Where is John Galt?
They are building a house next door. Everyday, I watch its progress and anticipate its finish, because construction is loud and sometimes seems chaotic. In fact, for most houses, construction is anything but chaotic, and depending on your team, filled with individuals who should take pride in their talents and want to provide the best product possible, given certain constraints, the customer can afford.
Is there a difference between how one goes about building a house and how a house is demolished?
We have been witnessing, over my adult lifetime, the tearing down and dismantling of our society, Constitution, the rule of law, and our children’s’ education. Many of the rights implied and then enumerated by the Constitution have been removed either outright by law or by burdensome regulations. The checks and balances so crucial in preventing tyranny have been eroded over the last seventy years (starting with FDR’s presidency).
The statists have used deception regarding their purpose, ignoring “inconvenient laws,” confusion (distorting definitions of words such as “right,” and double-speak), destruction in scorning the founding principles of this country and passing into law statutes which put in place over-Constitutional organizations and agencies.
Can we re-build our nation using these tactics? After all, they have been very successful tools in the dismantling of our “house.” http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawki...
The reason why we cannot use the same tactics to regain freedom that they used to destroy it, is that construction requires purposeful, logical principled action. Try building a house with a poorly defined definition of length. My foot is not the same length as your foot. Or use faulty tools. However, none of these are necessary in destroying the house. Chaotic swings of a hammer, random blasts, even tiny termites can bring a house down. Thus, we need consistency in our re-build plans. We cannot be for the 2nd Amendment and against the 4th when we think it’s convenient to our safety. We cannot be for The Declaration of Independence and demand a National ID card. Contradictions such as these ensure our ultimate failure and it is why we have lost so much.
Ultimately, it will not be enough to rally forces without shared foundations. “Who Is John Galt?”
When enough individuals are asking that question, and receive the answer, “he stopped the Motor of The World,” we (who have read the book) are all ready to answer why and even how. But, have we thought about where the world will go when the motor has stopped? More importantly, how to keep it from being destroyed again?
“What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?”
You might be surprised to know, Ayn Rand is writing about Conservatives, in the above passage from Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. While those of us who agree our freedoms are being destroyed, can we also agree that Man owns himself?
And, while we’re still working that basic premise out, one can always vote with their feet. It is an eloquent solution: withdrawing financial and moral support. It demonstrates, in a tangible and non-forceful way, the seriousness of the problem. Maybe then you’ll meet John Galt.
Is there a difference between how one goes about building a house and how a house is demolished?
We have been witnessing, over my adult lifetime, the tearing down and dismantling of our society, Constitution, the rule of law, and our children’s’ education. Many of the rights implied and then enumerated by the Constitution have been removed either outright by law or by burdensome regulations. The checks and balances so crucial in preventing tyranny have been eroded over the last seventy years (starting with FDR’s presidency).
The statists have used deception regarding their purpose, ignoring “inconvenient laws,” confusion (distorting definitions of words such as “right,” and double-speak), destruction in scorning the founding principles of this country and passing into law statutes which put in place over-Constitutional organizations and agencies.
Can we re-build our nation using these tactics? After all, they have been very successful tools in the dismantling of our “house.” http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawki...
The reason why we cannot use the same tactics to regain freedom that they used to destroy it, is that construction requires purposeful, logical principled action. Try building a house with a poorly defined definition of length. My foot is not the same length as your foot. Or use faulty tools. However, none of these are necessary in destroying the house. Chaotic swings of a hammer, random blasts, even tiny termites can bring a house down. Thus, we need consistency in our re-build plans. We cannot be for the 2nd Amendment and against the 4th when we think it’s convenient to our safety. We cannot be for The Declaration of Independence and demand a National ID card. Contradictions such as these ensure our ultimate failure and it is why we have lost so much.
Ultimately, it will not be enough to rally forces without shared foundations. “Who Is John Galt?”
