Back to the Future ~ Please!?

Words of wisdom and warning from another time to "wring" (or fling) out the old and bring in the new:

Jeremiah S. Black: How shall we avert the dire calamities with which we are threatened? The answer comes from the graves of our fathers: By the frequent election of new men [and women]. Other help or hope for the salvation of free government there is none under heaven. If history does not teach this, we have read it all wrong.
Jeremiah S. Black, 'The Third Term: Reasons Against It,' Essays and Speeches of Jeremiah S. Black, ed. Chauncey F. Black, p. 383 (1886). First published in The North American Review, March 1880.

President Abraham Lincoln: At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide.
President Abraham Lincoln, address before the Young Men's Lyceum, Springfield, Illinois, January 27, 1838.—The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, ed. Roy P Basler, vol. 1, p. 109 (1953).

General George Washington: I have beheld no day since the commencement of hostilities that I have thought her liberties in such eminent danger as at present. Friends and foes seem now to combine to pull down the goodly fabric as we have hitherto been raising at the expence of so much time, blood, and treasure; and unless the bodies politick will exert themselves to bring things back to first principles, correct abuses, and punish our internal foes [Left AND Right by resounding electoral defeat], inevitable ruin must follow.
General George Washington, letter to George Mason, March 27, 1779.—The Writings of George Washington, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, vol. 14, p. 300 (1936).

--------------/
All three quotes from World Book Encyclopedia "American Reference Library" DVD

BetraeUS*

(OR, One more déjà vu in the story of Ayn’s “Objectivism”)

Did you know that by Ayn Rand’s own admission, her “Objectivist” philosophy was born in her mind at the age of 2½ and remained essentially unchanged for the rest of her life?¹ (Oh! those terrible twos! as they say.)

She claimed “Objectivism” was a new, revolutionary philosophy, but her claim does not, by any measure, bear the weight of her beloved “objective reality.” If one really wants to hear Ayn in her own words, take an afternoon, “YouTube” her, and THINK rationally / empirically.

The only thing semi-original² about Ayn is perhaps her bluntness in claiming virtue for the déjà vu^x predilection that has forever plagued mankind—that self-con which admonitions to altruism have sought to conquer (with mixed results).

Whatever Ayn’s claim, the ideas she wraps in “Objectivism” have been, through the ages, the carrot of ten thousand times ten thousand offenses and betrayals. So perhaps it is time to lay to rest the offenses and betrayals that Ayn and her devotees have heaped upon Ayn’s dear Aristotle and his preference for observation and empiricism? Let us ask them all, in the spirit of Aristotelian objective reality, to answer:

• Are Ayn’s latest (inadvertent? accidental?) disciples, i.e., David Petraeus³ and Paula Broadwell, not classic examples of “Objectivism” in practice?

• Are the likes of Abramoff, Boesky, Corzine, Keating, Lay, Madoff, etc., etc., etc., not direct products of “Objectivism”?

• What would altruism have done for these people—their privacy, families, friends, careers, prospects, peace of mind, reputation, happiness?

• Isn’t extreme individualism as fraught with danger as extreme collectivism?

---------------------/

*Thanks to my sister for observing the ironic closeness of the Petraeus name and act; though his betrayal is far more of himself and his family than of us or the US.

1. See Ayn Rand interview with Tom Snyder (1 of 3) from 8:09 – 8:38 seconds at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc
2. (Though Epicurus, the Marquis de Sad, Faust, Screwtape, Korihor, and others might beg to differ! For Korihor, see the Book of Mormon, Alma 30, particularly verse 17.)
3. (and all his déjà vu predecessors like Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Newt Gingrich, John Kennedy, John McCain, Mark Sanford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Eliot Spitzer, David Vitter, etc., etc., etc., not to mention their accomplices; plus all the Hollywood and sports stars to exhaustive to enumerate)

Comparatively Speaking

“In 1991, a survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club asked club members what the most influential book in the respondent’s life was. Rand’s Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible.”¹ 

This blog post is written for those who claim to believe in both.

John Galt: The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live. (D:771)2	Jesus: In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world. (New Testament John 16:33)
John Galt & devotees: I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine. (D:557, 558, 814, 867)	Jesus: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. (New Testament Matthew 16:24-25) He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. (New Testament John 12:25)
John Galt: His own happiness is man's only moral purpose, but only his own virtue can achieve it. (D:777)	Jesus: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (New Testament Matthew 22:37-40)
John Galt: … the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself—and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your soul's shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others. (D:776)	Jesus: My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (New Testament John 4:34) My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (New Testament John 7:16)
John Galt: A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man—every man—is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose. (D:771)	Jesus: Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.(New Testament John 15:13)
John Galt: So I'll warn you now that there is one word which is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.' (D:544)	Jesus: “… freely ye have received, freely give.” (New Testament Matthew 10:8) Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. (New Testament Luke 6:30)
John Galt: … man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul—that to live requires a sense of self-value, … (D:776)	Jesus: I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (New Testament John 5:30) John the Baptist: A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven. (New Testament John 3:27)
John Galt: When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him—by force. (D:779)	Jesus: … resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. (New Testament Matthew 5:39-42)
Francisco d’Anconia: Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. (D:361)	Paul: For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (New Testament 1 Timothy 6:10) Jesus: Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. (New Testament Luke 16:15)
Hank Rearden: I work for nothing but my own profit. I earn it. (D:366)	Jesus: For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? (New Testament Matthew 16:26) Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: … (New Testament John 6:27) Take heed, and beware of covetousness: for a man's life consisteth not in the abundance of the things which he possesseth. (New Testament Luke 12:15)
Dagny Taggart: I think that only if one feels immensely important can one feel truly light." (D:115, 180)	Jesus: … whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted. (New Testament Luke 14:11) I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (New Testament John 8:12)
Dagny Taggart: "This is the place [Galt’s Gulch] where one doesn't ask for help, isn't it?" John Galt: "That's right." (D:575)	Jesus: Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (New Testament Matthew 7:7-8)

When Galt’s words are compared with the astonishingly radical ones of Jesus we see how normative Galt is. Where Galt stokes and strokes the natural man, Jesus offends him. Galt finds the Gospel intolerable because God’s will and ways repeatedly insult the reasonable and rational. Jesus knows there are ways and thoughts higher than man’s.³  Throughout Galt’s lengthy radio address we hear how shocked and offended he is. To bolster his rational, “non-emotional” scold, he (like every offended natural man) distorts and/or disparages, conveniently forgetting the “as thyself” admonition in “love thy neighbor.”

