安兰德原著，贡献了一段20世纪影史上最著名的演讲。
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 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 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, thefirst 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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, thefirst 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 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 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 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 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.
几千年前，最早的一个人发现了如何生火。他很可能就是被烧死在他教会他的兄弟们如何去点燃的树桩上。他被认为是一个与人类所害怕的恶魔打交道的坏人。然而此后，人类就有了火来取暖，来烹煮食物，来照亮他们的洞穴。他给他们留下了一份意想不到的厚礼，而且他把黑暗逐出了地球。经过了数个世纪以后，出现了发明车轮的第一个人。他很可能就是在他教会的兄弟们建造成的车架上被处以车裂的极刑。他被认为是一个冒险闯入禁区的越轨者。
但是，从此，人类就有了跨越任何界线和范围的能力。他留给了他们未曾想到的厚礼，而且，他也打开了世界之门，开辟了通向世界的条条道路。
那个人，那个桀骜不驯、前无古人、后无来者的第一个人，站在人类有关自己起源的记载的每一个传奇的开端。普罗米修斯被锁在岩石上任凭秃鹰撕裂啄食——因为他从众神那里偷来了火种。亚当被判罪去受苦——因为他偷吃了知识树上的果实。无论是什么样的传说，在人类的记忆深处的某个角落，人类知道它自身的光荣是与那第一个人分不开的，而且清楚，那个人为他的勇气付出了代价。
经历了多少个世纪，总会有人在新的道路上迈出宝贵的第一步，而他除了自己的先见和洞察力之外并没有任何别的装备。他们的目的各不相同，可是他们都有这样一个共性：他们迈出的那一步是第一步，那条道路是前人所没有走过的，那种想像力和洞察力不是模仿和剽窃而得来的，然而，他们得到的答复却是仇恨。那些伟大的创造者们——那些思想家，艺术家，科学家，发明家——在他们那个时代都是特立独行的。每一种伟大的新思想总是最先遭到反对。每一种伟大的新发明都被指责。第一台发动机被认为是愚蠢的。飞机曾被认为是异想天开。动力织布机被认为是罪恶的。麻醉被认为是不道德的。可是那些具有原创力、想像力和先见的人们继续勇往直前。他们斗争，他们忍受痛苦，而且付出代价。他们赢了。
绝没有一个创造者是受到要为他的兄弟们服务的渴望所驱使，因为他们的兄弟们摈弃了他给予他们的礼物——那个礼物打破了他们日常生活中偷懒的惯例。他的真实便是他惟一的动力。他以自身的真实和自己的方式完成他个人的工作。一部交响曲、一本书、一台发动机、一种世界观、一架飞机或者一座建筑——那是他的目标和他的生命。重要的不是那些听众、读者、操作者、信徒、飞行员和住户，不是那些创造物的使用者，而是创造本身。是创造出来的事物，而非别人从中获得的好处。是那种赋予真实性以具体形式的创造。他抱守着自己的真理，将其置于一切之上，与所有人的意愿相违背。
他的洞察力，他的力量，他的勇气均来自他个人的精神。然而，个人的精神就是他的自我。是他的意识的本质。去思考，去感受，去判断，去行动——这便是自我的功能。
