John Galt – objective psychopath

Ayn Rand was the hypergamist to end all hypergamists. Like, if Tex Avery made a cartoon about the concept of hypergamy, the cartoon would be Rand’s life and writings.

This is why it’s so interesting to watch the development of her childish sexual fantasies, comprising both her fictional fantasy worlds and her loosely autobiographical fantasy world. She clearly had a thing for dark-triad traits (Machiavellian, psychopathic, narcissistic), but psychopathy seems to be the prevailing trait in all of her male characters.

A circumstantial collision of synaptic impulses motivated me along this train of thought. I realized that when John Galt “refused” to feel physical pain during his electrical torture in the final act of Atlas Shrugged, it was suspiciously similar to Robert Hare’s famous experiment:

In one experiment, he placed the prisoners in chairs and told them that in 30 seconds he was going to zap them with an intense electrical shock. Then Hare measured their heart rate to see if that information bothered them. Most of the prisoners were bothered, but a small subset weren’t.

“Most people show lots of emotional arousal, anticipatory fear, anxiety, while they’re waiting for the shock to occur,” Hare says. “Psychopaths, hardly any.”

NPR
Can a Test Really Tell Who’s a Psychopath?
(Yes, by the way. It’s the logical secular consequences that are bothering you, Mr. Journalist.)

Rand claims that Galt refused to feel unnecessary pain by thinking about it. He obviously feels the electricity at a physical level, but he forgets it as quickly as possible. This is very important.

Emotional arousal in response to the application of repeated shocks is one of the most objective measures of psychopathy available to us. Better than the PCL-R or any other test subject to the vagaries of human interpretation, anticipatory arousal shows a huge quantitative gap in the biological makeup of a psychopath’s mind. It detects a failure to think realistically about the future and a failure to retain the memory of emotional stimulus (some psychopaths kill to “see how it feels”, even if they have previously done so multiple times for the same reason).

The rest of the story ought to be obvious, and anyway this post is running a bit longer than I intended. Suffice it to say that Al Dunlap, Galt, and Barney from “How I Met Your Mother” have a few more things in common. You can probably figure out the rest on your own.

It’s really kind of a shame in the end, because Rand’s output and legacy suggest that she could have done the world a lot of good. Instead, she projected a hatred for what she was: a philosophical and financial parasite riding on the shoulders of better men.

/rambling(for real)[dog]

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to John Galt – objective psychopath

  1. heaviside says:

    Just take Volume II Chapter 4 of Mein Kampf and substitute “altruists” for “jews” and you’d swear it was an excerpt from John Galt’s monolithic monologue.

    Ayn Rand and Savitri Devi were separated at birth, both:

    -publicly cuckolded their husbands
    -became crazy cat ladies
    -tried to completely invert the morality of the society they lived in
    -worshiped ruthless aryan supermen/artist tyrants/warrior poets
    -changed their names
    -moved across the world for ideological reasons
    -use highly religious language(because fascism and religion taken to the highest possible pitch are identical)
    -were childless(they were alpha widows after all. Hitler was so alpha he could widow women he’d never even met, and Galt was so alpha even his own nonexistence was no barrier!)

    Ayn Rand defended big businessmen, and Savitri Devi defended concentration camp guards. Both sought to totally invert the values of the societies they lived in.

    The reason why Rand sells hundreds of thousands of books a year and Savitri lived in destitution is because Rand uses fascist ideals to back liberal politics.

    “To a gas chamber — go!” Oh, how right Chambers was. If only we could convince Objectivists to embrace gas chambers instead of Rand Paul and nuking Iran.

    If only we could get women to apply the ruthlessly inegalitarian impulses they embrace in the sexual sphere to politics, instead of having them channel maternal instincts into wet-nursing picaninnies(http://therightstuff.biz/2013/09/04/touched-by-a-swpl/) and pitbulls(http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/pasty-spotted-ass-chipmunk-cheeked-herbling-swpls-and-pitbulls/).

    Women without maternal instinct are natural fascists. Without their role as a mother they have no need for empathy. In modernity, we have shitty refrigerator mothers. But isn’t that the purest serendipity? It allows us to know the indifference of the universe that much sooner(the indifference that omegas deny, because they think someone cares.)

    Why shouldn’t you become a sociopath? Why shouldn’t you kill God(the Father) and rape the Universe(guess who)?

    • heaviside says:

      To explain the above video, note that the pain of social rejection is indistinguishable from physical pain.

      • aeolipera says:

        “To explain the above video, note that the pain of social rejection is indistinguishable from physical pain.”

        I forgot to mention that this is a very good point. I think I have to give the matter some thought before I’ll understand it comprehensively, because I’m not clear on the processes of social rejection and psychosomatic pain. But I suspect the theory of edenism will benefit.

    • aeolipera says:

      There are two reasons, one of which is a very good reason. The very good reason is that both God and the Universe are bigger and stronger, and are therefore difficult victims. I don’t know how much killing you’ve done, but I note that even small animals make the most extraordinary fuss about it.

      The less good reason is that we do not exist unto ourselves, such that if we lost the entities that brought us into existence and contain us we might not know how to continue existing. I will admit that I’ve never given the subject much thought. Maybe there is a FAQ on the internet somewhere.

  2. Pingback: Donald Trump is a fraud | Aeoli Pera

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s