Let us look at the question of whether decent men are selfish “theoretically” also.

To answer this question, let us begin by looking at some facts of reality.

How does it go for the men who steal and lie in order to try to survive? How do things go for criminals and dictators, for example? Criminals live miserable lives. Most of them get caught and punished. And even those criminals who manage to “get away with it” live miserable lives. They are continually on the run from the police. They are continually afraid that some accomplice will betray them, by turning them in to the police, or by stealing their loot.

And what about dictators? Their lives often end in violent deaths. And as long as they are alive they live in a state of terror. Their brutal oppression guarantees that they will have so many enemies that they must always be on guard against an assassination. And they are continually afraid that some subordinate will murder them, in order to take the power for himself. And they are of course afraid of the political leaders of the neighboring countries. Hitler was, for example, afraid of Stalin, just as much as Stalin was afraid of Hitler.

And a strong argument that criminals and dictators are unhappy people, are the nature of their “pleasures”. Most of them “enjoy” themselves only with physical stimuli, such as drinking, drugs, manic gambling, animalistic sex with whores etc. These depraved “pleasures” are, for criminals and dictators, merely escapes from an unbearable inner state.

And logic confirms that criminals and dictatorsmust fail to achieve happiness. They are namely waging a war on reality. They live one way, but they depend on almost everyone else living the opposite way. They loot, but they depend on almost everyone else to be producing. They fake reality, but they depend on almost everyone else being honest.

Take the issue of production. Parasites depend on the majority of the rest of men continuing to produce, despite the fact that the parasites deprive them of the results of their production. But it stands to reason that the more successful the parasites are at looting or mooching, the less willing their victims will be to continue to produce. The more the parasites loot or mooch, the more likely it becomes that their victims will cease to be willing, or even able, to continue to produce. And when the victims cease producing, the parasites will die. Take food, for example. If all the farmers and food industry workers in a large society stopped producing food one day – how many days would it take before every single criminal and dictator in that society starved to death? Not many days. Even if there existed large inventories of food in a large society, it would not take many days for most of the food to rot. And it would not help that there was much food in the icehouses. When the producers stopped producing electricity too, the food in the icehouses would thaw and rot.

One can to be sure argue that parasitism “works”, if “only” the parasite can get the majority of the rest of the men in a society to continue to produce. But how will they be able to do that? By threatening them with force? In that case all the good men will become the parasite´s enemies. And it is not very practical, is it, to make all good men into one´s enemies? Well then, can the parasitefoolthe good men into supporting them? By lying to them, for example by defrauding them? That will only work until the victims uncover the lies. And then they will want to punish him, won´t they? That does not seem very practical.

But parasites have plundered mankind for thousands of years. That is an historical fact. Think of all the thousands of years during which kings and emperors managed to loot their people, and at times their neighbors. There is a reason for this feature of mankind´s history. The reason is that humanity still has not seen through an especially vicious lie that the parasites have exploited for thousands of years.

That lie is the morality of altruism.

According to altruism those who produce a value of any kind, have a moral obligation to share it with anyone who has not produced it. This someone can be “the poor”, “the proletariat”, “the meek”, “the people”, “the weak”, “the nation” etc. But all these variations on altruism have in common that they tell the producer that he does not have a right to that which he produces, if someone elseneeds it. Thereby altruism renders the producers defenseless. As long as there is someone, whoever it may be, who needs the producer´s values, he must give that value up. And there will, of course always exist someone, somewhere on Earth who needs the producer´s values. There will always be someone who does not have everything which can be viewed as “needed”. How much food does a man “need”? 4,000 calories a day? 3,500 calories a day? 3,000 calories a day? Does he need meat? Or will a little chicken be enough? Or will it be enough with soya protein and grains? Is butter needed? Or will it be enough with a few spoonfuls a day of rapeseed oil? Does the man need fresh vegetables? Sugar? Coffee? Spices? Etc. So you see, it is impossible to set a clear definition of what a man “needs”? When altruism rules, it will be “deuces wild”.

So – as long as men accept the altruist morality, nobody will have a right to anything at all. Anything can in principle be taken from anybody. Look at history. Entire countries have been ransacked by kings, commissars and priests in those societies where such belief systems as Christianity, Communism and other variants of religion and collectivism have held sway. All variants of religion and collectivism, without exception, have built upon the altruist ethics. Altruism is the villain behind the plunder and the parasitism.

This lies in altruism´s nature. If a man is suppose to give his values to another man, who has not earned them – then, going by logic, there must exist another man who takes the unearned. So the false image of egoism – that an egoist is someone who grabs the unearned – is actually a correct image of the men who profit on altruism.

Men have fallen for altruism because they have been fed the false premise that the fundamental question is – should I sacrifice myself for others, or should I sacrifice others for myself? Most men are too proud to sacrifice other men to themselves, like a common criminal, so they reluctantly sacrifice themselves to others.

But the fundamental question is actually – should there be any sacrifice at all, or should men live for their own sakes, without sacrifices? Another way of expressing this question is this. Is the fundamental question in sex – should I be a masochist, and let myself be tortured by my partner, or should I be a sadist, who tortures her? No, the fundamental question in sex is, of course – shouldboth partners in a sexual relationship enjoy it and treat each other with mutual respect, or not?

Observe that it is the worst looters and parasites who use altruism to fool their victims. Common criminals usually do not preach altruism. They just grab and run. It is the kings, the conquerors, the commissars, the priests, the bureaucrats etc. who have used altruism. They have been more long-range and more large-scale looters and parasites than common criminals. Large-scale, long-range looting and parasitism cannot exist without altruism. Altruism is the lie which looters and parasites use to survive beyond the range of the immediate moment.

Observe the consequences of the opposite code of morality. During the 1700s the influence of altruism on men in the West began to be weakened. Western intellectuals began to advocate the egoistic principle that each individual has a right to use his own reason, and to live for his own sake. Our modern freedom, and the previously undreamed of increase in human well-being which the Industrial Revolution carried with it, was the result of this philosophic revolution. The modern world would not have arisen if altruism´s hold on men´s minds had not been attenuated during the Enlightenment. This is a confirmation in history that self-interest, i.e. egoism, is the morality of life, and that altruism is the morality of death.

A decent human being is selfish. He works instead of stealing or mooching, because that is what is in his interest. Isn´t his life better, when he is not starving and he is not on the run from the law?

He tells the truth instead of lying, because that is what is in his interest. Isn´t his life better when the people he deals with know that they can trust him?

He is just, he rewards good men and avoids or fights bad men, because that is what is in his interest. Isn´t his life better, when it is the bad men rather than the good men, who have reason to fear him?

He finds friends, and someone to love, because that is in his interest. Isn´t his life better when he has social relations, and he does not live as a hermit?

He fights for ideals, such as freedom and peace, because it is in his interest to influence the world he lives in. He lives in the world, so does not how the world develops have bearing on his interests?

A selfish man is a decent human being even in small ways.

He is polite, for example, because it is in his interest to have friendly relations with his fellow men. Isn´t his life better when a man lives a civilized life, rather than like a caveman or a brute?

So do not fall for the propaganda that an egoist is a man who climbs over corpses to get whatever he wants for the moment. That is a straw man of egoism which has been spread by the real villains, the altruists, in order to put the morality of death over on their victims.