You MUST be Selfish NOW to SURVIVE!

[Golden]

www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5UcelK8WE
www.youtube.com/watch?v=9e5UcelK8WE
Published on Sep 14, 2012 by wepollock
Ben Bernake just committed mass murder on a global scale. The only personal solution now is to be selfish.

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~fishwick/cap6836/talks/lac/images/relativity.jpg
M.C. Esher's Relativity, 1953

[Osiris]

Laughable! You have to be selfish now? Then what have we always been doing? If we eat to live we are being selfish?

Love that pic! Had that in our living room a long time ago. Need to pull that out.

[Ponce]

I would like to believe that in what is to come that I will be selfish.....but.......I like to help people even when they don't know that is coming from me........I guess that in a way that also means that I am selfish.

[Hatha Sunahara]

This is Ayn Rand's view. She wrote a book called The Virtue of Selfishness. You can download that book here:

http://ebookbrowse.com/ayn-rand-the-virtue-of-selfishness-pdf-d237978406

It was an attack on 'altruism' which according to her was misdefined. Ayn Rand considered altruism to be collectivism. Selfishness is the opposite of altruism.

This guy talks about the Buddhist concept of 'detachment'. This to me is where your consciousness is split between the actor and the observer. It is where you can be the actor in a situation, and simultaneously observe yourself from above and behind in the context of the interaction you are engaged in. You see the world with your own eyes, and you also see yourself with the eyes of a detached external observer. That split consciousness gives you a multidimensional presence. You can also split your consciousness into three parts, the third being the power to see yourself through the eyes of anyone you are interacting with. At any rate, detachment means moving yourself out of the self-centered mind, and more into empathy without giving up your self. That is what I consider to be true selfishness. It is a connected rational selfishness which is the essence of leadership. You can get others to relate the same way by example.

Hatha

[Gaillo]

I prefer to avoid the words "selfish" and "selfishness" altogether... due to all the negative social connotations that this uneducated society attaches to the words. I prefer "Rational Self-interest" as an alternate phrase, a phrase that is unused enough that people have to either think about it or ask what its meaning is.

To me, "Rational Self-interest" means looking out for yourself and the ones you love first, without the self-aggrandizing destructive alienating behavior that most self-centered assholes exhibit. Any truly rational man realizes that he does not exist in a vacuum, and that he has a great deal to gain by trading, communicating, and otherwise peacefully interacting with the individuals in the society around him, at least the non-coercive individuals! ;)

[joboo]

Those who willingly follow, are destined to either adopt or suffer the morals of the policy makers.

[Carl]

I prefer to avoid the words "selfish" and "selfishness" altogether... due to all the negative social connotations that this uneducated society attaches to the words. I prefer "Rational Self-interest" as an alternate phrase, a phrase that is unused enough that people have to either think about it or ask what its meaning is.

To me, "Rational Self-interest" means looking out for yourself and the ones you love first, without the self-aggrandizing destructive alienating behavior that most self-centered assholes exhibit. Any truly rational man realizes that he does not exist in a vacuum, and that he has a great deal to gain by trading, communicating, and otherwise peacefully interacting with the individuals in the society around him, at least the non-coercive individuals! ;) Back in the olden days that was called Enlightened Self Interest. Alexis de Tocqueville wrote about this quality he found in most Americans.

People would benefit their understanding greatly if the would sh!tcan Rand's worthless (we all live in an ego centric vacuum) books and pick up some philosophy books from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries.

[Neuro]

It makes perfect sense to willingly sacrifice some of your abundance, to help people in your vicinity to build a strong local community based on the bonds you create by giving to those that need your help, it may be that that particular person may never be able to pay you back, but you set an example that will be copied and you may receive aid from someone else who was inspired by your actions directly and indirectly at a point when you are out of luck. Further it builds a strong community where people look after and help each other, and that will increase your chance of survival in harsh times. However don't give of what you can't afford to be without yourself, don't give either to those who have poor characters...

