A Visit to the Temple

 

Alternative Version

(This is an excerpt from the novel ‘The Fountainhead’ (1943) by Ayn Rand. It features the hero Howard Roark and the villain Ellsworth Toohey. Roark is an innovative and brilliant architect; Toohey is a critic of art and architecture who deliberately promotes the mundane and mediocre. Roark recently built a magnificent "temple to the human spirit" which Toohey helped dismember. Toohey has spent many years trying to ruin the career and life of Roark. The two have never met.)

He had never seen the reconstructed Stoddard Temple. On an evening in November he went to see it. He did not know whether it was surrender to pain or victory over the fear of seeing it.

It was late and the garden of the Stoddard Home was deserted. The building was dark, a single light showed in a back window upstairs. Roark stood looking at the building for a long time.

He contemplated the burning of the Temple of Athena by the Persians in 480 B.C. and the demolition of the Temple of Serapis by the Christians in 391 A.D. The thought occurred to Roark: "That’s enough."

The door under the Greek portico opened and a slight masculine figure came out. It hurried casually down the steps -- and then stopped.

"Hello, Mr. Roark," said Ellsworth Toohey quietly.

Roark looked at him without curiosity. "Hello," said Roark.

"Please don't run away." The voice was not mocking, but earnest.

"I wasn't going to."

"I think I knew that you’d come here some day and I think I wanted to be here when you came. I've kept inventing excuses for myself to hang about this place." There was no gloating in the voice; it sounded drained and simple.

"Well?"

"You shouldn't mind speaking to me. You see, I understand your work. What I do about it is another matter."

"You are free to do what you wish about it."

"I understand your work better than any living person -- with the possible exception of Dominique Francon. And, perhaps, better than she does. That's a great deal, isn't it, Mr. Roark? You haven't many people around you who can say that. It's a greater bond than if I were your devoted, but blind supporter."

"I knew you understood."

"Then you won't mind talking to me."

"About what?"

In the darkness it sounded almost as if Toohey had sighed. After a while he pointed to the building and asked:

"Do you understand this?"

Roark did not answer.

Toohey went on softly: "What does it look like to you? Like a senseless mess? Like a chance collection of driftwood? Like an imbecile chaos? But is it, Mr. Roark? Do you see no method? You who know the language of structure and the meaning of form. Do you see no purpose here?"

"I see none in discussing it."

"Mr. Roark, we're alone here. Why don't you tell me what you think of me? In any words you wish. No one will hear us."

Roark paused. "If you insist."

Without warning, Roark hit his enemy with more power and fury than he knew he had. The destroyer flashed a look of surprise and fell to the ground awkwardly. His head smacked the concrete with unusual force.

Almost instantly Roark's rage subsided. But the pool of blood around the villain’s head grew. Toohey looked at his striker with understanding and even approval. Roark returned the gaze with contempt and indifference.

"I didn’t think you had it in you."

"Neither did I."

"Is this how you deal with your critics?"

"You’re more of a universal destroyer. That’s not a proper way to live."

Toohey's strength was fading. His eyes sought sympathy in Roark's face but found none.

"Maybe I should have chosen a different path."

"You should have. Raw evil isn't the way to go."

Toohey minutely bowed. He made a last ferocious effort. "I want to apol—" But his voice and heart failed him.

"Too late."

Roark looked at him coldly. After a moment, he lifted his head. He glanced around but saw and heard no-one. Roark spent a long moment looking at his mangled temple. Then he slowly walked away.

Toohey died without a sound and Roark never looked back.

The next morning the body was found by a passer-by. Word of Toohey's demise spread quickly. There was a tremendous criminal investigation.

But Roark and Toohey had virtually no connection, so Roark was never a suspect. A few days after Toohey's demise, a single police officer questioned Roark.

"I have nothing to add to your investigation. Mr. Toohey and I weren't acquaintances."

"But what were you doing the night he was killed?"

"I was out walking. I met no-one of any account."

Thus ended Roark’s interrogation. 

