Objectivism and being a DJ go hand and hand

As I have stated more than once, the fountainhead is quite possibly the most important book i ever read in my life. Did the most for my game than any DJ book could have even this forum. To a newbie this would sound stupid. But what that book did for me was.. how can i put this. and i am not saying go pick up the book now, i mean you could but that's not what this post is about... it made my DJ mindset not an act anymore.


DJism in short is nothing more than masculine focused objectivism. It cut through all the bull****, all the mantras, all the tricks and tips.. i want what the fvck i want, because i want it and i don't have to explain myself to anyone nor do i have to feel bad about wanting what i want.

Note what i am saying. I am not promoting or demoting anything (though by nature i am what you would define as an objectivist), i am simply stating that DJism, is in fact objectivism. DJism are the working principles behind objectivism. Think i am pulling **** out my ass? never putting a woman above you. making a woman show you that she is worth your time before before committing, demanding a sexual physical relationship, spinnig plates when you are single, finding hobbies and **** to do while you are not actually on dates or dating, hoing your social skills so you can get more attractive women, betting yourself so that you can get better women easier, if that is not day to day practical practiced objectivism i dont know what is.


towards the end of the book, i will try to explain this without soiling the entire plot of the book.. But Rowarks.. arch nemsis if you want to call him that though he really isn't, Peter keating, is trying to sale Rowark on doing a favor for him, when in his (keatings) mind, there is no real reason he should help him out. and so he is trying to pitch this **** to Rowark and.. again without giving the entire plot away, the thing that could be done is very.. one woudl call humanitarian and noble in nature. so keating is playing this up about how he would be doing a great favor for society.

Rowark basically tells him, dude, i don't' give 2 ****s about society. i give a **** about me. i will help you but not beucase it's the right or noble thing to do i will help you beucase it's in my best interest to do so even though you do not realize it.

To be a DJ, you have to realize one thing first and foremost. And i know already this is going to rub some the wrong way, fvck it lol. Everything i do, is about ME. Even me getting married is in MY best interest. i'm not saying it's not in hers as well but i would not be married if i did not feel it was in y best interest to do so.

To be a true DJ, you must always put you first, and foremost. I don't care about how you think i am being an ******* or cold hearted. i can say I do but i would be doing you a disservice by lying, then would be playing you, i'm not a player. i really do not care. no more than that woman doesn't care that you really want to have sex with her but will dangle that carrot into the end of time and could care less if your needs are or are not being fulfilled. I care about my wife's feelings today, i'm not a cold hearted ass hole but im' not going to sit here and pretend i give 2 ****s about a girl i have seen 3-4 times because i really don't.

if you wish to know what is the best course of action at any time. what is the most DJ thing you can do.. simple, whatever is in your perceived best interest., it's really that simple.

Fo sho, I think objectivism, libertarianism, and DJism converge on the same set of truths. Ayn Rand was so badass I actually consider her an honorary dude. You can tell from her writing that she genuinely liked and admired men, well, a certain type of man anyway. I don't know that she ever dedicated a lot of time to speaking about women, so we're left to infer her observations based on her female characters. The general flavour I get is that she was none to impressed with most women as individuals. If anyone could point me towards something more specific she might have been written on sexual relationships or feminism I'd be pretty interested.

I did find this though, read it carefully, or you might lose the correct context.

“If you tell a beautiful woman that she is beautiful, what have you given her? It's no more than a fact and it has cost you nothing. But if you tell an ugly woman that she is beautiful, you offer her the great homage of corrupting the concept of beauty. To love a woman for her virtues is meaningless. She's earned it, it's a payment, not a gift. But to love her for her vices is a real gift, unearned and undeserved. To love her for her vices is to defile all virtue for her sake - and that is a real tribute of love, because you sacrifice your conscience, your reason, your integrity and your invaluable self-esteem.”

Heh, could be straight out of the DJ bible!

Oh, that wasn't even my original intention by the way. I had meant to comment how much it cracks me up when I see progressive-minded, nanny-state loving vegan hipsters with majors in gender studies on OKCupid name-dropping Rand to sound well read. Methinks they may have missed the point, assuming they even opened the cover.

Wilko said:

Fo sho, I think objectivism, libertarianism, and DJism converge on the same set of truths. Ayn Rand was so badass I actually consider her an honorary dude. You can tell from her writing that she genuinely liked and admired men, well, a certain type of man anyway. I don't know that she ever dedicated a lot of time to speaking about women, so we're left to infer her observations based on her female characters. The general flavour I get is that she was none to impressed with most women as individuals. If anyone could point me towards something more specific she might have been written on sexual relationships or feminism I'd be pretty interested.

