Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
intellectualammo

Was the strike, a purge?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

In Galts speech, he specifically speaks at one point to "those who desire to live" (stating on p.1166)

"withdraw your sanction"

"go on strike - in the manner I did" and "let them drown; your sanction is their only life belt."

and

"when the advocates of the morality of sacrifice perish with their final ideal - then and on that day we will return to the world. We will open the gates of our city to those who deserve to enter."

So, the strike is a way of purging the world of said people?

A way of exterminating them?

Recall: "To the gas chamber - go!" from Chambers 1957 review of AS.

I go more into that in this thread:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24603

Galt speaking earlier in the novel:

"Ever since I can remember, I had felt that I would kill the man who'd claim that I exist for the sake of his need - and I had known that this was the highest moral feeling."

"That night, at the Twentieth Century meeting, when I heard an unspeakable evil spoken in the tone of moral righteousness, I saw the key to it and the solution. I saw what had to be done. I went out to do it."

So, at the meeting, instead of killing the speaker, becoming a shooter, he became a striker.

Recall Chamber's review of AS:"To the gas chamber, go!"

In rethinking this it's really not that far off the mark. Think about it.

In Galts speech he says go listeners "Perish with and in your own void."

The strike essentially created one giant gas chamber all they had to do was close the door of Atlantis behind them, and wait until those in the gas chamber had gassed themselves to death, wait until the "road was cleared", or rather until the air was cleared, wait until they had perished enough by their own code for the strikers to return to the world.

So Galts desire to kill a certain speaker wasn't the solution this was:

Create the chamber step safely outside of it, wait till enough perished and till the air was cleared.

And apparently it didn't take that long either, so not only was that his solution, but it was a brilliant one. He didn't have to take responsibility polity for any of their deaths like he would have if he'd of killed the speaker fulfilling his desire kill a man that said that.

So, the desire to kill a man that said that was th highest moral feeling, then what kind of feeling did the this give him?

Instead of killing the speaker he says "I will stop the motor of the world"

Read: I will create the gas chamber, your code will be the gas.

What do you think?

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Recall Chamber's review of AS:"To the gas chamber, go!"

In rethinking this it's really not that far off the mark. Think about it.

It is not just off the mark, it is the *opposite* of the book.

If you want to keep the metaphor, ... ... to say "I'm stepping out of this gas chamber that you are filling with gas, and in which you are trying to force me to remain" is the *opposite* of saying "I am going to build a gas chamber and force you in".

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt also stated that his morality was contained in a single axiom; existence exists -- and in a single choice; to live.

In short, he segregated those who chose to live from those who did not.

It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the [men] who starts its use. No, I do not share [their] evil or sink to [their] concept of morality: I merely grant [them their] choice, destruction, the only destruction [they] had the right to choose: [their] own.

After viewing sNerd's response, I have to add: he did not exercise force in his solution, he persuaded the men of the mind to join him voluntarily in his strike - letting rest of the world's code of morality run its course.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.

What do you think?

I think refusing to support people who want to eat you alive is not the same as killing them. That is what I think.

Refusal to aid is not the same as overt harm.

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to keep the metaphor, ... ... to say "I'm stepping out of this gas chamber that you are filling with gas, and in which you are trying to force me to remain"

To me it became a gas chamber once they stepped out of the world and shut the door of Atlantis behind them.

In short, he segregated those who chose to live from those who did not.

Right. And he tried to get the ones that still wanted to live to stop doing the breathing for the others. Let them drown he said. Asphyxiate.

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"I'm stepping out of this gas chamber that you are filling with gas, and in which you are trying to force me to remain"
I like that.

Galt took action to avoid becoming collatoral damage because that was his own personal responsibility. Everyone here has the same choice, albeit not quite as dramatic. Anyone can freely choose not to support systems which have been corrupted simply by their refusal to participate. The ones I avoid are: government, credit, insurance, debt, law, education, healthcare, and unions.