If you (like an astounding number of conservative folk) think that God and Galt are reconcilable, here is more of Mr. Galt from his radio address:⁴

"You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve God's purpose or your neighbor's welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door—but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.
"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it. [But lo, here am I, John Galt, to do it!]
"Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and force. (D:769)

"The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive—a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. … Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God, …. Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. …. The purpose of man's life …, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. …
"Selfishness—say both—is man's evil. Man's good—say both—is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man's good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice—cry both—is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man's reach. (D:781)

"Your code—which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective—your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, it's evil; if others wish it, it's good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, don't do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes. (D:784)

"The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason—like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.
"They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it 'another dimension,' which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it 'the future,' which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? (D:787)

"For centuries, the mystics of spirit [meaning Christians, Jews, Muslims, et al.?] had existed by running a protection racket—by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners." (D:790)

Thus, with a generous dose of self-serving spin, Galt has captured the minds of many rational people who don’t distinguish between irrational and transrational, or grasp the link between now and hereafter. But as usual, the choice is ours.

Galt: This life is it! A One-Act play — so play it for all you’re worth!

Gospel: Act Two matters.5 Act Three is pending.

-------------------------/
1. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand under “Popular Interest” subheading; [bold emphasis added].
2. These page references refer to the digital PDF version of Atlas Shrugged found at http://www.mises.ch/library/Rand_AtlasShrugged.pdf . The 35th Anniversary hard copy Plume Book version (© 1992) has 1168 pages; the PDF has 891.
3. Old Testament Isaiah 55:8-9 — For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
4. Digital pages 767-814 of the PDF Atlas Shrugged referenced in footnote 2 above.
5. What is man, that thou shouldest magnify him? and that thou shouldest set thine heart upon him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment? (Old Testament Job 7:17-18)
Beloved, think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto you: (New Testament 1 Peter 4:12)
I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, … (Old Testament Jeremiah 17:10)
And I … will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: (Old Testament Zechariah 13:9)

Who is John Galt?

2nd in a series of “Who is … ?” posts in exploration of:

1) the “Who is John Galt?” question posed in Ayn’s 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged; and
2) the Paul Ryan/Rand mysteries.

This question “Who is John Galt?” is posed 33 times in Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged. Here are some suggested answers.

John Galt is:

□ an idealized, fictional character believed by his creator to have real world equivalents? (D:891^[1])
□ a “wonderful wizard” of Libertarian philosophy^[2] with a massive, déjà vu shadow hidden behind the curtain?^[3]
□ a “thinker” who believes that a collection of achievers devoted to profit, competition, and self-interest can form the ideal society (D:569+)—in contravention (denial?) of the role such motives have persistently played in human history?
□ “… a [man] driven by the engine of business … whose actions are based on an extraordinary sense that [he] can do as [he] likes. … a [man who] is expert at slipping through the cracks and persisting in … practices against all comers, no doubt convinced that [he] knows better than anyone else what is good for humanity, persuaded that [he] is accountable to no one, appropriating the planet as [his] playing field and profit center”?^[4]
□ a man who finds the Sermon on the Mount and the concept of sacrifice to be evil and reprehensible teachings?^[5]
□ a man who (like his alter-voice, Francisco d’Anconia) espouses that “money is the root of all good” (D:361)
□ an alleged opponent of altruism, yet a man who abandons /destroys his own revolutionary motor and then works in anonymous menial labor so as not to advance an evil world?
□ a persuader of men and women to his philosophies and “altruism”? (D:768+)
□ the adored, philosophical leader of other persecuted achievers (as in: Francisco d’Anconia, Hank Rearden, Ragnar Danneskjold, Dagny Taggart, et al.) who put their own lives and futures at risk (altruism?) to rescue him from captors? (D:874)
□ the man who claims that Galt’s Gulch (GG) has no rules (D:544)—EXCEPT the rule that there are no rules. OH, AND the rule “not to give to the world the benefit of [one’s] mind” (D:569). OH, AND since there are no (or few) rules, there are several GG “customs” as in:

▪ the word “give” is forbidden in the valley (D:544)
▪ no one can leave GG during the month of rest from the world (D:578)
▪ no communication with the outside world is allowed while in GG (D:581)
▪ no disclosure of any nature or degree about GG to the outside world is permitted (D:615)
▪ there are to be no gifts or favors, only earnings in GG (D:578+; 544)
▪ no currency but Milligan mint is accepted in GG (D:554)
▪ one doesn’t ask for help (D:575)
▪ self-sacrifice is forbidden (D:769)
▪ the requirement to pursue self-interest and maximum profit prevails
▪ the law of the voluntary contract governs (D:810)
▪ everyone who enters GG takes the oath: "I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."  (D:557)
▪ “there can be no collective commitments in [GG] and that families or relatives are not allowed to come here, unless each person takes the striker's oath by his own independent conviction.” (D:598)
▪ “Nobody stays in [GG] except by a full, conscious choice based on a full, conscious knowledge of every fact involved in his decision. Nobody stays here by faking reality in any manner whatever." (D:605)
▪ everyone MUST be a competitive, achieving person of ambition and competence
▪ violence (normally taboo) will be met with violence (no “turn the other cheek” nonsense) (D:779)
▪ there shall be no sloth
▪ “moochers,” “looters,” “cannibals” are forbidden
▪ the support of “moochers,” “looters,” “cannibals,” is forbidden
▪ etc., etc., etc. ?

In addition, John Galt is(?):
□ a man who spends untold hours furtively following / observing his secret love, Dagny Taggart, “Vice-President in Charge of Operation” at Taggart Transcontinental? (D:592, 729)
□ a man who spends hours in the underground cafeteria of Taggart (train) Terminal waiting for Eddie Willers to show up and talk about his (Eddie’s) boss, Dagny Taggart? (D:48, 334, 434, 497, 820)
□ a smoker oblivious to the poisons he breathes in and out?
□ a man adept at dismissing contraries (e.g., “no rules rules,” etc.) and redefining words and motives in order to reconcile behaviors with theories? (D:618, 881)
□ a character whose creator attempts to excuse him and his devotees from contradictions by reference to a “higher philosophical sense” (D:102) and a “check your premises” mandate? (D:153, 253, 292, 373, 473, 562, 602)
□ a man who believes he can create a better, more just world under the sign of the dollar?^[6](D:890)
□ a dupe dealer?^[7]

"Are you beginning to see who is John Galt?" (D:776)

------------/
NOTE to disgruntled (particularly Christian) “Libertarians”: The vices and corruptions detailed about Galt's persecutors are too often, tragically "déjà vu," but Galt's devotion to money should put us on notice that corruption, self-deception, and propaganda are not exclusive to the Left and have a long and tragic history on the Right, as well as the center and everywhere inbetween. Ask yourself: In the final count, who might the great Babylon prefer, Galt & company or Mr. Thompson? And what is the free-market shadow that so many are so adept at pretending does not exist despite its persistent, recurring devastations? How long till we admit that unregulated markets will always oppress and abuse freedom until we have men and women regulated by an inner moral framework that transcends but includes self-interest from a higher perspective? Ask yourself: How comfortable would I be in Galt’s valley of no rules rules and customs?

