Thursday, January 17, 2013

#18.10 Gleanings from the John Galt Speech – Part 10

John Galt's rant, the gigantic psychological projection, continues,

'We know that we know nothing,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge-

It's not that they claim to know nothing, it's that they claim to be directly responsible. They being the elites.

There are not absolutes,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute-

This is what the elites have championed since the time of Immanuel Kant. Anyone that provides the basis for their escape from the results of their irresponsible acts, like Fukushima or the Gulf of Mexico, etc. etc. is often financed by them. We discard as irrelevant whether any statement of any kind is anything absolute or not. That's a red herring.

You cannot prove that you exist or that you’re conscious,’ they chatter, blanking out the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge: the existence of something to know, of a consciousness able to know it, and of a knowledge that has learned to distinguish between such concepts as the proved and the unproved.

Yes, they're still trying to get out of anything their greedy schemes and subversive tactics have caused. “Limited liability,” remember?

When a savage who has not learned to speak declares that existence must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of non-existence-when he declares that your consciousness must be proved, he is asking you to prove it by means of unconsciousness-he is asking you to step into a void outside of existence and consciousness to give him proof of both-he is asking you to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero.

Not sure what relevance this has except as a philosophical prop to Rand's attack on the wrong people, us, whom she calls savages. This is what the members of Skull & Bones call non-members too. Just saying.

When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesn’t choose to accept the axiom that he exists, he blanks out the fact that he has accepted it by uttering that sentence, that the only way to reject it is to shut one’s mouth, expound no theories and die.

Well, this certainly sounds like philosopher-speak for “sit down and shut up” to me.

An axiom is a statement that identifies the base of knowledge and of any further statement pertaining to that knowledge, a statement necessarily contained in all others, whether any particular speaker chooses to identify it or not. An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it.

Unfortunately for Rand, no matter how clever at phiosophising she was, if her axioms are inaccurate or incorrect from the outset, any elaborations on them will not serve her case against any and all people but the elites, whom she believes have rights over the rest of us and would literally stop the world to get their way if they had to. That was the message of Atlas Shrugged. I would very much like that thought to sink in too. With all the technology at their disposal, assuming people would actually be stupid and criminal enough to follow their orders, the elites have long had the power to alter or destroy the earth, so that their plans to make over the world to their liking would become reality. This is the level of criminal insanity that really exists at or near the top. Obviously it must be exposed so that more people are aware of it.

Let the caveman who does not choose to accept the axiom of identity, try to present his theory without using the concept of identity or any concept derived from it-let the anthropoid who does not choose to accept the existence of nouns, try to devise a language without nouns, adjectives or verbs-let the witch-doctor who does not choose to accept the validity of sensory perception, try to prove it without using the data he obtained by sensory perception-let the head-hunter who does not choose to accept the validity of logic, try to prove it without using logic-let the pigmy who proclaims that a skyscraper needs no foundation after it reaches its fiftieth story, yank the base from under his building, not yours-let the cannibal who snarls that the freedom of man’s mind was needed to create an industrial civilization, but is not needed to maintain it, be given an arrowhead and bearskin, not a university chair of economics.

Who are the real cavemen, anthropoids, witch-doctors, head-hunters, pigmies, and cannibals? Who are those who sit in a university chair of economics but those who accept usury, fractional reserve banking, finance models relying on compound interest, central bank issuance of all money as debt to them for doing nothing? What right do these people honestly have to dare attempt to run a productive economy they themselves never contribute to? This was nothing but a grandiose and odious set of projections away from themselves.

Do you think they are taking you back to dark ages?

Yes indeed, we do!

They are taking you back to darker ages than any your history has known.
Their goal is not the era of pre-science, but the era of pre-language. Their purpose is to deprive you of the concept on which man’s mind, his life and his culture depend: the concept of an objective reality. Identify the development of a human consciousness-and you will know the purpose of their creed.

Turn this remarkable paragraph around and who does it describe?

A savage is a being who has not grasped that A is A and that reality is real.

Actually those who suppose they are not themselves the savages of this world have not grasped that A = A+whatever % of A is not reality.

