The T-Point?

Perhaps it's time to revisit a Déjà Vu~Times post from September 29, 2009 titled “Are We There Yet (at the T-point)?”¹ because, it seems that we have indeed arrived — on the dual wings of a bio-weapon.

Some anarchists, who see this as a left-wing coup feel vindicated in their warnings about leftists and are lamenting there is no Galt's Gulch to flee to. BUT there are several problems with John Galt's no-rules rules as detailed here and here² and also with anarchists who deify individualism as if excessive individualism were not also a prime factor in arriving at this point of tyranny / totalitarianism. If Randians distilled the rules of John Galt and really pursued “Who is John Galt?” they might look elsewhere for some different Gulch. And they might ponder about all the rules they would find necessary in living in a society of anarchists. Or what they would find necessary to do in dealing with the ubiquitous will to power and gain (WPG) and all the attendant conspiracies that always accompany the pursuit and protection of this WPG.

Yes, there is a lot of truth in anarchist claims of excessive government, of the “myth of authority,” and of the abuses of power, but what many seem blind to are the “capital crimes” on both the Right and Left that underpin this plandemic. Too many anarchists idealize freedom from law, yet present no vision for how to deal with the corruptions and abuses of PWOCs³ and corporate criminals save for victims to become judge, jury, and executioner for perceived offences against themselves individually. Are we not at this T-point because there was no law applied when it should have been? Do we not recognize that the whole (a society) is, in some matters,  greater than the sum of its parts (individuals) and that human nature is oft bound up with the WPG?

Society is much more complicated than a pat answer of “you have the right to defend yourself” — the right to seek your own justice. How many times do we take offence when none was intended? How often do we misjudge, mis-perceive, misinterpret? How could we possibly be trusted to be judge, jury, and executioner of offences against ourselves? When we are aware of the spirit of power and what it does to people; when we are aware of how oft we seeing, see not, and hearing, hear not, we have to be open to a balancing mechanism for living together in harmony, prosperity, and accountability. But we did not use the mechanism we had — a Constitution and Bill of Rights. As flawed as they may be, they are the best we have, but they have been neglected and abused⁴ and thus the T-Point has arrived from both directions. No form of regulating the affairs of flawed humans is perfect, but to pretend there is no need for regulation is to live in the fantasy, self-deceptive world of John Galt.

Yes, we elected servants to do the things we did not want to do or have the time or expertise for; servants to free us to accomplish better things; servants who began to think themselves masters and authorities; servants who entered into conspiracies with PWOCs for greater power and gain; and by failing to correct them and hold them accountable, they have brought us to the center of this hell of abuse and control that is unfolding before our eyes and ears.

There is no New Normal. It's the Old Normal of every tyranny that ever was (including Galt's), but this time on technocratic steroids.

--------------------/
1. https://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/09/are-we-there-yet-at-t-point.html
2. https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2020/06/gazlighting-by-anarchists.html
https://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2012/10/who-is-john-galt.html
3. PWOC = People / Persons WithOut Conscience
4. Doctrine and Covenants | Section 98:5–9 ~ And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.

Natural or Unnatural??

(Trying to unpack the words)

(Updated from a post of March 14, 2014*)

Every so often, my Christian friends wax patriotic about natural law, and I have to take a time-out to calm myself. Here’s why:

1. God's continual lament¹ about human nature is that man is an egocentric, rebellious, wayward creature whose natural inclination is to self-will, gain, and domination. Yet we ignore God's analysis of our natural inclinations while our philosophers invert the definition of natural, confounding history and observation. When we buy into this inversion, we buy into all the confusions and conflations that follow.

2. In individual and corporate application, natural law,² despite its inverted romantic definitions, more often than not, looks and acts like the Law of Nature.

3. When one lives near a wilderness (or anywhere, for that matter), one quickly observes that the observed Law of Nature is “red in tooth and claw,”³ as in

fight or flight kill or be killed survival of the fittest survival of the most cunning eye for eye, tooth for tooth might claims right prides and packs competition hording	theft ambush zero-sum domination oppression suppression war abuse etc.

