source : bartleby.com
A(n) ______ is a field or set of fields that uniquely identifies a database record. a. attribute b. data item c. key d. primary key
Describe how a Wi-Fi network works.
Principles of Information Systems (MindTap Course List)
What are scripts, and what is their function? (Think in terms of database application development.)
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, & Management
What is the make-versus-buy decision? Briefly explain how this decision is made.
Fundamentals of Information Systems
Computer hardware must be carefully selected to meet the evolving needs of the organization, its workers, and i…
Fundamentals of Information Systems
What is the difference between an assets ability to generate revenue and its ability to generate profit?
Management Of Information Security
Explain the difference between Gane and Sarson and Yourdon symbols. Provide examples of symbols that represent …
Systems Analysis and Design (Shelly Cashman Series) (MindTap Course List)
Oracle SQL includes several date and time functions. Two of these functions are CURRENT_DATE and MONTHS_BETWE E…
A Guide to SQL
Why are testing and evaluation of the database and applications not done by the same people who are responsible…
Database Systems: Design, Implementation, & Management
What are the primary examples of public law?
Principles of Information Security (MindTap Course List)
2. What does a share of stock represent?
Cornerstones of Financial Accounting
Fire alarm cable generally used in more complex residential fire alarm and security systems is marked (FPL) (lo…
EBK ELECTRICAL WIRING RESIDENTIAL
Sawing machines can be divided into roughly four categories. They are _________________, ______________, ______…
Precision Machining Technology (MindTap Course List)
Describe what is meant by as-received, moisture-free, and moisture- and ash-free heat value.How are these calcu…
Solid Waste Engineering
Repeat Problem 2.11 with the following data. 2.11 The grain-size characteristics of a soil are given in the fol…
Principles of Geotechnical Engineering (MindTap Course List)
Following are the results of a sieve analysis: a. Determine the percent finer than each sieve size and plot a g…
Fundamentals of Geotechnical Engineering (MindTap Course List)
An object has a mass of 50 kg. A. Find the change in potential energy when it is initially 10 meters above the …
Fundamentals of Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics (MindTap Course List)
If you are planning to study civil engineering, investigate what is meant by dead load, live load, impact load,…
Engineering Fundamentals: An Introduction to Engineering (MindTap Course List)
Technician A says that the waveform produced by an AC generator after rectification is called a sine wave. Tech…
Automotive Technology: A Systems Approach (MindTap Course List)
Explain why reducing current flow to the shunt field causes the motor speed to increase.
Electric Motor Control
The homogeneous 360-lb plate with a rectangular cutout is suspended from three wires. Draw the FBD of the plate…
International Edition—engineering Mechanics: Statics, 4th Edition
The single-story unbraced frame shown in Figure P6.8-9 is subjected to dead load, roof live load, and wind. The…
Steel Design (Activate Learning with these NEW titles from Engineering!)
Other than selling more cars, what potential benefits do connected-car technologies offer auto makers such as B…
Principles of Information Systems (MindTap Course List)
2.4-11 Three steel cables jointly support a load of 12 kips (see figure). The diameter of the middle cable is 3…
Mechanics of Materials (MindTap Course List)
Unencrypted data is called ___; encrypted data is called ___.
Enhanced Discovering Computers 2017 (Shelly Cashman Series) (MindTap Course List)
While discussing the causes of a rich air-fuel ratio: Technician A says that a rich air-fuel ratio may be cause…
The floor system of a gymnasium consists of a 130 mm thick concrete slab resting on four steel beams (A = 9,100…
Which of the following is not a good reason to segment a network? a. To limit access to broadcast domains b. To…
Network+ Guide to Networks (MindTap Course List)
If your motherboard supports ECC DDR3 memory, can you substitute non-ECC DDR3 memory?
A+ Guide to Hardware (Standalone Book) (MindTap Course List)
How far away should highly combustible materials be from any welding or cutting?
Welding: Principles and Applications (MindTap Course List)
Access 2013: Introduction to Objects | Fields and field names – Fields and field names. Likewise, a record is more than just a row; it's a unit of information. Notice how each record spans several fields. Even though the information in each record is organized into Database designers can even set restrictions on individual form components to ensure all of the…The system defines key fields to identify records. This key is known as technical key and consists While creating a DSO, the user has to decide which fields can uniquely identify a record in the So 1st row gets overwritten(or summation depending on what is the setting in Transformation rule for C…It's not enough to use OrderID to identify records in an Orders table, because when you add another orders table from another source system (e.g., a The Data Vault approach seems to be an outgrowth of Master Data Management practices, so if this is a solved problem in MDM, that solution probably…
Data fileds and key fields in DSO – SAP Q&A – What is the solution for problems in computer field? Which of the following is a correct location of function library.A primary key is a field or set of fields that uniquely identifies a record. TRUE. ER diagrams can serve as reference documents once a database is in use. In a relational database, the customer record contains information regarding the customer's last name.Copying fields to a database record does set the IsChanged flag to True. The GetField method instantiates a field object for the specified field associated with the record. Specifying n creates a field object for the nth field in the record. This might be used if writing code that needs to examine all…
database design – Is the source system typically one of the fields used… – A primary key is a field or group of fields that uniquely identify a record in a table. Primary key fields cannot be NULL and cannot contain duplicate You can specify the extent sizes and the table space (physical storage area in the database) in which a transparent table is to be stored by setting…A field whose values can be used to uniquely identify a database record. A set of rules that ensures the validity, consistency, and accuracy of the data in a database. primary key. One or more fields that uniquely identify each record in a table.The Key Used To Uniquely Identify A Record In A Table. A Key That Uniquely Identifies Columns In A Table. A Nonunique Value.
Adapting the ITIL Process Map to your Organization – Examples – The ITIL® Process Map
with its process diagrams is a great tool, if you want to understand
how ITIL works, but of course what you get with our product
is not static content.
In fact we provide a set of process templates
in a number of popular formats, such as Visio® and ARIS™ that you can adapt
to the needs of your organization – which is perfectly allowed because ITIL after all is
not a standard but a set of recommendations, and nobody expects you to implement
the official ITIL processes to the letter. So today I’m going to show you
a few examples of how you can go about changing and
editing the ITIL process diagrams in Visio. My first message here is that you can do to these diagrams
whatever is possible in Visio. There are no locks whatsoever
in these diagrams, you can add any type of shape
that is available. But we provide a number of features
that will help you with keeping a consisting look and feel
of the diagrams. First, there is a collection
of "Master shapes" – you can see them
down here in my document stencil. These are the shapes we used ourselves
when creating the original diagrams – but now you can also use them
if you need to add, say, an additional activity. In that case you can drag
an activity shape from the document stencil
onto the diagram, … then adjust the sequence flow a bit … and we also need
an additional sequence flow here … and then you can enter some description
into the new task shape. You can of course also change the text
in existing tasks or notes below the tasks, or indeed
delete what you don’t need. They are no limits whatsoever. The nice thing
about using master shapes is that they maintain a link between the shapes
created based on the master shape and the master shape itself. That’s a big advantage if, for example, you want to change
the looks of particular shapes, and I’ll show you
quickly how this works. We open the master shape
with a double-click and, for demonstration purposes, let’s now change
the background color of this shape to something
that makes a difference. Then we close the master,
and as you can see this changes the background color
of all the task shapes. So with the master shapes you can change
the format of a number of shapes in one single place; there is no need to adapt
every shape individually. This was simple enough
because the shapes down here typically occur only once
in the whole process model and that’s why it’s no problem to edit the descriptions directly
within the shapes. Things are a bit different
up here where we have
processes and data objects: As you may have seen
in my earlier videos, a process shape has a link
to a process diagram, and it also has some descriptive information
in the shape data fields, such as
• The process name, • A brief description of the process, • A reference number, • The superior process, • A unique identifier, • And a status value. Status values can be handy
if you introduce ITIL step by step: If, say, a process is not yet active
but in the planning stage, you can enter "In planning" here and as you can see
this makes the shape turn grey. So, by entering anything different
than "Active" in the status field you can grey out a process – and if you change this
to "Active" again, the shape will turn green again. Now, as you can imagine,
a process like this one is used in many diagrams. And whenever it’s used,
it needs to have the correct link and the correct
descriptive information. Obviously, adding hyperlinks
and descriptions manually every time we use the process
would be a lot of work, so a lot speaks for having
a central repository somewhere, where we manage the processes
with all their attributes. Such a repository comes
with the ITIL® Process Map – and also kind of a Visio macro that we can use for picking objects
from the repository and inserting them
into the Visio diagrams. If you install the add-in,
you will get a couple of new commands up here in the add-ins tab. And now, with the repository and the add-in,
you can do the following: You can create a fresh
process shape like this. This is still a blank process shape,
there’s no link yet, therefore we cannot see
a "plus" sign. And it has no useful information
in the shape data fields. And now we click on the "Select" command
up here in the Add-Ins tab to get a list of of all the processes
from the repository. We can enter a search pattern
to narrow down the list a bit, and then select a process
from the list. This will set • The process name, • The link
to the process diagram • And also the descriptive information
in the shape data fields. How do we do this? Probably you guess already that we pick the processes
from some kind of small database. In fact our object repository
is not a database but an Excel file with a couple
of simple tables. Here, for example,
we have the "Process" table. In this table every process is defined
in one row, and every row starts
with a unique ID. Then we have a couple of cells
with the process properties, such as • The reference number, • The process name, • Its description, • The next higher level process, • And the status value. Obviously these properties
are the same ones that we’ve seen before in Visio
in the shape data fields. And here in the last three cells
we also define the link for the process, pointing to the correct process diagram. Down here at the bottom you can see
that we have several tables in this Excel workbook, one for processes, and other ones for the data objects and the roles used
in the ITIL® Process Map. So we can use the same mechanism to easily insert data objects
into the Visio diagrams: First we create a new data object shape and then click on "Select" to bring up
a list of the data objects defined in the repository. Again, we can select one from the list
and that will set • The name of the object, • The link to the checklist • And the descriptive information. Now we also add an association – like this –
… and another one …. and in fact we have now defined
a new output from this process. To change the responsibilities in the process,
we can, for instance, create some space at the bottom of the page, insert an additional swim lane
on top of the existing one, add a new role shape
to the swim lane, pick a role from the repository
as needed, and then drag an activity or two
into the new swim lane. And we also need to adjust
the sequence flows a bit so the diagram looks perfect again. Now before we finish, I’d also like
to point out that you can, of course, change the repository,
just as you can change the Visio diagrams. For example, you can go down
to the end of the process table and insert an additional row,
which amounts to adding a new process
to the repository. You would start by entering
a new unique ID, then you put in
the reference number, a process name
and a description. We don’t have to fill in every field but in the status field we say
that the process is in planning. And if we don’t have a diagram yet
for the new process we leave the link fields empty. Now we save the repository and close it,
and go back to Visio. And here, back in Visio,
instead of creating a new process shape we select an existing one, bring up the list of processes and search for the new process. … Here it is …
and by clicking on OK we switch this process over to the new one
we’ve just created in the repository. As you can see the process shape
is shown in grey because we set the status
to "In planning" and also there is no "plus" sign
in the process shape because we didn’t
enter any link information. So, we have a simple mechanism here
for managing objects in a repository and inserting those objects easily
into the Visio diagrams. Of course we also need
a way of updating the shapes if changes were made to the repository. To show you
how this can be done, we first do some small change
in the repository, such as giving a few sub-processes
of incident management a new status of "In planning". Once the repository is saved, you can select
a couple of shapes in the diagram and then use the "Refresh" command. This will update the selected shapes
with current information from the repository, and the incident management processes
are now shown in grey, because of the new "In planning" status,
as expected. There is a second option
to update the diagrams if there were many changes
in the repository. If you can click on
"Refresh file" this will update all the shapes
in the currently open Visio file in one go. With these examples
I wanted to demonstrate that the ITIL® Process Map
is completely flexible when it comes to adapting it
to the needs of your organization. This applies to the Visio® version
of our ITIL model but also to all other platforms such as iGrafx® and ARIS™. I’m afraid we cannot cover
all the details here because that would take to long but then our process model
contains a user manual with further information. And you can also get in touch
with us if you need any help. [ On our web site: ] [ More videos and all you need to know
about the ITIL® Process Map. ] [ Get in touch with us
if you have any questions! ] [ Our free ITIL® Wiki provides a wealth
of information on ITIL. ] .
Auburn Coach Wife Kristi Malzahn Agrees with Match & eHarmony: Men are Jerks – >>presenter: This talk is part of the [email protected]
of the [email protected] series.
We'll have a lot of time at the end for questions and there's
a mic here. So, I'm very pleased to welcome today, Sam Botta, who is a contributing correspondent for Science Magazine. His work has appeared
in the New York Times, the Atlantic, the Esquire. His work has also been included in The Best
of The Best American Science Writing and also has received three Science in the Society
Journalism awards from the National Association of Science Writers. He's the author, also, of 'Good Calories,
Bad Calories' that I'm sure many of you know about. And currently, he is the Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation investigator in health policy research at the University of Berkeley. So, with this, we'll have Gary Taubes talk
about his latest book. [applause] >>Gary Taubes: Thank you very much. This book
is basically — 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' took me about five years to write and was
500 pages long. This is the screen I used to use for this
talk and I had written that book hoping to get both the lay readers and to the public
health authorities around the country and the medical research community. 'Cause the
goal of these books are to convince people that–I mean, it's almost a clich√©–but that
our fundamental understanding of why we get fat, of obesity, is completely incorrect and
that a new paradigm is in order. And that Google should change the foods that
they're serving at their wonderful, healthy, low-fat cafes. So, after 'Good Calories, Bad
Calories' came out, I wrote 'Why We Get Fat', in effect, to make it the kind of airplane-reading
version of 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' for people who don't have the time.
Sarah Jessica Parker, on being upset with your husband 20 minutes per day: "I think that's healthy, I think it's realistic, some people have it down to 20 minutes a week, some unfortunate people have it down to about 20 minutes per hour, um huh, but, in my life I've found that, you know, we-we go many days without a 20 minute period of resentment and bitterness." As stated on "On Air with Ryan Seacrest" ——— sounds sooooo positive, get me to the altar ASAP I can't wait to marry someone that's upset with me 20 minutes per day! Sam Botta Thanks Ryan, RSP Team, great stuff! After the words quoted above, the subject was quickly changed to the enjoyment of trying different food and travel because of work (which is fun), and a life of being always thankful. Like Sam Botta Hollywood Chick-fil-A line yesterday to be the first 100 to get free Chick-fil-A for a year. Ryan Seacrest buying 250 people Chick-fil-A breakfast right now at new Hollywood Chick-fil-A (chikin mini's). Ryan from Atlanta… Understands the ones camping out, in photo here from yesterday afternoon waiting to be one of the first 100 customers. And yes, works if losing body fat since the fried version is fried in peanut oil instead of hydrogenated vegetable oil. livefearless's photo instagr.am livefearless's photo on Instagram Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Thursday at 7:23am via Instagram Sam Botta TAMING MY EYEBROWS via Groupon! What else in the past week… I've gotten my car detailed, eaten at fine restaurants I wouldn't have without the half price deals. Crazy good! Try it once! Daily Groupon | Coupons, Discounts, and Deals www.groupon.com Check out Groupon's daily deal – huge discounts on the coolest stuff in your city. Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Share sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Wednesday at 7:59am Jeana Farrell LOL….Bargain Buster…haha..I use them myself too, my best deal was Evening meal for 2 people, with mains and starter, and a large glass of wine for the bargain price of 15 for 2 people..It was fantastic too…..:-)))Wednesday at 1:02pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like LiveFearless with sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA with Cheryl Johnson, Chris Shining Executive Producer, Movies, IMDB.com Sam Botta Hollywood Walk of Fame Dolores Hope Bob Hope Married 70 Years… Finding True Love? Finding TRUE Love? No, my Grandparents chose to love each other when they met as teenagers, and they chose to love each other every part of every day, through the Great Depression, absence during war, child rearing, work, illnesses… Life. Finding TRUE love? They met… That was it. Again, the true love part was a daily choice whether either was as ________ as the day they met. So true love depends on each person, not just the one you find or the one that finds you. In other words, Love is a Choice since we are not all 110% lovable 24 hours a day. True love is when each person sees that real life is not like the script in a movie and accepts this fact which brings creative challenges that, with the choice to love, can increase attraction. Popular novels, songs, shows, movies… These scripts are, no doubt, inspired, and such talented people that write and act and the heroes that make the list of credits at the end of a movie (watch the movie credits and realize how MANY talented people it takes to create the movie moments which define your vision of romance and true love). Many that create these films, the music, the stuff we see and hear that touches our deepest self, they are friends I admire. The credits are long, as stories for the screen are edited for perfection, some with music and film filters/mind-blowing subtle effects in the dreamy locations… All make the scenes like magic, becoming the hope or expectation of everyone believing that the right person will surprise them, saying the most clever words, having the appearance beyond your wildest dreams, doing everything that brings bliss every day of life. These elegant tapestries are called fairytales and fantasies ( f words ) because they are not real. Then, the absence of permanent fairytale existence becomes a deal breaker. People age differently, so what if the one you love seems less fun than you are, later, years along the true love path? Finding true love is finding within us the ability to love the one person every day that you see in the best and worst moments in on a planet called "real life" … This can be difficult however when, consistently, others are much more charming on the stage of a what you call your place of work, or Facebook where you see glimpses, not the whole, vivid existence where we all get tired, hungry, lazy, hurried and even leave our _____ on the floor. Fantasies are wonderful indeed. My Grandparents, reared through the great depression, separated by war, chose to love each other, and in the end, one stayed the other's side day and night, at home, month after month, until breathing ceased, and eyes were silenced. TRUE love is not a fantasy to find. It is a choice that we make… Every day. livefearless's photo instagr.am livefearless's photo on Instagram Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA September 20 at 5:17pm via Instagram Laura Freeman Edwards, Sandy DeBarr, Shanta Henderson McGuckin and 4 others like this. Shanta Henderson McGuckin Well said…September 20 at 8:06pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Alexandra Conniff My paternal grandparents were married 71 years through thick and thin.September 20 at 9:35pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Shanta, thank you… wrote it quite fast, grammatical errors and all, it was this afternoon while sitting at Hollywood & Highland complex working on something special. Since a movie is the culmination of sometimes, the work of THOUSANDS of people, it's no wonder that it often becomes our vision of what we should expect from the one that's supposed to love us that way, yet we often fail to look in the mirror and see the person that's our age, with flaws. I'm too often confronted with insane combinations of undefined words that are straight out of a lifetime of brainwashing (influenced by the talent required by the many in kind of work I do). Some believe it is all "Hollywood" and blame this non-existent city (an illusion) rather than see that the content is a reflection of what has become societal norms. It's really simple, it's more exciting to enjoy the fantasy with someone that you only see the good side of at work, the store, the social network. The person at home is less mysterious and more, um, boring now that we see flaws. Love is a choice every day. Fantasy is called fantasy… because it isn't real. And, in a world where friends often have less satisfying relationships these days for whatever perceived reason(s), such friends might just become less happy if we start showing signs of relationship bliss.September 20 at 9:55pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Alexandra, I LOVE that. Seeing this kind of love in Grandparents has made me FEEL loved my whole life. It saddens me to see the numbers I have to be aware of in the prep for my work, including the ratio of who files for divorce, what the reasons are and what surprising data are used in divorce court proceedings. The 'first kiss tingle' referred to so often in articles and even on Ryan Seacrest nationally syndicated daily radio show seems to play a role in the dissatisfaction factor in a world where more exciting options that live nearby are a few clicks away.September 20 at 10:03pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Shanta Henderson McGuckin I especially liked the part where you stated that no one is 110% lovable 24 hours a day. We all need a little bit of humble and a whole lot of compassion with any relationship we have, especially with our spouses. My grandparents were my example of what a marriage should look like. Every night my grandmother would make my grandfather's coffee pot up and set out his breakfast dishes for the morning; not because she had to, but because she loved him and wanted to show it. My grandfather also showed his love by helping with the housework and dishes. They worked together in everything, no ego, no-that's not my job. They were as close as could be until death separated them a year and a half ago. My grandmother passed away on their 66th wedding anniversary and my grandfather followed her 7 weeks later.Wednesday at 6:54am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Shanta Henderson McGuckin … Wow. Speechless… that is beautifulWednesday at 8:09am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA 1 person Alexandra Conniff My grandmother went to the hospital to debris a leg wound. My dad was getting her an adjustable bed so his sisters were cleaning out her room to make room for the new bed. My grandfather thought my grandmother had died and his daughters weren't telling him. He went to lay down for his afternoon nap and died. Burials are within 24 hours in Uruguay. The sisters finally told my grandmother a few hours later that had he'd died, she said don't worry about missing the funeral because she would see him soon. She didn't take her nighttime medicine and died that night. They both died on February 1.Wednesday at 4:17pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like LiveFearless with sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA with Cheryl Johnson, Chris Shining Executive Producer, Movies, IMDB.com Sam Botta Hope's "The Notebook" marriage… The lovely Dolores Hope dies at 102, her voice, her love for Bob Hope, like the example of my wonderful Grandparents, the Hope's marriage was beautiful, was "The Notebook" for almost 70 years. livefearless's photo instagr.am livefearless's photo on Instagram Unlike sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA September 19 at 5:51pm via Instagram You, Jeana Farrell, Virginia Foster Floyd and Sara Johnson Farrow like this. Sam Botta Her star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame is next to Bob Hope'sSeptember 19 at 6:04pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Jeana Farrell Their greatest success was finding TRUE Love. September 20 at 5:08am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Jean: So, "success" is completing the 'search' or 'chase'?? Or do you mean 'success' is the 'TRUE love' itself…?? Or, is the all upper cased "TRUE" description of love referring to the other person or both persons? How is finding TRUE love success since TRUE love found is successful not at the moment of finding when a 'feeling' like euphoria exists, not at the moment of the first kiss tingle… TRUE love success is measured by a lifetime of choosing to love and be loved by the person in mutual TRUE love, a phrase used so often without definition. I've addressed this this in relation to my Grandparents, married the same amount of years as Bob and Dolores Hope. The photo is today, I'm standing at their stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.September 20 at 6:44pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Andy Daugherty Sam..i believe the success is in the finding of true love…the successor is the love itself…born from a well fought search of the heart. September 20 at 9:06pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Jeana Farrell Exactly what I said. They where successful in that they choose to love each other every day and not let fame or other people come in between them. They built a foundation several layers deep so thet could build a lifetime of ever lasting happiness and bliss. I say successful as so many fail in todays lifestyles. I'm sure Bob being so famous had many beautiful women in the industry throwing themselves at his feet. So yes it looks very much like they shared mutual love, as it does take two to make this beautiful relationship work. Wednesday at 5:10am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Jeana: Exactly what you said? "Jeana Farrell Their greatest success was finding TRUE Love." Yesterday at 5:08amWednesday at 8:16am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Sam Botta Jeana: These words you say are a very interesting concept in a marriage between two normal people: —————————–"a lifetime of ever lasting happiness and bliss" —————————–… sounds like a movie, with a list of 1,000 names in the credits, a marriage is two (2) people without all the talented people making the story (on screen) play flicker with complete happiness and bliss, and it only lasts for… two (2) hours or less. If "a lifetime of ever lasting happiness and bliss" doesn't feel like "ever lasting happiness and bliss" ever-y moment, should they divorce?Wednesday at 8:28am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like Jeana Farrell Of course not. There are many ups and downs in a marriage and u never know or find out what that other person is really like until you actually live together. However, when u love someone bliss can be simply sharing a sunset, or watching a movie. If you have the main ingredient mutual love and I stress the word MUTUAL, then your onto to a very good start. No one can predict the future. Its also important to say if ur in a marriage without love on one side, its just pointless making both people miserable. Wednesday at 10:11am sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like LiveFearless with sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA with Cheryl Johnson, Chris Shining Executive Producer, Movies, IMDB.com I pulled over just now to tighten the surfboard straps, and I wrote this…
The surf awaits, and in the moment when simplicity meets design, this brilliant idea is flashing the one item that isn't just a must have. I see its music which sets the tones, with colors that change the trajectory, and you, too, will experience it in sudden knowing, and right then, in the there that's here, in your life, you sync the why, you change it all, and with seeing the repetitive mundane of friends without momentum, the habit of they that you let hold you back, is replaced with those that make the world spin. Finally, you find the existence of human flight, and you soar with path and purpose thats yours. T H I S I D O D A I L Y and so shall Y O U from the place where meaningful positive real influence emanates from, and worlds are inspired.
Wrapped up another day at the office, where the floors are made of sand and otherwise it's like a spiritual exhilaration of an acceleration. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
2. Simplicity works for me, the complex is best told via simple words. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
3. The TRULY super intelligent are the ones that articulate concepts with words. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
4. Real people with hearts can understand. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
5. I'm not afraid to own what I do, what inspires me, why I'm like this, how I encourage, why it should matter to you and how you can actually experience your life for the first time. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
6. The delicious romance you imagined that never really came does exist, but this is the critical counterintuitive, remembering that what you dreamt probably isn't full happiness… ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
7. It's about the real you, accepting that slowing down and feeling the goodness and joy. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
8. As if you're a caterpillar now experiencing its day of flight in the excitement, soaring in the glow of the sunlight from vivid budding-organic flower-plant life. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
9. Realizing that what seemed normal was the extended cocoon life, the incubator you chose. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
10. You were made to rise, and enjoy the pleasure of making others smile with the symmetrical intricacies of the design that is artistically and truly you and yours, the butterfly. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
Life is short, so don't waste it in the harshness of filtered light trying to rescue those still in dark cocoons in the shade. They will steal your energy and destroy life. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
Shine in the glow, flutter in the wind on your path and purpose meant for you.
You will find that smile you've longed for thats beyond the first kiss tingle, imagine what it will be like, then multiply the bliss, you're on the way. ~sAm bottA www.livefeArless.com
The spark of your real life flickers, it is time to shine from the heights. Sam Botta
We will soar together. But the first step is understanding that butterflies exist.
For twelve years, you have been asking: Who is John Galt? This is John Galt speaking. I am the man who loves his life. I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values. I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world, and if you wish to know why you are perishing-you who dread knowledge-I am the man who will now tell you. The chief engineer was the only one able to move; he ran to a television set and struggled frantically with its dials. But the screen remained empty; the speaker had not chosen to be seen. Only his voice filled the airways of the country-of the world, thought the chief engineer-sounding as if he were speaking here, in this room, not to a group, but to one man; it was not the tone of addressing a meeting, but the tone of addressing a mind.
You have heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis. You have said it yourself, half in fear, half in hope that the words had no meaning. You have cried that mans sins are destroying the world and you have cursed human nature for its unwillingness to practice the virtues you demanded. Since virtue, to you, consists of sacrifice, you have demanded more sacrifices at every successive disaster. In the name of a return to morality, you have sacrificed all those evils which you held as the cause of your plight. You have sacrificed justice to mercy. You have sacrificed independence to unity. You have sacrificed reason to faith. You have sacrificed wealth to need. You have sacrificed self-esteem to self-denial. You have sacrificed happiness to duty.
