#hank rearden | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

atlas-plugged · 1 year

Text

Atlas Shrugged Read-Through: PP 14-20

Our first introduction to the primary antagonist of Atlas Shrugged, Jim Taggart, is with him sitting at his desk saying "Don't bother me, don't bother me, don't bother me."

The unpleasant task that Eddie Willers has been facing is coming into Jim's office to tell him that a delivery of steel that has been delayed multiple times will be delayed again. Jim ordered the steel from his friend, Orren Boyle, who runs Associated Steel. Jim insists to Eddie that he won't hear of ordering the metal from the competing company, Rearden Steel, run by Hank Rearden. Taggart Transcontinental needs the steel because their Rio Norte line is too damaged to keep safely running trains on, and they are being outcompeted in the region by a small, local railroad called the Phoenix-Durango. Eddie is telling Jim to make a decision because the regional line supports the oil operation of Ellis Wyatt.

All of these are important characters and business that will come up a lot but they're not the real focus of this scene. The real focus of this scene is making Jim Taggart look like a big throbbing asshole, which is how you're supposed to think of him.

Here are a few of his lines from this brief scene:

"Who's thinking of giving up the Rio Norte Line?" he asked. "There's never been any question of giving it up. I resent your saying it. I resent it very much."

"Orren is my friend." He heard no answer. "I resent your attitude. Orren Boyle will deliver that rail just as soon as it's humanly possible. So long as he can't deliver it, nobody can blame us."

"Ellis Wyatt is a greedy bastard who's after nothing but money," said James Taggart. "It seems to me that there are more important things in life than making money."

"I think he's a destructive, unscrupulous ruffian. I think he's an irresponsible upstart who's been grossly overrated." It was astonishing to hear a sudden emotion in James Taggart's lifeless voice. "I'm not so sure that his oil fields are such a beneficial achievement. It seems to me that he's dislocated the economy of the whole country. Nobody expected Colorado to become an industrial state. How can we have any security or plan anything if everything changes all the time? [...] Yes, I know, I know, he's making money. But that is not the standard, it seems to me, by which one gauges a man's value to society. And as for his oil, he'd come crawling to us. and he'd wait his turn along with all the other shippers, and he wouldn't demand more than his fair share of transportation—if it weren't for the Phoenix-Durango. We can't help it if we're up against destructive competition of that kind. Nobody can blame us."

Jim Taggart is aggrieved. He is whiny, he doesn't accept responsibility for his actions, he resents people who are more active than he is (at least if they make demands on his time or cost him business by shifting their purchases to his competitors).

Jim is not written well, but the way that he is poorly written is interesting. Rand's big bad guy is an industrialist who doesn't take responsibility for his actions and who wants other people to do all of the hard work.

I'm going to get right to the big reveal in the middle of the book: Jim and the Moochers force through a law that means that nobody can compete with them. Other railroads shut down, new innovative companies have to give their capital to older businesses.

On the one hand, I think there's something clever that Rand is doing here. Jim and the Moochers use what is essentially "weaponized wokeness" (mealy-mouthed speeches about collectivism) to place themselves at the head of state-backed monopolies. They're not evil just because they're whiny and don't take responsibility, they're evil because they can use the power of the state to crush competitors, which also allows them to exploit workers and consumers.

On the other hand: I can't tell if Rand is being stupid or malicious in attributing the motivations for these actions to a collectivist impulse.

She clearly, obviously, deeply hated collectivism. But when each of her characters are revealed down to the nastiest, darkest parts of themselves it's revealed that their collectivist talk was meant to cover up personal greed. So I can't tell: stupid or malicious? Is she being stupid, and genuinely doesn't believe that anyone who talks about or works toward communal goods and shared resources actually wants those things? Or is she being malicious and suggesting that all people who claim to want to do things for the benefit of everyone are actually greedy and are trying to burn down the rest of the world so that they can stand on a slightly nicer bit of the ashes?

