Skip to comments.John Galt's Speech (An Oldie But a Goodie)
Posted on 03/05/2009 7:36:55 AM PST by jessduntno
John Galt's Speech
For twelve years you've been asking "Who is John Galt?" This is John Galt speaking. I'm the man who's taken away your victims and thus destroyed your world. You've heard it said that this is an age of moral crisis and that Man's sins are destroying the world. But your chief virtue has been sacrifice, and you've demanded more sacrifices at every disaster. You've sacrificed justice to mercy and happiness to duty. So why should you be afraid of the world around you?
Your world is only the product of your sacrifices. While you were dragging the men who made your happiness possible to your sacrificial altars, I beat you to it. I reached them first and told them about the game you were playing and where it would take them. I explained the consequences of your 'brother-love' morality, which they had been too innocently generous to understand. You won't find them now, when you need them more than ever.
We're on strike against your creed of unearned rewards and unrewarded duties. If you want to know how I made them quit, I told them exactly what I'm telling you tonight. I taught them the morality of Reason -- that it was right to pursue one's own happiness as one's principal goal in life. I don't consider the pleasure of others my goal in life, nor do I consider my pleasure the goal of anyone else's life.
(Excerpt) Read more at working-minds.com ...
You've allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they're born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is 'original sin'. That's inmpossible. That which is outside the possibility of choice is also outside the province of morality. To call sin that which is outside man's choice is a mockery of justice. To say that men are born with a free will but with a tendency toward evil is ridiculous. If the tendency is one of choice, it doesn't come at birth. If it is not a tendency of choice, then man's will is not free.
And then there's your 'brother-love' morality. Why is it moral to serve others, but not yourself? If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but not by you? Why is it immoral to produce something of value and keep it for yourself, when it is moral for others who haven't earned it to accept it? If it's virtuous to give, isn't it then selfish to take?
Your acceptance of the code of selflessness has made you fear the man who has a dollar less than you because it makes you feel that that dollar is rightfully his. You hate the man with a dollar more than you because the dollar he's keeping is rightfully yours. Your code has made it impossible to know when to give and when to grab.
You know that you can't give away everything and starve yourself. You've forced yourselves to live with undeserved, irrational guilt. Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it's your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn't built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
Then it began apologizing for its greatness and began giving away its wealth, feeling guilty for having produced more than ikts neighbors. Twelve years ago, I saw what was wrong with the world and where the battle for Life had to be fought. I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality and that my acceptance of that morality was its only power. I was the first of the men who refused to give up the pursuit of his own happiness in order to serve others.
To those of you who retain some remnant of dignity and the will to live your lives for yourselves, you have the chance to make the same choice. Examine your values and understand that you must choose one side or the other. Any compromise between good and evil only hurts the good and helps the evil.
If you've understood what I've said, stop supporting your destroyers. Don't accept their philosophy. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, and your love. Don't exhaust yourself to help build the kind of world that you see around you now. In the name of the best within you, don't sacrifice the world to those who will take away your happiness for it.
The world will change when you are ready to pronounce this oath:
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 the sake of mine.
Check your premises. This is not a rational world. It's never been a rational world.
The hyper-rationalism of radical individualism isn't, in the end, rational at all. You'll recall that during the Iraq war, we heard a lot of talk about ancient Mesopotamia - the land of the Sumerians, Akkadians and Hittites - being "the cradle of civilization". That's the point. Without a cradle, it's hard to sustain a civilization. (Mark Steyn)
The only man of whom I would ever say, "I wish for you to surpass me in every way." (Augustine, speaking of his deceased son Adeotus)
If you are a father or mother, Mark Steyn sounds more convincing than John Galt. Offspring are our time machines, extending the reach of our values into centuries we will not live to see. Unless an outside agency initiates force to change the natural order of things, children normally carry forward the passions of their parents.
We don't see many normal families, with children, in Ayn Rand's novels. She deals with education in her essays collected in the book The Anti-Industrial Revolution. I recommend the essay Home Schooling for Liberty for more reflections on this theme.
Ipso facto force is necessary............
Seems that way to me. For those of us that are rational, it should be what Madison called the “ultima ratio.” But you can’t survive without force, or the credible threat of force. Not in this world. Hell, even animals know that much.
Is it ever proper to help another man? No, if he demands it as his right or as a duty that you owe him. Yes, if it’s your own free choice based on your judgment of the value of that person and his struggle. This country wasn’t built by men who sought handouts. In its brilliant youth, this country showed the rest of the world what greatness was possible to Man and what happiness is possible on Earth.
I agree with you. Rand’s world is a fantasy world. I don’t have kids myself, but I teach kids, so I’m around them, and their parents, all the time. It’s been very rewarding to interact with kids of all ages. I always said I was born to be an uncle, but my siblings have not helped in that regard. But as a private teacher, I get to work with kids and hopefully, carry some of my weight in the boat when it comes to posterity.