[1] Any page references (B) are from the 35th Anniversary Edition, Plume Book edition of Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand; and page references (D) are from the digital PDF version of Atlas Shrugged found at http://www.mises.ch/library/Rand_AtlasShrugged.pdf . The hard copy Plume Book version (© 1992) has 1168 pages; the PDF has 891.
[2] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand under “Political Influence” subheading: “Although she rejected the labels "conservative" and "libertarian," Rand has had continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism. Jim Powell, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, considers Rand one of the three most important women (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) of modern American libertarianism, and David Nolan, one of the founders of the Libertarian Party, stated that "without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist." In his history of the libertarian movement, journalist Brian Doherty described her as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large," and biographer Jennifer Burns referred to her as "the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right.”
[3] IF “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon” (New Testament Matthew 6:24); then perhaps one cannot serve self and mammon either since mammon is an exclusive master and will lead the self in a frenzied dance of status and acquisition.
[4]These words adapted from The World According to Monsanto: Pollution, Corruption, and the Control of the World's Food Supply by Marie-Monique Robin, Perseus Books Group [Kindle Edition (2010-05-11), Location 163], describe the pervasive attitude of those whose first order of business is profit and self-interest.
[5] Read his lengthy radio address (D:767-814) and his many other words, plus the words of his many devotees like Francisco d’Anconia (e.g., D:313-316).
[6] Read footnote [3] again.
[7]See an example at http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2011/11/confession-of-dupe-dealer.html

AS IF …

In Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, comprising 890 pages,^[1] there are 4,105 uses of “as”, including 1,213 uses of “as if”; and 1,406 of “like.” Take any page at random and one will likely find “as if” upon “as if”; “like” upon “like”; and other such elaborations. The first page of the first chapter gives notice of what is to come:

▪ … as if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him. (4)
▪ … as if to kill that moment and postpone the problem of the next. (4)
▪ … as if he knew that Eddie felt it, as if he thought that one should feel it, and more: as if he knew the reason. (4)
▪ … like an old painting in oil, … (4)
▪ … like the reflection of a fire: not an active fire, but a dying one which it is too late to stop. (4)

Soon thereafter, we discover that nigh every A.S. character will experience the world in simile and metaphor. Here is a random sampling:

▪ … rows of girls sat at typewriters, the clicking of their keys like the sound of speeding train wheels. (6)
▪ It was as if normal existence were a photograph of shapeless things in badly printed colors, … (15)
▪ He liked to observe emotions; they were like red lanterns strung along the dark unknown of another's personality, … (17)
▪ He pronounced his name as if he wished his listeners to be struck in the face and knighted by the sound of it. (70)
▪ She felt that his presence seemed more intensely real when she kept her eyes away from him, almost as if the stressed awareness of herself came from him, like the sunlight from the water. (77)
▪ Instead of finding it crude, she found it strangely attractive—as if, she thought suddenly, as if sensuality were not physical at all, but came from a fine discrimination of the spirit. (95)
▪ The faces of the others looked like aggregates of interchangeable features, every face oozing to blend into the anonymity of resembling all, and all looking as if they were melting. (111)
▪ She said slowly, as if she wished it were possible to wear gloves to handle the words, … (134)
▪ He felt as if it were empty space where the rays of the furnaces moved at will; as if the desk were a raft hanging in mid-air, holding two persons imprisoned in privacy. (155)
▪ He stood on the sidewalk, feeling an odd, heavy, foggy sense of satisfaction: feeling as if he had committed an act of virtue—and as if he had taken his revenge upon every person who had stood cheering along the three-hundred-mile track of the John Galt Line. (204)
▪ He held her body as if the violence and the despair of the way he took her could wipe his unknown rival out of existence, out of her past, and more: as if it could transform any part of her, even the rival, into an instrument of his pleasure. (206)
▪ … the white stubble of his chin was like a mist of dead weeds over a vacant face. (246)
▪ Ivy Starnes sat on a pillow like a baggy Buddha. (246)
▪ The fur was a soft brown, dimmed by an aura of blue that could not be seen, only felt like an enveloping mist, like a suggestion of color grasped not by one's eyes but by one's hands, as if one felt, without contact, the sensation of sinking one's palms into the fur's softness. (282—Whoa! Could we read that again?!)
▪ … she smiled with the courageous trust of a kitten when it sees a hand extended to play: (298)
▪ … like a person confronted by a puzzle of no significance. (308)
▪ The way he wore his formal clothes made the rest of the crowd look as if they were masquerading in borrowed costumes. (309)
▪ … they saw the wake of his passage spreading through the room, the sudden cuts splitting the crowd, like the first few cracks, then like the accelerating branching that runs through a wall about to crumble, the streaks of emptiness slashed, not by a human touch, but by the impersonal breath of terror. (322)
▪ … as if the center of gravity were swinging wildly—like in a sinking cargo ship out of control—shifting from industry to industry, from man to man. (335)
▪ … like a slice of bread from the side of a giant toaster. (342)
▪ Francisco's eyes were watching Rearden as if he were examining the course of bullets on a battered target. (347)
▪ The scream of an alarm siren shattered the space beyond the window and shot like a rocket in a long, thin line to the sky. It held for an instant, then fell, then went on in rising, falling spirals of sound, as if fighting for breath against terror to scream louder. It was the shriek of agony, the call for help, the voice of the mills as of a wounded body crying to hold its soul. (348)

Enough already? Sorry, but we’re not half through the book!

▪ … she felt as if she were leaning against the steady attentiveness of his eyes. (391)
▪ He tried to sell automobiles as if they were a bogus corn-cure. (411)
▪ … the street beyond his window was like a congested throat coughing with the horns of pre-Christmas traffic … (485)
▪ It was an irregular beat, with sudden screeches and short, sharp cracks, a sound like the broken laughter of hysteria, … (513)
▪ The beacon hung like a violent spot of cold fire, … (523)
▪ … the next span of her consciousness was not separate moments and movements, but the sweep of a single motion and a single unit of time, a progression forming one entity, like the notes of a piece of music: from the touch of her hand on the starter—to the blast of the motor's sound that broke off, like a mountain rockslide, … (527)
▪ [The river] looked like a phosphorescent vein showing through the skin of the earth, a delicate vein without blood. ¶ When she saw the lights of a town, like a handful of gold coins flung upon the prairie, the brightly violent lights fed by an electric current, … (528)
▪ … like a flat, round lantern without rays, … like the print of a photograph on a cloud. … like a city sinking under water. (571)
▪ He walked, not looking at her, holding her tight, as if trying to hold a progression of time, as if his arms were still locked over the moment when he had lifted her against his chest. She felt his steps as if they were a single span of motion to a goal and as if each step were a separate moment in which she dared not think of the next. (571)

Hang in there. We’re almost done sampling.