I haven't read much of Rand's non-fiction, or watched too many interviews with her, but I know that at one point she discussed the evils of altruism by saying that the Nazis were motivated by altruism. That seems like it's pulling a pretty bullshit rhetorical trick and defining "nationalism" as "altruism." And that's what she does with the evil characters in her books - makes them do terrible things while saying that they're doing so for the good of mankind when everybody knows the score. It's a bullshit rhetorical trick.

And this is how we're introduced to Jim Taggart. He's a wealthy industrialist who is whining to his sister's assistant that he can't be blamed that his friend is late with a delivery of steel. And I think Jim Taggart is a pretty good example of Rand being more malicious than stupid. We're going to learn a lot about his motivations and desires throughout the book and they come together to make a laboriously crafted strawman of an evil capitalist.

Anyway. Eddie walks out of their meeting after Jim insults his own sister; Eddie at that point finds an old clerk repairing a typewriter (one that has been repaired before and is made of inferior materials - planned obsolescence; a subject that I will have to yell about somewhere else) and asking Eddie if he knows where anyone can get woolen undershirts. Jim's office has been a break from the most visceral reminders of the bleak, slow-motion collapse of the economy that Eddie is confronted with as soon as he's out of the room again, and he is once again bothered by the question "Who is John Galt?" - the question that opened the novel in the mouth of a bum - as the introductory scene of the novel ends.

#atlas shrugged read through

120 notes · View notes

generallemarc · 1 year

Text

Something Ayn Rand never thought of

Principles aren’t forbidden from appearing to contradict one another. For reasons known only to God I just watched a clip of the “best” moments of the Atlas Shrugged movie, as defined by a Rand fan. And I actually found myself agreeing with the logic of the eventual protagonist, Hank Rearden. The use of force or the threat thereof to take something from someone else is always theft. And yet, I fundamentally disagree with his conclusion of the above, followed by “therefore all government is wrong.” So, where’d that come from? Well, let’s take a look at one of the most absolute principles in all morality-murder is wrong. Even people who don’t believe in things like the Ten Commandments will condemn murder. But let’s take a closer look at the Commandments-don’t the heroes and prophets of the Bible fight in wars? Isn’t that killing? Well, yes. People die when they are killed. But the point of “thou shalt not kill” was never “it is always wrong, without exception, for your actions to cause the death of another.” There are certain circumstances where not killing someone would actually violate the commandment more than killing them, if their continued survival would mean more death. It’s thus acceptable to shoot back at a gunman, or fight a war against a nation or group whose victory would mean widespread death and misery, like the Nazis or ISIS. Not killing people is very important, and is almost always never the correct answer to a problem, but there are rules that can sometimes, in some situations, be more important.

And now we return to Objectivism, where the principle of keeping what you’ve made or earned for yourself reigns supreme. Ordinarily, all but the most inveterate communists would agree with it in the majority of cases, as evidenced by the continued existence of literally everything not directly necessary for survival in most countries not named North Korea. But what Ayn Rand never bothered asking herself was this: “are there things worth more than my possessions?” Because that’s the sum total of Objectivist philosophy-what you own. In a supreme irony for such a committed free marketer, Rand’s philosophy is every bit as materialistic as Marxism. Nothing can matter more than how the tangible nature of property and industry interact with humanity to them. But while Marxism attempts to cope with the unfairness of the world by loudly crying that there is no such thing as an individual and that the constructs we call social groups are these immutable things which define all, Rand runs in the exact opposite direction. Any group you didn’t choose for yourself must be not only bad, but eternally bad. Voluntarism above all, no matter the circumstance. Except that absolute individualism prevents most forms of social interaction that things like businesses and the mere concept of resources and wealth outside of that which is directly needed for survival can’t even come about without. In her need to both counter Marxism on every last point and defend her own selfishness, Rand rejects the very concept of altruism as being not just bad, but bad for society, attempting to denounce a fundamental aspect of human psychology because it gets in the way of possessions reigning supreme. You need a hierarchy to ensure rights are protected, because all it takes is for a small part of the population to choose to violate those rights to disrupt the whole of society if they aren’t stopped. You need to be able to act selflessly, because being incapable of viewing morality outside of the lens of “what do I get out of it” is literally the psychology of a child. Not stealing from people is very important, and is almost always never the correct answer to a problem, but there are rules that can, in some situations, be more important.