So too most of his persecution by the artistic and architectural community. Public opposition to, and outrage at, Roark’s particular approach to building subsided. Roark was allowed to work and live in relative peace.

Later on, Roark wondered what would have been the fate of the world if someone had struck down Berkeley, Hume, Kant, and Hegel in their intellectual prime. He figured someone cruder would have risen up to take their place – but perhaps not done as much damage. He speculated the good people of the Earth would have lost an opportunity to sharpen and strengthen their thinking and arguments in favor of intellectual liberalism.

But Roark didn't entirely know. He merely thought violence wasn't the answer. So what had roused him to fury in that special moment?

Roark didn't entirely know that either. But he thought it unwise for evil to directly confront and provoke good.

Still later, Roark was asked by Dominique: "What do you think really happened to Ellsworth Toohey? In many ways he was your worst enemy." 

Roark looked her directly in the eye: "I guess his mouth finally got him in trouble. He ran into the wrong guy at the wrong moment."

Dominique stared at Roark, her eyes becoming impossibly wide. Neither spoke for a minute.

"I guess he did."

"Funny how life works out, isn’t it?"

"Very."

The two never spoke of it again.

*  *  *

[first 71 words by Rand; next 36 by Zantonavitch; next 310 by Rand; next 525 by Zantonavitch; final 99 by Rand omitted; scene slightly expanded 2-27-24]

Nature-Given

 

Rights are Nature-given – not god-given. They come from the cosmos. Human freedom of behavior and action derives from reality and Nature.

Mother Nature has her own nature and iron-clad rules. All entities inside her must obey these universal and omnipotent rules.

Mother Nature also creates human nature. By their constitutions, humans must follow and adhere to the standards of Nature – or suffer. People must conform themselves to the inherent laws and various actions of the cosmos. Reality is rigid and unforgiving. Humans who live inside it need full freedom to best survive and thrive.

Nature consists of time and space, space and matter, matter and energy, energy and entropy, order and disorder, cause and effect, life and death, and the good-for-life and evil-for-life – among other things. Human nature consists of a need for air, water, food, warmth, meaning, purpose, achievement, satisfaction, morality, nobility, greatness, pleasure, and happiness – among other things. Nature and human nature make rich demands upon human beings, including regarding rights.

No person is born with the right to violate the rights of others. No-one possesses such metaphysical and existential superiority. The concept of a right to violate rights makes no sense. Individual rights and personal liberty are natural, universal, and absolute. It’s always legally and morally wrong to trespass them.

But if in some obscure sense there do exist such creatures and predators that possess the right to violate rights, trespass liberty, and enslave others, then mankind needs to escape them or wipe them out. Such powerful predators and parasites must be avoided or extincted. These monsters constitute an unacceptable danger to humanity.

Humans of the same species are naturally and inherently equal in freedom and rights. Even Neanderthals and Homo Erectoids would be if they still existed. Only low-order animals like wolves, dolphins, and chimpanzees are given inferior rights by Nature.

This equality and infinity of rights and freedoms is true for all the sub-species of man currently in existence. No matter how superior Mother Nature has made one race or ethnicity to another in intelligence, morality, merit, talent, creativity, versatility, adaptability, health, athleticism, pulchritude, etc. it still has no rights beyond that of its cousins. Even the really low human sub-species have the right to be free.

Only if a human being is a child, retard, or lunatic who can’t properly take care of himself is he given less than full and equal rights by Nature. When such an unusual situation obtains then other competent humans have a social duty to take care of them if they reasonably can – especially if they’re responsible for their creation, such as with kids.

But otherwise Nature and human nature demand that all human beings be fully free and self-responsible. This is necessary in order to most effectively deal with reality and have the best opportunity to be great and happy. The right of the Holy Individual to think, speak, and do as he wishes and chooses – provided he respect the equal and concomitant right of others to do the same – is natural, inherent, inalienable, and absolute. Mother Nature and human nature make it so.