▪ She had never experienced the pleasure of motion, of walking as if her feet had no weight to carry, as if the support of the cane in her hand were merely a superfluous touch of elegance, the pleasure of feeling her steps trace swift, straight lines, of sensing the faultless, spontaneous precision of her gestures—as she experienced it while placing their food on the table in front of the two men. Her bearing told them that she knew they were watching her—she held her head like an actress on a stage, like a woman in a ballroom, like the winner of a silent contest. (575)
▪ … the sign of the dollar hung like a curve of shining steel engraved on the sky. (596)
▪ Her reward was to see Galt smile; the smile was like a military decoration bestowed upon her. (611; see also 719)
▪ It seemed to him that his brain was a maze where a blind alley opened at every turn, leading into a fog that hid an abyss. It seemed to him that he was running, while the small island of safety was shrinking and nothing but those alleys would soon be left. It was like the remnant of clarity in the street around him, with the haze rolling in to fill all exits. (660)
▪ … like the spot of a distant headlight advancing upon her down an invisible track. (666)
▪ … a diamond clip at the edge of the black neckline, that kept flashing with the imperceptible motion of her breath, like a transformer converting a flicker into fire, making one conscious, not of the gems, but of the living beat behind them; it flashed like a military decoration, like wealth worn as a badge of honor. (719)
▪ … his face tightened into a retaining wall against agony … (763)

Which is perhaps descriptive of many a reader’s reaction after 763 pages of expanding visuals—particularly with 128 pages yet to go! Or alas, 405 if one is reading the hardcopy Plume Book, 35th Anniversary Edition!

In several cases, Ayn’s use of similes, metaphors, and expansive comparisons/descriptions is insightful and thought-provoking, but the unrelenting use of “as if,” “like”, etc. seems:

1) AS IF Ayn Rand would not tolerate a “second-hander” editing Her Atlas Shrugged. (Déjà vu Howard Roark?!)
2) AS IF none of Ayn’s colleagues had sufficient courage or influence.
3) AS IF all her heroes were but carbon copies of each other and of her best (imagined) self.
4) AS IF her (notorious) need to control included even the mental pictures of her readers.
5) AS IF she hoped her readers would not notice the repetitions, the fixations, the déjà vu descriptions, as in: “silent” (156), “silently” (74), “slowly” (217), “slow” (37), “naked” (87), “thin” (78), “scream” (72), “screaming” (42), “tight” (71), “violence” (67 ), “violent” (53), “shot” (64), “tall” (62), “fog” (52), “ugly” (43), “slender” (38), “wound” (28), “causeless” (27), “angular” (19), “transparent” (11), to name and number just a few.
6) AS IF she could not help herself.

Perhaps we could begin a creative, mindful exercise:

1) to find the best and worst Ayn Rand similes, metaphors, and comparisons through random page-flipping;
2) to debate whether Screwtape^[2] would approve or disapprove of the tenets of John Galt and his devotees;
3) to consider whether Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden violated the sacred rule against sacrifice in giving up their love and lover, Dagny Taggart, to John Galt;
4) to explore the inverses of Ayn’s extremes;
5) to ask whether Ayn’s philosophy in practice might not entail many parallels to the French Revolution: as in “A movement ostensibly directed against despotism culminated in the establishment of a despotism far more complete than that which had been overthrown. The apostles of liberty proscribed whole classes of their fellow citizens, drenching in innocent blood the land which they claimed to deliver from oppression.”^[3]
6) to ponder why some readers exclaim, “AS IF …” when reading Ayn’s evidential assertion that "I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don't exist. That this book has been written—and published—is my proof that they do." (891)
7) to question whether “the sign of the dollar [that] hung like a curve of shining steel engraved on the sky” is the thing we wish to have hanging over our head? (Does it not look too much like a two-edged scythe?!) Just asking.

---------------------------------/
 [1] All page references are from the PDF version of Atlas Shrugged found at http://www.mises.ch/library/Rand_AtlasShrugged.pdf . The hardcopy Plume Book version (© 1992) has 1168 pages.
[2] Screwtape was a senior demon in C.S. Lewis’ novel, The Screwtape Letters (1942).
[3] Burke, Edmund. Reflections on the Revolution in France (Illustrated). (Kindle Locations 72-74). Kindle Edition, 2011-11-22.

Who is [Ayn Rand]?

1st in a series of “Who is … ?” posts in exploration of:

1) the “Who is John Galt?” question posed in Ayn’s 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged; and
2) the Paul Ryan/Rand mysteries.

So to the question: “Who is [Ayn Rand]?”

□ a real, historical figure (1905-1982) who named her subjectivist theories, Objectivism?
□ a passionate thinker/philosopher who spent too much time creating imaginary achievers and not enough time observing/studying REAL living and historical ones?^[1]
□ a Russian émigré whose Me-Mine philosophy^[2] nurtured a more rapid decline in America values than was ever dreamt possible by socialists, communists/Cold Warriors, and all other anti-s lumped together?
□ an atheist^[3] who scorned the concept of altruism^[4]—and pronounced Her many contraries as better than GOOD, yea even virtuous?
□ an explicator of many real problems—worsened by “more-of-the-(self)-same” solutions?
□ a visionary of class conflict^[5] between achievers/producers and most everyone else?
□ the god-mother (pardon the expression) of self-justification, self-deception, & rationalization?
□ a creator who did not believe in a Creator, but who claimed: “I trust that no one will tell me that men such as I write about don’t exist. That this book [Atlas Shrugged] has been written—and published—is my proof that they do.”^[6] [WOW! or perhaps, Woe, Woe, Woe?]
□ an incurable idealist blinded to reality by the heroic imaginations of her heart?^[7]
□ another^[8] in a long line of gifted “Aristotles”— basing a “cosmic” theory on false beliefs/assumptions?
□ a matriarch-monarch (of a collective) who despised collectives?
□ a shape-shifter as between reality lived and philosophy preached; and an eye-shifter as in the Mike Wallace interview?^[9]
□ a presenter of ½ and ¾ truths alleged to be whole?
□ a clear and present danger to economic, moral, and social verities?
□ an obsessive user of similes and metaphors?^[10]
□ an inadvertent prophetess by marking her adored $ symbol on a (cancer-causing) cigarette butt?
□ a novelist, specializing in fiction and philosophical fantasy?

------------------/
[1] —in contravention of her philosophic hero’s (Aristotle’s) call to knowledge through empirical observation and experience?
[2] (recycled from more ancient times?) An (inadvertent?) inside job?!
[3] (déjà vu, as in “Religion is ... the opium of the people”?)
[4] (including almost every teaching/example of spiritual leaders)
[5] (déjà vu, Marx?)
[6] From the 35th Anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, a Plume Book, p. 1171
[7] (déjà vu, here too?)
[8] See her romantic (unhistorical) view of industrialists operating without restraints in the 1959 interview with Mike Wallace circa 15:00 minutes at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ooKsv_SX4Y&feature=related ; then see footnote 1 above
[9] See the link at footnote 8
[10] Mark Twain is reported to have said that if the phrase “And it came to pass” had been cut from the Mormon’s Book of Mormon, it would have been a pamphlet. Likewise, if Ayn had excised but ½ of her similes and metaphors in Atlas Shrugged, the book would likely have shrunk to 1/3 and thus have doubled, if not quadrupled, its readers and its already prodigious sales. In this case, did Ayn’s self-expression exceed her profit/self-interest motive and thus her prized reason?