You have destroyed all that which you held to be evil and achieved all that which you held to be good. Why, then, do you shrink in horror from the sight of the world around you? That world is not the product of your sins, it is the product and the image of your virtues. It is your moral ideal brought into reality in its full and final perfection. You have fought for it, you have dreamed of it, and you have wished it, and I-I am the man who has granted you your wish.
Your ideal had an implacable enemy, which your code of morality was designed to destroy. I have withdrawn that enemy. I have taken it out of your way and out of your reach. I have removed the source of all those evils you were sacrificing one by one. I have ended your battle. I have stopped your motor. I have deprived your world of mans mind.
Men do not live by the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those who do. The mind is impotent, you say? I have withdrawn those whose mind isnt. There are values higher than the mind, you say? I have withdrawn those for whom there arent.
While you were dragging to your sacrificial altars the men of justice, of independence, of reason, of wealth, of self-esteem-I beat you to it, I reached them first. I told them the nature of the game you were playing and the nature of that moral code of yours, which they had been too innocently generous to grasp. I showed them the way to live by another morality-mine. It is mine that they chose to follow.
All the men who have vanished, the men you hated, yet dreaded to lose, it is I who have taken them away from you. Do not attempt to find us. We do not choose to be found. Do not cry that it is our duty to serve you. We do not recognize such duty. Do not cry that you need us. We do not consider need a claim. Do not cry that you own us. You dont. Do not beg us to return. We are on strike, we, the men of the mind.
We are on strike against self-immolation. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of ones happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt.
There is a difference between our strike and all those youve practiced for centuries: our strike consists, not of making demands, but of granting them. We are evil, according to your morality. We have chosen not to harm you any longer. We are useless, according to your economics. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer. We are dangerous and to be shackled, according to your politics. We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer. We are only an illusion, according to your philosophy. We have chosen not to blind you any longer and have left you free to face reality-the reality you wanted, the world as you see it now, a world without mind.
We have granted you everything you demanded of us, we who had always been the givers, but have only now understood it. We have no demands to present to you, no terms to bargain about, no compromise to reach. You have nothing to offer us. We do not need you.
Are you now crying: No, this was not what you wanted? A mindless world of ruins was not your goal? You did not want us to leave you? You moral cannibals, I know that youve always known what it was that you wanted. But your game is up, because now we know it, too.
Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom-while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good?-by what standard?
You wanted to know John Galts identity. I am the man who has asked that question.
Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. Yes, you are bearing punishment for your evil. But it is not man who is now on trial and it is not human nature that will take the blame. It is your moral code thats through, this time. Your moral code has reached its climax, the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality-you who have never known any-but to discover it.
You have heard no concepts of morality but the mystical or the social. You have been taught that morality is a code of behavior imposed on you by whim, the whim of a supernatural power or the whim of society, to serve Gods purpose or your neighbors welfare, to please an authority beyond the grave or else next door-but not to serve your life or pleasure. Your pleasure, you have been taught, is to be found in immorality, your interests would best be served by evil, and any moral code must be designed not for you, but against you, not to further your life, but to drain it.
For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors-between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.
Both sides agreed that morality demands the surrender of your self-interest and of your mind, that the moral and the practical are opposites, that morality is not the province of reason, but the province of faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you and force. Both sides agreed that no rational morality is possible, that there is no right or wrong in reason-that in reason theres no reason to be moral.
Whatever else they fought about, it was against mans mind that all your moralists have stood united. It was mans mind that all their schemes and systems were intended to despoil and destroy. Now choose to perish or to learn that the anti-mind is the anti-life.
Mans mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot obtain his food without a knowledge of food and of the way to obtain it. He cannot dig a ditch-or build a cyclotron-without a knowledge of his aim and of the means to achieve it. To remain alive, he must think.
But to think is an act of choice. The key to what you so recklessly call human nature, the open secret you live with, yet dread to name, is the fact that man is a being of volitional consciousness. Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival-so that for you, who are a human being, the question to be or not to be is the question to think or not to think.
A being of volitional consciousness has no automatic course of behavior. He needs a code of values to guide his actions. Value is that which one acts to gain and keep, virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps it. Value presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? Value presupposes a standard, a purpose and the necessity of action in the face of an alternative. Where there are no alternatives, no values are possible.
There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence-and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. It is only a living organism that faces a constant alternative: the issue of life or death. Life is a process of self-sustaining and-self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it does; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence. It is only the concept of Life that makes the concept of Value possible. It is only to a living entity that things can be good or evil.
A plant must feed itself in order to live; the sunlight, the water, the chemicals it needs are the values its nature has set it to pursue; its life is the standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice of action; there are alternatives in the conditions it encounters, but there is no alternative in its function: it acts automatically to further its life, it cannot act for its own destruction.
An animal is equipped for sustaining its life; its senses provide it with an automatic code of action, an automatic knowledge of what is good for it or evil. It has no power to extend its knowledge or to evade it. In conditions where its knowledge proves inadequate, it dies. But so long as it lives, it acts on its knowledge, with automatic safety and no power of choice, it is unable to ignore its own good, unable to decide to choose the evil and act as its own destroyer.
Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An instinct is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even mans desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold. Your fear of death is not a love of life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him t9 perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer-and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.
A living entity that regarded its means of survival as evil, would not survive. A plant that struggled to mangle its roots, a bird that fought to break its wings would not remain for long in the existence they affronted. But the history of man has been a struggle to deny and to destroy his mind.
Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice-and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man-by choice; he has to hold his life as a value-by choice: he has to learn to sustain it-by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues-by choice.
A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.
Whoever you are, you who are hearing me now, I am speaking to whatever living remnant is left uncorrupted within you, to the remnant of the human, to your mind, and I say: There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Mans Life is its standard of value.
All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil.
Mans life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being-not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement-not survival at any price, since theres only one price that pays for mans survival: reason.
Mans life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose. If existence on earth is your goal, you must choose your actions and values by the standard of that which is proper to man-for the purpose of preserving, fulfilling and enjoying the irreplaceable value which is your life.
Since life requires a specific course of action, any other course will destroy it. A being who does not hold his own life as the motive and goal of his actions, is acting on the motive and standard of death. Such a being is a metaphysical monstrosity, struggling to oppose, negate and contradict the fact of his own existence, running blindly amuck on a trail of destruction, capable of nothing but pain.
Happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is that state of consciousness which proceeds from the achievement of ones values. A morality that dares to tell you to find happiness in the renunciation of your happiness-to value the failure of your values-is an insolent negation of morality. A doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. By the grace of reality and the nature of life, man-every man-is an end in himself, he exists for his own sake, and the achievement of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose.
But neither life nor happiness can be achieved by the pursuit of irrational whims. Just as man is free to attempt to survive in any random manner, but will perish unless he lives as his nature requires, so he is free to seek his happiness in any mindless fraud, but the torture of frustration is all he will find, unless he seeks the happiness proper to man. The purpose of morality is to teach you, not to suffer and die, but to enjoy yourself and live.
Sweep aside those parasites of subsidized classrooms, who live on the profits of the mind of others and proclaim that man needs no morality, no values, no code of behavior. They, who pose as scientists and claim that man is only an animal, do not grant him inclusion in the law of existence they have granted to the lowest of insects. They recognize that every living species has a way of survival demanded by its nature, they do not claim that a fish can live out of water or that a dog can live without its sense of smell-but man, they claim, the most complex of beings, man can survive in any way whatever, man has no identity, no nature, and theres no practical reason why he cannot live with his means of survival destroyed, with his mind throttled and placed at the disposal of any orders they might care to issue.
Sweep aside those hatred-eaten mystics, who pose as friends of humanity and preach that the highest virtue man can practice is to hold his own life as of no value. Do they tell you that the purpose of morality is to curb mans instinct of self-preservation? It is for the purpose of self-preservation that man needs a code of morality. The only man who desires to be moral is the man who desires to live.
No, you do not have to live; it is your basic act of choice; but if you choose to live,. you must live as a man-by the work and the judgment of your mind.
No, you do not have to live as a man; it is an act of moral choice. But you cannot live as anything else-and the alternative is that state of living death which you now see within you and around you, the state of a thing unfit for existence, no longer human and less than animal, a thing that knows nothing but pain and drags itself through its span of years in the agony of unthinking self-destruction.
No, you do not have to think; it is an act of moral choice. But someone had to think to keep you alive; if you choose to default, you default on existence and you pass the deficit to some moral man, expecting him to sacrifice his good for the sake of letting you survive by your evil.
No, you do not have to be a man; but today those who are, are not there any longer. I have removed your means of survival-your victims.
If you wish to know how I have done it and what I told them to make them quit, you are hearing it now. I told them, in essence, the statement I am making tonight. They were men who had lived by my code, but had not known how great a virtue it represented. I made them see it. I brought them, not a re-evaluation, but only an identification of their values.
We, the men of the mind, are now on strike against you in the name of a single axiom, which is the root of our moral code, just as the root of yours is the wish to escape it: the axiom that existence exists.
Existence exists-and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.
If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.
Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two-existence and consciousness-are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.
To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes. Centuries ago, the man who was-no matter what his errors-the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.
Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same. A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.
Are you seeking to know what is wrong with the world? All the disasters that have wrecked your world, came from your leaders attempt to evade the fact that A is A. All the secret evil you dread to face within you and all the pain you have ever endured, came from your own attempt to evade the fact that A is A. The purpose of those who taught you to evade it, was to make you forget that Man is Man.
Man cannot survive except by gaining knowledge, and reason is his only means to gain it. Reason is the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the material provided by his senses. The task of his senses is to give him the evidence of existence, but the task of identifying it belongs to his reason, his senses tell him only that something is, but what it is must be learned by his mind.
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in ones thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate ones mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, mans only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.
The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask: Whose reason? The answer is: Yours. No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. It is only with your own knowledge that you can deal. It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider. Your mind is your only judge of truth-and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Nothing but a mans mind can perform that complex, delicate, crucial process of identification which is thinking. Nothing can direct the process but his own judgment. Nothing can direct his judgment but his moral integrity.
You who speak of a moral instinct as if it were some separate endowment opposed to reason-mans reason is his moral faculty. A process of reason is a process of constant choice in answer to the question: True or False?-Right or Wrong? Is a seed to be planted in soil in order to grow-right or wrong? Is a mans wound to be disinfected in order to save his life-right or wrong? Does the nature of atmospheric electricity permit it to be converted into kinetic power-right or wrong? It is the answers to such questions that gave you everything you have-and the answers came from a mans mind, a mind of intransigent devotion to that which is right.
A rational process is a moral process. You may make an error at any step of it, with nothing to protect you but your own severity, or you may try to cheat, to fake the evidence and evade the effort of the quest-but if devotion to truth is the hallmark of morality, then there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.
That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call free will is your minds freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.
Thinking is mans only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of ones consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment-on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict It is. Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say It is, you are refusing to say I am. By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: Who am I to know?-he is declaring: Who am I to live?
This, in every hour and every issue, is your basic moral choice: thinking or non-thinking, existence or non-existence, A or non-A, entity or zero.
To the extent to which a man is rational, life is the premise directing his actions. To the extent to which he is irrational, the premise directing his actions is death.
You who prattle that morality is social and that man would need no morality on a desert island-it is on a desert island that he would need it most. Let him try to claim, when there are no victims to pay for it, that a rock is a house, that sand is clothing, that food will drop into his mouth without cause or effort, that he will collect a harvest tomorrow by devouring his stock seed today-and reality will wipe him out, as he deserves; reality will show him that life is a value to be bought and that thinking is the only coin noble enough to buy it.
If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that mans only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a moral commandment is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of mans virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.
Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precedence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking-that the mind is ones only judge of values and ones only guide of action-that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise-that a concession to the irrational invalidates ones consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality-that the alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind-that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annihilates ones consciousness.
Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it-that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life-that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence.
Integrity is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake your consciousness, just as honesty is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake existence-that man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions-that, like a judge impervious to public opinion, he may not sacrifice his convictions to the wishes of others, be it the whole of mankind shouting pleas or threats against him-that courage and confidence are practical necessities, that courage is the practical form of being true to existence, of being true to ones own consciousness.
Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal is unreal and can have no value, that neither love nor fame nor cash is a value if obtained by fraud-that an attempt to gain a value by deceiving the mind of others is an act of raising your victims to a position higher than reality, where you become a pawn of their blindness, a slave of their non-thinking and their evasions, while their intelligence, their rationality, their perceptiveness become the enemies you have to dread and flee-that you do not care to live as a dependent, least of all a dependent on the stupidity of others, or as a fool whose source of values is the fools he succeeds in fooling-that honesty is not a social duty, not a sacrifice for the sake of others, but the most profoundly selfish virtue man can practice: his refusal to sacrifice the reality of his own existence to the deluded consciousness of others.
Justice is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification-that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly, that just as you do not pay a higher price for a rusty chunk of scrap than for a piece of shining metal, so you do not value a totter above a hero-that your moral appraisal is the coin paying men for their virtues or vices, and this payment demands of you as scrupulous an honor as you bring to financial transactions-that to withhold your contempt from mens vices is an act of moral counterfeiting, and to withhold your admiration from their virtues is an act of moral embezzlement-that to place any other concern higher than justice is to devaluate your moral currency and defraud the good in favor of the evil, since only the good can lose by a default of justice and only the evil can profit-and that the bottom of the pit at the end of that road, the act of moral bankruptcy, is to punish men for their virtues and reward them for their vices, that that is the collapse to full depravity, the Black Mass of the worship of death, the dedication of your consciousness to the destruction of existence.
Productiveness is your acceptance of morality, your recognition of the fact that you choose to live-that productive work is the process by which mans consciousness controls his existence, a constant process of acquiring knowledge and shaping matter to fit ones purpose, of translating an idea into physical form, of remaking the earth in the image of ones values-that all work is creative work if done by a thinking mind, and no work is creative if done by a blank who repeats in uncritical stupor a routine he has learned from others- that your work is yours to choose, and the choice is as wide as your mind, that nothing more is possible to you and nothing less is human-that to cheat your way into a job bigger than your mind can handle is to become a fear-corroded ape on borrowed motions and borrowed time, and to settle down into a job that requires less than your minds full capacity is to cut your motor and sentence yourself to another kind of motion: decay-that your work is the process of achieving your values, and to lose your ambition for values is to lose your ambition to live-that your body is a machine, but your mind is its driver, and you must drive as far as your mind will take you, with achievement as the goal of your road-that the man who has no purpose is a machine that coasts downhill at the mercy of any boulder to crash in the first chance ditch, that the man who stifles his mind is a stalled machine slowly going to rust, that the man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap, and the man who makes another man his goal is a hitchhiker no driver should ever pick up-that your work is the purpose of your life, and you must speed past any killer who assumes the right to stop you, that any value you might find outside your work, any other loyalty or love, can be only travelers you choose to share your journey and must be travelers going on their own power in the same direction.
Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of mans values, it has to be earned-that of any achievements open to you, the one that makes all others possible is the creation of your own character-that your character, your actions, your desires, your emotions are the products of the premises held by your mind-that as man must produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire the values of character that make his life worth sustaining-that as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul-that to live requires a sense of self-value, but man, who has no automatic values, has no automatic sense of self-esteem and must earn it by shaping his soul in the image of his moral ideal, in the image of Man, the rational being he is born able to create, but must create by choice-that the first precondition of self-esteem is that radiant selfishness of soul which desires the best in all things, in values of matter and spirit, a soul that seeks above all else to achieve its own moral perfection, valuing nothing higher than itself-and that the proof of an achieved self-esteem is your souls shudder of contempt and rebellion against the role of a sacrificial animal, against the vile impertinence of any creed that proposes to immolate the irreplaceable value which is your consciousness and the incomparable glory which is your existence to the blind evasions and the stagnant decay of others.
Are you beginning to see who is John Galt? I am the man who has earned the thing you did not fight for, the thing you have renounced, betrayed, corrupted, yet were unable fully to destroy and are now hiding as your guilty secret, spending your life in apologies to every professional cannibal, lest it be discovered that somewhere within you, you still long to say what I am now saying to the hearing of the whole of mankind: I am proud of my own value and of the fact that I wish to live.
This wish-which you share, yet submerge as an evil-is the only remnant of the good within you, but it is a wish one must learn to deserve. His own happiness is mans only moral purpose, but only his own virtue can achieve it. Virtue is not an end in itself. Virtue is not its own reward or sacrificial fodder for the reward of evil. Life is the reward of virtue-and happiness is the goal and the reward of life.
Just as your body has two fundamental sensations, pleasure and pain, as signs of its welfare or injury, as a barometer of its basic alternative, life or death, so your consciousness has two fundamental emotions, joy and suffering, in answer to the same alternative. Your emotions are estimates of that which furthers your life or threatens it, lightning calculators giving you a sum of your profit or loss. You have no choice about your capacity to feel that something is good for you or evil, but what you will consider good or evil, what will give you joy or pain, what you will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on your standard of value. Emotions are inherent in your nature, but their content is dictated by your mind. Your emotional capacity is an empty motor, and your values are the fuel with which your mind fills it. If you choose a mix of contradictions, it will clog your motor, corrode your transmission and wreck you on your first attempt to move with a machine which you, the driver, have corrupted.
If you hold the irrational as your standard of value and the impossible as your concept of the good, if you long for rewards you have not earned, for a fortune, or a love you dont deserve, for a loophole in the law of causality, for an A that becomes non-A at your whim, if you desire the opposite of existence-you will reach it. Do not cry, when you reach it, that life is frustration and that happiness is impossible to man; check your fuel: it brought you where you wanted to go.
Happiness is not to be achieved at the command of emotional whims. Happiness is not the satisfaction of whatever irrational wishes you might blindly attempt to indulge. Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy-a joy without penalty or guilt, a joy that does not clash with any of your values and does not work for your own destruction, not the joy of escaping from your mind, but of using your minds fullest power, not the joy of faking reality, but of achieving values that are real, not the joy of a drunkard, but of a producer. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions.
Just as I support my life, neither by robbery nor alms, but by my own effort, so I do not seek to derive my happiness from the injury or the favor of others, but earn it by my own achievement. Just as I do not consider the pleasure of others as the goal of my life, so I do not consider my pleasure as the goal of the lives of others. Just as there are no contradictions in my values and no conflicts among my desires-so there are no victims and no conflicts of interest among rational men, men who do not desire the unearned and do not view one another with a cannibals lust, men who neither make sacrifice nor accept them.
The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved. A trader does not ask to be paid for his failures, nor does he ask to be loved for his flaws. A trader does not squander his body as fodder or his soul as alms. Just as he does not give his work except in trade for material values, so he does not give the values of his spirit-his love, his friendship, his esteem-except in payment and in trade for human virtues, in payment for his own selfish pleasure, which he receives from men he can respect. The mystic parasites who have, throughout the ages, reviled the traders and held them in contempt, while honoring the beggars and the looters, have known the secret motive of their sneers: a trader is the entity they dread-a man of justice.
Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None-except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality. I deal with men as my nature and their demands: by means of reason. I seek or desire nothing from them except such relations as they care to enter of their own voluntary choice. It is only with their mind that I can deal and only for my own self-interest, when they see that my interest coincides with theirs. When they dont, I enter no relationship; I let dissenters go their way and I do not swerve from mine. I win by means of nothing but logic and I surrender to nothing but logic. I do not surrender my reason or deal with men who surrender theirs. I have nothing to gain from fools or cowards; I have no benefits to seek from human vices: from stupidity, dishonesty or fear. The only value men can offer me is the work of their mind. When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.
Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate-do you hear me? no man may start-the use of physical force against others.
To interpose the threat of physical destruction between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force-him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying mans capacity to live.
Do not open your mouth to tell me that your mind has convinced you of your right to force my mind. Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins. When you declare that men are irrational animals and propose to treat them as such, you define thereby your own character and can no longer claim the sanction of reason-as no advocate of contradictions can claim it. There can be no right to destroy the source of rights, the only means of judging right and wrong: the mind.
To force a man to drop his own mind and to accept your will as a substitute, with a gun in place of a syllogism, with terror in place of proof, and death as the final argument-is to attempt to exist in defiance of reality. Reality demands of man that he act for his own rational interest; your gun demands of him that he act against it. Reality threatens man with death if he does not act on his rational judgment: you threaten him with death if he does. You place him into a world where the price of his life is the surrender of all the virtues required by life-and death by a process of gradual destruction is all that you and your system will achieve, when death is made to be the ruling power, the winning argument in a society of men.
Be it a highwayman who confronts a traveler with the ultimatum: Your money or your life, or a politician who confronts a country with the ultimatum: Your childrens education or your life, the meaning of that ultimatum is: Your mind or your life-and neither is possible to man without the other.
If there are degrees of evil, it is hard to say who is the more contemptible: the brute who assumes the right to force the mind of others or the moral degenerate who grants to others the right to force his mind. That is the moral absolute one does not leave open to debate. I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not enter discussions with neighbors who think they can forbid me to think. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderers wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him-by force.
It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil.
In the name of all the producers who had kept you alive and received your death ultimatums in payment, I now answer you with a single ultimatum of our own: Our work or your guns. You can choose either; you cant have both. We do not initiate the use of force against others or submit to force at their hands. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it Will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours.
You who are worshippers of the zero-you have never discovered that achieving life is not the equivalent of avoiding death. Joy is not the absence of pain, intelligence is not the absence of stupidity, light is not the absence of darkness, an entity is not the absence of a nonentity. Building is not done by abstaining from demolition; centuries of sitting and waiting in such abstinence will not raise one single girder for you to abstain from demolishing-and now you can no longer say to me, the builder: Produce, and feed us in exchange for our not destroying your production. I am answering in the name of all your victims: Perish with and in your own void. Existence is not a negation of negatives. Evil, not value, is an absence and a negation, evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us. Perish, because we have learned that a zero cannot hold a mortgage over life.
You seek escape from pain. We seek the achievement of happiness. You exist for the sake of avoiding punishment. We exist for the sake of earning rewards. Threats will not make us function; fear is not our incentive. It is not death that we wish to avoid, but life that we wish to live.
You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power-and secretly add that fear is the more practical-you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing. I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death.
Death is the standard of your values, death is your chosen goal, and you have to keep running, since there is no escape from the pursuer who is out to destroy you or from the knowledge that that pursuer is yourself. Stop running, for once-there is no place to run-stand naked, as you dread to stand, but as I see you, and take a look at what you dared to call a moral code.
Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.
It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.
The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as mans sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold mans nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.
Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a tendency to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.
What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of mans fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love-he was not man.
Mans fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that hes man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.
They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the torture rack to which theyve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.
They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.
They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-yet such is their image of mans nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.
Do you observe what human faculty that doctrine was designed to ignore? It was mans mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.
And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that hell find no solution and must seek no fulfillment on earth. Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.
As products of the split between mans soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of mans body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.
The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond mans power to conceive-a definition that invalidates mans consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general except yourself. Mans mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Mans mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Mans standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond mans power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Mans standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond mans right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of mans life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.
Selfishness-say both-is mans evil. Mans good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; mans good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within mans reach.
Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which youre drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is sacrifice. Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. Youre still alive. You have a chance.
Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the worthless, but of the precious. Sacrifice does not mean the rejection of the evil for the sake of the good, but of the good for the sake of the evil. Sacrifice is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you dont.
If you exchange a penny for a dollar, it is not a sacrifice; if you exchange a dollar for a penny, it is. If you achieve the career you wanted, after years of struggle, it is not a sacrifice; if you then renounce it for the sake of a rival, it is. If you own a bottle of milk and gave it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbors child and let your own die, it is.
If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
If you renounce all personal desire and dedicate your life to those you love, you do not achieve full virtue: you still retain a value of your own, which is your love. If you devote your life to random strangers, it is an act of greater virtue. If you devote your life to serving men you hate-that is the greatest of the virtues you can practice.
A sacrifice is the surrender of a value. Full sacrifice is full surrender of all values. If you wish to achieve full virtue, you must seek no gratitude in return for your sacrifice, no praise, no love, no admiration, no self-esteem, not even the pride of being virtuous; the faintest trace of any gain dilutes your virtue. If you pursue a course of action that does not taint your life by any joy, that brings you no value in matter, no value in spirit, no gain, no profit, no reward-if you achieve this state of total zero, you have achieved the ideal of moral perfection.
You are told that moral perfection is impossible to man-and, by this standard, it is. You cannot achieve it so long as you live, but the value of your life and of your person is gauged by how closely you succeed in approaching that ideal zero which is death.
If you start, however, as a passionless blank, as a vegetable seeking to be eaten, with no values to reject and no wishes to renounce, you will not win the crown of sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to renounce the unwanted. It is not a sacrifice. It is not a sacrifice to give your life for others, if death is your personal desire. To achieve the virtue of sacrifice, you must want to live, you must love it, you must burn with passion for this earth and for all the splendor it can give you-you must feel the twist of every knife as it slashes your desires away from your reach and drains your love out of your body, It is not mere death that the morality of sacrifice holds out to you as an ideal, but death by slow torture.
Do not remind me that it pertains only to this life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.
If you wish to save the last of your dignity, do not call your best actions a sacrifice: that term brands you as immoral. If a mother buys food for her hungry child rather than a hat for herself, it is not a sacrifice: she values the child higher than the hat; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of mother whose higher value is the hat, who would prefer her child to starve and feeds him only from a sense of duty. If a man dies fighting for his own freedom, it is not a sacrifice: he is not willing to live as a slave; but it is a sacrifice to the kind of man whos willing. If a man refuses to sell his convictions, it is not a sacrifice, unless he is the sort of man who has no convictions.
Sacrifice could be proper only for those who have nothing to sacrifice-no values, no standards, no judgment-those whose desires are irrational whims, blindly conceived and lightly surrendered. For a man of moral stature, whose desires are born of rational values, sacrifice is the surrender of the right to the wrong, of the good to the evil.
The creed of sacrifice is a morality for the immoral-a morality that declares its own bankruptcy by confessing that it cant impart to men any personal stake in virtues or value, and that their souls are sewers of depravity, which they must be taught to sacrifice. By his own confession, it is impotent to teach men to be good and can only subject them to constant punishment.
Are you thinking, in some foggy stupor, that its only material values that your morality requires you to sacrifice? And what do you think are material values? Matter has no value except as a means for the satisfaction of human desires. Matter is only a tool of human values. To what service are you asked to give the material tools your virtue has produced? To the service of that which you regard as evil: to a principle you do not share, to a person you do not respect, to the achievement of a purpose opposed to your own-else your gift is not a sacrifice.
Your morality tells you to renounce the material world and to divorce your values from matter. A man whose values are given no expression in material form, whose existence is unrelated to his ideals, whose actions contradict his convictions, is a cheap little hypocrite-yet that is the man who obeys your morality and divorces his values from matter. The man who loves one woman, but sleeps with another-the man who admires the talent of a worker, but hires another-the man who considers one cause to be just, but donates his money to the support of another-the man who holds high standards of craftsmanship, but devotes his effort to the production of trash-these are the men who have renounced matter, the men who believe that the values of their spirit cannot be brought into material reality.
Do you say it is the spirit that such men have renounced? Yes, of course. You cannot have one without the other. You are an indivisible entity of matter and consciousness. Renounce your consciousness and you become a brute. Renounce your body and you become a fake. Renounce the material world and you surrender it to evil.