[Ponce]

Well, the same way that I helped you guys with the Land Patent is the same way that I am going to help my small town to survive the incoming storm....... they say that no man is an island and even if I for one am a continent I still have other continents around me.....................the city mayor refuses to talk to me, tried it five times, so that on Oct the 8th two things will happen 1= I get my land patent and 2= is the day that the town will have a council meeting at 7pm and I intend to be there in order to start something..............even if I have to tie them all to their chairs........I am like a bulldog that when he decides to bite he won't let go.

[Santa]

Yo, bitchez'...It be good dat I be selfish. Word! Dey a neighbor fambly down the road. Bunch a nasty kids and a barking dawg. Fuck dat dawg. Dey have lot of canned food and good shit in the basement. Now dat I know it good to be selfish, when the time come I just go git me what I need. It be my personal responsibility.

[Santa]

Well, the same way that I helped you guys with the Land Patent is the same way that I am going to help my small town to survive the incoming storm....... they say that no man is an island and even if I for one am a continent I still have other continents around me.....................the city mayor refuses to talk to me, tried it five times, so that on Oct the 8th two things will happen 1= I get my land patent and 2= is the day that the town will have a council meeting at 7pm and I intend to be there in order to start something..............even if I have to tie them all to their chairs........I am like a bulldog that when he decides to bite he won't let go. Just be careful, Ponce. Remember, those fucks can and will have you committed if you scare em. Your township is a corporation and the land patent is a means of disconnecting from the property tax base, the corporations lifeblood. No wonder the mayor doesn't like you. He's the head of the Board of Directors.

[Dogman]

Just be careful, Ponce. Remember, those fucks can and will have you committed if you scare em. Your township is a corporation and the land patent is a means of disconnecting from the property tax base, the corporations lifeblood. No wonder the mayor doesn't like you. He's the head of the Board of Directors. What he said! ++

[singular_me]

eventually, both ends of the spectrum meet... absolute selfishness-altruism are 101% alike.

Mother theresa was certainly very self-interested in pursuing her goals that were giving her own pursuit of happiness a meaning.

When one is truly greedy, we doesnt get involved in any shenanigans. One is extremely careful about every dollar invested/spent. Not to be confused with "irrational exuberance"

right now, I am dedicated to my own survival and on this path understand that I also must help others to maximize my chance to go through the collapse

[Gaillo]

People would benefit their understanding greatly if the would sh!tcan Rand's worthless (we all live in an ego centric vacuum) books and pick up some philosophy books from the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries

You haven't read many of her "worthless" books, have you?

Egocentric, yes. Vacuum, no. Rand's books deal with (non chrony-) capitalism, a cooperative economic system of voluntary trade and mutual benefit. Such a system CANNOT exist in a vacuum, it requires a society of free men within which to function.

P.S. You say "egocentric" as if it's a BAD thing. Ego is the sense of and respect for one's self. What better center from which to operate could there be? A person without a healthy "sense of self" and self-respect cannot hope to accomplish much of ANYTHING... regardless of who eventually benefits. I've never met a person who had no ego... just a bunch of delusional liars who CLAIM to have tossed their ego somewhere along the wayside. The very fact that they make this claim with pride shows that their ego is present and functioning just fine, even though their sense of reality and truth is somewhat distorted! ;)

[Twisted Titan]

Self interest trumps everything.


Those who were not interested in themsleves did not live long enough to pass on their teachings or write books on the matter

The fact that you can read this is all the proof you need that those before you understood this principle

[Gaillo]

eventually, both ends of the spectrum meet... absolute selfishness-altruism are...

I would argue that TRUE and PURE altruism does not exist. Altruism is the philosophy that your only purpose for existence is to benefit OTHER people. I have never met a person like that... even the most die-hard do-gooders, when asked about their motives, reply that helping others is the "right" thing to do. When asked why they want to do the "right" thing, they almost ALWAYS reply that it makes them feel good, or that they want to be a good person, or they want to be like God or find favor with God. All of those motives are rooted in self and self-interest.

