Please explain: Atlas Shrugged

[Binary LogicParticipant 2351]

Gentleman,
Anyone that has had the privilege to grace these forums for awhile, has at least once heard the coined phrase “Who is John Galt?” In seeking these answers for myself, I decided to engage in reading a copy of Atlas Shrugged. While I am by no means illiterate or ignorant, I would like just a little help in identifying some concepts, or alternative way of looking at situations presented in this book. Mind you, I have only completed the first chapters and perhaps a quarter of the second. With that in mind, I’ll try to keep my questions at a minimum and not be annoying. Caution: These questions may contain spoilers for ones that have not yet read the story.

First question, at the end of the first chapter Ms. Taggart calls for Owen Kellogg. While she intends to offer him a prestigious position within the company she co-operates, Owen drops his resignation. Ms. Taggart attempts to persuade him to stay while inquiring into his reasoning for leaving, in which he states that his reasoning is completely personal in nature. He also states that it is not because of anyone within the company having insulted him, his position, boredom, or anything of that nature. He simply wants out.. and as a final reply to Ms. Taggart as to why he wants to leave, he simply poses the question, “Who is John Galt”. Taggart is taken aback as she realizes, for once in her life, she has absolutely no control, or power, over a particular individual she has set her sights on. What is the significance here?

My second question is in regards to a statement, or observation rather, by the character Hank Rearden of Rearden steel. He has successfully sold his first batch on what, to him, was a promising new alloy, developed by him over a 10 year period. While arriving home one day, eager in his own character to announce his newfound success, he is greeted by his household residents which include his visiting brother, his live in Mother, and his wife. All of whom seem focused on their own views and opinions regarding his character. This passage raises a few questions that I cannot immediately put my finger on

What did they seek from him? -thought Rearden- what were they after? He had never asked anything of them; it was they who wished to hold him, they who pressed a claim on him-and the claim seemed to have the form of affection, but it was a form which he found harder to endure than any sort of hatred. He despised causeless affection, just as he despised unearned wealth. They professed to love him for some unknown reason and they ignored all the things for which he could wish to be loved.

If I’m not mistaken, do these characters not portray the feminist women, as well as the beta-like blue pill male? I ask because I think most men can unknowingly relate to that previous passage in regards to those in whom he surrounds himself with. Am I reading to far into this? Any insight would help. Thanks.

Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...

[StargazerParticipant 12505]

Re: Kellog

Taggart offers Kellog everything any rational man of ambition could possibly want and yet he refuses. And as he has made it clear there is nothing negative pushing him to leave and nothing positive that can make him stay, she is forced to accept that she has no idea what his motivations are and can neither threaten nor entice him to take the path she has laid out for him.

This is clearly symbolic of the notion that society can neither bully nor bait a man who has “gone Galt” into doing what is expected of him.

Re: Reardon

Rand makes no distinction between men and women, feminists or manginas. She sees only producers and looters, no doubt as a result of her experiences with Communism. In her mind, a women is capable of being a producer… Dagney Taggart and herself are, to be sure… but for her it is not about gender based instinctual motivators but rather those of drive, ambition and confidence or the lack thereof which cause an individual to choose to either create value or to steal it.

Many MGTOW might agree with the premise that all women are looters by their very nature… surviving only by their ability to charm or coerce men into paying their way but I do not believe Ayn Rand would have agreed with that notion and if you see it in her work it is your own perspective.

[Binary LogicParticipant 2351]

Stargazer wrote:

Many MGTOW might agree with the premise that all women are looters by their very nature… surviving only by their ability to charm or coerce men into paying their way but I do not believe Ayn Rand would have agreed with that notion and if you see it in her work it is your own perspective.

Thanks a ton for the insight Doc. I appreciate it a thousand times over. It actually makes perfect sense. Of course now I wonder if I should brush up on the history of the Author before progressing in her works. With that said, I guess I could draw my own conclusions as to what exactly is the underlying principle or moral of the passages. However, relying on my own knowledge to draw conclusions here may prove fatal to gaining any real perspective. There are many others here (much like yourself) that are far wiser imho. It is as they say, “A mans individual knowledge is like a tree simply buried in the grown with no support, but draw from the wisdom of those around him, and he will be seen as well rooted.”

Thanks a ton. I really appreciate it!

Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...

[Anonymous 43]

The entire book is based on the principle of throwing pearls before swine…the masses are asses…hitching a race horse to a plow

Brilliant people develop brilliant things and expect to be lauded for their brilliance. Instead, these brilliant people are ridiculed…Reardon’s wife and the bracelet, hunted down…John Galt and his motor…or decide the reward isn’t worth the hassle of doing business…anyone who disappears. What’s worse is there are people, the looters, who take everything and give nothing in return…Reardon’s brother.

At some point we all realize that our talents are unappreciated. Either we say FU to our employer and make a go of starting a business or go into consulting, or we suck it up and keep working for the man. Maybe we move to a different employer in the same industry, someone who appreciates our talents more.

I believe the greatest rewards come from going your own way.

Watch and learn. This man is the ultimate go your own way kind of man.

This is what the book is promoting. Discover your talents, avoid toxic people and go your own way.

Hey, someone should come up with a website like this…

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

@binary,

Ayn was a philosopher. She wrote Atlas to show how her philosophy applies in the world.

Everything must be in context. I read Fountainhead, Atlas and then read her philosophical writings. I then had to reread Atlas.

You seem to be doing a really good job. And of course Doc’s explanation is great.

