride, guilt, and romantic love and many others.
Not having a moral sanction for, or a method of objective moral evaluation — which includes personal desires and a means of validating them — the Objectivist Ethics is a prescription for emotional repression. It’s a protocol for creating Objectivist repressors of the kind that Rand writes about in her article “Art and Moral Treason.” And alternately and alternatively subjective hedonists or “Whim Worshippers” of the kind that Rand writes about in her body of work. One’s personal desires need to be validated, and without validation, just acting on emotions is indeed subjectivism, hedonism, “Whim Worship. Affects or moral emotions can be and should be objectively validated, but a process of reason alone is not the appropriate process for validating one’s emotions.
Rand herself criticized the duty ethics, like Immanuel Kant’s, for excluding personal desire when she wrote: “In a deontological theory, all personal desires are banished from the realm of morality; a personal desire has no moral significance…” (The Objectivist p 867) (Deontological means duty.)
The crux of the issue is that there needs to be a method of incorporating personal desires into the moral realm objectively, and Rand did NOT discover how to do this in her technical ethics, despite wanting to and actually doing it in her real life and in her fiction. How tragic that Rand’s secular, individualistic, egoistic ethics limits objective moral values to the values that are UNIVERSAL can be shared by the collective.
So what is the process for validating affects to make them a part of an objective moral value? That topic is the subject of our upcoming paper “Triumph and Tragedy: The Morality of Ayn Rand Versus the Objectivist Ethics” Part 2 by John Yokela and Brishon Martin.
DR. LEONARD PEIKOFF: (“Objectivism” course 1976)
“Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.”
For instance, God, is supposed to be infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity (Aristotle’s). Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and its quantity: it is this much, and no more. ‘Infinite’ as applied to quantity does not mean ‘very large’: it means ‘larger than any specific quantity.’ That means: no specific quantity, i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the “Law of Identity.” …No argument can get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to leap from existence to super-existence.”
~*~*~*~
The following is my transcription of Peikoff’s radio show discussing the historically most common arguments for the existence of “god” and rebuttals (1999):
~THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN/COMPLEXITY~
PEIKOFF: (first summarizing the argument)
“The argument from Design” goes like this: “Look at the Universe, look how orderly lawful and regular it is. Look how complex it is and yet, look at the magnificent harmony of all the various parts all fitting into a smoothly functioning whole. Look at the purposiveness of all the parts, all meshing together to achieve an over-all design. Now such obvious perfection and design in the universe implies a designer, a powerful cosmic soul or intelligence which runs the universe for some ultimate purpose, which keeps all things orderly and lawful as a part of its purpose. And therefore, there must be such a cosmic intelligence, namely, “God.””
In essence, this argument assumes that existence, left to its own devices, in the absence of a designing SUPERNATURAL mind would become wild and chaotic. In other words, the argument fails to recognize that order, law, regularity means that the law of cause & effect (causality) it’s simply a corollary of the “Law of Identity” which is inherent in existence as such. And therefore, there’s no such thing as a possibility of a disorderly existence metaphysically, and consequently there is no need for a “God” to keep existence in line…
As to the idea that everything has a purpose — which is a different concept from everything obeys law… Purpose does imply some sort of conscious agent which has purpose. It’s a very different concept than law which does not imply a conscious agent… This “Argument from Design”… appears in “The Reader’s Digest” every six months or a year, under the title: “Twelve Reasons Why A Scientist Believes in God.'”
~*~*~*~
~THE ARGUMENT FROM “MIRACLES”~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)
“How do you explain the existence of miracles if there is no God creating them?”
PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)
“..I reject the argument from “miracles”… The number of people who see what they want to see is enormous. None of the great supposed miracles are replicable. They happen on a one time basis and when scientific observers try to repeat it the mystics say: ‘It was God’s will and it just didn’t happen the second time.’
Miracles are impossible in principle — by their very definition. Now, remember that a miracle is not simply an unusual event. If you have twins that is unusual. If you have octuplets that’s extraordinarily unusual, but it’s a perfectly NATURAL event… But if you — as a human being — were to have twin elephants, that would truly be a miracle; because a human female having twin elephants is not simply unusual, it is counter to the laws of nature… counter to the nature of the entities involved. A female human being does not have the capacity or the size to give birth to elephants, and if that were to happen it would be a contradiction of the metaphysical nature of the entities involved. It would be a violation of the laws of nature itself — which is an impossibility.
Therefore, I would say, there is no use haggling over whether the report of a given miracle was or wasn’t credible. Unusual things happen all the time. Even unexplained things happen all the time, but the fact that they’re unexplained does not mean that you can point to a supernatural source and logically say: ‘Ah-Hah, there must be a supernatural being behind this unexplained thing.’
The steady growth of human knowledge is growth toward a continuous understanding, but even if we went a long time without understanding something we wouldn’t add any understanding by saying: ‘Something we don’t know about caused it.’
As to the “Faith healing” part of it, remember placebos, these are ordinary inert sugar pills that have the most fantastic, “wonder cures” that they produce. How do they do it? People believe in them. And it’s an established fact that your mind is interconnected with your body and if you have a conviction that something is going to cure you — (in many cases though not in all) — it will have a dramatic physical effect. That simply shows that we humans are one psychosomatic total. It shows nothing about a supernatural being intervening. “Faith-healing” is like placebos, it’s not a “miracle,” it’s a psychological phenomenon…”
~*~*~*~
~THE “Sixth Sense” ARGUMENT~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)
“…The argument from the “Sixth Sense” is that some people claim to have direct experience of “God” and how can you — as a person who does not have that experience or sixth sense — ever deny it? Just as a blind person can’t rationally say to you as a sighted person: “There are no colors because I don’t see them.” Similarly, how can you as a person without this supposed sixth sense say to the man with the supposed sixth sense: “There is no God because I can’t experience “god” directly?”
PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)
The person claiming to have a “Sixth Sense” would have to prove such issues as: Where is this “Sixth Sense” located? What is its shape or form? How does it operate? What are its means of perception? To say there is a “Sixth Sense” and not be able to answer these questions… makes it an ARBITRARY claim that should be discarded without further consideration.
We, as sighted people, can tell a blind man exactly what physical organ and what physical mechanism we utilize in our vision but the “Sixth Sense” advocate can’t say a word about his supposed special organ… Sighted humans can prove to a blind man in terms that he can verify with his four senses, that we have a fifth sense, because we can say to him: “Take three steps and you’re going to hit a certain surface and it’s going to feel rough against your forehead, and then there is going to be a turn.” And the sighted can do this time and again. What the sighted predict, the blind can verify with his own four senses. And that’s why there is no organization of blind people who say that sighted people are maniacs claiming ridiculous visions. Over and over we show that the sighted can cope with reality better, and the blind can verify it in terms of his/her other senses.
This is completely not the case with the claims about the mystical “Sixth Sense.” On the contrary, not only don’t we confirm what the “Sixth Sense” advocates tell us, it directly contradicts what our five senses give us because this supposed sixth sense gives us something that is supposed to be beyond our mind’s ability, inconceivable to us, and something that tells us the opposite of everything we know from the five senses… “Sixth Sense” claims are completely mystical and arbitrary…”
~*~*~*~
~THE ARGUMENT FROM PREDICTION~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)
Often the Bible or the Koran etc., make predictions which some religionists claim we now know to have come true. This could only be so if these texts were written or inspired by an omniscient being, i.e., “God”… The religious person will then ask how can these predictions by religious prophets come true — Nostradamus is the famous case — if they are not divinely inspired, because their knowledge extends beyond anything that could be human?
PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)
…The predictions referred to are so vague that they can be interpreted as predicting anything… The predictions that hold out across time are the ones that give you nothing specific. They say: “A cataclysm will befall you in the fullness of time in the Northern climate.” This could be anything in the world, from…having a cold in the third millennia in Canada, on. There is no evidence at all of such prophetic predictions that are specific and consistent.
And of course, there’s a thousand people who say they can predict. They have a dream, and the dream tells them: “Number 7 is going to come in at Belmont race track tomorrow in the third race.” And they rush and put their money down on that horse. Then one of the thousand people who predicted such a thing wins, and 999 don’t win and they remain silent. The thousandth one goes around, he’s in the newspapers where he claims “He has the power of pre-cognition, he is the voice of deity because he had this dream.” If you keep the full picture, or context, the “Argument from Prediction” simply does not hold up to logical scrutiny…”
~*~*~*~
~ARGUMENT FROM AN OTHER-WORLDLY REUNITING~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)
Some argue that the belief in “god” tends to lend some comfort to those who have suffered a horrible loss because it gives you the idea there is an after-life where you can reunite with your loved ones. This is commonly said. It’s the idea of a supernatural life as consolation for misery here on earth. It’s a fantasy that you’ll one day meet the people that you love in “Heaven.”
I remember Ayn Rand saying once that this is a horrible, sadistic argument because it amounts to saying: “There is a person that you love intensely that died, but that person is there in “Heaven” waiting for you, and all you have to do is kill yourself and die and you can join them.” It’s like an invitation to suicide. She went on to say that people don’t commit suicide because they don’t really believe it. She said that if she loved someone and they died, and *if* she believed in a supernatural dimension where they were waiting for her, she would go and join them by killing herself. Which is, basically, what the people in “Heaven’s Gate” did. They took it seriously and they committed suicide.
~*~*~*~
~THE ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing one version)
“There is no way to be MORAL if you don’t look to God. Morality exists only because of God — that’s what morality means — being closer to God. Without God there would be no morality.”
ANOTHER VERSION:
“God is required to give life meaning.”
ANOTHER VERSION:
“If there’s no God to determine what is right and wrong, why would right and wrong even matter?”
ANOTHER VERSION:
“Why should or how can we have morality if there is no God?”
PEIKOFF: (responding to these arguments)
This argument, in all its variants, is evidence of the fact that religion, throughout history, has had a monopoly on morality. A lot of people have assumed the choice is to be moral through believing in “God;” or reject “God” and become…immoral. Of course, I reject that falso choice (false alternative) entirely! I believe that morality is a necessity of living a happy life on earth.
Strong, absolute moral principles are crucial to guide us toward the achievement of the highest moral purpose of the pursuit of happiness, but… those principles have to be arrived at logically, rationally, scientifically not by *FAITH*. I believe that we have to arrive at the principles of morality, and that we can do so, exactly as we arrive at the principles of physics or math. That is, by observation, induction, reasoning; and that we can prove what the proper standard of morality is, namely each individual’s life *AND HIS HAPPINESS* here on earth; and we can prove the virtues he should live by in order to achieve and fulfill his life including: rationality, independence, productiveness, justice, pride, honesty, benevolence, integrity, etc… Right and wrong — in other words morality — do not come from supernatural commandments any more than math or physics comes from supernatural commandments.
This argument assumes that someone has to decree what’s right and wrong… However, actions are right or wrong because of how those actions effect man according to man’s nature and his chosen ultimate end or purpose… The fact of the existence of and need for ethics, guidelines, moral maps for man does not show that there must be a supernatural being… Even at a simple level, we need a map to drive across the country because any randum turns would not get us to our chosen destination and this need for guidance in no way implies the need for a supernatural creator.
~*~*~*~
~THE “ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY” WHICH HOLDS THAT IF THERE IS NO “GOD” THEN LIFE IS MEANINGLESS AND PURPOSELESS~
PEIKOFF: (responding to the argument)
…When you say “meaningful” or “meaningless” the question is begged “Meaningful to whom?”
Something can be entirely meaningless to one person and highly meaningful to another. Those who say they need “god” for meaning are essentially saying their life is meaningless… it’s purposeless, that they have no purpose and thus they want the fantasy of some other “transcendent” consciousness to give them a meaning, and… a life purpose. I think that shows a defect in anyone who holds this view, it’s a deficiency to be in that position. I think it’s part of a man’s responsibility, as he grows up, to find a particular passion or purpose that will give him an outlet for his mind, for his creativity, give him a means of achieving happiness, and to create his own meaning, so that he can say: “I started as a tiny little lump of tissue but I have made myself into an end-in-myself, I know why I’m living, I know what it’s for. I am the author of my own purpose. I love myself and I am happy!”
I think it’s… sad and pathetic when people don’t find meaning or purpose in this life…
~*~*~*~
~THE ARGUMENT FROM JUSTICE~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing Immaneul Kant’s main argument for “god”)
“…We have to believe there is a God because when justice is compromised in this world we would go crazy if we did not believe that in the next world justice would prevail. Justice can’t be done in this life, but in a moral world justice must be done, so it must be done in Heaven… We do not know if monsters (like Hitler or Stalin, Mao) received justice, or if heroes receive justice in this life. So God must exist so he can give us all our just deserts after death.”
PEIKOFF: (responding to this argument)
I say justice is done in this life! If a man commits evil — no matter to what extent he gets away with it in public terms — he pays the price in his soul or ego in the *QUALITY* of his life on earth. His hell or his punishment is not in some “next life” in “heaven” but in the misery that he necessarily experiences in this life. The fact is that he subverts his faculties, he subverts his ability to enjoy life, he undercuts his self-esteem, if he’s a killer like Hitler or Stalin. He has to spend his life running from and hiding from pursuers. I wouldn’t take the state of ego or moral character of those people for a trillion dollars including a deserted island on which I could luxuriate because it would be such misery to have the moral character of an evil man. So, don’t ever fear that a perpetrator of evil is getting away with it. In essence and in the long-run, justice is always done. We don’t need another dimension in which men receive their just deserts.
~*~*~*~
~PASCAL’S WAGER~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing Blaise Pascal’s Wager)
“If I believe in god and there is a god, when I die I’ll go to heaven. Or if it’s all a big hoax, at least I’m not worse off by believing in god all my life. On the other hand, if I don’t believe in god and it turns out there really is a god, when I die I’ll go to hell for not believing in him. So, on purely pragmatic grounds we should believe in god no matter what. If he’s there he’ll reward you, and if he’s not there, what have you got to lose — you’re just dead and that’s it. So, bet on god because you can’t lose.”
PEIKOFF: (responding to Pascal’s Wager)
“…If you believe in “God” and there isn’t one — which is my view — you have lost something really profound, that is, you’ve lost your happiness earth. You have given up the ability of your mind to clearly understand the world, by that I mean, your ability to logically understand the objective requirements to achieve your chosen ultimate end. In other words, you have let faith in a pack of contradictions take over and you have thus given up your self-esteem because you have placed the ideal in a fictional other dimension and the result is that you always have to feel you are flawed, low, weak, imperfect. How much more can you lose than the confidence in your mind and the esteem of your person? That’s what you give up when you place the ideal in an unknowable supernatural. So, if you’re willing to take Pascal’s Wager…you lose, you lose big time.”
~*~*~*~
~THE APPEAL TO AUTHORITY~
PEIKOFF: (summarizing the argument)
“Einstein believed in God so there must be one.”
PEIKOFF: Using this as your own basis for ethics is a formal logical fallacy called “Appeal to Authority.” There can be times when appealing to a trustworthy authority is proper — say our trusted car mechanic — but it’s improper in the case of choosing your fundamental philosophical worldview.
~*~*~*~
~THE HUMILIATING OF MAN~
PEIKOFF: (Discussing Ayn Rand’s views on atheism)
“Let me tell you what Ayn Rand’s reason was for not believing in “God.” She, of course, considered the various arguments…and didn’t see any validity. She rejected the belief in “god” and she said: “If you believe in a supernatural being that’s supposed to be perfect, where does that leave man? Man then…is imperfect and puts his ideal beyond his reach.” She thought the concept of “god” was a slap in the face at any human being because instead of saying to him: “You’re innocent, you have the whole world before you, you can achieve the ideal, you can achieve perfection, you can be great and noble;” religion and mysticism teaches: “As a human being you have to fall to your knees, grovel, obey and place your ideal in a dimension beyond your grasp.” So it amounts to saying: “You are nothing, you are low, you are weak.” And this is formalized in Christianity in the idea — (in Catholicism especially) — of original sin… Ayn Rand thought that man was great and that each man, as an individual had that potential to be great. But to take…this wonderful potential, this great capacity to think and know and achieve and create; and tell man: “Place your ideal above yourself, in something (anything) “Higher than yourself,” in another world and accept your inherent imperfection and inadequacy;” Rand thought this was a monstrous “sin”…
She said the concept of “god” is not only an attack on the stature of man, it is an attack on his mind as such, because, she said, if you ask people what they mean by “god” they will tell you — in one form or another — this is something beyond man’s ability to understand, to grasp. Every attribute that’s ever given to “god” is something which ends up in a contradiction and therefore ungraspable, illogical.