4. In our world of opposites and opposition,⁴ red in tooth and claw” is an opposite of the Golden Rule—an opposite first chosen (and romanticized⁵) by a chap named Cain.

5. Yet, many believers in the Golden Rule (in likeness of many non-believers) seem to run their businesses and achieve their prosperity as if the Law of Nature were the chief and only law.

6. The Law of Nature is the law favored by the Natural Man; and this is the word on the natural man:

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.⁶

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint [an unnatural man?] through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.⁷

And here is an example of the Natural Man:

And many more such things did [Korihor] say unto them, telling them that there could be no atonement made for the sins of men, but every man fared in this life according to the management of the creature; therefore every man prospered according to his genius, and that every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime. And thus he did preach unto them, leading away the hearts of many, causing them to lift up their heads in their wickedness, yea, leading away many women, and also men, to commit whoredoms—telling them that when a man was dead, that was the end thereof.⁸

7. Natural Law is also oft equated with Natural Rights, except, these so-called, “Natural Rights” of life, liberty (freedom of speech, religion, association, press; etc), and the pursuit of happiness don’t seem to be very natural, as in: usual, normal, ordinary, expected, common, likely, etc—especially considering the déjà vus of history and the blood spilt to get or keep them. (Just ask Iranians, Iraqis, Egyptians, Syrians, Koreans, Russians, Americans—North & South, Chinese, et al. al. al.) So, could we stop calling our Rights “Natural”! How about Innate? There is a vast difference—chasm size—despite the equated synonyms. But no, that doesn't feel quite right either. Maybe the best word is simply Human Rights. or maybe Inherent Rights.

8. The Law of Nature (or what is deemed natural) is not the source of “Human Rights”; rather, it is the nemesis. No one in our fallen world gets to freely exercise “Human Rights,” UNLESS the-powers-that-be transcend the Law of Nature / Natural Law into a Higher Law that honors “Human Rights.” (Just ask the world’s refugees, citizens of tyrannies, employees of out-sourced factories / farms, persecuted minorities, survivors of genocides, or pretty much anybody who observes the world.)

9. When “Rights” are touted as being grounded in the Law of Nature or Natural Law, it tends to encourage and justify the “ME-MINE” mentality romanticized by Ayn Rand’s Objectivism.⁹

10. The Law of Nature in the grip of the “rational¹⁰/natural” man becomes a wolf in sheep’s clothing, “pulling the wool” to justify disparity, avarice, inequity, excess, meritocracy and all that stuff in 2 above.

11. The opposite of (the observed) Natural Law (each creature/man for himself) may perhaps be termed “Unnatural Law” (love / respect for thy neighbor as thyself). Just observe the Natural Law of the average 2-year old or corporate CEO; or ask Ayn what is unnatural? (Could she mean altruism?) Or ask God. Strange as it may seem, Ayn and God seem to agree that altruism is unnatural the Natural Man.

12. In short, all life is protected and prospered in their Human Rights only when “eye for eye”¹¹ is transcended by “eye to eye”¹²—the Law of Nature transcended by the Law of Love—the Way of Love.

13. Alfred, Lord Tennyson said it poetically:

Who trusted God was love indeed
And love Creation's final law
Tho' Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shriek'd against his creed.

(From Canto 56)¹³

So, how about we “believers” get over our infatuation with the inverted Natural Law and all its confusions, conflations, and justifications and work toward the Unnatural Law of

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.¹⁴

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil [with 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. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.¹⁵

How unnatural is that? loving our enemies, blessing them, praying for them? How about each person freely choosing to adopt a gift economy¹⁶ instead of being forced into a competitive (capitalist) or a state-controlled (socialist) one? Perhaps these are just two faces of a single coin vying for heads-up domination in this fallen realm?

Let us be more conscious in observing ourselves and our favorite pundits. Do our / their words, views, actions, and economics favor the manifest Law of Nature or the higher Way of Love?