I read Atlas in my late teens and while I thought I understood, only when I was in the world working for a corporation did I understand. The boss wants to know that your married, when you buy a home, when you have children, when you are in debt….

Most will never be in the position of Owen Kellogg, or so they think. Every day you interview for your job.

Personally, once I obtained experience in my industry and developed a reputation companies approached to recruit me. This usually happens later in life.

It is interesting to hear your take on the opening portion. I hope you will continue to summarize as you move forward.

Peace brothers

[GeraldParticipant 3628]

I too had similar questions. Read on, most will be revealed and answered… And after finding MGTOW those answers may change… So, you are looking at it with different eyes than many of us did… I look forward to hearing your insights as you read through it.

All this talk about it recently, I want to go re-read it now.

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

[Binary LogicParticipant 2351]

@Darksith + Gerald
That’s kind of the whole point. To read first without preconceived notions, then understand it from a different perspective. I think gaining insight and understanding as a whole, is far more important than drawing a singular conclusion based off my own understanding. If I were reading it for entertainments sake, sure, but obviously, there is a hell of a lot more to it than even I initially assumed. I wonder how deep exactly the rabbit hole goes….

Funny, isn't it? How women thrive on a mans time, attention and resources, while simultaneously telling him he isn't enough...

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Yes, arguing with her detractors is what taught me the lesson of silence.
You either understand or you detract.

You can’t make someone understand the application of rheir force and why it’s wrong. The oppressed justify their application of oppression out of the theory of equality.

This is my argument against MRA’S. Just because we are oppressed by Feminists doesn’t make it right for us to oppress Feminists.

Strange but it’s the same with mgtow concept.

For instance, just because she took social security doesn’t detract from her argument against government hand outs.

Anyway, enjoy the read.

Peace brothers

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

One of the things to keep in mind as you read Atlas Shrugged is the application of force. And how it applies to each situation.

How does one react to oppression? Etc.

When I state that women have the nature of the devil, I’m basing it off of the application of force.

Every woman must use the application of some form of force to obtain the resources to survive. (It’s a man’s world theory)

When a government uses force it has the same nature.

When a man chooses to utilize some form of force to obtain a resource he has the same nature.

Etc.

Peace brothers

[Nathan R. JessepParticipant 1102]

Binary Logic wrote:

What did they seek from him? -thought Rearden- what were they after? He had never asked anything of them; it was they who wished to hold him, they who pressed a claim on him-and the claim seemed to have the form of affection, but it was a form which he found harder to endure than any sort of hatred. He despised causeless affection, just as he despised unearned wealth. They professed to love him for some unknown reason and they ignored all the things for which he could wish to be loved.

You need to keep in mind when reading AS that the woman who wrote it was extremely screwed up in the head.

By the way, she married two Chads:

Ayn: “I took one look at him and, you know, Frank (her first husband) is the physical type of all my heroes. I instantly fell in love.”
Source: Nathaniel Branden. My Years With Ayn Rand. 1999. pg. 57.

[Anonymous 3]

Binary Logic wrote:

Taggart is taken aback as she realizes, for once in her life, she has absolutely no control, or power, over a particular individual she has set her sights on. What is the significance here?

I would see this as the response Galt proposes for an individual when he realises the nature of the looters society.

Taggart needed a competent man she could trust to take responsibility for leadership. However, by the time she made her offer, Owen had already seen the way the world worked, so he refused to contribute with his skills for a system that was the antithesis of value and achievement. A system that condemned the ones with skills that produced, while it exalted the ‘needy’ and incompetent.

This is what Galt called “going on strike”. A man would work only the most menial job necessary to his survival and refused to apply his mental skills to the advantage of a system that persecuted him for having such skills.

Binary Logic wrote:

While arriving home one day, eager in his own character to announce his newfound success, he is greeted by his household residents which include his visiting brother, his live in Mother, and his wife. All of whom seem focused on their own views and opinions regarding his character.

Hank Rearden’s relationship with his wife and family is one of the core teachings this book.
All his family condemnation was in fact a control tactic. They where imposing their moral values on him, not because they where so moral themselves, but because they wanted to elicit his guilt.
They all depended on him, and they knew it. Yet they where not going to acknowledge this. It was better to them that they posed themselves above him, and his support nothing more than an obligation.

The greatest lesson Hank will take throughout the book is about his mistake of assuming the values of others against his own values. Because their values where self-serving and unfair, requiring self-sacrifice for imaginary sins. As a government agent says: theirs is a code ment to be broken, for then men are guilty and open to exploitation.

[Sky-OParticipant 18936]

Dagny Taggert liked c~~~.

She rode a few c~~~s while still searching for her ideal c~~~.

Somehow the guys prior to John Galt sensed they were the best she could do at the time and wanted to bang her anyway.

Her pussy rocked.

Reardon made her a bracelet.

She banged him again.

She only wanted to bang men that were capitalists.

John Galt wanted her pussy too. So he worked underground on a railroad line near her office for years so he could make sure she was safe when society finally collapsed.

She kept taking c~~~ until she decided to find the guy that built a motor that functioned like something a Jedi could make.

That great creator would have a better c~~~.

So she flew her plane into a gulch to find him (and his c~~~).

She f~~~ed him.

Then a bunch of other stuff happened, the world collapsed, everyone was living the dream in Galt’s Gulch.

Dagny left Galt’s C~~~ to ‘save the world’ and he went to rescue her, got captured, she rescued him and his c~~~, the world continued collapsing. . .

Then the superior ones began rebuilding and planning to reclaim the world from the looters.

The End

[Author]

Posts