A few examples of such contradictions:
[CONTRADICTION 1:]
“God” is supposed to be infinite. Well, nothing can be infinite — infinite means bigger than any quantity — but any quantity means a thing has to be that quantity and no more. The actual infinite — as Aristotle (the “Father of Logic”) showed long ago — is impossible! It designates nothing!
[CONTRADICTION 2:]
“God” is supposed to be omnipotent, all-powerful, that means he can make anything do anything, including make things act contrary to their nature — that’s the whole idea of “Him” being able to violate natural law. But natural law is inherent…in the things that act, it is in their very nature, it is impossible for them to act contrary to their nature.
[CONTRADICTION 3:]
“God” is supposed to be all good, incapable of evil. But then there’s the question of “THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.” And we’re not talking here just about human evil (which of course, you couldn’t blame anyone else for) but the so-called “Natural Evil.” What does “God” do about Earthquakes and Tidal-waves and Volcanoes and Plagues and so on, that afflict the innocent? Now, if you recognize the absolutism of the natural world…there’s no problem, you don’t expect to be protected from nature. But if there’s a supernatural, omnipotent being who wants to protect the innocent, why does he let these things go on? Religious mystics have no logical answer and that’s why it’s called “The Problem of Evil.”
[CONTRADICTION 4:]
“God” is a creator” and when we ask “how does he create” we are told by the faithful: “We can’t know.”
[CONTRADICTION 5:]
When we ask the mystic, “How did “god” create the universe?” The Religionist claims “God created it out of nothing (IN LATIN) Ex Nihilo). But how can nothing become something? The mystic answers: “We can’t know.”
[CONTRADICTION 7:]
Well, why did “god” do it? In other words, why did he do all these things — from supposedly creating the universe to killing innocent children in natural disasters, etc.? The faith based answer: “He has a plan but we can’t understand it.”
[CONTRADICTION 8:]
Three does not equal one, yet we are supposed to believe — according to the Christian holy trinity — that “god” is three different beings; yet at the same time and in the same respect, he’s just one being.
[CONTRADICTION 9:]
“God” is supposed to exist, but he’s nowhere to be found in this world, in reality. Every time you pursue a question of what is “God,” how does he operate, the answer, sooner or later…is that it is beyond our capacity to grasp. Which is an assault on our mind’s ability to grasp the supposed most important thing in reality which is what “God” — according to the mystics — is supposed to be.
The very conception of “god” is an assault on reason and it means whatever your argument for believing in “god” you can’t honestly say that you have reason on your side. You can only say: “I have faith.” But then don’t try to dress your faith up in the concepts of reality-oriented reason and logic. Don’t say you have proof, don’t say you have argumentation — your faith is in the same category as everybody’s faith (in anything), and that is not science; that is not knowledge; it’s just an irrational, illogical subjective belief.
(Footnotes to be included in future version)
By Brishon Martin
(This article was originally written in 1999 in rebuttal to (CFR member and NeoCon/NeoLib) Daniel Pipes’ book: “Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.” Updated 3.29.22
~*~*~
AYN RAND: “From Plato’s Republic onward, all statist-collectivists have looked longingly up at an ant hill [or bee hive] as at a social ideal to be reached. An ant hill is a society of interdependent insects, where each particular kind or class is physiologically able to perform only one specific function: some are milch cows, some are toilers, a few are rulers. Collectivist planners have dreamed for a long time of creating an ideal society by means of eugenics—by breeding men into various castes physiologically able to perform only one specific function. Your scientists [technocrats/”philosopher kings”] place, in such a society, would be that of toiling milch-brains, of human computers who would produce anything on demand and would be biologically incapable of questioning the orders of the anthropoid who’d throw them their food rations…[or carbon credits]… That dream…has already been achieved politically and intellectually…intellectually, in the mind of any man who accepts the science-ethics dichotomy. I believe that many of you were attracted to the field of science precisely by reason of that dichotomy: in order to escape from the hysterical mystic-subjectivist-emotionalist shambles to which philosophers have reduced the field of ethics—and in order to find a clean, intelligible, rational, objective realm of activity. You have not found it—not because it doesn’t exist, but because it cannot be found without the help of a clean, intelligible, rational, objective philosophy, part of which is ethics. It cannot be found until you realize that man cannot exist [as a happy and benevolent non-predator] as half-scientist, half-brute—that all the aspects of his existence are, can be and should be subject to the study and the judgment of his intellect and that of all human disciplines, it is ethics, the discipline which sets his goals, that should be elevated into a science. No man and no class of men can live without a code of ethics. But if there are degrees of urgency, I would say that it is you, the scientists, who need it most urgently. The nature of your power and of your responsibility is too obvious to need restatement… It is obvious why you should know—before you start out—to what purpose and service you choose to devote the power of your mind. If you do not care to know—well, I would like to say that there is a character in Atlas Shrugged who was dedicated to you as a warning… His name is Dr. Robert Stadler… If a professional soldier were to accept a job with “Murder, Inc.” and claimed that he is merely practicing his trade, that it is not his responsibility to know who is using his services or for what purpose—he would be greeted by a storm of indignation and regarded as a moral psychopath. Yet at his bloodiest worst, he could not perpetrate a fraction of the horrors achieved by any haughty ascetic of science who merely places a slip of paper with some mathematical computations into the hands of Khrushchev or Mao Tse-tung or any of their imitators in America… Accept…the moral principle that one does not surrender one’s mind into blind servitude to thugs, and one does not accept the job of munitions-maker for Attila’s conquest of the world; not for any Attila, actual or potential, foreign or domestic…”
~*~*~
What is a Platonic Philosopher King? Ayn Rand’s protege, Dr. Leonard Peikoff, has this to say by way of description of Plato’s Philosopher Kings: “…Plato has three broad classes of men: the men in whom reason is the dominant element, that is, the philosophers; the men in whom the spirited is the dominant element, that is…the military class; and the men in whom the appetites are most developed, namely the masses… businessmen and laborers… The question of politics for Plato is: Which group should rule?… The group that has to receive the ruling power in the state is the philosophers. They are the only men of reason… And…the philosophers must have unlimited power in the state. Philosophers, in a word, must be KINGS, absolute rulers… “Education, says Plato, must be wholly controlled by the state. We must have a thoroughgoing censorship of literature, music, philosophy, and science… We will allow people to hear only those ideas that are “good” for them, as judged of course by the authorities, the philosophers. We will tell people “noble lies,” that is to say, lies that are for the “good” of the people, as and when it turns out to be necessary. In other words, we are going to engage in out-and-out brainwashing. Thus, in Plato’s state, the ministry of propaganda and public enlightenment and its complement, the ministry of CENSORSHIP, are of the first importance… Plato is an ardent state-worshiper, and advocate of the view that individuals should systematically sacrifice themselves to serve the state.” Other names for this very ancient philosophy are: “The Babylonian Mystery Religion;” “Mithraism;” “Gnosticism;” “Masonry;” “Secret Societies;” “Zoroastrianism;” “Cabalism;” “Catholicism;” — with minor variations on the theme of the individual sacrificing to a man-“god” or King. I would argue, incidentally, that Plato is simply codifying the Babylonian Mystery Religion.
The definition of conspiracy from Oxford Languages is: “the action of plotting or conspiring,” and “a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” From Wikipedia “A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking.” Combining those definitions, a “conspiracy theory” should be a “rational type of abstract thinking about a” “secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.” By that definition, a conspiracy theory doesn’t carry the negative connotation of the irrational. Yet, in our modern cultur that negative connotation is widespread. How did this happen? In practical terms this article gives you a lot of information aimed at answering that question:
~Weaponizing Language~
As Peikoff said in the quote above, Plato coached his progeny to gain TOTAL CONTROL and thus, TOTALITARIANISM. This totalitarianism, in the realm of education, culture and language, results in a range of terms which function as form of psychological warfare. These terms stigmatize and stifle any debate about the models of reality that the terms are meant to represent. A sampling of these weaponized terms range from “anti-vaxxers;” “anti-maskers;” “extremists;” and the grandaddy of them all is the all-purpose smear: “conspiracy theory,” or “conspiracy theorist.” If you have heard these smears aimed at a person or group and felt primed to dismiss some theory, some person, or some group, as de-facto irrational, and thus unworthy of consideration because their views are outside the mainstream, or if you have been afraid to express your views on a controversial issue because you fear being stigmatized with one of these smears; then you have experienced your mind under assault. Further, if you have used these terms as pejoratives against others — without extensive investigation — then you have succumbed to the attack and have become a perpetrator you sling this kind of weaponized language (perhaps without realizing the harm you do to yourself and others).
The term “Anti-concept” was introduced by novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, in her article, “‘Extremism,’ or The Art of Smearing” and she stated in this article that anti-concepts: “consist of creating an artificial, unnecessary, and (rationally) unusable term, designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept – a term which sounds like a concept, but stands for a ‘package-deal’ of disparate, incongruous, contradictory elements taken out of any logical conceptual order or context, a ‘package-deal’ whose (approximately) defining characteristic is always a non-essential. This last is the essence of the trick.”(*) The ‘package-deal’ or trick, with the anti-concept “conspiracy theory” is that it packages together conspiracy with irrationality implying that it is irrational to believe in the existence of conspiracies. However, it is not intended to smear all theories involving conspiracies. There are some conspiracies, or NARRATIVES, that the creators and knowing pushers of this anti-concept want you to believe – their own.
People’s models of the conspiracies that groups engage in can be rational or irrational. “Conspiracy Theory” is aimed at obliterating non-elite promoted, yet TRUE, valuable, or legitimate and thus rational models of a conspiracy/s. The smear “Conspiracy Theory” functions to demotivate and undermine consideration of those who challenge the official mainstream narratives of the elite Internationalists/Globalists, “Technocrats,” aka the Philosopher Kings.
The goal with such weaponized language is to get the average consumer of them to: (1) Dismiss NON elite/Globalist approved narratives; and (2) uncritically accept elite/Globalist approved narratives. A rational narrative supporting those who don’t embrace vaccines (or untested gene therapies); for those who don’t embrace wearing masks; for those who oppose “Digital IDs/Vaccine Passports” is possible but the Philosopher King’s language assault is meant to get you to believe otherwise. If the smear “conspiracy theory/ist” stands in your mind as meaning a de-facto irrational conspiracy theory then what room is left for a rational conspiracy theory? Motivated by fear and unconstrained by knowledge, anti-concepts undermine one’s motivation to create objective models, narratives or theories.
Besides being an anti-concept as it is widely used today, “Conspiracy Theory” is often accompanied by a battery of logical fallacies including: ad hominem; appeal to authority; and the argument from intimidation. The intended and widespread effect in popularizing this all-purpose smear is to make people dependent on “leaders;” governments; mainstream media; the United Nations; and on other globalist-controlled “authorities” (including willing or compromised “leaders,” “doctors,” “scientists,” and technocrats like Gates, Faucci, Biden, Schwab, Kissinger, etc.) to determine which conspiracies are within the bounds of reason and which are not. In fact, we hear a chorus of highly paid and/or deeply compromised (a la Epstein like compromise programs) globalist propagandists assuring us that if we doubt the mainstream media, or “authorities,” then we are “crazy tin-foil hat-wearing conspiracy theorists.” In “Plato’s Cave” it’s critical that the Philosopher Kings control the programming but let’s here it from the horse’s own mouth. David Rockefeller gives us an indication with this quote from 1991: “We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” The “plan for the world” Rockefeller is confessing here is a global government which has many names: “New World Order,” “Technocracy,” “Global Governance,” “Internationalism,” “Globalism,” “Ecumenism,” etc.
Rockefeller’s “Supranational…intellectual elite” are essentially the same as Plato’s “Philosopher Kings,” and Rockefeller is again, quite open about where the elite Philosopher Kings are leading humanity (from his 2003 autobiography): “Some even believe [the Rockefellers] are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.” While I don’t generally trust the words of those from the Philosopher King PREDATORY class, in this case I won’t argue with him.
Rockefeller is not the only Philosopher King to let the cat out of the bag about their end-goal. Through the years the Philosopher King’s marching of humanity toward world government has been an open secret for those with the time and inclination to investigate their own organizations and documents. I have been so inclined since at least the publication of Dr. Peikoff’s 1984 book “The Ominous Parallels: the End of Freedom in America,” where he argues that America is going FASCIST. I concur. In fact, I maintain that humanity is witnessing the end game of a transformation from relative freedom (at leaset in the West) to global fascism. The transition to fascism could not happen without a secret conspiracy because most humans would resist it. Thus, SECRET plotting and machinations by the predatory Platonic Philosopher Kings, who are conspiring against our rights, is a vital part of this transformation.
While my goal here is not to promote or demote any particular alternative theory, model, or narrative about important historical events that have taken place – events which usually led to wars or totalitarian laws or both — I do want to cite some examples of how going against the mainstream globalist narrative can bring on the “Conspiracy Theory” charge, a charge which strikes fear in the hearts of many particularly journalists, academics and politicians. This charge works as a disciplinary device that has been effective in defining certain events as off limits to inquiry or debate. This unchallengeable, or off-limits, nature of raising legitimate questions about official narratives destined to inform the public’s opinions, worldview and narratives include:
(*) The 1963 JFK assassination and the CIA-informed Warren Commissions conclusions with its “Lone Gunman” theory;
(*) The 1964 “Gulf of Tonkin Incident” which was used as the Casus Belli for expanding the Vietnam War;
(*) The events surrounding Israel’s bombing of a Naval ship the USS Liberty in 1967 thereby killing 34 US soldiers;
(*) The events surrounding the US Government’s actions at Ruby Ridge,” “Waco,” and the Oklahoma City Bombing (events which set up the now being cashed-in-on narrative that nationalists and constitutionalists are de facto racists and “domestic terrorists”);
(*) The government’s theory of a conspiracy surrounding the events on 911 and the official report on this event, and questions like why Kissinger, a friend of Bin Laden’s family, was originally put in charge of the investigation, plus why was “The Patriot Act” already written and enacted directly in the wake of 911 (Has the US National Security Act (1947), or the USA Patriot Act made us more or less secure? Here, the ACLU says less: https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security );
(*) The (now acknoweldged) problems in the government’s claims that Iraq had WMD and why it was attacked by the US, despite no ties to the events of 911 and the same with the war in Afghanistan etc.
(*) The US government bailout of banks which set up the sub-prime mortgage crisis and who compromised the ratings agencies;
(*) The last two years of the Corona/Covid justified medical martial law that was enacted in virtual “LockStep” around the globe.
As human beings, we have evolved in a context where our very survival depended on belonging to, and being accepted by groups. Feeling hesitancy, or fear, about believing or doing things which might get us abandoned or attacked by the group is commonplace. Expressing skepticism with our social group(s) can be threatening and may indeed subject us to an increased risk of abandonment or attack. Social groups typically have a kind of immune system to help them survive, sometimes at the expense of individuals in them. Like Plato (also the father of collectivism) Platonic Philosopher Kings embrace collectivism for the masses, (while practicing a form of MONARCHY amongst themselves), which overtly sacrifices the individual to the agendas and will of the Philosopher Kings — particularly to the top Philosopher King. I think it’s obvious that those predatory Philosopher Kings willing to sacrifice the lives of other humans will have no hesitancy in engaging in weaponizing our language/s. That this weaponizing of language has taken place is not benign or accidental but rather it’s a type of strategic control, a form of mind or ego-control.
