“He suggests they simply expropriate his mills, and they recoil in horror. He asks how he can produce if he produces at a loss; Ferris says he will produce because he can’t help himself. Jim says that Hank will do something to fix the problem – and the last piece fits. Francisco was right – he is the guiltiest man in the room because he had accepted the reality that these men had created.”
My co-workers (colleagues and management) are fully aware of my world view as I make no effort to hide it (monogamous heterosexual evangelical Christian). I don’t smack them in the face with sanctimonious ravings, but they have no doubt where I stand. As for my work product, they are counting on the fact that I simply cannot coast; I have be engaged and productive even if they do not value my contributions I will continue to produce as they withdraw their support.
But more interesting is their behavior regarding things outside my work product. They think of me (and have told me to my face) that my orthodox Christianity is “creepy” and “intolerant,” and that anyone who does not abide by an existentialist, hedonistic lifestyle or is a Darwin skeptic is “retarded.” Yet I have encountered numerous instances when one of them softly knocks on my office door, asking to come in and receive my counsel when they need someone honest and genuinely caring to listen and help them solve a problem in their lives.
Further, my coworkers know that I am a 2nd Amendment absolutist, I own and shoot guns, and even worse, I’m a “preparedness end of the world nut!”
Here comes the truly fascinating part: they expect my own faith and honor to be their ace in the hole! Of course my preparations for coming hard times is nutty and proof of my paranoia. But, they have also made it known (quietly) that when the Schumer Hits the Fan, they will come to my house and expect me to take them in and care for them because in their demented minds how could I “do anything else as a Christian ?” Implicit is their idea that “You have to do the right thing. Your beliefs command you to take care of me.”
Wow, are they in for a surprise. As I told one of them, “So you ridicule my beliefs even as you expect them to cause me to bail your behind out?”
I remember being at a Winter Party (pagans do not celebrate Christmas and have no difficulty insulting or offending those who do) in December 1999. One of the higher-ups breezed into the room and invaded my conversational group, kvetching about Y2K. She asked me if I was ready. Since as a matter of practice we have a freezer and larder full of food, my generator is in working order with a good supply of fuel, and my security devices are nearby and ready to employ, sure I was ready for a couple months if necessary.
“Oh, if things get really bad, can I come to your house?” she asked breathlessly.
Sweetly I replied that if she was unprepared for disruption, she would be on her own out in the street with everyone else.
I suspect the look on her face was similar to that on the looters in the Wayne Falkland Hotel that evening with Hank.
Your mistake is in letting people who you have no intention of saving from their own stupidity know you have adequate SHTF resources. Loose lips sink ships. It’s best to let them think you’ll be just as up a creek as them. It’ll be bad enough to help your loved ones out.
Thanks for bringing this up as a topic of discussion. It begs a deeper question that has bothered me from the beginning of the novel.
Rand seems to imply that only the top producers are capable of 'finding a way' to produce under adverse circumstances. From my observations, this is way off the mark, there are many people who, while not being a top producer, will find a way to be productive in an adverse environment.
The importance of this is most obvious when viewing the world of Atlas Shrugged with our present world conjointly.
The meeting in which this conversation takes place is toward the end of a long destructive feeding frenzy hosted by the looters. There are few crumbs left (not that Rearden is a crumb, mind you :) and Rearden is one of the last to be targeted. In our world, however, the people who can be productive in adverse situations is seemingly unlimited. This changes the dynamics and the toughest crumbs will never be sought out. There are far too many easy targets. Though I agree with Rands take on 'the guiltiest man in the room' idea, I submit that those who would provide sustenance to the Looters are 'the guiltiest people in the nation'. As to the problem of the latter group having a simultaneous epiphany, well, it just won't happen.