Howard Roark's Testimony
From The Fountainhead, by Ayn Rand
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 un-submissive 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
un-borrowed, 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 un-borrowed 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 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 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 sufferings
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 is 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 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 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 inessential. 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 Cortlandt 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 the 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 Cortlandt 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 Henry Cameron. To Steven
Mallory. 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.