As needed industries are crippled or dying off, the railroad suffers from lack of the materials and products that it needs.

  The vicious circle: bad railroad service leads to bad industries, bad industries make the railroad service worse—and all go down together, disintegrating.

  In the realm of enterprise, the process is: branches being closed off, the system contracting, the service getting worse and more expensive, the organization falling apart with consequent confusion, inefficiency, hit-and-miss policy, a growing chaos.

  In the realm of invention, the process is: as the technical equipment wears out, it is replaced by older, inferior models of the preceding technical stage, going back to easier, more primitive methods (but not for long, since this can’t be done); [there are progressively more] accidents and breakdowns of equipment.

  Track: rails deteriorate and replacements are made of inferior steel; ties rot and some are not being treated; grades worn by floods and weather conditions are neglected; tunnels collapse and are closed; bridges collapse and cannot be repaired or replaced; terminals deteriorate—switching causes endless delays, confusion, loss of freight. Motive power: as locomotives wear out, older and weaker ones are put into service, promptly breaking down, too; locomotives are used without necessary repairs, or on a shoe-string, with patched-up “fixing,” just to complete one run—with the result that at the end of the run the locomotive has to be junked, worn out beyond repair (beyond their capacity to repair it, anyway); crucial shortages of fuel—and inferior fuel that ruins the engines.

  Rolling stock: the same deterioration and same vain make-shifts as with engines. Cars for special purposes vanish first—such as refrigerator cars, huge special flat cars, then stock cars, tank cars, grain cars, until nothing but a few old standard boxcars and flats are left. Passenger cars get more and more uncomfortable. Diners are eliminated (“economy”), then sleepers (except a few for politicians).

  Comforts are eliminated, in reverse order from that in which they came: first air-conditioning goes, then heating, then water (and toilets), then lighting. Brakes are defective and shaky, causing endless accidents.

  Signals: breakdowns, mainly (or at least ostensibly) through inefficient personnel. Breaks in telegraph service leave schedules and trains in confusion, and cause traffic snarls. Automatic safety devices are long since gone. Automatic signals are replaced by manual ones—going back to lanterns and flags—and these wreak total havoc in the hands of semi-moronic collectivist “lower labor.” There are dreadful accidents—the kind that could have been prevented by intelligence.

  Main direction of the process: railroads become slow, dangerous, expensive, uncomfortable, unreliable.

  As they go down to the preceding stage of progress, that stage is not like it was in the past, on the way up, but much worse; it worked then—but it does not work now, quickly leading only to the next stage below. The contradiction between needs and means grow wider, worse and more destructive; a freight delivery of two days worked fine for an industry geared to that; it does not work for an industry that needs goods delivered in two hours; as the industry collapses, it adds to the growing collapse of the railroad.

  On the way up, producers were counting on the intelligence of others with whom they had to deal. Now they have to count on stupidity—so they are forced to stop.

  Results: the dying off of whole territories, first the distant, outlying, less developed ones, then coming closer and closer. (Here—the parallel to a weak heart. As the heart grows weaker, first the capillaries (the outlying, smaller districts) atrophy; then the paralysis closes in, growing, in contracting circles, closer and closer to the heart and center.) Industries cannot get raw materials and cannot reach a market for their products. Farmers cannot grow raw materials—there is no way to transport them to market. Production becomes hysterically sporadic, like speculation: make so much if you can get the transportation through special (mainly political) pull, take the profit, then run; no planned, continuous, long-range effort is possible. This brings the worst type, the gambler-speculator type, into momentary industrial leadership; and the methods of this type cannot run a working industry. (Here is the pure “money” motive—just quick “money,” not production.)

  Insane “deals” are made—so many cars for such-and-such a shipment—for reasons of pull, in total disregard of the needs, rights, and contracts of particular shippers. Rivals destroy each other through “transportation pull” (that is, parasites destroy the few remaining producers) by making senseless deals destroying whole potential trainloads of freight—hurting both the shippers and the railroad. All these “deals” are made for every possible second-hand reason—everything except rational sense and the profit motive. [They give] reasons such as: the public good, help to a needy section, help to a friend, the country ought to take this product even if there’s no demand for it, so let’s condition people by delivering sets of “psychological games” when there is no bread, etc.

  The result: the cars used for some such fool freight hold up a perishable harvest, the harvest rots, the farmers (who had counted on the railroad) go out of business, and the railroad (who needed the business of this section) finds itself running empty trains at a loss. As industries shrink or vanish, producers stop counting on railroads altogether. There is less and less transcontinental traffic. Production tries to shrink to a local exchange—going back to water transportation, a few old trucks, covered wagons, horses and buggies. But the remaining industries were not geared to be local and cannot go back to that stage. (Just as our house could not exist without electricity; it would be no good for pre-electric living, particularly when no rebuilding can be done.) And no new industries, on a small, local, more primitive scale, can be born—who’s going to start them?—the parasites are only trying to run with what they looted and it’s falling apart in their hands.