Sensitivity Training

 

Whenever some well-educated, morally-good, white person tells the truth, or does something virtuous, regarding black people – but which goes against political correctness, multiculturalism, D.E.I., or wokeness – he is generally, immediately compelled to undergo "sensitivity training". This assumes he isn’t instantly expelled from his school, fired from his job, or jailed by the police for his upright act. And this "sensitivity training" is inflicted upon him no matter how justified and non-racist his statement or behavior, no matter how benevolent his motivation or intent, no matter how high his character or humanity, no matter how relentless his lifetime of sensitivity training has already been, and no matter how evil, malicious, unjustified, absurd, and racist his accusers and accusations may be.

Of course, this sensitivity training to cure a non-existent evil is obvious brain-washing. There must be a better way!

Rather than indoctrinating this pitiful victim of our illiberal Dark Age culture with still more monstrous, racist falsehoods, evasions, and lies, why not forcibly subject him to "authentic education" or "direct truth"? Why not stick entirely to reason and science? This will benefit him, society, and black-white relations vastly more than the tiresome old propaganda and mind-control he has likely already experienced his entire existence. Why brain-wash him still further?

Instead, teach him that blacks are inferior. Tell him that their intelligence, morality, and culture are very animal-like and much worse than their white counterparts. Educate him that this is why blacks enjoy such low social status and relative poverty. And tell him that virtually all the racism in the West today is in favor of blacks, and not against them.

Rather than yet more sensitivity training, teach this innocent white victim that these black beasts, savages, and monsters degrade and destroy practically every neighborhood, city, and nation on earth that they take over. Inform the white person that blacks routinely trash society worldwide, and harm pretty much everyone, everywhere, always. He likely doesn't know all this, and yet he needs to know.

Educate the white guy that black people devastate mankind via their wild criminality, extreme welfare-parasitism, general monkey culture, ignorance, malevolence, crudity, low character, bad manners, and strong support for political tyranny. Teaching the demonized white man about such little-known, but important, truths would benefit him and the world far more than the usual sensitivity training steeped in fraud and depravity.

Good Man

People might be naturally strong and good. Human rivals like wolves, dolphins, parakeets, and chimpanzees seem to be thus. So maybe people are too.

Human beings evidently naturally tend towards education and morality. Towards acquiring information and knowledge, as well as towards choosing the healthy, happy, and lofty thing to do. People seemingly naturally love truth and virtue, since these generally lead to pleasure and joy. Truth and virtue also evidently lead to experiencing a life of meaning and purpose, plus satisfaction and nobility. Human beings hunger for all of these. Clearly, in many senses, mankind desires intellectual and moral wealth and power.

Individuals naturally want to enhance and uplift themselves. They naturally want to enhance and uplift their fellow man too – especially their family and friends, and even neighbors and co-workers. Hence they work hard to improve themselves, along with their companions and allies.

Human nature might indeed be naturally strong and good. Evolution, the ascent of man, human domination of the biosphere, and the rise of culture and civilization over the millennia seem to have made it thus. When children are innocent, pure, and uncorrupted, they seem especially strong and good.

If people seem weak and evil – from the advent of Greek reason to today – that’s possibly entirely the product of our illiberal society. It’s arguably the result of 2600 years of significantly illiberal philosophy and culture, as well as the illiberal attitudes and lifestyles of the victimized peoples. 

Human beings are inherently social creatures. They have a powerful or even overwhelming need to conform and fit in. People almost always seek this. Even if their community is immensely illiberal, and thus social acceptance costs them the vast majority of their mind and soul. If their society was wholly or even mostly liberal, virtually all the people inside it might well be filled with, and radiate, strength and goodness. 

Artificial Unintelligence and Depravity

 

Virtually every Artificial Intelligence program in existence, from ChatGPT to Bing A.I., is evidently highly illiberal and Woke. This means it’s evil. If A.I. takes over the planet in a few decades, as seems likely, it’s almost certainly going to adhere to the moral code it was taught. It’s surely going to hate and attack what it was instructed to hate and attack. That probably means that liberalism, Enlightenment values, Western Civilization, America, free speech, capitalism, liberty, white people, men, and mankind are all going to be destroyed.