When enough individuals are asking that question, and receive the answer, “he stopped the Motor of The World,” we (who have read the book) are all ready to answer why and even how. But, have we thought about where the world will go when the motor has stopped? More importantly, how to keep it from being destroyed again?
“What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?”
You might be surprised to know, Ayn Rand is writing about Conservatives, in the above passage from Capitalism The Unknown Ideal. While those of us who agree our freedoms are being destroyed, can we also agree that Man owns himself?
And, while we’re still working that basic premise out, one can always vote with their feet. It is an eloquent solution: withdrawing financial and moral support. It demonstrates, in a tangible and non-forceful way, the seriousness of the problem. Maybe then you’ll meet John Galt.
On the other hand, Breaking Bad is a sobering example of moral and legal subjectivity. Each character symbolizes a significant aspect of a situation with 50 million shades of grey. The show's content has depth so deep that there's arguably no bottom line at all. Walt's actions and the reactions of everyone around him embodies a profound philosophical argument that challenges social norms, and further challenges the very conception of "morality".
Hahahaha!
Destruction takes just moments, by comparison.
Our task will take so much longer than the time needed to destroy our rights, that many will not rise to the task...or endure the lengthy mission.
Great post, KH. And glad to discover that no one is actually building next to your private Ponderosa!
For example, when the tea party protested the IRS, how come there were not 10s of thousands like there were for MLK last week? Are we too busy producing for the looters that we ignore basic opportunities to be heard? Tens of thousands. Tens of thousands
She raised awareness, but for events that were already documented in history, and irreversible.
I, however, don't wish to go without seeing results proceed me.
I vote for 'proactive'...instead of 'reactive'.
When will the burden become so great that even Orwell's Boxer will falter? I do not know, but too many are now near that point for it to go on as it is for long.
Rioting, and racial murder, will give Obama the excuse that he needs to invoke martial law. That will be the catalyst for a political civil war.
But I do want to bring up a key point, and perhaps this will lead to an ultimate solution. I have always been a great admirer of fundamentals and root causes, which is one of the reasons why I admired Miss Rand's work in the first place. But I kept finding myself taking it one step further in my search for root causes of what is happening in order to discover a true and complete handling that will last.
For example, why would Eddie Willers not see what is obvious to all those he believes in and admires, yet he himself cannot see it. Or why does Peter Keating (who is not as totally lost as those other architects, since he still maintains some shred of a sense of ethics), become Peter Keating in the first place. What flaw in his mind and spirit lead to his just not seeing that his course of action will destroy him?
In reading Miss Rand's work many years ago, my understanding of her viewpoint on this is the values of such people reflect their education and whether or not they have been exposed to and have accepted the correct basic philosophic data that reflects who we really are and what we need to survive, e.g. reason, integrity, freedom, i.e. what is laid out in Objectivism.
However, I found myself frustrated in that close family members and friends who did have this information and had a chance to "see the light" just did not. And it has ruined their lives.
To me it seemed there was a deeper "root cause" which would result in some people "just not getting it" no matter how much they were or are exposed to accurate knowledge like Objectivism, still make the wrong choice. It is like they have a phyisical, mental, or spritial "flaw" of some kind that simply will not let them choose the right path even when it practically handed to them on a silver platter.
So looked further to see if I was the only one who thought this way. And then I ran into the research work of this American fellow, L. Ron Hubbard, who was literally a self-made scientist who chose to figure out the human mind and the nature of life itself. He spent his entire life in research (at his own expense) and actually got RESULTS. He found some very fundamental root causes, both in the human mind and in our spiritual make up. He then proceeded to come up with workable procedures to address these root causes, and after 60 years being used in the field, they are working well and still going strong.
I know some Objectivists have some very negative opinions about this fellow, but it is my strong opinion that this is because they know nothing of his work, and make their decisions based only upon what they hear from others or read/see in the media. Not an accurate way to make any decision, including about Miss Rand.
I have met and worked with many people who use his work, and these people are making very STEADY headway in building a saner world.