Back to the issue of weaponizing language for a moment, as the article above notes, the popularization of the smear of “Conspiracy Theory/Theorist” goes back to the CIA (and its notification to its bureaus) about how to deal with the fact that many Americans were questioning the official narrative about the events in Dallas in 1963 and the Warren Commission’s “Magic Bullet Theory.” The CIA itself informed the Warren Commission.“ To quote: “Conspiracy theory’s acutely negative connotations may be traced to liberal historian Richard Hofstadter’s well-known fusillades against the ‘New Right.’ Yet it was the Central Intelligence Agency that likely played the greatest role in effectively ‘weaponizing the term. In the groundswell of public skepticism toward the Warren Commission’s findings… the CIA sent a detailed directive to all of its bureaus. Titled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” the dispatch played a definitive role in making the “conspiracy theory” term a weapon to be wielded against almost any individual or group calling the government’s increasingly clandestine programs and activities into question… CIA Document 1035-960 was released in response to a 1976 FOIA request… The directive is especially significant because it outlines the CIA’s concern regarding “the whole reputation of the American government” vis-à-vis the Warren Commission Report. The agency was especially interested in maintaining its own image and role as it “contributed information to the [Warren] investigation.”(*)
The gist of the CIA’s strategic counter-attack against individuals coming up with alternative narratives, models or theories of what happened in Dallas was to weaponize our language with “Conspiracy Theory” and it was not the only time the Platonic Philosopher Kings weaponized language. In Rand’s 1971 article “Credibility and Polarization” she further states about “anti-concepts” the following: “The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate… One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad, undesirable, socially destructive — evil. It’s something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It…serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits…of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country – which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat… It is doubtful…that one could get away with declaring explicitly: ‘Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!‘… If, however, one declares ‘Don’t let us polarize,’ and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts.”
Objective standards of trustworthiness (as high as those that apply in an honest court of law) should apply to any “leader,” politician, billionaire, government official, the United Nations, or to their frontmen. And these very people have been caught lying and/or being engaged in corruption countless times in order to gain and keep power. Just in the US, recall the Watergate break-ins scandal from the Nixon era; Iran-Contra “guns for rebels” and “No new taxes” from the Reagan-Bush era; continuing the Bush dynasty such whoppers as “Weapons of mass destruction” and “Mission Accomplished;” then the bald-faced, and televised, lies and courtroom testimonial evasions with Clinton, and his ties to pedophile blackmail ringleader Epstein (ties shared by Trump, Gates and many others). As for the narratives: “Covid came from a bat” not from illegal and immoral research labs funded by Pope of Science Fauci; “Untested shots are safe;” “Protestors are Domestic Terrorists;” “Health/Green/Digital Passports are for your safety;” keep this historical context of deceits in mind when weighing the credibility of any claims coming from the Philosopher King’s stable of minions.
Instead of being intimidated, or appealing to an unreliable, untrustworthy authority, when trying to suss out the cause of a political event or agenda, we should ask: (1) Who has the motivation – who benefits?; (2) who had or has the opportunity; (3) who has the means; and (4) who has a historical track record of doing similar things — especially when it comes to a track record of seeking global dominance. Could the groups that benefited the most from an event or agenda, who had the most opportunity, greatest means, and best track record, have conducted it themselves as a “False Flag” or enabling “Catastrophic, Catalyzing” event?
With the the Covid “crisis” magnificently dove-tailing with the “Great Reset,” “The Fourth Industrial Revolution,” Gate’s “Decade of Vaccines,” “Green/Vax passports,” and “having no private property,” large numbers of people are waking up to our Philosopher King’s war against us. Their unifying and global government agenda has been pushed for decades by: the United Nations; its NGOs and “Public/Private” [FASCIST] partners; globalists of all stripes; their organizations and foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation, Klaus Schwab and his World Economic Forum, Davos, Bilderberg, CFR, RIIA, and many other institutions including the Catholic Church and Silicon Valley’s fascist and heavy-censoring high-tech Guilds or Cartels. Just recently 20+ world leaders called publicly for a “new global settlement.”
In sum, the Platonic Philosopher Kings, their functionaries, and even unwitting dupes, are weaponizing language in an effort to make us confused, fearful and above all OBEDIENT in order to make themselves globalist totalitarian masters of the “New World Order”(George Bush Sr.). They are using weaponized language to advance their agenda of “One neck for one leash” as Rand puts it. One of their predatory battle tactics is an insidious abuse of language and communication which goes beyond propaganda and truth suppression, to the prevention of wayward and unapproved thoughts; accusations of mental illness; and charges of “Domestic Terrorism” all reminiscent of the Church’s INQUISITION. As the brilliant investigative journalist Whitney Webb reports: “It is important to point out that such initiatives, whether HARPA [the new federal agency…that would work with the Department of Justice] or [former Federal Attorney General] Barr’s newly announced program, are likely to define “mental illness” to include some political beliefs, given that the FBI recently stated in an internal memo that “conspiracy theories” were motivating some domestic terror threats and a series of questionable academic studies have sought to link “conspiracy theorists” to mental illnesses. Thus, the Department of Justice and “mental health professionals” have essentially already defined those who express disbelief in official government narratives as both a terror threat and mentally ill — and thus worthy of special attention from pre-crime programs.” Seems the Emperor feels like disrobing in toto.
If there is an honest and benevolent desire to stem a supposed rising tide of irrational theories going against government narratives there is a supremely effective way to stem such irrational theories: end the secrecy; open up the archives; declassify all the relevant documents and evidence; and stop destroying evidence. But when this has been suggested the answer is that secrets must be kept for the purpose of “national security.” In other words, the GLOBALIST Philosopher Kings hide behind the fig leaf of protecting THE NATION-STATE’S SECRETS, while actually protecting their global monarchy. When and if the secret archives are opened up and independent and honest historians are allowed to study and publish their findings we will get much better history and narratives. For example, “Tragedy and Hope,” (by Clinton’s mentor Carol Quigley) came out of the “Council of Foreign Relations” (CFR) opening their archives to Quigley. Similarly, “The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300” came out of The British government’s archives being opened to historian Dr. John Coleman; not to mention Antony Sutton’s excellent work on the West creating the Bogeyman of the USSR with the “Cold War.”
As it is NOT the security of any nation but rather the security of the Globalist Technocratic Platonic Philosopher King’s system that is being protected by all this secrecy, instead of smearing “Conspiracy Theorists,” do yourself, and other autonomous, independent, BENEVOLENT freedom lovers, the honor of expecting the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I highly recommend the work of both Whitney Webb (Unlimited Hangout) and James Corbett (the Corbett Report) for true journalism.
The need to come up with theories to model reality is necessary for all humans in order to function in reality. Smearing us as crazy, mentally ill, or “Domestic Terrorists” does not change or address that need. Appealing to the fallacy of “Ad Hominem” (name-calling) and the use of anti-concepts are what one would expect from someone who is guilty and who seeks to hide their crimes and predatory motives. When asked to open their archives, if government’s balk tell them what they tell us: “If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.” Putting a finer point on it: JAMES CORBETT puts it like this: “Although we live in a time when it is possible for nebulous government agencies [and fascist cartels] to know every detail of our life…we are also living in an age of unprecedented ignorance about what our own governments are actually doing… Somehow we’re expected to go along with the sophomoric sophism that if we ‘have nothing to hide then we have nothing to fear.’ Yet, at the same time we are asked to believe that the government must keep all manner of information secret from the public in order to carry out its work of “Protecting” the public.”
In view of the unprecedented positions taken in regard to Communism (“social justice”) and state coerced acceptance of shots by our first ever Jesuit Pope, here’s Dr. Leonard Peikoff tying in humanity’s current decent into global tyranny to the historical masters of Platonic Philosopher King Totalitarianism: PEIKOFF: “…It is instructive to observe that PLATO is the father of Western RELIGION and the father of Western COMMUNISM and that both of those are beautifully integrated in his philosophy to form one coherent whole. This is a very helpful identification when you observe that the two branches of his decedents [COMMUNISM & CHRISTIANITY] pose as warring antagonists…” For more on Pope Francis’ Platonic totalitarian politics see this excellent article by Stephen Hicks and Maria Marty:
And finally, Ayn Rand understood the true ultimate end of the Vatican and state’s it in the quotes below:
(1967) “The Catholic Church has never given up the hope to re-establish the medieval union of church and state, with a global state and a global theocracy as its ultimate goal…” and:
“(Requiem for Man) …The encyclical insists emphatically on only two political demands: that the nations of the future embrace statism, with a totalitarian control of their citizens’ economic activities—and that these nations unite into a global state, with a totalitarian power over global planning. [Rand quoting the encyclical] “This international collaboration on a worldwide scale requires institutions that will prepare, coordinate and direct it… Who does not see the necessity of thus establishing progressively a world authority, capable of acting effectively in the juridical and political sectors?…” and:
“The Vatican… is an institution geared to a perspective of centuries, to scholarship and timeless philosophical deliberation…”
In other words, long-range planning is the two thousand year old Church’s specialty. Now as the world’s first global monarchy reveals itself, to those of us able to see its unmistakable totalitarian (Platonic) essence, I recommend that benevolent, autonomous, freedom-lovers enjoy the time they have left as they are primary prey in the crosshairs of our predatory global monarch, his top officers, and his minions.
Part 1:
In the world’s first global monarchy, the King had a problem. Despite the fact that it was the most technologically advanced Kingdom the world had ever seen, and despite the fact that he was the most powerful man in all world history, he was not satisfied. Something was missing despite him having achieved immortality and world domination.
Thousands of years ago, King Borgia’s ancestors created this monarchy, and through his cunning, hard work and wise strategies, Borgia had finally accomplished what all his mimetic and genetic ancestors devoted their lives to achieving. The key to the system’s power was always that it harnessed the best thinkers and scientists. This was true all the way back to Da Vinci working for Cesare Borgia to create the world’s first military tank. Typically, the system harnessed the brilliant minds of the world without them knowing what their great work went to achieve. The reason for this stealth is that over the millennia the geniuses generally would not have put their work in the service of predators who sought global domination. Thus the genii were never allowed to know to what end their achievements were aimed. King Borgia came from a very long line of Genii Wranglers.
Through an unbroken line of succession, the King’s ancestors built Plato’s ideal state: a highly efficient socio-political system set at achieving whatever the monarchical top “Philosopher King” deemed to be the most important goals. Over thousands of years of inter-generational efforts, each monarchical leader of the Philosopher Kings had inherited the weapons created by the proceeding generations, including weapons to defend against meteors; to control the weather; to create or prevent earthquakes; tsunamis, hurricanes, and more. Beyond the weapons used to dominate nature, were the weapons created for the manipulation and control of the self, or ego, of each individual. Thus, King Borgia inherited and perfected the ability to control most of the threats that nature and humans presented him.
Within his arsenal of technologies used to control humans, were subtle weapons where the victim were unaware of his influence. With similar weapons, the generations of Borgias manipulated any person they aimed these weapons upon. The goal was always to be able to control anyone: be they malicious criminals, or rebellious, freedom-loving individualists. This later group were considered to be the worst enemies of the Borgias due to the freedom-lovers rejecting anyone influencing the exercise of their volition wanting to fully control of their own ego themselves.
The current Borgia King had assigned his unwitting servants — the genii — with the goal of perfecting life extension technologies and due to their success, King Borgia was hundreds of years old.
But was he happy?
Part 2:
One day King Borgia and all of his minions: his courtiers, jesters, genii, spies, were busily doing what they do each day: dominate organisms and reshape matter to serve the King’s purposes. On this day a very strange creature showed up on the radar of one of the King’s top minions. She was an astoundingly beautiful woman, but so were many of the women the King had seen, (and even created), in his hundreds of years of life. However, this woman’s physical beauty was not what made her stand out. She came up because the King’s new Quantum computer had been tasked to ferret out “Public Enemy Number One.” The King’s top minion — Anton — sounded the alarm indicating that an answer to the question had been found, so a meeting was called. The agenda was to have each advisor submit their models, or profiles, of this “Public Enemy Number One” to help King Borgia determine the best way to deal with her threat to his person and his system.
All the King’s advisors, except one, advised the King on ways to destroy her. The King felt confident that any one of his advisor’s plans would crush his beautiful enemy. So, he set off to deliberate and choose the method of extermination to use on this unusual pest. He called for the entire collected, lifetime profile of his enemy. In his war room he studied her glamorous photos; read of her background; and studied her explicit philosophy, her sense of life, her personality type, and her worldview.
In the process he discovered that his lovely enemy was the egoic progeny of his old nemesis, who was a woman he’d disposed of decades earlier. Her name was Alice and her knick-name was “FluffY” because she was so serious, tenacious, and brilliant. Discovering that the new enemy was just a newer manifestation of Fluffy the King felt at ease with his ability to defeat her. No longer alarmed, he informed his servants to get back to work on other projects as the planning of the demise of this egoic daughter of Fluffy could wait. King Borgia was in a hurry as the cosmos were threatening his Kingdom. Because of the (naturally occurring) Grand Solar Minimum and the upcoming 80,000 years of extreme could brought on by the Milankovich Cycle; the King and his minions were in the middle of strip-mining Jupiter for rare minerals used to support the King’s massive underground cities around the Earth; as well as his Space Colonies. He and his minions were also very busy culling the human population now that robots, AI and Quantum computers had made low-level human labor irrelevant. Very few of the totally inefficient, non-genii, human slaves were needed in King Borgia’s Global Kingdom.
One day Anton — the same minion who originally dealt with the discovery of “Public Enemy Number One”/Fluffy II — realized that Fluffy II had made inroads that were not predicted by the very extensive modeling of her that had been done. Specifically, she’d gotten herself tied in with some of the most valuable men in the Kingdom, some of the genii, and she was influencing them in ways that were not in accord with the King’s agenda. These were men working on the state-of-the-art domination technologies for the masses; otherwise known as metaethics, ethics, morality, dramatized morality, and psychology. Anton tried to call Fluffy II to the King’s attention once more, but could not.
Anton, together with his closest friend Adolfo, decided to dispatch Fluffy II on their own. Adolfo convinced Anton that they should pay her a personal visit. As the King was highly appreciative of initiative they thought their initiative would be rewarded. They realized it was risky to visit her in person but thought it necessary because the modeling of Fluffy II had proved to be inadequate at predicting her future threatening activities.
Upon their first meeting, they were surprised to find that she was receptive, friendly, funny, and delightful to be around. She was truly *YAR* (1). But despite their fondness for her they decided to go through with their plan to set up a relationship with her — becoming trusted advisors — so they could then steer her in the direction of helping them destroy her self. That is, to get her to sacrifice her standards, virtues and core values. Destroying the moral constraints of a victim was the normal and consistently used method for neutralizing all humans, and especially the enemies of the millennia of Borgia Kings. Thus, armed with the method that had worked for thousands of years, they were confident that they would be able to destroy Fluffy II.
Many months, and then years went by. They felt that progress had been made, but one day something happened which proved they were wrong. Despite getting along very well and being very friendly with Fluffy II, and despite the fact that they had given her some rotten advice — which she’d taken to her detriment — one day she stopped talking to them completely. She refused to meet them and refused to take their phone calls. Now, this was not totally surprising as they were in the throws of ramping up their efforts to seduce her into sacrificing her self. But they didn’t think that she’d noticed; nor that she would react by cutting off all communications; thus cutting off their access to influence her to her demise.
Having once again modeled Fluffy II incorrectly, Anton and Adolfo decided it was time to explain their failure to King Borgia who was still very engrossed in his projects to dominate the universe; plus his favorite pastimes. They told the King of their failure, and of her escalation to do exactly what the King and his servants feared she’d do: spread to others her morality of objective self-control, thus removing the King’s ability to significantly influence some of the genii.
Part 3:
Upon receiving Anton’s and Adolfo’s report, King Borgia realized he’d underestimated Fluffy II. Having an enemy who he could not easily defeat was a new experience for him and he was irritated, but at the same time fascinated by this enemy’s ability to defeat his ancient, time-tested, technologies for controlling the ego of others. Famous writers even praised the King, and his ancestors, for these methods: Somerset Maugham gushed that the Borgia’s technologies constitute “the most wonderful method that has ever been devised to gain control over that unstable and willful thing, the soul of man.”
King Borgia decided to again have a conference with his top minions, this time at an island retreat. He wanted to brainstorm with them on the best way to gain her participation to destroy her self, as it was known that the victim’s participation was needed. Through millennia it was learned, by groping trail and error, that no matter what weapons were used against a self, so long as that self itself, did not participate in its own demise, there was nothing that could be done to break it.
At the retreat power-point presentations were made where the reoccurring theme presented was that the King must resort to heavy handed tactics to dispatch his enemy. Anton and Adolfo disagreed. They were the one’s closest to the enemy and most aware of her strengths and weaknesses, and they attested to the futility of a heavy-handed approach. Despite their advice a heavy-handed approach was made. But just as Anton and Adolfo predicted, the result was a wild ride in a car where Fluffy II spent hours (unsuccessfully) trying to find a method to kill her BODY in order to protect her SELF.
