This is a
monologue taken out of extraordinary book and slightly altered to fit the
current times as the majority of it is as applicable to today, if not more so,
as to the day it was written. I have witheld the author’s name of this excerpt
so that you may all be focused on what is being said here and not be distracted
by who wrote it.
“Thousands
of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned
at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer
who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep
them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift
they had not conceived and he had lifted darkness
off the
earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn
on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a
transgressor who ventured into forbidden territory. But thereafter, men could travel
past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had
opened the roads of the world.
That man,
the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend
mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and
torn by vultures--because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned
to suffer--because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge.
Whatever
the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that
one paid for his courage.
Throughout
the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with
nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in
common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the
response they received--hatred. The great creators--the thinkers, the artists,
the scientists, the inventors--stood alone against the men of their time. Every
great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The
first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The
power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the
men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid.
But they won.
No creator
was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the
gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives.
His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in
his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a
building--that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated,
believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its
users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation
which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against
all men.
His vision,
his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man’s spirit, however, is
his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge,
to act are functions of the ego.
The
creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power--that it was
self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy,
a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He had
lived for himself.
And only by
living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of
mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.
Man cannot
survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his
only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no
horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To
plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons--a
process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious
abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything
we have comes from a single attribute of man--the function of his reasoning
mind.
But the
mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective
brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by
a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual
thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act--the process of
reason--must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men.
We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe
for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions
of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.
We inherit
the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart.
The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we
receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force
is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and
originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received,
shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates
is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is
only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think.
Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.
Nothing is
given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And
here man
faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the
independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others.
The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone.
The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.
The
creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest
of men.
The creator
lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself.
The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime
motive.
The basic
need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any
form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any
consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive.
To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.
The basic
need of the second-hander (politician, congressman, senator, tyrant,
Queen/King, ruler, despot, dictator, government employee or agent) is to secure
his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares
that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.
Altruism is
the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above
self.
No man can
live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body.
But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of exploitation and
reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept
that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.
The man who
attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and
makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but
mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in
reality--the man who lives to serve others--is the slave. If physical slavery is
repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The
conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and
of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily
in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man
and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.
Men have
been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one
cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution--or
there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the
need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander
who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts
possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.
Men have
been taught that their first concern is to relieve the suffering of others. But
suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and
assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the
most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer--in order
that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not
concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has
eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and
brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.
Men have
been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the
man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the
current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been
taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who
stands alone.
Men have
been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of
virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless
man is the one who does not think, feel, judge, or act. These are functions of
the self.
Here the
basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been
left no alternative--and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered
two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice
of others to self. Altruism--the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man
irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own
pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of
self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was
closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal--under the threat that
sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated
on mankind.
This was
the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals
of life.
The choice
is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence.
The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic
issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator
is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The
code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival.
All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which
proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.
The egotist
in the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who
stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function
through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his
aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the
source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man--and he asks no other
man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect
possible between men.
Degrees of
ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s
independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent
as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence
hasn’t done
for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard
of personal dignity except independence.
In all
proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect
needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need
him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange
their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal
interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it,
they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the
only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation
of slave to master, or victim to executioner.
No work is
ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved
under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a
great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his
design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper
function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the
materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them.
What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property.
This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.
The first
right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral
law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral
obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily
upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his
thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the
altruist and the dictator.
A man
thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule--alone. Robbery,
exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the
province of the second-hander.
Rulers of
men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the
persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of
enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit.
The form of dependence does not matter.
But men
were taught to regard second-handers--tyrants, emperors, dictators--as
exponents
of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and
others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or
to harness
them. Which is a synonym.
From the
beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator
and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander
responded. He invented altruism.
The
creator--denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited--went on, moved forward
andcarried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed
nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name:
the individual against the collective.
The ’common
good’ of a collective--a race, a class, a state--was the claim and justification
of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was
committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever
equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in
men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers
were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the
guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since
they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be
sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains
the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and
ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that
an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and
forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask
nothing for themselves. But observe the results.
The only
good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper
relationship is--Hands off!
Now observe
the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our
country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest
achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based
on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was
based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not
anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look
into your own conscience.
It is an
ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each
time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress
toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by
the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from
men.
Now, in our
age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second rater, the ancient
monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level
of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of
horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe . It is engulfing our country.
I am an
architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot
permit myself to live.
Now you
know why I dynamited [that bulding].
I designed
[that building]. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.
I destroyed
it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form
and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers
who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could
not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the
altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no
claim to stand against it.
I agreed to
design [that building] for the purpose of seeing it erected as I designed it
and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.
I do not
blame [this man - my partner]. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers.
It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built
as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his
work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an
unessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building
disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the
vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property,
spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the
dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was
responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective
action.
I did not
receive the payment I asked. But the owners of [the building] got what they
needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as
possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could
and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift.
But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.
It is said
that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for
me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were
concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in
order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave
them a right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That
it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s
credo now swallowing the world.
I came here
to say that I do not recognize
anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor
to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their
number or how great their need.
I wished to
come here and say that I am a man who
does not exist for others.
It had to
be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
I wished to
come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater
importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand
this are the men who’re destroying the world.
I wished to
come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
I recognize
no obligations toward men except one: to
respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my
country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country
exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my
country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in
what has taken its place.
My act of
loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force
responsible for the [building] I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness,
denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend--and to the battles he won. To
every creator whose name is known--and to every creator who lived, struggled
and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was
destroyed in body or in spirit. To Nikola Tesla. To Viktor Schauberger. To Michael Hastings. To Barnaby Jack. To Aaron
Russo. To Heath Ledger. To Whitney Huston. To Marylyn Munroe. To John F.
Kennedy. To Jean Keating. To Christopher Story. To William Cooper. To L Ron
Hubard and many others. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is
sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”