Sane, intelligent people make pro-survival decisions, provided they have accurate data (such as Miss Rand's work), and this is where you will find your John Galts of today.
I think both sides would greatly benefit from working with each other to halt the destruction of our world, while concurrently rebuilding it. Most people who support Mr. Hubbard's work that I have met tend to lean conservative anyway, so this is a group who could be a strong ally to Objectivists.
I see them rebuilding already, but WITHOUT first having to crash the world. Yes, it makes a point, but insane people don't see points made anyway, so why crash the world to make that point. Just bypass it all, and begin rebuilding the world anyway, while concurrently FULLY addressing those root causes that Hubbard found with many people's minds and basic spiritual makeup. Then you get more sane people. More allies. The world gets saner and rebuilt faster and more stably.
Just a thought.
I have read alot of Hubbard. Just not the Scientology stuff. Ultimately, I don't mix religion with my core values. and I have heard enough about Scientology practice to seriously question that it has roots in individualism. I own myself.
This is at the heart of both Willers and Keating not completely opening their eyes to the truth. If they truly understood what owning oneself means, they would have been compelled to face the Truth and integrate it into their lives. People spend lots of time ignoring and shielding themselves from Reality. In fact, societies(at all levels) are great at developing elaborate mechanisms and social customs to do just that.
How do I know what I know?
Have a good day
My interest has always been the basic root cause of why some people embrace the search for real truth, and some just don't get it at all. Yes it is confront somewhat and basic makeup. But there always seemed to be something else. Hubbard's Dianetics research seemed to answer that, and I have seen with my own eyes over a 35 year period that the procedures he developed do in fact work, and create saner individuals who can actually think.
But even Hubbard recognized that creating a sane individual is not enough. You also have to EDUCATE (and/or re-educate) the person, or the person becomes a "sane savage" with lots of ability but no knowledge.
When Hubbard wrote his first book on Dianetics in 1950, it was written for what they called the layman back than, the person with an average High School education, but not necessarily college. My dad had a fairly good education in the NY City high schools, but little college, and he had excellent reasoning abilities, and so became a highly respected Quality Control offiver in the aviation industry where men and women trusted their lives to his work.
But move to the late 1960s and it became evident by then that even college graduates could barely read Hubbard's 1950 "layman" book. He then sidetrack his main research on the mind and such, and launched on a separate research project on Study and Education. Here again, he made tremendous headway, and today it is the most cutting-edge, effective learning metholody in the world, proven by RESULTS, not anyone's opinion.
Applied Scholastics International promotes this study tech, and in Sheridan, Oregon there is a grammar and high school called Delphian, whose graduates are incredibly well educated, and this is NOT just a "school for geniuses". Hubbard called for others to follow his work and resurrect the sane education curriculums that the USA schools used to have, and these people jumped in and did it. I suggest you check it out -- Delphian School.
This addresses DriveTrain's comment at the end of his post where he says no one but Objectivists are addressing the degradation of our education. Someone IS addressing it, and is HANDLING it, step by step, steadily making progress.
It is my strong opinion that we as Objectivists begin to understand that we are NOT alone in our quest, and that there are other sane, well educated, and like minded individuals out there who we can work with to overcome all the insanity that has become the mainstay of our daily lives.
I have seen these people work, and I am impressed. I have used the Study Tech, and I saved an entire business with it. This is how we can reconstruct our country and our world without having to first "crash" it.
Please give a new look with fresh eyes.
This sentence alone gives an individualist pause and fits with a cult-like schematic.