Paging Mr. Obama. Mr. B. Hussein Obama.
Man, I never realized how out of whack that is with Christian values; even if it does hit some of the same notes, and reaches some of the same conclusions.
The statement is still true, since this is not a rational world.....
I didn’t understand what you meant. What statement is still true?
In all this, I think of the words of the Lord Jesus: “Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day. And He said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow Me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.”
I considered Atlas Shrugged to be a page turner until I got to John Galt’s speech. I got about a third of the way through and put the book down for almost a year. I then forced my way through the rest of the book.
I still think it is a great book but the preachyness and the culmination of her godless pure capitalism creed could not be taken seriously.
Capitalism only works in a Judeo-Christian culture. In an atheistic culture it would be the most evil thing the planet ever saw, and maybe why liberals who know their own soul hate it so.
“Man, I never realized how out of whack that is with Christian values; even if it does hit some of the same notes, and reaches some of the same conclusions.”
A littlke like the story of the three blind men examining an elephant...one thinks it looks like a snake, one that it is like a tree trunk, the other that it looks like a huge leaf...the entirety is hard to understand when you look at any work in small pieces...in my opinion...this speech is just a little piece of the Rand puzzle...although, I confess I do not see the clash of values as religious v not religious, I guess, rather than, as you say, the end result is, I should help people because I want to not because I must...I’m not sure of the value judgement, but I know we crippled millions with entitlements in the 60’s up to the 90’s and are still reaping the damages that the great society brought about, only to watch the great society II gaining speed...
Rand had very non-traditional views of marriage and the family. In that sense, she is not someone who conservatives would hold up as a model. In fact, she encourages right down immoral personal relationships and practiced them as well. She’s definitely libertarian and I am not. But her stance on personal relationships is not the reason why I read her.
Frankly, to me the most interesting aspect of John Galt’s speech is that it’s less than 75 pages.
>>Frankly, to me the most interesting aspect of John Galts speech is that its less than 75 pages.<<
...and more than 74 pages. ;)
As for the original post, I took a similar oath to myself some decades ago. To reiterate though:
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 the sake of mine.
And I mean it...
In a rational world, force would be unnecessary.......
“I still think it is a great book but the preachyness and the culmination of her godless pure capitalism creed could not be taken seriously.”
I am not a Rand apologist, but I think I would suggest the speechifying was part Rand and part the character Galt. Like a lot of the people in that time, communism was scaring the crap out of people and disgusting to others...I think reading it now, because of the softening of the fear (or the gradual creep of socialism) makes the rhetoric harsher...it is dated, that’s for sure...but hard to ignore the call to make men fishermen instead of people who need to be given fish...which, in her opinion, I think, was the capitalist version of christian giving by extending help in a more meaningful manner than chronic simple charity...
With all the "love thy neighbor as thyself", and "render unto Ceasar", "eye of a needle" stuff in there? Are you sure about that?
Singapore, Taiwan, S-Korea, Japan, India, the Arab Gulf States all don't strike me as particulary Judeo-Christian. A correct assesment would be that Capitalism only works in a Western oriented society. Of course Western civilization owes a large part to Judeo-Christianity, but modern Capitalism is not dependant on a particular religion.
Then how would we eat in a rational world?
Rand did not like Christianity. Like most works, you have to use your own mind and heart as a sieve. She really gets the distinction between producers and mouchers and how enabling the mouchers destroys us all.
>>Capitalism is not dependant on a particular religion.<<
No, it is dependant on a particular world view.
And two other things:
1. Check out the size of the churches in S-Korea.
2. It is not practiced perfectly in any of those places (or even here).
Also I was referring to “pure Capitalism. I inadvertantly left off the “pure” in the last paragraph.
I think John Galts godless capitalistic world is an ill-thought-out fantasy that would only work in a novel. The practical application woudld be deadly.
This is ONE time I won’t ask, “Why didn’t you post the whole thing?” :-)
“This is ONE time I wont ask, Why didnt you post the whole thing? :-)”
With a Reardon-metal fork.
There would be plenty of food in a rational world, so violence to take it away from others would be unnecessary...............
Not a lot of call for hanging outside of a Burger King hoping to jack someone for a cheeseburger. Especially if in a more "Randian" World, your intended victim may be better armed than you.
The success of capitalism in S-Korea is not because of the number or size of it's Churches. Christianity has even less influence in Japan or Taiwan, leave alone the other places I mentioned.
Also "pure Capitalism" and "pure Judeo-Chritianity" are not working too well... if you look on the biblical scripture on charging interest for example.
Modern capitalism is a Western civilizational achievement, which owes a huge part of it's existance to Judeo-Christianity, which was however compromised.