Inadvertent Symbolism?

During this year 2012 (which marks the 30th anniversary of the death of Ayn Rand), I have been re-reading Atlas Shrugged.^[1] Besides doing a little Ayn-alysing,^[2] I have been struck by the inadvertent symbolism of her $-sign on a cigarette butt. That symbol has proven profoundly apt for those devoted above all things to self-direction, achievement, and profit.

Yes, Ayn details huge problems that plague mankind. There is also much truth and progress in self-direction, achievement, and profit. But is it the whole truth? And are Ayn’s solutions really beneficial (as many seem to believe!) or are they more in the line of addictive, ephemeral gratifications leading to dreadful consequence?

In the words of Ravi Zacharias:

There are elements of truth in [great thinkers] thinking, but they often go into assumptions that are unsustainable and create a systemic failure.^[3]

Have we not seen that systemic failure where self-direction, achievement, and profit have been untempered by additional values?

So, considering the tortured history of man and his profit motif, it seems “divine” that Ayn should choose a mysterious $-sign imprinted on a cancer-causing, smoking stick to symbolize her single-minded worship of achievement and money.

And that $-sign sketched by John Galt upon the sky?^[4] When all things are considered, it seems that Ayn’s inadvertent symbolism trumps the purported truth of her idealism.
------------------/
[1] References are from Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand, (35th Anniversary Edition), A Plume Book.
[2] http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2012/06/ayn-alyzing-1.html is the first in a short series of posts entitled, “Ayn-alysing.”
[3] RZIM Canada / Spring and Summer 2012 Newsletter, p. 5
[4] Atlas Shrugged, last sentence, p. 1168

Duel of Abuse ~ Round Xn2

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some minor name changes for the sake of clarity.)

[A Duel of Economic Ideologies (including personalities): continued from the previous two posts.]

SAUSAGE-SELLER. The story is worth hearing. Listen! From here I rushed straight to the Senate, right in the track of this man; he was already letting loose the storm, unchaining the lightning, crushing the Knights beneath huge mountains of calumnies heaped together and having all the air of truth; he called you conspirators and his lies caught root like weeds in every mind; dark were the looks on every side and brows were knitted. When I saw that the Senate listened to him favourably and was being tricked by his imposture, I said to myself, "Come, gods of rascals and braggarts, gods of all fools, toad-eaters and braggarts and thou, market-place, where I was bred from my earliest days, give me unbridled audacity, an untiring chatter and a shameless voice." … then I burst open the door by a vigorous push with my back, and, opening my mouth to the utmost, shouted, "Senators, I wanted you to be the first to hear the good news; since the War broke out, I have never seen anchovies at a lower price!" All faces brightened at once and I was voted a chaplet for my good tidings; and I added, "With a couple of words I will reveal to you, how you can have quantities of anchovies for an obol; 'tis to seize on all the dishes the merchants have." With mouths gaping with admiration, they applauded me. However, [Clecon] winded the matter and, well knowing the sort of language which pleases the Senate best, said, "Friends, I am resolved to offer one hundred oxen to the goddess in recognition of this happy event." The Senate at once veered to his side. So when I saw myself defeated by this ox filth, I outbade the fellow, crying, "Two hundred!" And beyond this I moved, that a vow be made to Diana of a thousand goats if the next day anchovies should only be worth an obol a hundred. And the Senate looked towards me again. The other, stunned with the blow, grew delirious in his speech, and at last the … guards dragged him out. The Senators then stood talking noisily about the anchovies. [Clecon], however, begged them to listen to the [foreign] envoy, who had come to make proposals of peace; but all with one accord, cried, "'Tis certainly not the moment to think of peace now! If anchovies are so cheap, what need have we of peace? Let the war take its course!" And with loud shouts they demanded that the [Judges] should close the sitting and then leapt over the rails in all directions. As for me, I slipped away to buy all the coriander seed and leeks there were on the market and gave it to them gratis as seasoning for their anchovies. 'Twas marvellous! They loaded me with praises and caresses; thus I conquered the Senate with an obol's worth of leeks, and here I am.
…
[CLECON]. I will haul you before Demos, who will mete out justice to you.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I too will drag you before him and belch forth more calumnies than you.
[CLECON]. Why, poor fool, he does not believe you, whereas I play with him at will.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. So that Demos is your property, your contemptible creature.
[CLECON]. 'Tis because I know the dishes that please him.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And these are little mouthfuls, which you serve to him like a clever nurse. You chew the pieces and place some in small quantities in his mouth, while you swallow three parts yourself.
…
[CLECON]. Hah! my friend, you tricked me at the Senate, but have a care! Let us go before Demos.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. That's easily done; come, let's along without delay.

[To be continued.]

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is our “Clecon”? Who/What is our Sausage-Seller? Who is our Demos?]

--------/
[1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC) play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from pp. 16-18 as condensed (with minor updates in [ ]) by SMS.

Duel of Abuse ~ Round Xn1

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some names slightly amended for clarity.)

 In the last post, Dimisthenes asks, “Who will get us out of this mess?” And who should promptly show up but a sausage-seller! He is swiftly recruited to the cause. What follows is an Aristophian distillation of mankind’s perennial conflict—one we have endured in recent Republican “debates” and will yet endure, more intensely, in anticipated Rep & Dem ones.

At core, we have a duel of economic ideologies, which, in analysis (and in Artistophanes), are more alike in practice than not. Dimisthenes and the CHORUS of Knights (or the Benighted, as the case may be!) root for the Sausage-Seller.

SAUSAGE-SELLER. The oracles of the gods summon me! Faith! I do not at all understand how I can be capable of governing the people.
[DIMISTHENES]. Nothing simpler. Continue your trade. Mix and knead together all the state business as you do for your sausages. To win the people, always cook them some savoury that pleases them. Besides, you possess all the attributes of a demagogue; a screeching, horrible voice, a perverse, cross-grained nature and the language of the market-place. In you all is united which is needful for governing. The oracles are in your favour, even including that of [Phila]Delphi[a]. Come, take a chaplet [garland or wreath for the head], offer a libation to the god of Stupidity and take care to fight vigorously.
 SAUSAGE-SELLER. Who will be my ally? for the rich fear [the present demagogue, Clecon] and the poor shudder at the sight of him.
 [DIMISTHENES]. You will have a thousand brave Knights who detest him, on your side; also the honest citizens amongst the spectators, those who are men of brave hearts, and finally myself and the god [of the market-place]. Fear not, … the public have wit enough to recognize him.