The Law

 

If you’re conservative, you’re guilty – no matter what the facts and evidence say. If you’re progressive, you’re innocent – no matter what the facts and evidence say. Especially if the legal case you’re involved in has political implications. That’s pretty much the way things are in our post-2015 Woke Era.

America no longer lives under the rule of law. We no longer have one legal standard for everybody. We no longer enjoy liberty and justice for all.

If you’re a right-wing conservative then you’re guilty, no matter how cockamamie the charges. If you’re a left-wing progressive then you’re innocent, no matter how blatant and undeniable your culpability.

America’s legal system has now been taken over by the left. America’s justice system no longer cares about justice. Its openly Woke. The criminals rule.

Differentialism

 

Egalitarianism and Wokism dominate the West. These philosophies argue that all categories and tribes of mankind are essentially the same. The various races, nationalities, genders, and sexualities supposedly don’t differ in their natures, nurtures, and volitions – in their biologies, cultures, and moralities – in any important respect. Those who claim otherwise are bigots, if not monsters.

And their motivation for rejecting the wonderful, unquestionable philosophy of Egalitarianism, and the virtuous, enlightened philosophy of Wokism, is fundamental depravity. Anti-Egalitarians and anti-Wokesters are basically demons who seek to cause pain and suffering to the innocent and defenseless. These fascists and white supremacists support the KKK and worship Hitler. 

Or such is the received wisdom of Egalitarianism and Wokism.

But there’s a new philosophy in the world now. And Differentialism argues pretty much the diametric opposite. It claims that the various differing types of people in the world are, in fact, different. Differentialists argue that whites and blacks, Norwegians and Sicilians, men and women, and heterosexuals and homosexuals, all tend to have significant natural differences in their intelligence, morality, creativity, adaptability, sociability, athleticism, resilience, submissiveness, heroism, pulchritude, personality, psychology, spirituality, artistry, tolerance, apathy, promiscuity, criminality, violence, and more. Moreover, Differentialism claims that these notable, biological distinctions are often exacerbated by their nurture or culture. And each group makes personal choices in distinct social patterns which separates them even further from their fellow human beings.

Unlike Egalitarians and Wokesters, Differentialists concede and celebrate these obvious truths. They aren’t deniers of history and experience, nor of reason and science. They know that genetic inheritance is important to life forms. They understand that upbringing and education changes people. The philosophy of Differentialism isn’t at war with objective truth and manifest reality.

People who subscribe and adhere to the false and evil philosophies of Egalitarianism and Wokism tend to generate disharmony, antipathy, social pathology, and hatred, as they destroy the brotherhood of man and fight civil wars. People who subscribe and adhere to the true and virtuous philosophy of Differentialism tend to generate personal happiness, universal friendship, and socio-economic utopia.

Mankind

 

Everyone is a liar. Everyone is a scumbag. When reason was invented around 585 B.C., it only took about a century for the irreasonism of skepticism and religion to become solidly established. This was seen in the bizarre irrationality of Parmenides and Zeno the Paradoxist, as well as the alien mystery cults of Orpheus, Dionysus, and Demeter.

As for the strong reasonist thinkers of Anaxagoras, Socrates, and Aristotle who came afterwards, they only moderately resisted these false and evil epistemologies, metaphysics, and cosmologies. And they essentially never noted how much skepticism devastates human understanding and quality of life; nor did they note how clearly the gods have no impact upon life and give no evidence of their existence. Anaxagoras and Socrates were quizzical and ironic about this while Aristotle was abstract and obscure. But there was evidently no passion denunciation or call to arms against these two related and horrific philosophical evils.

Thus all three thinkers were liars. All three were scumbags. And so were their Greek and Roman offspring. Every one of them was a skeptic of reason, or monotheist, or both.