I was going to say “free trade” and “Acts of Capitalism between consenting adults”...........all of which are rational acts................products of logic and reason.............
I recently finished the book, and while I did agree with much of the Galt speech (excepting the atheism), my favorite speech was Francisco D’Anconia’s wedding speech on money. Much shorter, and more than worth the price of the book.
I would agree with what I believe you are saying in that post.
“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
“When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?
“Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you’ll learn that man’s mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.
“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced.’
“To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men’s stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man’s productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?
“But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.
“Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he’s evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he’s evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?
“Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men’s vices or men’s stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment’s or a penny’s worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you’ll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?
“Or did you say it’s the love of money that’s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.
“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men’s characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper’s bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.
“But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.
“Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators’ avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they’ve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.
“Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society’s virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don’t protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.
“Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, ‘Account overdrawn.’
“When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, ‘Who is destroying the world? You are.
“You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it’s crumbling around you, while you’re damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men’s history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody’s mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.
“To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man’s mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.
“If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase ‘to make money.’ No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words ‘to make money’ hold the essence of human morality.
“Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters’ continents. Now the looters’ credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.
“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out.”
His speech inadvertently, demonstrates the problem with pure Objectivism. The human being is not a purely rational creature and never will be. Conservatives instinctively know this. We understand that humans are not perfect. However, rationality still must be the underpinning upon which a society is built. The problem with the Left is they ignore the rational consequences of their actions.
“Then how would we eat in a rational world?
With a Reardon-metal fork.”
Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and gunsor dollars. Take your choicethere is no otherand your time is running out.
“His speech inadvertently, demonstrates the problem with pure Objectivism. The human being is not a purely rational creature and never will be.”
I’m not so sure it was inadvertent...I think (my own interpretation) that she herself knew it and was more or less highlighting it, because it is so glaring, since, as you say, it wasn’t gonna happen, the best we can do is to strive for reason...the same way we should strive for morality, though we are pretty sure we won’t reach its perfection...
Agreed... However, this is no excuse for not trying. ;-)
>>>You’ve allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment they’re born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is ‘original sin’.<<<
I have to disagree strongly with Rand here.
If men were not born as fallen, sinful creatures, Socialism and other forms of Collectivism would probably work just fine. People would work just as hard, gain knowledge and skills useful to society, engage in commerce that provides jobs and needed goods and services, all out of the goodness of their hearts. There would be no freeloaders or slackers, to take advantage.
Just as many people would , for example, go to medical school and become doctors, or start businesses, even if they knew doing these things would do little or nothing to increase their wealth.
A big part of the genius of Capitalism is that it recognizes that men are sinful, and are largely motivated by their wants and desires, as opposed to by the goodness of their hearts. It recognizes that, for most part, people will do the least amount of work and take the least amount of risk to get what they need and want.
Greed is not good, but it is real and motivates people to be productive. By removing the incentive to be productive, Socialism causes society to suffer all the ill effects of greed, but not benefit from the positive side effects.
Isn't that the essence of conservatism?
One would think so. Hard to tell these days.
Dang, thank you for that! I think I’ll email that to a few people!
“However, this is no excuse for not trying
Isn’t that the essence of conservatism?”
Kirk thought so...I have to agree...
“One would think so. Hard to tell these days.”
Ouch...maybe it will improve when we get rid of the Rino Virus...
Precisely. Her personal life was tumultuous and sometimes tawdry, but its her ideas that should matter to us. I think she was brilliant.
“Youve allowed such men to occupy positions of power in your world by preaching that all men are evil from the moment theyre born. When men believe this, they see nothing wrong in acting in any way they please. The name of this absurdity is original sin.
I have to disagree strongly with Rand here.
If men were not born as fallen, sinful creatures, Socialism and other forms of Collectivism would probably work just fine.”
She is not saying they weren’t “born as fallen, sinful creatures” but that the belief that they ARE sinful, etc., enables them to act on it...I don’t see that as a disagreement in the belief in original sin as much as in the result of believing it, as I read it, but that is just my opinion...I think the work is complicated and is more an attack on collectivism than Christianity and as such, persoanlly, I try to separate the two out...
I think that you still don’t have it quite right. I think that it is a matter of expectation. Liberls believe that all men are born good, but due to conditions beyond their control will commit sin.
The 1957 premise that all men are evil has been expanded, to a type of moral relativity, which redefines sin, as relative and excuses it as necessary. The liberals then go on to blame the sin on the tyranny of the white capitalists.
“I think that you still dont have it quite right. I think that it is a matter of expectation. Liberls believe that all men are born good, but due to conditions beyond their control will commit sin.”
That’s why liberals are lost, they start with a false premise and go from there to build a fallacious ideology. I might try to build a castle in the air, but liberals try to live in them...