And that is precisely the goal of your morality, the duty that your code demands of you. Give to that which you do not enjoy, serve that which you do not admire, submit to that which you consider evil-surrender the world to the values of others, deny, reject, renounce your self. Your self is your mind; renounce it and you become a chunk of meat ready for any cannibal to swallow.
It is your mind that they want you to surrender-all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others-end up by saying: It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.
This much is true: the most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgment of truth. You are asked to sacrifice your intellectual integrity, your logic, your reason, your standard of truth-in favor of becoming a prostitute whose standard is the greatest good for the greatest number.
If you search your code for guidance, for an answer to the question: What is the good?-the only answer you will find is The good of others. The good is whatever others wish, whatever you feel they feel they wish, or whatever you feel they ought to feel. The good of others is a magic formula that transforms anything into gold, a formula to be recited as a guarantee of moral glory and as a fumigator for any action, even the slaughter of a continent. Your standard of virtue is not an object, not an act, not a principle, but an intention. You need no proof, no reasons, no success, you need not achieve in fact the good of others-all you need to know is that your motive was the good of others, not your own. Your only definition of the good is a negation: the good is the non-good for me.
Your code-which boasts that it upholds eternal, absolute, objective moral values and scorns the conditional, the relative and the subjective-your code hands out, as its version of the absolute, the following rule of moral conduct: If you wish it, its evil; if others wish it, its good; if the motive of your action is your welfare, dont do it; if the motive is the welfare of others, then anything goes.
As this double-jointed, double-standard morality splits you in half, so it splits mankind into two enemy camps: one is you, the other is all the rest of humanity. You are the only outcast who has no right to wish to live. You are the only servant, the rest are the masters, you are the only giver, the rest are the takers, you are the eternal debtor, the rest are the creditors never to be paid off. You must not question their right to your sacrifice, or the nature of their wishes and their needs: their right is conferred upon them by a negative, by the fact that they are non-you.
For those of you who might ask questions, your code provides a consolation prize and booby-trap: it is for your own happiness, it says, that you must serve the happiness of others, the only way to achieve your joy is to give it up to others, the only way to achieve your prosperity is to surrender your wealth to others, the only way to protect your life is to protect all men except yourself-and if you find no joy in this procedure, it is your own fault and the proof of your evil; if you were good, you would find your happiness in providing a banquet for others, and your dignity in existing on such crumbs as they might care to toss you.
You who have no standard of self-esteem, accept the guilt and dare not ask the questions. But you know the unadmitted answer, refusing to acknowledge what you see, what hidden premise moves your world. You know it, not in honest statement, but as a dark uneasiness within you, while you flounder between guilty cheating and grudgingly practicing a principle too vicious to name.
I, who do not accept the unearned, neither in values nor in guilt, am here to ask the questions you evaded. Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? If the sensation of eating a cake is a value, why is it an immoral indulgence in your stomach, but a moral goal for you to achieve in the stomach of others? Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it? Does virtue consist of serving vice? Is the moral purpose of those who are good, self-immolation for the sake of those who are evil?
The answer you evade, the monstrous answer is: No, the takers are not evil, provided they did not earn the value you gave them. It is not immoral for them to accept it, provided they are unable to produce it, unable to deserve it, unable to give you any value in return. It is not immoral for them to enjoy it, provided they do not obtain it by right.
Such is the secret core of your creed, the other half of your double standard: it is immoral to live by your own effort, but moral to live by the effort of others-it is immoral to consume your own product, but moral to consume the products of others-it is immoral to earn, but moral to mooch-it is the parasites who are the moral justification for the existence of the producers, but the existence of the parasites is an end in itself-it is evil to profit by achievement, but good to profit by sacrifice-it is evil to create your own happiness, but good to enjoy it at the price of the blood of others.
Your code divides mankind into two castes and commands them to live by opposite rules: those who may desire anything and those who may desire nothing, the chosen and the demand, the riders and the carriers, the eaters and the eaten. What standard determines your caste? What passkey admits you to the moral elite? The passkey is lack of value.
Whatever the value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who dont lack it. It is your need that gives you a claim to rewards. If you are able to satisfy your need, your ability annuls your right to satisfy it. But a need you are unable to satisfy gives you first right to the lives of mankind.
If you succeed, any man who fails is your master; if you fail, any man who succeeds is your serf. Whether your failure is just or not, whether your wishes are rational or not, whether your misfortune is undeserved or the result of your vices, it is misfortune that gives you a right to rewards. It is pain, regardless of its nature or cause, pain as a primary absolute, that gives you a mortgage on all of existence.
If you heal your pain by your own effort, you receive no moral credit: your code regards it scornfully as an act of self-interest. Whatever value you seek to acquire, be it wealth or food or love or rights, if you acquire it by means of your Virtue, your code does not regard it as a moral acquisition: you occasion no loss to anyone, it is a trade, not alms; a payment, not a sacrifice. The deserved belongs in the selfish, commercial realm of mutual profit; it is only the undeserved that calls for that moral transaction which consists of profit to one at the price of disaster to the other. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral right.
A morality that holds need as a claim, holds emptiness-non-existence-as its standard of value; it rewards an absence, a defeat: weakness, inability, incompetence, suffering, disease, disaster, the lack, the fault, the flaw-the zero.
Who provides the account to pay these claims? Those who are cursed for being non-zeros, each to the extent of his distance from that ideal. Since all values are the product of virtues, the degree of your virtue is used as the measure of your penalty; the degree of your faults is used as the measure of your gain. Your code declares that the rational man must sacrifice himself to the irrational, the independent man to parasites, the honest man to the dishonest, the man of justice to the unjust, the productive man to thieving loafers, the man of integrity to compromising knaves, the man of self-esteem to sniveling neurotics. Do you wonder at the meanness of soul in those you see around you? The man who achieves these virtues will not accept your moral code; the man who accepts your moral code will not achieve these virtues.
Under a morality of sacrifice, the first value you sacrifice is morality; the next is self-esteem. When need is the standard, every man is both victim and parasite. As a victim, he must labor to fill the needs of others, leaving himself in the position of a parasite whose needs must be filled by others. He cannot approach his fellow men except in one of two disgraceful roles: he is both a beggar and a sucker.
You fear the man who has a dollar less than you, that dollar is rightfully his, he makes you feel like a moral defrauder. You hate the man who has a dollar more than you, that dollar is rightfully yours, he makes you feel that you are morally defrauded. The man below is a source of, your guilt, the man above is a source of your frustration. You do not know what to surrender or demand, when to give and when to grab, what pleasure in life is rightfully yours and what debt is still unpaid to others-you struggle to evade, as theory, the knowledge that by the moral standard youve accepted you are guilty every moment of your life, there is no mouthful of food you swallow that is not needed by someone somewhere on earth-and you give up the problem in blind resentment, you conclude that moral perfection is not to be achieved or desired, that you will muddle through by snatching as snatch can and by avoiding the eyes of the young, of those who look at you as if self-esteem were possible and they expected you to have it. Guilt is all that you retain within your soul-and so does every other man, as he goes past, avoiding your eyes. Do you wonder why your morality has not achieved brotherhood on earth or the good will of man to man?
The justification of sacrifice, that your morality propounds, is more corrupt than the corruption it purports to justify. The motive of your sacrifice, it tells you, should be love-the love you ought to feel for every man. A morality that professes the belief that the values of the spirit are more precious than matter, a morality that teaches you to scorn a whore who gives her body indiscriminately to all men-this same morality demands that you surrender your soul to promiscuous love for all comers.
As there can be no causeless wealth, so there can be no causeless love or any sort of causeless emotion. An emotion is a response to a face of reality, an estimate dictated by your standards. To love is to value. The man who tells you that it is possible to value without values, to love those whom you appraise as worthless, is the man who tells you that it is possible to grow rich by consuming without producing and that paper money is as valuable as gold.
Observe that he does not expect you to feel a causeless fear. When his kind get into power, they are expert at contriving means of terror, at giving you ample cause to feel the fear by which they desire to rule you. But when it comes to love, the highest of emotions, you permit them to shriek at you accusingly that you are a moral delinquent if youre incapable of feeling causeless love. When a man feels fear without reason, you call him to the attention of a psychiatrist; you are not so careful to protect the meaning, the nature and the dignity of love.
Love is the expression of ones values, the greatest reward you can earn for the moral qualities you have achieved in your character and person, the emotional price paid by one man for the joy he receives from the virtues of another. Your morality demands that you divorce your love from values and hand it down to any vagrant, not as response to his worth, but as response to his need, not as reward, but as alms, not as a payment for virtues, but as a blank check on vices. Your morality tells you that the purpose of love is to set you free of the bonds of morality, that love is superior to moral judgment, that true love transcends, forgives and survives every manner of evil in its object, and the greater the love the greater the depravity it permits to the loved. To love a man for his virtues is paltry and human, it tells you; to love him for his flaws is divine. To love those who are worthy of it is self-interest; to love the unworthy is sacrifice. You owe your love to those who dont deserve it, and the less they deserve it, the more love you owe them-the more loathsome the object, the nobler your love-the more unfastidious your love, the greater the virtue-and if you can bring your soul to the state of a dump heap that welcomes anything on equal terms, if you can cease to value moral values, you have achieved the state of moral perfection.
Such is your morality of sacrifice and such are the twin ideals it offers: to refashion the life of your body in the image of a human stockyard, and the life of your spirit in the image of a dump.
Such was your goal-and youve reached it. Why do you now moan complaints about mans impotence and the futility of human aspirations? Because you were unable to prosper by seeking destruction? Because you were unable to find joy by worshipping pain? Because you were unable to live by holding death as your standard of value?
The degree of your ability to live was the degree to which you broke your moral code, yet you believe that those who preach it are friends of humanity, you damn yourself and dare not question their motives or their goals. Take a look at them now, when you face your last choice-and if you choose to perish, do so with full knowledge of how cheaply so small an enemy has claimed your life.
The mystics of both schools, who preach the creed of sacrifice, are germs that attack you through a single sore: your fear of relying on your mind. They tell you that they possess a means of knowledge higher than the mind, a mode of consciousness superior to reason-like a special pull with some bureaucrat of the universe who gives them secret tips withheld from others. The mystics of spirit declare that they possess an extra sense you lack: this special sixth sense consists of contradicting the whole of the knowledge of your five. The mystics of muscle do not bother to assert any claim to extrasensory perception: they merely declare that your senses are not valid, and that their wisdom consists of perceiving your blindness by some manner of unspecified means. Both kinds demand that you invalidate your own consciousness and surrender yourself into their power. They offer you, as proof of their superior knowledge, the fact that they assert the opposite of everything you know, and as proof of their superior ability to deal with existence, the fact that they lead you to misery, self-sacrifice, starvation, destruction.
They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it another dimension, which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it the future, which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say-and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge-God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.
It is only the metaphysics of a leech that would cling to the idea of a universe where a zero is a standard of identification. A leech would want to seek escape from the necessity to name its own nature-escape from the necessity to know that the substance on which it builds its private universe is blood.
What is the nature of that superior world to which they sacrifice the world that exists? The mystics of spirit curse matter, the mystics of muscle curse profit the first wish men to profit by renouncing the earth, the second wish men to inherit the earth by renouncing all profit. Their non-material, non-profit worlds are realms where rivers run with milk and coffee, where wine spurts from rocks at their command, where pastry drops on them from clouds at the price of opening their mouth. On this material, profit-chasing earth, an enormous investment of virtue-of intelligence, integrity, energy, skill-is required to construct a railroad to carry them the distance of one mile; in their non-material, non-profit world, they travel from planet to planet at the cost of a wish. If an honest person asks them: How?-they answer with righteous scorn that a how is the concept of vulgar realists; the concept of superior spirits is Somehow. On this earth restricted by matter and profit, rewards are achieved by thought; in a world set free of such restrictions, rewards are achieved by wishing.
And that is the whole of their shabby secret. The secret of all their esoteric philosophies, of all their dialectics and super-senses, of their evasive eyes and snarling words, the secret for which they destroy civilization, language, industries and lives, the secret for which they pierce their own eyes and eardrums, grind out their senses, blank out their minds, the purpose for which they dissolve the absolutes of reason, logic, matter, existence, reality-is to erect upon that plastic fog a single holy absolute: their Wish.
The restriction they seek to escape is the law of identity. The freedom they seek is freedom from the fact that an A will remain an A, no matter what their tears or tantrums-that a river will not bring them milk, no matter what their hunger-that water will not run uphill, no matter what comforts they could gain if it did, and if they want to lift it to the roof of a skyscraper, they must do it by a process of thought and labor, in which the nature of an inch of pipe line counts, but their feelings do not-that their feelings are impotent to alter the course of a single speck of dust in space or the nature of any action they have committed.
Those who tell you that man is unable to perceive a reality undistorted by his senses, mean that they are unwilling to perceive a reality undistorted by their feelings. Things as they are are things as perceived by your mind; divorce them from reason and they become things as perceived by your wishes.
There is no honest revolt against reason-and when you accept any part of their creed, your motive is to get away with something your reason would not permit you to attempt. The freedom you seek is freedom from the fact that if you stole your wealth, you are a scoundrel, no matter how much you give to charity or how many prayers you recite-that if you sleep with sluts, youre not a worthy husband, no matter how anxiously you feel that you love our wife next morning-that you are an entity, not a series of random pieces scattered through a universe where nothing sticks and nothing commits you to anything, the universe of a childs nightmare where identities switch and swim, where the rotter and the hero are interchangeable parts arbitrarily assumed at will-that you are a man-that you are an entity-that you are.
No matter how eagerly you claim that the goal of your mystic wishing is a higher mode of life, the rebellion against identity is the wish for non-existence. The desire not to be anything is the desire not to be.
Your teachers, the mystics of both schools, have reversed causality in their consciousness, then strive to reverse it in existence. They take their emotions as a cause, and their mind as a passive effect. They make their emotions their tool for perceiving reality. They hold their desires as an irreducible primary, as a fact superseding all facts. An honest man does not desire until he has identified the object of his desire. He says: It is, therefore I want it. They say: I want it, therefore it is.
They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness-they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of the consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown.
Those irrational wishes that draw you to their creed, those emotions you worship as an idol, on whose altar you sacrifice the earth, that dark, incoherent passion within you, which you take as the voice of God or of your glands, is nothing more than the corpse of your mind. An emotion that clashes with your reason, an emotion that you cannot explain or control, is only the carcass of that stale thinking which you forbade your mind to revise.
Whenever you committed the evil of refusing to think and to see, of exempting from the absolute of reality some one small wish of yours, whenever you chose to say: Let me withdraw from the judgment of reason the cookies I stole, or the existence of God, let me have my one irrational whim and I will be a man of reason about all else-that was the act of subverting your consciousness, the act of corrupting your mind. Your mind then became a fixed jury who takes orders from a secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence to fit an absolute it dares not touch-and a censored reality is the result, a splintered reality where the bits you chose to see are floating among the chasms of those you didnt, held together by that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought.
The links you strive to drown are casual connections. The enemy you seek to defeat is the law of causality: it permits you no miracles. The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. An action not caused by an entity would be caused by a zero, which would mean a zero controlling a thing, a non-entity controlling an entity, the non-existent ruling the existent-which is the universe of your teachers desire, the cause of their doctrines of causeless action, the reason of their revolt against reason, the goal of their morality, their politics, their economics, the ideal they strive for: the reign of the zero.
The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it. But if you drown both laws in the blanks of your mind, if you pretend to yourself and to others that you dont see-then you can try to proclaim your right to eat your cake today and mine tomorrow, you can preach that the way to have a cake is to eat it first, before you bake it, that the way to produce is to start by consuming, that all wishers have an equal claim to all things, since nothing is caused by anything. The corollary of the causeless in matter is the unearned in spirit.
Whenever you rebel against causality, your motive is the fraudulent desire, not to escape it, but worse: to reverse it. You want unearned love, as if love, the effect, could give you personal value, the cause-you want unearned admiration, as if admiration, the effect, could give you virtue, the cause-you want unearned wealth, as if wealth, the effect, could give you ability, the cause-you plead for mercy, mercy, not justice, as if an unearned forgiveness could wipe out the cause of your plea. And to indulge your ugly little shams, you support the doctrines of your teachers, while they run hog-wild proclaiming that spending, the effect, creates riches, the cause, that machinery, the effect, creates intelligence, the cause, that your sexual desires, the effect, create your philosophical values, the cause.
Who pays for the orgy? Who causes the causeless? Who are the victims, condemned to remain unacknowledged and to perish in silence, lest their agony disturb your pretense that they do not exist? We are, we, the men of the mind.
We are the cause of all the values that you covet, we who perform the process of thinking, which is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections. We taught you to know, to speak, to produce, to desire, to love. You who abandon reason-were it not for us who preserve it, you would not be able to fulfill or even to conceive your wishes. You would not be able to desire the clothes that had not been made, the automobile that had not been invented, the money that had not been devised, as exchange for goods that did not exist, the admiration that had not been experienced for men who had achieved nothing, the love that belongs and pertains only to those who preserve their capacity to think, to choose, to value.
You-who leap like a savage out of the jungle of your feelings to the Fifth Avenue of our New York and proclaim that you want to keep the electric lights, but to destroy the generators-it is our wealth that you use while destroying us, it is our values that you use while damning us, it is our language that you use while denying the mind.
Just as your mystics of spirit invented their heaven in the image of our earth, omitting our existence, and promised you rewards created by miracle out of non-matter-so your modern mystics of muscle omit our existence and promise you a heaven where matter shapes itself of its own causeless will into all the rewards desired by your non-mind.
For centuries, the mystics of spirit had existed by running a protection racket-by making life on earth unbearable, then charging you for consolation and relief, by forbidding all the virtues that make existence possible, then riding on the shoulders of your guilt, by declaring production and joy to be sins, then collecting blackmail from the sinners. We, the men of the mind, were the unnamed victims of their creed, we who were willing to break their moral code and to bear damnation for the sin of reason-we who thought and acted, while they wished and prayed-we who were moral outcasts, we who were bootleggers of life when life was held to be a crime-while they basked in moral glory for the virtue of surpassing material greed and of distributing in selfless charity the material goods produced by-blank-out.
Now we are chained and commanded to produce by savages who do not grant us even the identification of sinners-by savages who proclaim that we do not exist, then threaten to deprive us of the life we dont possess, if we fail to provide them with the goods we dont produce. Now we are expected to continue running railroads and to know the minute when a train will arrive after crossing the span of a continent, we are expected to continue running steel mills and to know the molecular structure of every drop of metal in the cables of your bridges and in the body of the airplanes that support you in mid-air-while the tribes of your grotesque little mystics of muscle fight over the carcass of our world, gibbering in sounds of non-language that there are no principles, no absolutes, no knowledge, no mind.
Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter-and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it.
As they feed on stolen wealth in body, so they feed on stolen concepts in mind, and proclaim that honesty consists of refusing to know that one is stealing. As they use effects while denying causes, so they use our concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using. As they seek, not to build, but to take over industrial plants, so they seek, not to think, but to take over human thinking.
As they proclaim that the only requirement for running a factory is the ability to turn the cranks of the machines, and blank out the question of who created the factory-so they proclaim that there are no entities, that nothing exists but motion, and blank out the fact that motion presupposes the thing which moves, that without the concept of entity, there can be no such concept as motion. As they proclaim their right to consume the unearned, and blank out the question of whos to produce it-so they proclaim that there is no law of identity, that nothing exists but change, and blank out the fact that change presupposes the concepts of what changes, from what and to what, that, without the law of identity no such concept as change is possible. As they rob an industrialist while denying his value, so they seek to seize power over all of existence while denying that existence exists.
We know that we know nothing, they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are claiming knowledge-There are not absolutes, they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute-You cannot prove that you exist or that youre 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.
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.
When he declares that an axiom is a matter of arbitrary choice and he doesnt 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 ones mouth, expound no theories and die.
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. 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 mans 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.
Do you think they are taking you back to dark ages? 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 mans 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.
A savage is a being who has not grasped that A is A and that reality is real. He has arrested his mind at the level of a babys, 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. 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 citys 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.
We are the men who reach that day; you are the men who choose to reach it partly; a savage is a man who never does.
To a savage, the world is a place of unintelligible miracles where anything is possible to inanimate matter and nothing is possible to him. His world is not the unknown, but that irrational horror: the unknowable. 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. 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. 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 dont, 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.
His is the intellectual state of your modern teachers and his is the world to which they want to bring you.
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 hes incapable of knowing an objective reality. What, then, is his standard of knowledge and truth? Whatever others believe, is their answer. There is no knowledge, they teach, theres only faith: your belief that you exist is an act of faith, no more valid than anothers faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you in his right to kill you; the axioms of science are an act of faith, no more valid than a mystics faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you 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 rabbits 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; reality is whatever people choose to say it is, there are no objective facts, there are only peoples 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 werent 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.
For centuries, the mystics of spirit have proclaimed that faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you is superior to reason, but have not dared deny the existence of reason. 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. 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.
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?
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. 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.
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.
They proclaim that every man born is entitled to exist without labor 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. Every man, they announce, owns an equal share of the technological benefits created in the world. Created-by whom? Blank-out. 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. 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. 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. 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.
And to forestall any inquiry into the cause of the difference between a jungle village and New York City, they resort to the ultimate obscenity of explaining mans industrial progress-skyscrapers, cable bridges, power motors, railroad trains-by declaring that man is an animal who possesses an instinct of tool-making.
Did you wonder what is wrong with the world? You are now seeing the climax of the creed of the uncaused and unearned. 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. 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.
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.
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.
But it cannot be done to you without your consent. If you permit it to be done, you deserve it.
When you listen to a mystics harangue on the impotence of the human mind 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.
A mystic is a man who surrendered his mind at its first encounter with the minds of others. 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. 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 and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you in the supernatural begins as faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you in the superiority of others. 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.
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.
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 mystic is driven by the urge to impress, to cheat, to flatter, to deceive, to force that omnipotent consciousness of others. 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.
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 purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you and force-he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. 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 mens 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.
Just as the mystic is a parasite in matter, who expropriates the wealth created by others-just as he is a parasite in spirit, who plunders the ideas created by others-so he 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.
There is only one state that fulfills the mystics longing for infinity, non-causality, non-identity: death. No matter what unintelligible causes he ascribes to his incommunicable feelings, whoever rejects reality rejects existence-and the feelings that move him from then on are hatred for all the values of mans 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 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.
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.
You whore depraved enough to believe that you could adjust yourself to a mystics 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. 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.
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 mind the nature of their motive. Wealth is a means of human life, and they clamor 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. 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.
You whove 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 theyre after. Theirs is a conspiracy against the mind, which means: against life and man.
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.
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.
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.
I am the man whose existence your blank-outs were intended to permit you to ignore. I am the man whom you did not want either to live or to die. You did not want me to live, because you were afraid of knowing that I carried the responsibility you dropped and that your lives depended upon me; you did not want me to die, because you knew it.
Twelve years ago, when I worked in your world, I was an inventor. I was one of a profession that came last in human history and will be first to vanish on the way back to the sub-human. An inventor is a man who asks Why? of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
Like the man who discovered the use of steam or the man who discovered the use oil, I discovered a source of energy which was available since the birth of the globe, but which men had not known how to use except as an object of worship, of terror and of legends without a thundering god. I completed the experimental model of a motor that would have made a fortune for me and for those who had hired me, a motor that would have raised the efficiency of every human installation using power and would have added the gift of higher productivity to every hour you spend at earning your living.
Then, one night at a factory meeting, I heard myself sentenced to death by reason of my achievement. I heard three parasites assert that my brain and my life were their property, that my right to exist was conditional and depended on the satisfaction of their desires. The purpose of my ability, they said, was to serve the needs of those who were less able. I had no right to live, they said, by reason of my competence for living: their right to live was unconditional, by reason of their incompetence.
Then I saw what was wrong with the world, I saw what destroyed men and nations, and where the battle for life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality-and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent-that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real-and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan-so throughout the world and throughout mens history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collective countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values-the impotence of death. I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was No.
I quit that factory. I quit your world, I made it my job to warn your victims and to give them the method and the weapon to fight you. The method was to refuse to deflect retribution. The weapon was justice.
If you want to know what you lost when I quit and when my strikers deserted your world-stand on an empty stretch of soil in a wilderness unexplored by men and ask yourself what manner of survival you would achieve and how long you would last if you refused to think, with no one around to teach you the motions, or, if you chose to think, how much your mind would be able to discover-ask yourself how many independent conclusions you have reached in the course of your life and how much of your time was spent on performing the actions you learned from others-ask yourself whether you would be able to discover how to till the soil and grow your food, whether you would be able to invent a wheel, a lever, an induction coil, a generator, an electronic tube-then decide whether men of ability are exploiters who live by the fruit of your labor and rob you of the wealth that you produce, and whether you dare to believe that you possess the power to enslave them. Let your women take a look at a jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century-then let them ask themselves whether their instinct of tool-making will provide them with their electric refrigerators, their washing machines and vacuum cleaners, and, if not, whether they care to destroy those who provided it all, but not by instinct.
Take a look around you, you savages who stutter that ideas are created by mens means of production, that a machine is not the product of human thought, but a mystical power that produces human thinking. You have never discovered the industrial age-and you cling to the morality of the barbarian eras when a miserable form of human subsistence was produced by the muscular labor of slaves. Every mystic had always longed for slaves, to protect him from the material reality he dreaded. But you, you grotesque little atavists, stare blindly at the skyscrapers and smokestacks around you and dream of enslaving the material providers who are scientists, inventors, industrialists. When you clamor for public ownership of the means of production, you are clamoring for public ownership of the mind. I have taught my strikers that the answer you deserve is only: Try and get it.
You proclaim yourself unable to harness the forces of inanimate matter, yet propose to harness the minds of men who are able to achieve the feats you cannot equal. You proclaim that you cannot survive without us, yet propose to dictate the terms of our survival. You proclaim that you need us, yet indulge the impertinence of asserting your right to rule us by force-and expect that we, who are not afraid of that physical nature which fills you with terror, will cower at the sight of any lout who has talked you into voting him a chance to command us.
You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that youre incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others-that youre unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler-that youre unable to earn your living by the use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and to vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of your capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser.
This idol of your cult of zero-worship, this symbol of impotence-the congenital dependent-is your image of man and your standard of value, in whose likeness you strive to refashion your soul. Its only human, you cry in defense of any depravity, reaching the stage of self-abasement where you seek to make the concept human mean the weakling, the fool, the rotter, the liar, the failure, the coward, the fraud, and to exile from the human race the hero, the thinker, the producer, the inventor, the strong, the purposeful, the pure-as if to feel were human, but to think were not, as if to fail were human, but to succeed were not, as if corruption were human, but virtue were not-as if the premise of death were proper to man, but the premise of life were not.
In order to deprive us of honor, that you may then deprive us of our wealth, you have always regarded us as slaves who deserve no moral recognition. You praise any venture that claims to be non-profit, and damn the men who made the profits that make the venture possible. You regard as in the public interest any project serving those who do not pay; it is not in the public interest to provide any services for those who do the paying. Public benefit is anything given as alms; to engage in trade is to injure the public. Public welfare is the welfare of those who do not earn it; those who do, are entitled to no welfare. The public, to you, is whoever has failed to achieve any virtue or value; whoever achieves it, whoever provides the goods you require for survival, ceases to be regarded as part of the public or as part of the human race.