He has arrested his mind at the level of a baby’s, at the state when a consciousness acquires its initial sensory perception and has not learned to distinguish solid objects. It is to a baby that the world appears as a blur of motion, without things that move-and the birth of his mind is the day when he grasps that the streak that keeps flickering past him is his mother and the whirl beyond her is a curtain, that the two are solid entities and neither can turn into the other, that they are what they are, that they exist. The day when he grasps that matter has no volition is the day when he grasps that he has-and this is his birth as a human being.

We know that many of these people really DO act like babies, or rather spoiled rotten little brats. The day when these babies realize that those who they depend on for their food and everything else they pay their minions for, have decided to leave their service, they may face reality. But most just dive back into their money (as F. Scott Fitzgerald and many others discovered) and remain babies, because that's so much easier than having to admit that without their money and the power over others that it represents, they are ... nothing!

The day when he grasps that the reflection he sees in a mirror is not a delusion, that it is real, but it is not himself, that the mirage he sees in a desert is not a delusion, that the air and the light rays that cause it are real, but it is not a city, it is a city’s reflection-the day when he grasps that he is not a passive recipient of the sensations of any given moment, that his senses do not provide him with automatic knowledge in separate snatches independent of context, but only with the material of knowledge, which his mind must learn to integrate-the day when he grasps that his senses cannot deceive him, that physical objects cannot act without causes, that his organs of perception are physical and have no volition, no power to invent or to distort, that the evidence they give him is an absolute, but his mind must learn to understand it, his mind must discover the nature, the causes, the full context of his sensory material, his mind must identify the things that he perceives-that is the day of his birth as a thinker and scientist.

Maybe, but I doubt this happens to many among the elite, because they don't have to, whereas, contrary to everything implied in Galt's / Rand's rant, those of us who have the natural abilities to do so, have usually, until fairly recently, dared to do things, to bring into existence from their minds things of great usefulness to us, such as computers, the internet, alternative media, so we can communicate among ourselves across the entire planet, etc. These things are not usually even properly understood by most who are rich.

We are the men who reach that day

No, you aren't.

you are the men who choose to reach it partly

We do as best we can under the circumstances.

a savage is a man who never does.

So don't expect many who are rich and always have been to ever wake up. Most are nothing but savage babies and I can't think of a worse combination of character traits with which to entrust anything important, especially money. More projections, assuming that she knows anything first hand about primitive people, which she didn't and this is also a widespread prejudice among the rich,

To a savage, the world is a place of unintelligible miracles where anything is possible to inanimate matter and nothing is possible to him.

To the rich, anything they desire is possible if you just throw enough money at it, including much that defies natural law, or has unexpected and dangerous consequences.

His world is not the unknown, but that irrational horror: the unknowable.

What does an enraged baby feel if and when his desires are thwarted? Give that enraged child the years it takes to reach maturity and plenty of money and what would you naturally expect?

He believes that physical objects are endowed with a mysterious volition, moved by causeless, unpredictable whims, while he is a helpless pawn at the mercy of forces beyond his control.

Many rich people complain that they are held back by their “stupid” servants, whose only faults are that they have been taken in by anything from feeling sorry for their employers, to hoping for more grants of money from them, instead of recognizing that they are working a dead end job and that they can be discarded as easily as ... a used wad of tissue paper.

He believes that nature is ruled by demons who possess an omnipotent power and that reality is their fluid plaything, where they can turn his bowl of meal into a snake and his wife into a beetle at any moment, where the A he has never discovered can be any non-A they choose, where the only knowledge he possesses is that he must not attempt to know.

The last phrase is particularly revealing; yes, their knowledge is very limited and they prefer it that way, so they really never have to think for themselves and step out of line with the rest of their kind. If some accredited somebody says something that gets into print through an “authorized” media source, it is regarded as important or factual when in most cases, critical analysis reveals it to be claptrap! Most who are at or near the top are perpetually misinformed as a result.

He can count on nothing, he can only wish, and he spends his life on wishing, on begging his demons to grant him his wishes by the arbitrary power of their will, giving them credit when they do, taking the blame when they don’t, offering them sacrifices in token of his gratitude and sacrifices in token of his guilt, crawling on his belly in fear and worship of sun and moon and wind and rain and of any thug who announces himself as their spokesman, provided his words are unintelligible and his mask sufficiently frightening-he wishes, begs and crawls, and dies, leaving you, as a record of his view of existence, the distorted monstrosities of his idols, part-man, part-animal, part-spider, the embodiments of the world of non-A.