[Libertytree]

There's nothing wrong with being selfish, there's nothing wrong with being selfless. One can be both, even at the same time, it's not an absolute of either or. There's a place for both but neither in the extreme is useful to the individual or those around them. A man with much to give and gives nothing is useless, a man with nothing to give and gives everything he can is useful.

[Gaillo]

...a man with nothing to give and gives everything he can is useful.

Useful how? ???

If he has nothing to give, then when he gives "everything he can" he is giving NOTHING.

[singular_me]

I would argue that TRUE and PURE altruism does not exist. Altruism is the philosophy that your only purpose for existence is to benefit OTHER people. I have never met a person like that... even the most die-hard do-gooders, when asked about their motives, reply that helping others is the "right" thing to do. When asked why they want to do the "right" thing, they almost ALWAYS reply that it makes them feel good, or that they want to be a good person, or they want to be like God or find favor with God. All of those motives are rooted in self and self-interest.

bingo! :) hence the mother theresa example, I am sure she was very happy to see donations flowing in to give her life a purpose. Both, selfishness and altruism have been debased by dictionaries - but only profit the banksters.

anybody who recognizes self-responsibility is ultimately humanitarian.

[Libertytree]

Useful how? ???

If he has nothing to give, then when he gives "everything he can" he is giving NOTHING.

Glad you raised that question! Well, somebody would have.

Who said what might be given is a tangible item? Might it not be knowledge or labor or both? Your NOTHING would be someone elses everything.

[Gaillo]

Glad you raised that question! Well, somebody would have.

Who said what might be given is a tangible item? Might it not be knowledge or labor or both? Your NOTHING would be someone elses everything.

If he has knowledge or labor to give, then he does NOT have "nothing" to give.
Semantics, for sure... and I'm not trying to be overly pedantic, but precise use of the language is important when discussing these concepts.

I would re-word it something like this:

"A man who has no possessions to give, yet still gives everything of himself is useful."

[Libertytree]

If he has knowledge or labor to give, then he does NOT have "nothing" to give.
Semantics, for sure... but precise use of the language is important when discussing these concepts.

I would re-word it something like this:

"A man who has no possessions to give, yet still gives everything of himself is useful."

No doubt about the semantics but maybe it's something akin to reading a book by its cover?

[Gaillo]

No doubt about the semantics but maybe it's something akin to reading a book by its cover?

Or, mis-reading the book by its cover... like I unfortunately did! ;)


I have a disturbing tendency to take written materials too literally, and I know I'm not the only one. I'm pretty sure that language-psycho Skirner is even worse than me! ;D

[Libertytree]

I think these thought re-evaluations are good for the long haul, from a practacle stand point. IE..Someone says I have 500 oz's of gold and food for one year but another person says I have no gold or food but I can raise food for a lifetime, show you how to bring in water and I can fix all your fancy shit with string, wood and duct tape.

[mick silver]

so ... when did most here give a shit what others thought . if theres away that i can keep my family alive and safe then so be it , and i would bet the guys talking about others having to much are loaded down with stuff stored for there familys

[beefsteak]

I think these thought re-evaluations are good for the long haul, from a practacle stand point. IE..Someone says I have 500 oz's of gold and food for one year but another person says I have no gold or food but I can raise food for a lifetime, show you how to bring in water and I can fix all your fancy shit with string, wood and duct tape.

okay, LT, here're a couple o'posers for you:

What is the expectation/medium of exchange between the useful/skillful person you describe above and the 500 T/oz and food for one year person, labelled by me to be party B?

And how did your hypothetical party A learn that "party B" had 500 oz and food for one year?

Did your hypothetical party A take the other person's avowal as fact, or demand to be shown both B's gold and the food before agreeing to this unequal contract?

Now, Party A should be in fear for his life after all the fixing is done because Party B's survival security is at stake, yes? A used up, dead party A can't talk.

Hmmm. Still appears to be a shakey social contract in a survival of the fittest end game scenario.