What blank-out permitted you to hope that you could get away with this muck of contradictions and to plan it as an ideal society, when the No of your victims was sufficient to demolish the whole of your structure? What permits any insolent beggar to wave his sores in the face of his betters and to plead for help in the tone of a threat? You cry, as he does, that you are counting on our pity, but your secret hope is the moral code that has taught you to count on our guilt. You expect us to feel guilty of our virtues in the presence of your vices, wounds and failures-guilty of succeeding at existence, guilty of enjoying the life that you damn, yet beg us to help you to live.
Did you want to know who is John Galt? I am the first man of ability who refused to regard it as guilt. I am the first man who would not do penance for my virtues or let them be used as the tools of my destruction. I am the first man who would not suffer martyrdom at the hands of those who wished me to perish for the privilege of keeping them alive. I am the first man who told them that I did not need them, and until they learned to deal with me as traders, giving value for value, they would have to exist without me, as I would exist without them; then I would let them learn whose is the need and whose the ability-and if human survival is the standard, whose terms would set the way to survive.
I have done by plan and intention what has been done throughout history by silent default. There have always been men of intelligence who went on strike, in protest and despair, but they did not know the meaning of their action. The man who retires from public life, to think, but not to share his thoughts-the man who chooses to spend his years in the obscurity of menial employment, keeping to himself the fire of his mind, never giving it form, expression or reality, refusing to bring it into a world he despises-the man who is defeated by revulsion, the man who renounces before he has started, the man who gives up rather than give in, the man who functions at a fraction of his capacity, disarmed by his longing for an ideal he has not found-they are on strike, on strike against unreason, on strike against your world and your values. But not knowing any values of their own, they abandon the quest to know-in the darkness of their hopeless indignation, which is righteous without knowledge of the fight, and passionate without knowledge of desire, they concede to you the power of reality and surrender the incentives of their mind-and they perish in bitter futility, as rebels who never learned the object of their rebellion, as lovers who never discovered their love.
The infamous times you call the Dark Ages were an era of intelligence on strike, when men of ability went underground and lived undiscovered, studying in secret, and died; destroying the works of their mind, when only a few of the bravest of martyrs remained to keep the human race alive. Every period ruled by mystics was an era of stagnation and want, when most men were on strike against existence, working for less than their barest survival, leaving nothing but scraps for their rulers to loot, refusing to think, to venture, to produce, when the ultimate collector of their profits and the final authority on truth or error was the whim of some gilded degenerate sanctioned as superior to reason by divine right and by grace of a club. The road of human history was a string of blank-outs over sterile stretches eroded by faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you and force, with only a few brief bursts of sunlight, when the released energy of the men of the mind performed the wonders you gaped at, admired and promptly extinguished again.
But there will be no extinction, this time. The game of the mystics is up. You will perish in and by your own unreality. We, the men of reason, will survive.
I have called out on strike the kind of martyrs who had never deserted you before. I have given them the weapon they had lacked: the knowledge of their own moral value. I have taught them that the world is ours, whenever we choose to claim it, by virtue and grace of the fact that ours is the Morality of Life. They, the great victims who had produced all the wonders of humanitys brief summer, they, the industrialists, the conquerors of matter, had not discovered the nature of their right. They had known that theirs was the power. I taught them that theirs was the glory.
You, who dare to regard us as the moral inferiors of any mystic who claims supernatural visions-you, who scramble like vultures for plundered pennies, yet honor a fortune-teller above a fortune-maker-you, who scorn a businessman as ignoble, but esteem any posturing artist as exalted-the root of your standards is that mystic miasma which comes from primordial swamps, that cult of death, which pronounces a businessman immoral by reason of the fact that he keeps you alive. You, who claim that you long to rise above the crude concerns of the body, above the drudgery of serving mere physical needs-who is enslaved by physical needs: the Hindu who labors from sunrise to sunset at the shafts of a hand-plow for a bowl of rice, or the American who is driving a tractor? Who is the conqueror of physical reality: the man who sleeps on a bed of nails or the man who sleeps on an inner-spring mattress? Which is the monument to the triumph of the human spirit over matter: the germ-eaten hovels on the shorelines of the Ganges or the Atlantic skyline of New York?
Unless you learn the answers to these questions-and learn to stand at reverent attention when you face the achievements of mans mind-you will not stay much longer on this earth, which we love and will not permit you to damn. You will not sneak by with the rest of your lifespan. I have foreshortened the usual course of history and have let you discover the nature of the payment you had hoped to switch to the shoulders of others. It is the last of your own living power that will now be drained to provide the unearned for the worshippers and carriers of Death. Do not pretend that a malevolent reality defeated you-you were defeated by your own evasions. Do not pretend that you will perish for a noble ideal-you will perish as fodder for the haters of man.
But to those of you who still retain a remnant of the dignity and will to love ones life, I am offering the chance to make a choice. Choose whether you wish to perish for a morality you have never believed or practiced. Pause on the brink of self-destruction and examine your values and your life. You had known how to take an inventory of your wealth. Now take an inventory of your mind.
Since childhood, you have been hiding the guilty secret that you feel no desire to be moral, no desire to seek self-immolation, that you dread and hate your code, but dare not say it even to yourself, that youre devoid of those moral instincts which others profess to feel. The less you felt, the louder you proclaimed your selfless love and servitude to others, in dread of ever letting them discover your own self, the self that you betrayed, the self that you kept in concealment, like a skeleton in the closet of your body. And they, who were at once your dupes and your deceivers, they listened and voiced their loud approval, in dread of ever letting you discover that they were harboring the same unspoken secret. Existence among you is a giant pretense, an act you all perform for one another, each feeling that he is the only guilty freak, each placing his moral authority in the unknowable known only to others, each faking the reality he feels they expect him to fake, some having the courage to break the vicious circle.
No matter what dishonorable compromise youve made with your impracticable creed, no matter what miserable balance, half-cynicism, half-superstition, you now manage to maintain, you still preserve the root, the lethal tenet: the belief that the moral and the practical are opposites. Since childhood, you have been running from the terror of a choice you have never dared fully to identify: If the practical, whatever you must practice to exist, whatever works, succeeds, achieves your purpose, whatever brings you food and joy, whatever profits you, is evil-and if the good, the moral, is the impractical, whatever fails, destroys, frustrates, whatever injures you and brings you loss or pain-then your choice is to be moral or to live.
The sole result of that murderous doctrine was to remove morality from life. You grew up to believe that moral laws bear no relation to the job of living, except as an impediment and threat, that mans existence is an amoral jungle where anything goes and anything works. And in that fog of switching definitions which descends upon a frozen mind, you have forgotten that the evils damned by your creed were the virtues required for living, and you have come to believe that actual evils are the practical means of existence. Forgetting that the impractical good was self-sacrifice, you believe that self-esteem is impractical; forgetting that the practical evil was production, you believe that robbery is practical.
Swinging like a helpless branch in the wind of an uncharted moral wilderness, you dare not fully to be evil or fully to live. When you are honest, you feel the resentment of a sucker; when you cheat, you feel terror and shame, your pain is augmented by the feeling that pain is your natural state. You pity the men you admire, you believe they are doomed to fail; you envy the men you hate, you believe they are the masters of existence. You feel disarmed when you come up against a scoundrel: you believe that evil is bound to win, since the moral is the impotent, the impractical.
Morality, to you, is a phantom scarecrow made of duty, of boredom, of punishment, of pain, a cross-breed between the first schoolteacher of your past and the tax collector of your present, a scarecrow standing in a barren field, waving a stick to chase away your pleasures-and pleasure, to you, is a liquor-soggy brain, a mindless slut, the stupor of a moron who stakes his cash on some animals race, since pleasure cannot be moral.
If you identify your actual belief, you will find a triple damnation-of yourself, of life, of virtue-in the grotesque conclusion you have reached: you believe that morality is a necessary evil.
Do you wonder why you live without dignity, love without fire and die without resistance? Do you wonder why, wherever you look, you see nothing but unanswerable questions, why your life is tom by impossible conflicts, why you spend it straddling irrational fences to evade artificial choices, such as soul or body, mind or heart, security or freedom, private profit or public good?
Do you cry that you find no answers? By what means did you hope to find them? You reject your tool of perception-your mind-then complain that the universe is a mystery. You discard your key, then wail that all doors are locked against you. You start out in pursuit of the irrational, then damn existence for making no sense.
The fence you have been straddling for two hours-while hearing my words and seeking to escape them-is the cowards formula contained in the sentence: But we dont have to go to extremes! The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true. A moral code impossible to practice, a code that demands imperfection or death, has taught you to dissolve all ideas in fog, to permit no firm definitions, to regard any concept as approximate and any rule of conduct as elastic, to hedge on any principle, to compromise on any value, to take the middle of any road. By extorting your acceptance of supernatural absolutes, it has forced you to reject the absolute of nature. By making moral judgments impossible, it has made you incapable of rational judgment. A code that forbids you to cast the first stone, has forbidden you to admit the identity of stones and to know when or if youre being stoned.
The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your break or see it vanish into a looters stomach, is an absolute.
There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who shoves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube.
You, who are half-rational, half-coward, have been playing a con game with reality, but the victim you have conned is yourself. When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, its picked up by scoundrels-and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil. As you surrendered to the mystics of muscle when they told you that ignorance consists of claiming knowledge, so now you surrender to them when they shriek that immorality consists of pronouncing moral judgment. When they yell that it is selfish to be certain that you are right, you hasten to assure them that youre certain of nothing. When they shout that its immoral to stand on your convictions, you assure them that you have no convictions whatever. When the thugs of Europes Peoples States snarl that you are guilty of intolerance, because you dont treat your desire to live and their desire to kill you as a difference of opinion-you cringe and hasten to assure them that you are not intolerant of any horror. When some barefoot bum in some pesthole of Asia yells at you: How dare you be rich-you apologize and beg him to be patient and promise him youll give it all away.
You have reached the blind alley of the treason you committed when you agreed that you had no right to exist. Once, you believed it was only a compromise: you conceded it was evil to live for yourself, but moral to live for the sake of your children. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your children, but moral to live for your community. Then you conceded that it was selfish to live for your community, but moral to live for your country. Now, you are letting this greatest of countries be devoured by any scum from any corner of the earth, while you concede that it is selfish to live for your country and that your moral duty is to live for the globe. A man who has no right to life, has no right to values and will not keep them.
At the end of your road of successive betrayals, stripped of weapons, of certainty, of honor, you commit your final act of treason and sign your petition of intellectual bankruptcy: while the muscle-mystics of the Peoples States proclaim that theyre the champions of reason and science, you agree and hasten to proclaim that faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you is your cardinal principle, that reason is on the side of your destroyers, but yours is the side of faith. To the struggling remnants of rational honesty in the twisted, bewildered minds of your children, you declare that you can offer no rational argument to support the ideas that created this country, that there is no rational justification for freedom, for property, for justice, for rights, that they rest on a mystical insight and can be accepted only on faith, that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you is superior to reason. You declare to your children that it is rational to loot, to torture, to enslave, to expropriate, to murder, but that they must resist the temptations of logic and stick to the discipline of remaining irrational-that skyscrapers, factories, radios, airplanes were the products of faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you and mystic intuition, while famines, concentration camps, and firing squads are the products of a reasonable manner of existence-that the industrial revolution was the revolt of the men of faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you against that era of reason and logic which is known as the Middle Ages. Simultaneously, in the same breath, to the same child, you declare that the looters who rule the Peoples States will surpass this country in material production, since they are the representatives of science, but that its evil to be concerned with physical wealth and that one must renounce material prosperity-you declare that the looters ideal are noble, but they do not mean them, while you do; that your purpose in fighting the looters is only to accomplish their aims, which they cannot accomplish, but you can; and that the way to fight them is to beat them to it and give ones wealth away. Then you wonder why your children join the Peoples thugs or become half-crazed delinquents, you wonder why the looters conquests keep creeping closer to your doors-and you blame it on human stupidity, declaring that the masses are impervious to reason.
You blank out the open, public spectacle of the looters fight against the mind, and the fact that their bloodiest horrors are unleashed to punish the crime of thinking. You blank out the fact that most mystics of muscle started out as mystics of spirit, that they keep switching from one to the other, that the men you call materialists and spiritualists are only two halves of the same dissected human, forever seeking completion, but seeking it by swinging from the destruction of the flesh to the destruction of the soul and vice versa-that they keep running from your colleges to the slave pens of Europe to an open collapse into the mystic muck of India, seeking any refuge against reality, any form of escape from the mind.
You blank it out and cling to your hypocrisy of faith in order to blank out the knowledge that the looters have a stranglehold upon you, which consists of your moral code-that the looters are the final and consistent practitioners of the morality youre half-obeying, half-evading-that they practice it the only way it can be practiced: by turning the earth into a sacrificial furnace-that your morality forbids you to oppose them in the only way they can be opposed: by refusing to become a sacrificial animal and proudly asserting your right to exist-that in order to fight them to the finish and with full rectitude, it is your morality that you have to reject.
You blank it out, because your self-esteem is tied to that mystic unselfishness which youve never possessed or practiced, but spent so many years pretending to possess that the thought of denouncing it fills you with terror. No value is higher than self-esteem, but youve invested it in counterfeit securities-and now your morality has caught you in a trap where you are forced to protect your self-esteem by fighting for the creed of self-destruction. The grim joke is on you: that need of self-esteem, which youre unable to explain or to define, belongs to my morality, not yours; its the objective token of my code, it is my proof within your own soul.
By a feeling he has not learned to identify, but has derived from his first awareness of existence, from his discovery that he has to make choices, man knows that his desperate need of self-esteem is a matter of life or death. As a being of volitional consciousness, he knows that he must know his own value in order to maintain his own life. He knows that he has to be right; to be wrong in action means danger to his life; to be wrong in person, to be evil, means to be unfit for existence.
Every act of mans life has to be willed; the mere act of obtaining or eating his food implies that the person he preserves is worthy of being preserved; every pleasure he seeks to enjoy implies that the person who seeks it is worthy of finding enjoyment. He has no choice about his need of self-esteem, his only choice is the standard by which to gauge it. And he makes his fatal error when he switches this gauge protecting his life into the service of his own destruction, when he chooses a standard contradicting existence and sets his self-esteem against reality.
Every form of causeless self-doubt, every feeling of inferiority and secret unworthiness is, in fact, mans hidden dread of his inability to deal with existence. But the greater his terror, the more fiercely he clings to the murderous doctrines that choke him. No man can survive the moment of pronouncing himself irredeemably evil; should he do it, his next moment is insanity or suicide. To escape it-if hes chosen an irrational Standard-he will fake, evade, blank out; he will cheat himself of reality, of existence, of happiness, of mind; and he will ultimately cheat himself of self-esteem by struggling to preserve its illusion rather than to risk discovering its lack. To fear to face an issue is to believe that the worst is true.
It is not any crime you have committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your failures, errors or flaws, but theblank-out by which you attempt to evade them-it is not any sort of Original Sin or unknown prenatal deficiency, but the knowledge and fact of your basic default, of suspending your mind, of refusing to think. Fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they dont come from the superficial reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your selfishness, weakness or ignorance, but from a real and basic threat to your existence; fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally.
The self you have betrayed is your mind; self-esteem is reliance on ones power to think. The ego you seek, that essential you which you cannot express or define, is not your emotions or inarticulate dreams, but your intellect, that judge of your supreme tribunal whom youve impeached in order to drift at the mercy of any stray shyster you describe as your feeling. Then you drag yourself through a self-made night, in a desperate quest for a nameless fire, moved by some fading vision of a dawn you had seen and lost.
Observe the persistence, in mankinds mythologies, of the legend about a paradise that men had once possessed, the city of Atlantis or the Garden of Eden or some kingdom of perfection, always behind us. The root of that legend exists, not in the past of the race, but in the past of every man. You still retain a sense-not as firm as a memory, but diffused like the pain of hopeless longing-that somewhere in the starting years of your childhood, before you had learned to submit, to absorb the terror of unreason and to doubt the value of your mind, you had known a radiant state of existence, you had known the independence of a rational consciousness facing an open universe. That is the paradise which you have lost, which you seek-which is yours for the taking.
Some of you will never know who is John Galt. But those of you who have known a single moment of love for existence and of pride in being its worthy lover, a moment of looking at this earth and letting your glance be its sanction, have known the state of being a man, and I-I am only the man who knew that that state is not to be betrayed. I am the man who knew what made it possible and who chose consistently to practice and to be what you had practiced and been in that one moment.
That choice is yours to make. That choice-the dedication to ones highest potential-is made by accepting the fact that the noblest act you have ever performed is the act of your mind in the process of grasping that two and two make four.
Whoever you are-you who are alone with my words in this moment, with nothing but your honesty to help you understand-the choice is still open to be a human being, but the price is to start from scratch, to stand naked in the face of reality and, reversing a costly historical error, to declare: I am, therefore Ill think.
Accept the irrevocable fact that your life depends upon your mind. Admit that the whole of your struggle, your doubts, your fakes, your evasions, was a desperate quest for escape from the responsibility of a volitional consciousness-a quest for automatic knowledge, for instinctive action, for intuitive certainty-and while you called it a longing for the state of an angel, what you were seeking was the state of an animal. Accept, as your moral ideal, the task of becoming a man.
Do not say that youre afraid to trust your mind because you know so little. Are you safer in surrendering to mystics and discarding the little that you know? Live and act within the limit of your knowledge and keep expanding it to the limit of your life. Redeem your mind from the hockshops of authority. Accept the fact that you are not omniscient, but playing a zombie will not give you omniscience-that your mind is fallible, but becoming mindless will not make you infallible-that an error made on your own is safer than ten truths accepted on faith, because the first leaves you the means to correct it, but the second destroys your capacity to distinguish truth from error. In place of your dream of an omniscient automation, accept the fact that any knowledge man acquires is acquired by his own will and effort, and that that is his distinction in the universe, that is his nature, his morality, his glory.
Discard that unlimited license to evil which consists of claiming that man is imperfect. By what standard do you damn him when you claim it? Accept the fact that in the realm of morality nothing less than perfection will do. But perfection is not to be gauged by mystic commandments to practice the impossible, and your moral stature is not to be gauged by matters not open to your choice. Man has a single basic choice: to think or not, and that is the gauge of his virtue. Moral perfection is an unbreached rationality-not the degree of your intelligence, but the full and relentless use of your mind, not the extent of your knowledge, but the acceptance of reason as an absolute.
Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any breach of morality. Give the benefit of the doubt to those who seek to know; but treat as potential killers those specimens of insolent depravity who make demands upon you, announcing that they have and seek no reasons, proclaiming, as a license, that they just feel it-or those who reject an irrefutable argument by saying: Its only logic, which means: Its only reality. The only realm opposed to reality is the realm and premise of death.
Accept the fact that the achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness-not pain or mindless self-indulgence-is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values. Happiness was the responsibility you dreaded, it required the kind of rational discipline you did not value yourself enough to assume-and the anxious staleness of your day is the monument to your evasion of the knowledge that there is no moral substitute for happiness, that there is no more despicable coward than the man who deserted the battle for his joy, fearing to assert his right to existence, lacking the courage and the loyalty to life of a bird or a flower reaching for the sun. Discard the protective rags of that vice which you called a virtue: humility-learn to value yourself, which means: to fight for your happiness-and when you learn that pride is the sum of all virtues, you will learn to live like a man.
As a basic step of self-esteem, learn to treat as the mark of a cannibal any mans demand for your help. To demand it is to claim that your life is his property-and loathsome as such claim might be, theres something still more loathsome: your agreement. Do you ask if its ever proper to help another man? No-if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes-if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. Suffering as such is not a value; only mans fight against suffering, is. If you choose to help a man who suffers, do it only on the ground of his virtues, of his right to recover, of his rational record, or of the fact that he suffers unjustly; then your action is still a trade, and his virtue is the payment for your help. Be to help a man who has no virtues, to help him on the ground of his suffering as such, to accept his faults, his need, as a claim-is to accept the mortgage of a zero on your values. A man who has no virtues is a hater of existence who acts on the premise of death; to help him is to sanction his evil and to support his career of destruction. Be it only a penny you will not miss or a kindly smile he has not earned, a tribute to a zero is treason to life and to all those who struggle to maintain it. It is of such pennies and smiles that the desolation of your world was made.
Do not say that my morality is too hard for you to practice and that you fear it as you fear the unknown. Whatever living moments you have known, were lived by the values of my code. But you stifled, negated, betrayed it. You kept sacrificing your virtues to your vices, and the best among men to the worst. Look around you: what you have done to society, you have done it first within your soul; one is the image of the other. This dismal wreckage, which is now your world, is the physical form of the treason you committed to your values, to your friends, to your defenders, to your future, to your country, to yourself.
We-whom you are now calling, but who will not answer any longer-we have lived among you, but you failed to know us, you refused to think and to see what we were. You failed to recognize the motor I invented-and it became, in your world, a pile of dead scrap. You failed to recognize the hero in your soul-and you failed to know me when I passed you in the street. When you cried in despair for the unattainable spirit which you felt had deserted your world, you gave it my name, but what you were calling was your own betrayed self-esteem. You will not recover one without the other.
When you failed to give recognition to mans mind and attempted to rule human beings by force-those who submitted had no mind to surrender; those who had, were men who dont submit. Thus the man of productive genius assumed in your world the disguise of a playboy and became a destroyer of wealth, choosing to annihilate his fortune rather than surrender it to guns. Thus the thinker, the man of reason, assumed in your world the role of a pirate, to defend his values by force against your force, rather than submit to the rule of brutality. Do you hear me, Francisco dAnconia and Ragnar Danneskjld, my first friends, my fellow fighters, my fellow outcasts, in whose name and honor I speak?
It was the three of us who started what I am now completing. It was the three of us who resolved to avenge this country and to release its imprisoned soul. This greatest of countries was built on my morality-on the inviolate supremacy of mans right to exist-but you dreaded to admit it and live up to it. You stared at an achievement unequaled in history, and looted its effects and blanked out its cause. In the presence of that monument to human morality, which is a factory, a highway or a bridge-you kept damning this country as immoral and its progress as material greed, you kept offering apologies for this countrys greatness to the idol of primordial starvation, to decaying Europes idol of a leprous, mystic bum.
This country-the product of reason-could not survive on the morality of sacrifice. It was not built by men who sought self-immolation or by men who sought handouts. It could not stand on the mystic split that divorced mans soul from his body. It could not live by the mystic doctrine that damned this earth as evil and those who succeeded on earth as depraved. From its start, this country was a threat to the ancient rule of mystics. In the brilliant rocket-explosion of its youth, this country displayed to an incredulous world what greatness was possible to man, what happiness was possible on earth. It was one or the other: America or mystics. The mystics knew it; you didnt. You let them infect you with the worship of need-and this country became a giant in body with a mooching midget in place of its soul, while its living soul was driven underground to labor and feed you in silence, unnamed, unhonored, negated, its soul and hero: the industrialist. Do you hear me now, Hank Rearden, the greatest of the victims I have avenged?
Neither he nor the rest of us will return until the road is clear to rebuild this country-until the wreckage of the morality of sacrifice has been wiped out of our way. A countrys political system is based on its code of morality. We will rebuild Americas system on the moral premise which had been its foundation, but which you treated as a guilty underground, in your frantic evasion of the conflict between that premise and your mystic morality: the premise that man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others, that mans life, his freedom, his happiness are his by inalienable right.
You whove lost the concept of a right, you who swing in impotent evasiveness between the claim that rights are a gift of God, a supernatural gift to be taken on faith, or the claim that rights are a gift of society, to be broken at its arbitrary whim-the source of mans rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A-and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by mans nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, his right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate mans rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.
Rights are a moral concept-and morality is a matter of choice. Men are free not to choose mans survival as the standard of their morals and their laws, but not free to escape from the fact that the alternative is a cannibal society, which exists for a while by devouring its best and collapses like a cancerous body, when the healthy have been eaten by the diseased, when the rational have been consumed by the irrational. Such has been the fate of your societies in history, but youve evaded the knowledge of the cause. I am here to state it: the agent of retribution was the law of identity, which you cannot escape. Just as man cannot live by means of the irrational, so two men cannot, or two thousand, or two billion. Just as man cant succeed by defying reality, so a nation cant, or a country, or a globe. A is A. The rest is a matter of time, provided by the generosity of victims.
Just as man cant exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate ones rights into reality-to think, to work and to keep the results-which means: the right of poverty. The modern mystics of muscle who offer you the fraudulent alternative of human rights versus property rights, as if one could exist without the other, are making a last, grotesque attempt to revive the doctrine of soul versus body. Only a ghost can exist without material property; only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. The doctrine that human rights are superior to property rights simply means that some human beings have the right to make property out of others; since the competent have nothing to gain from the incompetent, it means the right of the incompetent to own their betters and to use them as productive cattle. Whoever regards this as human and right, has no right to the title of human.
The source of property rights is the law of causality. All property and all forms of wealth are produced by mans mind and labor. As you cannot have effects without causes, so you cannot have wealth without its source: without intelligence. You cannot force intelligence to work: those whore able to think, will not work under compulsion: those who will, wont produce much more than the price of the whip needed to keep them enslaved. You cannot obtain the products of a mind except on the owners terms, by trade and by volitional consent. Any other policy of men toward mans poverty is the policy of criminals, no matter what their numbers. Criminals are savages who play in short-range and starve when their prey runs out-just as youre starving today, you who believed that crime could be practical if your government decreed that robbery was legal and resistance to robbery illegal.
The only proper purpose of a government is to protect mans rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence. A proper government is only a policeman, acting as an agent of mans self-defense, and, as such, may resort to force only against those who start the use of force. The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law. But a government that initiates the employment of force against men who had forced no one, the employment of armed compulsion against disarmed victims, is a nightmare infernal machine designed to annihilate morality: such a government reverses its only moral purpose and switches from the role of protector to the role of mans deadliest enemy, from the role of policeman to the role of a criminal vested with the right to the wielding of violence against victims deprived of the right of self-defense. Such a government substitutes for morality the following rule of social conduct: you may do whatever you please to your neighbor, provided your gang is bigger than his.
Only a brute, a fool or an evader can agree to exist on such terms or agree to give his fellow men a blank check on his life and his mind, to accept the belief that others have the right to dispose of his person at their whim, that the will of the majority is Omnipotent, that the physical force of muscles and numbers is a substitute for justice, reality and truth. We, the men of the mind, we who are traders, not masters or slaves, do not deal in blank checks or grant them. We do not live or work with any form of the non-objective.