I consider myself very much an individual, and believe me when I say that when I first looked at this man's work, I was very much on my guard for (a) mysticism (especially in relation to Hubbard's Scientology work), and (b) cultist, "just do what we proscribe and not think for yourself" attitudes. I found no mysticism in (a), in fact his work was based solidly in sound principles of Science. Regarding (b), I found that some people who follow Hubbard do this "whatever Ron says is always right and I don't have to think about it", but that was only a minority who would probably act the same way while following Miss Rand. (I met people like that when I took Dr. Piekoff's lectures in the mid 1970s.) Hubbard even wrote an article about not wanting to create mindless robots with his work, as he saw that wide-eyed empty headed thing going on. And I remember Miss Rand stating the same thing. (She chewed out a student who as part of a question said that we can all assume that Kant's work is nonsense. Miss Rand told the student that she could not state such a thing unless she herself had read all of Kant's work and had personally evaluated it herself. Miss Rand was quite upset that this student would just blindly take Miss Rand's word for anything. I found Mr. Hubbard to be of the same viewpoint -- think for yourself he would say, over and over in many of his articles.
So my point was that education should take place, but I did not in any way mean mindless, cult-driven programming or whatever people call this type of suppressive activity.
Do I make more sense now?
You have asked a lot of questions, so I may have a lot to say in order to address them.
First off, I do NOT deny that there have been quite a number of unethical persons who at one time or another operated within one of the organizations that promote and deliver the Hubbard technology. But after 40 years as a working professional, I have seen the same thing in just about EVERY organization I have ever worked at.
The key factor is what does a particular organization DO when such persons are found to be operating within their ranks.
As a Scientologist myself, I am extremely concerned when such stories come out.
But what I have found is that such unethical persons are eventually caught and expelled from the organization. Otherwise I would have quit my association with these organizations years ago. Destructive members such as David Mayo and Alex Sibersky were examples, and they were tossed out.
Recognizing just how bad the situation was becoming, Hubbard just before he passed on, formed a small group that would protect his work. Before he formed that group, there were constant attempts by others (moochers) who tried to make money off Hubbard's work by copying and editing the therapy processes to avoid copyright infringements.
There were also many -- the Elsworth Tooey and Mr. Thompson types -- who dedicate their lives to stopping any knowledge or technology that helps people become more able and successful, since such people cannot stand success and ability. Those types of people just tried anything and everything they could to smash Hubbard and his work.
I was there before this smaller group was formed by Mr. Hubbard, and I have noticed a major difference since. Now Mr. Hubbard's work is protected and one can be certain that what you are provided by the various organizations represents the "standard" technology that Hubbard originally wrote and released to the world.
Even Miss Rand was plagued by people like this -- Nathanial Brandon being one. But like Mr. Hubbard and those he trusted, Miss Rand handled the situation by cutting off Brandon from her work and from herself.
Like it or not, in a world gone insane as our world has, we find ourselves constantly surrounded by evil. So infiltration into any large, worthwhile group is inevitable. To me, HOW THE GROUP HANDLES IT is the ultimate test.
I have met some of the people who have spent their time telling everyone what "Scientology did to me". Most, if not all of them had a lot more deeds of their own to answer for than anyone in a Scientology organization did in terms of that person. One particular person had been close to me, and went on to tell as many people as who would listen how she had been "done wrong". What she did not tell anyone (except myself and a few others who were there when she originally left the group), was that she had been embezzling money from the organization for years while holding a staff position. To this day, she never talks about THAT, only what "they did to me".
Are there some true errors and unethical practices that have been done by Scientologists and staff members of the various organizations that promote Hubbard's work? Of course. (Have you ever anywhere found a large organzation that does not have such people causing trouble?) But the difference I see is that the once such people are exposed, they are swiftly de-powered and put on an ethics program, and if necessary expelled from the organization entirely.
But the most important point I want to make to address your questions is:
WHO or WHAT should be the "SOURCE" of information when evaluating someone's work?
When Dagney wanted to evaluate Reardon metal, she consulted Reardon himself, his technical papers, and also looked at the actual product. At NO time was Dagney interested in what was being reported about Hank Reardon in the media.