#objectivism #ayn rand #atlas shrugged #libertarian #libertarianism #a realistic minarchist take on objectivism

22 notes · View notes

sybaritick · 3 months

Text

thank you @klkirbles for tagging me in this getting to know you meme! 😄

last song: Intersection by Modern Baseball

favorite color: orange! 🍊

last tv show: man that's hard to remember. I watch more YouTube-- yesterday some of David Bennett's music theory videos :)

sweet/spicy/savory: savory (but really, bitter, if I'm allowed to color outside the lines a bit)

comfort character(s): I don't 100% know what a comfort character is so I'll go with favorite projection victims OR beings I think are hot, really... Shin Soohyuk (King's Maker), Elijah Kamski (Detroit: Become Human), Baru Cormorant (Masquerade series), Hank Rearden (Atlas Shrugged), Enver Gortash (BG3), Gale of Waterdeep (BG3).

last google: "lb to kg" (how boring! but everyone needs unit conversion sometimes lol)

current obsession: BG3, mostly!

#cal txt #tag games

4 notes · View notes

circlecast · 6 months

Text

Finding The Right High-Valued Woman

Why can't you find a high-valued woman? The answer is in you. Your results are from your thoughts. How much do you value yourself? Your personal values will reflect in the quality, if your view of yourself is low you are not going to have quality returns on your endeavors. No matter what they are. To receive value you have to produce value. All of life is a transition. The women will not be of the quality you desire because they are only attracted to men who are of high value.

Ayn Rand expresses this wonderfully in her book Atlas Shrugged. Actually, there are 2 Speeched that Fransisco D'anconia gives that play off of each other and they are both when he is talking to another character in the story named Hank Reardon. The one I wanted to share the most was the sex speech.

“Do you remember what I said about money and about the men who seek to reverse the law of cause and effect? The men who try to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind? Well, the man who despises himself tries to gain self- esteem from sexual adventures–which can’t be done, because sex is not the cause, but an effect and an expression of a man’s sense of his own value.”

“You’d better explain that.”

“Did it ever occur to you that it’s the same issue? The men who think that wealth comes from the material resources and has no intellectual root or meaning, are the men who think–for the same reason–that sex is a physical capacity which functions independently of ones mind, choice or code of values. They think that your body creates a desire and makes a choice for you just about in some such way as if iron ore transformed itself into railroad rails of its own volition. Love is blind, they say; sex is impervious to reason and mocks the power of all philosophers. But, in fact, a man’s sexual choice is the result and the sum of his fundamental convictions. Tell me what a man finds sexually attractive and I will tell you his entire philosophy on life. Show me the woman he sleeps with and I will tell you his valuation of himself.

No matter what corruption he’s taught about the virtue of selflessness, sex is the most profoundly selfish of all acts, an act which he cannot perform for any motive but his own enjoyment–just try to think of performing it in a spirit of selfless charity!–an act which is not possible in self-abasement, only in self-exaltation, only in confidence of being desired and being worthy of desire. It is an act that forces him to stand naked in spirit, as well as in body, and to accept his real ego as his standard of value. He will always be attracted to the woman who reflects his deepest vision of himself, the woman whose surrender permits him to experience–or to fake–a sense of self-esteem.

The man who is proudly certain of his own value, will want the highest type of woman he can find, the woman he admires, the strongest, the hardest to conquer — because only the possession of a heroine will give him the sense of an achievement, not the possession of a brainless slut. He does not seek to . . . what’s the matter?” he asked, seeing the look on Rearden’s face, a look of intensity much beyond mere interest in an abstract discussion.

