He remembered the tea had tasted like salt.
As he sat at his desk that last Saturday.
The tea had tasted like salt. And he had ruminated on it.
What could be the cause of that? he had wondered. Salt in the water, salt in the cup, salt in the tea?
Would they adulterate the tea with salt? Why would they do that? Perhaps they “cured” it, somehow, he thought, with that which contained, or would, when put in contact with some other substance, “create” … (Not “create,” he thought, “precipitate.” Could one “create” salt? If the two components were brought into contact and some agent used to fuse them, had one “created” the salt? What other word, he wondered, could I use? “Facilitate”? Certainly not. Am I not, am I not—yes, he thought, I can reason scientifically. Yes. If others can, then I can. Why not?) Am I not, then (and nothing but) a “catalyst”—which is that agent which brings about, but does not participate in, combination?
This is what Man is.
The very act of drinking tea.
The very fact of checking ledgers; the fact of ordering raw stock, as ordering the cedar blocks, in which I cause others to perform certain actions, as they, in turn, surely cause me. …
What a joke. What folly—for now does my tea taste, after all, any the less like salt?
What a shithole.
Oppose me who can, for, in the keep of my mind, he thought, I am, if not free, then … then, he thought, less limited than I am outside its confines.
“Miz Scholz,” he then called, “could we try once again with this tea? In fact, please, could I have coffee?”
“Well, we must advertise, and that’s an end to it,” he thought.
To whom could he be thankful? And for what? Who aided us? They persecuted us. We strove and have endured in spite of them. Did they not persecute us?
Does that deserve out thanks?
And if, in an atmosphere of possibility, in a land of plenty, we thrived; if, free of persecution, one has managed, two have managed, and thrived, was this not the principle upon which the country was built? To let the individual thrive, to let him pursue his goals of peace and, should it be, prosperity? Was this not the purpose of the founding of the country? So I say: If you have succeeded, you have done so through efforts of your own. If you were not impeded, those who ignored you did no more than was their duty as men.
If you were aided, why should you not have been? Were you not entitled to it, as were those who aided you?
This country is not God. You need not worship it. It was established to free men from the tyranny of kings, and it is our right here to pursue happiness and live in peace. Our right. Should a child prostrate itself in thanks that its parents have not beaten it?
And was that child an orphan, how much more were they beholden to treat it with care.
Am I in error? Show me where.