John
Galt continues,
Every
man, they announce, owns an equal share of the technological benefits
created in the world. Created-by whom? Blank-out.
This was a concept attributed by some to Leon Trotsky and other collectivists and served as a fundamental plank of Fabian socialism during the time Rand was a child. Again, the “share” is an equities or securities term applied to a product where it doesn't really apply. The kind of money and who gets to issue it, DOES apply and would determine whether a technology was considered beneficial or not, because those who wanted it would be able to buy it.
Frantic cowards who posture as defenders of industrialists now define the purpose of economics as ‘an adjustment between the unlimited desires of men and the goods supplied in limited quantity.’ Supplied-by whom? Blank-out.
This was a concept attributed by some to Leon Trotsky and other collectivists and served as a fundamental plank of Fabian socialism during the time Rand was a child. Again, the “share” is an equities or securities term applied to a product where it doesn't really apply. The kind of money and who gets to issue it, DOES apply and would determine whether a technology was considered beneficial or not, because those who wanted it would be able to buy it.
Frantic cowards who posture as defenders of industrialists now define the purpose of economics as ‘an adjustment between the unlimited desires of men and the goods supplied in limited quantity.’ Supplied-by whom? Blank-out.
The
frantic cowards here could only apply to
collectivists as a group who seek a “government as Robin Hood
solution,” no doubt with the other added fiction that Robin Hood
was really a royal, therefore presumed to be virtuous. Are you
beginning to understand how these myths circulate and why? But Galt
/ Rand acts as though the producers are not paid for their goods.
They are paid for their goods, one way or another, but out of what
created scarcity? She hasn't a clue. Blank-out.
Intellectual
hoodlums who pose as professors, shrug away the thinkers of the past
by declaring that their social theories were based on the impractical
assumption that man was a rational being-but since men are not
rational, they declare, there ought to be established a system that
will make it possible for them to exist while being irrational, which
means: while defying reality. Who will make it possible? Blank-out.
Interesting
in that we DO have hoodlums posing as professors these days, do we
not? But we care nothing for her characterization of the average
poor man as irrational, or as some in the older mystical schools
would have it, that the poor are poor due to karma, a string of wrong
actions, or what have you.
Any
stray mediocrity rushes into print with plans to control the
production of mankind-and whoever agrees or disagrees with his
statistics, no one questions his right to enforce his plans by means
of a gun. Enforce-on whom? Blank-out.
Everyone
except the elites. And yes, we are seeing plenty of this right now.
But these ideas do not arise from the poor who really and truly
mostly would prefer a chance at independence, self-sufficiency from
any government or corporation, the right to “live free or die.”
Random
females with causeless incomes titter on trips around the globe and
return to deliver the message that the backward peoples of the world
demand a higher standard of living. Demand-of whom? Blank-out.
This
was true back in the day and most of these spoiled brats were rich,
not poor. But if these backward peoples of the
world really had something we wanted, and apparently they do,
else why would we be seeing what we are in Africa, in the Middle East
and elsewhere right now?, and if they had their own money to pay for
something we made and decided it would be better to buy it from us
than make to it themselves, at least until they could figure it out
and make it themselves, don't you think a real fair trade would
result? The only demand would be that the money proffered would
really buy something the producer wanted other than his products, to
settle the split-barter. That's the only consideration the producer
would logically have and which (the or an) VEN would supply.
And
to forestall any enquiry into the cause of the difference between a
jungle village and New York City, they resort to the ultimate
obscenity of explaining man’s industrial progress-skyscrapers,
cable bridges, power motors, railroad trains-by declaring that man is
an animal who possesses an ‘instinct of tool-making.’
Yes,
well we also know the basis for all such thoughts and have studied
the intellectual history of this pattern going back at least into the
19th century, again proceeding from the elites.
By the way, does anyone really know what an instinct is? It's supposedly something an animal possesses the knowledge of doing without supposedly having to learn how to do it. Ever wondered why beavers build beaver dams? Ever wondered why mammals living underground produce such intricate places to live? Ever wondered how spiders learn to spin webs? Next time you see a live spider in the centre of its web, spend some time and watch it. Take a tiny twig and drop it into its web. The spider will come out of the centre, examine the twig and then cut as many strands as necessary until the twig falls through the web, then repair the web and go back and sit in the centre. The whole process might take ten or fifteen minutes. Try as we might, we may never understand what animals really know or how they learn things. We have theory to explain much but not all. There are always limits to what we know and that's a fully rational statement. It's also a rational statement to suggest that we may never know everything there is to know.
