Beyond Rational?

Has our modern passion for scientific rationalism become just one more déjà vu in the history of totalitarian ideas? As I listen to some of our most ardent, militant rationalists, the over- and undertones of tyranny are unmistakable. For many of these militants, there can be nothing beyond rational. They see only two options, rational or irrational, never seeming to consider there might be a further advancement of enlightenment toward the transrational. The recognition of such a possibility is older than Plotinus, the ancient philosopher (204/5-274 CE), but he said it so well:

You ask, how can we know the Infinite? I answer, not by reason. It is the office of reason to distinguish and define. The Infinite, therefore, cannot be ranked among its objects. You can only apprehend the Infinite by a faculty superior to reason, by entering into a state in which you are your finite self no longer—in which the divine essence is communicated to you. This is ecstasy [Cosmic Consciousness]. It is the liberation of your mind from its finite consciousness. Like only can apprehend like; when you thus cease to be finite, you become one with the Infinite. In the reduction of your soul to its simplest self, its divine essence, you realize this union—this identity.*

---------------------/
* http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/cc/cc13.htm

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.

Blissful Ignorance*

(*A tirade inspired by Salt, Sugar, [‘n] Fat)

Let us NOT count the ways we are addicted. It’s too depressing. Too déjà vu. Or so it seems for all the changes we don’t make in our lives when faced with massive evidence. Take for example, our addiction to ideas—such as competition, efficiency, capitalism, bottom-line, etc. as being the prime drivers of innovation and progress. And by progress, shouldn't we mean, that which advances mankind—not that which conspires to addict or enslave as seen in the old tobacco trials; and now again (yes, déjà vu again and again and again) in recent revelations about the processed-food industry? Take a look:

http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/TV+Shows/The+National/Health/ID/2341079476/ 

How much more advanced might we be if we cooperated for the benefit of mankind? Why are we still playing grade-school versions of “king-of-the-dirt-mound?” Haven’t we matured at all? Isn’t that what our CEOs are still up to: pushing and shoving for top-spot on the virtual mound at Wall Street? Pushing and shoving in two-piece pin-stripes? Pushing and shoving adulterated and faux foods down our blissful throats? Pushing and shoving “new and improved” electronics down our virtual throats so we feel driven to dump perfectly good ones into 3rd-world, unregulated waste sites? Pushing and shoving because we are so push-able and shove-able—abetted by Salt, Sugar, ‘n Fat?

And what of our esteemed scientists who have sold themselves for a mess of (processed, bliss-point) pottage?

Why are we so enamored by the big boys (and those few girls) who cudgel their way to the top by obsessing about the bottom-line? Those who buy up “competitors” to co-op or bury products and ideas, or to sell off thriving company assets for a quick profit (and bonus); or those who bypass the buy-up and resort to stealing, maligning, or killing ideas or products that threaten their ideas or products?

How long this blissful ignorance? How long before we recognize the catastrophic damage that our obsession with competition and bottom-line has wrought? How long till we understand that every beneficial progress could have been achieved faster and further by men and women who had matured past the stage of juvenile pushing and shoving? But alas! the powerful “haves” prefer competition. It is the plush curtain that hides the faux-wizard of their superiority and entitlement.

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

Too BIG. (OHHH, Déjà Vu!)

HSBC.¹ "Too big to fail! Too big to jail!"

Wasn't that the paradigm of Assyria? Babylon? Persia? Greece? Rome? And most of the corrupt popes, priests, kings, and tyrants of yesteryear? And now our BIG corporations recycling the follies of hubris and privilege (with the assist of governmental authorities). And where are all the predecessors of our BIG paradigm? Broken remnants in the dust?

And where have we seen HSBC before? Agreeing to pay a record 1.9 billion-dollar fine for its most recent crimes (money-laundering) so it can maintain stability and the confidence of its investors and shareholders! It joins almost every BIG (respectable? indispensable?) corporation on the planet. Just google "corporate fines and settlements" and ask: "Déjà vu what? The sale of indulgences? The Ancien Régime?² The historically ubiquitous delusions and machinations of BIG power and money?"

We must be living in the most unobservant age that ever was! We have access to more information and wisdom than any time in history, and instead of evolving as human beings, we sequester behind faux-persons, recycle folly, and in due course cast ourselves upon the accumulations of dust and debris.

Just consider Hank Greenberg³, a former HyPE (highly paid employee) of AIG and current shareholder. Just consider all of us mesmerized by BIG power, BIG fame, BIG wealth. Are we evolving or are we in a state of spiritual and mental entropy?

-----------------/
1) HSBC: http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/12/11/hsbc-penalty-laundering-case.html.
2) A system of privilege, power, elitism, authority, and wealth that has survived, in some form or other, every attempt at reformation. One of its most current renditions resides with the militant atheists who are trying to boot religion of the pedestal of elitism and privilege so they can ascend with their own (rational?) substitute version of "the old ways" (about which this writer will elaborate in a coming post).
3) Hank Greenberg: http://www.businessinsider.com/matt-taibbi-on-greeberg-aig-suit-2013-1 and many other sites. Just google "Hank Greenberg" if you want a range of opinions.

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