The attempt here is clearly to posit any but themselves as wish makers, followers of demons, worshippers of the natural elements, and particularly their support for any thug who announces himself as their spokesman, provided his words are unintelligible and his mask sufficiently frightening. Well what have we been treated to over the past twenty to thirty years? They wish most people in this world would just go off somewhere and die quietly and never bother them, they DO follow demons, some of their own making, the latest attempt at creating an earth based religion is a very apt example of their worship of the elements, which they would like to pass to us as a universal religion for the dawning New Age. All the New Age crap you know of was hatched and funded by the rich. The poor are too poor to bother with such nonsense that doesn't directly help them and the rest of us are too busy just trying to make a living. By the way, the law of identity has some other peculiar features; A is not A if it has different attributes, presumptions based on faked data, do not stand as proved, etc. You cannot ever hope to get the recognition for your efforts just by being rich. Everyone with half a brain knows this, but very few of those who are really rich do.

His is the intellectual state of your modern teachers and his is the world to which they want to bring you.

Yes, by teachers we mean the false kind, fake gurus, New Age mystics, or equally “fake” scientists who have sold out their integrity to New World Order gambits that play roles in who gets promoted, or who gets fired, etc. The world they intend for the vast majority of humanity is DEATH; no world at all. They hope, miserable hope that it is, that someone with a stupid set of priorities will just take orders from them long enough and supply them with food and drink until their criminal plans are realized.

But Galt / Rand are on a roll,

If you wonder by what means they propose to do it, walk into any college classroom and you will hear your professors teaching your children that man can be certain of nothing, that his consciousness has no validity whatever, that he can learn no facts and no laws of existence, that he’s incapable of knowing an objective reality.

It's usually called relativity by some and used and misused to support anything, so this is accurate. Those arguing from existence, identity, as certainties are clearly in the minority just about everywhere and it does not get any better the higher you do. It gets worse.

What, then, is his standard of knowledge and truth? Whatever others believe, is their answer.

This is the so called “peer review process.” Academic people often become quite hot headed when I bring this up and they perhaps assume I'm stupid enough to believe that how Rand characterizes the process isn't exactly what it really is. If you do independent scientific research and it never gets peer reviewed to see what other “scientists” may think about it, you'll never get anywhere, because knowledge is power and they use this peer review process and other phony accreditation games to keep it to themselves. It has nothing whatever to do with the truth of anything and largely disrespects truth, intelligence, honesty, integrity, the works, since no one can know anything for sure about anything ... except to watch out for anyone who jeopardizes corporate profits, because they are often as not involved in these scam ventures themselves!

There is no knowledge, they teach, there’s only faith: your belief that you exist is an act of faith, no more valid than another’s faith in his right to kill you; the axioms of science are an act of faith, no more valid than a mystic’s faith in revelations; the belief that electric light can be produced by ‘a generator is an act of faith, no more valid than the belief that it can be produced by a rabbit’s foot kissed under a stepladder on the first of the moon-truth is whatever people want it to be, and people are everyone except yourself

Yes, science to the elites, since the late 18th century anyway, is their new religion, which means they have faith in it as long as it provides them with the means to stay in power, etc. and to the elites, everyone but themselves are lacking their special exceptions.[In prior ages they accorded the same status to alchemists.  Believe me, dress it up all you want, these people still practice frauds.]

A slight digression: Lately we have heard the pejorative phrase “American exceptionalism.” This is a way of saying that America and Americans supposedly believe themselves capable of doing what other empires in the past have tried and failed to do; to bring the world under a “peaceful” order (can you believe the sheer audacity of this?) run for and by the elites. The American people are sold on the idea that they are something special when they aren't, just like other false teachers and thuggish leaders tried the same on other people in the past, in Germany, Russia, Britain, elsewhere in order to get their poor and other masses of their people to go to war against this or that supposed adversary.

reality is whatever people choose to say it is, there are no objective facts, there are only people’s arbitrary wishes-a man who seeks knowledge in a laboratory by means of test tubes and logic is an old-fashioned, superstitious fool; a true scientist is a man who goes around taking public polls-and if it weren’t for the selfish greed of the manufacturers of steel girders, who have a vested interest in obstructing the progress of science, you would learn that New York City does not exist, because a poll of the entire population of the world would tell you by a landslide majority that their beliefs forbid its existence.