By the way, does anyone really know what an instinct is? It's supposedly something an animal possesses the knowledge of doing without supposedly having to learn how to do it. Ever wondered why beavers build beaver dams? Ever wondered why mammals living underground produce such intricate places to live? Ever wondered how spiders learn to spin webs? Next time you see a live spider in the centre of its web, spend some time and watch it. Take a tiny twig and drop it into its web. The spider will come out of the centre, examine the twig and then cut as many strands as necessary until the twig falls through the web, then repair the web and go back and sit in the centre. The whole process might take ten or fifteen minutes. Try as we might, we may never understand what animals really know or how they learn things. We have theory to explain much but not all. There are always limits to what we know and that's a fully rational statement. It's also a rational statement to suggest that we may never know everything there is to know.
Now
Galt's speech continues,
Did
you wonder what is wrong with the world?
(of
course)
You
are now seeing the climax of the creed of the uncaused and unearned.
Who
have the most unearned wealth in the
world at the moment? It is certainly not the indigent, so again,
back at you!
All
your gangs of mystics, of spirit or muscle, are fighting one another
for power to rule you, snarling that love is the solution for all the
problems of your spirit and that a whip is the solution for all the
problems of your body-you who have agreed to have no mind.
Churchmen
that still remain are in a long since defeated position as far as
worldly power goes, collectivists however remain and just change
their spots like chameleons to obscure their true motives and
intentions. Let's be very honest, if love is
the solution for all the problems of your spirit
then what is love? Who gets to decide what love is? Who
gets to posit and broadcast the weird idea that “unconditional
love” is something real and should be demanded of everyone?
Furthermore, what is spirit? Have you ever seen spirit, touched it,
eaten it? Is it real? Is it like the wind, something that we can
feel against our skin but still cannot see, like it's effects? And
if a whip is the solution for all the problems
of your body then who gets to wield that whip? The
collectivists, collectivism by any name you can think of from
Bolshevism to tin-pot dictatorship, are all products sponsored by the
elites, not of course for themselves, since they live above us all,
the Barge as I used to call them. Mystery Babylon is probably a
better name for expressing at least the source of their power, the
corrupt and corrupting usury based monetary system that pretty much
rules the present world. One last thing, look around you from the
top to the bottom of society and you will see evidence that people
have really decided not to think outside the paradigms given to them,
to uncritically accept the unacceptable because of certain slogans
that public relations and advertising have inserted into the
information stream, things like that we must be concerned about
overpopulation or protecting the earth from ourselves, etc.
Granting
man less dignity than they grant to cattle, ignoring what an animal
trainer could tell them-that no animal can be trained by fear, that a
tortured elephant will trample its torturer, but will not work for
him or carry his burdens-they expect man to continue to produce
electronic tubes, supersonic airplanes, atom-smashing engines and
interstellar telescopes, with his ration of meat for reward and a
lash on his back for incentive.
Right,
and all against the imposed scarcity of a money system where the
people who already have way too much money already, get to create the
money, rather than the people who have next to nothing. Collectivism
has never been for the good of the common people, never. It was
instituted to rob and enslave them by those with more money and the
presumed power to FORCE it on everyone. This is one of the elite's
biggest lies. But yes, people are sheep or cattle in the sense that
they are so easily goaded into believing such ideas are for their own
good, or the good of the planet, or for what have you.
Make
no mistake about the character of mystics. To undercut your
consciousness has always been their only purpose throughout the
ages-and power, the power to rule you by FORCE, has always been their
only lust.
To
do as you are told without question, is what they want and to get you
to do, by the FORCE of fear and the contrivances of guilt, as their
usual approach. I note from considerable personal observation, that
those who rise higher and faster in most collectivist organizations,
including corporations, are those who obligingly do exactly as they
are told (by their superiors of course) without opening their mouths
to consider any possible objection. Students in most schools
likewise get the best marks for reflecting back the teacher's
perspectives, rather than having any independent thoughts of their
own, etc. These patterns are evidence of a longstanding structural
deficiency in social relations that a new monetary system would tend
to address.