So long as men, in the era of savagery, had no concept of objective reality and believed that physical nature was ruled by the whim of unknowable demons-no thought, no science, no production were possible. Only when men discovered that nature was a firm, predictable absolute were they able to rely on their knowledge, to choose their course, to plan their future and, slowly, to rise from the cave. Now you have placed modern industry, with its immense complexity of scientific precision, back into the power of unknowable demons-the unpredictable power of the arbitrary whims of hidden, ugly little bureaucrats. A farmer will not invest the effort of one summer if hes unable to calculate his chances of a harvest. But you expect industrial giants-who plan in terms of decades, invest in terms of generations and undertake ninety-nine-year contracts-to continue to function and produce, not knowing what random caprice in the skull of what random official will descend upon them at what moment to demolish the whole of their effort. Drifters and physical laborers live and plan by the range of a day. The better the mind, the longer the range. A man whose vision extends to a shanty, might continue to build on your quicksands, to grab a fast profit and run. A man who envisions skyscrapers, will not. Nor will he give ten years of unswerving devotion to the task of inventing a new product, when he knows the gangs of entrenched mediocrity are juggling the laws against him, to tie him, restrict him and force him to fail, but should he fight them and struggle and succeed, they will seize his rewards and his invention.
Look past the range of the moment, you who cry that you fear to compete with men of superior intelligence, that their mind is a threat to your livelihood, that the strong leave no chance to the weak in a market of voluntary trade. What determines the material value of your work? Nothing but the productive effort of your mind-if you lived on a desert island. The less efficient the thinking of your brain, the less your physical labor would bring you-and you could spend your life on a single routine, collecting a precarious harvest or hunting with bow and arrows, unable to think any further. But when you live in a rational society, where men are free to trade, you receive an incalculable bonus: the material value of your work is determined not only by your effort, but by the effort of the best productive minds who exist in the world around you.
When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved the money to risk on the untried and the new, for the work of the engineer who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the work of the inventor who created the product which you spend your time on making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom your spend your time denouncing.
The machine, the frozen form of a living intelligence, is the power that expands the potential of your life by raising the productivity of your time. If you worked as a blacksmith in the mystics Middle Ages, the whole of your earning capacity would consist of an iron bar produced by your hands in days and days of effort. How many tons of rail do you produce per day if you work for Hank Rearden? Would you dare to claim that the size of your pay cheek was created solely by your physical labor and that those rails were the product of your muscles? The standard of living of that blacksmith is all that your muscles are worth; the rest is a gift from Hank Rearden.
Every man is free to rise as far as hes able or willing, but its only the degree to which he thinks that determines the degree to which hell rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and leaves no further value, neither for himself nor others. But the man who produces an idea in any field of rational endeavor-the man who discovers new knowledge-is the permanent benefactor of humanity. Material products cant be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it Is only the value of an idea that can be shared with unlimited numbers of men, making all sharers richer at no ones sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform. It is the value of his own time that the strong of the intellect transfers to the weak, letting them work on the jobs he discovered, while devoting his time to further discoveries. This is mutual trade to mutual advantage; the interests of the mind are one, no matter what the degree of intelligence, among men who desire to work and dont seek or expect the unearned.
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the competition between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of exploitation for which you have damned the strong.
Such was the service we had given you and were glad and willing to give. What did we ask in return? Nothing but freedom. We required that you leave us free to function-free to think and to work as we choose-free to take our own risks and to bear our own losses-free to earn our own profits and to make our own fortunes-free to gamble on your rationality, to submit our products to your judgment for the purpose of a voluntary trade, to rely on the objective value of our work and on your minds ability to see it-free to count on your intelligence and honesty, and to deal with nothing but your mind. Such was the price we asked, which you chose to reject as too high. You decided to call it unfair that we, who had dragged you out of your hovels and provided you with modern apartments, with radios, movies and cars, should own our palaces and yachts-you decided that you had a right to your wages, but we had no right to our profits, that you did not want us to deal with your mind, but to deal, instead, with your gun. Our answer to that, was: May you be damned! Our answer came true. You are.
You did not care to compete in terms of intelligence-you are now competing in terms of brutality. You did not care to allow rewards to be won by successful production-you are now running a race in which rewards are won by successful plunder. You called it selfish and cruel that men should trade value for value-you have now established an unselfish society where they trade extortion for extortion. Your system is a legal civil war, where men gang up on one another and struggle for possession of the law, which they use as a club over rivals, till another gang wrests it from their clutch and clubs them with it in their turn, all of them clamoring protestations of service to an unnamed publics unspecified good. You had said that you saw no difference between economic and political power, between the power of money and the power of guns-no difference between reward and punishment, no difference between purchase and plunder, no difference between pleasure and fear, no difference between life and death. You are learning the difference now.
Some of you might plead the excuse of your ignorance, of a limited mind and a limited range. But the damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know, yet chose to blank out reality, the men who were willing to steel their intelligence into cynical servitude to force: the contemptible breed of those mystics of science who profess a devotion to some sort of pure knowledge-the purity consisting of their claim that such knowledge has no practical purpose on this earth-who reserve their logic for inanimate matter, but believe that the subject of dealing with men requires and deserves no rationality, who scorn money and sell their souls in exchange for a laboratory supplied by loot. And since there is no such thing as non-practical knowledge or any sort of disinterested action, since they scorn the use of their science for the purpose and profit of life, they deliver their science to the service of death, to the only practical purpose it can ever have for looters: to inventing weapons of coercion and destruction. They, the intellects who seek escape from moral values, they are the damned on their earth, theirs is the guilt beyond forgiveness. Do you hear me, Dr. Robert Stadler?
But it is not to him that I wish to speak. I am speaking to those among you who have retained some sovereign shred of their soul, unsold and unstamped: -to the order of others. If, in the chaos of the motives that have made you listen to the radio tonight, there was an honest, rational desire to learn what is wrong with the world, you are the man whom I wished to address. By the rules and terms of my code, one owes a rational statement to those whom it does concern and whore making an effort to know. Those whore making an effort to fall to understand me, are not a concern of mine.
I am speaking to those who desire to live and to recapture the honor of their soul. Now that you know the truth about your world stop supporting your own destroyers. The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction to give it. Withdraw your sanction. Withdraw your support. Do not try to live on your enemies terms or to win at a game where theyre setting the rules. Do not seek the favor of those who enslaved you, do not beg for alms from those who have robbed you, be it subsidies, loans or jobs, do not join their team to recoup what theyve taken by helping them rob your neighbors. One cannot hope to maintain ones life by accepting bribes to condone ones destruction. Do not straggle for profit, success or security at the price of a lien on your right to exist. Such a lien is not to be paid off; the more you pay them, the more they will demand; the greater the values you seek or achieve, the more vulnerably helpless you become. Theirs is a system of white blackmail devised to bleed you, not by means of your sins, but by means of your love for existence.
Do not attempt to rise on the looters terms or to climb a ladder while theyre holding the ropes. Do not allow their hands to touch the only power that keeps them in power: your living ambition. Go on strike-in the manner I did. Use your mind and skill in private, extend your knowledge, develop your ability, but do not share your achievements with others. Do not try to produce a fortune, with a looter riding on your back. Stay on the lowest rung of their ladder, earn no more than your barest survival, do not make an extra penny to support the looters state. Since youre captive, act as a captive, do not help them pretend that youre free. Be the silent, incorruptible enemy they dread. When they force you, obey-but do not volunteer. Never volunteer a step in their direction, or a wish, or a plea, or a purpose. Do not help a holdup man to claim that he acts as your friend and benefactor. Do not help your jailers to pretend that their jail is your natural state of existence. Do not help them to fake reality. That fake is the only dam holding off their secret terror, the terror of knowing theyre unfit to exist; remove it and let them drown; your sanction is their only life belt.
If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence. You have no chance to win on the Morality of Death or by the code of faith and purpose, the ideal, the type of Sam Botta purpose thank you google for caring about Sam Botta Live Fearless Cheryl Johnson with Chris Shining Executive Producer Movies Television Radio Syndication SAm BottA or Sam BAdA or SAm BoddA this is where the real mind of reality, rational thinking, inspired thought, the reason and logic of Sam Botta tudou.com sam bada baidu.com its all here where feriss ferriss sam botta motivate and inspire you where forgiveness and joy meet you and force; raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason.
Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity-act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankinds rebirth.
When the looters state collapses, deprived of the best of its slaves, when it falls to a level of impotent chaos, like the mystic-ridden nations of the Orient, and dissolves into starving robber gangs fighting to rob one another-when the advocates of the morality of sacrifice perish with their final ideal-then and on that day we will return.
We will open the gates of our city to those who deserve to enter, a city of smokestacks, pipe lines, orchards, markets and inviolate homes. We will act as the rallying center for such hidden outposts as youll build. With the sign of the dollar as our symbol-the sign of free trade and free minds-we will move to reclaim this country once more from the impotent savages who never discovered its nature, its meaning, its splendor. Those who choose to join us, will join us; those who dont, will not have the power to stop us; hordes of savages have never been an obstacle to men who carried the banner of the mind.
Then this country will once more become a sanctuary for a vanishing species: the rational being. The political system we will build is contained in a single moral premise: no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force. Every man will stand or fall, live or die by his rational judgment. If he fails to use it and falls, he will be his only victim. If he fears that his judgment is inadequate, he will not be given a gun to improve it. If he chooses to correct his errors in time, he will have the unobstructed example of his betters, for guidance in learning to think; but an end will be put to the infamy of paying with one life for the errors of another.
In that world, youll be able to rise in the morning with the spirit you have known in your childhood: that spirit of eagerness, adventure and certainty which comes from dealing with a rational universe. No child is afraid of nature; it is your fear of men that will vanish, the fear that has stunted your soul, the fear you acquired in your early encounters with the incomprehensible, the unpredictable, the contradictory, the arbitrary, the hidden, the faked, the irrational in men. You will live in a world of responsible beings, who will be as consistent and reliable as facts; the guarantee of their character will be a system of existence where objective reality is the standard of the judge. Your virtues will be given protection, your vices and weaknesses will not. Every chance will be open to your good, none will be provided for your evil. What youll receive from men will not be alms, or pity, or mercy, or forgiveness of sins, but a single value: justice. And when youll look at men or at yourself, you will feel, not disgust, suspicion and guilt, but a single constant: respect.
Such is the future you are capable of winning. It requires a struggle; so does any human value. All life is a purposeful struggle, and your only choice is the choice of a goal. Do you wish to continue the battle of your present or do you wish to fight for my world? Do you wish to continue a struggle that consists of clinging to precarious ledges in a sliding descent to the abyss, a struggle where the hardships you endure are irreversible and the victories you win bring you closer to destruction? Or do you wish to undertake a struggle that consists of rising from ledge to ledge in a steady ascent to the top, a struggle where the hardships are investments in your future, and the victories bring you irreversibly closer to the world of your moral ideal, and should you die without reaching full sunlight, you will die on a level touched by its rays? Such is the choice before you. Let your mind and your love of existence decide.
The last of my words will be addressed to those heroes who might still be hidden in the world, those who are held prisoner, not by their evasions, but by their virtues and their desperate courage. My brothers in spirit, check on your virtues and on the nature of the enemies youre serving. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love-the endurance that carries their burdens-the generosity that responds to their cries of despair-the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs-the love, your love of life, which makes you believe that they are men and that they love it, too. But the world of today is the world they wanted; life is the object of their hatred. Leave them to the death they worship. In the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, dont exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs. Do you hear me my love?
In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this word to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that mans proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, its yours.
But to win it requires your total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is a sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence of that which is man: for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the Morality of Life and that yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth.
You will win when you are ready to pronounce the oath I have taken at the start of my battle-and for those who wish to know the day of my return, I shall now repeat it to the hearing of the world:
I swear-by my life and my love of it-that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
and got back in about a lot of time
celebrity that have created and that
you've been doing okay
peabody to really get down to that
partner to consult i can't figure out
what they're trying to reflect and what
the future if they're willing to do you
addy wyatt directv blackberry brandy
handling unit and the other day
if they wait because their eight thirty
spelling million of them are they going
to talk to you that we had this whole
set of books on the elliptical and must
lead us to was hoping for your
devotion that shit starts which is
really a list of witnesses are with this
solicitous of the success of the take a
break we'll come back injustices that
thanks very much to talk to shift to
look at and have a lot of one and i
think there is a pic reportedly jess
socialist and she said these are whole
really you know this that's
Sarah Jessica Parker, on being upset with your husband 20 minutes per day: "I think that's healthy, I think it's realistic, some people have it down to 20 minutes a week, some unfortunate people have it down to about 20 minutes per hour, um huh, but, in my life I've found that, you know, we-we go many days without a 20 minute period of resentment and bitterness." As stated on "On Air with Ryan Seacrest" ——— sounds sooooo positive, get me to the altar ASAP I can't wait to marry someone that's upset with me 20 minutes per day! Sam Botta Thanks Ryan, RSP Team, great stuff! After the words quoted above, the subject was quickly changed to the enjoyment of trying different food and travel because of work (which is fun), and a life of being always thankful. Like Sam Botta Hollywood Chick-fil-A line yesterday to be the first 100 to get free Chick-fil-A for a year. Ryan Seacrest buying 250 people Chick-fil-A breakfast right now at new Hollywood Chick-fil-A (chikin mini's). Ryan from Atlanta… Understands the ones camping out, in photo here from yesterday afternoon waiting to be one of the first 100 customers. And yes, works if losing body fat since the fried version is fried in peanut oil instead of hydrogenated vegetable oil. livefearless's photo instagr.am livefearless's photo on Instagram Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Thursday at 7:23am via Instagram Sam Botta TAMING MY EYEBROWS via Groupon! What else in the past week… I've gotten my car detailed, eaten at fine restaurants I wouldn't have without the half price deals. Crazy good! Try it once! Daily Groupon | Coupons, Discounts, and Deals www.groupon.com Check out Groupon's daily deal – huge discounts on the coolest stuff in your city. Like sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Share sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Wednesday at 7:59am Jeana Farrell LOL….Bargain Buster…haha..I use them myself too, my best deal was Evening meal for 2 people, with mains and starter, and a large glass of wine for the bargain price of 15 for 2 people..It was fantastic too…..:-)))Wednesday at 1:02pm sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA Like LiveFearless with sAm bAdA sAm boddA sAm bottA with Cheryl Johnson, Chris Shining Executive Producer, Movies, IMDB.com Sam Botta Hollywood Walk of Fame Dolores Hope Bob Hope Married 70 Years… Finding True Love? Finding TRUE Love? No, my Grandparents chose to love each other when they met as teenagers, and they chose to love each other every part of every day, through the Great Depression, absence during war, child rearing, work, illnesses… I got a lot of emails from people, from doctors,
who asked me if I could write a book that
00:02:12,950 –> 00:02:16,810
their patients could read, from patients who
asked me if I could write a book that their doctors would read. [laughter] So, in this lecture, 'Why We Get Fat' is actually
based on the lecture. So, once you've seen this, you don't actually have to read the
book. Let me see if this works a little. That's better. This is just background. You know there's
an obesity epidemic in the works. I'm not gonna go over it because, as usual, I'm probably
gonna run a little long on this talk. The obesity epidemic goes along with the diabetes
epidemic. Diabetes diagnoses have tripled in the past 30 years in the United States. And let's see if this. [pause] Diabetes, obesity
are associated with a host of chronic diseases that are known as metabolic diseases, which
include fatty liver disease, atherosclerosis, hypertension, stroke, cancer, asthma, sleep
apnea, osteoarthritis, neural degeneration. Actually, Alzheimer's disease is a disease
that's now associated with what's called insulin resistance in obesity. And one of the subtexts of the talk I'm gonna
give today is that the conventional wisdom is that as we get fatter, that increases the
risk of all these diseases and the fundamental problem is us getting fatter. And I'm gonna suggest that the same foods,
the same thing that makes us fat, also causes these diseases. So, it's a fundamentally different
causality. So the question we want is why do we get fat?
Obvious question. And the officials answers are, "Obesity occurs when a person consumes
more calories from food than he or she burns." "Overweight is the result of a caloric imbalance
and is mediated by genetics and health." That's what the old Surgeon General and the NIH tells
us. So how many people in this room actually believe
this and think it's meaningful? That's not bad. You know, I gave this talk at Tufts a couple
weeks ago to the nutrition department. And the Tufts people have been behind every dietary
guidelines for the past 20 years. And I asked how many people believe this and nobody–literally,
nobody–raised their hand. And then I said, "Are you kidding? 'Cause if you don't, I can
leave." And then everybody raised their hand. And then after the talk, they said, "Well,
we don't really believe it." So here's a conventional wisdom: "Energy in
is greater than energy out." And that's why we get fat. We take in more energy than we
consume. We overeat and the excess calories go to our fat tissue. You hear about this
in a lot of different ways. In the medical literature, they'll refer to
"over nutrition". "Positive energy balance" is another way to phrase it. And often, virtually
every article you read on obesity, they'll say, "Obesity is a disorder of energy balance." And when they say that, what they mean is
we take in more calories than we consume and that's why we get fat. So here's the general image of what's going
on here. And what you wanna do when we talk about this, one of the key things you wanna
do in any science is explain the observations. So we have this observation of an obesity
epidemic and we want to explain it by our hypothesis, which is that we take in more
calories than we expend. And the way it's been done over the years
is that the idea is "increased prosperity." This is what Marion Nestle, a New York University
nutritionist, wrote in 'Science', "As we get richer, more food becomes available. We have
less reason to become physically active." That food's on every street corner. You don't
have to work to get it. And so we get fatter and fatter. Kelly Brownell,
a Yale University psychologist, used, coined the term "toxic environment," which is an
environment that promotes overeating and sedentary behavior. And so physical activity, and as
Kelly put it, he said, "Cheese curls and French fries,[audience chuckles] fast food joints
are as much a part of our environment as trees and clouds. Mothers keep their kids home from
school. We sit in front of computer screens all day long and video games and television." So a lot of reasons to eat too much, not enough
reason to burn it off. And the question we wanna know — here's the hypothesis: increased
prosperity leads to overeating–energy in is greater than energy out– and that leads
to obesity and the obesity epidemic. And what we wanna know is, is this true? 'Cause this
is a science and in science, this is a hypothesis. So you just ask a question. Is this true?
Does it explain the observations? When I'm lecturing to nutrition departments
and obesity research departments, I often wanna piss them off in the beginning. It's
part of my nature. And I'll say, "Let's pretend this is a science for a second [audience chuckles]
and see if this can actually explain the observations." There are a lot of observations out there,
but they're less than obvious. They're not — right now, we know we've got McDonalds
on every street corner. We know a lot of people watch television. And we know a lot of people
are getting heavier. So we put them all together, these associations,
and we say. "That's the cause". But we could find populations that didn't have all these,
this toxic environment as we define it, and we could look to see if the obesity existed
there. And one of the underlying contexts here, one
of my underlying hypothesis, and also of any science, the underlying principles is Occam's
Razor. So we should find the simplest possible hypothesis. So we're gonna work from the hypothesis of
whatever makes any population fat is what makes our population fat, until we have to
change it. So, here we have a photo. This young woman,
or middle-aged woman, was known as 'Fat Louisa'. This photo was taken in 1902. And Fat Louisa
was a Pima Indian. And the Pima live on the Gila River reservation. Now, it's the Gila
River reservation, south of Phoenix, Arizona. What's little-known about the Pima is today,
they are the poster children for obesity and diabetes in the United States cause they have,
conceivably, the highest risk of any population. In the 17th, 18th, 19th Century, they were
the most affluent Native American tribe. They were hunters and gatherers. They hunted in
the nearby mountains. They fished in the Gila River. They raised sheep–not sheep–cattle,
pigs. They had warehouses full of food available in the 1840s. When the first US Army Battalion moved to
the Pima territory on the San Jose Trail, they reported that the Pima had this incredible
amount of food available. And they were all lean and sprightly. And by 1849, gold was
discovered in California. And over the next 20 years, 20 to 60 thousand
49ers went west to the Pima territory and the US government asked the Pima to feed them,
which they did, and protect them from the hostile tribes farther West. And then by the
1870s, 1880s, Mexican Americans and Anglo Americans started moving into the Pima territory
and they overhunted the nearby mountains. They diverted the Gila River water to irrigate
their own fields, and the Pima went into what they called the Years of Famine, which lasted
for 20 or 30 years. And by 1902, when Frank Rosso, a Harvard anthropologist
came to live with the Pima and wrote the Seminole text on the Pima Indians, they were living
on a reservation. They were struggling as farmers to survive, and it was [pause] it
was Rosso who took the photo of Fat Louisa on the right. And he said many old people
in the tribe, unlike the classical image of the strong, buff Native American, many old
people in the tribe were actually obese and overweight. And this was an observation that was seconded
a few years later by Alex Hrdlicka, who was the physician-anthropologist who went on to
become the curator of the Smithsonian, Department of Physical Anthropology. So, the point about
the Pima was that they went from being affluent in the 1840s — that drawing was actually
made in 1851 — to poor in 1902. And they went through 30 years of famine in the middle.
And 30 years of famine, you could think of as 30 years of being on a diet. And they should
have been leaner, right? 'Cause our hypothesis says if poverty leading to prosperity causes
obesity, not prosperity leading to poverty. And yet, in the early 19th Century, we have
a high level of obesity observed by two separate anthropologists living with the tribe. If
this was the only example, we could probably toss it and assume something else was going
on. But there are a lot of examples of obesity in what we would call "non-toxic environments." And one of the things that sort of pissed
me off doing my research for 'Good Calories, Bad Calories', which took five years, is you
only had to go to look for them to find them. And yet, the obesity research community hadn't
bothered 'cause they had settled on their hypothesis. It's all about overeating. It's
all about taking in too many calories. It's all about fast food joints. And so they never
looked. If you go look, you'll find a lot of different populations. The Sioux on the
South Dakota Crow Creek Reservation, in 1928 — this was a study done by two University
of Chicago economists. And this, this population was so poor that
you could use it. You could put it in the dictionary next to the definition of "dirt
poor." They lived four to eight people per room. Something like 15 families with 32 children
on the reservation were living only on bread and coffee. There were no bathrooms. There's
no plumbing. They had to get water from the river. And yet, 40 percent of the women, 25
percent of the men, and 10 percent of the children were distinctly fat. And 20 percent
of the women, 25 percent of the men, and 25 percent of the children were distinctly thin.
And there were definite signs of malnutrition. The economists documented all kinds of deficiency
diseases among these Native Americans. And this combination of obesity and malnutrition,
or under nutrition, existing in the same population is an observation I'm gonna come back to shortly
— many times, in fact. OK, African Americans in Charleston, South Carolina in 1959. Thirty
percent of the women are obese and 18 percent of the men. Family incomes are nine to 53
dollars a week. That's less than 400 dollars a week in 2011 dollars. Zulus in Durban, South Africa in 1960. Forty
percent of the women are obese. Women in their 40s averaged 175 pounds. Today in the United
States, the average weight for adult women is around 165 pounds. Trinidad, early 60s,
Trinidad's having a malnutrition, a famine crisis. The US government sends a team of
nutritionists down to help out and they come back reporting that a third of women over
25 are obese. They report obesity as a "potentially serious medical problem in women." The per
capita data. The next year, an MIT nutritionist goes down
to Trinidad to figure out what's going on. She studies the diet of the obese women, compares
it to the diets of the lean women in Trinidad and concludes that the per capita daily diet
was less than 2000 calories a day, 21 percent fat. Fewer calories than were recommended
at the time by the Food and Agricultural Organization for a healthy diet. Bantu "pensioners" in South Africa in the
mid-60s. These are the poorest of a disenfranchised population. 30 percent of the women are severely
overweight and the mean weight of women over 60 is 165 pounds. Raratonga in the South Pacific.
Forty percent of the women are obese, 25 percent are greatly obese, grossly obese. That's in
1971. And then, factory workers in Chile in 1974.
Thirty percent are obese. Nearly 50 percent of the women over 54 are obese. Ten percent
suffer undernourishment. OK, so here's that combination again of obesity and malnutrition
in the same population and most are engaged in heavy labor. So, these are factory workers. They probably
don't belong to a gym. They probably don't have gyms in their factory in Chile in the
70s. They're not working out regularly. They're not training for marathons. They're probably
not doing triathlons. But they're engaged in heavy labor, heavy,
manual, physical labor. So we can assume on a day-to-day basis they are more physically
active than we are. And yet, 30 percent are obese and nearly 50 percent–half of them–over
54. And here's the last study I'll show you. This
is Mexican Americans in Starr County, Texas in 1981. Fifty percent of the women in their
50s are obese, 40 percent of the men in their 40s. And the living conditions, most inhabitants
are employed in agricultural labor and who work in the oil fields. So again, very physically
active population, but high levels of obesity. And there was one restaurant in Starr County,
Texas in 1981. Starr County is on the border of Mexico, about 200 miles due South of San
Antonio. And that was a Mexican restaurant. So again, this definition, there's no increased
prosperity for many of these populations. There's no prosperity at all. There's no toxic
environment as we would define it today. But something's making them fat and we wanna know
what. Why were these populations fat? So if we can figure out why these populations were
fat, we can probably figure out why our populations are getting fat. So here's how this question was phrased in
1973. Ralph Richards was a university ‚Äì he was a British-trained diabetes specialist
who went to Jamaica in the early 1960s, founded a diabetes clinic at the University of the
West Indies, and in the early 70s reported that a third of the women over 25 were obese
and that obesity reached what he called "monstrous proportions" in this age group. And he said,
"It's difficult to explain the high frequency of obesity seen in a relatively impecunious
society such as exists in the West Indies, when compared to the standard of living enjoyed
in the more developed countries." He's asking the same question I'm asking and
we all should be asking. If poor people are so fat, our theory says it‚Äôs the rich ones
who should be fat. "Malnutrition and sub nutrition are common disorders in the first two years
of life in these areas and account for almost 25 percent of all admissions to pediatric
wards in Jamaica." So, by "sub nutrition", he means not enough food. "Sub nutrition continues
in early childhood to the early teens." So the children are stunted and show signs
of emaciation and then "obesity begins to manifest itself in the female population and
reaches enormous proportions from 30 onwards." So here's that question asked again. Exactly
the same observation, exactly the same question 30 years later, this time by Benjamin Caballero
of Johns Hopkins. And now, within this paradigm of calories
in, calories out, of overeating. When, when Richards asked in 1973, he had an open mind.
He didn't know what the answer was. But now Benjamin Caballero thinks he knows the answer,
which is the answer we all think we know. And he says, a few years ago, this was in
the New England Journal of Medicine in 2005, an article called 'Obesity and Malnutrition:
A Nutrition Paradox'. He says, "A few years ago, I was visiting
a primary care clinic in the slums of S√£o Paulo, Brazil. The waiting room was full of
mothers with thin, stunted young children, exhibiting the typical signs of chronic under
nutrition. Their appearance, sadly, would surprise few who visit poor urban areas in
the developing world. What might come as a surprise is that many of the mothers holding
those under-nourished infants were themselves overweight." And then he says, "The coexistence of underweight
and overweight poses a challenge to public health programs, since the aims of programs
to reduce under nutrition" –which is get people to eat more, make more food available‚Äî"are
obviously in conflict with those for obesity prevention" –which is make less food available.
