A quote from Atlas Shrugged

[Anonymous 3]

I have just finished reading Atlas Shrugged. Reading this book was a life-changing event for me, and I have to thank MGTOW for learning about this book.

I had an inkling to many of philosophical aspects of the book. But it was totally different to have a clear presentation of these ideas in a coherent body of knowledge.

I would like to share one of the most memorable quote of the book with the only people capable of really understanding it: my MGTOW brothers.

I broke their code, but I fell into the trap they intended, the trap of a code devised to be broken. I took no pride in my rebellion, I took it as guilt, I did not damn them, I damned myself, I did not damn their code, I damned existence—and I hid my happiness as a shameful secret. I should have lived it openly, as of our right—or made her my wife, as in truth she was. But I branded my happiness as evil and made her bear it as a disgrace. What they want to do to her now, I did it first. I made it possible.
I did it—in the name of pity for the most contemptible woman I know. That, too, was their code, and I accepted it. I believed that one person owes a duty to another with no payment for it in return. I believed that it was my duty to love a woman who gave me nothing, who betrayed everything I lived for, who demanded her happiness at the price of mine. I believed that love is some static gift which, once granted, need no longer be deserved—just as they believe that wealth is a static possession which can be seized and held without further effort. I believed that love is a gratuity, not a reward to be earned—just as they believe it is their right to demand an unearned wealth. And just as they believe that their need is a claim on my energy, so I believed that her unhappiness was a claim on my life. For the sake of pity, not justice, I endured ten years of self-torture. I placed pity above my own conscience, and this is the core of my guilt. My crime was committed when I said to her, `By every standard of mine, to maintain our marriage will be a vicious fraud. But my standards are not yours. I do not understand yours, I never have, but I will accept them.”
Here they are, lying on my desk, those standards I accepted without understanding, here is the manner of her love for me, that love which I never believed, but tried to spare. Here is the final product of the unearned. I thought that it was proper to commit injustice, so long as I would be the only one to suffer. But nothing can justify injustice. And this is the punishment for accepting as proper that hideous evil which is self-immolation. I thought that I would be the only victim. Instead, I’ve sacrificed the noblest woman to the vilest. When one acts on pity against justice, it is the good whom one punishes for the sake of the evil; when one saves the guilty from suffering, it is the innocent whom one forces to suffer. There is no escape from justice, nothing can be unearned and unpaid for in the universe, neither in matter nor in spirit—and if the guilty do not pay, then the innocent have to pay it.

While this quote might appear initially to mix women and society, I think it refers just to women. Our moral code is devised to PROTECT AND EMPOWER WOMEN. This is a code to enslave MEN. It is the code of the good boy.

Why do I say the code does not apply to women? Because women are always pragmatic and amoral creatures. No code will bond a woman’s action, it will only shape the mask it presents to others, and even to herself. Women are not objective, only subjective and oriented towards self-interest.

As a result we have a code that men follow and women bend, how could it ever work in our favor?

The second observation is the distinction made between a “contemptible woman” and the “noblest woman”. There is no such thing. Maybe there can be a “less contemptible woman” or a “temporarily hint of nobility”. AWALT! We are talking of ingrained controlling behaviors, genetic and social programming, that are totally contrary to a man living in peace and happiness with a woman.

However, please notice this pearl of wisdom: “I believed that it was my duty to love a woman who gave me nothing […] I believed that love is some static gift which, once granted, need no longer be deserved“.

This is the moral code, the “knightly” and religious notions of unselfish and unconditional love. It is the insanity and the trap. The antidote is a type of “commercial” mentality, where one demands just and equally fair measure of what he gives.

And continuing with precious gems: “And this is the punishment for accepting as proper that hideous evil which is self-immolation. I thought that I would be the only victim. […] When one acts on pity against justice, it is the good whom one punishes for the sake of the evil; when one saves the guilty from suffering, it is the innocent whom one forces to suffer.”

The most powerful concept of this book is the condemnation of “self-sacrifice”. When one makes sacrifices for justice it is not sacrifice, but only justice. When one sacrifices for any other thing like “love”, it is injustice. And because it is injustice it can never lead to a good end.
I strongly relate this with men that stay in a marriage “for the kids”. It is this spirit of sacrifice that condemns the man and the children, sparing the women – the ones practicing the injustices. We think we are doing good for the kids, but they end up growing in a house of unfairness and imbalance, becoming themselves unbalanced and unhappy.