What if party B in your scenario shares something besides their gold and their food, and keeps both those for themselves and "their own?"

Would party A grow food for, and repair with wood, string and duct tape for oh, say a Rug Weaver who has 500t/o of gold and a years worth of food and not share any thing but weaving a rug for you as your party A is a broke, and hungry McGyver?

Interesting discussion.

[Gaillo]

okay, LT, here're a couple o'posers for you:

What is the expectation/medium of exchange between the useful/skillful person you describe above and the 500 T/oz and food for one year person, labelled by me to be party B?

And how did your hypothetical party A learn that "party B" had 500 oz and food for one year?

Did your hypothetical party A take the other person's avowal as fact, or demand to be shown both B's gold and the food before agreeing to this unequal contract?

Now, Party A should be in fear for his life after all the fixing is done because Party B's survival security is at stake, yes? A used up, dead party A can't talk.

Hmmm. Still appears to be a shakey social contract in a survival of the fittest end game scenario.

What if party B in your scenario shares something besides their gold and their food, and keeps both those for themselves and "their own?"

Would party A grow food for, and repair with wood, string and duct tape for oh, say a Rug Weaver who has 500t/o of gold and a years worth of food and not share any thing but weaving a rug for you as your party A is a broke, and hungry McGyver?

Interesting discussion.

Those all sound like pretty unrealistic scenarios. I imagine that after the die-off/kill-off, the typical post-SHTF trade scenario will be very similar to pre-SHTF scenario, with value being traded for value and some level of understanding/respect/trust between trading parties. I firmly believe that most of the "predatory" cheating scum types will be weeded out early in the game, society will NOT tolerate their existence and coercive/fraudulent antics for long.

Human beings are VERY social animals, and tend to view attacks and abuses of their own quite unfavorably, particularly when there's no "law" to retrain them from seeking justice! :o

[beefsteak]

May be unrealistic scenarios, but that type of inequity I'm already seeing in the senior center set. Especially where the guys are pretty washed up and useless, and there are too many women per widower.

Helen and I can't use that many newly woven rugs....And god knows we don't have 500 oz of gold nor a year's food we're willing to part with, or share.

There're "social animals" and there's survival. I thought Party A was a McGyver survivalist hooking up with "prepper party B." Maybe I read it wrong.

[mamboni]

I tried to listen to the OP's video and got through the first 10 minutes and found it utterly uninteresting and frankly nebulous. I suppose I lean heavily to the concrete mentation wise. You guys and gals here sure have a talent for dissecting the simplest terms and subjects six ways to friday - I read the posts in quiet amazement. I must be getting old and tired - too tired to engage in such inefficient mental calesthenics. That said, it seems to me that each of us is acting in his self interest almost all of the time. It is instinctual. Some of us derive enjoyment from the material, others the intellectual, or the spiritual and probably for most, a mix of these. As TT pointed out, anyone participating in this forum is acting in his self-interest. Obvious examples include the enjoyment derived from reading the entertaining and enlightening threads and tips and advice on gold and silver investment. We could all be seen as selfish, as it's definition is really entirely subjective. One man's selfish miser is another's responsible custodian of wealth. Now personally, I give a lot to my neighbors in the way of material and financial aid and advice. Some would call me generous. And I enjoy doing these things because I do not care to see want and suffering around me and I feel the need to do it. Of course, the there are selfish motives at work. I get to feel good about myself. And, my intent is to foster trust and cooperation within my small community. Because my practical side tells that these same folk who need me today are likely to be needed by me in the difficult days to come.

I think a good metaphor for 'healthy' or 'positive' selfishness during these difficult times is the swimmer as rescuer of the drowning person. In order to rescue anyone, the swimmer must be a most competent swimmer first. Second, the drowning person must never attempt to take hold of the rescuer as he could easily drown the rescuer in the bargain. On the contrary, the rescuer must take hold of the drowning person, the latter to remain calm and passive. Point being, priority one for the rescuer is his own safety, not that of the drowner. This is surely selfish, yet entirely necessary to the act of rescue. In short, you need to take care of yourself before you're in a position to help anyone else.