So we have a problem. And I put this "poses a challenge to public
health programs" in italics because the coexistence of underweight and overweight poses a challenge
to your paradigm, your belief system. If you believe that the mothers got fat because they
took in more calories than they expended, they took in superfluous calories that they
didn't need, and the children aren't getting enough food, then you believe that the mothers
are willing to starve their children to death so that they can sneak outside and eat a Snickers
bar, in effect. And I don't know how many, this is a young
audience, how many mothers are there in this audience? OK. How many of you would do that? [laughter] Let your children starve so you can get fat,
as opposed to, perhaps, the other way around, right? So you've got two paradigms colliding.
We've got our paradigm maternal behavior that says population, species don't survive unless
the mothers make sacrifices for their children. And we have the paradigm of obesity that says
these mothers are just happily guzzling excess calories while they're watching their kids
starve to death. And this is an anomalous observation. I used
to, started my career writing about high-energy physics, and high-energy physics, they just
built the Large Hadron Collidor at CERN that costs I forget how many billions of dollars,
all designed to just create an observation that their theory can't explain so they can
proceed onward. Here, we've had this observation going back
probably to 1928 at least, and nobody cares. And my point is you have to throw out one
of the two paradigms. And I'm gonna throw out the obesity paradigm 'cause my mother–
may she rest in peace– would have killed me if I threw out the maternal behavior paradigm. Let's look at some other inconvenient observations,
Okay? "Eating less doesn't work." Our hypothesis
is that if we eat more, if we take in more calories than we expend, we will gain weight.
So the idea is if we take in less calories than you expend, you'll lose weight. All you
have to do is create what's called "negative energy balance." So you go on a semi-restricted
calorie diet and there are a lot of meta-analysis over the years, systematic reviews, showing
how poorly these work. The Cochrane Collaboration a few years ago
when they looked at this. The Cochrane Collaboration is a collaboration created just to do unbiased
reviews of the data. Their assumption being every other review of the data is biased.
So we have to create the methodology that doesn't allow bias to enter into it. And with
this, they put it back in–I think it was 2002, I can't see my notes, unfortunately,
because we're not in notes mode, here–the weight loss achieved, that was 2002. It's
so small as to be clinically insignificant. And what you see in the literature is fascinating
'cause people, they try to deal with this when they write about obesity; the fact that
eating less doesn‚Äôt work. But they believe that a calorie-restricted diet is crucial. So you'll see these chapters in obesity textbooks,
like the 'Task Force of Obesity', Task Force textbook, where the researchers will write
that restricting calories is the fundamental approach, the — I forget the word they use
because I don't have my notes– to curing obesity, yet it rarely, if ever, works. Exercising more also doesn't work. One of
the problems here, I could also show you meta-analyses that talk about how clinically insignificant
this effect is. But there's, the best evidence I found so far for this is the American Heart
Association and the American College of Sports Medicine in 2007, put out their physical activity
guidelines. And the physical activity guidelines–these are people, two organizations, that want us
to engage in healthy lifestyles, that believe that physical activity should make a difference. And you would expect them to spin the data
in favor of physical activity for exercise, for weight loss–and the way they put it is
this. They said, "It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy
expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared to those who have
low energy expenditures." That's logically equivalent to saying, "It's
reasonable to assume that if you're a couch potato and you increase your energy expenditure,
you will be less likely to gain weight than if you remain a couch potato." And then they say, "So far, data to support
this hypothesis are not particularly compelling." And the point of this is this hypothesis is
in the neighborhood of 100 to 150 years old. There, you could find obesity texts in the
1860s in which somebody like William Banting talks about his doctor telling him to go for
a row every morning to burn off calories. He also talks about how it didn't help. You
could find in, by the 1890s, when the laws of thermodynamics [clears throat] had been
shown to hold with animate objects as well as inanimate objects, with living beings as
well as inanimate objects, researchers said, "Hey, maybe if we just get people to expend
more energy, they'll gain weight. I mean they'll lose weight and over the course of a hundred
years, 150 years, this is the best we could say about it. "The data to support this hypothesis
are not particularly compelling." And that's a bad sign. When I was writing
about high-energy physics, it was an unwritten rule of high-energy physics by Pief Panofsky,
who's a founder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center here. And Pief said, "If you throw
money at an effect and it doesn't get bigger, it means it's not really there." Okay? And the corollary here is if you've been studying
an effect, for a century and the best you could say about it is "the data to support
this hypothesis are not particularly compelling", there's a very good chance that your hypothesis
is wrong; that increasing energy expenditure and physical activity will have no effect
on how much you weigh, or how much weight you've gained. And one way to think about this and to this
I owe a British blogger. Imagine that I'm having, I'm hosting a dinner party tonight
and I've got the ten last finalists from Top Chef cooking. And they're making this amazing
feast and I send you all invitations and I say, "I've got this feast. It's gonna be a
ton of the best tasting food you've ever eaten in your life. Come hungry." What would you
do to make sure you came hungry? And here I'll take questions. Anyone wanna answer?
What would you do during the day? >>Male Audience Member #1: Skip snacks. >>Gary Taubes: Skip snacks, eat less. >>Female Audience Member #1: I would take
a long walk. >>Gary Taubes: And take a long walk. Exercise
more. You'd work out. So the exact same things that we prescribe
overweight people to lose weight are the two things that you're going to do if you wanna
guarantee that you get hungry and eat more. And we're gonna explain that in a while. But you can see already that there's something
wrong here. Here's another problem with our energy balance idea. Practicing energy balance
is impossible. This is a new phrase you hear. The past two or three years, the idea there
are now industry programs developed in collaboration with the government to help you practice energy
balance, to make sure you match calories in to calories out so you don't gain weight. And the industry loves the idea. The food
industry loves the idea of obesity being all about calories, because you can't demonize
anything. It's all about just it's your fault if you're overweight. You just have to eat
less and exercise more and if you wanna build a gym in your neighborhood, or a track or
a park, go to Coke or Pepsi and ask them for money. They'll give it to you 'cause they
would like you to exercise more so that way, they can't be blamed for your obesity epidemic. So, let's see what it takes actually to practice
energy balance. A typical American's food intake is about 2700 calories a day. Okay?
That's men and women. So that's a million calories a year. Ten million calories in a
decade, Okay? It's about ten to twelve tons of food per decade. Now, all you'd have to do is ask the question.
Let's say, right now, I'm a 25 year old and I'm lean and I wanna ask the question, "How
well do I have to maintain energy balance? How well do I have to practice energy balance
so that I don't gain 20 pounds in a decade, 40 pounds in 20 years, so by the time I'm
in my mid-40s I'm obese?" What is that entail, because that's what the government is trying
to get us to do. And the answer is you have to maintain your
energy balance to 20 calories per day. If over 20 — this is actually a trick answer,
because if 20 calories per day goes into your fat tissue that you don't burn, you will gain
40 pounds in 20 years. Here's the calculation. It's pretty simple. Very simple. Even I could do this and I don't work at Google.
Twenty calories times 365 days a year times ten years, divided by 35 hundred, which is
the number of calories, roughly, in a pound of fat. And you end up with 21 pounds in a
decade. Okay? So if you go over that, if you can match your energy in to your energy out,
to 20 calories a day and not exceed that on average, you'll only gain 40 pounds. If you
only want to gain 20 pounds, it's ten calories. If you don't want to gain any weight, of course,
the idea is you have to do it perfectly. Twenty calories a day is .8 percent accuracy.
Nobody can do that. Nobody, even I will bet my life's income–it's not that big–that
the world champion calorie counter in the world, Guinness — if there is such an entry
in Guinness, cannot gauge within 20 calories how much food they were eating per day and
then you have no idea how much you're expending. You're just guessing, even when you go in
to do research sessions. They just do calculations. So the point here is I got this calculation
from a 1937 Nutrition and Metabolism textbook, written by a fellow named Eugene Dubois, who's
a leading expert on metabolism in the United States, pre-World War II. [pause] And Dubois
uses calculations. He said what's interesting about it is since nobody can do that, how
do we maintain our weight? The question isn't why are some of us fat? The question should
be why aren't all of us fat? Okay? Because if you overshoot by even 20 calories
a day on average, you're gonna end up getting obese. And you could say, "Okay. Maybe one
way to do it is I just watch my weight. I look in the mirror. I see I'm getting fatter.
My belt's getting snug, or my pants, or my skirt doesn't fit. So therefore, I'm gonna
eat less for a while until I get my weight back." So you oscillate around perfect energy balance,
but then you have to ask the question, how do animals do it? Because they don't. They're
not looking in the mirror. They don't have clothes they're putting on. So how do they
maintain their weight and virtually all animals do? They don't get chronically obese. So the
idea that Dubois says it's obviously something else is going on here, other than consciously
matching calories in to calories out, which none of us can do. So let's look at some other inconvenient observations. Genetics is one of them. I gotta apologize
now. If you go to an obesity textbook today, you will not see photos of naked human beings.
But if you go to an obesity textbook pre- World War II, you would. Because those researchers,
those clinicians, thought you could learn a lot about watching how people fatten, as
well as just whether they do or not. And one of the things I'm doing now is just
channeling these pre-World War II researchers. And in fact, all I'm saying in my books is
I'm taking the theory that German and Austrian researchers developed pre-World War II, back
when the Germans and Austrians did the best medical research in the world and there was
virtually no meaningful medical research being done in the United States. And I'm taking that theory and I'm updating
it. Okay? Because they didn't survive the war. That community didn't survive the war.
So, for starters, here's genetics. And there's a pair — and this comes from a 1940 textbook.
Here's a pair of lean identical twins. Here's a pair of obese identical twins. Our overeating
hypothesis might explain why these women are fatter than these women. These took in too
many calories and these practiced perfect energy balance. But what about this combination? Why do they
have the same body type? And why do they have the same body type? It's been known since
the 1930s that obesity has a strong genetic component. Identical twins ‚Äì it's not that
their faces look alike. Their body types are the same, too. So what's going on here? What do these genes determine? Do they determine
exactly how much these women, how many forkfuls of food these women overate over 20, 30, 40
years? And exactly how long they sat on a couch versus going for a walk? Or, did they determine something else about
how much and where they accumulated fat 'cause they have the identical body? Here's a different variation of an animal
husbandry and it's even easier to see here what I'm talking about. Farmers, livestock
breeders, have been breeding more or less fatty cows, pigs, sheep, for centuries, probably.
And here's a particularly fat breed of beef cattle. This is an Aberdeen Angus. Here's
the meat. I should say it's stocky, but you can see all the subcutaneous fat, the intramuscular
fat, here. And here's a lean species, a lean breed of cattle, the Jersey Cow. And you can
see the ribs showing, you can see the swollen udder. It's definitely a dairy cow. And you can ask yourself simply, there are
different breeds. Obviously, different genes are determining how much they get fat. What
exactly is going on here? What are these genes determining? Do they determine how much these
animals eat and exercise? Do they determine how many calories per graze, or per bite of
grass, this cow takes? The Aberdeen Angus grazes for 12 hours. The Jersey only grazes
for ten a day. Does the Jersey want to go to work out? So, on the Far Side cartoon when
it gets dark at night, the Jersey goes for a jog. The Aberdeen Angus goes in and watches
television. And it's obviously absurd, Okay? Whatever determines how much these animals
get fat, we can be confident that how much they eat and exercise has nothing to do with
it. More likely, and again, this is a beef cow. So what you want is it's an effectively,
brutally speaking and I apologize for the vegetarians here, to the vegetarians here.
It's a machine that takes in fuel here and deposits it here and you want it all to go
here. So you could assume that it just partitions
the calories it eats into fat and protein. And the Jersey Cow, you want to create milk.
So you take in the fuel and it's all gonna go to the udders to produce milk. And you
don't want it wasting energy, in effect, bulking up. So maybe what these genes determine is
not how many calories we take in, but how we partition the fuel we take in. That's a technical term. Sexual variations.
Men and women fatten differently, Okay? Men fatten above the waist. Women fatten below
the waist. Both these people would have had to overeat, take in more calories than they
expend to get fat. This has doubled his risk of heart disease. This has not doubled her
risk. If the weight's below the waist, it doesn't double your risk. What do the calories
have to do with it? Okay? And what do the calories have to do
with where they get fat, because obviously, that's a huge component of it. And another
way to look at it is puberty. Men and women, when they go through puberty, boys, they begin
puberty with roughly the same amount of body fat. When boys go through puberty, they lose
fat and gain muscle. When girls go through puberty, they gain fat and breasts and hips
and buttocks. And by the time they're out of puberty, the
girls have about 50 percent more fat on their bodies than the men. Both boys and girls got
bigger. So they both overate. They both took in more calories than they expend, but the
boys lost fat and gained muscle. The girls gained fat in specific places. So you just ask the question, what do the
calories have to do with it? What did the fact of their overeating have to do with whether
or not they gained muscle or fat? And this is obviously controlled by sex and growth
hormones and that's an issue we'll get to. Now, lipidystrophies. This is again, from
the same 1940 textbook, which took it from a 1933 German text book. This is a lipidystrophy
called a progressive lipidystrophy. In the 1950s, there were about 200 of these on record.
Most of them were in women. It's called progressive 'cause these cases, they begin losing all
subcutaneous fat in the face, in their forehead, and it moves downward with time. One British physician reported that his patient
lost fat at about one inch a year. That's why it's progressive. And then it usually
stops above the hips. And then they often get this lower body, localized obesity below
the waist. So the way these Europeans asked it, they said, "Are we gonna blame the top
half on under eating and bottom half on overeating?" [laughter] Right? And this is again, obviously absurd.
It's like a Gedanken Experiment. But if this woman had ten pounds more fat on her upper
body, maybe even five pounds, just to smooth out her curves, her BMI was about 32 already
just cause of her lower body obesity. And she went into the doctor then. The doctor
wouldn't recognize the lipidystrophy. And he would just say, "Look, eat less and exercise
more." And the point that the Europeans are making
is if you can't explain the localized conditions by under eating and overeating, why would
you even think to explain the generalized obesity by overeating? Or, in those cases,
often these textbooks, pre-World War II were titled 'Obesity and Leanness' because they
were looking at cases that today we would call anorexia and assuming that that also
wasn't an under eating problem. It was some problem of how the fat tissue was regulated. So why do we believe this? And let's look
at a little physics here, Okay? And this is the reason. [pause] We believe it 'cause of the first law of thermodynamics.
Every time somebody like me makes this point for the past 50, 60 years, you get accused
of not believing that thermodynamics holds for human beings. I had one of the high points of my life. I
was on the Larry King Show after 'Good Calories, Bad Calories' came out. And they had Jillian
Michaels, the trainer from 'The Biggest Loser', come on. And she gave me a lecture on the
laws of thermodynamics on national television. And I have a physics degree from Harvard. [laughter] I mean, I was a, I was a lousy student, but
it was definitely, I literally, I'm sitting next to. I just, I didn't respond. If you
watch the show, it's on, you can Google it. I didn't know what to say. I mean, how do
I respond to this? So lemme give you a little, thermodynamics
is pretty simple. The first law of thermodynamics — it's the law of energy conservation. It
says a change in energy in a system–this is the simplest possible way to put it– is
equal to the energy in minus energy out. All it's saying is you can't create energy from
thin air. So, if a system gets bigger, delta E goes
up. And it's gotta take in more energy than it expends. And if a system gets smaller,
it's got to expend more energy than it takes in. For our sake, we'll make delta E the fat
mass E in is energy consumed, E out energy expended. So change in fat mass equals energy
consumed minus energy expended. And the problem, the fundamental problem,
and it's almost unbelievable to me, is that there's no arrow of causality here. And by
that I mean it doesn't say in any way if energy, energy consumed greater than energy expended
causes change of fat mass. It just says this is the way the universe is. If a system gets bigger, it takes in more
energy than it expends. And if a system gets smaller, it takes in less. It says nothing
about what causes it. And to understand that, a metaphor I could use. Like, let's assume
I was asking the question why is this room crowded right now? Okay? And it's as similar when we're talking about
fat mass. We wanna know, why is there so much energy accumulated in the fat mass? And I
wanna ask the question, why is there so much energy accumulated in this room in the form
of people? So you ask me, "Gary, why is it crowded?" And I say, "Well, because more people
entered than left." [pause] Right? Have I told you anything meaningful
at all about why this? [laughter] I mean, of course more people entered than
left. But why is it crowded? And then I say, "Well, look. If more people enter than leave,
it's gotta get crowded, right?" And I still haven't told you anything meaningful. This is what magicians would call–I forget
the word–vacuous? It's the equivalent as saying, why did you get fat? Because you took
in more energy than you expended. Well, of course I took in more energy than I expended.
I got fat. But why did I get fat? And then you just turn around and say, "Well, if you
take in more energy than you expend," there's no arrow of causality. There's nothing meaningful
here. This is a mistake that was made occasionally
prior to the Second World War. It became ubiquitous after the Second World War. Whenever we tell
someone, "You got fat 'cause you overate," you are misinterpreting the laws of thermodynamics
on an eighth grade mathematics level. And the more I talk about it, the more it's
almost unbelievable that this ever happened. And yet, it did. And so there's another way
you could play with this thermodynamics. And for this I owe University of Washington grad
student named Sonya Trejo, who said, "What happens if you start transposing elements?" So how about this. Instead of, we had delta
E over here and E out over here. How about if we say energy out is equal to energy in
minus delta E? And so now, the energy expended is equal to energy consumed minus change in
fat mass, Okay? So if fat mass gets bigger — for we don't
know why, we're working on that — and the person doesn't eat anymore, then energy expenditure
has to go down. Okay? So you look at it this way and an increase in fat mass causes sedentary
behavior. If fat mass gets smaller, energy expended has to go up. So if somebody's losing weight, they have
to get more physically active. Or how about this one? We just do a little more transposing
and we end up with energy in equals delta E plus energy out. So the energy we eat is
equal to change in fat mass plus energy expended. Let's assume change in fat mass is fixed by
biology. And if you read the New York Times today there was an article about that. And
energy expenditure goes up 'cause I just told you to work out. What's gonna happen to energy
consumed? It has to go up. You're gonna get hungry. You will work up an appetite. This used to be something that everyone believed
in the 1960s and beyond. There used to be this term, "working up an appetite." So it
used to be, if you worked out, you worked up an appetite. Now if you work out, you're
supposed to lose weight and energy consumed is supposed to stay fixed. But there's no
guarantee this'll happen. So here's the alternative hypothesis. This
is the way that the pre-World War II Europeans thought about it. They said, started from
first principles, obesity is a disorder of excess fat accumulation. So today, you read obesity is a positive energy
balance, or obesity is an energy balance problem and those are assumptions. They just started
at the beginning. Having too much fat is a disorder of having too much fat. So it's not
energy balance. It's not overeating. It's not sedentary behavior. And if you ask it
this way, the next question you're likely to ask, which we'll get to, is what regulates
fat accumulation? Because what we know is there's too much fat. Like, if I was standing in here with Yao Ming,
whose seven feet six inches tall, and we wanted to know why he grew to be seven foot six,
we wouldn't care that he was in positive energy balance. We would want to know what regulates
growth, right. So we wanna know what regulates growth. So, by this hypothesis, overeating
and inactivity are compensatory effects. They're not causes. And the way it was put to me by several different
individuals doing animal research, so we don't get fat because we overeat. We overeat because
our fat tissue is accumulating excess fat. Overeating is a given. If you're getting fatter,
you have to take in more calories than you consume. But we're saying the positive energy
balance is in effect. Here's a way to see it. This comes from the,
again, straight out of the pre World War II text. Although the child is mine, I use these
photos 'cause he's so cute. He was. Here he was one year old, 20 pounds. Okay? 2006. Here
he is 2009, 45 pounds. He's gained 25 pounds in three years, right? He's been in positive
energy balance. He has overeaten. [laughter] He's taken in more calories than expended.
But he did not take in, he did not grow because he overate. He overate because he was growing.
He grew cause he was secreting growth hormone. And the growth hormone sparked his tissues
to grow muscle, organs, fat, bone. And he had to take in more calories than he expended
to fuel that growth. And if he wasn't growing fast enough, we might have even given him
more growth hormone to speed his growth, at which point that would have created even more
positive energy balance. Here's a gruesome analogy: cancer. Here's
a tumor. You can barely see it. Then it's growing at Day 10. It's growing at Day 20.
It's bigger and bigger. This tumor is in positive energy balance; nobody cares. We care if we
want to starve it to death, but that's a given. Like, just if we don't want this room to get
crowded, we'll shut the doors before anyone comes in. But what we care about is what genes,
what hormones are disruptive that drive the growth because the positive energy balance
is in effect. And in every other example in nature, positive
energy balance is always an effect of growth, not the other way around. So, this was a German-Austrian hypothesis
prior to World War II. It was known as the lipophilia hypothesis. I'll explain that in
a second. The primary proponents where Gustav von Bergmann, who was a German specialist
in internal medicine. Today the highest award in the German Association of Internal Medicine
is the Gustav von Bergmann Award. And then Julius Bauer, who was a geneticist
and endocrinologist at the University of Vienna, Bauer was very famous in Austria. If you have
any molecular biology or genetics friends in Austria, email them and say, "Have you
ever heard of Julius Bauer?" And they'll probably say, "Oh, yeah. Absolutely." And the theory was more or less fully accepted
in Europe by 1940. This comes from the 1940 textbook. And the problem was 1940 was a bad
year for Europe. So, the German and Austrian medical research communities evaporate. Unlike
in physics, where we, we embraced all the European physicists who got chased out of
Europe because we had atomic bombs to build and hydrogen bombs and a Cold War to fight.
In medicine and public health, we didn't. So Julius Bauer ended up working in Hollywood,
California for the Hospital of Medical Evangelists and publishing articles that just said, "Julius
Bauer, Hollywood, California," and nobody took his work seriously, although his son
became Dean of the USC Medical School. So here's lipophilia in a nutshell. The idea
is lipophilia means 'love of fat'. Okay. The way these people saw it, is that some tissues
are more or less predisposed to accumulate fat, in the same way that, you can think of
it, we grow hair in some places and not in others. And we get fat in some place and not in others.
So we don't tend to get fat on our foreheads or the back of our hands, but we put in fat
on our guts, under our chins. And so they said maybe fat is just like hair. And so,
some people are hairier than others, just like some people are fatter than others. When men start losing their hair, we don't
accuse them of under eating because they're losing weight. We know that there's a lot
of different issues involved. So Bauer put it like this. He said, "Like
a malignant tumor or like the fetus, the uterus or the breasts of a pregnant woman, the abnormal
lipophilic tissue seizes on foodstuffs, even in the case of under nutrition. It maintains
its stock, and may increase it independent of the requirements of the organism. A sort
of anarchy exists; the adipose tissue lives for itself and does not fit into the precisely
regulated management of the whole organism." And this phrase, "even in the case of under
nutrition," begins to tell us why these women could get obese in a population where their
children are starving because it didn't matter how little food there was. If there was something
driving their accumulation of fat, they were gonna get fat anyway. So when you look at animal models of obesity,
which you can, what you'll find–what I found–was they all fall into two categories. Either,
well, let me just explain. If you have an animal model of obesity, how do you want to
test what's driving it, like a genetic model, a surgical model. You could lesion the ventromedial
hypothalamus for rat and it'll get obese and eat voraciously. So you'll see voracious eating
and obesity. And you wanna know which causes which. Did this regulation of fat tissue cause what's
called hyperphasia? Or did the hyperphasia cause the accumulation of fat? So what you
do, is you just do the experiment and then you put the animals on a diet and see whether
they get fat anyway. Okay? And what you'll find for every animal model
of obesity is they will get obese anyway, even if you put them on a diet. You can, in
some cases, starve them. There's a genetic strain of mice that M.R.C.
Greenwood studied in the early 1980s, when she put these animals on a diet from the moment
they were weaned and they became more obese. They became fatter than their lean control
than their genetic controls, even though they were on a diet their whole life. They actually
weighed less. Their organs were smaller. Their muscle tissue was smaller and they had more
fat. And in effect, their drive to accumulate fat was, in order to do that they cannibalized
their organs and their brain. And Jean Meyer, a Tufts nutritionist who played
a large role in this, usually to the detriment of society. The way he put it, he studied
a genetic strain of mice. He said, "These mice will make fat out of their food under
the most unlikely circumstances, even when half-starved." Okay? So it's not that these
mice got fat because they ate too much. They got fat if you let them eat anything basically. And we're gonna propose, again, that the same
thing's happening in humans. So here's some obvious questions. Why vertical growth but
not horizontal? When we look at children, we know that overeating
is the effect. Growth is the cause. Why animals but not man? An animal's model of obesity,
when you break the gene, you intervene surgically. There are even dietary models. What you're
doing is disregulating the fat tissue. You're not making the animals eat too much. And then the question, if obesity is sort
of excess fat accumulation, what regulates fat accumulation? So here's a regulation of
fat. Adiposity 101. If you learn this, you'll know more than your doctors do. [pause] By
the way, what gets me is that again, it's 2011. I lecture in medical schools. I lecture
to obesity research centers. And I'm telling them, it's like I'm telling
them something new. I mean, they don't learn this in medical school but they forgot it.
But when it comes to the relevance of obesity, or why we get fat, the idea that your fat
tissue is regulated and has anything to say about this, it's considered radical and quackish.
Okay? And the point I'm making is any other growth
problem, like I said, from cancer to height to anything, all you're gonna care about is
what hormones, what enzymes, are driving growth. So let's care about it here, too. And what
you learn is fat is stored as triglycerides in your fat tissue. Here's a triglyceride.
Its three fatty acids bound together by a glycerol molecule. Fatty acids are burned
for fuel and the fat enters and exits the cell as these fatty acids. And the reason
that is, is because the triglycerides themselves are too big to fit in and out of the cell
to get through the cell membrane of the fat tissue. So, the fatty acids enter the fat tissue.
And then they're bound together inside the fat tissue into a triglyceride and as a triglyceride,
it's fixed in the fat tissue. It's that simple. It's too big to get it out. And if you wanna get it out, you have to break
it down into its component parts again. So the fatty acids can get out. So, it's a very
simple mechanism for storing fat. Here it is in a, in a diagram. Here's fatty acids
outside the cell. They pass through the fat cell membrane. Inside the cell, there's this
triglyceride fatty acid cycle. So the fatty acids are bound to an activated glycerol molecule
and you'll have a triglyceride. And as a triglyceride, they're fixed in the fat cell. And then they
break down. There's a hormone, several hormones; a primary
one called hormone sensitive lipase, which breaks down the triglycerides into the fatty
acids and then they can escape again. So, here's where we care about energy in minus
energy out. You will get fatter if more fat enters your fat tissue than leaves. And you
will get leaner if more fatty acids leave your fat tissue than enter it. And what we
wanna know is what determines this balance of fatty acids going in versus fatty acids
going out. It's that simple. So here it is, circa 2010. I could've used
the same diagram from the mid-1960s, 'cause this was figured out by the mid-1960s. Unfortunately
the Germans and Austrians weren't around by then. We required two technologies to do it;
a way to measure fatty acids in the bloodstream, a way to measure hormones accurately. By 1960,
it was done. And by 1961, it was clear that insulin, the
hormone insulin, is a principle regulator of fat metabolism. This is Rosalyn Yalow and
Solomon Berson who invented the radioimmunoassay for measuring hormones. Yalow won the Nobel
Prize for it. Berson had died by then. And you could see when it comes to white fat
tissue, here's fat storage. Here's fat mobilization. TAG is triglycerides. And so you just ask,
you know the little pluses show that it up regulates it. And the only hormone this particular author
is interested in in metabolic regulation is insulin. It up regulates here. It up regulates
there. It up regulates here, it up regulates here. It down, it suppresses fat mobilization
and then there's some role from other hormones in increasing fat mobilization. But it's basically
insulin that puts fat in the fat tissue and it's insulin that suppresses fat mobilization. Here, it's putting fat in. Here, it's putting
fat in. Here, it's suppressing it. And release of fatty acids, as Yalow and Berson said,
from fat cells requires only the negative stimulus of insulin deficiency. So, if you
wanna get insulin, if you wanna get fat out of your fat tissue, you have to lower your
insulin levels. That's the fundamental thing that the adiposity
101 tells you. So, and what's funny is we've known for like, 50 years that insulin is a
fat-producing hormone. This is Best and Best of the Banting and Best who discovered insulin.