From
the rites of the jungle witch-doctors, which distorted reality into
grotesque absurdities, stunted the minds of their victims and kept
them in terror of the supernatural for stagnant stretches of
centuries-to the supernatural doctrines of the Middle Ages, which
kept men huddling on the mud floors of their-hovels, in terror that
the devil might steal the soup they had worked eighteen hours to
earn-to the seedy little smiling professor who assures you that your
brain has no capacity to think, that you have no means of perception
and must blindly obey the omnipotent will of that supernatural FORCE:
Society-all of it is the same performance for the same and only
purpose: to reduce you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the
validity of its consciousness.
Galt
/ Rand may have put it into philosophical terms, but really what's
always been at stake here is freedom for all, or freedom for some and
slavery for the rest, it's that simple. If you believe that you have
inalienable rights that derive from no one, no government, no outside
FORCE, maybe from an unseen God should you prefer, then you cannot
deny freedom to a single other living human being. Life, liberty and
property, including the right to create one's means of exchange if
one has no money, set the practical boundaries to each human being's
freedom.
If
one would really be free, one would respect the rights of others to
be as free, so one would not deliberately infringe on another's
freedom to life liberty and property, etc. These are rational and
easily understood concepts; enough on which to base (the or an) VEN.
Notice that chaos is defeated by simple reason and nothing else.
But
it [reducing you to the kind of pulp that has surrendered the
validity of its consciousness] cannot be done to you without your
consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.
These
days, even the matter of your consent is open to question as more and
more that's done, under the colour of law, is intentionally devised
to coerce your consent from you, so increasingly you'll have no
choice but to obey. Once again, the “no child left behind”
programme is a really good example of how this works.
When
you listen to a mystic’s harangue on the impotence of the human
mind [and the assumed competence of theirs as in a Soviet] and
begin to doubt your consciousness, not his, when you permit your
precariously semi-rational state to be shaken by any assertion and
decide it is safer to trust his superior certainty and knowledge, the
joke is on both of you: your sanction is the only source of certainty
he has. The supernatural power that a mystic dreads, the unknowable
spirit he worships, the consciousness he considers omnipotent
is-yours.
...
and this also appears to apply well to our present circumstances.
The encroachment on an individual's human liberties is a never ending
battle until it is finally resolved by ... turning you backs on these
people and walking right out of their system!
Now
this is really very interesting,
A
mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with
the minds of others.
This
is what she either is trying to prove or it serves as an axiom.
Somewhere
in the distant reaches of his childhood, when his own understanding
of reality clashed with the assertions of others, with their
arbitrary orders and contradictory demands, he gave in to so craven a
fear of independence that he renounced his rational faculty.
A
LOT of fairly intelligent people do this all the time because they
know just enough about the elite's power to be afraid. Fear of
independence, of standing out, of being alone, any number of similar
fears rise to challenge the option of independence for most.
At
the crossroads of the choice between ‘I know’ and ‘They say,’
he chose the authority of others, he chose to submit rather than to
understand, to believe rather than to think.
Faith
in the supernatural begins as faith in the superiority of others.
Yes.
Why don't we all decide to suspend our judgements concerning the
relative status of everyone else and see what happens? What if
anyone's mind, no matter how slow or clouded and deluded with
grandiose ideologies, was just as good at basic rational thinking as
anyone else's? It isn't “quality of mind” that counts at all, it
is the truth that matters, being able to observe and proceed from
existence, through identity and classification, then on to removing
contradictions and finally arriving at the truth. That's real
thinking and anyone could do it if they were taught simple ways to
pay attention to what their senses are telling them. What Galt /
Rand say is basically accurate, but I would say that it begins when
we are infants and we must rely on our mothers and later our family
structures. Some parents are so cruel as to even attempt to impress
upon their children their belief in their own superiority, so the
child never thinks much of himself. This causes all kinds of
trouble. I note also that dysfunctional families are most often to
be found among the elites, rather than the poor or the increasingly
besieged middle class.
His
surrender took the form of the feeling that he must hide his lack of
understanding, that others possess some mysterious knowledge of which
he alone is deprived, that reality is whatever they want it to be,
through some means forever denied to him.