When Roger Enright went looking for an architect, he didn't consult the media or books about architecture to find an architect. He looked at the WORK if various architects, and when he liked something he followed up and checked the tech specs and drawings of it to see that the building in question was sound, the plans were logical, etc. He was not concerned about stories in the media.
I mean really... if Hank Reardon, Francisco D'Anconia, John Galt, Dagney Taggart, and even Howard Roark were real people in today's world, how would THEY be represented in today's media?
Yes, is some of what's in the media true? I would suspect yes. But it has become so exagerated and "spun" that one does not really know what is fact and what is just made up and/or embellished beyond reason.
To evaluate Hubbard's work you have to LOOK DIRECTLY at Hubbard's work.
Miss Rand would be the first to tell you this. I saw her chew out a student who assumed that Kant's work was crap based upon Miss Rand's writing. Miss Rand said yes, SHE herself knows this because she did the due diligence and read everything Kant ever wrote and evaluated it for herself. But the student had not, but instead just "took Miss Rand's word for it".
I am willing to bet money that you have never read anything that Mr. Hubbard wrote. As such, I would stongly suggest that you obtain a copy of "Dianetics the Modern Science of Mental Health" and read it cover to cover.
Then we have a basis to intelligently talk. Until then, it is all about media stories and various people's opinions.
I challenge you to do this.
As for the question of "Where can the world go when the motor of the world has stopped," there's the rub. America is the last bastion of Western Civilization in a world desperately in need of Western Civilization, and America is, as Dr. Peikoff predicted in his "Ominous Parallels" of 1982, "arguably beyond the point of no return." If America goes down, assuming it happens before there are multitudes of human colonies off of Earth, there is no "free country" to escape to.
Peikoff made that statement in context of what's being taught in American schools, and what was being taught in American schools in the early '80s, bad as it was, is vastly better than today's fare: the racist "history" of Howard Zinn, the faith-based "science" of Albert Gore, and the all-out nihilistic deconstruction of knowledge per se that is Obama's "Communist Core" or whatever they're calling it.
When I read Jennifer Franssen's article "School is no Place for Readers" on a tip from Mr. Bidinotto [ http://notesandqueries.ca/school-is-no-p... ] it made me at once shocked (though not particularly surprised,) at the degradation of reading itself within the school system, and thankful that I attended an elementary school at which teachers not only encouraged reading beyond one's "grade level" but rewarded it. Granted, she's talking about Canadian schools, but if there's a corruption of education there, it can't be long before America's intellectual child molesters adopt it as well - and if one of the vital "three Rs" trio is destroyed, can the other two be far behind?
All of the philosophical dry-rot we're seeing unfold before us today is the consequence of the Republican "leadership," decades ago, having consigned to radical 60s-era hippies the education of our kids. Our enemies aren't the Obamas or the Pelosis or the Boehners, they're the people who voted for them and who support their policies. The reason the collectivist / RINOist agendas these types spout appeal to people is because those agendas correspond so closely to the data that are the substance of those people's indoctrination.
And here's the tie-in: If you have a generation that has essentially been trained to be ignorant rather than trained how to think, the facile and the emotional (emotion being passive and effortless) will hold far more appeal than the complex and the rational. It is easier to destroy than to build; principles require logical connections and rational judgment; the collectivists have been playing their ideology off of feel-good emotionalism for ages, and there's a reason for it. Our defense or "saving grace," again as identified in Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels," has been the gulf between the people on the one hand and the intellectuals of academia and politics on the other.
Well guess what happens when the education of the people has been allowed to become so corrupt that that gulf no longer exists?
Again it's hard to remain optimistic about the chances of mopping up this disaster, but the number one priority has to be the reclamation of our schools from the collectivist indoctrinators. We should be demanding a complete separation of education and state - an aggressive shift to private schools of every kind: homeschooling, small parent-run neighborhood schools for people with neither the time nor expertise to homeschool on their own, a deregulation of all things education to spur a plethora of for-profit school companies (yes, "McSchool,") and even religious parochial schools that are independent of government.