“Go on,” said Rearden tensely.

“He does not seek to gain his value, he seeks to express it. There is no conflict between the standards of his mind and the desires of his body. But the man who is convinced of his own worthlessness will be drawn to a woman he despises–because she will reflect his own secret self, she will release him from that objective reality in which he is a fraud, she will give him a momentary illusion of his own value and a momentary escape from the moral code that damns him. Observe the ugly mess which most men make of their sex lives–and observe the mess of contradictions which they hold as their moral philosophy. One proceeds from the other. Love is our response to our highest values–and can be nothing else.

Let a man corrupt his values and his view of existence, let him profess that love is not self-enjoyment but self-denial, that virtue consists, not of pride, but of pity or pain or weakness or sacrifice, that the noblest love is born, not of admiration, but of charity, not in response to values, but in response to flaws–and he will have cut himself in two. His body will not obey him, it will not respond, it will make him impotent toward the woman he professes to love and draw him to the lowest type of whore he can find.

His body will always follow the ultimate logic of his deepest convictions; if he believes that flaws are values, he has damned existence as evil and only the evil will attract him. He has damned himself and he will feel that depravity is all he is worthy of enjoying. He has equated virtue with pain and he will feel that vice is the only realm of pleasure. Then he will scream that his body has vicious desires of its own which his mind cannot conquer, that sex is sin, that true love is a pure emotion of the spirit. And then he will wonder why love brings him nothing but boredom, and sex–nothing but shame.”

Rearden said slowly, looking off, not realizing that he was thinking aloud, “At least . . . I’ve never accepted that other tenet . . . I’ve never felt guilty about making money.”

Francisco missed the significance of the first two words; he smiled and said eagerly, “You do see that it’s the same issue? No, you’d never accept any part of their vicious creed. You wouldn’t be able to force it upon yourself. If you tried to damn sex as evil, you’d still find yourself, against your will, acting on the proper moral premise. You’d be attracted to the highest woman you met. You’d always want a heroine. You’d be incapable of self-contempt. You’d be unable to believe that existence is evil and that you’re a helpless creature caught in an impossible universe.

You’re the man who’s spent his life shaping matter to the purpose of his mind. You’re the man who would know that just as an idea unexpressed in physical action is contemptible hypocrisy, so is platonic love–and just as physical action unguided by an idea is a fool’s self-fraud, so is sex when cut off from one’s code of values. Its’ the same issue, and you would know it. Your inviolate sense of self-esteem would know it. You would be incapable of desire for a woman you despised. Only the man who extols the purity of a love devoid of desire, is capable of the depravity of a desire devoid of love. But observe that most people are creatures cut in half who keep swinging desperately to one side or to the other.

One kind of half is the man who despises money, factories, skyscrapers and his own body. He holds undefined emotions about non-conceivable subjects as the meaning of life and his claim of virtue. And he cries with despair, because he can feel nothing for the woman he respects, but finds himself in bondage to an irresistible passion for a slut from the gutter. He is the man whom people call an idealist. The other kind of half is the man whom people call practical, the man who despises principles, abstractions, art, philosophy and his own mind. He regards the acquisition of material objects as the only goal of existence– and he laughs at the need to consider their purpose or their source.

He expects them to give him pleasure– and he wonders why the more he gets, the less he feels. He is the man who spends his time chasing women. Observe the triple fraud which he perpetrates upon himself. He will not acknowledge his need of self-esteem, since he scoffs at such a concept as moral values; yet he feels the profound self-contempt which comes from believing that he is a piece of meat.