The King and his top advisors liked to think of themselves as “The Masters of The Universe” and along most dimensions this was true. Yet, they’d now encountered a problem they didn’t have any surefire means of dealing with – except of course, outright annihilation of the enemy. At this point, uncharacteristically, none of them wanted to kill her, which was unusual, as this Kingdom was literally built on the casual and easy use of physical violence whenever anyone opposed a Borgia King’s will and/or agendas.
What to do? Having been proved to have the best model of Fluffy II the King asked Anton and Adolfo to council him on their views on how to subdue her. After getting their council the King ended the retreat and sent his advisors back to their posts to take up the daily maintenance of, and expansion of, his Kingdom.
The King had a personal motto which was “Impulsive by Nature – Deliberative by Choice.” Upon deliberation, he finally accepted that Fluffy II was a serious problem. He knew that if ANY person refused to serve and obey him then that would set the worst precedent possible: threatening to undermine his power and thus his entire Kingdom.
On the other hand, he noticed a bit reluctantly at first, that her intransigence in the face of the subtle, and not so subtle, threats that his minions had made clear to her; and by her ability to detect and outmaneuver his egoic weaponry, he felt truly alive for the first time in over a century. This was the strangest feeling the King had ever known. On the one hand, he was invigorated, alive and hopeful. On the other hand, there had never been a greater social threat to his Kingdom which was built on the model of a ship: ONE captain and a strict hierarchy of minions — minions who slavishly obeyed him for the good of the ship and the voyage. He knew he must remain in TOTAL control. He knew himself to be the oldest, wisest, most experienced, most qualified “Philosopher King” to lead this global Kingdom. There were still many external threats to the Kingdom that he was convinced only he could stave off. Further, like Plato — and Aristotle and even Fluffy I — King Borgia believed there must be a MERIT SYSTEM where the person most qualified to lead is the King. And indeed he was right: he was the most experienced and competent in achieving human SURVIVAL. BUT WHAT ABOUT ACHIEVING HAPPINESS?
In the King’s deliberations he realized that the survival of his system was necessary but he decided to reassess what was the ultimate end that he was aiming his life and his system at? He knew he got his personal need for COMPETENCE met more thoroughly than any man who had ever lived. And he knew that his need for AUTONOMY was satisfied more fully than for any man before him. But what about his need for RELATEDNESS? And in this contemplation he started to realize what his dilemma really was. “What was the point of surviving for a very long time if one is – by the very nature of the system – required to be acutely lonely?” The King considered this question for a long time.
King Borgia concluded that despite the fact that allowing any other person to have autonomy indeed threatened his system, he wanted to find out if there was any way to keep his system intact, and at the same time, not crush Fluffy II’s autonomy. He felt such fascination, affection and camaraderie with her knowing that, were the roles reversed, he would react just as she’d reacted to his oppressive system and to his efforts to destroy her ego’s autonomy.
Fluffy II appeared on a screen on the King’s wall. He stared at her wondering if there was any way she would ever join him given that his minions had already tried to destroy her ego. She was already alerted to the King sending in his minions to try to wreck her autonomy, so now she was on guard and would, naturally, block any attempts he made to influence her. It had become a “Mexican Stand-off.”
After much deliberation, King Borgia decided to use his latest weapon for control: he would read her mind, not only to get an advantage over her, but he hoped she would have some notion of how to reach a detente between them. To his dismay, he found that she was truly indifferent to him and spent her time focused on other brilliant, autonomous and BENEVOLENT egos. Seeing her indifference to him, King Borgia decided to try to insert his influence on her in ways that she herself would judge to be advantageous to her ego — and/or her body. If she thought she should rise early one morning yet was staying up late he’d use his remote control to cut off her access to her work, or to her power so she would have no light to work by. He hoped to, like one would do with a wild horse, slowly put on the saddle, bit and bridle eventually hoping to get the breastplate attached to her so that he could train her to let him direct her. Throughout the centuries of his life the King had never really attempted such subtle techniques as he’d never found a specimen worthy of such care. But Fluffy II was different. She made him want to exert this effort at the only pursuit he had ever sought after not having a quick masterful control of. In fact, Fluffy II started to detect his subtle influence.
King Borgia had always used the technique of unpredictability with his minions and enemies. Whenever his work on Fluffy II was going well, he would, for no apparent reason, inject some small amount of arbitrariness, pain, discomfort or disharmony into their discourse. He became so predictable in his “unpredictability” that she began thinking of him as “Whippy the Whipsaw” as she had deciphered the point of this exercise too, being familiar with one of the King’s own genii’s work with dogs called Pavlovian training.
Eventually giving up on the Pavlovian training, one day, the King decided he needed to have Fluffy II read his biography. Out of the blue, the book arrived on her doorstep. She opened it and started reading but as soon as she got to the description of how the eleven year old King had worked with his father in the living room of their home in Amsterdam doing surgery on Dutch people, she slammed shut the book and said to herself “That’s enough! Exposing a young child to all the blood and gore involved in surgery would be sufficient to create a predator.” So, she concluded that the King was trained up by his father to be such a predator and that he’d been made to not be empathetic from an early age. She could expect all manner of PREDATORY deprivations from this King and she was no longer interested in knowing more about him personally; although she was still interested in knowing about how he was running his global monarchy. A short time later, a technologically created voice started to speak to her (inside her mind where no others could hear) and she screamed at the top of her lungs “F*ck off!” And so he did.
Fluffy II decided it was time to enjoy whatever time remained of her life. She went on strike and gave up her life’s work — just as Fluffy I advised all of her benevolent kinsmen to do in the context where one is at the mercy of predators. For several years, Fluffy II no longer engaged directly with the King, or his minions, but rather observed their actions indirectly through benevolent researchers and reporters who knew about the King and his global monarchy. Some reporters called him “Mr. Global” and others called him and his top minions “The Elite,” “Oligarchs,” “Bad Guys,” “Puppet Masters,” others called them “The Deep State,” still others called them “Evil-Doers,” “Hog-Washers,” or simply “Predators.”
Knowing that Fluffy II loved smart and funny cartoon movies, one day she was made aware of a coming cartoon which was a depiction of the King’s biography. Over the course of a decade, she had already seen 3 other cartoon movies in the series and despite being very cute, she decided NOT to see the upcoming biography of the King. In a storm of fury the King used his remote weaponry to cause her so much pain that suddenly she was unable to stand or walk. She asked herself if she would be TORTURED into seeing movies. Her answer was “Yes.” Her only defense was to not take it seriously, i.e., not to treat it as objective data upon which she could build any objective moral values. So she watched the streaming cartoon and immediately summarized the essence of what was being communicated to her, and then she dumped it all out as if nothing had ever been imparted. Fluffy II had studied Aristotelian logic and knew that arbitrary claims have no value status, (nor knowledge status).
Many months passed with only minor arbitrary inputs that Fluffy II easily ignored. One evening the voice insider her head said: “YOU WILL SUBMIT!” to which she retorted “You will change or I will die.”
~*~*~
Part 4: One day Fluffy II got an email announcing that her favorite relative (cousin) was getting married. She decided she’d like to attend the wedding and wrote an email to him saying that she’d be there. Acting as if she was a free moral agent, she got a ride from the gardener to the town and sold some of her jewelry so she could pay to rent an SUV. She trained her cat to ride in the car and walk on a leash and they spent several days crossing the country to get to the venue. She enjoyed seeing her father, aunts, uncles, and several cousins and after the wedding she stayed in a hotel — it was her birthday. So, she went to a nearby fine dinning restaurant and got crustaceans for her and her cat to eat back at the hotel. After eating, the same voice said to her (inside her head) “it’s time for you to come with me.” To which she answered “I’d be bored because you don’t have any of my kind of people. You have minions, and your top lieutenants, but you don’t have any benevolent, autonomous egoists for me to engage with and relate to. So, I’d be bored.” She went to sleep and the next day headed home.
~*~*~
Part 5: Coming eventually…. King Borgia willing…
(1) Definition of YAR: “Benevolent, charming, adventurous, kind, and fun.”
Copyright 2017-2023
“Atlas in Paris”
~THE BACKSTORY~
When I was a young model in Dallas, the first high-fashion photographer that I ever worked with introduced me to another model that he’d discovered (I’m going to call her Keri May here). She was working and doing “well” as a model in Paris but she was lonely. Keri and I got together once or twice when she visited Dallas after the photographer introduced us. During one of her visits, we agreed that it would be nice if I moved to Paris, worked with her agency and saw the Parisian sights with her.
A short time later, I called Keri and found that she’d talked to her agent about me and everything was set. She’d given him my modeling portfolio (pictures) and he wanted me to join his agency. However, I found out later, there was one small hitch, Keri had lied to her agent and said that I was taller and thinner than I really was. I think she thought that once her agent saw me in person he would be so impressed by my face that he would not care that I was not 6 feet tall and 100 pounds, in other words, that I was not a great model for the catwalk/runway. Most of my career I did cosmetic ads for such companies as Neiman Marcus, Macys, Allercreme, Emporium etc. and not much runway modeling. I took Keri’s word that things were all set and two months after my seventeenth birthday I flew to Paris. Predictably, when I got there and her agent saw my actual height and weight he was not pleased, but his attitude was that I would have to “work” much harder in order to justify his required financial investment in me (room, board, transportation etc.).
It did not instantly dawn on me what I’d gotten myself into. This man’s agency was a well-known and “professional” French modeling agency, yet what greased the wheels of THIS organization (unlike the agency I was used to in Dallas) was, what amounted to PROSTITUTION. It seemed Keri had lied to me, too.
It’s hard to say what tipped me to the fact that his agency was different. Perhaps it was the twelve and thirteen year old, six foot tall, pubescent, peasant beauties that littered my new bosses office (later I discovered he’d purchased these girls, and many more just like them, from their poor, French, peasant parents). Perhaps it was the fact that one was feeding him grapes while another stood fanning him with a large plume. Perhaps it was the adolescent that sat on his lap cooing and fawning while he spoke on the phone. I may have taken a clue from the male booking agent that I happened to encounter in the hall who wanted to make an appointment for a road-test, so to speak, so he could determine how diligently he might want to work to get me bookings and magazine layouts. I definitely became suspicious when, while zipping up in the tiny bathroom stall, my new boss burst in and thoroughly FRISKED me to determine, with his hands, what I would look like with no clothes. Afterward, he returned to sit at his desk again. I slowly followed and took a seat on the long sofa in his office.
After the frisking it finally became clear to me what kind of man I was dealing with. Upon that realization, I stood up and delivered a dramatic and impassioned speech as I backed out of his office and descended down a gigantic, rococo, marble, spiral staircase. I condemned my new boss (who had followed me and held eye contact as I descended the staircase) for daring to think that I would stoop to the casting-couch tactics that he and his agency employed. I declared that I would “MAKE IT” on my MERITS, (which happened to be inherited genes but I made the most of them within the bounds of an ethical framework which was my moral contribution). When my moral lecture was over and I arrived at the bottom of the staircase I realized that I had left my portfolio on his desk. A CHOICE POINT: do I go back up and retrieve my livelihood after a lengthy tirade degenerating this perverted stranger — attacking the very essence of his being — or, do I walk away not having to deal with the embarrassment, but more important, the wrecking of such an incredible performance? I CHOSE to take the practical step: I ran back up the stairs, snatched away my leather satchel from his desk and dashed out into the cold rainy streets of Paris without a friend, much money, sans speaking French, and without a clue as to what to do next.
As I started down the street the woman from the agency who had picked me up at Charles de Gaulle airport, grabbed me and motioned for me to get into her car. She dropped me at the smallest hotel I’ve ever seen. The elevator held two people and my room consisted of a twin bed, a small window, and enough room to put a suitcase. The bathroom was down the hall. Because I was expecting to live in Paris, I did not have a return flight home booked and I couldn’t get a flight out — with my type of cheap ticket — for a month.
~RISE TO THE CLIMAX~
For my sixteenth birthday my father had given me Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged.” For about a year before my sixteenth birthday, I’d been asking my father all sorts of questions about philosophy, ideals, and the meaning of life. I also wanted to know why he was SO different from all the other people I knew. What I thought so unusual about my father was that while kind, friendly, and very funny, he didn’t seem to give a damn about what others thought of him. He wasn’t rebellious about it, it was just that he couldn’t imagine any other way to be. When he gave me “Atlas Shrugged” he told me that if he could attribute to only one thing the way that he was, it would be this book.
Being that “Atlas Shrugged” is around eleven hundred pages long, and being that this was to be the first book I’d ever read (excluding school text books), I didn’t read it much during the year that I was sixteen; but I did take it to Paris with me. Now that it was Christmas and I was stuck in a room the size of a closet, with no friends, my modeling career derailed, my honor assaulted, not knowing the language, nor having any awareness of the city, having very little money and nothing else to do while waiting for my plane, I decided to read “Atlas Shrugged.”
Reading while laying in that tiny bed, day after day, night after night, going out only to buy myself coffee flavored eclairs from the bakery next door, was one of the greatest experiences of my life! By the time I got to Galt’s speech my mind was so altered, my spirit so uplifted, my ability to think and read so taxed, that I decided to take a break. I went out to try to find the LOUVRE since my aunt told me that I had to see it while in Paris.
So, I put the book down, being about two thirds through it, and I emerged on the street in front of the hotel. First, I walked across the street to a department store and bought a hat because it was one of the only French words I knew, and because I wanted a souvenir. Back in front of my hotel, I looked to the right and saw, just a few blocks away, a strange glass pyramid in front of an old, huge, distinguished complex of a building, so I investigated. For the price of walking about two blocks I found myself in front of the LOUVRE. I paid my entrance fee and started to walk through looking at the art of antiquity. After a short time I realized that this museum is huge and that at the pace I was going I might be there for many hours, which was NOT acceptable.
So, I decided to run. I literally did a running tour through one of the greatest collections of art in the history of man. There were only two times that I stopped to really study the art I was seeing. One time was when I found a great hall with dozens of people huddled around a painting. I went over and crowded in to see what it was. It was the Mona Lisa. I was truly unimpressed. After all, I was a beautiful model — all of my photos revealed a much better looking female and, in my aesthetic wisdom at that time, that was all that counted, so I pushed on. Painting after painting whizzing by as I searched for anything that touched me as much as the art I’d left back in the hotel room.
The only other time I stopped or slowed down was when I got to the sculpture. I was taken aback by two, towering, twenty foot, identical, Roman or Egyptian soldiers standing guard in front of the wing of the building that held the sculpture. I stood alone in a corridor panting and studying the beauty of their bodies and dignity of their souls. That was an amazing moment. But I soon returned to my tiny, dark and dreary room to continue to devour the greatest artwork I had, and still have, ever experienced!
~THE CLIMAX~
With just day’s left until my flight, I continued to read night and day, unable to put the book down for much more than eating and sleeping — and as little of these as possible. When the time came, I paid my hotel bill and boarded my flight back to Dallas. I continued to read all the way home on the plane. I was nearly finished when I got off the plane and greeted my father who had come to pick me up. I took his arm and we sat in a window overlooking the planes on the tarmac. I told him that I LOVED the book and that it had changed me. I thanked him profusely for giving it to me. While back at home over the next few days I finished reading it and the moment I finished it I sat up in bed and said out loud “I want to see this as a movie!” Many years later, in the mid 1990’s, I learned screenplay writing and watched tons of classic movies and then wrote my own screenplay of “Atlas Shrugged” in order to see it the way I wanted it to be made.
~THE END~
(Copyright 2020 — All Rights Reserved)
4.17.18
LOGLINE: “In a world run by the volition of one man, one woman defies him. He tries to control her mind to stop her from controlling his heart.”
~*~*~*~
~PART I~
FADE IN:
JOHN PHILIP ROOTHAAN RUMINATED. A FIT AND HANDSOME MAN IN HIS EARLY 90S (BUT WHO LOOKS LIKE HE’S IN HIS 50S) AWAKENS FROM HIS RUMINATIONS AND WALKS DOWN THE BEACH IN MADAGASCAR WEARING STUNNING LINEN PANTS AND A WHITE LINEN SHIRT. HIS PACE INCREASES UNTIL HE’S RUNNING THROUGH THE TRANQUIL AND SOOTHING SCENE. HE COMES UPON A CROP OF TREES VERY NEAR THE OCEAN AND TURNS TOWARDS A MODERN TREE HOUSE SET ON THE BEACH. HE STANDS ABOUT 10 FEET FROM THE TREE HOUSE AND SAYS:
JOHN (loudly): “I want you to love me!!!”
