Every horrificc deed done to man has been in the name of altruism, Why, because is works, not matter how many times it is used, people want to think the best of leaders, but find out too late, they are all about power and money.. This pLandemic is a perfect example, as our Comrade DeWine still says on TV, we should mask up for safety of other people. Now it is take a vaccine with worse consequences among healthy people than the virus, do it for all thee other people. Let all the immigrants in so they can die under the scam of our medl. "experts", do it to help them. Should the Earth poles continue to switch, the catastrophe in the US will be far worse thand in their original homelands, which will be mostly spared. Always look for the aallacy in logic when they use the old do it altruism. .

I think back of the portion in the book "The Stones Cry Out - a Cambodian Childhood" where the children are being starved to death as they work with little pails and shovels to build gravel roads through the swamps (remember the dead body scene in The Killing Fields? Likely those were the remains of the children). The Khmer Rouge supervisors would sit up above the kids and tell the kids that they need to sacrifice for the betterment of their country, their society. Then, as each kid would die on the road they'd just toss their bodies into the swamp like garbage.

That reminds me. "Take your damn vaccine" as Julie Gerberding famously said...

To listen to the leftists you’d think ONLY the United States had blood on its hands. ALL nations do. Read about the Feudal history of Japan. If someone painted an artist impression of it, it’d be Mt. Fuji with rivers of blood flowing down.

Definitely makes me rethink my upline post. Thanks for the perception.

My X2 was very much the same type of man. He loved his family and was helpful to those who asked for his help but it was conditioned on what he felt was right. No deviation. He couldn't be bought.

I think the reason I so enjoyed Ayn Rand's books was because her hero types were so much like my father. He did it 'his' way. No deviation. Take it or leave it. He loved his family but didn't give a care for anyone else.

"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants".
Albert Camus

Much like Balzac's observation, that behind every great fortune, is a crime.

Yep, this right here. Upthread, we talked about Khan not being altruistic. You know why? Because we are remembering him at a time when he already had amassed or was born with the power to do whatever he wanted to do. He didn't have to convince anyone of anything. However, I am not sure that's always the case. Perhaps when he was a young lad, he had to build his army, like many rulers do, and I bet that activity was rife with altruistic persuasion.

But with Hitler (just as an example) he had to convince others that tattling on your Jewish neighbors was a GOOD thing to do. THAT is how "altruism" happens. "Everybody - including you - will be better off if you let us know what those lousy Jews are up to."

Lovin' the talk of Chinggis Khaan (that's the Mongolian spelling) who is greatly revered by his countrymen. I'll have to agree, though: He wasn't big on altruism.

Do you know that he had 2,000 people murdered and buried AT his funeral so that no one would know where he was buried? Then the army that murdered the 2,000 was killed by his escort, who also killed anyone who they came across on the way back. And then there was even more after that, and as a result no one knows exactly where he is buried.

Not exactly the kindest guy in the world ......which is WAY different than current Mongols are. I am just starting to delve a bit into their history and current lives, too....which brings me quite a bit off topic, so I'll apologize and back out nicely. I've completely enjoyed the fun diversion, anyway :-) And if you ever are interested in some Mongol culture, check out The HU.

I don't disagree with the definition, only the application.

With regard to Hitler, while one can argue that Hitler was "elected" by the German people according to his soaring rhetoric, history actually shows that he gained power because he controlled the ballot boxes - literally. His brown shirts falsified ballots and intimidated voters on a grand scale. (The Dominion voting machines are similar, they just trade intimidation for outright manipulation.)

Stalin was never elected. He took over when Lenin keeled over dead AFTER the Bolsheviks instituted a coup by taking over key military institutions. Then they started shipping dissenters off to the Gulags. While he made patronizing speeches during WW II, there were no elections from 1918 onward.

Mao Zedong was on the victorious side of a bloody civil war in post-WW II China. And following the war in which the US failed to support Chiang Kai-Shek and the Nationalists, Mao then instituted a political purge that even conservative estimates place at at least 50 million of his own people. And they had no elective choice either then or now.

I guess I differentiate because you first have to persuade people to act against their own interest BEFORE you take over the government by force and then use that tyranny. It's always easy to "persuade" others after you already have control.

The altruistic motive is what sells the public on the behavior that actually destroys themselves. This will benefit others.

When people announce altruism as a motive for their actions, I run from them as I know I am going to be fleeced.

The "greater good" is always defined to benefit those plundering and enslaving, oppressing and causing poverty for those who supposedly benefit from the collection of the extortion.

Pax Romana. Peace of Rome. Once another culture is conquered and paying tribute (extortion) as long as they behave within the confines of the destructive rules everything is peaceful.
Same thing with the Mafia. As long as you pay the protection money you will be protected from their behavior, unless it becomes beneficial to destroy you then maybe not!

It might take some research but I wouldn't be surprised if the hordes under his command were incited by the prospect of saving the world or making it prosper under their command. The leader may have ulterior motives (which they almost always do) but the common individual who makes up the horde is often sold the idea of benefiting their culture by what they pursue. Needs further investigation.

Cyrus the Great was some what altruistic. He did let the Hebrews return to Judea after the consolidation of his empire. He centralized his government. The people of the Persian Empire profited from his rule.

Neither was Mehmed of the Ottoman Turks!

In the Name true but that is not the reason. That is only the propaganda to recruit cannon fodder. The reason is power. Hitler has no altruistic motive only Altruistic propaganda. . Rand is warning the common folk not to be taken in.
The Politicians in the USA lie about everything and cover their immorality and power grabbing with words of altruism and American Pie.

AR as I recall allowed for two types of altruism--(1) your self-sacrifice and (2) a reverse altruism, forcing or defrauding others into sacrificing for you (what is commonly thought of as "selfishness"). Either involves giving up a value for a non-value and both are realizations/admissions of selflessness.

Reminds me of Eric Hoffer's statement in his book, "The True Believer, a Study of Mass Movements." Hoffer noted that every mass movement (communism, fascism, e.g.) began with the words "hope and change."

"Altruism" benefits only those who have the power to define it.

Also see MikePusatera's comment. It is a great example of what I meant. Looters only care about altruism if it is in their self-interest (i.e. lining their own pockets).

No, it's not. Saying "I know what is best for you, and I am doing this for your own good." can be good if done by a parent to a young child.

If it is done a maternalistic/paternalistic government looter, then self-interest at the expense of others can be done under the premise of "I know what is best for you". Sometimes, however, self-interest at the expense of others self-interest is done without any illusion of good intentions. Do you think that Maduro cares at all for good intentions? Even if his government is officially communist, he and other dictators couldn't care less about altruism, unless it helps them get to a convenient end.