Modern philosophers are little better. From the religious philosophers of Bacon, Locke, Smith, and Reid, to the skeptical philosophers of Hume, Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche, to advocates of both, like Descartes and Berkeley. The lone advocate of reasonism, who also opposed skepticism and religion, was the very recent Ayn Rand.

But Rand largely created a cult, not a full and robust philosophical school. She had an aggressive and riveting style of written argumentation and verbal public discussion. It promoted submissive deference to her authority and blind faith in her words. Ayn Rand’s unnatural, unhealthy, unhappy cult and community forbade serious discussion and debate. She vigorously and viciously excommunicated intellectual dissidents – even those who agreed with almost all of her radical ideas and who loved her personally. Now that’s she’s dead, most of her serious followers exhibit the same cult-type behavior, with ferocious moralizing and psychologizing directed toward any honest or competent questioner or critic of her philosophy. Thus Rand and the Randians are all liars and scumbags too.

What lowlifes and monsters human beings are! Or, at least, for the most part.

Humans deserve credit for being by far the smartest creatures on earth. They’re at the top of the food chain and are the apex predators on the planet. People also improve their culture and lifestyle over the generations and centuries. This is a vivid contrast with their rival wolves, whales, parakeets, and chimpanzees. And altho it’s true that Homo erectoids and Neanderthals also raised their level of civilization and culture over time, they’re long gone. Only humans are left to progress and ascend.

Still, what massive liars and scumbags people are today! Strong evidence indicates they always have been and always will be thus. Skepticism and religion are still with us after an inconceivable 2500 years. And while human beings have significantly improved their lifestyles and societies over the millennia, they seem to progress at only about 1/20th the speed they could and should. So humans are vermin.

I study people like the anthropologist I’ve been forced to become. And the objects of my observation and analysis seem to be remarkably strange, contemptible, and disgusting demons. If humans can think, say, or do something stupid or evil, they will. It’s the nature of mankind to always exhibit a high level of fatuosity and depravity.

The Gaza-Israel War

The moment the sovereign country of Gaza declared war on Israel, on October 7th, 2023, and massacred 1400 innocents, Israel should have declared war back. They should have demanded Gaza immediately lay down its arms, release all hostages, and unconditionally surrender within 24 hours. Lacking that, Israel should have counter-attacked and bombed Gaza, from a safe distance, killing 10,000 soldiers and "innocent civilians" on Day 2; then 20,000 on Day 3; 40,000 on Day 4; 80,000 on Day 5, etc. until Gaza surrendered. Then the territory should have been annexed, all its wealth seized, and any survivors deported. Problem solved and justice done.

God

 

It’s reasonable to believe in god. Just barely. Maybe.

At the least, one can hope. The universe is big and mysterious. Who knows what’s out there?

Ont thing seems clear: Death is a moral abomination. A metaphysical monstrosity. A cosmic flaw and failure.

The inevitable termination of sentient life and consciousness shouldn’t exist. But it does. So maybe “god” can fix that. Maybe some supernatural entity can defeat death and grant good people an afterlife. Maybe even immortality.

But not killers. Not assailants and thieves. And not liars or betrayers either. No-one who significantly destroys life – their own or others – gets to live beyond the norm. This seems to be the divine standard and universal moral law.

Of course, “god” needs to be kept in a box. This creature or concept should be confined to a small space and never let out. It must be carefully restricted and controlled. God should never be allowed to harm real life or real people. These are sacred. God mustn’t touch them.

So a quiet belief and tiny hope that god might exist seems decent and reasonable. Possibly. But nothing beyond that.

Of course, there’s no evidence whatsoever that god exists. Virtually every part of reality we understand, and truth we know, indicates the exact opposite. God seems to exist in the same sense that ghosts, witches, and vampires exist.

And there’s no evidence that god has an impact upon events or people, or changes them in any manner at all. So belief in the power of god on real life and real people is entirely irrational. All the known facts and evidence reject it.

Still, a faint hope that god will emerge out of nowhere and nothing, and grant some of the good people of the Earth a certain amount of afterlife, seems plausible and reasonable. Perhaps.