创造者并非无私。他们力量的全部秘密就在于——它是自给自足的，自我激发的，自我创造的。那就是奋斗目标，干劲和活力的源泉，是生命力——一种最原始的动力。创造者并不服务于任何人和任何事物。他一直是为自己而生存。
而且只有通过为他自己生存这种形式，他才能成就荣耀人类的伟大创举。这便是成就的本质。
除了通过自己的心智进行思想之外，人类便无法生存。他赤裸裸地来到这个世界。他的大脑就是他惟一的武器。动物是靠武力获得食物。人类并没有尖牙和利爪，也没有犄角触须和强健的肌肉。他的食物必须由他自己种植和捕猎而来。要种植，他就得有一个思考的过程。要捕杀猎物，他就需要武器，而为了制造武器又是一个思考的过程。从最简单的必需品到最高深的抽象宗教活动，从车轮到摩天大楼，我们现在所具有的一切特征和我们从中发展的可能都来自于人的单一的属性——他的理性思考的功能。
但是，心智是个人的属性。并不存在所谓集体的大脑这样的东西，并不存在所谓集体的思想。由一群人所达成的一致只不过是一种妥协，只不过是从许许多多个人的思想中推断出来的一个结果而已。它只是再次推论的结果。首要的行动——推理过程本身——必须由每一个人来独自进行。我们可以将一顿饭分给许多人来吃。我们却无法在一个集体的胃里去消化这顿饭。没有一个人能用自己的肺来代替别人呼吸。没有哪个人能用自己的大脑代替别人去思考。人类身体和精神的所有功能都是他个人的东西。它们无法分享和转移。
我们继承了别人的思想成果。我们继承了那个车轮。我们制造出了马车。马车又变成了汽车。汽车又变成了飞机。但是，在整个这一过程中，我们从别人身上接受下来的只不过是他们思考的终极成果。前进的动力便是将前人的成果当做材料，利用它，创造出下一个成果。这种创造才能是不能给予他人的，也是不可能从别人那里获得的，更不可能与人分享，去模仿和剽窃。它属于单一的、个体的人。这种创造力所创造出来的东西是创造者的财富。人能相互学习，可是所有的学习只是材料的交换而已。谁也无法将思考的能力给予他人。然而，这种能力却是我们生存下来的惟一手段。
人类生来就没有被赋予任何东西。他们所需要的一切都必须得经过自己的生产而来。而且，在这个世界上，人类面临着他们最基本的选择：他只能在两种方式中任选其一——是依靠他自己的头脑独立工作，还是像那些依靠别人的大脑来生存的寄生虫一样。创造者进行发明创造，而寄生虫则剽窃和模仿别人。创造者独自去面对大自然，而寄生虫则通过媒介面对大自然。
创造者所关心的是征服自然，而寄生虫所关心的则是征服他人。
创造者为他的工作而生存。他并不需要任何其他的人。他的首要目的存在于其自身，而寄生虫则是通过间接的方式来生存。他需要别人。别人成了他首要的动机。
创造者的最基本的需要就是独立。他理智的心灵在任何形式的强制之下都是无法发挥其作用的。它是不能被抑制和束缚的，不能被奉献给或者不能屈服于不管什么样的理由。它在功能上和动机上要求完全的独立。对于一个创造者来说，所有的与他人的关系都是从属性的。
那些二手货的基本需要就是保证他同他人的关系，以便得到别人的喂养。他将关系放在第一位。他宣称人类生存就是为了服务于他人。他鼓吹利他主义。
利他主义就是要求人为了他人而活着，而且将他人置于自我之上的一种学说。
绝没有哪个人是为了他人而活。他不可能跟他们分享自己的精神，就像他不可能分享他人的身体一样。但是那些二手货却一直在把利他主义当做一种剥削他人的武器，而且将人类的道德原则的基础颠倒过来。人类被教会了各种毁灭创造者的箴言和戒律。依赖一直被当做一种美德灌输给人类。
那个试图为他人生存的人便是一个依赖者。他是一个自觉主动的寄生虫，而且他创造出那些需要他供养的寄生虫。利他主义在概念上也是不能令人信服的。现实中与之最接近的实例便是那种生来就是为了服务于他人的人——奴隶。如果说肉体上的奴役是令人厌恶的，那么精神上的奴性就更加令人厌恶了。那个被征服了的奴隶也还有一丝半点的荣誉感留存于心中。他还具有曾经抵抗过和认为自己的处境是邪恶的这种优点。但是，那种在爱的名义下自愿地使自己成为他人的奴隶的人，就是最低级最下贱的动物——他使人的尊严受到屈辱，而且他贬低了爱所具有的价值。然而，这正是利他主义的精髓。