...
and researchers will be led down enumerable paths trying to acquire
“secret knowledge” or some such oddball claptrap the elites
supposedly possess that gives them their power, assuming that magic
trickery is the same as knowledge. There is no secret knowledge
worth knowing unless you have the means and ability to ferret out
crimes and can ensure that justice is done. Others who are just
intent on becoming rich, or at least having enough cash on hand so
they wont have to work anymore, chase after one scam after another.
The same people behind these frauds and scams laugh at those who seek
“secret knowledge” or ways to become fabulously rich without
doing anything. Since there's really no difference, why not just go
blow your money in Vegas? It's all just the same.
From
then on, afraid to think, he is left at the mercy of unidentified
feelings. His feelings become his only guide, his only remnant of
personal identity, he clings to them with ferocious
possessiveness-and whatever thinking he does is devoted to the
struggle of hiding from himself that the nature of his feelings is
terror.
Ever
notice how the elites have figured out that keeping “the masses”
in a constant state of terror does seem to work? But after a while,
after it goes on for too long, what is the inevitable result?
Consider that the numbers of people who represent “the masses” is
growing and this implies there are more people who need to be
terrorized by the elites so they can be kept in line, for what? For
the next war of course, since they want you dead anyway, they might
as well make more money while you're busy dying and killing as many
other people you don't even know as possible. If you manage to
survive, they'll make sure that the poisons their corporations made,
deployed on the battlefields, will kill you quicker than natural
causes and usually that you will be unable to reproduce. Not having
children to contribute to their notion of “useless eaters” is
good for them.
When
a mystic declares that he feels the existence of a power superior to
reason, he feels it all right, but that power is not an omniscient
super-spirit of the universe, it is the consciousness of any
passer-by to whom he has surrendered his own.
A
trifle convoluted, but no, the mystics Rand is talking about
surrendered their consciousness to those they were convinced (fooled
into believing), really had superior knowledge. Elsewhere we have
seen this referred to as outsourcing your thinking.
A
mystic is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to
deceive, to FORCE that omnipotent consciousness of others.
These
are all the techniques associated with the elites. They like to be
impressed, love to cheat because cheating is considered part of their
elite entitlement, to flatter and especially to accept flattery, to
deceive of course, especially if it starts a nice profitable little
war that can be kept going for a good long time, and especially to
bully by FORCE everyone else.
‘They’
are his only key to reality, he feels that he cannot exist save by
harnessing their mysterious power and extorting their unaccountable
consent. ‘They’ are his only means of perception and, like a
blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash
them in order to live. To control the consciousness of others becomes
his only passion; power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant
lots of an abandoned mind.
Who
are the 'they' here? These are, in the
present scheme of things, the accredited experts who have come under
the elite's wings, sometimes as discovered talent or promoted from
among sycophants. The elites do purpose to harness whatever
mysterious power these expert's work
might bestow. By extorting their unaccountable
consent is usually inferred, “if you work for us and in
accordance with our designs, you will be well paid.” That usually
works for most people. Most will not work for prestige alone and
those who have the least money are the least likely to even consider
working only for prestige. The elites are likewise very often, like
a blind man who depends on the sight of a dog, he feels he must leash
them in order to live, because oddly enough, for all their
pretences to the contrary, they too are even more prone to
outsourceing their thinking. We should not lightly roll over this
apt description; To control the consciousness
of others becomes his [the mystic elitiest's] only passion;
power-lust is a weed that grows only in the vacant lots of an
abandoned mind. Our reasoned response
again is to abandon them to their follies.
Every
dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A
mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them
to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his
wishes, his whims-as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. He
wants to deal with men by means of faith and FORCE-he finds no
satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts
and reason.
Clearly
so, besides which, haven't the schools just done a great job
convincing the world that the study of how to reason is boring?
Haven't the mass media done a great job of distracting people from
the real issues facing them, encouraging people at every turn to
follow this or that celebrity or this or that politician or this or
that cause or this or that ... yeah, the study of reasoning, learning
how to think, not what to think, is so dusty dull to most people that
they'd almost always prefer to be doing something else, even if as it
turns out there is a grain of reason to every beneficial action they
take.
Reason
is the enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious:
reason, to him, is a means of deception, he feels that men possess
some power more potent than reason-and only their causeless belief or
their forced obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that
he has gained control of the mystic endowment he lacked. His lust is
to command, not to convince: conviction requires an act of
independence and press on the absolute of an objective reality. What
he seeks is power over reality and over men’s means of perceiving
it, their mind, the power to interpose his will between existence and
consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them
to fake, men would, in fact, create it.