-------------------------------/
* https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2014/03/natural-or-unnatural.html

1. https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2014/01/gods-lament.html
For example:
Old Testament | Isaiah 1:2, 23 ~ Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me. ... Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them.
Old Testament Isaiah | 53:6 ~ All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
Old Testament | Isaiah 56:11 ~ Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
Yet, despite God's lament, He sees divine potential within our dual nature where, with agency, each can choose a way better than the entropic tendency toward self-will, competition, and zero-sum.
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
3. From Canto 56 of In Memoriam A. H. H., 1850 by Alfred, Lord Tennyson at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Memoriam_A._H._H.
See also Thomas Hobbes, “State of Nature” and “war of all against all” observations at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes (under “Leviathan” subsection).
4. Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:11-30 ~ For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my first–born in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad. Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one; wherefore, if it should be one body it must needs remain as dead, having no life neither death, nor corruption nor incorruption, happiness nor misery, neither sense nor insensibility. Wherefore, it must needs have been created for a thing of naught; wherefore there would have been no purpose in the end of its creation. Wherefore, this thing must needs destroy the wisdom of God and his eternal purposes, and also the power, and the mercy, and the justice of God. And if ye shall say there is no [Divine?] law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon. And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; even the forbidden fruit in opposition to the tree of life; the one being sweet and the other bitter. Wherefore, the Lord God gave unto man that he should act for himself. Wherefore, man could not act for himself save it should be that he was enticed by the one or the other. And I, Lehi, according to the things which I have read, must needs suppose that an angel of God, according to that which is written, had fallen from heaven; wherefore, he became a devil, having sought that which was evil before God. And because he had fallen from heaven, and had become miserable forever, he sought also the misery of all mankind. Wherefore, he said unto Eve, yea, even that old serpent, who is the devil, who is the father of all lies, wherefore he said: Partake of the forbidden fruit, and ye shall not die, but ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil. And after Adam and Eve had partaken of the forbidden fruit they were driven out of the garden of Eden, to till the earth. And they have brought forth children; yea, even the family of all the earth. And the days of the children of men were prolonged, according to the will of God, that they might repent while in the flesh; wherefore, their state became a state of probation, and their time was lengthened, according to the commandments which the Lord God gave unto the children of men. For he gave commandment that all men must repent; for he showed unto all men that they were lost, because of the transgression of their parents. And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin. But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things. Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. Wherefore, men are free according to the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself. And now, my sons, I would that ye should look to the great Mediator, and hearken unto his great commandments; and be faithful unto his words, and choose eternal life, according to the will of his Holy Spirit; And not choose eternal death, according to the will of the flesh and the evil which is therein, which giveth the spirit of the devil power to captivate, to bring you down to hell, that he may reign over you in his own kingdom. I have spoken these few words unto you all, my sons, in the last days of my probation; and I have chosen the good part, according to the words of the prophet. And I have none other object save it be the everlasting welfare of your souls. Amen.
5. Pearl of Great Price | Moses 5:33 ~ And Cain gloried in that which he had done, saying: I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands.
6. New Testament | 1 Corinthians 2:14