In the early 19th century people did not believe in meteorites because accredited scientists refused to accept the possibility that rocks were out in space and could crash into the earth. In 1903 the authorities actually told people to stay away from the Wright Brothers flight at Kitty Hawk because of course everyone knew that manned flight was impossible. Nowadays science tells people that genetically modified food is no different from naturally occurring food as well as many other monstrous lies.

Allopathic medical practice, supported by big pharmaceutical corporations and supernational governments like the UN and EU, prevents any and all comers from legitimate alternative medical treatments, many that have been around for a long time, because everyone knows that these people are discredited kooks. Really? They are constantly after the natural supplements makers because they have no way to patent these things and profit thereby. [Pay attention, Laurence!]  That is also part of their wonderful worldwide agenda; Codex Alimentarius. They do not care about health, they care only about profit; corporate profit not whether some alternative practitioner can make a living and help people gain better health.

Remember, they matter and you don't. In fact if they had it their way right now, we'd all be their slaves and if they didn't like something we did or said, they would send us away to die or even kill us. Wait, didn't the US Congress just give the President such powers? These things express their true feelings and intentions. How are you feeling about the globalists, billionaires, elites, super rich, etc. right now? Feeling any better about them? Surely they have your best interests in mind, and oh my, they care so much more about the earth than you do, so you should just stop complaining and thoughtlessly obey them, after all they have more money and power than you do, which means as the song said, “when you're rich, they think you really know.”

For centuries, the mystics of spirit have proclaimed that faith is superior to reason, but have not dared deny the existence of reason.

During much of the Middle Ages, there were enclaves where reason was practised covertly and it managed to survive. But reason is not just a philosophical concept, it is something people use every day of their lives. The proof of this lies in the number of correct decisions at any time outnumbering the incorrect decisions. If this were not the case, the world would instantly dissolve into chaos. It is not governments exerting FORCE or the threat of FORCE that prevents chaos, it is each human being's use of reason that does. Let that point sink in.

Their heirs and products, the mystics of muscle, have completed their job and achieved their dream: they proclaim that everything is faith, and call it a revolt against believing.

Rand posits that the collectivists, who she doesn't even know were set up and financed by the same people that financed her work, are the heirs of the princely and churchly powers that held sway for centuries before the arrival of collectivism on the human scene. She says that these collectivists, the new social philosophers proclaim that everything is faith, and call it [faith or collectivism] a revolt against believing [in the old mysticism and bourgeois morality]. If we've read Rand correctly here, she is saying that the materialist mystics (collectivists), were trying to say their new faith was a revolt against the old faith, when they are connected; one and the same. The connection is through money and power.

As revolt against unproved assertions, they proclaim that nothing can be proved; as revolt against supernatural knowledge, they proclaim that no knowledge is possible; as-revolt against the enemies of science, they proclaim that science is superstition; as revolt against the enslavement of the mind, they proclaim that there is no mind.

Maybe, but much of this is actually unnecessary and beside the point. The elites have an agenda, to get everyone as far as possible to accept their authority and to purposely set things up so that the average person has no ability to reject them or their programmes. This as we have seen lies at the heart of the “No child left behind” programme. They will use the same techniques, developed as a war tactic during the 1950's by the way, to make sure that most people toe the line, etc. People do not know any better, because they aren't supposed to know any better.

In earlier epochs, the advantage the elites had over most people (except primitive peoples who couldn't communicate with them very well and had good reasons not to trust them) was that most common people were trained by their religious beliefs to be kind, to care, to want to do no harm, to try and find solutions that would benefit everyone, etc. Not the elites. They have never been kind accept to bind, never cared except for themselves, always sought to harm others, and find solutions that would suit their own selfish desires, no matter what the natural consequences. History is littered with tragedies that resulted from this basic difference in outlooks. I'm far less sanguine about their ability to carry out their plans despite their technical capabilities than they succeeded in doing in for example the 1930's, when most people were kind, caring and reasonable. The reason is that we have been here before and many have awakened to this reality, so it will not “go down” as it did back then.