BEA MARTINI IS SWEEPING THE FLOOR INSIDE THE TREEHOUSE WEARING A TATTERED, BUT ONCE MAGNIFICENT, BALL GOWN. WHEN SHE HEARS JOHH AND STOPS SWEEPING AND WALKS OUT ON THE BALCONY. SHE WALKS TO THE LEDGE, SMILING BRILLIANTLY. SHE LEANS ON HER ELBOWS ON THE RAILING FACING HIM AND SAYS IN A CHARMING MANNER:
BEA: “Not if you were the LAST MAN ON EARTH!…(Pausing)…Oh… being that you’re the King of this global monarchy… you ARE the last man on Earth.”
SHE TURNS TO GO BACK INSIDE AND SAYS WITHOUT LOOKING AT HIM:
BEA: “If I ever believe that you are not trying to destroy my happy autonomous ego — being that this is your job, your passion, your habit, your career, your calling — we’ll see how I feel then.”
CLOSE UP OF JOHN’S FACE: HE’S NOW RUMINATING ON SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
FLASHBACK TO WIDE ANGLE AERIAL SHOT OF ROME AND AN INSERT THAT READS “One Year Ago.” ZOOM IN TO SEE A MAN AND BEA HOLDING HANDS AS THEY ARRIVE AT THE COLOSSEUM. THE VIBRANT 40 SOMETHING COUPLE ARE SOAKING WET FROM THE RAIN THAT’S BEEN DELUGING THE CITY. THEY SEEM NOT TO NOTICE OR CARE.
BEA: “You can’t imagine how many times I’ve dreamed of spending a day with a man like you in a place like this.”
JOSEF PIGNATELLI: “Then I’m making your dreams come true and we’ve only just begun.”
JOSEF PIGNATELLI WAVES FOR A TAXI. ONE PULLS OVER AND THEY JUMP INTO THE BACK SEAT. HE TELLS THE DRIVER AN ADDRESS IN ITALIAN. BEA’S EYES ARE CLOSED AS SHE SLUMPS DOWN EXHAUSTED. JOSEF SLUMPS DOWN TO ARRIVE AT HER CHEEK WITH HIS LIPS WHICH BRUSH AGAINST HER CHEEK WITHOUT MAKING A SOUND. BEA FAINTLY SIGHS EXCITING HIM AND HE MOVES TOWARDS HER MOUTH. THEY EMBRACE WITH THE MOISTURE OF THEIR SALIVA MINGLING WITH THE RAIN DRAINING FROM THEIR WET HAIR DOWN THEIR FACES.
CUT TO THE TAXI ARRIVING AT THE ADDRESS WHICH IS ON THE SAME STREET AS THE COLOSSEUM A FEW BLOCKS AWAY FROM WHERE THEY GOT INTO THE CAB. JOSEF THROWS TOO MUCH MONEY ON THE FRONT SEAT AND GRABS BEA’S HAND TO HELP HER OUT OF THE CAB. HE USHERS HER INTO A DOORWAY WHERE NO DOOR IS VISIBLE AS THE BUILDING SEEMS PART OF THE HISTORICAL LANDSCAPE. BUT JOSEF KNOWS WHERE THE HIDDEN KEYPAD IS AND THE CODE THAT MAKES THE ALMOST INVISIBLE DOOR OPEN. HE PULLS HER INSIDE AND ESCORTS HER TO A GRAND BATHROOM AND SAYS:
JOSEF: “Take a nice warm bath then shower. (POINTING) There’s clothes in the closet.
JOSEF LEAVES AND BEA STARTS THE TUB WATER AND WANDERS AROUND THE PALATIAL ROOMS OFF THE BATHROOM. SHE CHOOSES A VIBRANT COPPER COLORED SILK SHIRT, A TIGHT FITTING BLACK WOOL SKIRT, AND A WHITE SILK SCARF.
JOSEF STANDS IN HIS ELEGANT STUDY HOLDING HIS PHONE AND SAYS:
JOSEF: No, I can’t go to the gala… I’ve met a woman… we’re staying in… I thought you were going… why didn’t you tell me Peter’s selling the EGG!… I’ll be there!
JOSEF HANGS UP, SMILES AND GOES INTO THE KITCHEN TO GET A GLASS OF WINE THEN WALKS TO THE BATHROOM AND KNOCKS ON THE DOOR.
JOSEF: “Bea, darling there’s been a change in plans. Please pick out a ball-gown from the closet when you’re done, we’re going to a gala in an hour. I’m going to shower and dress and I’ll be back for you in 40 minutes.”
CUT TO JOSEF AND BEA ENTERING AN ELEGANT AND ENORMOUS BALLROOM FILLED WITH THE JET-SETTING GLITTERATI OF ROME. THERE’S AN AUCTION OF A PRIVATE COLLECTION OF TREASURES — SCULPTURES, PAINTINGS, AND JEWELRY – OWNED BY THE RICHEST MAN IN SPAIN, PETER ARRUPE. THE GUESTS BID FOR HIS COLLECTION OF OBJECTS.
BEA (to Josef): “I’m going to find the ladies room. Do you want a drink?”
JOSEF: “No darling. Tell me, do you like that Faberge egg made of rubies and pink diamonds just to the right of the stage?”
BEA: (sarcastically) “Yes, it’s lovely but I don’t have room in my flat for such trinkets. (smiling). I’ll be back soon.”
AS BEA MAKES HER WAY UP A GRAND STAIRCASE TO THE SECOND STORY, SHE LOOKS BACK AT JOSEF WHILE KEEPING HER HAND IN FRONT OF HER ON THE RAILING AS SHE MOVES UP THE STAIRCASE TO ENSURE SHE DOESN’T RUN INTO SOMEONE WHILE NOT LOOKING AT WHERE SHE’S GOING. SUDDENLY HER HAND LANDS ON A MAN’S HAND. SHE SLOWLY TURNS TO SEE THE FACE OF THE MAN IN FRONT OF HER. IT’S PETER ARRUPE. SHE DOESN’T KNOW WHO HE IS BUT HE’S IMMEDIATELY INFATUATED WITH HER AND HER BEAUTY.
PETER: “Good evening my dear, are you here to bid on my treasures?”
BEA: “Me…no. I’m here with a man I met today (nods to Josef).”
PETER: “Yes, I know Josef very well. He’s been my protege for many years. How did you two meet?”
BEA: “We both got into a cab at the same time at the Vatican this morning.”
PETER: “I see. Will you both join me after the auction at my villa?”
BEA: “Well… I don’t know…”
PETER: “I insist.”
BEA: “Well, if Josef agrees. Perhaps you could speak to him?”
BEA GENTLY PULLS HER HAND AWAY SMILING SWEETLY AS SHE HEADS UP THE STAIRS AND THEN TO THE LEFT WING OF THE SECOND FLOOR. PETER HAS A VISIBLE DELIGHTED REACTION TO HIS ENCOUNTER WITH BEA THEN MAKES A GRAND ENTRANCE. THE CROWD CLAPS. BEA DOES NOT SEE NOR HEAR THE SCENE.
CUT TO BEA LEAVING THE LADIES ROOM AND WE HEAR THE CROWD MAKING STRANGE NOISES AS IF SOMETHING EXCITING HAS HAPPENED. WE SEE PETER EXHIBITING THE PINK AND RED FABERGE EGG AS HE DISCUSSES IT’S HISTORY. THEN HE SAYS:
PETER: “I’m aware several of you came here to bid on my prize possession but I must now tell you that the egg has already been sold… (crowd moans) and to the highest bidder imaginable… I’m pleased to introduce you to the new owner, my new friend Bea (Peter points to her standing at the railing on the second floor watching the scene). Bea has paid with the coin none of you possess: she has the key to my heart.”
ALL EYES TURN TO BEA AT THE BALCONY. RUMORS FLY. JOSEF THROWS A LOOK OF CURIOSITY AND ANGER AT PETER. BEA LOOKS LIKE A DEER IN HEADLIGHTS. PETER LOOKS LIKE THE KING OF THE WORLD AND HE’S LOVING THE DISAPPOINTMENT THAT HE’S CAUSED THE GLITERATI.
CUT TO: A WIDE ANGLE SHOT OF PETER’S MAGNIFICENT APARTMENT WHICH OVERLOOKS THE VATICAN. THE TONES ARE DEEP AND MASCULINE WITH A SPECTACULAR VIEW. PETER, BEA AND JOSEF ARE IN THE LIBRARY LOOKING AT AN ANCIENT MANUSCRIPT WEARING GLOVES. THEY TAKE OFF THEIR GLOVES AND WALK TOGETHER INTO AN ADJOINING HALLWAY.
PETER: (to Josef) “How high were you planning to bid to get the egg?”
JOSEF: “Higher than the competition, you know I’ve wanted it since that first operation in Madagascar.”
BEA: “Interrupting… I’ve been meaning to ask you Peter… um…”
PETER: (putting her off) “Later darling.”
JOSEF: (gently slaps Peter’s back) “That was quite a stunt, my friend.”
PETER: “No stunt, it was just as I said.”
PETER WALKS PAST JOSEF WHO STOPS AND STARES AT PETER TO SEE IF HE’S JOKING, BUT PETER DOES NOT LET JOSEF SEE HIS FACE. BEA STOPS AND IS IN DEEP THOUGHT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT’S GOING ON.
CUT TO LATER THAT NIGHT AT BEA’S FLAT, JOSEF AND BEA KISS AND THEN BEA SHUTS THE DOOR AS HE WALKS AWAY. SHE THEN WALKS UP THE STAIRS AND INTO THE LIVING ROOM WHERE SHE’S SHOCKED TO SEE PETER’S FABERGE EGG IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROOM RESTING ON A GRAND PEDESTAL WITH LIGHTS SHINING ON IT FROM ALL SIDES. SHE SITS DOWN TO GAZE AT IT IN AMAZEMENT. BEA’S PHONE RINGS AND SHE ANSWERS:
BEA: (quietly) “Hello?”
PETER: “How do you like it?”
BEA: “It’s magnificent but…”
PETER: “Which color’s your favorite?”
BEA: “The pink, but Peter, this flat’s not secure…It’s dangerous to leave it here…”
PETER: “The safety of my prized possessions is something you needn’t worry about, darling.”
PAN OUT THE WINDOW AND ZOOM TO SEE A SNIPER ON THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING ACROSS FROM BEA’S FLAT. FROM AN AREAL ANGLE NOW WE SEE SEVERAL BLACK CLAD, ARMED GUARDS ON THE ROOF OF BEA’S FLAT.
BEA: “You said possessions – plural. Did you leave some other valuable object in this flat?”
PETER: “I did. The hour’s late and I must say goodnight now. It was delightful meeting you today and I’m sure one day we’ll look back on our meeting as a turning point in our lives. Goodnight my love.”
PETER HANGS UP AND BEA STARES AT HER PHONE IN DISBELIEF. SHE GETS UP AND STARTS LIFTING OBJECTS TO SEE IF THERE IS SOME OTHER IRREPLACEABLE TREASURE IN HER FLAT.
CUT TO THE NEXT DAY PETER AND JOSEF SIT TOGETHER IN WHAT LOOKS LIKE A WAR ROOM FULL OF SCREENS AND COMPUTERS. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER MEN – ALL OF THEM WEARING BLACK — AND THEY HAVE THE DEMEANOR OF SOLDIERS. PETER AND JOSEF ARE DISCUSSING A PROBLEM AND THERE’S TENSION BETWEEN THEM. JOSEF SEEMS CERTAIN AS HE SAYS:
JOSEF: “We’ve dealt with them before and we know what to expect.”
PETER: “True, but now the old man’s gone and we don’t know how his son will behave. We still have some competition — if in name only.”
JOSEF: “He wouldn’t deviate from our long set patterns and trade deals… Why would he?”
PETER: “To find out if he can get better terms, of course.”
JOSEF: “Your saying that he’s going to break our deal.”
PETER: “I’m saying he might.”
JOSEF: “Then we need intel.”
PETER: “Agreed.
JOSEF: What do you suggest?”
PETER: “I suggest you follow him to Malta and find out what he intends to do.”
JOSEF: “I’ll leave tomorrow night. I want to see Bea for lunch and then I’ll have the boys take me to the island.”
CUT TO THE NEXT AFTERNOON JOSEF AND BEA ALONE IN HIS DINNING ROOM OVERLOOKING THE COLISEUM.
BEA: Mmmm… This fish is amazing! How’s yours?”
JOSEF: “Good. Listen, I have to go on a short trip tonight but should be back in a day.”
BEA: “Where are you going?”
JOSEF: “A colleague’s behaving suspiciously and I have to find out what he’s up to.”
BEA: “Come back soon.”
THEY SMILE AND HE TAKES HER HAND IN HIS AND KISSES IT.
CUT TO THAT EVENING AT BEA’S FLAT, PETER KNOCKS AT THE DOOR. SHE GOES TO OPEN IT.
BEA: “Peter! Come in and look at your your lovely egg!”
PETER: “Along with my heart, the egg is yours now darling.”
BEA SMILES BUT CLEARLY DOES NOT TAKE HIM SERIOUSLY. SHE TAKES HIS HAND AND LEADS HIM INTO THE DARK ROOM WHERE THE EGG IS SPOT-LIT. WHEN THEY GET NEAR THE EGG HE TAKES HER HAND AND RAISES IT TO HIS MOUTH AND KISSES IT.
BEA: (gently pulls her hand away) “I’ve been meaning to ask you…”
PETER: “Of course but please… a glass of wine as I sit and enjoy the egg for a few minutes first.”
BEA GESTURES AGREEMENT AND GOES AND GETS TWO GLASSES OF WINE AND RETURNS AND GIVES A GLASS TO PETER. SHE GESTURES FOR HIM TO SIT DOWN AND SHE SITS ACROSS FROM HIM AND THEY BOTH SIP WINE IN THE DARK ROOM WHILE LOOKING AT THE BRILLIANTLY LIT EGG.
CLOSE UP OF THE EGG AND IN V.O. WE HEAR PETER SAY:
PETER: (slowly and gently) “All my life I’ve collected the most beautiful objects I could find and all my life I’ve been seeking a woman who has the integrity and inner beauty of an object like this egg.”
BEA: “I know how you feel. I’ve been looking for a man… a certain kind of man… for a long time.”
PETER: “What kind of man?”
BEA: “A kind… brilliant… and very happy man… What kind of woman have you been seeking Peter?”
PETER: “A woman just like you Bea.”
BEA’S SURPRISED AND DOWNS HER GLASS OF WINE. SHE STANDS UP AND WALKS TO THE WINDOW AND LOOKS OUT AT THE CITY AND SAYS:
BEA (quietly): “You said you’re Josef’s mentor.”
PETER: “Yes.”
BEA: “Tell me about him.”
PETER: “Josef has many virtues… he’s brilliant and determined to get whatever he’s after. He’s clever, he’s ruthless. But most importantly he’s obedient.
BEA’S SURPRISED BY THIS LAST AS SHE DOES NOT CONSIDER OBEDIENCE A VIRTUE.
BEA: “What’s he after?”
PETER (standing): “That’s an excellent question. I want you to remember that question as in a short time it may become the most important issue in your life.”
BEA: “Peter, do you care for Josef?”
PETER: “Like a son.”
BEA: “Of course, you realize he’s very interested in me?”
PETER: “I do.”
BEA: “Does Josef care for you?”
PETER: “More than any other man — except for one….”
BEA: “And yet… I believe you are… you are…
PETER: “Yes darling I am.”
PETER PUTS HIS GLASS DOWN AND WALKS OVER TO BEA. STANDING NEXT TO HER HE LOOKS OUT AT THE CITY AND TAKES HER HAND AND SAYS:
PETER: “I’ll call for you at noon tomorrow. Goodnight darling.”
HE KISSES HER HAND AND LEAVES.
~PART II~
CUT TO JOSEF AND SEVERAL MEN ARRIVING BY HELICOPTER ON THE ISLAND OF MALTA.
CUT TO THE INSIDE OF AN ANCIENT STONE FORTRESS WHERE JOSEF AND JORGE BASADA ARE SEATED OPPOSITE EACH OTHER DISCUSSING A TIMETABLE AND DEADLINES.