7. Book of Mormon | Mosiah 3:19

8. Book of Mormon | Alma 30:17-18; Also consider:

Book of Mormon | Helaman 12:4-7 ~ O how foolish, and how vain, and how evil, and devilish, and how quick to do iniquity, and how slow to do good, are the children of men; yea, how quick to hearken unto the words of the evil one, and to set their hearts upon the vain things of the world! Yea, how quick to be lifted up in pride; yea, how quick to boast, and do all manner of that which is iniquity; and how slow are they to remember the Lord their God, and to give ear unto his counsels, yea, how slow to walk in wisdom's paths! Behold, they do not desire that the Lord their God, who hath created them, should rule and reign over them; notwithstanding his great goodness and his mercy towards them, they do set at naught his counsels, and they will not that he should be their guide. O how great is the nothingness of the children of men; yea, even they are less than the dust of the earth.
9. See http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/03/me-me-mine.html or
http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/search/label/AynRand
10. A rational decision is one that is not just reasoned, but is also optimal for achieving a goal or solving a problem. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationality ) This blogger's comment: And the self-serving reasons, goals, solutions for holding to the “Law of Nature” seem endless. Just ask the boys and girls on Wall Street, all their investors, and the proliferating HyPEs (Highly Paid Employees).
11. Old Testament | Exodus 21:23-25 ~ And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.
12. Book of Mormon | Mosiah 16:1 ~ ... The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.
Book of Mormon | Alma 36:26 ~ For because of the word which he has imparted unto me, behold, many have been born of God, and have tasted as I have tasted, and have seen eye to eye as I have seen; therefore they do know of these things of which I have spoken, as I do know; and the knowledge which I have is of God.
Book of Mormon | Mosiah 12:22 ~ Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing; for they shall see eye to eye when the Lord shall bring again Zion;
13. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Memoriam_A._H._H.  Additional, enlightening Cantos by Alfred, Lord Tennyson are found in blog post “Earth & Sky” to supplement this second post of March 14,  2014 at https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/2014/03/earth-sky.html.
14. New Testament | Matthew 22:37-39
15. New Testament | Matthew 5:38-45 ; Also Book of Mormon | 3 Nephi 12:38-45 ~ [B]ehold, it is written, an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth; But I say unto you, that ye shall not resist evil [with 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 cloak 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 thou not away. And behold it is written also, that thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy; But behold I say unto you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father who is in heaven; for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good.
16. Gifts-without-guile economy: https://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.com/search/label/GiftEconomy

Truly Afflicted (With Riches) !!

Back in October 2009, I wrote the following:^*

“Despite the “neon” warning that:

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God^[1]

most of us, in our fondest dreams, wish we were smitten with riches and that we should never recover—in likeness of Tevye in Fiddler on the Roof.

“The strange thing is—if we go by scripture—there is probably no greater risk to man’s eternal prospects than to have riches. The failure rate is nigh 100%! And we should wish such a test upon our self?!

“Strange too, when we consider the story of the beggar Lazarus and the rich man^[2] At their sequential deaths, the beggar finds himself carried into the bosom of Abraham and the rich man finds himself raising pleas from hell. Where are the justice, merit, and conservative thinking in that scenario? From a trans-world perspective, it would almost seem safer to be a beggar than a rich man! Is that a contradiction or what, to our current capitalistic, individualistic, blessed-driven paradigm?!

“What is it about riches that so afflicts mankind with failure? Is it the sense of merit? Of entitlement? Of ownership? Of self-sufficiency? Of freedom and power? Of basking in glory and honor taken unto oneself?”

Then, 4½ years later, I encounter this revealing video^† that is both a déjà vu and cautionary reminder to those afflicted with riches (or the sensation thereof).

“Money on the Mind”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc&sns=em

Dove-tails with last week’s post, ME, ME, MINE^‡ !! and seems another nail in the coffin of (scientifically-challenged) Objectivism.

-----------/
*    http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/2009/10/to-those-afflicted-with-riches.html
[1] New Testament Matthew 19:24; Mark 10:25; Luke 18:24-25
[2] Luke 16:19-31
† Thanks to the blogger at http://barerecord.blogspot.ca/2014/03/247-what-influence-are-we-under.html and his side notes section part-way down his #247 post of 17 March 2014 where I first saw this video.
‡ http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2014/03/me-me-mine.html

ME, ME, MINE

(OR Déjà Vu of “The Terrible Twos”?)

This post is in commemoration of the 107th Anniversary year of the founding (1907) of Ayn Rand’s (1905-1982) philosophy of “Objectivism.”¹

Before you swear in outrage at this ridiculous accusation against a two-year-old Ayn Rand, let me swear:

“This commemoration arises out of Ayn’s very own words.”

Check it out yourself: “I was two and a half,” she says, when Objectivism became her philosophy. She says it three times between 8:06-8:38 minutes/seconds.


)

"Ayn Rand Interview with Tom Snyder (1 of 3)" at
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc

This video has become very hard to find, but was captured 163 times by the WayBackMachine between Sept. 7, 2009 and March 19, 2023, but even there some postings have been deleted. However, as of today, 11 June 2023, it can be accessed at https://web.archive.org/web/20120617024334/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc . The remarks concerning age of two and a half can still be found after minute 8. If this link fails, try other posting dates for this link at the WayBackMachine: https://web.archive.org/web/20120501000000*/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc.

