FReeper Book Club: Atlas Shrugged, This is John Galt Speaking

A Publius/Billthedrill Essay | 18 July 2009 | Publius & Billthedrill

[Publius]

FReeper Book Club

Atlas Shrugged

Part III: A is A

Chapter VII: “This is John Galt Speaking”

Ping! The thread is up.

I’ll be spending most of Saturday (7/18) out of contact, so Billthedrill will be monitoring this thread for most of the day.

Prior threads:
FReeper Book Club: Introduction to Atlas Shrugged
Part I, Chapter I: The Theme
Part I, Chapter II: The Chain
Part I, Chapter III: The Top and the Bottom
Part I, Chapter IV: The Immovable Movers
Part I, Chapter V: The Climax of the d’Anconias
Part I, Chapter VI: The Non-Commercial
Part I, Chapter VII: The Exploiters and the Exploited
Part I, Chapter VIII: The John Galt Line
Part I, Chapter IX: The Sacred and the Profane
Part I, Chapter X: Wyatt’s Torch
Part II, Chapter I: The Man Who Belonged on Earth
Part II, Chapter II: The Aristocracy of Pull
Part II, Chapter III: White Blackmail
Part II, Chapter IV: The Sanction of the Victim
Part II, Chapter V: Account Overdrawn
Part II, Chapter VI: Miracle Metal
Part II, Chapter VII: The Moratorium on Brains
Part II, Chapter VIII: By Our Love
Part II, Chapter IX: The Face Without Pain or Fear or Guilt
Part II, Chapter X: The Sign of the Dollar
Part III, Chapter I: Atlantis
Part III, Chapter II: The Utopia of Greed
Part III, Chapter III: Anti-Greed
Part III, Chapter IV: Anti-Life
Part III, Chapter V: Their Brothers’ Keepers
Part III, Chapter VI: The Concerto of Deliverance

[JayAr36]

No need to read the book, we are living it!

[SpaceBar]

I read Atlas Shrugged very nearly a year ago before the SHTF to pass the time in airports and related “long wait” situations. At the time the story had a strangely looming quality to it, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it. Now we’re all living it, up close and personal.

[Moonman62]

No need to read the book, we are living it!

I agree. Why do supposedly intelligent, independent people need a book written by a nasty feminist to tell them what to do?

[musicman]

[ozark hilljilly]

so it is under socialism – the individual does not die, he simply becomes crippled, paranoid, petty, and eventually destructive of everyone’s interests including his own. He does not die; he simply turns into something contemptible.

I'm kinda getting that vibe nowadays. Especially my own self! Very sad.

Frankly, I would have tuned out to the speech if it was presented in such a lofty manner. The folks rioting and lynching tax collectors wouldn't have gave it a listen, either, I think. John Galt was too hip for the room, as they say. But for the sake of the story the speech struck a chord with whom it needed to.(Of course, if Galt had a wonderful and compelling speaking voice, then one might stay tuned.)

As I understand it, this speech was/is the reason the book was never made into a film. Rand insisted that the speech remain INTACT if a movie was ever made. Holy Crap, that would have meant a run time of what? 12 hours for the flick? ; )

[ozark hilljilly]

LOL! Perfect!
My kids love those ads. Now they have new lyrics to learn!
HeeHee!

[LongElegantLegs]

Awesome!

[RobFromGa]

This is RobFromGa speaking...

The politicans who you elected to public service are corrupt feather-nesters, and they are in cahoots with the big bankers, the big lawyers and the money-printers...

They are interested in one thing and one thing only... to hold onto their power as it gives them the power to exempt themselves from the laws and taxes and programs that they design for the regular population...

The productive workers and business owners are not your enemies, they are the reason that you have the standard of living that is the envy of the world...

Throw out the public servants who would tell you otherwise before it is too late...

[Publius]

I like your speech. Suppose Sarah Palin gave it to the nation on September 12?

[MrsPatriot]

A light bulb has just gone on for me. Rand’s objectivism is rooted in Natural Law. Your synopsis of Galt’s speech just brought it home. I’m sure a lot of you have understood this before now, but for me, my basic comprehension of this precept has made this whole novel much easier to read.

[Publius]

When Billthedrill logs on later to monitor this thread, I’m sure he will kiss you for that. (Figuratively speaking, of course.)

[MrsPatriot]

Don’t you think he will wonder why it took me so long to get it?

[r-q-tek86]

Great job, guys.

[r-q-tek86]

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

This is where the race to be not the most needy but rather the biggest victim really plays out in today's world.To be a part of the "no one in particular" you must first show that you have somehow suffered in some aspect of your life. The concept that "life's tough, wear a cup" has been replaced by the promise of "justice" from the ruling class for your victimhood. And the validity of your victimhood is at the sole discretion (and whim) of that same ruling class.

[GOP Poet]

bookmark

[GOP Poet]

could you elaborate on the tie ins for those of us unfamiliar with Natural Law?

[Betis70]

“Had you been listening to the radio when all this happened, would you have listened to the entire speech, or would you have tuned out at some point?”

(flamesuit *on*)
Giant pothole indeed.

I’ve read the entire book except for this chapter. It is honestly so dry, boring, and downright mind-numbing I have never been able to finish it.

She is possibly the worst ‘great’ writer I have ever encountered. Her ideas have a great impact on me, but as a writer, her prose is horrible. I’ve never read less engaging writing, even in dry scientific journals, than this chapter.

No one talks this way. I doubt any speech ever given could be so dull, even some of the commencement speeches I’ve witnessed. I would have shut the radio off, and probably been the worse for it (as perhaps I am worse for never having finished this chapter).

[tstarr]

* ”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.”

I get the sense that the primary determining factor here is the individual’s volition in the act. If I am to be merciful because the gubment tells me to, that is bad. Of course, I can choose to be merciful if I wish (as I’ve seen discussed several times on the various threads), but imposed mercy is wrong.

Probably the biggest example of this for me was the clear self-denial of Galt and D’Anconia toward Dagny. They chose to deny themselves for a higher cause and did it of their own volition.

“Sacrifice wealth for need”? - More like sacrificing someone else’s wealth for my need.

To your question, I didn’t see any wiggle room for Rand. She was pretty black and white on this from my point of view.