intellectualammo

I didn't assert that, but now that you brought it up, her convictions, 4 in total, but now 2, as 2 were just invalidated, have nothing to do with the death as such of her daughter, but were for false information. I will not make any claim that she is responsible in any way for the death of her daughter.

My own bet of her meaning in 1936, which later she would deplore, is that at the time she wrote the novel she accepted the idea that its either-or, sacrifice of the few best to the mindless masses or sacrifice of the latter to the former. Reminds me of this passage from Atlas Shrugged: 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.” Thanks so much for posting that passage, I will take in the context now.

Their list they made initially when they struck, was premeditated in who they were going to get, who'd be the hardest was Dagny. The policies and directives made later on made it so much easier for them to collapse the structure since the weight kept shifting to certain pillars, and Galt was able to pull them in with hiskind by getting them to join himhim. So that definitely worked to his advantage big time.

Never heard of him before reading this article, he's yet another GOP member speaking on Rand: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2013/01/11964/wisconsin-senator-ron-johnson-hearts-ayn-rand

We can speculate till we are blue in the face, I won't. I wonder how comparable the mass hatred of her is to Hickman. I guess I would have to familiarizemyself with him and what they were saying about him. Casey situation has to be far more loathsome of said masses hatred of her, because she was not convicted of murder, while Hickman was.

Yes, I can see that now. Thank you. But I still want to check the exact context she says it in to confirm.

Recall Roark saying to Toohey "But I don't think of you." Perhaps Mallory thought too much of Toohey. Especially his writing which he read.

Again, I already said that I do not know what he would have taught. The only clue is what he said about teaching, and his reading of his teachers first teacher, which would be Aristotle. I have been discussing, not journaling lyrical poetry. Asking questions and sharing my thoughts.

I don't know much about him. But I do Casey. Perhaps her mass hatred was way worse in degree than Hickman because he was convicted of murder, while Casey was not, and people call her all kinds of things, a child murderer, etc., such as Nicky just did. Btw, you did not back up or substantiate your claim Nicky.

No, I do not know that. How are you able to claim that? You say it like it's an established fact.

I would think something like that if Rand would have written something like: "What are the masses to you..." But it's not written like that. Maybe it was changed so people wouldn't think Kira thought that... I need context, anyone have the edition with it in?

I don't see how it wouldn't be applicable to Casey. Especially when you mention the media, the media's portrayal, people's portrayal and thinking of her as a murderess, a baby killer, etc. before her trial and after. Mass hatred of her big time, she was dubbed the most hated woman in America.

Moonspell concert: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GVS7p7Mbv8

I never said they were murderers or that I was condemning them. Do you know what Ragnar would have taught with chalk and mind? I have a clue. Perhaps Aristotle... What Galt said in his speech and their reaction is not relevant to this discussion.

I came across this quote of Rand in regards to Hickman in her journals, and reading it, it reminds me of the public in regards to Casey Anthony. Do you think it's applicable in any way? "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal... What does she mean by it?

I don't know what it would have done to them.

What all did Rand edit out of the original publication of WTL? I found this out there on the web, which was edited out years after original publication of WTL by Rand: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" Which character said that, before Rand shut their mouth, was it Kira? Who was she saying it to? What's the context? What all was edited out?

Every post you've made in any of these inter-connecting threads is based on the premise that it is immoral to break the bonds that tie the abuser and the abused; that one adversary doesn't have the right to withdrawl from the other, but instead must continue taking abuse in order to teach the other why abuse is wrong. Especially if breaking those bonds would cause harm to the abuser. None of the posts I made have such a premise.

So then it's perfectly rational to desire to kill teachers that teach such things?

One thing is clear, they were out to teach them a real lesson alright. Choose to perish or learn. I guess they thought that their minds would be more open to them then, rather than before striking, or as I see it as, let's not even try to appealing to minds, let's just collapse it all upon their heads instead.

Ragnar on what him and Galt are doing: "He's draining the soul of the world, I'm draining body. His is the lesson they have to learn, only I'm impatient and I'm hastening their scholastic progress." Not by teaching anything, but by destroying. I wonder why he never picked up chalk first, went straight to mind and force, instead of mind and chalk?

How is your claim that he should have shared his knowledge of what was to come Btw, I never ever claimed he should have told anyone anything before, like his Morality of Life.

Galt: I will not even try to flatter them by trying to appeal to their minds; instead, crush their fucking heads- by leaving and getting pillars to join me - thereby no longer holding their structure up collapsing it upon their heads, getting them to die that way, getting them the hell out of the way, so we can build a political system for us, by us. This is a Moral Revolution. A brilliant and creative, moral purging of theirkind once and for all, liberating us from them, we will be on the inside instead of on the outside, and ourkind will no longer be the "vanishing species."

SapereAude, Galt was not a slave, so the question is of no relevance to me. "By the rules and terms of my code one owes a rational statement to those it does concern and who're making an effort to know" Thus spoke Galt in his speech. My question to Galt, why didn't you, before?

Then, pray tell, what was the copy of an ancient document that Judge Narragansett altered? Sounds awful like the US Constitution... They were going to "rebuild America's system" on their moral terms and rules. They were taking over.