If “Me, Me, Mine” isn't allowed to describe Objectivism, then Ayn's “truth” has been compromised and her beloved John Galt has failed to get his message across.

----------------/
  1. On deeper Ayn-alysis, the more correct term may be Faux-Objectivism, or in the alternative, Subjectivism. For more Ayn-alysis by this blogger, see:
http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/search/label/AynRand
http://dejavu-timestwo.blogspot.ca/search/label/AynRand

ECON 013 ~ Aptly Named?

The Gods must have an infinite sense of irony to have inspired the naming of this modern behemoth.

Is this not the latest, perfect symbol of ten-thousand déjà vus since the days of Cain?

Is this what we champion with our capital addictions?

Isn’t this the inevitable legacy of the Randians?

Isn’t there a better option? like maybe a third way? not right or left, but UP?

Just asking.

Econ 013 ~Clip art from MS Office 2000

Truth & Consequence?

“Capitalism cannot coexist with the morality of altruism.”

That was a statement¹ made by Ayn Rand in 1967 on “The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson (at 22:12 minutes).

Considering her well-documented admiration of unregulated capitalism and her disdain of altruism, she meant it as a commendation of capitalism. But when we look at the “ways and means” of capitalism over the past century, perhaps the truth about capitalism is the reverse of what she intended. That is not to say that capitalism has been a total failure. Many significant innovations have come out of the spirit of competition, though it is this writer’s contention that the spirit of cooperation² would have resulted in every benefit we now enjoy, (plus untold others that competition crushed), while at the same time avoiding numerous capital sins.

Perhaps (ironically), the greatest use of capitalism has been its amazing ability to test every soul’s altruism and their gradation of maturity beyond the terrible two’s of “Me & Mine.”

Does it not seem equally amazing and ironic that so many die-hard capitalists cling to the “Me-Mine” philosophy that sprang full-fledged into the mind of Ayn Rand when she was but 2½ years old³?

In retrospect, are these die-hard capitalists but déjà vu age 2? An age group that:⁴

▪ may play with other children for a short time, but aren't yet capable of true sharing
▪ can be easily frustrated
▪ can show feelings of jealousy
▪ can be extremely demanding and persistent
▪ is very possessive - offers toys to other children but then wants them back
▪ can find it hard to wait
▪ may have frequent temper tantrums
▪ can have difficulty distinguishing reality from fantasy
▪ enjoys make-believe play
▪ can't understand reason or control their impulses
▪ can show aggressive behavior and the intent to hurt others
▪ can be destructive to objects around him when frustrated and angry.

If Ayn is right that “Capitalism cannot coexist with the morality of altruism” (which I suggest she probably is considering the evidence), then why are we so surprised at the state of our economics? Isn’t it a case of cause and effect; truth and consequence?

If seeing, we would but see; and hearing, we would but hear the truth and consequence of capitalism!

-------------------/
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBmViYDlrjU
2. The spirit of cooperation is not communism. Communism is the spirit of coercion and one of the extremes of economic theories. When that continuum of economic theory is bent into a circle, the extremes share more than we care to admit.
3. See the reference source for her words at http://www.dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2012/11/betraeus.html
4. Sources for age traits: http://www.nncc.org/Child.Dev/ages.stages.2y.html http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Child_development_(6)_two_to_three_years There are many others.

One More Nail—

—in the coffin of “Objectivism.”

Some say, “Two out of three ain’t bad,” but empirical observation says, “When it’s a milking stool or a tripod, or a 3-legged philosophy, two out of three ain’t enough to sit (or to hang your hat) on.”

Daniel Pink’s latest book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us, presents the scientific research of over 50 years that should settle the question of why John Galt’s dollar-sign hanging in the sky¹ hasn’t brought the “promised fulfillment.”

Pink’s call to upgrade to Motivation 3.0 (autonomy, mastery, and purpose) should be required reading for every soul, especially politicians, teachers, employers, and above all, “Objectivists.”