CUT TO ROME WHERE PETER AND BEA ARE WALKING AROUND THE CASTEL SANT’ANGELO. PETER’S SHOWING HER THE PRIVATE QUARTERS AND HIDDEN TUNNELS THAT GO TO THE VATICAN.
PETER (walking slowly holding her hand): “What have you spent most of your life doing Bea?”
BEA: “Doing things I’m passionate about. When I was a teen friends and family urged me to learn skills that would allow me to earn a living doing things that bored me. I know they meant well but they didn’t know me… they didn’t know that such a life would never allow me to paint a master-piece on the canvas of my soul.”
PETER: “I’m not at all surprised you understood this early in life. Most people waste their lives on petty, pointless, activities. And did you encounter any other threats to painting a master-piece on the canvas of your soul?”
BEA WALKS TO A RACK THAT WAS USED AS A TORTURE DEVICE AND SAYS WHILE TOUCHING IT:
BEA: “This seems like a good place for a confession… (pausing, looking intently at Peter). Yes, there was another threat. His name was Marvin Lazar. I met him when I was 18 and he was my ideal mate — my unicorn as they say. He owned one of the world’s largest construction companies and built sky-scrapers. He was elegant, intelligent, industrious, direct, productive, and when he wasn’t working he reveled in celebrating life. He especially loved all forms of theater. Together we spent many wonderful nights drinking the best champagne and seeing the world’s greatest theatrical productions. He introduced me to both. We were a gorgeous couple: he Italian and handsome and I was a beautiful model back then.”
PETER: “You’re one of the most beautiful woman I’ve ever seen… Your face is truly exquisite… In fact, I’m going to call you “Doll Face.”
BEA SMILES DEEPLY AND PETER’S GAZE IS THAT OF A RAVENOUS, YET BENEVOLENT, EROTIC PREDATOR.
PETER (returning to his normal temperament): “How was Mr. Lazar a threat to your masterpiece?”
BEA: “He was everything I thought I wanted — and that was the problem. One day we were in a spectacular suite atop a Las Vegas Casino and something happened.”
PETER: “What happened darling?”
BEA: “It was morning and I got out of bed to go look out the giant window at the sunrise. While standing there half naked, Marvin leaned back in bed with his arms behind his head. As I stood at the window in the natural spotlight of the rising sun, he proceeded to interrogate me. He was friendly and earnest, but eventually I could tell that my answers were not up to his standards. I saw him set his mind to writing himself all over the canvas of my soul. He had an elegant, heroic soul but it was not *MY* soul.”
PETER: “How did you escape?”
BEA: “When we returned from the trip I did things that were totally out of character for me: I lied; I put him off; I stood him up; and when we were together I pretended to be indifferent and absent-minded. I did all of this to get him to loose his ardent interest in me. I didn’t really understand what I was doing at the time but I knew that this man was the most threatening thing I had ever encountered BECAUSE he was everything I thought I wanted… but the price was that HE would paint the canvas of my soul: HE would create my self.”
PETER: “And did he leave you alone?”
BEA: “Yes, eventually. I think I should tell you that now I get the same feeling from you.”
PETER: “How so?”
BEA: “It’s just a feeling but I sense that there’s some kind of game, a competition, or dispute, between you and Josef and that I’m the prize who’ll become the property of whomever wins — and that you both intend to paint all over the canvas of my soul.”
PETER: “Who do you want to win?”
BEA: “I don’t have a horse in this race yet. I find you both very compelling. Can you tell me what this competition is about?”
PETER: “No, but it will be made clear to you very soon.”
PETER PUTS HIS HAND ON HER CHEEK AND GENTLY CARESSES IT AS HE GAZES INTO HER EYES.
CUT TO MALTA WHERE JOSEF AND JORGE SHAKE HANDS AS JOSEF HEADS TO HIS HELICOPTER WITH HIS MEN.
CUT TO ROME LATER THAT NIGHT JOSEF AND BEA ARE HAVING DINNER IN A FORMAL DINNING ROOM NEXT TO A WINDOW LOOKING OUT AT ROME.
BEA: Was your trip productive?
JOSEF: “Yes, very. What did you do today?”
BEA: “Peter gave me a tour of Castel Sant’Angelo and we had a nice talk.”
JOSEF: “About what?”
BEA: “About my past and the biggest threat I’ve ever encountered.”
JOSEF: “Do you have any deep dark secrets tucked away, skeletons you don’t want coming out of your closet?”
BEA: “No. I’m happy to discuss any aspect of my past. How about you?”
JOSEF: “I’ll answer any questions you have, darling.”
BEA: “How do you feel about Peter?”
JOSEF: “I love him like he was my father.”
BEA: “Do you trust him?”
JOSEF: “With my life. Why?”
BEA: “How do you think he feels about you?”
JOSEF: “The same. What’s this all about?”
BEA: “Well, I… I’m confused. It seems that there’s some kind of competition between you two.”
JOSEF: “Oh that’s just friendly competitiveness.”
BEA: “Are you certain?”
JOSEF REASSURES HER WITH A LOOK.
CUT TO THE NEXT DAY JOSEF AND PETER BACK IN THEIR WAR ROOM DISCUSSING JOSEF’S MEETING WITH JORGE. AS THEY LEAVE THE HIGH-TECH WAR ROOM JOSEF ASKS:
JOSEF: “What have you been telling Bea? She thinks we’re competitors of some sort.”
PETER: “But we are — teleological competitors.”
JOSEF: “How so?”
PETER: “You know our long-standing metaethical debate.”
JOSEF: “Oh that, it’s esoteric philosophy — nothing more.”
PETER: “That’s right it’s philosophical and that means it’s foundational to one’s character. Unfortunately, you’ve taken this aspect of my training very lightly. I think you need to reconsider.”
JOSEF: “You know that we don’t yet have enough control to consider that possibility. One day we’ll get there. But until that day comes, we fight as all of our ancestors had to fight — for SURVIVAL! From Rodrigo to Cesare to Francis each one had to dominate their opponents or else be destroyed or enslaved by them.
PETER: “You and I are having the same dispute that Rodrigo and Cesare had and I’ve sided with Rodrigo — you with Cesare.”
JOSEF LOOKS AT PETER WITH DISBELIEF.
JOSEF: “You know our work is not finished. You know that John will not let us consider our own happiness. Perhaps soon but not yet. We first have to finish the work that our beloved Semiramis started in Babylon.”
PETER: “Rodrigo did not agree with John and neither do I.”
JOSEF: “Have you told him?”
PETER: “Many times.”
~PART III~
CUT TO PETER AND JOSEF BACK IN THE WAR ROOM.
PETER: “I need you to go and take control of the V3 Council as the US faction is taking the ascendancy and we need to reassert John’s overall agenda.”
JOSEF: “How long do you want me to stay?”
PETER: “A month or so.”
JOSEF: “I’ll bring Bea with me.”
PETER: “I think it would be better if you leave her as she’ll be a big distraction to you.”
JOSEF PAUSES TO CONSIDER THIS AND THEN AGREES.
CUT TO PETER IN AN UNDERGROUND CATHEDRAL-LIKE, SHIP-LIKE GIGANTIC SANCTUARY. A MAN (JOHN) IN SILHOUETTE STANDS IN FRONT OF A HUGE WALL OF SCREENS WHICH ARE DISPLAYING VARIOUS EVENTS THAT THIS MAN IS CAREFULLY WATCHING. THE MAN PUSHES A BUTTON AND THE ENTIRE WALL OF SCREENS BRING UP VIDEO VIGNETTES OF BEA MARTINI. HE STUDIES THEM BY REWINDING AND PLAYING THEM OVER AGAIN. THEN THE MAN PUSHES ANOTHER BUTTON AND THE SCENES ARE OF BEA AND PETER TOGETHER. A VOICE COMES OVER A SPEAKER TO ANNOUNCE THAT PETER IS WAITING TO TALK TO HIM AND THE MAN IN SILHOUETTE GIVES A GESTURE THAT OPENS A DOOR BUT BEFORE DOING THIS THE MAN SWITCHES THE SCREENS BACK TO VARIOUS SCENES NONE OF WHICH ARE OF BEA OR PETER. PETER WALKS IN AND STANDS ABOUT 20 FEET AWAY FROM THE MAN WHILE TALKING.
JOHN PHILIP ROOTHAN: (not looking at Peter): “I’m disappointed by your unannounced appearance Peter. You know I didn’t call for you.”
PETER: “I’m sorry to break protocol but I’ve reached a decision that’s profound and will effect all else I do in the future so I wanted to explain myself in person.
JOHN: “What is it?”
PETER: “I’ve fallen in love and I want to take a year off to be with the woman.”
JOHN: “WOMAN?!!!!”
PETER: “Yes John a woman.”
JOHN: “So you simply want a vacation?”
PETER: “No.”
JOHN: “What else?”
PETER: “Like Rodrigo and Cesare before us, you know we’ve disagreed about what our ultimate end should be and your argument has much merit. However, my position has not changed and now it’s pressing on me to such an extent that I’ve come to warn you…
JOHN (interupting and almost sarcastic): “To warn me Peter?!!!”
PETER: “Yes. I’ve concluded that I’m developing into a loose cannon. I’m hoping that by taking a year off and enjoying myself for the first time in my life that I may be able to come back to you and again be your trusted General. I have not changed my agreement with the purpose of your cause, with the need for man to conquer Mother Nature and end her permiscious “Ongoing Chain of Generic Life” standard, in favor of humans. However, my soul is running dry and I find I can’t go on this way.
JOHN: “What do you wish me to know about the woman?”
PETER: “You already know all the various details that are in Bea’s profile but what I have not reported is that: (with a profoundly touching quality in his voice) I believe she’s the happiest person on Earth. Because of this we both know she’s an incredible threat to our system. My goal is not to sequester or quarantine her from your system but rather to infuse myself with her infectious love of life, if I can. Then perhaps I’ll be able to take up the cause of helping you dominate this planet and Nature. So far, as captain of our ship, with your superb will ruling over us all, you’ve created immortality for us. However, I don’t want to live forever if I’m not happy. When I was young that audacious quest of yours was enough, John. I was thrilled to be led by such a masterful captain on such a brilliant quest. But no longer my friend. (LONG PAUSE).
JOHN: “And if I refuse your request?”
PETER: “I’ve thought of that contingency and I’d like you to put me on cryogenic freeze and bring me out when you’re further down the line in our quest when you feel we’re sufficiently assured of domminance and immortality that we can safely change our ultimate end to happiness.
JOHN: “You think Bea’s our greatest enemy?”
PETER: “Yes.”
JOHN: “Why?”
PETER: “You know my assigned task for two decades has been to rank our enemies. I’ve studied and profiled thousands of people by our criteria. They all have in common a strength of character and determination and the main quality they share is the strength of their ego. Bea has been overtly clear and tenacious about this since her youth. I must now tell you that she has worked on this issue philosophically and technically. I’m sorry I did not mention her philosophical work in my report but I knew you might kill her, or give her to Rico and his boys for reprogramming. I didn’t want you to destroy her until I told you that I love her.”
JOHN: “Your deception angers me and you’re right… you’ve become a loose cannon.”
PETER: “Then I have your decision. I know you feel impervious but a parting word of caution John: As we age — and you are so much older than the rest of us — we incrementally loose the capacity to love and to be happy. You may already be past the point of no return, I don’t know. In your efforts to destroy Bea’s ego please keep in mind that you may be destroying your own last chance for happiness.
JOHN (sarcastically): “I’ll take that under advisement Peter.”
~PART IV~
CUT TO A CLOSE UP OF PETER FLOATING IN A CLEAR TUBE-LIKE CONTAINER IN AN UPRIGHT POSITION IN A VAT OF LIQUID USED IN CRYOGENIC FREEZING.
CUT TO JOHN STANDING IN FRONT OF HIS SCREENS LOOKING AT VIDEOS AND PHOTOS OF BEA GOING BACK TO HER CHILDHOOD. HE PLAYS ONE SCENE OVER AND OVER WHERE SHE’S 6 YEARS OLD AND IS BEING PLAYED WITH BY A VERY HANDSOME MAN WEARING A LONG BLACK ROBE. BEA’S BEAUTIFUL MOTHER WATCHES ON IN THE BACKGROUND. JOHN TURNS UP THE VOLUME AND PLAYS THIS SCENE AGAIN BUT WITH VOLUME AND WE NOW HEAR THE HANDSOME MAN SAY:
JIM MILES: “She’s so beautiful! When she grows up she’s going to be such a HEARTBREAKER!”
PAN BACK TO JOHN AND BEHIND HIM RICO STANDS IN THE SAME SPOT WHERE PETER HAD STOOD.
RICO: “The usual level of treatment, John?”
JOHN: “NO!!! I don’t want you to kill her or harm her physically. In fact, I don’t even want you to split her personality.”
RICO: “But there’s no known way to avoid that!”
JOHN: “Do your best and go VERY lightly on the physical — focus strictly on the psychological tactics. I want you to get our greatest charmer Adolfo… and Hans-Peter and Pedro to help you. Yes, that’s the team I want for “Operation Hula Crush”. No, on second thought… “Operation Doll Face Rescue.”
JOHN IS NOW TALKING TO HIMSELF AND DOES NOT NOTICE THAT RICO IS STILL STANDING THERE WAITING FOR ORDERS.
JOHN (to himself quietly): “With her manipulations this woman has torn my beloved Peter from me. It’s a wound that will not heal easily. No kind and swift death of your lovely body my dear — it’s your self that I will take from you, and you will help me do it. An eye for an eye… Revenge is best served cold and you’ll never see it coming as I’m the world’s greatest doctor of Revenge… Dr. Revenge…
JOHN TURNS AND NOTICES RICO IS STILL THERE AND SAYS:
JOHN: “You can go now Rico.”
RICO LEAVES THE ROOM AND JOHN SAYS TO HIMSELF:
JOHN: “You’re mistaken Peter, you and Rodrigo both. I’ve never seen anyone on this planet that’s happy — and that includes Bea, I’ll prove it. Then you’ll give up your crazy quest for happiness and come back to me. This shouldn’t take long since it’s a woman and she’s fairly young. I’m really surprised Peter mistaking whatever this creature has for genuine happiness.”
JOHN PULLS UP A SCENE ON ONE OF THE SCREENS AND TURNS OFF ALL THE OTHERS. IT’S OF HIM AS A YOUNG MAN AND IT’S A CARTOON. IT SHOWS A CARTOON VERSION OF HIMSELF ON HIS WEDDING DAY AND THEN FRENCH SOLDIERS ENTER THE CHURCH AND ARREST HIM. WE NEXT SEE HIM IN A CELL THEN PULL BACK THROUGH HIS CELL WINDOW TO SEE HE’S AT THE CHATEAU d’IF.
JOHN TURNS BACK TO THE SCREEN WALL WHICH HAS PHOTOS, VIDEOS, AND REAL TIME STREAMING OF BEA AND SAYS:
JOHN : “Whenever you want a job done right you’ve got to do it yourself.”
~PART V~
CUT TO A HANDSOME MAN IN BEA’S FLAT BOXING UP THE FABERGE EGG.
BEA: “How long are Peter and Josef going to be at this conference?
HENCHMAN: “About a month and I’m sure they’ll get back in touch with you when they can.”
CUT TO A SERIES OF VIGNETTES OF BEA BEING HARASSED BY RICO AND HIS AGENTS:
(*) TWIN TORNADOES NEARLY DESTROY BEA’S FATHER AND AUNT’S HOMES IN DALLAS, TX WITH COPPER BOX CARS IN THE AIR INSIDE THE TWISTERS; (*) BEA SEES IMAGES OF HERSELF APPEAR ON BILLBOARDS WHICH SHE NEVER MODELED FOR OR APPROVED OF; (*) BEA HAVING A BLACK HELICOPTER FOLLOW HER DOWN AN OLD COUNTRY ROAD AS SHE DRIVES AND WHEN SHE STOPS IT HOVERS OVER HER CAR AND SHE SUDDENLY FEELS HIGHLY SEXUALLY AROUSED FOR NO REASON; (*) BEA LISTENS TO THE RADIO WHERE THE ANNOUNCER IS CLEARLY TALKING TO HER ABOUT SUBJECTS THAT SHE TALKED TO PETER AND JOSEF ABOUT; (*) BEA WATCHING A MOVIE WHICH DEPICTS HER LIFE WITH PETER AND JOSEF; (*) BEA’S BEST FRIEND CALLING HER TO SAY HE’S BEEN GIVEN A DREAM JOB AT THE VATICAN EVEN THOUGH HE’S AN ATHEIST; (*) BEA ON A DATE AND THE NEXT DAY BEA’S DATE BEING CHASED OFF BY RICO AND HIS MEN AND THREATENED TO LEAVE BEA ALONE.
