Question for the enlightened

Q: Is Ron Paul John Galt?

I am beginning to believe so. If you know of what I speak, please discuss.

Thank you,

SM-88

Typo

[edit on 4-3-2010 by skoalman88]

reply to post by skoalman88


It is Galt, not Gault - there is no "u". And yes, Ron Paul is about as close as we've seen to John Galt!

reply to post by skoalman88



I'm a big fan and supporter of Dr Ron Paul but who is John Gault? Did a quick google but i didn't see anything that pertained to RP...

care to point me in the right direction?

peace

ok... no u now i see... yeah I guess they do fit pretty well together

If he makes it to 2012 Ron Paul/John Galt whoever he is has my vote

[edit on 4-3-2010 by DisIllusioned PatRiot]

reply to post by DisIllusioned PatRiot


Try spelling it properly - it is "John Galt". In short, he is the often referred to but never investiagted character in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged". In short, he was responsible for convincing people to rebel against the regime by NO longer participating in it.

reply to post by skoalman88


I'm not sure...but I remember during the primaries someone posted a message stating they were John Gault...it was right after the billionaire hoax. If you know what I mean then you know where I come from

To my dear friends, brothers, and sisters in the great fight for human liberty and reason:

I am the man who loves his life. In the name of that love, I come to you today with the first of what will be several messages to be delivered to you over the next many years. I am one of you, and from among you. I will not reveal my identity at the present time, though it will eventually be made known when I choose to make it known, on my terms. For now, you may call me John Galt.

Today, the fourteenth of December, 2008, events have been set into motion that will alter the course of human history. As a result, I give you a promise: you will see freedom—one hundred percent, undiluted, inviolate freedom—within your lifetime. Freedom to speak as you wish, to believe as you wish, to publish as you wish, to travel as you wish, to hold and defend your property as you wish, to live free from fear, death, spying, robbery, and imprisonment. Most importantly, I promise you the unhampered freedom to think, to produce, to be productive, and to keep for yourself all the products of your labor. This last point is the most important of my announcement to you today.

I wish to bring to your attention one of the fatal flaws in our response to tyranny and apathy. That flaw is the fact that it is “a response.” Merely a response, a reaction, a reflex.

In fighting our mutual enemy, it is proper that you and I should know clearly his nature. What better way to know the nature of our enemy—of what he feels, of what he desires, of what end he seeks and what means he will use to achieve that end—than to know and recognize what it is that he fears and resents most?

Let us consider: Why does he initiate aggression, war, and murder, if not because he fears and resents life and the act of living? Why does he inundate your senses with propaganda, demand control over your education and that of your children, and fund institutions of “higher education” that preach irrationality, if not because he fears and resents the mind and the act of thinking? Why does he institute a thick web of controls and regulations on your ingenuity, and why does he tax your labor progressively heavier as you produce more and more, if not because he fears and resents production and the act of producing? Why does he presume to take and redistribute the fruits of your labor, giving most to those who produce least, if not because he fears and resents prosperity and the act of prospering?

And therein is the key to our battle.

Our enemy’s greatest fears are that his subjects will think, produce, prosper, and live, because he knows that as long as his subjects wish to do these things, and do them, his power over you is always in jeopardy.

The man who prospers, does so because he produces. The man who produces, does so because he thinks. The man who thinks, does so because he wishes to live. And the man who wishes to live does not tolerate physical violence against his self and his property. He vigorously resists any attempt by another to rob, enslave, or kill him. Production of goods, the creation of wealth and value from untapped resources, is the greatest threat our enemy faces. The medium we use to exchange that wealth, the lockbox in which we preserve the value of that wealth, is, of course, money. “Making money” is, thus, merely another term for “producing wealth.”

While we must continue to resist our common enemy through political means, if nothing else but to serve as a guide and record of our existence for future generations, we will never achieve total victory over our enemy through the political means of voting, campaigning, writing, calling, or petitioning. Our greatest weapon is to do that which our enemy fears most.

We must no longer think of ourselves merely as defenders against tyranny and apathy, but rather offenders of tyranny and apathy. We are not as numerous as our opponents, but we must no longer be merely “the remnant,” but rather we must become “the elite.” We must no longer be merely the resisters of tyranny, attempting to hold the ground of the little liberty and prosperity we have left—no, we must not be the resisters, but the Conquerors. We must become Atlas.

What must we conquer, you ask? We must conquer every industry, every type of commerce, great and small. We must reach down into our mind—our brilliant, wonderful mind—find our desire to live, and latch on to it. We must draw as much strength as we can from the love we have for our life, and channel that passion into our work, to find exhilaration in the purpose of our action, to be as productive as possible, to out-compete our competitors, to out-compete even our coworkers, to come up with the best ideas and inventions, and to rise as quickly as possible to the very tops of our fields of industry. Gain as much expertise and make as much money as you can. Let making money, getting rich, producing wealth and creating value become the driving force of your every action. Then use the knowledge and wisdom you have acquired to guard that wealth by storing your value in real money—gold and other trustworthy commodities.

By the nature of reality, contradictions cannot exist. There is a reason why those who love liberty, even though we are the smartest, wisest, most capable, and most resourceful our society has to offer, have never been able to rise to the top in politics, and there is a reason why those rare instances in history where lovers of liberty have been able to rise to the top of politics have been so short-lived. If this seems like a paradox to you, then check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Dearest, I am not asking you to forgo all political action, but I am asking you to make your political goals subservient to your industrial goals. The highest mission of “libertarians” must not be to conquer the political structure, now, but to conquer the area of commerce. This is our most important goal.

However, this is only Step One.