Ayn Rand may have understood, in large measure, the drives toward autonomy and mastery—but what of the drive to purpose? Her “faith” in the supreme (extrinsic) motivation of the “$-sign” has been proven unsupportable. Her beloved “objective” proofs show that “carrot-and-stick” incentives (Motivation 2.0) are lower-grade motivators and can often “encourage unethical behavior, create addictions, and foster sort-term thinking.” In addition, Motivation 2.0 “can extinguish intrinsic motivation, diminish performance, crush creativity, and crowd out good behavior.” (Pink, p. 205 summary)

Please read Drive. And would someone please tell Tennessee GOP State Senator Stacey Campfield that “...nothing motivates like cash”² is unscientific as to critical “intrinsic motivations”; AND that such erroneous belief is a tad alarming coming from a politician surrounded by lobbyists , temptation, opportunity, and déjà vu.

------------------------/
1. See the last page of Ayn Rand's philosophic (fictional) epistle, Atlas Shrugged.
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbKjvXDPSjA (at about minute 5:38) or also see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RLtynfHBt_U (at about minute 1:05)
Also see, Martin Bashir interview at the only place I could find it: http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/tenn-gop-rep-stacey-campfield-wants-tie-we

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

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 !

Which Hand? — Invisible? or Learned?

~
Adam Smith’s invisible hand (in its present, contorted multinational condition):

By preferring the support of [global] to that of [domestic] industry, [the multinational] intends only [its] own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce [and branding] may be of the greatest value, [it] intends only [its] own gain, and [it] is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of [its revealed] intention. Nor is it always the worse for the [political] society that it was no [transparent] part of it. By pursuing [its] own interest [it] frequently promotes that of [its Highly Paid Employees, i.e., HyPEs] more effectually than when [it] really intends to promote it [for its shareholders and VIFriends]. I have never known much good done by those who affected to [manufacture globally] for the public good [of poor nations/peoples]. It is an affectation, indeed, not very [un]common among [modern corporate PR] merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it [because Ayn R. and Milton F. have done such a persuasive job through idea-branding and bull-sales].

What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual [small business owner or state], it is evident, can, in [their] local situation, judge much better than any [big lender, IMF or World Bank] can .... The [Financial behemoth that] should attempt to direct private people [or sovereign nations] in what manner they ought to employ their capitals would not only load [itself] with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no [profit-obsessed] council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a [global corporation] which had folly and presumption enough to fancy [itself] fit to exercise it.¹

ON THE OTHER HAND:

Learned Hand ² (1872 – 1961), U.S. Judge and judicial philosopher; and the lower-court judge most quoted³ by legal scholars and SCOTUS:

What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty:

▪ is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right;
▪ is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women;
▪ is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias;
▪ remembers that not even a sparrow falls to the earth unheeded;
▪ is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind the lesson that it has never learned but never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest.⁴

In the déjà vu recyclings of this world, which hand are we presently holding? Or are we (and our various nation states) being choked by hands which have become more than visible?

------------/
1. Original 1776 quote found in Adam Smith’s, The Wealth of Nations, Book IV, Chapter 2 “Of Restraints Upon the Importation From Foreign Countries of Such Goods as Can Be Produced at Home”
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand
3. For some of those quotes, see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Learned_Hand
4. This portion of his speech (21 May 1944 in Central Park, New York City) can be found under the section “World War II” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand . This author has amended the original printed layout of the speech.

“Free”-fall?