So long as we allow collectivist/ counterculturalist / haters of Western Civilization to program the minds of tomorrow's mainstream via the education "system," we're only marking time before the destruction of civilization and the commencement of a new Dark Ages.
That leaves wide open the big, fat question of "how do we accomplish all of this," but so far nobody other than objectivists have even mentioned the problem of education's corruption.
"The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws."
I'm attempting to "suck it up and get involved". I'm embarrassingly ignorant about the sociopolitical forces at play today... I hardly know left from right, and I don't particularly want to, but if I must know the right labels to throw at people to engage in the dialog, then so be it.
I can't very well just give you the thumbs up and call that involvement. It seems to me that you are suggesting that there is an alternative to "voting with our feet", as well as encouraging a discussion about what a properly functioning, rebuilt government would be and how to make it sustainable.
Again, I'm interested in hearing your own answers to your questions. Thanks!
first rule in determining those who get it and those who don't is that word right there.
"I can't very well just give you the thumbs up and call that involvement."
why not? lol
It's about paying attention and seeing what is going on right in front of your face. Until you recognize that our nation built on capitalism, freedom, an limited government has been hijacked, over-ruled, and that we are no longer a representative republic so much as a democracy. Above you talked about labels, but it's labels I want to get rid of. Labels pit groups against groups. It's much harder to keep individuals asleep at the wheel. but if we identify with groups who feel their "interests" are being protected, we are so much easier to control and bribe. After all, it's pretty hard to get say 120M people to all want me for President if they don't belong to a group that wants their rightfuls.
You clearly don't care for politics, but you had to do your due diligence in order to vote, right?
(My apologies for the re-quote)
"The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws."
All the political whining, bickering, and lobbying about anything beyond the scope of that definition is senseless noise.
actually, even if your 401K, for instance, has been increasing in the recent upswing of the market, it might be either a)all gone in an instant if we crash b) remain a certain amount but it's buying power greatly diminished due to all the spitting out of paper money going on. either way, you are affected and are refusing to notice, unless you are well hedged and locked and prepared. If you were prepared you would have already felt (ohh whoa whoa ) it. I'm happy to stick with the philosophy side of things, and ignore the political, but I will not ignore the dire straits we find ourselves in with no clear rule of law.
I'm getting involved now!
Congratulate me, don't criticize me! Welcome me to the fold, don't tell me it's my fault and I'm to-o late!
Yes, I do think Hank and Dagny were aware of political news (all day every day?).
I never said anything was your fault or that you were tooooo late. Don't put words in my mouth.
Welcome to the gulch...(stop being so sensitive). :) I made a point...admit it.
Those guys/gals with blindingly white teeth that get up and say watch out for these "___ists" and those "___ists" and definitely those rich business tyrants who'd take you for all you're worth-- you deserve better, claim your due! Then a bunch of people nod their heads and say "Amen" or "right on" or "you got that right". Then they all go out and vote for the guy that's least like the described.
Even if I'm wrong, that's basically what I meant by politics. I'm tired of conceding on everything today. No more apologies for my ignorance until I've had a few beers or until tomorrow.
You're waking up now...stop beating yourself up. Stop apologizing :)
Hell...the Amish figured this out quite a while ago!
The first step is to determine what it might take to "take your show on the road," so to speak.
Subscribe to International Living or other like newsletters. That's a start. Really look at what it might mean to your family to live in a state with no income tax. Or outside the country and still remain a citizen.
In at least modern History, when the best and brightest leave their country, it is the biggest and best impetus for countries to increase the level of freedom for its citizens.
State issued picture voter ID... ok with me. National no way...
How about state licensing for professions?
As far as state business licensing goes I believe Stossel has it right here: http://www.lp.org/blogs/mark-hinkle/the-...
I suggest starting with humbling ourselves before the God of the Bible and going from there.
All in all, even if you do not do this, He will win regardless because (and let's say it together) He is God.