The nature of the arrangements that I have made do not require any or all of you to take my advice. The events that have been set into motion today will take place, regardless. But in order for you to benefit when these events come to fruition, the more money you have, and the more soundly your wealth is protected, the more you personally will benefit. Why am I telling you this? Because I am an altruist? Forbid such a notion! I am an egoist. I trade value for value. I do this for my own personal benefit and satisfaction and none other. But you will have more to offer me, and more to offer one another, if you now strive to become the Conquerors of Industry.

You are asking: if this is only Step One, then what is Step Two? All in good time. I will notify you when we are ready to proceed further. Until then, concentrate on serving your own self interests. I vow to you, that as long as I am still alive, I will deliver to you on every fourteenth of December a message.

Do not misunderstand. I am not going to lead you, nor will I attempt to dictate your personal actions. I refuse to be a leader. I am one of you, no more and no less. Each of you must be the leader of your own life and your own destiny. My role in the oncoming mission we are about to undertake is only as a wayfarer. I go ahead of you into the darkness to prepare a way.

If, during the next several years, you hear of strange events in the world that no rationality can seem to explain, know that you have a friend who is clearing a path for you. Remember: by the nature of reality, contradictions cannot exist. A is A. If a major world event seems to suggest to you that A is not A, then check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong.

Dearest, it is time for us to go on the offense, to recognize our superiority, and assume the role of Conquerors. Through your hard work, patient wisdom, and creative ingenuity, make as much money as you possibly can. Remember my promise.


Sincerely Yours,
In the name of the best within us,

John Galt

(All messages from me will be posted at inthenameofthebestwithinyou.blogspot.com...)

[edit on 4-3-2010 by ExPostFacto]

reply to post by kozmo


yeah I've heard of the book before I thought maybe Gault was a real person he was being compared to..

thanks for the info though

peace

Unlike many Conservatives of the traditional American fringe, I don't regard Ayn Rand as an ideal. The reason to this is that her "philosophy" is based upon the negative premise that we should only care about ourselves and never have to lay a hand for someone else. If one could call that a philosophy, I guess it's simply selfishness at heart

Both the Left and Right justify negative individualism with defensive morality. The Left says we need to build a welfare State where everyone can take what they need to become equal to their neighbor--a policy that eventually breeds corruption, low self-confidence and collective greed. The Right says we can't trust any of our neighbors, so every time society needs to emphasize the public good over some individual right, it feels discriminated (never mind that it almost uncritically supports a gigantic military complex). In the end it's all about me, me, me.

Randism is a disease of the Right, because although it correctly assumes individual responsibility and self-fulfillment is crucial to a healthy lifestyle, it condemns the psychology that binds people together under shared values and goals. Evolution has shaped us so that altruism and collectivism are part of human culture. It may not immediately benefit the individual, but in the long-term it secures the interest of a tribe, community, society and even civilization. Human greatness would not be possible without the framework in which we all live.

IMHO.

In a world where people only see their own interests, you quickly recognize that society is shared space and cannot function without proper interaction between people. Put simply, we all need to take responsibility for our own lives, but the society in which we live will collapse unless we share common functions that secure the existence of future generations.
This is why we have traditions and strong culture (and I don't mean pop culture) will always be needed-- and one key reason to why feudal leadership works better long-term than liberal democracy.

Some great responses. Thank you.

1. I spelled "Galt" incorrectly in my initial post.

2. concernedcitizan: I disagree. You say "Randism" rejects "the psychology that binds people together under shared values and goals. Evolution has shaped us so that altruism and collectivism are part of human culture. It may not immediately benefit the individual, but in the long-term it secures the interest of a tribe, community, society and even civilization. Human greatness would not be possible without the framework in which we all live. "

I think, Randism argues that if each acts within his/her own self interest, the tribe/community/society/civilization will be better off. As explained in Shrugged, people were working and producing until the end result was divided based on need. This fractured the tribe/community, caused resentment, and destroyed production.

One can work for one's self-interest while at the same time working for the community (Galt's Gulch?)

John Galt was an atheist. They do share a lot of common principles.

reply to post by skoalman88


Good comeback. Great, now I have to rethink my position on this. I do send my children to Montessori which Miss Rand endorsed. That's what I love about civil discourse. People's ideas can can change.

Originally posted by concernedcitizan
reply to post by skoalman88

 

Good comeback. Great, now I have to rethink my position on this. I do send my children to Montessori which Miss Rand endorsed. That's what I love about civil discourse. People's ideas can can change.

Sarcasm?? : )

reply to post by skoalman88


Not at all. Now I'll have to reread Miss Rand. If I can find the time.

reply to post by concernedcitizan


I'm glad we had an educated and civil discussion on this topic, something this board lacks too often.

I have never read Rand, but for some reason the more I hear of this Galt character, it could be me.

I am not a leader or a follower, I am me.

I have always felt that an individual, that is anyway shape or form hindered in their pursuits by society at large, will rebel against that society.

Now others have said that individualism creates problems for the society because of their selfishness. That is where I disagree. If one is a true individualist they will see that infringing on others will cause detriments to their self.

Of course people will bring to the arguments example such as people in the Rockefeller family or the Morgans. Of course you are going to have megalomaniacs in society. That is a given. But what would you rather have, an enforced equality, or a true one where the individual can reach the heavens if they have the ability. I would say those in our society that have reached the levels like these have, need to be restrained from instituting their control parameters that prevent the rest or us from reaching the same levels.

I think there is no limit to the size of the pie, there is no pie in my view. There is only the world and what I make of it.

Should we pluck the best and brightest in our society and hold them up of examples of good or bad?

I believe it is way past time to read about myself.