  So—in accelerating progression—things stop, industries close, unemployment and crime grow, men have neither products nor work, they don’t know what to do and can’t do it, there is no work for anyone, only the approaching prospect of starvation that becomes obvious to all. There are starvation areas all over the country, epidemics, outbreaks of violence and hysteria (apparently causeless), a growing chaos. The obvious picture? Hunger, disease, rags, ruins. The spiritual picture (as far as the parasites are concerned): all the variations of panic and despair.

  Choose from these concrete suggestions the key points to illustrate the specific steps of TT’s collapse. But remember that what you need is the illustration of the working and results of stupidity (of non-judgment)—not all the details of the specific railroad collapse, only enough of these to make the process and its nature clear.

  June 22, 1946

  Types of creators who work for their own destruction (and that of other creators and the world):Frank Lloyd Wright: The creator who is overly concerned with others for the sake of their admiration. His achievement is authentic and first-hand, he does not let others into this sphere—but he still wants their admiration, afterwards, and it is an important concern to him. By enjoying his role of benefactor and making this role of importance to himself, he sanctions their right to exploit him, to take, to demand from him.

  He puts himself into the role of the exploited, [conceding] that this is his proper role and function; [he assumes the role of] the giver, the superior one who has riches which others don’t have and which they can get only from him, with the added implication that these riches are there to be taken by these inferior others. (Taken only by his voluntary gift? That is what he may say. But the others would be justified in saying that once he establishes the principle that these riches, by their essential nature and purpose, are to be given to them, then they are justified in demanding or seizing them when some creator does not give them in the manner they wish, or does not give enough [and is thus] withholding what is theirs. He has established the principle of service to others and exploitation; the form is then only a secondary matter of detail.)

  Prof. Otto Hahn (as a guess at the type I think he is) [Otto Hahn was a German physicist who collaborated with the Nazis; AR did not know Hahn personally, but she had done some research on him for the screenplay Top Secret (see Chapter 9)]: A man of ability who despises the lesser men around him, the stupid or less able—and decides that he must seek power (or associate himself with those who seek power, and support them—such as the Nazis) in order to have his way in a stupid world that will never share his intelligence and can only be dealt with by force. In doing this, he destroys the very people with whom he could deal, whose rareness he deplores—the intelligent ones; they cannot be ruled by force, they are the first ones destroyed in a dictatorship. And all that is left are the stupid ones, the worst among them, the corrupt and evil, those who will take any order, accept any horror and just obey, like unthinking brutes. And only the worst among them would be capable of holding the jobs of rulers in a dictatorship of force, the Gestapo jobs.

  So by this kind of reasoning, a man like Hahn would destroy that which he values and needs (intelligence), preserve that which he dreads (corrupt stupidity), and give power (over himself and others) to the worst kind of human element, his own worst enemies. Dr. [J. Robert] Oppenheimer (my guess about him and his motives): A man extremely conceited about his own intelligence (either honestly conceited—or maliciously so, i.e., with enjoyment of the inferiority of others and of his own superiority by comparison). He decides that he is so sure of what is right and that he is capable of deciding it, while others are not, that he must force it on those inferior others, for their own good. In such an attitude, there is the natural impatience of the intelligent man who can’t bear to see things done wrong, when they can be done right and he knows how to do it. But this attitude is applied to a crucial error in thinking—that one man can decide what is right (or good) for another, and that the material (as a value) is absolute per se, so that a comfortable house for a ragged bum is “a good” without further consideration or relation to anything.

  Man being a rational creature, the only good possible to him is that which he himself has accepted rationally; his primary evil is to do anything without his own independent rational acceptance and understanding. A bum forced to accept a house he does not understand, and has not built or earned, is committing an evil if he accepts it “because the leader says it’s good,” or if he simply accepts it as an unearned alms; and that house will not do him any good.

  But, more importantly, Oppenheimer is committing the same error as Hahn: the forcing of his ideas on those who, by his own definition, are inferior and cannot achieve or know what’s good for them. [This policy] might be viewed as merely futile when applied to them; actually, it’s worse than futile—it’s a positive evil—putting them into a subhuman position, into the class of non-rational beings, whereas they can exist or be happy only on the basis of whatever rationality they possess. They would have to be total morons or insane to be benefited by forced benefaction—but then, of course, it can’t work and they can’t be benefited. This forcing of his ideas on others is monstrously destructive of the best among them, of the intelligent, of those he would define as his equals. (Is a possible reason here the fact that he recognizes no one as his potential equal in this sense? Is it that kind of conceit?)

  The intelligent men cannot be forced—only destroyed. So this attitude, again, leads to the destruction of that which he values (and of himself as one among the intelligent), and to the perpetuation of that which he wants to eliminate or correct (stupidity, incompetence, misery).