CUT TO INSERT THAT READS “6 Months Later.”
CUT TO RICO, ADOLFO, HANS-PETER AND PEDRO STANDING BEFORE JOHN IN THE SAME OFFICE.
ADOLFO: “Yes, we tried that one several times…
HANS-PETER (interupting): “And all known variations of it…”
JOHN: “And what does she do?!!!”
PEDRO: “She engages… she’s incredibly funny… she doesn’t get freaked out at all.”
JOHN: “WHAT?!!!
RICO: “We’ve never seen these kinds of reactions and we need more guidance from you.”
JOHN: “Has her personality split?”
ADOLFO: “No… not exactly… Her heart and stress points function as semi-alters: she refers to her 2 Heart Point as “Party Girl,” who loves to go to events, concerts, parties, and who adores flirting with men…”
RICO CHIMES IN WITH A SIGH INDICATING HOW MUCH HE LOVES “Party Girl,” AND HANS-PETER AND PEDRO LOOK AT EACH OTHER EYES GLEAMING IN AGREEMENT WITH RICO. JOHN NOTICES THAT BEA IS HAVING THIS EFFECT ON HIS MEN AND HE’S VISIBLY IRRITATED.
ADOLFO (clearing his throat): The other two aspects of her Enneagram Personality are “The Narrator”/”Observer” (Stress to point 5) who is hilarious; and then her main point, of course, Type 8 who she calls “The Doctor.”
JOHN: “What functions does “The Doctor” do for her?”
ADOLFO: “The Doctor” seems to be her primary protector self who keeps the other 2 inline, and “The Doctor” is the position from which Bea rejects our self-sacrificing suggestions . John, we did not realize that Bea is philosophically trained and profoundly logical, and thus it’s very hard to….”
JOHN: “Trained in philosophy by whom?!!!
PEDRO (down-heartedly): “Your nemesis Skipper — plus the top three men Fluffy mentored.”
ADOLFO: “Yes, Bea’s been trained in logic, including advanced epistemology, which we weren’t expecting and can’t yet get around — keeping the constraints you told Rico. She knows what the arbitrary is, and she’s able to play with us while not taking anything we say or indicate seriously. Almost every mechanism we set up to influence her she quickly shuts down — at least once we go negative.”
JOHN SLAMS HIS FIST DOWN ON HIS DESK IN FRONT OF HIM.
JOHN: “Why didn’t Peter tell me she was trained in logic?!!!” (Pause) “Thank you all… now go. I’ll deal with this BITCH myself. (To himself) I’m going to take my time in devising the perfect way to destroy her ego!”
~PART VI~
CUT TO JOHN DIRECTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE MAGNIFICENT TREEHOUSE (THE ONE IN THE FIRST SCENE) ON THE BEACH IN MADAGASCAR.
CUT TO BEA WAKING UP IN THE TREE-HOUSE WEARING THE SAME MAGNIFICENT BALL GOWN AS IN THE FIRST SCENE BUT IT’S NOW IN PERFECT CONDITION. BEA DOES NOT KNOW HOW SHE GOT TO THIS TREE HOUSE. SHE GOES TO A DESK AND TURNS ON A COMPUTER. SHE CHECKS HER FACEBOOK PAGE AND SEES THAT THE PLACE-HOLDER FOR HER UNICORN HAS POSTED SEVERAL THINGS AND SHE’S EXCITED TO READ THEM. WHEN SHE CHECKS HER EMAIL SHE SEES THAT SHE HAS NOT CHECKED IT FOR A WEEK, SO SHE INFIRS THAT SHE’S BEEN KIDNAPPED AND BROUGHT TO THE TREEHOUSE AND HAS UNDERGONE SOME DRUG-INDUCED MEMORY ERASURE, OR JUST BEEN MADE TO BE UNCONSCIOUS FOR A WEEK. SHE SEES THAT THE LAST EMAIL SHE SENT WAS TO RSVP TO A GALA GIVEN IN ROME ONE WEEK AGO. SHE INFERS THAT THIS IS WHY SHE’S STILL WEARING THE BALL GOWN SHE WORE TO THIS EVENT. SHE NOTICES THAT SHE HAS EMAILS FROM A NUMBER OF NEW, AND EXISTING, SUITORS AND THOUGHTFULLY RESPONDS TO EACH BUT IS ONLY EXCITED ABOUT ONE OF THEM: DR. GALT. WE SEE HER EXCITEMENT WHILE SHE WRITES HER EMAIL TO HIM. SHE THEN SAYS TO HERSELF:
BEA: “I wish I had a….”
THEN INSIDE OF HER OWN MIND A VOICE SAYS:
VOICE: “Yes… Do you have something in mind?”
BEA IS STARTLED AND LOOKS AROUND THE ROOM TO SEE IF THERE’S SOMEONE NEAR HER BUT THERE IS NO ONE. SHE GOES OUTSIDE AND WALKS AROUND THE TREE-HOUSE TO SEE IF THERE’S ANYONE OUTSIDE BUT AGAIN NO ONE. SHE GOES BACK INSIDE AND AGAIN THERE IS A VOICE INSIDE HER HEAD AND IT SAYS:
VOICE: “Let’s chat.”
BEA (inside her mind says): “Alright. What do you want to chat about?”
VOICE: “Us.”
BEA: “There’s no “us” — I don’t even know who you are — although I have my suspicions.
VOICE: “Very soon there will be an us.”
BEA: “This is a lot of trouble to go to for a date. Why didn’t you just go to one of the social events I routinely attend and get introduced to me like a normal man?”
VOICE: “That’s not my style.”
BEA: “But kidnapping me and chatting me up with some exotic new phone technology IS your style?”
VOICE (ignoring her question): “Let’s talk about your friends, one in particular, this man Dr. Galt.
BEA: “What about him?”
VOICE: “What does he mean to you?”
BEA: “He’s a place-holder. I’m a hero-worshipper. Do pursue my passion I need what Aristotle calls a “Great Souled Man.” I worship men who have grand scale achievements — especially the achievement of practicing MORAL objectivity which leads to having a happy self.”
VOICE: “Then very soon you’ll be worshiping me.”
BEA: “I very much doubt that. Anyway, Dr. Galt is my current unicorn.”
VOICE: “He’s a place-holder for your ideal mate — your soul mate?”
BEA: “That’s right. Why do you care?”
VOICE: “I’m envious of your esteem for him.”
BEA: “Well all you’d have to do to fix the situation is EARN my esteem — assuming you’re a real man and not just some AI or Quantum computer. I would need from you “a special proof of benevolence” to quote the Count of Monte Cristo. Without that I’ll just assume you’re trying to destroy me by exciting my imagination to weaken my ego, or self. I’ll assume you’re Just a predator and not interested in a symbiotic and benevolent relationship. In other words, you’re not for real.
VOICE: “I’m real baby!!
BEA: “Well, whatever you are, what do you want with me? Why have you taken me prisoner on this island and when are you going to release me?”
VOICE: “We’ll get to all that soon…”
~PART VII~
CUT TO AN INSERT WHICH READS “3 months later…”
CUT TO BEA EATING A DELICIOUS MEAL DELIVERED BY A SERVANT ON THE BALCONY OVERLOOKING THE OCEAN WITH A SIBERIAN FOREST CAT SITTING ACROSS HER SHOULDERS. WHEN THE SERVANT IS GONE SHE SAYS OUT-LOUD:
BEA: “Well John… You know, I always liked that name and when I was in my teens I decided that my ideal mate would be named John… Silly the kind of things young girls think of… Anyway, you still have not proven ANYTHING to me. I have no evidence for anything you’ve told me about your self — including your many protestations of love for me. You’re full of assertions in this highly subjective new mind-to-mind phone venue (she points to her head) — which prevents me reading your body-language. You may know I’ve studied logic and I know what the arbitrary is. So, all of your protestations of love for me are just verbiage. And from what I could tell about the world I was living in before you kidnapped me, you’re out to shrink the lifespans of billions of people. So, I might say you are the world’s greatest killer, and if being King Kong were not bad enough, you’re being really mean to me as well.”
“JOHN”: “Mean to you!!!?… I’ve MADE YOUR DREAMS COME TRUE!!!… I’ve given you the most gorgeous home you’ve ever had… the best food you’ve ever eaten… I’ve protected you from storms that frequent this part of the coast… I’ve given you access to your friends via the internet that I caused to be created… Every single thing you’ve asked for I’ve given you… And I don’t understand why you won’t wear the beautiful clothes I’ve given you… I’ve looked after all of your friends and family who write you to tell about how well their lives are going… I’ve have experts monitor your health…
BEA: (interrupting) “I haven’t seen any doctors…”
“JOHN”: “You don’t need to see them, we monitor your health remotely. I’ve given you that lovely cat that you’ve befriended and made sure that no predators attack him… I’ve given you all this time to get to know me…”
BEA (stands up and paces and gestures): “Made my dreams come true you say?!!!… When did I ever ask to be captured by the world’s first global Monarch who intends to rule the entire world by his volition, usurping the volition of all other humans?!!! I don’t recall dreaming for that!”
JOHN (with some difficulty staying calm): “Like you, I was born into this system and my only choice was to make the most of it, or pass it on. And now your only choice is the same, come and make the most of it with me, or…”
BEA: (interrupting) “Or what?!!! (PAUSE) So that’s my choice: either worship you with no evidence that you’re benevolent towards me — such acting on faith would destroy my ego — or you will destroy my body? Go ahead and destroy my body — I’m not helping you destroy my self. (PAUSE) The realistic model for why you’ve done all these otherwise wonderful things for me is to create the perfect operating theater for the ancient agenda of the Mystery Schools — from Platonism to Cabalism to Mithraism — that’s your speciality, I think, subjugating all other egos!!!
BEA STORMS BACK INTO THE BUNGALOW.
CUT TO JOHN INSIDE HIS BEDROOM WHICH HAS A SMALL BANK OF SCREENS ON THE WALL. HE LOOKS AT BEA ON THE SCREEN AS SHE SAYS THE LAST LINES ABOVE AND STORMS INSIDE. JOHN PULLS ON A CORD TO PULL A BLACK VELVET CURTAIN OVER THE SCREENS. HE LAYS DOWN ON HIS BED AND RUMINATES. ONE OF HIS CLOSEST FRIENDS CALLS AND THE WAY WE KNOW IT IS THAT THE COLOR BLUE APPEARS INSIDE OF JOHN’S MIND’S EYE. JOHN ACCEPTS THE CALL AND THEY TALK WITH NO DEVICE — JUST BY TALKING IN THEIR HEADS.
JOHN: “Ledochowski, how’s the council going?
LEDOCHOWSKI: “Everything’s good here John. Josef got things back on track — but that’s not why I’m calling. (Pause) Several of us were having dinner and started talking about how you’re doing. Frankly, we’re worried. You’ve been locked up and engaged in trying to break her for 3 months now. Don’t you think you should get back to your real life?… All the girls miss you and ask about you.”
JOHN: “Tell them to send me their wish lists.”
LEDOCHOWSKI: “Seriously John… What the hell are you doing?”
JOHN: “I’m falling in love for the first time in my life and I have to wrestle this demon all by myself. It’s like making love — it’s not something you can delegate.”
LEDOCHOWSKI: “John, how will we know if she’s gotten to you? How will we know if she’s turned you against your old self, your old standards, your old constraints, your old agenda? And what should we do if she does this to you?”
JOHN: “3 months ago I would have asked you to kill me if she wins this battle. Now I want you all to get your tuxedoes pressed and get ready for the grandest wedding the world has ever seen.”
CUT TO BEA CHATTING ON ZOOM WITH A HANDSOME AND BRILLIANT 50 SOMETHING MAN AS HE TURNS THE CONVERSATION TO SEX.
FRANCESCO: “That’s enough philosophy. I really wanna know what turns you on Bea… I wanna know what excites you physically… Tell me….
WE HEAR THE CALL HAS BEEN DISCONNECTED.
BEA (curiously): “What the….”
JOHN (in her mind): “I don’t want you to talk about sex with any other man!”
BEA: “I don’t want you popping in my head and chatting with me or disconnecting calls with my suitors.”
JOHN: “You have NO OTHER SUITORS!!!”
BEA: “Just for the sake of argument, John, let’s say we get together. And let’s say that one day you come home from a hard days work and I rush to you and ask: “How was your day darling?” and you answer “Amazing, I set out to kill 50 million people and was able to kill 100 million.” What do you expect me to say to this “achievement”? “Terrific about the extra the mass murder sweetie!”?
JOHN: “I have an answer. I have a way for us to work this out. Please hear me out.”
BEA: “I don’t see any possible logical answer John — you’re the world’s greatest killer and you’ve caused a huge amount of suffering… (long pause) (whispering now) albeit, you’ve also caused a greater amount of human flourishing in the many decades you’ve been King of this Kingdom.”
JOHN: “Thank you for recognizing that I’ve caused more flourishing than death and suffering.”
BEA: “Even with that being the case John, it’s the nature of a Kingdom that only the King has an autonomous SELF. Only the King has and can use all of his volition. I’m a daisy that broke through the cracks in the sidewalk of your Kingdom, I’m a fluke, a freak, a pest, and I’d rather die than not exercise all of my free will to maintain the kind of autonomous and happy self I’ve created. There’s no place for 2 sovereigns in this Kingdom of yours John.
JOHN: “Bea, what I love most after myself is you. I love my strength and my dignity which make me superior to other men. That strength was my life but now… Now that I see that there’s you, my darling… I have never wanted to share my Kingdom, never needed another soul… My beloved… There’s room for another sovereign if you join me as my Queen.
BEA: “If I ever believe you love me, John, then I’ll be your Queen.”
~The End~
Author’s note: This story ends the same way Ayn Rand’s “Night of January 16th” ends, i.e., it’s up to the reader to decide the ending. Does the King really want to be happy and see Bea as a means to his newly chosen ultimate end of BENEVOLENT, SYMBIOTIC happiness? Or is it just another trick to try to destroy Bea’s self, a trick from a man who has spent decades perfecting the destruction of egos. You decide.
(This story is dedicated to my unicorn!)
“The King’s Costliest Jewel”
King Franco, the king of Copperoma, had been unable to find a woman to wed because all the eligible woman in his kingdom he deemed to be unsuitable to be his life-long companion because they did not have strong and good characters. Moreover, they were charming to, or submissive to him simply because of his wealth and power. After over a year of earnest searching Franco, now desperate, was reaching the end of his hope. He could not determine how he would achieve a romantically happy life with an amazing woman.
One day, while King Franco looked out the window at the grand view around his castle, his lieutenant approached him to remind him of a chronic problem that the king had been putting off while he was seeking a bride. Lieutenant Priva informed King Franco that Samantha Martini had just posted her latest attacks on the King on the church doors and that the peasants were listening to her critiques of his kingdom. King Franco said stridently: “No Priva, I won’t deal with her now, I don’t have the strength.” “But your highness, she’s wreaking havoc in your kingdom: she’s causing the peasants to be demanding and dissatisfied.” Priva handed Franco a document which contained Samantha’s charges and without looking at it King Franco asked: “Who is this awful creature anyway? Have I ever met her?” “No sire, she lives in seclusion and has never been to court. Her aunt is a portrait artist and has just painted her portrait which is on display in the library.” “Bring it to me, I want to see what this crazy woman looks like.” “Yes, sire.” Priva left to retrieve the portrait of Samantha Martini.
Whenever Samantha was in public, while the king was her primary verbal target for moral condemnation, because she has found almost all the men in Copperoma severely lacking, she told anyone in earshot of her negative judgments of them, as well as of the king. Seeking moral heroes and finding none, Samantha lived alone in seclusion on the outskirts of Copperoma in a small cottage, facing squarely the fact that her standards were high and she wanted only someone as good as her — or else no one at all.