[Then the demagogue CLECON arrives.]
[NOTE: Our twenty-first century words may be gold-plated, but in essence, can we not hear clear echoes of Aristophanes?!]

[CLECON]. I denounce this fellow; he has had tasty stews exported from [America] for the [enemies’] fleet.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I denounce him, who runs into the [public trust] with empty belly and comes out with it full.
[CLECON]. You are travelling the right road to get killed.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will baffle your machinations.
[CLECON]. Dare to look me in the face!
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I too was brought up in the market-place.
[CLECON]. I will cut you to shreds if you whisper a word.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will daub you with dung if you open your mouth.
[CLECON]. I own I am a thief; do you admit yourself another.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. By our Hermes of the market-place, if caught in the act, why, I perjure myself before those who saw me.
[CLECON]. These are my own special tricks. I will denounce you to the [Judges] as the owner of sacred tripe, that has not paid tithe [or taxes].
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. Just hear what sort of fellow that fine citizen is.
[CLECON]. Will you not let me speak?
SAUSAGE-SELLER. Assuredly not, for I also am a sad rascal. …
[CLECON]. Once more, will you not let me speak?
SAUSAGE-SELLER. No, by Zeus!
[CLECON]. Yes, by Zeus, but you shall!
SAUSAGE-SELLER. No, by Posidon! We will fight first to see who shall speak first.
…
[CLECON]. I will rush into the Senate and set them all by the ears.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I will lug out your gut to stuff like a sausage.
[CLECON]. As for me, I will seize you by the rump and hurl you head foremost through the door.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I denounce you for cowardice.
[CLECON]. I will tan your hide.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. I will flay you and make a thief's pouch with the skin.
[CLECON]. I will peg you out on the ground.
…
SAUSAGE-SELLER. … he has only made himself a name by reaping another's harvest; and now he has tied up the ears he gathered over there, he lets them dry and seeks to sell them.
…
[CLECON]. I will bring four suits against you, each of one hundred talents.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And I twenty against you for shirking duty and more than a thousand for robbery.
…
[CLECON]. You are an impostor.
SAUSAGE-SELLER. And you are a rogue.

 [And so on and on!]

TO BE CONTINUED: Round Xⁿ².

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is “Clecon”? Who/What is Dimisthenes? Who/What is the Sausage-Seller? Who are the CHORUS of Knights?]

------/
 [1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC) play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from pp. 8-13 as condensed (with minor changes and updates in [ ]) by SMS.

Duel of Abuse 2012 ~ Prologue

(Déjà vu characters from 424 BC ~ courtesy of ARISTOPHANES^[1] with some names slightly amended for clarity.)

[DIMISTHENES:] I will begin then. We have a very brutal master, a perfect glutton for bean[counting], and most bad-tempered; 'tis Demos of [DC], an intolerable old man and half deaf. The beginning of last month he bought a [sidekick], a … tanner [called, “Clecon”], an arrant rogue, the incarnation of calumny. This man of leather knows his old master thoroughly; he plays the fawning cur, flatters, cajoles; wheedles, and dupes him at will with little scraps of leavings, which he allows him to get. "Dear Demos," he will say, "try a single case and you will have done enough; then take your bath, eat, swallow and devour; here are three [more profit points]." Then [this Clecon] filches from one of us what we have prepared and makes a present of it to our old man. T'other day I had just kneaded a Spartan cake …; the cunning rogue came behind my back, sneaked it and offered the cake, which was my invention, in his own name. He keeps us at a distance and suffers none but himself to wait upon the master; when Demos is dining, he keeps close to his side with a thong in his hand and puts the orators to flight. He keeps singing oracles to him, so that the old man now thinks of nothing but the [futures]. Then, when he sees him thoroughly obfuscated, he uses all his cunning and piles up lies and calumnies against the household; then we are scourged and [Clecon] runs about among the slaves to demand contributions with threats and gathers 'em in with both hands. He will say, "You see how I have had [upstarts] beaten! Either content me or die at once!" We are forced to give, for else the old man tramples on us and makes us spew forth all our body contains. There must be an end to it, friend. Let us see! what can be done? Who will get us out of this mess?

[2012 Study Questions: Who/What is Dimisthenes? Who/What is Demos? Who/What is Clecon? Hint: perhaps begin with the recent Republican primaries; and/or economic theories.]

 ----------------------/

[1] “Duel of Abuse” comes from p. 14 (CHORUS) of Aristophanes' (circa 444 –385 BC)  play, “The Knights,” from The Eleven Comedies, Volume 1, Public Domain Books. Kindle Edition, 2005-08-01. The text of this post is from p. 4 with a 2012 update by SMS.

A Series of Massive Delusions*

(or The Toxic Fallout from Ayn & Uncle Miltie)

Posted in observance of April [etc.] Fool’s Day

Here are a few quotes from Boomerang by Michael Lewis—a déjà vu of “what you sow is what you reap [eventually**]”:

“They created fake capital by trading assets amongst themselves at inflated values, … This was how the banks and investment companies grew and grew” (p. 17 ~ quote from a London hedge fund manager).

… bankers buying stuff from one another at inflated prices, borrowing tens of billions of dollars and relending it to members of their little … tribe, who then used it to buy up a messy pile of foreign assets (p. 19-20).

One of the hidden causes of the current global financial crisis is that the people who saw it coming had more to gain from it by taking short positions than they did by trying to publicize the problem (p. 20).

Inside Greece [or nation X—take your pick], there was no market for whistle-blowing, as basically everyone was in on the racket (p. 63).

Extremely smart traders inside Wall Street investment banks devise deeply unfair diabolically complicated bets, and then send their sales forces out to scour the world for some idiot who will take the other side of those bets (p. 153).

… Morgan Stanley designed extremely complicated credit default swaps so they were all but certain to fail, so that their own proprietary traders could bet against them … (p. 153).

The American bond traders may have sunk their firms by turning a blind eye to the risks in the subprime bond market, but they made a fortune for themselves in the bargain, and have for the most part never been called to account (p. 161-2).

They’d [Americans] been conditioned to grab as much as they could, without thinking about the long-term consequences. Afterward, the people of Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the American people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans (p. 202).

“We have lost the ability to self-regulate, at all levels of society. The five million dollars you get paid at Goldman Sachs if you do whatever they ask you to do—that is the [reptilian scarcity/abundance trigger that short-circuits long-term benefit for short-term biology/gratification; in other words, diet versus] chocolate cake upgraded” (p. 205, quoting/ paraphrasing Dr. Peter Whybrow—UCLA neuroscientist).

The extent of the corruption, self-service, and criminality is so pervasive and incredible that too many view it as just that—not credible; or in the alternative, as a regrettable, collateral zit on the divine face of free markets. These nice-people-in-suits who furnish/entice us with consumables, loans, investments opps, and aspirations can’t be so bad!