人类一直被教导着去接受这样一种观念——人类最高的美德不是获取，而是给予。然而，如果没有被创造出来的东西，人是无法给予的。创造要先于分配——否则便无物可资分配了。创造者的需求先于任何可能的受益人。然而，我们却被教导着要去崇拜那些二手货——这些人并没有创造出任何东西，却大把地挥霍金钱，将施舍物发放给他人，其慷慨程度连创造出这种礼物的人都望尘莫及。我们称赞这是一种慈善行为，却对创造和成就不屑一顾。
人类一直被教导着以减轻他人的痛苦为第一要旨。可是痛苦是一种疾病。人要是碰到这种疾病，就尽一切努力来给人以安慰和帮助，以此作为检验美德的最高标准，这无异于使痛苦成为生活中最重要的组成部分。那么人类一定希望看着别人痛苦——以便他们可以表现出美德。这就是利他主义的本质。创造者与这种疾病无关，而与生命力有关。他们的工作已经消灭了一种又一种形式的疾病，无论是人们肉体上的还是精神上的，他给痛苦中的人以更多的慰藉，其程度之高，令任何利他主义者难以想像。
人类一直接受这样的观念——听从别人的意见是一种美德。但是创造者恰恰是那个唱反调的人。人类接受的教导是——随波逐流是美德。但是，创造者正是那个逆水行舟的人。人类被教育说团结在一起是美德。但是，创造者恰恰就是那个特立独行的人。
人类被教导说，自我就是邪恶的代名词，而无私就是美德的最高境界。可是创造者便是绝对意义上的自我主义者，而那个所谓的无私的人正是那个没有思想、没有感受、没有判断、没有行动的人，这些功能都只属于自我。
这种本质的颠倒是最可怕的。问题的关键一直被人曲解，人类到头来别无选择，也便没有了自由。就像善恶这两个极端一样，摆在人的面前的是两个概念：自我中心主义和利他主义。自我中心主义被理解成为了自我而去牺牲别人。而利他主义则被理解成为了他人而牺牲自我。而这种观念使人无可挽回地与他人拴在一起，他除了选择痛苦之外，一无所有：要么为了他人自己忍受痛苦，要么为了自我使他人蒙受痛苦。如果再加上一条，人必须在自我牺牲中发现快乐，陷阱便已经设好了。人被迫把受虐当做他的理想——他若不想成为一个受虐狂，便只能成为一个施虐狂。这是对人所犯下的最大的欺诈罪。
正是凭借这种手段，依赖和痛苦被作为人生的基础而永远存在下来。
真正的选择不应该在自我牺牲和支配他人之间进行，而在于选择独立还是依赖，选择创造者的准则还是二手货的准则。这是最根本的问题。它是一个选择生还是死的问题。创造者的准则是建立在允许人类生存这一理性需求的基础之上的，而二手货的准则是建立在无法生存的心理之上的。一切出自人类独立自我的动机都是善的。一切出自对于他人的依赖的动机都是邪恶的。
自我主义者并不是为自己牺牲他人。他超越于以任何方式利用他人的需求之上。他并不是通过他们来发挥作用的。他在任何基本的事情上都是与他们无关的。无论是他的目标，他的动机，他的思想，他的欲望，还是他的力量的源泉，都与他们无关。他不是为了他人而存在的——他也并不要求他人为了他而存在。这是人与人之间惟一的兄弟情谊和相互尊重的形式。
人的能力高低因人而异，可基本原则是不变的：一个人的独立程度以及他对于工作的那种原始的、发自内心的热爱，决定着他作为一个工作者的才能和作为一个人的价值所在。独立是人类衡量美德和价值的惟一尺度。是一个人的修养以及他将自己创造些什么，而不是他拥有什么或者为他人做过什么。个人的尊严并没有什么替代品。除了独立之外并不存在衡量个人尊严的标准。
在所有的得体的人际关系中，并不存在谁为谁作出牺牲的问题。一名建筑师需要客户，可那并不是说，他将自己的工作服从于他们的愿望。他们需要他，但是他并不是为了他们给予他一份委托书才去修建一幢房子的。当人们的个体利益一致的时候，当他们双方都希望交换他们的劳动时，他们才会全体一致地为了他们共同的利益自由地交换他们的劳动成果。如果他们并不希望如此，不能强迫他们与他人进行交易。他们有更深层次意义上的追求。这是人与人之间惟一可能的平等关系。除此之外，任何其他的关系都是一种奴隶同奴隶主，或者说受害者跟刽子手之间的关系。