Just step aside and observe from a safe distance as people get exactly what they deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt found a creative way to get birds of a feather to flock together. He withdrew the sanction of the victims by identifying to the victims the nature of their sanction. Those who died, died because they had not chosen to live and go about discovering the means by which to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Galt found a creative way to get birds of a feather to flock together. He withdrew the sanction of the victims by identifying to the victims the nature of their sanction. Those who died, died because they had not chosen to live and go about discovering the means by which to do so.

I believe that is one of Ayn Rand's most wise and powerful principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A way to get someone to die, besides killing? Cool, what is it? Does it involve magic?

If someone is in the process of destroying himself, do not intervene. Problem solved.

No magic at all.

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A way to get someone to die, besides killing? Cool, what is it? Does it involve magic?

They don't need anyone's help because the just and deserved consequences of peoples' own actions destroys themselves. People are actively engaged in exactly the same (economic as well as in other ways) self destruction today. The trick is not to be taken down with them.

Edited by moralist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If someone is in the process of destroying himself, do not intervene. Problem solved.

No magic at all.

ruveyn1

By that definition of "getting someone to die", I had a hand in the death of every living creature in the Universe, since to beginning of time, and I'll be involved in the death of every living creature until the end of time. Especially during the times when I'm not alive, since then I definitely won't be intervening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By that definition of "getting someone to die", I had a hand in the death of every living creature in the Universe, since to beginning of time, and I'll be involved in the death of every living creature until the end of time. Especially during the times when I'm not alive, since then I definitely won't be intervening.

No you don't "have a hand". You "have a hand" only when you are causally connected to someone's death or injury.

You have no causal connection to any part of the cosmos that is beyond the event horizon of the cosmos. And you have no causal connection to anything that existed and ceased to exist before you did.

You have no causal connection to anything outside the solar system which is most of the cosmos.

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No you don't "have a hand". You "have a hand" only when you are causally connected to someone's death or injury.

You have no causal connection to any part of the cosmos that is beyond the event horizon of the cosmos. And you have no causal connection to anything that existed and ceased to exist before you did.

You have no causal connection to anything outside the solar system which is most of the cosmos.

ruveyn1

So how did I get someone to die without a connection to them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He clearly wanted to bring death and destruction to them, not life; as in, Galt could have tried to speak to the world then about his Morality of Life, of his code, his philosophy, but never did then. Not even a single word of it. For he set out to show. I'll show them. "I propose to show the world who depends on whom[…] who makes whose livelihood possible and what happens to whom when who walks out" I'll show them. I'll show them all the proof around them with the death toll, all the dead bodies of men, women, children, in the amount of destruction that results... "O my brothers, am I cruel? But I say: What is falling, we should still push."* Frisco did. He was explicit about it, "I was out to speed up the destruction." "the destruction of d' Anconia Copper, of Taggart Transcontinental, of Wyatt Oil, of Rearden Metal."

Galt had to have been thinking along this line that night at the meeting, I think: "He whom you cannot teach to fly, teach to fall faster."* I'll teach them. I'll teach them not with ink on paper, but with blood on ground. And speed up its spilling. And without having to get any of it on my own hands.

Galt was no fly swatter.** Just go where they cannot fly to. And after they die, return.

"I am a prelude to better players, o my brothers! A precedent! Follow my precedent!"*

*quote from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Walter Kaufmann translation.

** http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=23468&hl

(Rand said, "Nietzsche […], as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.")

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galt was no fly swatter.** Just go where they cannot fly to. And after they die, return.

In my view, that place "where they cannot fly to" is higher moral ground.

There is protection to be enjoyed there which is as good as Galt's Gulch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have no causal connection to any part of the cosmos that is beyond the event horizon of the cosmos. And you have no causal connection to anything that existed and ceased to exist before you did. You have no causal connection to anything outside the solar system which is most of the cosmos.

ruveyn1

You also have no causal connection to what you see on television. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further thoughts:

The tramp speaks to Dagny in regards to Galt: “We began to think of him whenever we saw another collapse in the world” “I’d like to think that I am wrong” “that there’s no conscious intention and no avenger behind the ending of the human race.”

