05/01/2012 – 2012 and the Right to be Selfish

Did Anders Behring have the “right” to kill?

I usually don’t reference other blogs, but in this case, this is an exception.  This blog is directed to the comment section where the idea is presented that “people have the right to be selfish.”

“People have the right to be selfish.” This statement can be challenged directly through understanding the definition of “right” or “rights.” A “right” in the sense of an abstract idea that is attached to a liberal principle (usually conceived as “justice” or “morality”). So the statement’s sentiment is clear – “selfishness” as a principle, equals justice.”

Now, this is a highly distasteful and adolescent perspective as principles go, and it is ultimately the reasoning of a demented, unrepentant psychopath. You know, those people with a callous disregard for the welfare of others and who see themselves as Gods and everyone else as ants. Ayn Rand was certainly one of these people, as her early hero was a violent, dismembering, serial child murderer, William Edward Hickman, whom a young Ayn Rand gushed in her notebooks about, “the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.” This is the “right of selfishness” to its ultimate, logical conclusion. And the whole of Ayn Rand’s philosophy has at its center this love for a sadistic murderer. Pathetic.

People who crow about the “right to be selfish” should have their heads examined. Seriously. There could be some pathological impulses bubbling in the subconscious, similar to the Norwegian mass-murderer Anders Behring. Wonder what Ayn Rand would’ve thought about HIM?

People DON’T have the RIGHT to be “selfish.” People just act in selfish ways, poisoning relationships and the environment with egotist, heinous, sociopathic intent to be God of their world. The USA doesn’t have the RIGHT to BOMB the fuck out of a country. We just DO it. The Elite do not have a RIGHT to control 99% of the world’s resources. We just DO it. Religions don’t have a RIGHT to brainwash people into cretinized, brainwashed dumbshits. They just DO it. To label selfishness a “right” is just a lame attempt to justify mental illness. Are there more important things in the world to consider than having your own fucking way all the time? Yes, there are, and as long as we pretend that “rights” based on murderous self-interest are somehow admirable, then we will never find a way to be able to live together with the respect that should be accorded all human beings.  We will instead be given a world where mental illness reigns supreme for now and evermore.


24 thoughts on “05/01/2012 – 2012 and the Right to be Selfish

  1. As the “demented, unrepentant psychopath” who inspired this post, let me repost the comment I made on the other blog here:

    You’re missing the point. Life is governed by a “whatever works” system that happens to have given rise to a humanity with certain neurological predispositions towards specific social interactions. Our “happiness from sharing” comes from the same place as “getting revenge on those who have hurt us.” There is of course variation among human beings and there are different narratives told to promote specific types of behaviors among individuals and different laws in government.

    Again, the rules that determine what is ‘right’ are based on what works. The Communists might take power, but every time they do the society doesn’t fair so well until it abandons the Communist ideology. The Theocrats might take over but good luck avoiding costly warfare when your political system is married to an exclusive religious doctrine. Ultimately what makes the selfish, “fuck the poor” capitalist like myself right is that our system works, and consistently out competes other systems. The reason my morality of, “Steal my shit and I’ll shoot you!” works is because though you might say that you could always shoot me first, the hypothetical robber will almost always go for the easy target first.

    The fact that we get a boost to happiness from sharing is an evolutionary tool. Building community cohesion makes us better prepared to resist foreign tribes. It doesn’t scale without blatant in-group out-group tribalism though (My race, my faith, my gender, my etc…) If you don’t think about the evolutionary origins of this behavior you might think that “being kind” is some kind of positive ends within itself, and might miss the exclusive group thought in-group out-group collectivism tied to it. Who can determine the ideal balance of individuality and collectivism? Each individual can. And not because the individual is smarter, but because the individuals that chose correctly will out compete those who don’t. Emergence, variation, natural selection. These are the only true meta ethics.