If you surrender your power to perceive, if you accept the switch of your standard from the objective to the collective and wait for mankind to tell you what to think, you will find another switch taking place before the eyes you have renounced: you will find that your teachers become the rulers of the collective, and if you then refuse to obey them, protesting that they are not the whole of mankind, they will answer: ‘By what means do you know that we are not? Are, brother? Where did you get that old-fashioned term?’

Here for once, Rand is telling the truth. Note also that the old collectivists referred to each other as comrades rather than brothers. Implying that all men are naturally brothers is about the only new wrinkle in their game.

If you doubt that such is their purpose, observe with what passionate consistency the mystics of muscle are striving to make you forget that a concept such as ‘Mind’ has ever existed. Observe the twists of undefined verbiage, the words with rubber meanings, the terms left floating in midstream, by means of which they try to get around the recognition of the concept of ‘thinking.’ Your consciousness, they tell you, consists of ‘reflexes,’ ‘reactions,’ ‘experiences,’ ‘urges,’ and ‘drives’-and refuse to identify the means by which they acquired that knowledge, to identify the act they are performing when they tell it or the act you are performing when you listen. 

Yes, we acknowledge this is all true as well, but these days they aren't even likely to be as kind about it. The thuggish, the unthinking, the poised to action at mere command, the FORCE rather than the rational conviction, is what's really wanted nowadays. Just push people around and they'll be FORCED to go in the direction we desire, no questions asked. That's what they want.

Words have the power to ‘consider’ you, they say and refuse to identify the reason why words have the power to change your-blank-out. A student reading a book understands it through a process of-blank-out. A scientist working on an invention is engaged in the activity of-blank-out. A psychologist helping a neurotic to solve a problem and untangle a conflict, does it by means of-blank-out. An industrialist-blank-out-there is no such person. A factory is a ‘natural resource,’ like a tree, a rock or a mud puddle.

Indeed, as we are all these days “human resources;” just things to be manipulated by the masters.

The problem of production, they tell you, has been solved and deserves no study or concern; the only problem left for your ‘reflexes’ to solve is now the problem of distribution. Who solved the problem of production? Humanity, they answer. What was the solution? The goods are here. How did they get here? Somehow. What caused it? Nothing has causes.

Yes, this also accords with much present policy, particularly of governments and corporations with their bevy of think-tanks, NGO's, foundations, etc. all set up to accomplish for the elites not for you or I, what they want to achieve; their new worldwide concentration camp, designed and manned by the collectivists and other thuggish goons they hire to do their bidding. And who and what stands behind all this? The money power, the banks and financial institutions of course.

They proclaim that every man born is entitled to exist without labour and, the laws of reality to the contrary notwithstanding, is entitled to receive his ‘minimum sustenance’-his food, his clothes, his shelter-with no effort on his part, as his due and his birthright. To receive it-from whom? Blank-out.

No mai'am, and what you say is beside the point, since you leave the key information out of your argument. It is not product received from whom that matters at all. That is what you would like the average person to think, feel or understand, so you can castigate the unfortunates of this world who you'd rather see ... going off somewhere and dying quietly. Besides which, as all the world knows only too dammed well, it is the rich who prefer not to work, not the poor. As I said in another post on this blog, the poor are subsidized to keep quiet; this manipulation by governments and the bigs in society is to buy off a revolution their own greed would have caused, since they have STOLEN much from the poor already and continue to do so. The question Rand omits is, with what kind of money does the poor man pay for his subsistence? That, as far as E. C. Riegel was concerned, was the ONLY pertinent question.

Furthermore, what have you and yours done to prevent the poor man from achieving more in life than he has accomplished? Put another way, what made the poor man poor? Sometimes it is accident, sometimes it is physical, sometimes genetic, often perhaps mental as in the person was not really cut out to be doing a particular kind of work, sometimes he / she is a casualty of the structural unemployment that comes of technical innovation, but on whose terms was that innovation introduced and with what consequences? Did anyone bother to think seriously about any consequences when they decided to let the bigger merchants come in and drive out their natural competitors, the mom and pops? There are thousands of other ready examples. To be continued in the next post.

David Burton

No comments:

Post a Comment