Convoluted
but yes, not only does the elitist dread reason, he dreads truth,
honesty, integrity, even competence. This is why there is so much
falsehood (including obnoxious and beside the point fictions, the
garbage of the mind these days), lying, dishonesty and incompetence.
These things are rewarded to support the elitist contentions that but
for their servants they would accomplish more. Meanwhile their aims
remain Faustian or rather Nietzschean. Now in what follows, just
replace the word mystic with the word
elitist and read along,
Just
as the mystic is a parasite in matter, who expropriates the wealth
created by others-
...
what usury allows bankers and others of his friends to steal.
just
as he [the mystic] is a parasite in spirit, who plunders the ideas
created by others-
...
what corporations in monopoly or near monopoly positions do.
Apparently Rand is equating spirit with inventiveness or the actual
inventions or ideas for them; the patents. [Laurence, are you paying
attention?]
so
he [the mystic] falls below the level of a lunatic who creates his
own distortion of reality, to the level of a parasite of lunacy who
seeks a distortion created by others.
Well,
such has been the condition of man since before anyone can remember,
which is as good as saying since forever. So to them, and for the
sake of their exalted positions, etc. etc. world without end, why
bother changing it?
There
is only one state that fulfils the mystic’s longing for infinity,
non-causality, non-identity: death.
This
is actually probably a projection. The elitist wants US dead, he
wants an eternity to live for himself and a chosen few of his
friends.
No
matter what unintelligible causes he ascribes to his incommunicable
feelings, whoever rejects reality rejects existence-and the feelings
that move him [the mystic] from then on are hatred for all the values
of man’s life, and lust for all the evils that destroy it. A mystic
relishes the spectacle of suffering, of poverty, subservience and
terror; these give him a feeling of triumph, a proof of the defeat of
rational reality. But no other reality exists.
No
matter whose welfare he [the mystic] professes to serve, be it the
welfare of God or of that disembodied gargoyle he describes as ‘The
People,’ no matter what ideal he proclaims in terms of some
supernatural dimension-in fact, in reality, on earth, his ideal is
death, his craving is to kill, his only satisfaction is to torture.
Wow!
Isn't this accurate? !!
Destruction
is the only end that the mystics’ creed has ever achieved, as it is
the only end that, you see them achieving today, and if the ravages
wrought by their acts have not made them question their doctrines, if
they profess to be moved by love, yet are not deterred by piles of
human corpses, it is because the truth about their souls is worse
than the obscene excuse you have allowed them, the excuse that the
end justifies the means and that the horrors they practice are means
to nobler ends. The truth is that those horrors are their ends.
Agreed!
Still hope you've replaced the word mystic with elitist for the full
whammy of her quite accurate appraisal.
You
who’re depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to
a mystic’s dictatorship and could please him by obeying his
orders-there is no way to please him; when you obey, he will reverse
his orders; he seeks obedience for the sake of obedience and
destruction for the sake of destruction.
Those
FORCES who have been hired by elitists please take note. You are
expendable to them. They do not care at all about what happens to
you, whether you might get shot or killed, poisoned or maimed. They
pay you now, but in future, they owe you nothing, which is why they
have spent more on robots, drones, etc. because they know
instinctively that they cannot trust you. You'd better think to
yourselves just which side of history you will be on, theirs which is
soon to fall apart under the exposure of its blood soaked follies, or
with the great majority of humanity who will sooner or later be
forced by circumstances contrived by the elites to turn their backs
on them, to walk out of their system into something of their own.
You have a much better chance at a future against them than with
them. Just saying.
You
who are craven enough to believe that you can make terms with a
mystic by giving in to his extortions-there is no way to buy him off,
the bribe he wants is your life, as slowly or as fast as you are
willing to give it in-and the monster he seeks to bribe is the hidden
blank-out in his mind, which drives him to kill in order not to learn
that the death he desires is his own.
She
might be right. Most elitists are hopped up on prescription drugs.
Ever wonder why? They're depressed, that's why. Imagine you have
nearly everything one in this world could desire and yet you are
still not happy because an insatiable greed for you know not what
devours your insides and ridicules your wealth and power.