    1. I’m not “missing the point” at all, Andrew. Life isn’t “governed” by anything. People are governed by fear of loss, fear for survival and the chase for money that only ends after you die. Don’t talk about “life” because you have no idea what the word means. What we have condoned and accepted is that we will run roughshod over anyone who is at a disadvantage. And what “works” does indeed involve dominating others who are in a unequal, disadvantaged position. But don’t call it a “virtue.” Don’t pretend that it is the preferred way of relating to others or is the best way for ALL of us to live.

      It is proper that you speak from a privileged position when you claim to be a “fuck the poor” capitalist.” You seem to forget, or not care, that the system doesn’t work for everybody. And you seem to have a limited understanding about how long capitalism is destined to last. This current capitalist-socialist system will one day end, as ALL systems have ended during history. Only THIS time, there won’t be any resources left to start over. You can’t even see the signs that the end is already upon us, and the reason why is the pathological, reptilian nature of the elite and the brainwashed subservient sycophancy of their slaves.

      When you ask, “Who can determine the ideal balance of individuality and collectivism?” The answer is simple: whatever is best for all. I know that such a notion goes against the typical neoliberal-capitalist mindset, but we’ve tried it your way and it has not succeeded, but failed brilliantly.
      It is not cool when most of the people in this world have no access to a fucking toilet. You take too much for granted. I wonder how you would survive if it were all taken away.

      1. Oh shit! A black man talking about how the system doesn’t work for everybody! A liberal using guilt and environmental fear mongering! Using name calling and personal insults in a politically charged comment on the internet! I bow to you sir. I can only hope to one day aspire to your level of living stereotype. Also here’s the obligatory line about me doubting that you’ll approve this comment in an attempt to use your own pride to force you to approve it.

      2. OH SHIT! A white man talking about how great the system works! And by the way, I’m not a fucking “liberal” or “left-wing” or what. And I am not aware of calling you any names, but I will say your comments reveal a lack of situational awareness of the world around you.

      3. Too point out the most obvious insults:

        “Don’t talk about “life” because you have no idea what the word means”

        “You can’t even see the signs that the end is already upon us, and the reason why is the pathological, reptilian nature of the elite and the brainwashed subservient sycophancy of their slaves.”

        Oh and if you are bothered by me calling you a ‘liberal’ when you make reference to utilitarianism and claim that I’m speaking from “a position of power” but no problem building up this entire straw man about what you assume I represent and believe. You’ve got no clue what I think, and judging by how you you misrepresent what I’ve already said plainly in the above post, you’re either incapable or unwilling to see me in any other light than the one already laid out in the political narrative you buy into.

        I am no slave to a political ideology. I have pissed on them all along my journey to the cold heartless truth of reality. You would do well to also give up the belief at being your brother’s keeper, promoted by a religion that was likely imposed upon your ancestors to keep them obedient and servile. There are no peoples. There are no nations. There are only power structures and individuals.

      4. Those aren’t insults. An insult is a rude statement intending to embarrass or hurt. And I really doubt you feel that way about anything I said.

        But let’s cleave to the matter at hand with your quickness to characterize my position in racial terms. It was far from “witty.” Now if you actually tried to consider what I said instead of trying to be clever, or having a position to defend, or wasting time pretending to be insulted or divert attention from your questionable premises, then this could have been a different discussion. But here is your “philosophy” in your own words about what kind of world you would prefer to live in:

        “if you try to steal my shit I shoot you in the face.”

        If someone tries to steal your shit, you do not get to shoot them in the face. You get to call the cops and see the robber put behind bars. Of course. you MIGHT commit such an act (if you were crazy). But it wouldn’t be any more of a “right” you’d enjoy any more than what Behring thought he was entitled to when he felt justified in killing 72 kids over what his diseased mind believed was a “wrong.” Does Might makes Right (which seems to be your philosophy) in every case, Andrew? Or just when you feel justified? But if you can’t justify your premise in all cases, it’s worthless.

      5. How do you know the “universe” operates in any way? Your comment is more appropriate for how people usually act, though.