没有任何工作是通过大多数的意见集体完成的。每一件创造性的工作无不是在单一的个人的思想的指引下完成的。一名建筑师需要许许多多的人来承建他设计的房屋。但是他并没有请求他们为他的设计进行表决。他们通过自由的协议而共同协作，而他们每一个人在行使各自的职能时都是自由的。一名建筑师使用他人生产出来的钢筋，玻璃和混凝土。但是，在他动用那些材料之前，它们仍然只不过是钢筋，是玻璃和混凝土而已。他用它们所建造的房屋便是他个人的成果，是他个人的财产。这是人与人之间惟一的得体的合作模式。
人世间首要的权利便是自我的权利。人类首要的使命就是对自己尽职尽责。他的道德戒律绝不是将自己的首要目标强加于那个叫做他人的人身上。假如他的希望根本是要不依赖他人的话，他的道德职责就是去做他所希望做的事情，包括他的创造能力的全部领域，他的思想以及他的工作，但是并不包括歹徒和恶棍，利他主义者和独裁者。
是人则独立思考，独立工作。是人则不能掠夺、剥削或者统治支配他人——要独立。掠夺、剥削和统治是以受害者为前提的。它们本身就包含着依赖他人。它们就是二手货。
统治者并不是自我主义者。他们绝无任何创造性可言。他们完全是通过他人而存在的。他们的目标就在于他人的屈服，在于奴役活动本身。他们如同乞丐、社会工作者以及匪徒和盗贼一样无法自立。至于他们是靠何种形式依赖他人，那无关紧要。
可是人们却被教导要将这些二手货——将那些专制君主们，皇帝们和独裁者们当做是自我中心主义的代表。通过这种骗局，唆使人们去毁灭自我，毁灭他们自己，毁灭别人。这一骗局的目的就是要毁灭创造者，或是控制他们。这两者是一回事。
从人类的历史一开始，这两种对抗就面对面地存在着：创造者和二手货。当第一个创造者发明了车轮时，第一个二手货便作出了反应，顺理成章地捏造出了利他主义。
创造者，尽管遭到否认、遭到反对、受到迫害、受人剥削和利用，却在继续前进着，以自己的精力负载着整个人类向前发展。二手货们除了为人类的发展过程设置障碍之外，没有丝毫贡献。这种对抗赛还有一个名字：个人主义对集体主义。
一个集体——一个种族，一个阶级，一个政权——这个集体的共同的利益就是每一次专制统治的借口和所谓理由。历史上每一种罪恶滔天的丑行都是以利他主义动机的名义犯下的。可曾有哪一种自私的行为能够敌得过凭借利他主义的原则所施行的大屠杀呢？其过错究竟在于人们的虚伪，还是在于利他主义的本质呢？最可怕的刽子手就是最真挚的信奉者。他们相信通过断头台和行刑队能实现完美社会。没有人对他们的谋杀提出过质疑，因为他们的屠杀打的是利他主义的旗号。人们接受了人必须为他人作出牺牲这一观念。演员在不断地更换着，但是悲剧的程序依然未改变。一个起于对人类的爱的宣言，终将以一片血海而告终。只要人们相信如果某一种行为是无私的，那它便是善的这样一种观念，那么，这种悲剧就会继续上演。这种观念允许利他主义为所欲为，并且允许它强迫它的受害者们去承受痛苦。集体主义运动的领袖们并非只图私利，而只不过是观察其结果。
人们惟一可能彼此行使的善举和得体关系的惟一声明就是：不许干涉！
现在观察建立在个人主义原则之上的社会结果吧。这就是我们的国家。人类历史上最高尚的国家。这是一个具有最伟大的成就，最伟大的繁荣和最伟大的自由的国度。这个国家不是建立在无私的服务，自我牺牲，放弃自己的权利或者任何一条利他主义的戒律之上的。它是建立在个人有权追求幸福之上的。追求个人的幸福。不是任何他人的幸福，这是个人的、关乎自身的、利己的动机。看看其结果吧，问一问自己的良心吧。
这种冲突古已有之。人类明明已经快要找到真理了，但却每每又遭到毁灭，一种文明又一种文明相继衰落。文明就是朝着一个个人的社会前进的过程。野蛮人的存在都是公开的，受制于他所在的部落的法律约束。文明就是一个将个人从其间解放出来的过程。
而今，在我们这个时代，集体主义，这个二手货和二流子的信条，这个古老的怪物，又冒出来横行霸道。它将人们推到了一种前所未有的、最粗鄙下流的层次。它造成了史无前例登峰造极的恐怖。它毒害了每一个心灵。它已经将欧洲的大部分吞噬。它正打算将我们的国家卷入旋涡。