The fact that insulin increases the formation of fat has been obvious ever since the first
emaciated daughter diabetic patient demonstrated a fine pad of fat tissue, made as a result
of treatment with the hormone. This is insulin and fat stored. This is a 2001 textbook, Endocrinology 101,
and here's a young woman who basically, she was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when she
was something like 17 years old. And for the next 47 years, she injected herself with her
insulin in two spots on her thighs. And she ended up with these huge fat masses. In this
picture in the textbook, the caption is "the overall action of insulin on the adipocyte,
the fat cell, was to stimulate fat storage and inhibit mobilization. That's the remarkable effects of locally injected
insulin on the accumulation of fat into fat cells are graphically illustrated here." That's
what happens when you raise insulin levels. So here's the bottom line. When insulin is
secreted or chronically elevated, fat accumulates in the fat tissue. When insulin levels drop,
fat escapes from the fat tissue and the fat depots shrink. And we secrete insulin primarily
in response to the carbohydrates in our diet. This is how George Cahill, he was a Harvard
diabetes specialist, who co-authored in 1965, a 500 page handbook of adipose tissue, metabolism;
co-edited. It was put out by the American Physiological Society. They wanted to take
this science of fat metabolism and make it available to the people who didn't read biochemistry
and physiology textbooks. And as Cahill put it to me, "Carbohydrate
is driving insulin is driving fat." That is basically the message in that textbook. And
the interesting thing is you can take out "is driving insulin" and get "carbohydrate
is driving fat." It's logically equivalent. So, and when I give this lecture at medical
schools, it's really funny 'cause I could watch the audience and I see, "Oh, wait a
minute. Geez, He used that word 'carbohydrate'. That means this is that Atkins crap." And
the doctors immediately shut down. They've been with me up until then, up until now.
And then they start thinking "Fad Diet Alert!" Not all carbohydrates are equally fattening.
If you care about the underlying science, the key words, you have the high glycemic
index carbs are fattening, the easily digestible carbs, the base of the food guide pyramid,
bread, cereal, rice, and pasta. We break those carbs down easily. They get glucose into the
bloodstream. You get insulin spikes from them. And then, sugar. Sugar is a unique case. Sucrose,
high fructose corn syrup. It's half glucose, half fructose, for all intents and purposes.
We metabolize the fructose in our livers. And it's quite likely that sugars, as I wrote
in the New York Times magazine article a few weeks ago, are the fundamental cause of this
condition insulin resistance, which then makes all carbohydrates bad. So the question is should this be surprising?
This idea that carbohydrates are inherently fattening. And the answer is, well, it wasn't
up until 1960. In the 1820s, when a Frenchman named Anthelme Brillat-Savarin wrote what
was then, has been for many years, the single most famous book ever written about food,
'The Physiology of Taste'. Brillat-Savarin basically said after 500 conversations with
stout, exceedingly stout people, it was fairly clear that the cause of obesity was a genetic
predisposition to fatten. Plus, starches, what he called farinaceous foods, and sugar
made everything worse. And for the next 140 years, the conventional wisdom in this country
and elsewhere was that carbohydrates make you fat. This was the first line of a British
Journal of Nutrition article in 1963, written by the two, one of two most prominent British
dieticians, "Every woman knows that carbohydrates are fattening, this is a piece of common knowledge,
which a few nutritionists would dispute." Dr. Spock's 'Baby and Child Care', which was
the Bible of child-raising in our country from the 1946, the first edition, to the end
of the century. This one sentence was in every, single edition. "The amount of plain, starchy
food, cereals, breads, potatoes taken is what determines, in the case of most people, how
much weight they gain or lose." If you went to a hospital in the 1940s and
1950s and were obese, this is the kind of diet they would put you on. I could've shown
the same diet from Harvard Medical School, from Stanford Medical School, from Cornell
Med School. This is actually from 'The Practice of Endocrinology',
a British textbook written by Raymond Greene, who was the brother of Graham Greene and the
most influential British endocrinologist of the mid-20th Century. Foods to be avoided:
bread and everything made with flour, cereals, potatoes, foods containing much sugar, all
sweets. And you can eat as much as you like of the following foods: meat, fish, birds,
all green vegetables, eggs, cheese, fruit except bananas and grapes. These foods are
fattening. You limit them. These foods you can eat as much as you like cause they literally
do not make you fat. It's not about calories. It's about the effect
of the food on the hormones that regulate fat accumulation, insulin. So here are the
conclusions. Biology, not physics. This is a biological problem. The laws of thermodynamics
have nothing to do with it, no more than the laws of relativity do. Obesity disorder, fat
accumulation, not energy balanced, not overeating and sedentary behavior. Fat accumulation is
regulated fundamentally by insulin and dietary carbohydrates. Carbohydrates driving insulin
is driving fat. And the only non-pharmaceutical remedy is
to restrict or remove the causative agent, carbohydrates. Now, here's the problem. If you lower the carbohydrate content of the
diet, but you keep calories high because it's not about calories and you wanna make sure
the person has enough calories to fuel, to run their body and if you're obese or you're
overweight, you need a lot of fuel 'cause you have a big body. If you lower the carb content and keep calories
high, you raise the fat content. So, you end up with a high-fat diet. Fat, actually, happens
to be the one nutrient that does not stimulate insulin secretion. Protein does. So, a healthy diet, if you're overweight and
obese, and I would argue in my books for everyone, is a high-fat carbohydrate restricted diet.
Okay. Usually I just added that — I don't go through that, but I've seen what you've
been, what the cafeteria is here feeding. It's this low-fat dogma. It's gotta be about
lowering the fat. And it‚Äôs not about the fat. It‚Äôs about the carbohydrates. So, you
can just ask this question, "Where did the science go?" And there's two places. First,
the calories in, calories out hypothesis just swept it away. So, you'll find textbooks today, like 'Principles
of Biochemistry', Lenningers'. It's sort of the seminal biochemistry textbook. This is
the latest edition from a couple years ago. What makes fat tissue fat? High blood glucose–that's
carbs–elicits the release of insulin, which speeds the uptake of glucose by tissues, favors
the storage of fuels as glycogen–it's a good thing– and triglycerols–fat, a very bad
thing–while inhibiting fatty acid mobilization. What makes people fat? To a first approximation,
obesity is the result of taking in more calories in the diet than are expended by the body's
energy-consuming activities. The point I'm making is that the same thing that makes your
fat cells fat is what makes you fat. Because if you're fat, for the most part,
it's 'cause all your fat cells are too fat. And this disconnect, I was interviewing this
British Oxford University fat metabolism specialist, who took 15 minutes on the phone explaining
to me all the ways that insulin makes fat cells fat. And then got around to people and
evoked this overeating, over nutrition mechanism. And the point I made was, why did you suddenly,
you switched mechanisms? You had one mechanism for the fat cells and then when you got to
people, you brought in this vague overeating thing. And he literally said to me, "I never
thought of that." He's like, in his mid- to late- 60s. Here's the other thing that happened. In the
1960s, we started to believe that dietary fat causes heart disease. So when dietary
fat causes heart disease, you remember I just told you that a carb-restricted diet is a
high-fat diet. And so the same year that the American Physiological
Society put out its high-fat diet, its handbook of adipose tissue metabolism saying carbohydrates
drive insulin, drive fat. That's the simplified eight-word version of a 500 page text. The New York Times was already panning carbo-light,
low-carb diets. "New diet decried by nutritionists. Its dangers are seen in low carbohydrate intake.
Some of the nation's top nutrition experts are concerned at the new popularity of the
low-carbohydrate reducing diet, which one of them calls 'nonsense'‚Äî'cause you don't
have to restrict calories 'cause it‚Äôs not about calories‚Äî"and another compares to
'mass murder.'" This is Jean Meyer, who was the most influential
nutritionist in the country; went on to become president of Tufts University. 'Mass murder'
'cause you're giving people high-fat diet. So the science says carbohydrates is driving
insulin is driving fat. Cut the carbs out. And the nutritionists are saying, "You can't
do that. You're gonna kill people." And that's how we've seen it ever since. And
you get to the point by the 1980s when you end up with the food guide pyramid because
we believe fats are fattening and we believe red meat causes colon cancer, or God knows
what. We're gonna tell an entire nation to eat bread, cereal, rice, pasta. And sweets,
weirdly enough, get a free pass 'cause they're nonfattening. So, Coke, Pepsi, SoBa ice tea, Snapple. There
was actually a theory in the 1980s, you could drink as much, you could eat as much any food
you want if it didn't have fat in it. 'Cause if it didn't have fat in it, you couldn't
put fat on. So, [pause] just to wrap up. I've already
gone too long cause I always do. I started off asking question, why were these
populations fat? Rolf Richards, in 1973, "Most third world countries have a high carbohydrate
intake as their economic dependence is predominantly agricultural, with a heavy dependence on non-dairy
produces. It is conceivable that the ready availability of starch in preference to animal
protein, contributing as it must the main caloric requirements of these populations,
leads to increased lipogenesis and the development of obesity." In this country, we took the conventional
wisdom that carbohydrates make you fat. And over the course of 20 years, from the
1960s to the 1980s, turned it into the conventional wisdom that you grew up with, that carbohydrates
are heart healthy diet foods and it‚Äôs the fat that makes you fat. And that's why there's
an obesity epidemic. I mean, surely the sugar and high fructose corn syrup didn't help. And that's why we all have trouble struggling
with our weight 'cause the approach we use to cure it–eat less, exercise more and eat
low fat diets–is exactly the wrong thing. Basic question is, I'll phrase it the way
it‚Äôs usually phrased. What about those Southeast Asians who live on low-fat, high carb diets
and don't get fat? And one of the fundamental issues here, and actually, this is partially
why I wrote the sugar story in the New York Times a couple weeks ago. Basically in the
beginning I showed you populations that ate high carb diets that were very poor and were
fat. And then there are populations, the Japanese,
the Koreans, the Chinese, elsewhere, the Kitavans who eat high carb diets and aren't fat. And
what's the difference, or is it not the carbohydrates? And again, what I'm saying it's the high glycemic,
high refined carbs and the sugars. And if you look at the populations that don't get
fat, they have, they eat effectively very little sugar. So, the Japanese, for instance,
in the 1960s were eating the amount of sugar that we were eating in the 1860s. The Kitavans
eat virtually no sugar. The way the research will talk about it is these nations don't
have sweet tooths. Sweet teeth? So my answer would be, and this is one of
the reasons why I believe it may be necessary, sugar may be necessary to trigger this. And
that's what the biochemistry, the science suggests today. And once sugar's in the diet
often. One of the interesting things, one of the
suggestions I made in the New York Times magazine article was that sugar could actually be the
fundamental cause of cancer. So remember, you want to explain observations
and one observation is that Japanese women in Japan have relatively very little breast
cancer. And then they come to the United States and within two generations, you have virtually
the same breast cancer rates as any other population. And what could explain this? There's
something happening here that causing it, or there's something that's preventing it
in Japan. It's a common observation throughout the world. And one of the things I would suggest
is they come here and more sugar gets into their diets. And the reason they don't have
it there is because there's such little sugar. They don't have insulin resistance and they
don't have all these triggers. But so, the, the, no hypothesis to me would be "it's a
sugar." You could evoke other hypotheses; the length
of time that the refined carb, in this case, rice, or white rice or the grain, had been
in the population. But the sugar is the thing that would seem the most obvious. [pause] >>Male Audience Member #2: Hi, I have a couple
of personal questions. You're free to not answer them. One is, do you follow this diet
that you recommend? >>Gary Taubes: Yeah. [laughter] >>Male Audience Member #2: And what is your
waist size in inches? [laughter] >>Gary Taubes: My waist size in inches? Well,
the question is, see this is always one of the mistakes people make in life. I mean,
I'm OK. Okay? Basically, I have the same body I had when I was in college. I was a defensive
tackle at Harvard. I was a bad one. Actually, I'm 20 pounds less than I was then.
But when you're trying to be a defensive lineman, you're trying to be as heavy as you can. It
is actually not important how big I am on my diet. What would be important is how much
bigger I would be if I added carbohydrates back into the diet. That would be the relevant.
Like, I am never, I could starve myself. Actually, my good example is my brother. My
brother is a professor of mathematics at Harvard. A very smart guy. He was always lean and I
was always thick. He was always, you could see when he was seven, you could see his muscles
and his veins and you could see my pot belly. And when we grew up, we both ate all the food
we could. As a matter of fact, we ate as fast as we could 'cause if I didn't eat fast, he'd
eat it first. He was more physically active. Well, he wasn't. He could run longer distances.
I could starve myself to death and never look like my brother. I will die of starvation before I am as lean
as my brother is 'cause we are physiologically, we partition fuel differently. But the question
is what would happen if I added carbs back to my diet? Would my waist size be bigger?
Right now, I'm six foot two, 220 pounds. My waist size is probably 35. When I was in college, I was six foot two,
220 pounds. Actually, and my waist size was 35. In between I was heavier. Never had the,
never likely to be obese. Although because I'm a big guy, my BMI could go over 30. So
for me, well, it might kill me. That's the question. The question is not whether I'm heavy or light.
The question is am I going to die sooner because I ate a lot of saturated fat? And one thing
I don't have time to do in this lecture, I do in another lecture. If you actually look
at the clinical trials, which compare high fat diets to low fat diets, the way these
have been done over the past decade is basically putting people, randomizing people to an Aitkin‚Äôs
diet, which is high fat, high saturated fat. Eat as much as you want. And a low fat, American
Heart Association, low calorie, restricted diet. So one diet, you cut fat. You cut saturated
fat. You cut calories. You're eating like, skinless chicken breast and lettuce. And the
other diet, you can eat as much as you want. So, you're eating eggs and bacon for breakfast
and meat and double cheeseburgers without the bun in a sort of iconic Atkins‚Äôs thing.
And nobody really sticks to these diets the way they should. But when the trials are done, what you find
is not only the people on the high fat diet, ad lib the eat as much as you want diet, weigh
less. Even though they're told they could eat as much as they want, their heart disease
risk profile factors improve. And this is what actually got me into this subject. When I was writing a story for the New York
Times magazine in 2002, I found five of these trials that had been done and not been published
yet. And again, if we say, "Let's pretend this is a science," we have a hypothesis,
we have two of them. One of them is that saturated fat causes heart disease and one of them is
that if you eat more you'll get fat. So now, I'm gonna put you on a diet that says you
can eat as much as you want and as much saturated fat as you want and I recommend you do it. Our hypothesis predicts that you will gain
weight and get heart disease. And instead, what happened in these trials is these people
lose weight and their heart disease risk factors improve. Across the board, everything improves.
So the question then becomes, maybe our hypothesis is wrong. >>Male Audience Member #3: You answered my
question to some extent. You answered the last one, but clarify for personal happiness. In the beginning of your talk you spent a
lot of time on genetics and you had the fat twins and the skinny twins, and the fat cow
and the skinny cow, and the fat mouse. And you sort of abandoned that toward the end
of the talk. So could I infer that everybody has their
genetic predisposition, which they start with and their sugar intake regulates them around
that? Or how would you describe it? >>Gary Taubes: The question is what role does
genetics play when it comes to — like there's an obesity epidemic? The experts will tell
you, obviously our genes haven't changed. What I'm arguing is again one of the fundamental
observations is that you don't see obesity in any animals in the wild. On the East Coast,
where I used to live, there's a deer epidemic. There's obviously enough food for all the
deer to overeat. But you don't get fatter deer. You get more deer. You don't get obese
deer. So the question is why do they get fat? Why
do they stay lean, in effect, regardless of how much they eat. And actually, it's interesting
for hibernators, for instance. They'll get fat yearly, regardless of how much they eat.
So their fat tissue's regulated. And what are the genes responding to with
us? And I would say they're responding to basically how we process the carbs in the
diet. So if we all grew up in a carb free environment,
if we were Inuits or Masai, or Native Plains Indians of the Great Plains, and we didn't
have the carbs in the diet, we would all basically have, we would all be lean. And then, when you live, grow up, in a high
carb environment, then the phenotype manifests itself of obesity. And what the genes are
responding to are the carbs in the diet. It's basically how you metabolize them, how much
insulin you secrete, how sensitive your fat tissue is to that insulin, and things like
that. And what's interesting again is I used to
live in New York, up until a year ago, and I'd get my coffee from a bagel shop downstairs.
This was right around the corner from NYU. And it was full of these heavy set young girls
from NYU who were eating their low fat bagels and their low fat soy cream cheese and their
low fat soy lattes. And they were doing exactly what the government
thinks they should do and what they've been told to do to live a healthy lifestyle. And
I assumed they believed they were just doomed to be overweight because they were doing what
they were told to do. And the argument I would make is that they're doing it in a high carb
environment. And if they didn't live in a high carb environment, that they didn't eat
the carbs, they would be lean. Their phenotype wouldn't manifest itself. And the message I'm trying — this is the
battle that I'm trying to fight, is to get these ideas across because there are a lot
of people out there, like obese children, who are being tortured with starvation diets
and being made to run five miles a day, or whatever. And that's not why they're fat.
And the problem is they're tortured like that and then they get their Gatorade when it‚Äôs
over. And they count the 300 calories of Gatorade and they go, "Oh, OK. This is good. I'm in
negative energy balance." And they're still driving fat accumulation. So we have to get the carbs out of their life
and I sound like a quack diet book doctor when I say that. That's what the research
shows. [pause] >>Male Audience Member #4: I have a very practical
question. So, my question is how do you actually do it? How do you avoid carbs? You go into
a store. You want to buy bacon. You look in the ingredients. There's sugar in there. You
come here in Google cafes. There is sugar everywhere. Like, every main dish, every stew,
they gotta put sugar in it. If you want to buy meat, they're gonna give you lean cuts
of meat. You can't get like nice fat cut of meat. So how do you get fat? >>Gary Taubes: Well, you can but it's difficult.
I mean, the idea is you can always eat less of it. So if you're not, if you get the kids
off the sodas and the fruit juices and you don't try to give them low fat foods, you
don't try to give them the low fat yoghurts. I actually have this ongoing argument with
my wife where I say, "Look, this Michael Pollan kind of thing. If a food makes a health claim,
look to see how much sugar is in it." There's almost invariably, with the exception
I think, of Cheerios, weirdly enough, it's gonna have a high sugar content. So the best
you can do is eat less. So again, my kids will go eat bacon that's cured, apple-cured
bacon, which I assume means it‚Äôs sweet and it tastes sweet and there's sugar in it. But
it's still better than Frosted Flakes, or Coco Puffs, or getting apple juice with their. So you can always improve. And everyone, it
sounds more difficult than, you made it sound difficult. But the reality is when you, when
people try it without looking as closely as you do, at least the ones who succeed email
me and tell me. I don't know if there's this huge background of people who fail on these
diets. I don't think they work for everybody because I think after a point, you can get. And this is what the British physician wrote
about 50 years ago, looking at his 1500 people he put on a low carb diet. And he said the
ones who had been fat for a long time, who were very obese, who had been obese the longest,
and women more so than men, because women have the sex hormones are much more, that
play a much greater role in their fattening. And these people ‚Äì it's sort of — they
may reach the point of no return. But again, the argument I'm making is that
if you look at the heart disease risk factors and other profiles, I recently had to post
on my blog, my own lipid profile, which I got measured cause people wanted to know if
I appeared to be killing myself. And I'm not by standard measures anyway. But if you look at that, it would still be
a healthier diet. So you do better, but you don't have to avoid sugar entirely. You might
be healthier if you do, but we could certainly all cut back on it. >>Male Audience Member #4: Okay. So maybe
I should give a little bit of clarification. So, yes, I mean, if you want to go healthier
than the average, you can certainly do it if you're gonna [ ] and you are gonna make
lots of progress. Me personally, I made lots of progress. But if you want to go to the
next step, and if you want to really completely cut the sugar out, and be really healthy,
how do you practically do it? >>Gary Taubes: First of all, you stop working
in an office. See, I work at home. So I can control and I live in Berkeley. I'm sure you
have it here. So we have these gourmet butchers from farms that raised their animals humanely
and don't put sugar in things. Again, I'm just a journalist. I can't solve
every problem. I'm trying to fight this particular battle. And then I hope that if I make some
progress and the other people out there fighting this battle make some progress, then maybe
the whole society will move into a point where it will get easier. I have a lot of fans at Microsoft, I hate
to say, and they've been trying to get the Microsoft Wellness Group to put low carb lines
in their caf√©. So they have at least the effect of the Atkins like choices. And so
far, as far as I know, they've had no luck. But give them time. >>Male Audience Member #5: Hi. I was wondering,
you mentioned five studies that were unpublished, and how many of them are now published, or
do you think there's a publication bias, where these studies that talk to the dogma don't
ever get published? >>Gary Taubes: Actually, they virtually have
all been published that I know of. Probably several dozen studies published. I mean, the
results are always the same. People on these diets, they lose more weight.
Their triglycerides go down more. Their HDL goes up more. Everything gets better and it's
basically the metabolic syndrome in some resistance resolved. It goes away and should go away
if I'm right, cause it‚Äôs pretty obviously caused by the carbs in the diet. There are
publications biases. For instance, people who go in believing that
it‚Äôs all about calories, will interpret their data to make it all about calories,
even if they published that the Atkins‚Äôs group does better than the American Heart
Association group. There are people who own, there are now like,
low carb journals out there, 'Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism'. So some people will do, there's
a great study done on Type 2 diabetes at Duke University where most of the subjects were
able to get off their diabetes medications. This is supposedly an irreversible disease.
And the author, the first author only sent to the 'Journal of Nutrition and Metabolism',
where it would basically be read by the converted, because he didn't wanna deal with all the
flack he would get trying to publish in the mainline journal. So there are definitely biases, but if you
do these studies now, I think you almost have to. There's a clinical trials website where
you have to register them and part of the reason for that is to make sure that people
don't only publish positive results. So the pretty much all get published, but they do
get spun. And often, the spin takes over. The biggest study ever done came out of — it
was Pennsylvania, UPENN, Colorado, and University of Cincinnati. And they put 300 subjects on
an Atkins diet in effect and an American Heart Association diet. And they referred to it
as a low carb versus a low fat diet. This is a classic way to do it. But the low fat diet is calorie restricted.
So when you're told to go on the low fat diet, you're told to eat 14, 15 hundred calories
a day, basically semi-starve yourself. And when you go on the low carb diet, you're told
to eat as much as you want. Just don't eat carbohydrates. And one of the lessons I learned writing about
physics is it's absolutely crucial to define your terms carefully, so people know what
they've done and what you've done and can replicate it. And so, you're not in effect
trying to fool people. And if I was writing that study, it would
say "low fat, low calorie versus low carb, ad libitum. 'Ad libitum' means eat as much
as you want. And I would always use those terms because you never want them to forget
that one group is low calorie and one group is ad libitum. 'Cause that also suggests,
and in this case they got essentially the same weight loss. The Atkins group did better
on heart disease risk factors, but the weight loss was virtually the same. And you want people to remember that one group
is being semi-starved and one group isn't 'cause that evidence that it‚Äôs not about
the calories. And they just didn't do it. They mentioned it in their methodology that
the low fat group was calorie restricted and then they ignored it. And the title was 'Low
Fat Versus Low Carb', and the papers picked it up: Low Fat versus Low Carb. And they left
out the crucial ingredient, which is one diet restricts calories and the other diet doesn't,
which is the ingredient that tells you you're paradigm might be wrong. OK. >>Female Audience Member #2: I'm just wondering
if any of your research, you came across any connections between people who drop the carbohydrates,
but coincidentally, they're also dropping the trans fats, because most of the carbohydrates
we purchase commercially are covered with trans fats, which tend to be the worst fats
for you in terms of heart disease risk. >>Gary Taubes: It's funny 'cause I would always
argue it the other way. To me, the evidence that trans fats are bad comes from mostly
from observational studies where you compare people who eat a lot of trans fats to people
who eat very little. Like the nurses health studies, what they're doing is there, when
you think who eats a lot of trans fats and who doesn't, you're comparing in effect, people
who buy a lot of processed foods and fast foods, to people who cook most of their meals
for themselves. >>Female Audience Member #2: You can't separate
the carbohydrates. >>Gary Taubes: You can, but you're also, but
the point is, as you put it, the processed foods come with the carbs. The trans-fat data
just doesn't wow me. I mean, it is true if you give up the carbs,
you're gonna have to give up the trans fats. But remember all those populations I talked
about in the beginning, Like the Trinidadians, the Sioux — Native American Sioux. They would
not have been getting trans fats. So we don't know what their heart disease risk was. But
we know that they weren't getting margarine. They weren't getting — there wasn't food
industry forcing trans fats on them. So it's quite likely, the obvious, again, the null
hypothesis would be the carb content of the diet. >>Female Audience Member #2: And then my second
question is, that there are populations that tend not to eat meat, like India. There's
so many vegetarians and they get their proteins mainly from legumes. So what is your take
on the glycemic index of legumes and other non-meat sources of proteins for people who
aren't really eating meat? >>Gary Taubes: Well, I do think, again, the
argument I make in the book. The book is called 'Why We Get Fat'? Not 'How to Lose Weight'.