  If he argues like this: “Well, those lesser people work and struggle on their own, but stupidly; let them have the benefit of my superior intelligence and direction; let them be forced to accept my directives whether they agree or not, whether they understand or not; the result will be to their own benefit”—the answer is: To accept or obey blindly is the only original sin for man and the basic source of his destruction. Then a man cannot work well, not even in his small job. Within the specific sphere of his own action, his job, his life, his active concerns, he must understand what he is doing to the best of his own intelligence—or he can’t do it; his degree of understanding determines the quality and success or failure of his performance.

  If a very stupid type of unskilled laborer takes a job turning a crank in a factory, without understanding or concern for what the factory is manufacturing or why—that is quite proper and safe; there is no obligation on man to venture beyond the limits of his intelligence; in fact, it is his moral law and the essence of his nature not to touch that which he cannot judge first-hand, not to act without intelligence.

  Such a laborer knows his own reasons for taking the job—need of money, ease of the work, or whatever—and that is his proper and only possible motive. To force him against his wishes or understanding into some wonderful atomic factory where his limited skill can be used to best advantage (by the master’s decision) will not do him, the factory, or the master any good. It is forcing him into a subhuman state.

  And what about this kind of forcing when applied to a better, more intelligent man of high ability, who can form his own judgments and conclusions? And how does the master here judge human ability—or whom to force, when, into what, how much, and for what purpose?

  The basic mistake here is in judging the nature of man—in not understanding what precisely constitutes a rational being, and how this applies to degrees of human intelligence and ability; in not understanding the nature of force and its relation to intelligence; in not understanding the nature and significance of voluntary consent; and in assuming that any material good can be objective, i.e., factually absolute for all men, without considering the most objective and factual part of any “good”—the reaction of the human mind involved. (“The good” is a matter of standards; standards are determined by purpose. Who, then, sets a man’s purpose here? Another creature, a master. By what right? It is the nature of man’s intelligence, of survival by means of rationality, to function through purpose. But he himself must set the purpose.)

  This last, of course, is an error or confusion in the conception of “the good.” What is good for man? Nothing except that which he finds of value through the independent judgment of his rational mind. He’s making an error in judgment? Then he must correct it rationally. He can’t judge for himself at all? Then nothing can be good for him at all; [in this case], he is either a moron or insane. And human “good” can be based on nothing except human intelligence. That is man’s basic, determining attribute (his “faculty of survival”). And intelligence is his act of independent rational judgment.

  Moral to these men: Concern yourself with virtue, not vice; with intelligence, not stupidity; with strength and ability—not weakness and incompetence.

  June 24, 1946

  How do these last types of men affect my theme?

  Are my “creators” (in the story) complete men or abstractions of a practical human quality? (They are “men of ability.” When they make mistakes, they function on the principles of the parasites. But in the sphere of their work they function on the principles of the creators.)

  The parasites in my story are motivated by hatred and exploitation of ability. What is the attitude of the above men [i.e., creators who sometimes function on the principles of parasites] toward ability? (Men of ability are not vicious; parasites are. Men of ability make mistakes; parasites are consciously evil. But it’s the mistakes of the men of ability that are most disastrous and pave the way for the evil of the parasites.)

  The two basic qualities of the parasite: (1) method—refusal to exercise his independent rational judgment, substituting for it the judgment of others; and (2) motive—desire to get the unearned (spiritual values which he doesn’t deserve, more material wealth than he can produce).

  These men [i.e., the mistaken creators] are not second-handers, but their great, basic error is in considering other men second-handers (or the desire to make them so).

  They want others to substitute their (the master’s) judgment for their own.

  They want others to admire them, without understanding.

  They want unearned material wealth from others (taken away by force) for their own purposes (art, research, etc.) Unable to justify this last, they claim: “But I’m working for your sake”—and this is how they enthrone the principle of the exploitation of creators.

  June 25, 1946

  The progressive steps of TT’s destruction must be integrated on three lines: the physical failures and contractions of the railroad must be connected with (come from and lead to) the personal relationships of the characters involved (showing the variations of parasitism) and the progression of their “life lines,” their specific, particular fates (such as Dagny moving towards shaking herself free of parasites, James Taggart moving toward spiritual destruction, etc.).

  Two possible characters for the parasite’s side:

  The “traitor creators”: the desperate, violent young inventor who accepts force out of despair at stupidity, who thinks that this is the only way to deal with the world—and is destroyed early and violently, unable to stand his own mistake; the more subtle and dangerous professor of physics [Robert Stadler] who wants unearned material wealth for his laboratory, fools himself and others into believing that he works “for the common good,” and who supports and makes possible all the brutal police methods of the parasites’ government. The professor invents a deadly weapon—and is violently destroyed by the very machinery and the very principles he has created.

  For one of TT’s disasters:

  A parallel to [MGM’s plans to] build a $3,000,000 studio in England: Taggart spends a small, badly needed fortune to build a new branch through a territory that has been moving to seize his railroad; his reason—“I’ll outsmart them by playing with them.” He builds the branch—and it is seized, causing great damage to the remaining lines of TT and their operation, [in addition to] the crippling financial loss. (Or should it be a “creator” competitor who does this for Taggart?)