        But leaving all that aside to address the point of “rational self-interest,” I say no such thing exist, or rather, the term “rational” is just a placeholder to make intellectually palatable any evil and sinister justification one could wish to dream up. And saying that one has the “right” to live it up while the rest of the world goes up in flames, well that doesn’t speak much to rationality. Unless one wants to take a piss on rationality.

      6. One could just as easily say that the notion that people have a ‘right’ to clean water, free speech, or self defense are all subjective creations of society and ideology. All ‘rights’ are just made up things. These things are made up to establish an ethical standard to optimize a certain value or set of values.

        The notion of “what is good for all people” is a non-starter because with limited resources and the continued problem with overpopulation caused by the poor reproducing and immigrating from poor countries to countries with welfare states that will sustain them and their progeny ()yes it is the poor and immigrants who are causing all your population problems and the environmental problems as result) there simply is not enough to go around for everyone.

        It has to be a choice of what is best for a particular group of humanity or for humanity as a species (if one adopts a humanist utilitarianism) as a matter of dealing with reality. There is no way to avoid mass death without oppressive restrictions on reproduction. You can call my, “let those who can’t feed themselves starve” approach whatever cruel names you want, but if you yourself say that we are at the brink of an environmental apocalypse then I doubt you disagree with my assessment of the dire situation regarding population growth and natural resources. Letting the poor (who are the source of the problem) die by ceasing to give them free food, medical care, and subsidizing so many other aspects of their life is a solution that could save humanity, punishes those most deserving of it, and is in line with natural selection.

      7. This is where I wanted you to go: “All ‘rights’ are just made up things. These things are made up to establish an ethical standard to optimize a certain value or set of values.”

        So you admit that when you say something like, “it is the right of a person to be selfish,” you also admit that no “rights for selfishness” exist. You admit that there are limited natural resources and that the only way to manage them is for those who “own” those resources to keep it for themselves. You admit that poverty and no education doesn’t destroy the poor – it causes them to multiply beyond all control. You admit that your whole perspective is based on the belief that you deserve more because others aren’t worthy of life. Yet you don’t see that those you would so cheerfully erase from existence are ultimately your responsibility because of the system you champion. Therefore, in light of all your admissions, I accept your apology.

  2. Daryl, with all due respect, I think you are missing the point of selfishness as Rand taught. Selfishness, in a true sense, means concern for ones own interest. Period. It does not suggest you pursue your own interest at the expense of somebody else. In fact, her philosophy implicitly states that selfishness is the pursuit of one’s own happiness without ever infringing on the life, liberty, or property of another and without ever asking another to sacrifice his interests for the sake of achieving your own. Self-sacrifice, on the other hand, is a term that is contradictory to nature. We are hard-wired to pursue our own life and happiness. The idea that sacrificing yourself can lead to happiness is futile at best. Always love a good debate about the Virtue of Selfishness. 🙂

    1. Oh my God, “the pursuit of happiness?” Ryan, please. I understand what selfish means, and I understand that we both can cherry-pick quotes from Rand to illustrate our points. But the way you’ve phrased Rand’s so-called “Virtue” of selfishness, her way of living is impossible under the current system, as all relationships are intimately connected and dependent on acquiring money! And of course, Rand’s personal life was a complete mockery of her idea of not “infringing on the lives” of those she had relationships with, but I don’t want to go there. And if self-sacrifice was “contradictory to nature,” how on earth did you survive your infant-hood? You were dependent on the good will of your mother, presumably. She had to sacrifice her time, money and energy to make sure you didn’t die before your could take care of yourself. Come on, common sense.

      1. Its not a sacrifice if you trade one value for something you value more. i.e. giving up money or time for a child. Sacrifice is when one trades a higher value for a lesser value. One can be selfish and still serve in society. Because I am selfish, there are things i do for others all the time, because it is in my interest to do so. Also, “acquiring” money is a mode of dependency. But, you are right, our current administration is doing more to take away our freedoms than ever before. Self-interest works best when government doesnt attempt to control outcomes through enactment of laws.