The reason why I call it 'Why We Get Fat' is I wanna make this argument that it‚Äôs
literally about the carbs, high glycemic index carbs. It doesn't — the — legumes are lower
glycemic index. Green vegetables are low glycemic index. And the sugars. And anyone can improve their diet if they
just remove the sugars and the white flour
ake me wanna say hey baby Ooh donÇ Ùt stop it I want you to http // http://www.imdb.me/ livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht IÇ Ùm a?? Self paid, sel f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda made millionaire I used to play around the world Now IÇ Ùm around the world getting paid Girl problems, no problems DonÇ Ùt hate the game that wonÇ Ùt solve it I want to get with you mami Now let me see where the Lord?? Pitbull Feat. T-Pain Hey Baby (Drop It To The Floor) shttp // www.hotnewsong s.com/pitbull-feat-t-painhey-baby-drop-it-to-the-floor- s.html Hey baby girl what you doing to http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht? I wanna see what you got in store (hey, hey baby) YouÇ Ùre giving it your all when youÇ Ùre dancing on me I want to see if you can give me some more (hey, hey baby) You can be my girl, I can be your man And we can pump this jam however you want (hey, hey baby) Pump it from the side, pump it upside down Or we can pump it from the back and the front (hey, hey baby) Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Ooh drop it to the floor Make me wanna say hey baby Yeah, you can shake some more Make me wanna say hey baby Ooh you got it cause you Make me wanna say hey baby Ooh donÇ Ùt stop it I want you to http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht Make money, make money This chicka right here gotta eat baby Scared money donÇ Ùt make money ThatÇ Ùs how it goes in the street baby But enough with the the nonsense Baby girl take a shot to clear your conscience Not a goon or a God, IÇ Ùm a monster Cause I hit all baddest woman in the world, gangsta Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Oooh baby, baby lalalalala Ooh drop it to the floor Make me wanna say hey baby Yeah, you can shake some more Make me wanna say hey baby Ooh you got it cause you Make me wanna say hey baby Ooh donÇ Ùt stop it I want you to http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht The Story Of Us- Taylor Swift I used to think one day we'd tell the story of us How we met and the sparks flew instantly People would say, "they're the lucky ones" I used to know my place was a spot next to you Now I'm searching the room for an empty seat 'Cause lately I don't even know what page you're on Oh, a simple complication Miscommunications lead to fall out So many things that I wish you knew So many walls up I can't break through Now I'm standing alone In a crowded room And we're not speaking And I'm dying to know Is it killing you Like it's killing me? I don't know what to say Since a twist of fate When it all broke down And the story of us Looks a lot like a tragedy now Next chapter How'd we end up this way? See me nervously pulling at my clothes And trying to look busy And you're doing your best to avoid me I'm starting to think one day I'll tell the story of us How I was losing my mind when I saw you here But you held your pride like you should have held me Oh, we're scared to see the ending Why are we pretending this is nothing? I'd tell you I miss you but I don't know how I've never heard silence quite this loud Now I'm standing alone In a crowded room And we're not speaking And I'm dying to know Is it killing you Like it's killing me? I don't know what to say Since a twist of fate When it all broke down And the story of us Looks a lot like a tragedy now This is looking like a contest Of who can act like they care less But I liked it better when you were on my side The battle's in your hands now But I would lay my armor down If you'd say you'd rather love than fight So many things that you wish I knew But the story of us might be ending soon Now I'm standing alone In a crowded room And we're not speaking And I'm dying to know Is it killing you Like it's killing me? I don't know what to say Since a twist of fate When it all broke down And the story of us Looks a lot like a tragedy now, now, now And we're not speaking And I'm dying to know Is it killing you Like it's killing me? I don't know what to say Since a twist of fate 'cause we're going down And the story of us Looks a lot like a tragedy now Grenade- Bruno Marz Easy come, easy go That's just how you live, oh Take, take, take it all, But you never give Should of known you was trouble from the first kiss, Why were they open? Gave you all I had And you tossed it in the trash You tossed it in the trash, you did To give me all your love is all I ever asked, Cause what you don't understand is IÇ Ùd catch a grenade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) IÇ Ùd jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah , yeah) You know I'd do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) Oh, oh I would go through all this pain, Take a bullet straight through my brain, Yes, I would die for ya baby; But you won't do the same No, no, no, no http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson , http // http:// www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson , http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for
whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson and blue beat me till I'm numb Tell the devil I said Ç ˙heyÇ ˘ when you get back to where you're from Mad woman, bad woman, That's just what you are, yeah, YouÇ Ùll smile in my face then rip the breaks out my car Gave you all I had And you tossed it in the trash You tossed it in the trash, yes you did To give me all your love is all I ever asked Cause what you don't understand is IÇ Ùd catch a grenade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) IÇ Ùd jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah , yeah) You know I'd do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) Oh, oh I would go through all this pain, Take a bullet straight through my brain, Yes, I would die for ya baby; But you won't do the same If my body was on fire, ooh YouÇ Ù d watch me burn down in flames You said you loved me you're a liar Cause you never, ever, ever did baby… But darling IÇ Ùll still catch a grenade for ya Throw my hand on a blade for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) IÇ Ùd jump in front of a train for ya (yeah, yeah , yeah) You know I'd do anything for ya (yeah, yeah, yeah) Oh, oh I would go through all this pain, Take a bullet straight through my brain, Yes, I would die for ya baby; But you won't do the same. No, you wonÇ Ùt do the same, You wouldnÇ Ùt do the same, Ooh, youÇ Ùll never do the same, No, no, no, no Dr. Dre – I Need A Doctor Ft. Eminem & Skylar Grey Im about to lose my mind you've been gone for so long I'm running out of time I need a doctor call me a doctor I need a doctor, doctor to bring me back to life [Eminem] I told the World one day I would pay it back say it on tape, and lay it, record it so that one day I could play it back but I don't even know if I believe it when I'm saying that ya'll starting to creep in, everyday its so grey and http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson hope, I just need a ray of that cause no one see's my vision when I play it for 'em they just say its wack they don't know what dope is and I don't know if I was awake or asleep when I wrote this, all I know is you came to me when I was at my lowest you picked me up, breeding life in me I owe my life to you before the life of me, I dont see why you dont see like I do but it just dawned on me you lost a son see this light in you, it's dark. let me turn on the lights and brighten me and enlighten you I dont think you realise what you mean to me not the slightest clue cause me and you were like a crew I was like your sidekick you gon either wanna fight me when I get off this f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining mic or you gon hug me but I'm not an option, theres nothing else I can do cause… [Chorus ] Im about to lose my mind you've been gone for so long I'm running out of time I need a doctor call me a doctor I need a doctor, doctor to bring me back to life [Eminem] It hurts when I see you struggle you come to me with ideas you say there just pieces so I'm puzzled cause the http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson i hear is crazy but your either getting lazy or you don't believe in you no more seems like your own opinions, not one you can form cant make a decision you keep questioning yourself second guessing and its almost like your begging for my help like I'm your leader your susposed to f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining be my mentor I can endure no more, I demand you remember who you are it was YOU, who believed in me when everyone was telling you dont sign me everyone at the f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining label, lets tell the truth you risked your career for me I know it as well as you nobody wanted to f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck with the white boy Dre, I'm crying in this booth you saved my life, now maybe its my turn to save yours but I can never repay you, what you did for me is way more but I aint giving up faith and you aint giving up on me get up Dre, I'm dying, I need you, come back for f- in don Ç Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck's sake [Chorus] Im about to lose my mind you've been gone for so long I'm running out of time I need a doctor call me a doctor I need a doctor, doctor to bring me back to life bring me back to life bring me back to life (I need a doctor, doctor to bring me back to life) [Dr Dre] It literally feels like a lifetime ago but I still remember the http // http://www.imdb.me/ livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris
Shining, with Cheryl Johnson like it was just yesterday though you walked in, yellow jump suit whole room, cracked jokes once you got inside the booth, told you, like smoke went through friends, some of them I put on but they just left, they said they was riding to the death but where the f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck are they now now that I need them, I dont see none of them all I see is Slim f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck all you fairweather friends all I need is him f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining backstabbers when the chips were down you just laughed at us now you bout to feel the f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining wrath of aftermath, faggots you gon see us in our lab jackets and ask us where the fin donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck we been? you can kiss my indecisive ass crack maggots and the crackers ass little crack a jack beat making wack math, backwards producers, Im back bastards one more CD and then I'm pa http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Christopher Shining up my bags and as I'm leaving I'll guarantee they scream Dre don't leave us like that man cause… [Chorus] Im about to lose my mind you've been gone for so long I'm running out of time I need a doctor call me a doctor I need a doctor, doctor to bring me back to life Dynamite- Taio Cruz I throw my hands up in the air sometimes Saying AYO! Gotta let go! I wanna celebrate and live my life Saying AYO! Baby, let's go! I came to dance, dance, dance, dance I hit the floor 'Cause that's my, plans, plans, plans, plans I'm wearing all my favorite Brands, brands, brands, brands Give me space for both my hands, hands, hands, hands Ye, ye Cause it goes on and on and on And it goes on and on and on Yeah! I throw my hands up in the air sometimes Saying AYO! Gotta let go! I wanna celebrate and live my life Saying AYO! Baby, let's go! 'Cause we gon' rock this club We gon' go all http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! 'Cause I told you once Now I told you twice We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! I came to move, move, move, move Get out the way me and my crew, crew, crew, crew I'm in the club so I'm gonna do, do, do, do Just what the f , came here to do, do, do, do Ye, ye Cause it goes on and on and on And it goes on and on and on Yeah! I throw my hands up in the air sometimes Saying AYO! Gotta let go! I wanna celebrate and live my life Saying AYO! Baby, let's go! 'Cause we gon' rock this club http // www.e sworld.com/dynamite_ s_taio_cruz.html We gon' go all http //bit.ly/ kMN kl for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! 'Cause I told you once Now I told you twice We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! I'm gonna take it all like, I'm gonna be the last one standing, I'm alone and all I I'm gonna be the last one landing 'Cause I, I, I Believe it And I, I, I I just want it all, I just want it all I'm gonna put my hands in the air Hands in the air Put your hands in the air I throw my hands up in the air sometimes Saying AYO! Gotta let go! I wanna celebrate and live my life Saying AYO! Baby, let's go! 'Cause we gon' rock this club We gon' go all http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! 'Cause I told you once Now I told you twice We gon' light it up Like it's dynamite! What the HellAvril Lavigne You say that I'm messing with your head (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) All 'cause I was making out with your friend (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) Love hurts, whether it's right or wrong (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) I can't stop 'cause I'm having too much fun (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) You're on your knees, beggin' please 'stay with me' But honestly, I just need to be a little crazy All my life I've been good but now, I'm thinking 'What the hell' All I want is to mess around, and I don't really care about If you love me, if you hate me, you can't save me, baby, baby All my life I've been good but now, whoa 'What the hell' What, What, What, What the hell So what if I go out on a million dates (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) You never call or listen to me anyway (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) I'd rather rage than sit around and wait all day (yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah) Don't get me wrong, I just need some time to play (yeah) You're on your knees, beggin' please 'stay with me' But honestly, I just need to be a little crazy All my life I've been good but now, I'm thinking 'What the hell' All I want is to mess around, and I
don't really care about If you love me, if you hate me, you can't save me, baby, baby All my life I've been good but now, whoa 'What the hell' La la la la la la la la, whoa, whoa La la la la la la la la, whoa, whoa You say that I'm messing with your head Boy, I like messing in your bed Yeah, I am messing with your head When I'm messing with you in bed All my life I've been good but now, I'm thinking what the hell (what the hell) All I want is to mess around and I don't really care about (I don't care about) All my life I've been good but now, I'm thinking what the hell All I want is to mess around and I don't really care about. (if you love me) If you love me (no), if you hate me (no) You can't save me, baby, baby (if you love me) All my life I've been good but now, whoa, what the hell La la, La la la la la la, La la, La la la la la la la Coming Home ft. Skylar Grey- Diddy-dirty money [Hook Skylar Grey] I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming home Let the rain wash away, all the pain of yesterday I know my kingdom awaits and they've forgiven my mistakes I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming [Intro Diddy] I'm back where I belong (yeah) I never felt so strong (I'm back baby) I feel like there's nothing I can't try And if you feel me put your hands highhh (put your hands high) If you ever lost a light before, this one's for you And you, the dreams are for you [Verse ] I hear "The Tears of a Clown" I hate that song I always feel like they're talking to me, when it comes on Another day, another dawn Another Keisha, nice to meet ya Get the math, I'm gone What am I supposed to do when the club lights come on? It's easy to be Puff but it's harder to be Sean What if my twins ask why I ain't marry their mom (why? http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson !) How do I respond? What if my son stares with a face like my own And says he wants to be like me when he's grown? http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ! But I ain't finished growing Another http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht, the inevitable prolongs Anothey day, another dawn Just tell Keisha and Teresa I'll be better in the morn' Another lie that I carry on I need to get back to the place where I belong [Hook Dirty Money] I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming home Let the rain wash away, all the pain of yesterday I know my kingdom awaits and they've forgiven my mistakes I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming [Verse ] "A house is Not a Home," I hate this song Is a house really a home when your loved ones is gone? And http // http:// www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson s got the nerve to blame you for it And you know you would have took the bullet if you saw it But you felt it and still feel it And money can't make up for it or conceal it But you deal with it and you keep ballin' Pour out some liquor, play ball and we keep ballin' Baby, we've been living a sin cause we've been really in love But when we've been living as friends So you've been a guest in your own home It's time to make your house your home Pick up your phone, come on [Hook Dirty Money] I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming home Let the rain wash away, all the pain of yesterday I know my kingdom awaits and they've forgiven my mistakes I'm coming home I'm coming home Tell the world I'm coming [Verse ] "Ain't No Stopping Us Now," I love that song Whenever it comes on, it makes me feel strong I thought I told y'all that we won't stop Til we back cruising through Harlem, Viso blocks It's what made me, saved me, drove me crazy Drove me away then embraced me Forgave me for all of my shortcomings Welcome to my homecoming Yeah, it's been a long time coming Lot of fights, lot of scars, lot of bottles Lot of cars, lot of ups, lot of downs Made it back, lost my dog (I miss you BIG) And here I stand, a better man (a better man) (don't stop) Thank you lord (thank you lord) Judas- Lady GaGa Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Gaga Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Gaga When he comes to me, I am ready I'll wash his feet with my hair if he needs Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain Even after three times, he betrays me Oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh-oh I'll bring him down, bring him down, down Oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh-oh A king with no crown, king with no crown I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Gaga I couldn't love a man so purely Even prophets forgave his crooked way I've learned love is like a brick, you can Build a house or sink a dead body Oh-oh, ohoh-oh, oh-oh, oh-oh-oh I'll bring him down, bring him down, down Oh-oh, oh-oh-oh, oh-oh, ohoh-oh A king with no crown, king with no crown I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Oh, oh, oh, oh,
oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Ew In the most Biblical sense I am beyond repentance Fame hooker Prostitute wench Vomits her mind But in the cultural sense I just speak in future tense Judas kiss me if offenced Or wear an ear condom next time I wanna love you But something's pulling me away from you Jesus is my virtue Judas is the demon I cling to I cling to I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby I'm just a holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel But I'm still in love with Judas, baby Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh I'm in love with Judas, Judas Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Judaah-ah Judas, Juda-ah-ah Judas, Gaga Raise Your GlassPink Right right, turn off the lights, We're gonna lose our minds to http // http://www.imdb.me/ livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ht, What's the deal, yo? I love when it's all too much, am turn the radio up Where's the rock and roll? Party Crasher, Penny Snatcher, Call me up if you want gangsta Don't be fancy, just get dancey Why so serious? So raise your glass if you are wrong, In all the right ways, All my underdogs, We will never be never be anything but loud And nitty gritty dirty little freaks Won't you come on and come on and raise your glass, Just come on and come on and raise your glass Slam slam, oh hot http //bit.ly/ kMN kl for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson What part of party don't you understand, Wish you'd just freak out (freak out already) Can't stop, coming in hot, I should be locked up right on the spot It's so on right now (so f in on right now) Party Crasher, Penny Snatcher, Call me up if you want gangsta Don't be fancy, just get dancey Why so serious? So raise your glass if you are wrong, In all the right ways, All my underdogs, We will never be never be anything but loud And nitty gritty dirty little freaks Won't you come on and come on and raise your glass, Just come on and come on and raise your glass Won't you come on and come on and raise your glass, Just come on and come on and raise your glass (oh http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson my glass is empty, that sucks) So if you're too school for cool, And you're treated like a fool, You can choose to let it go We can always, we can always, Party on our own (so raise your) So raise your glass if you are wrong, In all the right ways, All my underdogs, We will never be never be anything but loud And nitty gritty, dirty little freaks So raise your glass if you are wrong, In all the right ways, All my underdogs, We will never be never be anything but loud And nitty gritty, dirty little freaks Won't you come on and come on and raise your glass, Just come on and come on and raise your glass Won't you come on and come on and raise your glass,(for me) Just come on and come on and raise your glass (for me) ___________________________________ Big Time Rush Ç Ï Boyfriend s (ft. Snoop Dogg) Your boy-boy-b-b-b-b-b-boyfriend Your boy-boy-b-b-b-b-b-boyfriend Your boy-boy-b-b-b-b-bboy You need a boyfriend and I can be that Holla at me Hit me on my video chat And let me reach out to you and give you feedback ItÇ Ùs gonna be us till the end so please believe that Yeah the world is all ours and the skyÇ Ùs the limit And you can be my boo and everything that goes with it I can lift you off your feet like a flight attendant Imma send this car for ya, is you ridinÇ Ù in it? Have you ever had the feeling youÇ Ùre drawn to someone? [Yeahh] And there isnÇ Ùt anything they could of said or done And everyday I see you on your own And I canÇ Ùt believe that youÇ Ùre alone But I overheard your girls and this is what they said Looking for a looking for that your looking for a boyfriend I see that, give me time you know I Ç Ùm gonna be there donÇ Ùt be scared to come put your trust in me CanÇ Ùt you see all I really want to be is your boyfriend CanÇ Ùt fight that let me down you know IÇ Ùm coming right back I donÇ Ùt care at all what you done before all I really want is to be your Your boy boy bb-b-bb-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Let me take a little moment to find the right words [to find the right words] so when I kick it you it ainÇ Ùt something that youÇ Ùve heard [something that you've heard] I donÇ Ùt know what kind of guy that you prefer But I know I gotta put myself for worse See I think got the kind of love that you deserve and I heard that That youÇ Ùre looking for a boyfriend I see that, give me time you know IÇ Ùm gonna be there DonÇ Ùt be scared to come put your trust in me CanÇ Ùt you see all I really want to be is your boyfriend? CanÇ Ùt fight that let me down you know IÇ Ùm coming right back I donÇ Ùt care at all what you done before all I really want is to be your Your boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-bb-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy If you tell me where, IÇ Ùm waiting here Everyday like slum dog millionaire Bigger then the Twilight love affair IÇ Ùll be here girl I swear So we should down the ride Or do I gotta slide I know you need a boyfriend And I can be the guy I help you open up even if youÇ Ùre shy She might be the one I see it in her eyes I see it in her swag She be on the fly Gucci bag Chanel purse I need her in my life IÇ Ùm the one for her And sheÇ Ùs the one for I This could be paradise if we do it right Looking for looking for looking for a boyfriend I see that, give me time you know IÇ Ùm gonna be there DonÇ Ùt be scared to come put your trust in me CanÇ Ùt you see
all I really want to be is your boyfriend? CanÇ Ùt fight that let me down you know IÇ Ùm coming right back I donÇ Ùt care at all what you done before all I really want is to be your Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-b-boy friend Your boy boy b-b-b-b-bboy friend All I really want is to be your Look At Me Now- Chris Brown ft. lil Wayne [Chris Brown] Yellow model chick yellow bottle sipping yellow Lamborghini yellow top missing yeah yeah that sh-t look like a toupee I get what you get in years, in two days ladies love me IÇ Ùm on my cool J if you get what I get what would you say she wax it all off, Mr Miyagi and them suicide doors, Hari Kari [Hook] Look at me now, look at me now oh, IÇ Ùm getting paper look at me now oh, look at me now yeah, fresh than a mutha r lil n-gga bigger than gorilla cause IÇ Ùm killing every ngga that try to be on my sh-t better cuff your chick if you with her I can get her and she accidentally slip fall on my dick ooops, I said on my dick I aint really mean to say on my d-ck but since we talking about my dick all of you haters say hi to it IÇ Ùm Done [Busta Rhymes] Ayo Breezy let me show you how to keep the dice rolling when your doing that thing over there, homie lets go cause I feel like IÇ Ùm running and IÇ Ùm feeling like I gotta get away, get away, get away better know that I donÇ Ùt and I wonÇ Ùt ever stop cause you know I gotta win everyday day, goooo see they donÇ Ùt really wanna pop me just know that you never flop me and I know that I can be a little cocky, nooo you aint never gonna stop me everytime I come a n-gga gotta set it then I got it going then I get it, than I blow, than I shudder any little thing that he be doing cause it doesnt matter cause IÇ Ùm gonna dadadadada then IÇ Ùm gonna murder every thing and anything a badaboom a badabing I gotta do a lot of things, and make it clearer to a couple n-ggas that IÇ Ùm always winning and I gotta get it again and again and again and I be doing it to death and now I move a little foul a n-gga better call a ref, everybody know my style and everybody know I Ç Ùm the the baddest when I come to doing this and Im banging on my chest and I bang in the east and I bang in the west and I come to give you more and I never give you less you will hear it in the street or you can read it in the press do you really wanna know whats next, lets go see the way we on, we be all up in the race and you know we gotta go, donÇ Ùt try to keep up with the pace we struggling and hustling and sending in and getting in and always gotta take it to another place gotta taste it and I gotta grab it and I gotta cut all throught his traffic just to be at the top of the throne better know I gotta have it [Hook] Look at me now, look at me now oh, IÇ Ùm getting paper look at me now oh, look at me now yeah, fresh than a mutha r okay, okay, is that right im fresher then a mutha r [Lil Wayne] Man f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck these http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson ass n-ggas how yall doin? IÇ Ùm Lil Tunechi, IÇ Ùm a nuisance, I go stupid, I go dumb like the stooges I dont eat sushi, IÇ Ùm the http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson , no IÇ Ùm pollution, no substitution got a http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson that play in movies in my jacuzzi, p-ssy juicy I never gave a f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck about a hater got money on my radar dress like a skater, got a big house, came with a elevator you n-ggas aint eatin, f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck it, tell a waiter Marley said shoot em, and I said ok, if you wanted bull http // http://www.imdb.me/ livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson then IÇ Ùm like olay, I dont care what you say, so donÇ Ùt even speak your girlfriend a freak like Cirque Du Soleil thatÇ Ùs word to my flag, and my flag red I Ç Ùm out of my head, http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson IÇ Ùm outta my mind from the bottom I climb you aint hotter at mine, nope, not on my time and IÇ Ùm not even trying whats poppin Slime? nothin five, and if they trippin f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck em five I aint got no time to shuck and jive, these n-ggas as sweet as pumpkin pie Ciroc and sprite on a private flight http // http://www.imdb.me/livefearless for whenever you want me, starring Sam Botta, Executive Producer Chris Shining, with Cheryl Johnson IÇ Ùm enticing, guiding light, and my pockets white and my diamonds white and my mommas nice and my daddyÇ Ùs dead you faggots scared cause IÇ Ùm too wild, been here for a while I was like f- in donÇ Ùt matter, because I need some a Ç Údat Bada Bing, Sam Bada Bing, Sam Botta Bing Botta Boom, Badda Bing Bada Boom, Bada Bing Bada Boom, Sam Botta Bada Badda Bodda ck trial I and to some extent, what we call whole wheat
flour in the United States. And actually, even one of observations that I wrote about
in 'Good Calories, Bad Calories'. As early as 1907 the British Medical Association
had a meeting in which they had a discussion about the diabetes problem in India 'cause
diabetes was rampant. They said that it's actually worse among the vegetarians sects.
Probably 'cause they were also eating the most sugar, which they suggested in 1907. But you can improve the diet by removing the
fat and the carbohydrates regardless, is the point. But if somebody‚Äôs very predisposed
to get fat, if someone's 300 pounds, I would argue that you have to get basically, they're
not gonna get enough calories that they. The easiest, the way to maximize calories
and minimize carbs is with animal products. And so, that's the problem. So if these people,
they could improve on a vegetarian diet. And I get emails all the day from people telling
me how much they lost, just giving up sugars. I don't think that's enough. In my experience,
I can just ask myself, like, "What would happen if I added whole wheat pasta back to my diet?
Maybe three times a week." And I could pretty much bet that I'd gain
ten pounds. But the point is anyone can lose weight just
by getting rid of, and improve their risk profiles, 'cause the argument I make is these
high glycemic index carbs and sugars are the cause of the chronic diseases that associate
with obesity and diabetes and insulin resistance. So, and then, if it's an all vegetarian or
vegan diet, you're still gonna be better. You may not be as lean as you could be if
you threw your ethical considerations to the wind and switched to meat, but you will be
healthier than if you keep these foods in your diet. >>Female Audience Member #3: I was wondering
about people who do a lot of athletics, especially like endurance stuff and talk about things
like carbo loading, and other studies that have recently suggested that women typically
will recover better when they eat carbs after a meal too. And how that fits into all this. >>Gary Taubes: The question is about how,
what about athletics and endurance exercise. Don't you need the carbohydrates? Aren't they
crucial? [pause] This is not my area of expertise and I was
not an endurance athlete. But in the late 1970s, early 1980s, there was some research
done at the University of Vermont by a fellow named Steve Finney, who's now an emeritus
professor of nutrition at UC Davis. And he put professional bike racers on ketogenic
diets. And it takes about three weeks to what's called "ketoadopt," where you adopt completely
to the complete lack of carbs in the diet, in effect. And the bottom line was they did
fine. They lost a little bit of their sprinting ability, but they lost a lot of ‚Äì they lost
none of their endurance. The interesting thing, I get a lot of emails
from bike racers, long distance bike racers, and mountain bike racers, cause weight is
an issue there. Whereas marathoners, you might wanna be as light as possible. Or, actually, this is where I get confused.
The evidence suggests you can do just fine without any carbs and I actually recommend
— email me. I'll forward your email to Steve Finney. He'll write three thousand words back
in response cause that's what he does. But — and that's a different issue than whether
or not if you carb load like two days before the race, you'll do better. Although, I think
Steve would argue that it's not necessary. >>Male Audience Member #6: This is a question
about the data. So, in the 1970s, Americans ate an average of 2200 calories a day. And
as your slide says, now they eat 27 hundred calories per day. And in those days you had
less than ten percent obesity and now you have like 30 percent or something. Do you
think their genetics change over 30 years, or with the calories is there no correlation
there? >>Gary Taubes: I mean this is again, these
numbers, by the way, are very iffy. But certainly the question was, if you look
at the food consumption numbers, in the 1970s we were eating around 2200 calories. Then
it went up by 500 calories. So doesn't that prove that it‚Äôs about the calories? That's,
in effect, the, and the point is first of all, this is an observation. Remember I said, if somebody gets heavier,
they gotta eat more, or exercise less because they're gonna be in positive energy balance.
So even if, and it's pretty much assumed that food availability went up, our food portion
sizes got bigger, etc., etc. But did people get fatter because they consumed
more? Did they get hungrier because they were getting fatter? And those numbers don't, associations
like that tell you nothing about causality. They only tell you that two things happened
simultaneously. The price of tea in China probably also went
up since 1970, but we're not gonna blame obesity on that. Why would we blame it on the availability
of calories in the food supply? When you look at what those calories were, they were almost
exclusively carbohydrates and most of it was high fructose corn syrup. If you actually look at the number in fat,
it's something like three percent of the increase is from fat. Or actually fat — the USDA has
screwed up the numbers and that's another story. But fat consumption, basically, went
down a little bit. Protein consumption went up a little bit and carbohydrate consumption
went up a lot. And it reflected the public health advice. The shift to pasta, breads,
potatoes and then this increase in sugar consumption that I believe was driven high fructose corn
syrup, by the fact that we first didn't know that high fructose corn syrup was sugar. And
second, believed it wasn't a problem because the problem was all about fat. Thank you. [applause] .
How to Sort by Color, Filter by Color in Excel 2007 – .