though i imagine any philosopher would feel their ideas blasphemized.
That's what is hilarious about Ayn Rand Because its actually Nietschze and Adam Smith who should be mad at her. She pretty much just ripped them both off and mashed their philosophies together and called it her own.
Yet somehow, she's taking credit for it. AND she's got the nerve on top of that to get mad at libertarians for ripping her off, when libertarianism has been around since the enlightenment.
but what i asked of you is the unilateral slaughter of state leaders replaced by john galt.
That question doesn't make any sense. Have you read Nietszche?
1) John Galt doesn't need to slaughter people or have people slaughtered on his behalf because he's way too bad-ass for that. Physical violence is a tool for the weak. The looters will always lose because they can't exist without Galt but Galt can exist without them. The looters only exist because Galt allows them to. All he has to do is change his mind.
2) John Galt would never replace a state leader because he has no desire to lead anyone, nor should any rational person desire to be led.
It's the same thing with the sex scene we talked about earlier. Rand does not condone violence against women or anyone else. But, at the same time, if you are stupid/weak enough to let it happen then so be it. The trick to all of Rand's sex scenes is that the woman actually wants sex but thinks it is wrong because of their unfortunate traditional sense of morality/culture upbringing. The ubermensch doesn't give a crap and takes what he wants.
It's up to Dagny and Dominique to stop Roark and Galt, and they are capable of doing so. When they start getting cuffed around they come to that realization. They're like "Hey, I don't have to take this... so why am I?" They come to the realization that this is only happening because they secretly wanted this so they just let go and enjoy the sex. The sex is consensual.
What happens to the protagonists at the end of Atlas Shrugged is not that from a utopian society. It's that they have moved beyond society altogether. They are fully actualized ubermensch. They do not need anything from anyone else, nor do they have any desire to help anyone else. They all just do what they want, and no one can ever be made to do anything they don't want. The concept of morality is then becomes moot.
No one in Ayn Rand books ever tries to help anyone else out. Well, maybe Dagny but that's kind of the point. She suffers a lot because she doesn't quite want to let go of her traditional notions of altruism and morality and keeps trying to fix society rather than just let the looters go to their doom.
Rand goes to great pains to point out the sociopathic tendencies of Roark and Galt. She says something about Roark like "He did not have the ability to consider others." And whenever either guy does something that might be interpreted as even the slightest bit altruistic, they always get to give a speech like "Yeah, I gave the dude a job, and he was poor. That was awesome for me because he made my railroad even better so I could kick even more ass and he did it for cheap because everyone else was too dumb to want to employ him at all! Go me!"