I did find this though, read it carefully, or you might lose the correct context.

“If you tell a beautiful woman that she is beautiful, what have you given her? It's no more than a fact and it has cost you nothing. But if you tell an ugly woman that she is beautiful, you offer her the great homage of corrupting the concept of beauty. To love a woman for her virtues is meaningless. She's earned it, it's a payment, not a gift. But to love her for her vices is a real gift, unearned and undeserved. To love her for her vices is to defile all virtue for her sake - and that is a real tribute of love, because you sacrifice your conscience, your reason, your integrity and your invaluable self-esteem.”

Heh, could be straight out of the DJ bible!

Click to expand...

this is from the fountainhead isn't it? I'Ve read (glanced over) this somewhere.

samspade said:

I've never read The Fountainhead. (I probably should.) But I always knew this was my philosophy. I grew up with liberal-leaning parents - centrists but more liberal than conservative. When you grow up you believe everything your parents believe. Then when I got to be around 14 I "rebelled" and went right wing. Only thing was I went too right wing for a while, toeing the GOP party line. That didn't feel right to me, either. There is just as much false nobility in Republican doctrine as in Democratic; it's couched on "values" and "morals" rather than "equality" and "Progressivism."

At some point a light went on in my head. I tossed all the noise out and thought about the human animal. There were obvious truths in front of me but I had to pull away the veils of the left and the right.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not against acts of charity. I'm not against a safety net here or a sensible law to protect people there. And even though I'm agnostic, I certainly don't have a problem with the right of people to worship whatever or whomever they choose. If it makes sense to me I will support it. Cost/benefit. But I support what I do because of my interests as much as someone else's. If helping society helps me, then I'm okay with it. (E.g., it's better for me to have one set of sewer pipes than competing privately owned ones competing for my business. I'll happily pay more in taxes for this service from one source.)

It all ties into DJ-ism perfectly. Rather than self-interest I call it the Pursuit of Happiness. But of course I didn't come up with that one.

Click to expand...

keep in mind, i am talking about objectivism in the context of dating/male female relationships not necessarily as a whole,.

as i stated i donate my time and money to help causes that I feel are very worth while. I am a big brother in the big brothers/sisters program. before i had my falling out with AA I donated a ton of my time and at times even my house to fellow recovering addicts.

do not mistake or overstate what I am saying. This isn't a forum for politics or finances or religion or anything of the sort we are talking about women in that sense, I believe the only way that I can be happy and get what I want with this mindset. it's what women find attractive.

and the thing is,


you know... this is probably some **** that needs to be on rollo's blog what i am about to say.

you know what i just realized... women's objectivism and what is in the best interest for society are always one in the same. if a woman wants you to "be a man and get married" everyone looks at you with scorn. if you say.. why i just met you i don't know enough about you to be married you are the one in the wrong yet both of you are doing the exact same thing; you are looking out for YOUR precieved best interest.

when i first met my wife, and we courted a little and when we both laid out our cards eventually about how we felt about each other.. she just expected me to drop what i was diong at that oipnt and now date here. while i liked her, i wasn't ready for that yet. i just met her, i wanted to know what i was really dealing with so i was in no rush. she hated this. deep down, and I really believe this now that i know her, she knew i was right or at the very least she knew where i was coming from, but she wanted me to herself. she is older than i am and was giving me a soft sell to "move it along" so to speak.

some guys will say, see she is being X Y Z.. so are you. so we all are. the person who is in control is going to always cfall the shots and if she is in control those shots will very rarley have your best interest in mind

This might sound crazy. But I've learned a lot about being a DJ in my masters program. Taking a Capitalism class has taught me all about philosophy. One of the most important things that I've learned in the class is that everyone is worried about themselves. Atlas Shrugged is Rands bestselling book and in this book you can see Ayn Rand’s philosophy of egotism. Self-interest is the core of this philosophy. In the novel, you can clearly see Ayn Rand’s original philosophy of objectivism!

Read Ayn Rand fellas. It will help you out in the business world and in many other aspects of life!!

PrettyBoyAJ said:

Self-interest is the core of this philosophy.

Click to expand...

I got the same thing from Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations.

one of the more famous quotes:

Adam Smith said:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

Click to expand...

EVERYTHING we do is based on our self interest. You either get some immediate payback, some kind of promise thereof, or you get what Murray Rothbard called "Psychic Revenue." Some kind of "good feeling." Even then it's a purely selfish act.