我是一名建筑师。我深深地明白与这种教条借以建立的原则以及随之而来的是什么。我们即将走向一个我自己无法生存于其中的世界。
现在你们知道我为什么要炸毁科特兰德大楼了。
是我设计了科特兰德项目。我把它交给了你们。我又毁灭了它。
我之所以毁灭了它，是因为当初它的存在并不是出于我自愿的选择。它是一个双重的怪物。无论从形式上还是含义上都是如些。我不得不将它们都毁灭掉。其形式已经被两个自以为有权进行改进的二手货擅自修改，而他们要改动的却是他们无法创造和没有能力和资格去创造的东西。他们之所以觉得有权这么干，凭借的是那种普遍的默契——公众舆论认为出于利他主义的目的可以视任何权利而不顾，而且认为我的抗争是无法与之匹敌的。
我同意设计科特兰德工程不是出于任何别的原因，只是为了看到它按照我所设计的原样修建起来。那是我为自己的工作所开的条件。我却没有得到应有的承诺。
我不怪彼得·吉丁。他也没办法。他与他的老板们签订了一份契约，但它却被弃之不顾。他许下诺言说，他所提供的建筑会按照我的设计去修建。这个诺言没有得到信守。一个人对于他的作品的热爱以及他捍卫它的权利现在竟然被当做一种含糊笼统和可有可无的东西。你们已经听到执行检察官说过了。为什么那些建筑被破了相？没有什么理由。这种行为如果不是因为某些自以为他们有权染指任何人的不论是精神还是物质财富的二手货的虚荣心的话，就绝不会有什么其他理由。是谁允许他们这么做的？并不是那几十个当权者们中的某个人。没有人愿意允许或者阻止这样的事。没有一个人该对此负责。没有一个人该受到责备。这正是一切集体行为的本质所在。
我并没有得到我所要求的报酬。可是科特兰德的所有者却从我身上得到了他们需要的东西。他们需要让人来设计一份设计图以修建一个尽可能成本低廉的工程。他们发现其他人中间没有一个能令他们中意。我具有这个能力，而且做到了。他们从我的工作中获取了利益，并且迫使我将它当做一份厚礼拱手送出去。但我并不是利他主义者。我不会奉送这种性质的礼物。
有人说我将穷人的家园炸毁了，可是他们忘了一点，要是没有我，那些穷人就不可能有这样一个独特的家园。那些关心穷人的人不得不来求我这个从来不被关注的人，以便能够帮助穷人。有人认为未来租户的贫穷给予了一个他们支配我作品的权利，并认为他们的需求构成了我生活的权利，认为我把任何要求于我的东西贡献出去是天经地义的事情。这就是那种正在吞噬着全世界的二手货的信条。
我到这儿来，就是想说，我并不承认任何人有权占有我生命中的任何一分钟，任何人也无权占有我的精力的任何一部分，也没权利占有我的成就中的任何一部分。无论是谁作的这个断言，无论他们的人数有多么庞大，或者无论他们有多么需要。
我希望到这儿来说明我是一个人，我并不是为了他人而存在的。
我非得说出来不可。世界正在这种无节制的自我牺牲中死去。
我想到这儿来说明，一个人的创作的整体性比任何慈善的努力都更为重要。正是不懂得这一点的人在毁灭这个世界。
我是想来这儿阐明我的看法的。我并不愿意依赖其他任何人而存在，也丝毫不理会任何人。
我不承认我对任何人负有什么责任，只有一条是例外的：尊重他们的自由并且绝不参加任何一个带有奴役性质的团体。如果我的国家不复存在了，我愿意把我在牢狱中所度过的十年贡献给我的国家。我将在感激中度过这十年——回忆着我的国家曾经的样子。那将是我所做出的最忠诚的行动——是为了我曾经的国家。那是我的忠诚行为，拒绝在这个已经将它取而代之的国度工作。
这也是我对于每一位曾经生活过并且被迫遭受过痛苦的创造者表示忠诚的行为——他们各自人生遭遇的罪魁祸首正是应该为我炸毁的科特兰德大楼负责的那种势力。也是对于他们所被迫度过的每一个孤独的、遭受否定的、饱受挫折和侮辱的备受煎熬的时刻，以及对他们所打赢过的那些战斗献上我的忠诚。对于每一位知名创造者，对每一位生活过、奋斗过，以及对那些还没有来得及得到承认便已经死去了的创造者表示并献上我的忠诚。对每一位身心都遭到毁灭的创造者的忠诚。对亨利·凯麦隆的忠诚。对斯蒂文·马勒瑞的忠诚。对某个不想被提到姓名，但是坐在这间法庭上，并且也知道我所说的是他的那个人，献上我的忠诚。