▪ Free of civility so anyone can say anything in passionate defense of one-sidedness.¹
▪ Free to demand that the American eagle fly as a one-winged bird.²
▪ Free of laws and regulations so every business and financial institution can be a profiteer and scrutineer unto itself.³
▪ Free of memory so the re-cycling of “boom and bust” can keep booming the few and busting the many.⁴
▪ Free of moral and ethical restraints when castigating moral and ethical lapses in others.⁵
▪ Free of consequence so OLC lawyers, military & CIA interrogators, and their directing/consenting superiors can violate human rights and dignity without accountability.⁶
▪ Free to go to extremes in finding and punishing (alleged⁷) extremists.
▪ Free of constitutional restraints; checks and balances; Accords, Conventions, and Treaties by re-categorizing.⁸
▪ Free of facts so strengths can be distorted into weakness and follies recast as strength.⁹
▪ Free of self-reflection so “rightists” (of both wings) can spin innocence, sincerity, the reality of things present, and the amnesia of things past.¹⁰
▪ Free to avoid taxes via off-shore shells.¹¹
▪ Free to privatize gains and socialize losses.¹²
▪ Free to say one thing and do another with impunity (yea, even with enhanced legacies).¹³
▪ Free of self-awareness so one can sling mud from one’s own flawed actions onto “enemies” in diversionary ploy.¹⁴
▪ Free of rational analysis so any challenge to one’s worldview (from right, center, or left) can be SUMMARILY DISMISSED as socialist agenda OR hypocritical propaganda.¹⁵
▪ Free of the maturity and/or courage required to reconcile differences or acknowledge other points of view.¹⁶
▪ Free of memory so “déjà vu” does not disturb trajectory and repetitious folly.¹⁷

And the list goes on.

Have we forgotten that America was established as a free nation by virtue of a constitution of laws with check and balances, with a Bill of Rights, and with accountability? Can we be free as individuals or corporate collectives without similar parallels?

Perhaps it’s time we remembered that life, society, progress, harmony, fairness, justice, equity, and an eagle’s flight come in a balance of right AND left; individualism AND collectivism; updraft AND downdraft; listening AND talking; giving AND receiving; freedom AND responsibility; transcending AND including, AND synergizing. Remember, NOBODY is so right they can’t be wrong about something?! Ask the Pharisees.

----------------/
1. Coulterites, Frankenites, et al. [i.e., fans or mimics of Ann Coulter (R) or Al Franken (D)]
2. Listen to the KRovites of all persuasions [pronounced Crow-vites, in acknowledgment of Karl Rove and his masters and mimics, whether R or L, and meaning: a) half-circle, 180°, one-wing purists; and b) spinners of assets into liabilities and vice versa]
3. Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, et al.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boom_and_bust
5. See 1. above; also “... he [Satan] saith unto them: Deceive and lie in wait to catch, that ye may destroy; behold, this is no harm. And thus he flattereth them, and telleth them that it is no sin to lie that they may catch a man in a lie, that they may destroy him. … Verily, verily, I say unto you, wo be unto him that lieth to deceive because he supposeth that another lieth to deceive, for such are not exempt from the justice of God.” (Scriptural text from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Doctrine and Covenants Section 10:25, 28.)
6. http://judiciary.house.gov/issues/issues_OPRReport.html (OLC=Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice)
7. See 6. above and scripture at 5. above. See slso http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/ex-bush-official-guantanamo-bay-innocent/
8. See 6. above; and POWs become Enemy Combatants in "1984 newspeak"
9. DDB innovators for LBJ (1960s); Lee Atwater disciples; Swiftboaters; , KRovites, et al.; If facts are important to you, check out http://www.factcheck.org/
10. Pundits, politicians, etc. E.g., see the KRovite Sarah-spin (in my view) in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zufrMneFw&feature=player_embedded [Was apparently removed by the user on or before March 6, 2010]
11. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/tax/
12. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatizing_profits_and_socializing_losses
13. Remember election promises? Classic case: small government & fiscal conservatism in the Reagan years: see HarryBrowne.org article “The Quintessenstial Politician”; and beyond.
14. Listen to Convention speeches. Watch for KRovite tactics on both the left and the right. Also, classic case: compare handling & criticisms of shoe bomber 2001 and underwear bomber 2009: http://factcheck.org/2010/02/dick-cheney-vs-joe-biden/
15. Pundits, blogs, postings, news comments, etc.
16. Present U.S. Congress; ideologues; extreme party loyalists
17. E.g., Are we not déjà vu the ’50s/’60s Republican crisis profiled in Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus by Rick Perlstein © 2001?