第 130 页

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 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

603

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

604

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 is the only gauge of

human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or

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 and

carried 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

605

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 Cortlandt.

"I designed Cortlandt. 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 Cortlandt 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 Peter Keating. 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

606

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