Let each one assume the responsibility for their own actions. He who takes the responsibility of another is nothing more than a fool, that rewards evil by sparing it from the just retribution.

Bothers, I am now a different man. I know not my future, but I am happy. It is like a fog that has been lifted from my eyes. I will no longer act in pity. I will no longer sacrifice. I will live by my own code of justice.

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

The bit where Hank Reardon realizes that the looters are using what he believes are his greatest virtues against him was the turning point for me.

It had never occurred to me before reading this portion of the book that people who can not and will not provide for themselves will go to such lengths to take what they desire from people who can and do.

[experiencedParticipant]

Stargazer wrote:

people who… will not provide for themselves will go to such lengths to take what they desire from people who … do.

I was just telling my son about this the other day.
Shysters give themselves away by displaying an incredible quantity of shrewdness / insight / chess move type planning – that they have absolutely no excuse for their position in life due to demonstrated mental abilities – and laydeez are THE WORST of them.

"It seems like there's times a body gets struck down so low, there ain't a power on earth that can ever bring him up again. Seems like something inside dies so he don't even want to get up again. But he does."

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Anonymous wrote:

The most powerful concept of this book is the condemnation of “self-sacrifice”. When one makes sacrifices for justice it is not sacrifice, but only justice. When one sacrifices for any other thing like “love”, it is injustice. And because it is injustice it can never lead to a good end.

The price is always paid. Period!
If not by you then someone else. And when a woman refuses to pay her way through the world, someone has to pick up the tab. Her children, her spouse, her parents somebody pays her way. When the White Knight pays her way he is committing an injustice against the universe, a universe that demands payment from her and no one else. The longer she doesn’t pay the longer the rest of the world keeps paying for her.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

It is always good to hear from someone that has just seen it.

Wait until you encounter people that scorn Ayn Rand. They rave on and on.

Like mgtow, you either get it or you don’t.

Now, if you watch the you tube shows with Ayn and Wallace or Donahue you will be able to put what she is saying into context.

The life changing event for me happened in college when I attended her seminar. Her love for Man was unequivocal in the face of women.

The fact that a woman could stand at the podium with her face planted against the storm of women made me shed a tear.

The thought that in our society not one man exists among us…that Ayn had to be our advocate…that Ayn had to explain to us….

When a girl asked the obligatory question, “should a woman ever be president?”

Ayn answered, “the day a woman becomes president I will she’d a tear”

There was a palpable hiss from the crowd and the statement, “what about Joan of arc?”

Ayn replied, “what about her? Imagine that your country is being attacked and when you look at the 4,000 men in your army you realize that not one of them can lead!”

Now, all these years later the USA is in that exact scenario. Hillary Clinton is the only one strong enough to lead us.

Congratulations to you my brother

Peace brothers

[FrostByteParticipant 19005]

Ayn Rand was an anomaly -there is nothing negative I would say about her.
If you want to enjoy some Ayn Rand gaming try Bio Shock.

If you rescue a damsel in distress, all you will get is a distressed damsel.

[Anonymous 3]

Stargazer wrote:

The bit where Hank Reardon realizes that the looters are using what he believes are his greatest virtues against him was the turning point for me.

It is truly a great insight, that many enemies use our very own values against us.
However, when one knows it, what does he?

Either one continues to practice his values, sacrificing himself for the purity of intent, or one goes in strike, not feeding the “looters on our back”.

It is this sense of justice that is amazing in this book.

[Anonymous 3]

DorkShit wrote:

The life changing event for me happened in college when I attended her seminar. Her love for Man was unequivocal in the face of women.

The fact that a woman could stand at the podium with her face planted against the storm of women made me shed a tear.

The thought that in our society not one man exists among us…that Ayn had to be our advocate…that Ayn had to explain to us….

I once said that “I walked amongst giants”, but it pales in comparison to your story.

Yes. I get it. And I get that very few will get it. I do not doubt that Ayn had to endure much nonsense from blind ignorants.

But as much as her book is a tribute to man, by its principles it is a condemnation of present day and historical humanity.

If I have seen it before, I see it more clearly now.

Thank you for the perspective on Ayn.

