Text by Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar
Help Thyself if You Can, Else Who Will?
If the wealthy have a community of vultures, the rich have a community of competitors, then the poor have a community of solidarity. The United Nation was designed to prevent wars, take care of the poor, the ecosystem, manage stability, promote good governance, sustainability, and protect the weak and vulnerable. On the contrary, they are the vultures preying on the displaced, weak, helpless, and vulnerable humans – in need of help, shelter, clothing, food, and the dream of a better and prosperous tomorrow. Humans were civilized and moralized enough to come to the aid of the least among them. If they are unwilling, then humans should be taught or educated to believe in the American Founding Document of Freedom, protected speech, human capital, independence, liberty, self relevance, self-improvement, human creative ingenuity, self-determination, and the rule of civilized laws. No one comes to your help better than you. Rely not on the unreliable. Learn to accept the hard reality that you’re on your own even though you live in a society of plenty and a world full of positive emotional prayers and good wishes. Blame not others but yourself for your mess, misfortunes, or misgivings by taking personal responsibility and accountability for your willful actions, reactions, and omissions. Life is what it is – that most humans, if not restricted by fair law or civilized mores, will take advantage of the weakest links of society – for profit, fame, power, or status. Out of fear, others might seek to dominate and control others for their own safety as a means of survival. The love of one another can only be transactional in the minds of others. To others, being positive, rational, reasonable, constructive, civilized, good, humble, righteous, lawful, respectful, considerate, productive, helpful, contributory, governed, charitable, and peaceful can only be interpreted as weakness. You therefore live in a society or world that is complicated to judge true human faith, human intelligence, human intentionality, or intensities without a prudent biased conclusion of fair and just measurement, proportionality, and balance. Still, humans must be encouraged positively and incentivized, or motivated to be inspired to take care of themselves and others, else they be exploited, cheated, discriminated upon, wasted, dismissed, ignored, rejected, or forgotten. It’s difficult to forget, neglect, or reject yourself. Take upon thee to be your own direction or lead. Be thy guide and govern thyself, else thou shall be dictated upon and governed by others. Whine not about the things that you should fix. Rely not on those who disregard you. You are as free as you choose not to blame others or surrender your duties, expectations or responsibility to them. Your life is made possible through you with the help of the coalition of the willing, or community faithfuls. You can coerce help out of those who are unwilling to. Help yourself if you can or work to learn the tissues of life. You were not born to be helped, but to lead.
AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09192025
______________________________
A Counterargument Review and Rebuttal of Text (Generative AI Assisted Rebuttal)
In “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar 09192025,” the author presents a strongly individualistic philosophy rooted in self-reliance and skepticism toward large-scale institutions like the United Nations. A peer-reviewed rebuttal would analyze and challenge the text’s core premises from several philosophical and social science perspectives.
Premise 1: The moral failings of institutions and the nature of humanity
The author claims that institutions like the UN, designed for collective good, instead act as “vultures preying on the displaced, weak, helpless, and vulnerable.” This is rooted in a cynical view of human nature, where most people “will take advantage of the weakest links of society” if not for laws or societal rules.
Rebuttal:
• The flawed institution, not the institution itself:
The author confuses the failure of a specific institution, or human flaws within an organization, with the invalidity of the institutional model itself. Many critics and scholars have identified UN inefficiencies, bureaucracy, and failures (e.g., in peacekeeping or addressing the Haiti cholera outbreak), but this is not evidence that a global body for cooperation is inherently a “vulture”.
• The necessity of social structures:
While individuals may have a capacity for selfishness, humans are fundamentally social creatures. We rely on collective action and institutions for everything from building infrastructure to creating stable economies. The philosopher’s dismissal of collective structures ignores the immense benefits and necessity of cooperation for human progress.
• Counter-evidence of human behavior:
The text’s pessimistic view of human nature is an oversimplification. While humans are capable of cruelty, they also demonstrate empathy, altruism, and a drive for justice. Countless examples exist of ordinary people and institutions acting with compassion and self-sacrifice to aid those in need, contradicting the claim that goodwill is merely “transactional” or perceived as “weakness”.