Galt in speaking with Dagny, says, “It was the three of us who resolved to avenge this country”

So there was a self-described avenger and a conscious intention:

“Eddie speaks of Dagny: “She thinks there’s a system behind it, an intention, a man. There’s a destroyer loose in the country, who’s cutting down the buttresses one after another to let the structure collapse upon our heads. Some ruthless creature moved by some inconceivable purpose” “She knows nothing about the destroyer. She has no clue to his identity, no evidence of his existence - except the trail of destruction.”

Destruction, indeed. The “economy is collapsing as a result of the mysterious disappearance of leading innovators and industrialists”, so says the book description inside the Centennial edition. So it’s collapsing as a result of said buttresses being watched by Galt and pulls them out at just the right time. So he certainly pushes that which is falling, Frisco was explicit about speeding up destruction, and let me turn now to the 3rd avenger, Ragnar. He, too, speeds destruction up, pushes that which is falling, as he sunk or seized certain ships depending what they had on them and blew things up… here are his own words about it, he “seized every loot-carrier that came within the range of my guns, every government relief ship, subsidy ship, loan ship, gift ship, every vessel with a cargo of goods, taken by force from some men for the unpaid, unearned benefit of others.” He was on his own “personal mission” “I’ve chosen a special mission of my own. I’m after a man whom I want to destroy. He died had many centuries ago, but until the last trace of him is wiped out of men’s minds, we will not have a decent world to live in.” That man would be Robin Hood. He looks forward to the resulting “ruins”, “”When we are free and have to start rebuilding from out of the ruins, I want to see the world reborn as fast as possible.”

Dagny, too, “looked ahead. The earth would be as empty as the space where their propeller was cutting an unobstructed path - as empty and as free. She knew what Nat Taggart had felt at his start and why now, for the first time, she was following him in full loyalty: the confident sense of facing a void and of knowing that one has a continent to build.”

Empty of what? The people that would not get the hell out of their way? As if that’s even a question, recall:

Dan Conway to Dagny: “I suppose somebody’s got to be sacrificed.” “The right’s on their side. Men have to get together.”

Dagny, trembling with anger, exclaims, “If that’s the price of getting together, then I’ll be damned if I want to live on the same earth with any human beings! If the rest of them can survive only by destroying us, then why should we wish them to survive.” “Nothing can make it moral to destroy the best.”

Recall Galt: “when they have no pretense of authority left, no remnant of law, no trace of morality, no hope, no food and no way to obtain it - when they collapse and the road is clear - then we’ll come back to rebuild the world.”

I wonder what the population census was when the strikers went back to work on the rebuilding of the “ruined continent” the “desolated earth.”??

Was the strike, a purge?

Additional questions:

Why didn’t Galt at that meeting that night try educating, instead of depopulating? Did he think that he couldn’t teach them to fly because they simply did not have the wings for it, so he tried pushing them to fall faster?

Professor Akston: “ - in such a world, the best have to turn against society and have to become its deadliest enemies.”

Later, nearing the end of the novel, when speaking to Akston:

“Galt chuckled - in the tone of a student proudly presenting a completed task of homework as proof of a lesson well learned -”

Edited by intellectualammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are extrapolating scenarios here when none is needed. Remember, Atlas Shrugged is a novel and art. As such it portrays ideas. The strike was not a purge but a moral statement dramatized. The fall of the looters was a moral statement dramatized. I could explain how certain characters actions speak for themselves from their perspective (like Conway) while others speak philosophically on highly abstract ideas in tone with the drama (Akston) but it really is unnecessary since the novel conveys it’s intent.

If you think Rand intended the novel to show the drama of a world being purged of the “un-virtuous” then you honestly really missed the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you think Rand intended the novel to show the drama of a world being purged of the “un-virtuous” then you honestly really missed the point.

The "un-virtuous" purge themselves when you simply stand aside and cease participating in their schemes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why didn’t Galt at that meeting that night try educating, instead of depopulating?

Applying that situation to the real world...

Adults have already freely chosen their view. And short of a genuinely life threatening or life altering experience, they will take the view they have already chosen and all of its consequences with them to their graves as they deserve... for better or for worse... because all moral truths cut both ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...