Nothing you EVER do is NOT SELFISH. It's a matter of what your skills are, what you are comfortable doing, and what kind of understanding you have about the environment that your working in.

Guys that give girls flowers are just as selfish as guys who lie to them about their income so they can get some quick and easy puzzy.

Even Mother Theresa was motivated by pure selfishness. Her actions gave her the best rewards based on her morals, values, and worldview.

It's always about ME. It's just that most guys have poor skills, discipline, and long range planning.

People want some kind of result, put forth some half-azzed crap effort that gets crap results, then they rationalize it by saying "Well, I didn't want to be SELFISH...I care about OTHER people too, ya know..."

EVERYBODY is ALWAYS selfish. It's just that some people are much better at it, and generally create mutually profitable (financial or emotional) win-win selfish interactions, while others suck at it.

If you think altruism actually exists, think again.

Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
Ridley - The Origins of Virtue
Pathological Altruism

Completely agree with BackBreaker although I haven't read Fountainhead.

I read Atlas Shrugged and it goes along the same lines.

And yes, it asymptotically converges to DJ'ism and the truths that are preached here over and over again.

I am so glad to see like-minded individuals here. The support (along with righteous criticism) to Carlin, Rand, and proper DJ'ism lately gives me a lot of hope about this forum.

It's good that our chubby veteran K-Sutra is not around these days
(he is probably busy saving a bankrupt marriage)

Dear BoilerMaker,
Don't worry about Karma,the Oldens all come back,just like Tokyo!

Scaramouche said:

Dear BoilerMaker,
Don't worry about Karma,the Oldens all come back,just like Tokyo!

Click to expand...

taiyuu_otoko is beyond a doubt the member whose name gets distorted the most on here!

By the way, glad to see you back around these corners, taiyuu.

PairPlusRoyalFlush said:

Anyway, the idea that altruism doesnt exist is anti-Austrian methodology.

Click to expand...

Actually, the presuppositions of Austrian economics are incongruent with the idea of altruism.

The same goes for altruism, you simply do not know why someone does what they do or what SUBJECTIVE, SUBCONSCIOUS benefit they receive, you only know that that they did it and their own explanation for why they did it can inform your analysis.

Click to expand...

All I need to know is that they receive SOME benefit, however defined by them. According to Rothbard (Man, Economy, and State), ALL human action is directed toward improving one's condition, no matter how self defined.

(And that's about the most basic underlying assumption of Austrian economics that you can get).

All action is undertaken with the underlying assumption that the resultant state of the actor will be improved.

You are correct in saying that nobody, perhaps not even the actor himself, precisely HOW or in what form their state will be improved, but the motivation to act is to improve the state.

Altruism states the opposite. It's action that improves the state of somebody else, at the expense of the self.

No matter what it appears like on the surface, any actor, in any situation, has an inherent belief that their own state will be improved through their course of action.

...you can say that I'm delusional because I gained some benefit out of making that person happy. And you would have just defined altruism and applied it to me

Click to expand...

Since you gained some benefit, you were not acting according to altruism. Altruism states that you will act with an expectation, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, of being in a lesser desirable state when the act is finished.

the ALL THINGS CONSIDERED means just that. Perhaps you removed a bad feeling of guilt for not helping, perhaps you had some subconscious programming from childhood saying you have to help out a friend in need, maybe you looked into your subconscious crystal ball and thought it might make for a good example to use in an internet argument someday, who knows.

As Bastiat (one of the oft quoted sources of libertarianism and Austrian economics) said, one must look not only to the seen, but also to the unseen.

The surface of one's actions may appear to be altruistic, but when you consider the unseen, there is ALWAYS an expected payoff, of some kind, to ALL action. It might not be the gain of a benefit, it often times is the removal of a perceived negative. (e.g. if I don't throw some money in the collection basket my neighbors will think I'm a cheapskate)

It is therefore impossible for anything OTHER than purely selfish behavior to exist. Some of it is acknowledged, some if it isn't, most often by the actors themselves.

Getting back to Ayn Rand, I tried reading Atlas Shrugged, but I just couldn't finish it. I could see where she was going, but I just didn't get into it.

I got MUCH MUCH more out of Man, Economy, and State. Just as long, but MUCH more eye opening as far as removing the scales from your eyes to see how reality actually operates, as it's an actual description of things, and not a metaphorical philosophical treatise.

rynd does babble. she probalby could have gotten her point across and just as effectivnly while cutting about 1/4th of the book out. there are entire chapters in the book that are just not even necessary

with that said she could probably out game most DJ's on this forum lol. **** she talked her husband into letting her have an open afair with another man.