He will not acknowledge, but he knows that sex is the physical expression of a tribute to personal values. So he tries, by going through the motions of the effect, to acquire that which should have been the cause. He tries to gain a sense of his own value from the women who surrender to him– and he forgets that the women he picks have neither character nor judgment nor standard of value. He tells himself that all he’s after is physical pleasure– but observe that he tires of his woman in a week or a night, that he despises professional whores and that he loves to imagine he is seducing virtuous girls who make a great exception for his sake. It is the feeling of achievement that he seeks and never finds. What glory can there be in the conquest of a mindless body? Now that is your woman chaser. Does the description fit me

Atlas Shrugged - Ayn Rand

What is a high-value woman?

A Woman with a very low to no body count

A Woman who sees the value of a woman and isn't out to try to be a man

Has a secure attachment style

Has worked through her daddy issues (See Body count)

Isn't dragging around kids from different men (see body count)

Puts her heart into all that she tries

Is up for the adventure her man is going to take her on

will confidently push her man to be better and will accept her man pushing her to do the same.

Willing to work as a team with her man

Doesn't use the term partner but husband

Whether you are just divorced, not married, or married. You can up your value.

Work on the 4 pillars as a start.

Build your mind

Build your body

Feed Your Soul

Grow your Community

This episode of The Relaxed Male, hosted by Bryan Goodwin, explores the topic of finding the right high-value woman. Bryan emphasizes that seeking a high-value partner is not derogatory, but rather a way to avoid low-quality relationships. He urges men to reflect on their own actions and take responsibility for their inability to find a high-value woman. Bryan shares personal experiences that led him to become a coach and help men navigate relationship challenges. He highlights the importance of seeing oneself as a high-value individual in order to attract high-value partners. In another part of the conversation, Bryan discusses Ayn Rand's book "Atlas Shrugged" and its impact on understanding the value individuals bring to society.

He focuses on Francisco D'Anconia's speech on money at an anniversary party and its significance in highlighting the origin of money, the role of trade, and how it represents a person's effort and value. Bryan discusses the corrupting nature of money when sought for selfish gain and emphasizes that money should be obtained through work and productivity, reflecting one's character and values. He highlights the correlation between a person's values and their sexual choices, asserting that one's sexual preferences are a reflection of their fundamental convictions and philosophy in life. The conversation also delves into the concept of money and its connection to human morality.

Bryan emphasizes that money should be seen as a means to create wealth and dismisses the guilt and shame often associated with prosperity. He emphasizes the importance of understanding that wealth has to be created and denounces those who denounce the idea of making money. Bryan also discusses the selfish nature of sex and its impact on a person's sense of worth, emphasizing that sex requires self-esteem and confidence.

He argues that corrupting one's values leads to a distorted view of love and sex and advocates for embracing one's values and acknowledging the role of physical expression in relationships. Additionally, Bryan discusses the qualities that make a woman high-value, such as having a low or no body count, embracing femininity, having a secure attachment style, and working through any daddy issues. He emphasizes the need to value and respect partners, work as a team, and support each other's growth in relationships. Bryan also discusses the importance of expanding one's circle of friends, investing in personal development, and nourishing one's soul to increase individual value and attract higher-value partners.

He encourages listeners to introduce others to their community and offers coaching sessions to help individuals recognize their worth and gain confidence. The episode concludes with a call to share the show with others, subscribe, and follow on preferred podcast platforms. Bryan expresses gratitude for the listeners' support and looks forward to continuing the conversation in future episodes.

00:00:01 Introduction to The Relaxed Male - Helping Men Embrace Authenticity 00:00:23 Introducing The Relaxed Male and the purpose of the show 00:03:22 Self-reflection on why one can't find a high-quality woman 00:06:07 Shifting mindset and perception of self-value 00:08:34 Reading and discussing Francisco D'Anconia's speech on money 00:11:19 The Connection Between Money, Wealth, and Intelligence 00:14:01 Money's Role in Providing Means and Satisfaction 00:16:17 Money as a Means of Survival and the Verdict on Livelihood 00:18:39 The Hatred and Love of Money and its Virtuous Nature 00:20:55 Corruption and the Decline of Society 00:32:44 Damned to Depravity: Equating Virtue with Pain 00:37:36 High Value Men and High-Value Women 00:41:26 The Role of Sex in Relationships 00:45:24 Building a Strong Relationship and Increasing Personal Value 00:50:36 Growing your community and increasing your value