Well folks, the bad news is: it is BAD, BAD, BAD; BADDER (Yes! BADDER because worse doesn't sufficiently describe it) than you even imagine. And the toxic fraud and fallout will continue till we demand a new cultural paradigm of balance, where libertarianism is seen for what it is—an untenable extreme of individualism—as untenable and devastating as extreme collectivism. (What it really amounts to is a concentrated collectivism on the right as opposed to a supposedly broad one on the left. At both extremes, the status of the majority is impoverished, despite the hype.)

Perhaps it is time the “masses yearning to [be] free” of massive fraud and corruption demanded a massive right-wing correction in a déjà vu mirror image from 1987: “Tear down this Wall Street!” And “Let my people go find a more just and equitable way.”

------------/
* p. 198 from Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World by Michael Lewis (2011)—a book every adult should read; every libertarian should read twice (a day); and every bond trader (and accomplice) should have piped into their Leavenworth/FCI-Tallahassee (etc.) cell 24/7 on a rotating basis with other exposes, including The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine also by Michael Lewis.
** If not now, then hereafter, as in “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. (New Testament 1 Timothy 6:10)

“Tear down this wall!” reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tear_down_this_wall !

Déjà vu: Back & So-Forth



Isocrates ~ 436-338 BC: “Democracy destroys itself because it abuses its right to freedom and equality. Because it teaches its citizens to consider audacity as a right, lawlessness as a freedom, abrasive speech as equality, and anarchy as progress.”

WikiCommons ~ Public Domain

I am almost finished Boomerang: Travels in the New Third World (2011) by Michael Lewis* ~ another witness to the insanity of our financial times. Thousands of witnesses now stacked in chronological order upon the prescience of Isaiah the prophet.

Why is it that seeing, so many still do not see and hearing, so many still do not hear, decade after decade, debacle after debacle, libertarian upon libertarian?

Has not corruption proven itself to be the encoded, invariable, inexorable constant of unregulated, deregulated, poorly regulated:**

▪ Money concentration
▪ Power concentration
▪ Speculation (read: financial markets, etc.)
▪ BIGGER is better obsessives
▪ Charities
▪ Corporations
▪ Governments
▪ Lobbyists
▪ NGOs
▪ PACs
▪ PR firms
▪ Profiteers (of every stripe)
▪ Work sites (of every kind)
▪ & so forth, & so forth?

Doesn’t balance mean a little right, a little left, and a whole lot of middle in controlling these “feet that be swift in [forever] running to mischief” (Prov. 6:17)?

------------------
* (where he quotes the above Isocrates at page 81)
** (read: appropriate, enforceable checks and balances)

The Great Con

(or A View from the Pit We Have Dug for Ourselves)

No so long ago:

▪ Owners managed their own small businesses (some of which grew very large);
▪ Then in pursuit of more capital (translating to more power, influence, prestige, capacity, market share, etc.) some owners came to share ownership with total strangers via corporate shareholdings;
▪ These new “invested” owners (disparate and essentially disinterested shareholders—except for the “promise” of dividends) abandoned business management entirely to hired managers;
▪ Then the hired managers began to brand themselves as essential, gifted elites—though at core, they were mostly aggressive, aspiring HyPEs (Highly Paid Employees);
▪ Soon, when challenged about questionable practices by advocates of balance¹ or of the common good , these HyPEs (and their shareholder/employers) protested that the corporate system was a “free-market, holy grail” (the foundation of democracy!) and that all they did was for the benefit of deserving, free-market owners/shareholders.

BUT in these latter days, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these “[ladies and laddies of HyPEdom] doth protest too much.” WHY? Because the corporate system has become the almost perfect “con” for management malfeasance—for HyPE-heisting par excellence.

How so? Because even critics of the corporate system still speak as if hired management were fulfilling its (moral? and legal?) duty to its owners/shareholders by an intense (market-holy) focus on bottom-line—on maximizing profits.

Thus, we have THE GREAT CON for two main reasons.

Reason 1: Because these very owners/shareholders have been lulled from eating cake, to eating cupcake, to eating cupcake crumbs, to being happy with bread crumbs vis-à-vis their HyPEs. (Or even worse, as in Enron, Worldcom, etc.) Consider:

a) Escalating HyPE salaries, bonuses, contracts, etc. UNRELATED to performance;
b) Other HyPE bonuses related to performance which often translate into short-term strategies to the detriment of long-term growth and benefits;
c) Lavish expense accounts and HyPE perks;
d) Hush-hush, slush funds;
e) Severance packages UNRELATED to performance;
f) PR & lobby contracts/payouts UNRELATED to performance;
g) Fee-junkies motivated to buy, merge, strip, dismantle, etc. both troubled and viable companies in order to trigger enormous fees via an ever expanding range of corporate/HyPE manipulations;
h) “[Faux-]Citizens United” authority to spend unlimited funds on HyPE agendas and favored-friends without regard to shareholder preferences or values;
i) Etc., etc.

Reason 2: The moral deficit of the present, disengaged shareholding system. Consider:

Most shareholders contribute ZIP, NADA, NIENTE, NOTHING to the business in which they purport to own a share. Except for IPO shareholders (or purchasers of subsequently issued stock in the primary market), all others purchase their shares from other shareholders WITHOUT a dime going to the company they now “own.” The new, noncontributing shareholder then claims a right to dividends and a duty of corporate management (their HyPEs) to maximize profits for their benefit, often to the detriment of the “grassroots” labor that creates such profits. The previous shareholder takes his profits (if lucky) and often runs to the next (NADA) investment in another big business. (Interesting how so many shareholders completely miss: 1) the moral hazard of “nada” shareholdings! and 2) the state of HyPE deception relating to profit maximization as detailed in Reason 1 above.)

As to the argument that “nada” investments benefit the general business climate (i.e., more money to cycle amongst shareholders and thus shareholdings; more money to incentivize/finance/buy products and services; etc.), one might argue, in the alternative, that investment in: 1) fair labor practices, wages, and broader ownership opportunities; and 2) the wellbeing of and better opportunities for the poor and needy would also benefit the general business climate (plus humanity) on an even broader, more long-term and profitable scale. And for those who cannot abide the moral hazard that so-called “socialistic schemes” heap upon the poor and needy, perhaps we should be more cognizant of where the moral hazard now resides. (And mindful, too, of how much CorporateWorld owes its existence to labor and tax-payer subsidization!)

In short, the present corporate system has devolved to one great fraud perpetuated by HyPEs, HyPE beneficiaries, HyPE wannabes, shareholders (however innocently), dupers, dupees,² inside-traders, and all who manipulate markets via rumor, innuendo, and contrivance.

How long till we see: It’s just our latter-day version of the (déjà vu) mania of money and power swirling into ever greater concentrations and exclusions? But this time, it’s a bottom-line shift from “owners” to HyPEs!