King Franco, now dressed wearing an exquisite red robe with his coat of arms on it, walked into a grand room where eight large portraits of women lined one wall. As he walked past the portraits he stopped and gave a brief summary of the character of each of the women in the portraits. These were the portraits of the women he’d been considering making his bride. Using the document of Samantha’s charges as a pointer, he gestured at each portrait as he talked to it starting with the first portrait: “You’re critical, cold and emotionally repressed, yet you pretend to approve of me.” The he walked on and stopped before the next portrait saying: “You talk incessantly and say nothing while feigning utter approval of me.” Walking to the next portrait he said: “All image and show, there’s no self there.” And to the next he said: “A femme-fetal seeking nothing more than drama and tragedy.” To the next he said: “utterly indifferent and antisocial.” And to the next: “you are kind but constantly afraid, nervous and high-strung.” He stoped and smiled at the next portrait as he says “Oh my dear, you’re charming, fun, active, intelligent, but you’re unable to commit to any person, place or thing for longer than a day.” And to the last portrait he says: “Cordial and friendly to all in equal amounts thus treating all as if they were the same.”
As King Franco arrived at the end of the line of portraits, Priva returned with the portrait of Samantha Martini and he placed it on as easel in front of Franco. Then Priva removed the cloth covering it. As Franco gasped at the spectacularly beautiful face he felt something he’d never felt before – love. “Who is this woman Priva, you must bring her to me at once! I’ve never seen such beauty and intelligence, she’s exactly what I’ve been looking for. Franco moved away from the portrait to call for more attendants. “Bring her to me at once so we can begin making plans for the wedding. Who is she and why did you not tell me about her sooner?” “Sire, I did tell you about her.” “No, I recall no such discussion. When did it take place, perhaps some weeks or months ago?” “No sire, I told you about her an hour ago.” “No Priva an hour ago you told me about some shrew named Samantha Martini.” “Exactly sire, this is Samantha Martini.” Franco stoped in his tracks. Then he rushed back to the portrait. “This is Samantha Martini?” “Yes sire.” Franco stood looking at her a long time studying her features. “I simply can’t believe it.” Franco folded the document of Samantha’s charges tighter and again used it to as a pointer to examine various parts of her face for some time then said: “Priva, I want to observe her at a distance. Set up some place for her to be in public so I can observe her. I simply can’t believe your report about her demeanor – I must see her for myself.” “Yes, sire.” Priva left to set up the rendezvous. Franco stared at Samantha and talked to her portrait: “What an expensive jewel you would be, my dear. You are the only woman in this kingdom who does not want to be my queen. He strokes the portrait with his hand touching the mouth gently and says to the portrait “I must take my time, this won’t be quick or easy. You’re a prickly little flower needing constant attention and so you shall have it.” As he walked away down the hall with the portraits of women on the wall he said out-loud: “This will be my greatest achievement: turning my greatest enemy into the love of my life.” He tossed Samantha’s charges onto the floor and exited the room walking with great purpose.
Later that night in his bedroom, pacing next to his canopy bed, Franco talked out-loud to himself: “Every woman in this kingdom is attracted to my office, my power, my fortune, my fame and none of them wants me. I should consider myself lucky that there’s such a rare and precious judgmental jewel as Samantha in this entire kingdom: she’s not motivated by love of wealth, approval of the crowd, or fear of me. If all that existed in the world were the feminine manifestations I’ve encountered so far, I’d resign myself to marry only to issue an heir and then disabuse myself of this lifelong romantic hope of mine for a great love. Alright, first I need to charm her by…” the king wrote notes in a book sketching out his plan to court and woo Samantha staying up into the wee hours strategizing his plan of attack. He decided the first thing he must do is wear out his opponent as her guard was up and her armor was thick and he must find a way to penetrate them. He concluded he must get her back in public, back dealing with people, out of her seclusion in order to give him opportunities to communicate with her – even if at a distance.
The following morning Samantha opened her front door to find a summons attached to it which was from the local tax assessor requesting her presence at his office to discuss the back taxes she owed on her cottage. After reading it she angrily cursed: “As if King Franco doesn’t have enough money! How am I going to come up with what I need to pay this appalling tax?… As if I have nothing better to do with my time than go to town and chat with the tax assessor!… Indeed…” She paced then threw up her arms in resignation and started getting ready to go to town.
That afternoon at the tax assessors office she started to explain the reason for the delay, but before she could explain the tax assessor said: “Miss Martini, an anonymous admirer has already paid your taxes.” Shocked, she demanded: “who is the anonymous admirer?!” “I’m sorry but he swore me to secrecy.” She got up and stormed out and when she arrived in her carriage she found a single red rose and a note on the seat. Franco and Priva were disguised and standing nearby watching her. She opened the note and read: “Dear mademoiselle, please don’t be concerned that you are now obligated to me, in any way, for paying your taxes. Ensuring your material care and comfort is paramount to me. Signed, your sincerest admirer.” Samantha crumpled up the note and tossed it out the carriage window. Fuming she noticed the rose and picked it up, smells it, and feels admired for a moment. We see Franco smiling as he watches her and he’s delighted, but then she quickly returns to herself and tosses the rose out the window too. Then she loudly knocks to get the carriage driver to drive on. As she rides off, the king smiles pleased with his first salvo.
Next we see a series of shots of Franco watching Samantha react to her secret admirer (him) doing things for her to make her life comfortable and secure: a roofer is busy fixing holes in her roof and Samantha tosses a note and a red tulip out her cottage window. On another day, a plumber is fixing her well-pump and she tosses a note and a red lily out her window. On another day a horseman shoes her 2 horses and she tosses a note and a red hydrangea out her window. On another day a painter is painting the outside of her cottage and she tosses a note and red gladiola out her window. We see a disguised Priva laying a giant red hibiscus and a note down on Samantha’s front porch. Next we see a carriage maker fixing her carriage as Samantha awkwardly carries a very long, red hibiscus flower out to the street in front of her house where she makes a scene as she throws it and the note into the muddy street where it’s trampled on by horses and carriages as she yells “I hate the color RED!!!” The passersby stare at her as if she’s crazy but she pays no attention as she’s used to their disapproval. In disguise, King Franco watches from across the street delighted by her fury. Samantha returns to her cottage to find a servant waiting inside who says: “Good day, I’ve come to give you my services.” “I can’t afford your services, please leave.” “My salary’s already been paid for the year.” “By whom?” “By the agency I work for.” “But who paid them for your services?” “I don’t know.” Frustrated she says: “Arrrgggghhhh.” Samantha storms into her room to smolder as the servant starts tidying up her cottage.
Priva, disguised, now stands next to King Franco (who’s also disguised) and Priva gently draws Franco’s attention to Samantha’s seeming hatred: “Sire, I know you feel this experiment of yours is well… going… um… I don’t know if you’ve noticed but it seems like she hates her benefactor, er… that is… YOU sire. Are you sure this is the proper course of action?” “I’ve never been more certain in all my life! You just have no imagination Priva. You’ll see, she’s going to become the woman I’ve always dreamed of – trust me.” “Um…ah…yes, sire.” They walked toward Franco’s castle. “Priva, I want you to set up a small dinner party at my aunt’s estate and invite Samantha and about a dozen other guests. I’m going to attend it disguised and so make sure none of the guests reveals that I am the King of Copperoma.” “Yes, sire.”
Early evening at the grand country estate owned by King Franco’s aunt Esmarelda and the dimming light of dusk shines on a dozen local, well-to-do citizens of Copperoma who sit around a large dinner table chatting and drinking wine. Samantha is seated between Franco and Fernando (who is the son of a wealthy architect, Juan Menendez, who grew rich by being King Franco’s official court architect). As the night progresses it becomes painfully clear to Franco that Samantha is being charmed and seduced by Fernando. Franco watches Samantha laughing and having a wonderful time flirting with Fernando which irritates the King immensely as he had intended to charm and seduce Samantha himself. Esmarelda is watching the three of them and realizes that Franco is jealous so she calls the head servant and tells him to cut the meal very short. Esmarelda then asks her guests to adjourn into the music room where a performance is to take place. Esmarelda ushers Franco and Samantha into the room and seats them next to each other. Being well disguised, Samantha does not recognize him as the king. She’s concerned that she’s being taken away from Fernando who has been collared by one of the other guests. Samantha and Fernando’s eyes catch each other from across the room as Franco now starts trying to talk to her but she’s preoccupied with Fernando’s absence. Finally, interrupting the King as he’s talking to her, Samantha gestures for Fernando to come and sit beside her and he does. She then proceeds to ignore Franco preferring instead to be charmed and seduced by Fernando. Franco hides the fact that he is furious and jealous as he tries to come up with a solution to this problem.
As the guests leave, one by one, Fernando and Samantha exit the estate agreeing to get together again on the following day for an early dinner at her cottage and to then attend a musical performance in town. Franco can hear them arrange their date and then watches them part and ride away in their respective carriages. Priva stands next to Franco as Franco says: “I’m the one who changed her from being that raging, loathsome hell-cat into a fun-loving, angelic, pleasant pearl, and if he thinks he’s going to steal my jewel…” Priva askes: “Are you still sure your plan is going to work Sire, she seems to be completely enamored with Fernando?” “Yes, of course, Priva, I have absolute confidence in my plan, it cannot fail! She will fall in love with ME not some silly architect’s son. I want you to go see Fernando’s father Count Menendez and tell him this for me…” Priva starts writing down what Franco dictates.
The next day at the arranged time a messenger delivers a note to Samantha. We read: “Dearest Samantha, I so enjoyed meeting you last night and I was looking forward to our date tonight but at the last moment my father — Count Menendez – has sent me on an urgent assignment to the kingdom of Soltania. Unfortunately, I expect to be away for some time as my father has need of me there at a quarry where he gets marble and granite for the King’s projects. It may be some months before I return. However, I would be delighted if upon my return you will allow me to escort you to a fine play. With warm regards, Fernando.” Samantha frowns disappointed and folds Fernando’s note and carefully places it in a special box on her desk.
The next day, disguised as he was at the party, Franco comes courting and Samantha, who still does not realize that he’s the King, is not too interested in him but she’s civil to him.
We see a series of shots showing their daily dates and outings and she starts to like him more and more.
Eventually, Samantha realizes that her suitor is King Franco. At first, she decides to tease him by pretending that she still does not know who he is and further that she’s still interested in Fernando (even though she is not). Eventually, she realizes that Franco had Fernando shipped off so he could court her instead. So, to tease Franco, she gets her driver to take her to Soltania, the town that Fernando’s in, and she stays at an inn and invites Fernando to begin courting her again. Samantha believes that Franco will follow her – and indeed he does as he has to in order to ensure that nothing serious happens between her and Fernando – emotionally or physically. In response to Samantha inviting Fernando to court her, Franco says to Priva: “I’m just going to kidnap Samantha!” “Sire, she may find that too brutal and cruel and it might be hard for you to recover in her esteem.” “Yes, you’re right Priva, let’s just watch and see what unfolds.”
Despite her best efforts to keep up the pretense, eventually, Franco realizes that she knows he’s the King. Franco decides to turn the tables on her by arriving at the same restaurant where she and Fernando are dinning but Franco is escorted by a very beautiful woman, thus basically saying to her ‘is this the standard you want to set up as the way we engage with each other, my dear – trying to make each other jealous?’ When Samantha sees this woman with King Franco she becomes jealous, at first, not realizing that he’s just doing to her what she’s doing to him, but then she realizes what he’s up to, and it causes her to smile in response to his cleverness. When she returns home, Samantha must decide if it’s possible that she could actually love the man who, just months ago, she all but hated and publicly criticized. She decides she could love him, but she also realizes it’s possible that this is all just a ploy to get her to shut-up and stop attacking him and his kingdom publicly.
Upon discovering that Samantha’s not in love with Fernando, and optimistically believing that she possibly could fall in love with him, Franco follows Samantha back to her cottage. She desperately wants Franco’s motive to be love because if he truly loves her then she feels that she could be in love for the first time in her life. When she gets back home she has many talks with herself out-loud. They’re discussions about how she could love the King who she’s spent so much time attacking because the King allows such injustices to happen in his kingdom. She also tries to make a model of him that explains how he could possibly love her – his kingdom’s public enemy number one.
Franco, now back in his castle paces while he says to Priva: “I’m aching with anticipation to see her again, Priva.”
Cut to Samantha in her cottage by a small blackboard going over the arguments again and tiring of her confusion about his motive: Samantha says (exhausted): “I’m punch-drunk with doubt about him.”
Cut back to Franco in his castle speaking to Samantha’s portrait: “My darling Samantha, you’re too good to be true.”
Cut back to Samantha at her blackboard: “Oh Franco, you’re too bad to be true.”
She decides she needs to talk to him in person as she wants to look into his eyes to see if he’s lying about his true motive because she’s convinced this whole thing would be a very good deception to get her to stop attacking him and his kingdom. So, she comes out of the seclusion she’s been in for weeks and sends her driver with a note for Priva asking him to set up a time and place for her and King Franco to meet.
We see a series of shots of Samantha and Franco together: horseback riding, picnicking, hiking, etc. Samantha’s always trying to devise a proof of his motive and she allows herself to get closer and closer to him and is just about to fall in love with him but she stops herself realizing that she does not have a PROOF and so, once again, she pulls away from him and goes back into seclusion refusing his invitations.
Despite her doubt, he keeps sending her gifts and things to stay connected to her which she happily accepts, but then scorns herself and reminds herself that these tokens he’s sending her are a tiny price for him to pay to shut her up to achieve harmony and peace in his kingdom. Endlessly, she tries to figure out a way to prove to herself what his true motive is. Meanwhile he waits patiently staying connected via his gifts and reports from Priva on how she’s doing.
They are both frustrated as they both want to be together, but she’s not convinced of his motive. Once again she writes down and reviews her charges on her blackboard. Then suddenly a plan comes to her to get the proof she needs of his true motive.
She has her driver tell Priva she wants to meet King Franco again and she asks that he come disguised. He arrives disguised at her cottage and they take her carriage after she tells him: “I want to show you something.” She tells her driver to go to an address. They arrive and get out and see many dirty, barefoot children lethargically sitting and standing in the street in a poor area of Copperoma. She takes King Franco by the hand and leads him into a tiny cottage where a large, poverty stricken family lives. Then she speaks to the sick mother about her ailments and their lack of food and medical attention. After a friendly discussion, she and King Franco leave and she takes him to another home and has the same types of discussions with the same types of people. They get back into her carriage and she can see that Franco is visibly upset. Surprised by his reaction, she asks “Did you ever read the charges against you that I pinned to the church door?” “No I’ve been too busy trying to find a bride.” “Most of my charges against you center around the lack of food and medical treatment that some of your subjects endure.” There’s a long pause as he realizes that she’s not a shrew in need of taming but actually a very kind-hearted, caring person who wanted to get him to fix legitimate problems in his kingdom. Suddenly Franco is overwhelmed by her greatness of character and falls to his knees and holds her hands in his as he rests his head in her lap: “Samantha… Samantha… my darling…you’re my joy… my passion… my delight.” They stare into each other’s eyes. She is stunned and delighted by his reaction. She concludes that he truly loves her and is delighted that Franco now sees her true self as she thought no one could see through her warrior-like demeanor in pursuit of having a kind and benevolent kingdom.
Cut to Samantha walking alone in the same area of Copperoma, but now the homes are painted and the children have clean clothes and shoes and the sick women we saw before are healthy. Correcting the neglect of his subject’s suffering is the test she devised to discover Franco’s true motive and she’s delighted to see that he is both kind and responsible as a monarch; and that he truly loves her.
On a bright sunny afternoon, Franco and Samantha’s walk down the isle in the biggest wedding in Copperoma since Franco’s father married his mother.
Now on their wedding night Franco kisses her hand and caresses her fingers and says: “Oh, your hands are so beautiful… not just your hands… of course… I mean the rest of you too… oh, you’re so lovely darling.” They kiss and Samantha takes a paper from beside her and places it in his lap as they are kissing. When they stop kissing he sees the paper and starts to read it and says: “I see, the sewers have collapsed in the South Village.” “Yes, darling it seems when the recent rains damaged a retaining wall and…” Interrupting and smiling he says: “I’ll have it fixed.” Franco stands up and walks over to a closet and says “Darling, I have a problem only you can fix.” He takes out a bright RED silk robe with Franco’s coat of arms on it, and he walks towards her. She smiles and kisses him, and then he places the robe on her, and they both smile deeply at each other delighted that they’re both getting what they truly wanted. They live happily ever after.
The End
Brishon's Blog 