Newest podcast episode to change your Mindset

#Mindset Anxiety RelaxedMale

3 notes · View notes

alphaman99 · 1 year

Text

Richard Ruggiero

He felt as if, after a journey of years through a landscape of devastation, past the ruins of great factories, the wrecks of powerful engines, the bodies of invincible men, he had come upon the despoiler, expecting to find a giant-and had found a rat eager to scurry for cover at the first sound of a human step. If this is what has beaten us, he thought, the guilt is ours.

-Hank Rearden in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged

5 notes · View notes

aprilsinclairesq · 1 year

Text

"Oh Francisco, I just love when you help me plug the gushing tap-hole on my molten hot blast furnace!"

- Hank Rearden

#THEY ARE GAY #atlas shrugged #ayn rand #objectivism #txt #gay #gay literature

4 notes · View notes

tartlette1968 · 2 years

Text

I'm sort of embarrassed to admit this, and not...

I have read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. The actual big hulking book. I have read it several times.

So let me beak down the characters...

Dagny Taggart. Central character, who watches the world falling apart, as her wealthy friends are disappearing. Dagny lives in a world where brains are disappearing.

Jim Taggart. Dagny's hopeless brother. Jim reminds a person of a certain former President. Weak, pleading, whining, at a loss to explain why he can't succeed, Jim, in his "genius" conceives of a number of plans, mostly around making rules that force people to buy things they don't need, and are of poor quality. He also had the genius move to extend his rail company's line south of the border, because he was good friends with the Mexican Government. Mexico then seized and nationalised the Taggart rail, which experts were telling Jim was going to happen.

Hank Rearden. His business is steel, and he is a genius, and an engineer. He and Dagny carry on an affair, which fills him with shame. But his wife, and the rest of his family take him for granted.

Okay, I'll stop there. Given Rand's reputation, and position as the darling of the religious right, you'd be forgiven for thinking that God might play a central part in this story. But religion is derided savagely by Rand. Communism is also derided by Rand, as well. Religion is accused, by Rand of taking man's will hostage, communism of taking man's body. And I do mean "man's". There are few female characters in this book, other than Dagny.

I'm torn, here. Rand was such a diligent author. She went into great detail to create a universe with rules, and then to ensure that characters and events follow those rules to the letter. So, I admire that degree of competence. But the universe she created was born of a certain naivety, and she left a fate to some characters that they did not deserve. She had greedy, brainless, wealthy business owners, who maintained their grip by doing what Trump did--grift, coercion, and deception.

Our Covid reality has overtaken her contrived world. But then her contrived world contained no disease at all. Most of her characters smoked so many cigarettes and cigars that some of them should be showing the early stages of lung cancer, at the very least.

Then there is the climax of the novel, where the ultra right wing government constructs a sonic weapon aimed at intimidating the American public, nothing else. But the Supreme General starts playing with the controls, completely inebriated, and succeeds in blowing the entire weapon skyhigh, as the entire country falls apart around him. All the bright, sensible, capable people have left to their hideout in the Colorado Mountains, so naturally, the world falls apart. This is the universe she created. A universe with so few intelligent people.

As I said, naive, and simplistic. But then most stories are somewhat limited and simplistic.

What is sad funny, and alarming funny is how easily you can draw parallels between Atlas Shrugged and our world--and get it really wrong. It is not our world, because--remember--disease doesn't exist in Rand's universe, and a pandemic is impossible.

In any case, I have read the book a few times, and been able to quote some things from it. I just wish that more people knew what went on in the book so that they could criticise the reality.

#don't hate me #atlas shrugged #ayn rand #It is bad but not for the reasons you think

2 notes · View notes