You
who are innocent enough to believe that the forces let loose in your
world today are moved by greed for material plunder-the mystics’
scramble for spoils is only a screen to conceal from their [the
mystic's] mind the nature of their motive. Wealth is a means of human
life, and they [the mystics] clamour for wealth in imitation of
living beings, to pretend to themselves that they desire to live, but
their swinish indulgence in plundered luxury is not enjoyment, it is
escape.
Notice
too that down deep they cannot escape the notion that they live
spoiled selfish lives and nothing stolen from someone else really
brings that much happiness. The rest was very descriptive and
familiar to anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the elites.
They
do not want to own your fortune, they want you to lose it; they do
not want to succeed, they want you to fail; they do not want to live,
they want you to die; they desire nothing, they hate existence, and
they keep running, each trying not to learn that the object of his
hatred is himself.
It's
peculiar how well this fits the outlook of certain enclaves of the
rich and powerful. The rich cannot have too many real friends, even
if they must choose them from among those who can afford their
lifestyles. There is always competition. The latest billionaire
wants all the other billionaires to lose theirs while he keeps his.
That's staying even. Washington, DC is another place where it has
long been known that ruining someone else is a sport to those in
power. They do not want any competition. They fear it.
You
who’ve never grasped the nature of evil, you who describe them as
‘misguided idealists’-may the God you invented forgive you!-they
are the essence of evil, they, those anti-living objects who seek, by
devouring the world, to fill the selfless zero of their soul. It is
not your wealth that they’re after. Theirs is a conspiracy against
the mind, which means: against life and man.
Yes,
that's probably close to exactly how we see it too, John.
It
is a conspiracy without leader or direction, and the random little
thugs of the moment who cash in on the agony of one land or another
are chance scum riding the torrent from the broken dam of the sewer
of centuries, from the reservoir of hatred for reason, for logic, for
ability, for achievement, for joy, stored by every whining anti-human
who ever preached the superiority of the ‘heart’ over the mind.
What
was it the Bible said, ah yeah, “The [human] heart is deceitful
above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?”
Jeremiah 17:9 KJV.
It
is a conspiracy of all those who seek, not to live, but to get away
with living, those who seek to cut just one small corner of reality
and are drawn, by feeling, to all the others who are busy cutting
other corners-a conspiracy that unites by links of evasion all those
who pursue a zero as a value: the professor who, unable to think,
takes pleasure in crippling the mind of his students, the businessman
who, to protect his stagnation, takes pleasure in chaining the
ability of competitors, the neurotic who, to defend his
self-loathing, takes pleasure in breaking men of self-esteem, the
incompetent who takes pleasure in defeating achievement, the
mediocrity who takes pleasure in demolishing greatness, the eunuch
who takes pleasure in the castration of all pleasure-and all their
intellectual munition-makers, all those who preach that the
immolation of virtue will transform vices into virtue. Death is the
premise at the root of their theories, death is the goal of their
actions in practice-and you are the last of their victims.
All
pretty good, but just replace the word last
with latest to bring it up to date.
Yes, you who are reading this, who are wide awake to understand the
implications of everything you have been reading, YOU are the latest
of their victims, if they can get you.
We,
who are the living buffers between you and the nature of your creed,
are no longer there to save you from the effects of your chosen
beliefs. We are no longer willing to pay with our lives the debts you
incurred in yours or the moral deficit piled up by all the
generations behind you. You had been living on borrowed time-and I am
the man who has called in the loan.
An
excellent and instructive projection! The first sentence sounds
closest to the perspective of someone, the we,
who once was a servant of the elite who has seen the errors of his
ways. Galt is saying that he has walked out on them, encouraged many
more talented people to do the same. I am aware that Rand intended
to castigate the poor, loafers, the economic losers of this world and
to extol the virtues of the elites, but surely you have noticed how
much more accurately Galt's words describe the elite at the top of
the present power and money structures. Galt says they are no
longer willing to pay with our lives the debts you incurred in yours.
More financial terms used as metaphors, or the
moral deficit piled up by all the generations behind you. The
key word is moral for the issues that
will define them from henceforth are matters of right and wrong more
than anything else. A moral deficit is either too many wrong
actions, or the philosophical decision to reject morality entirely as
many elitists down through time have done. To be continued in the
next post.
David
Burton
No comments:
Post a Comment