BUT, there are possible solutions,³ even if the tornado forces of the present system are enormous. Change is in the air (and the streets)! SEE ALSO:  http://www.productiveflourishing.com/the-rebirth-of-entrepreneurialism/ ; http://www.ted.com/themes/the_rise_of_collaboration.html

---------/
1. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/05/econ-011-right-stuff-or-not.html
2. http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/11/confession-of-dupe-dealer.html
3.Consider: The Ownership Solution … by Jeff Gates; or Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism … by William J. Baumol, et al.; or The Post-Corporate World … by David C. Korten; or One World, Ready or Not … by William Greider; or America Beyond Capitalism … by Gar Alperovitz; etc. There are plenty of concerned, warning, and intelligent voices.

A Word from Adam*

(*Adam Smith, that is)

“LABOUR, it must always be remembered, and NOT any particular commodity or set of commodities, IS the real measure of the value both of silver and of all other commodities” [The Wealth of Nations, Bk 1, Ch. XI, Part III, p. 214; capital and bold emphasis added].

So why do we:

▪ attempt to minimize wages—the real measure of value?
▪ enhance quarterly profits by firing/laying off workers?
▪ list employees as liabilities on balance-sheets?
▪ marginalize/destroy unions—the advocates of labor?
▪ idealize investment wealth that too often accrues, not from labor, but from insider trading, manipulation of supply and demand, rumor-mongering, ethics violations, a host of “bottom-line” violations, doing nothing but waiting for money to make money (the practice of many shareholders), etc.?
▪ etc.?

How many of our current practices are just déjà vu versions of the Greeks, the Romans, the British, earlier Americans, (et al.), who built much of their elite wealth on the backs of slave-labor—the sweat of others, filling privileged coffers of silver and gold?

Isn’t it past time to reinstate the real value of labor? Without labor, there would be no corporations. There would be no CEOs. There would be no excess for unequal accumulation.

----------/
The Word to that other Adam was “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” (Old Testament Genesis 3:19) See also: “AND it came to pass that after I, the Lord God, had driven them out, that Adam began to till the earth, and to have dominion over all the beasts of the field, and to eat his bread by the sweat of his brow, as I the Lord had commanded him. And Eve, also, his wife, did labor with him.” (Pearl of Great Price Moses 5:1; bold emphasis added.)

Newtspeak

~
In George Orwell’s 1949 satire Nineteen Eighty-Four, he describes an imposed language reform (Newspeak) meant to control both thought and expression in the citizenry. The big question in 2012 is: How long is it going to take Newt Gingrich supporters to reject the authoritarian, right-wing, hubristic “Ministry of Truth” version they so thoughtlessly leap to their feet to applaud?¹

If Newt wins, here is a prediction: Within four years or less, America will know she was suckered by Newtspeak — a depressing, 21st Century, déjà vu remake of Nineteen Eighty-Four.

The purpose of [Newtspeak] was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of [Newt], but to make all other modes of thought [and inquiry scorned or] impossible. It was intended that when [Newtspeak] had been adopted once and for all and [Moralspeak] forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles [and ideas] of [Newt] — should be literally unthinkable [and unspeakable]. …

[Newtspeak] was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words [and questions] down to a minimum [that he was willing to answer]. …

Countless … words such as honor, justice, morality, … democracy, science, [accountability, integrity] … meant almost the exact opposite of what they appeared to mean. Some words, on the other hand, displayed a frank and contemptuous understanding of the real nature of [American] society. … Other words, again, were ambivalent, having the connotation ‘good’ when applied to [Newt & company] and ‘bad’ when applied to [his] enemies.

(From pp. 241-247, Appendix “The Principles of Newspeak” Nineteen Eight-Four by George Orwell, Penguin Modern Classics.)

-----------------------/
1. Newt’s competitors seem to have their own Orwellian “Ministries of Truth” but there is something about Newt and hubris (e.g. “despicable” media questions vis-à-vis despicable candidate behavior) that are predictive of unpleasant times ahead if America doesn’t get a better moral compass. What makes us think that Newt will honor a (renewed/revised?) "Contract with America" when he has been unable in several instances to honor far more personal contracts?

So, it has come to this! Again!

~
▪ That the sun never sets on American bases and SOFA’s¹ in near déjà vu of a recent fallen/defeated Empire;
▪ That so many pretend that money ≠ power ≠ undue influence ≠ inevitable corruption ≠ inevitable death of freedom;
▪ That we manufacture/manipulate citizen consent thru deception and propaganda and call it freedom of speech;
▪ That so many malign “enemies” for sins copied in secret (though sometimes openly, without apparent shame or remorse);
▪ That so many still praise, pursue, envy, and worship excess (while calling it, “deserved prosperity”);
▪ That we openly admit, justify, and sometimes celebrate assassination and torture;
▪ That pundits spin 1984 newspeak without apparent consciousness (aka: SCOTUSese; Newtspeak; Mittification; Santorumph; aPauling attachment to romanticized, libertarian dogma and fallacies²; and donkey parallels);
▪ That we stage democracy like a propped up storefront.

Is this the preferred point of destination for the American Constitution? Apparently not, for we have also come to a turning point, again! as more and more are turning up to protest. Thank goodness (and for believers in something higher than man and mammon, Thank God!)

---------------/
1. Status of Forces Agreements: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_forces_agreement
2. see http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/05/back-to-square-1601.html . Observation: One thing that can be said for Mr. Paul to date (vis-à-vis his competitors), is that he has been consistent in his disconnect with the real world. The current field of 2012 GOP candidates being Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum.

MORE THAN once upon a time!

In the High Middle Ages (1000-1300 AD/CE), in order to combat religious instability (including but not limited to alleged heretics,^[1]) the powers-that-were resorted to:

1) denunciations (openly and secretly);
2) concealing the nature of charges and evidence against the accused;
3) “invitations” to confess (something? anything?);
4) torture to extract confessions;
5) torture to extract the names of “guilty” others;
6) indefinite detentions;
7) secret trials;
8) occasional “accidental executions” during torture;
9) propaganda to justify all the above.

In the beginning of the 21st Century,^[2] in order to combat national and global instabilities (including, but not limited to genuine terrorists), the powers-that-were-once-democratic have resorted to:

1) denunciations (openly and secretly);
2) concealing the nature of charges and evidence against the accused;
3) “invitations” to confess (something? anything?);
4) torture to extract confessions;
5) torture to extract the names of “guilty” others;
6) indefinite detentions;
7) secret trials;
8) occasional “accidental executions” during torture;
9) propaganda to justify all the above.

Have we passed a thousand years merely to look into the mirror of déjà vu?

------------------/
[1] Which some saw as being equivalent to spiritual murder—and thus worse than physical death.
[2] Though actually beginning in the USA several years before via the CIA and its predecessors—in déjà vu of many other nation states throughout history.

For more on the Inquisitions of the High Middle Ages, one can access the Great Courses series, entitled “The High Middle Ages” Lecture 12 with Professor Philip Daileader of The College of William and Mary.