[Libertytree]

okay, LT, here're a couple o'posers for you:

What is the expectation/medium of exchange between the useful/skillful person you describe above and the 500 T/oz and food for one year person, labelled by me to be party B?

And how did your hypothetical party A learn that "party B" had 500 oz and food for one year?

Did your hypothetical party A take the other person's avowal as fact, or demand to be shown both B's gold and the food before agreeing to this unequal contract?

Now, Party A should be in fear for his life after all the fixing is done because Party B's survival security is at stake, yes? A used up, dead party A can't talk.

Hmmm. Still appears to be a shakey social contract in a survival of the fittest end game scenario.

What if party B in your scenario shares something besides their gold and their food, and keeps both those for themselves and "their own?"

Would party A grow food for, and repair with wood, string and duct tape for oh, say a Rug Weaver who has 500t/o of gold and a years worth of food and not share any thing but weaving a rug for you as your party A is a broke, and hungry McGyver?

Interesting discussion.

I didn't think all of it through with all of its possible hypotheticals. I reckon, at the end of the day, none of us can afford to be totally selfish or selfless, no matter how set we are, or think we are.

I will tell ya what I think is funny as hell, your mention of McGyver, lmao! cause I'll have to admit I envision myself in that role and quite possibly that guy who has nothing but "something" in the way of talents and knowing how to do a lot with little.

[Libertytree]

I tried to listen to the OP's video and got through the first 10 minutes and found it utterly uninteresting and frankly nebulous. I suppose I lean heavily to the concrete mentation wise. You guys and gals here sure have a talent for dissecting the simplest terms and subjects six ways to friday - I read the posts in quiet amazement. I must be getting old and tired - too tired to engage in such inefficient mental calesthenics. That said, it seems to me that each of us is acting in his self interest almost all of the time. It is instinctual. Some of us derive enjoyment from the material, others the intellectual, or the spiritual and probably for most, a mix of these. As TT pointed out, anyone participating in this forum is acting in his self-interest. Obvious examples include the enjoyment derived from reading the entertaining and enlightening threads and tips and advice on gold and silver investment. We could all be seen as selfish, as it's definition is really entirely subjective. One man's selfish miser is another's responsible custodian of wealth. Now personally, I give a lot to my neighbors in the way of material and financial aid and advice. Some would call me generous. And I enjoy doing these things because I do not care to see want and suffering around me and I feel the need to do it. Of course, the there are selfish motives at work. I get to feel good about myself. And, my intent is to foster trust and cooperation within my small community. Because my practical side tells that these same folk who need me today are likely to be needed by me in the difficult days to come.

I think a good metaphor for 'healthy' or 'positive' selfishness during these difficult times is the swimmer as rescuer of the drowning person. In order to rescue anyone, the swimmer must be a most competent swimmer first. Second, the drowning person must never attempt to take hold of the rescuer as he could easily drown the rescuer in the bargain. On the contrary, the rescuer must take hold of the drowning person, the latter to remain calm and passive. Point being, priority one for the rescuer is his own safety, not that of the drowner. This is surely selfish, yet entirely necessary to the act of rescue. In short, you need to take care of yourself before you're in a position to help anyone else.

I think you have a good handle on the potential reality Mamboni, you've obviously thought this through. Kudo's.

[Libertytree]

Here's another good one...

I could just die, I don't give a fuck...I could fight, maybe die and take some assholes out at the same time...OR, I can live and maybe be useful and good fer somethin' to someone or many people. The thing is, I gladly and accept and embrace any of the outcomes...probably because the outcomes are NEVER what you think they'll be. Life is just minute by minute and day by day, it's the inbetweens and the too far offs that are the main distractions, and they don't mean shit. The hell of it is...dyin's the easy part and I reckon I don't like things easy, damnit! So, if I'm gonna stick around, WTF..how can I help ya?

;D