      2. A few points worth exploring:

        Everybody sacrifices their selfish impulses in order to maintain relationships.

        Selfishness as an ethical foundation is a dubious notion when you take into consideration that man is a social animal. Taken to its extreme you can justify a catalog of evil in the name of selfishness. Or ‘liberty,” “freedom” or “national interests.”

        Nobody has ever experienced such thing as “freedom” (except for the extremely wealthy). If your life is dependent on requiring money to survive, how can you say that you are”free?” The politicians and the elites they serve sold your “freedom” very cheaply in the form of debt. We’ve all been brainwashed by the lie of freedom. You can blame the current administration, but no one’s to blame except those who allowed it to happen. That’s you and me. So what are we gonna do about it?

        People who are “selfish” can indeed “serve society.” They’re called, “politicians.”

        When you say, “Self-interest works best when government doesnt attempt to control outcomes through enactment of laws,” do you mean in the real world? Because government operates on a whole different level of self-interest. Governments have always fully applied the principle of its own self-interest over the interests of the citizens. They know the people have too much to worry about to keep track of what they’re doing. And so it goes.

  3. I’ve read some of your FAQ and you begin with what you call ‘the white light’ and the ‘annunaki’. Where do you get this from, some mystic? Why is this accepted by you, as accepting such stories reminds me of accepting the tall tales of religion that I was told as a youngster.

    I think the annunaki is complete nonsense and so everything emanating from that building block is false. The whole ball of wax is erroneous nonsense. Certainly there is some truth mixed in, as there also is in the socalled ‘holy bible’, but to separate the wheat from the chaff is more effort than its worth.

    All your info would make good fodder for a sci-fi thriller but to spread such new age-ish nonsense to your fellow human, is as dangerous as spreading good old-time mind-enslaving religious nonsensical beliefs.

    There’s an old saying – “Knowledge moves mountains, beliefs makes slaves.”

    I don’t think you’re gonna be moving mountains with this stuff.

    1. I’ve been waiting for you. And I realize that you don’t have the background or literary resources to be able to utilize the information presented properly, which happens a lot with people like yourself, who desperately hold on to their version of what is real when confronted by something outside their accepted frame of reference. Desteni is not for everybody, especially those who lack understanding and awareness of who they really are and what their position is within the world around them. Only a small percentage of the people willing to ask questions about the fucked-up nature of human beings and the world we’re bent on destroying will be able to use this. The others will be too brainwashed and egotistical to be bothered with. But nobody will escape the consequences. Good luck to you.

  4. You accuse me of ‘desperately holding on to my version of what is real’ and in place of ‘my version’, you offer just for starters:

    “1. What was the White Light and why did it exist?

    Originally when man was created, we were solely created for the purpose of enslavement by a race of beings called the Annunaki. They created the mind construct that consists as our entire body to ensure that we as human beings could be controlled and directed as slaves. The Annunaki were a race that enslaved other beings due to how manipulative and deceitful they were, so that they could have slaves to always ensure that their world were prepared and taken care of – with gold provided to them from human beings as slaves from earth. That is basically what we are doing to our world: We are creating an enslavement environment for them, which they were planning on visiting again one day. They were power hungry beings that go about preparing entire planets so that they are able to enjoy its resources, so you are able to imagine how entertaining this planet was for them.”


    I am supposed to accept that this is and was true, as I was supposed to accept what they tried to put in me when I was young? I gotta tell ya, it sounds equally as unreal as did the biblical stories I was supposed to swallow, possibly more so.

    Why according to my own resources, my own common sense, my own understanding and reason, should this sound plausible, logical and true? I know you do not suggest that I just swallow this on faith and therefore it should make sense to me or anyone else.

    You did not give me the source for the words, stories, information on your FAQ page. What is your source?

    1. The source is from a thread in the original Desteni Open Forum in June 2007 that’s archived in the current Desteni forum. Swallow, reject or accept what you like because I’m not here to convert anyone, just sharing my story and communications. If you believe it’s nonsense or interesting or what, I simply don’t care.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s