[TuneoutParticipant]

She’s one of the few women that have actually made sense
Even in the Wallace interview he couldn’t shake her logic regarding personal responsibility,something the entitled Lib left should take a page from.

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[SandalsParticipant 4253]

FrostByte wrote:

when a woman refuses to pay her way through the world, someone has to pick up the tab. Her children, her spouse, her parents

The taxpayer…

[The Missing ManSpectator 342]

What Ayn Rand Wrote is basically a source code to a more perfect personal operating system for your life.

Do not fall into the trap of having to do everything Ayn Rand Exactly had to say.

You don’t have to dig that deep to find this gem of logic.

A is A

Even through the bulls~~~ quantum mechanics tries to tell you, that an electron can be in two places at once. (I’d go on about this but would much rather someone else pick up on it if they want to)

Here’s basically my explanation of what A is A means using once again the simple system of binary logic.

If 1 means, YES
If 0 means, NO

At what point will 0 equal 1?

While you will you get this, you will be told you are to dumb and have a mind much to small.

EVERYONE THAT HATES THIS IDEA OF “A IS A” IS A F~~~ING LAWYER! It’s simple to understand why you cannot have A is A, because it makes it TOO SIMPLE to be RESPONSIBLE FOR SOMETHING.

They want this inflated bulls~~~ don’t ask questions logic in order to dodge the RESPONSIBILITY of something.

Think about it, a computer at it’s primitive machine code level uses binary logic, but this is the device they use to claim that A is NOT A all over the INTERNET!

And so they will make the computer where that A is Not A but failing to see that INFORMATION IS INFORMATION. Go further into this, in order to prove that A is NOT A, you need to convey the idea with INFORMATION.

The feminist at your slut walk will proudly use this logic “NO MEANS NO”, but then try to make the claim that the genders equal.

If you can get the idea of A is A, and never forget it, live mindful of it, you will start on the path of becoming a God.

[Anonymous 3]

The Missing Man wrote:

A is A

Even through the bulls~~~ quantum mechanics tries to tell you, that an electron can be in two places at once. (I’d go on about this but would much rather someone else pick up on it if they want to)

My friend, the problem is not quantum mechanics, but putting things out of context. And that is done on purpose.

Like this example: an animal has legs and back, so if something has legs and back is an animal, thus a chair is an animal.
This is faulty logic, taking things out of context and playing with words.

Saying quantum physics has any role outside its realm is a dialectic rotten trick.

Take an apple and say it can go through two holes simultaneously, causing an interference pattern on the other side. It is experimentaly false, against every physical theory or concept, and factually wrong.

It fact, and most important, its plain stupid.

The fact that anyone can give credit to this kind of argument is if it has a blind faith in things it does not understand. Talk of “quantum mechanics” and it lends a lot of credibility for what you are talking, even if it is stupid.

I can tell you a story: I once considered necessary to take a course in reasoning and argumentation, because I operated poorly arguing with other people.
During this course we where taught that the first thing is to consider the other person argument and study its validity. But something happened.
I had an argument with an important guy, and I was losing poorly in several issues. That is when a friend of mine said to my opponent: “take it easy, with so many arrows I cannot see the Indians”.
The most shocking thing happened. My opponent suddenly became embarrassed and confessed laughing that it was an argumentation trick. He would not respond to my arguments and switch subject, storing my words for further study while poking me in other issues.
I was simply wasting time and giving him ammunitions.

As a consequence I dropped the argumentation and reasoning course. One simply does not reason with people that do not care to reason and resort to debate tricks.

What I studied afterwards was debating tricks and dishonest sophistry to be able to deal with it.

And this is very clear in the Atlas shrugged. Some people will argue only as a mean of persuasion, and never in honest and rational exchange of ideas. There is no value in debating with these people. It is an untenable proposition.

[GeraldParticipant 3620]

I love that book. I found it about 10 years ago, maybe 8. I read it cover to cover as quickly as I could (which was not fast in the edition I had with tiny little print). It is one of three books I have kept moving from place to place.

The characters, Hank, Dagny, Francisco, all exhibit great examples of going your own way. Granted, the love story part of it I could do without, but the fact that they have the courage, the ability, and the resolve to just walk away…

No longer can we walk away, we must run. Remove the motive power.

[Author]

Posts