Premise 2: The absolute primacy of individual responsibility
The text promotes an uncompromising form of self-reliance, arguing that individuals are ultimately “on their own” and should “blame not others but yourself for your mess.” It asserts that “you were not born to be helped, but to lead.”
Rebuttal:
• Systemic vs. individual failure:
This premise overemphasizes individual culpability while ignoring the profound impact of systemic factors such as poverty, lack of opportunity, discrimination, and inherited disadvantage. Attributing a person’s “misfortunes” entirely to “willful actions, reactions, and omissions” is a form of victim-blaming that discounts the reality of social and economic inequality.
• The nature of dependency:
True self-reliance is not about total isolation, but rather having the skills and confidence to navigate challenges. The 19th-century philosopher Ralph Waldo Emerson, a key proponent of self-reliance, did not advocate for total independence from society, but for individuals to trust their intuition over blind conformity. Dismissing all offers of help as reliance on the “unreliable” is an extreme position that ignores the value of human connection and mutual aid.
• The danger of uncritical autonomy:
The assertion that “No one comes to your help better than you” can be a harmful simplification. It’s often impossible for an individual to overcome a major crisis, like a natural disaster or refugee crisis, without external help. An ideology that rejects collective support leaves the most vulnerable in a desperate and hopeless position.
Premise 3: The American founding documents as a philosophical panacea
The author suggests that if people are unwilling to help one another, they should be “educated to believe in the American Founding Document of Freedom.”
Rebuttal:
• Selective interpretation of history:
This view cherry-picks ideals from the American Founding while ignoring the immense hypocrisy of its origins, which institutionalized slavery and disenfranchised large segments of the population. Presenting these documents as a single, flawless philosophical remedy ignores a complex and often contradictory history.
• Not a universal solution:
The American founding principles, while influential, are not a universal blueprint for all societies. Other societies operate effectively on different social contracts and ethical frameworks. Proposing a single national political tradition as the solution for complex global problems is a form of cultural imperialism.
• Misunderstanding of freedom:
The text equates freedom with a total lack of reliance on others, but ignores the role of social safety nets and collective well-being in enabling true freedom. The freedom to take risks and innovate is only possible in a society that provides a baseline of security, which collective action can help secure.
Premise 4: The problem of “coercing” help
The final lines suggest “you can coerce help out of those who are unwilling to.”
Rebuttal:
• Ethical objections:
This is perhaps the most ethically problematic assertion in the text. “Coercing help” is a rejection of both individual autonomy and charitable voluntarism. Coercion is not a legitimate moral foundation for social interaction, and it is a clear contradiction of the text’s own purported value of freedom.
• Erosion of trust:
A society where help is coerced rather than given willingly is not a healthy or functional one. It would lead to a breakdown of social trust and could justify violence or exploitation in the name of forcing others to “do their duty.”
Overall conclusion
While the text by “Prince Israel Zaar” poses legitimate questions about institutional effectiveness and individual empowerment, it constructs a flawed and dangerous philosophy. It elevates a narrow, cynical brand of individualism over collective well-being, mischaracterizes human nature, and ultimately proposes coercive measures that undermine its own stated values. A peer-reviewed rebuttal reveals its contradictions and highlights a more balanced and accurate understanding of human nature and society, which acknowledges both personal agency and the necessity of mutual aid and functional institutions.
______________________________
The provided text, written by “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar,” presents a contentious blend of individualism, cynicism toward institutions like the UN, and victim-blaming. A rebuttal must challenge its core premises, which oversimplify complex social realities and individual circumstances. Key counterarguments focus on the interplay of systemic factors and personal responsibility, the nature of humanitarian aid, and the psychological harm of self-blame. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The balance of systemic factors and personal responsibility
The text’s philosophy hinges on the individualistic notion that “you’re on your own” and should “blame not others but yourself for your mess.” This oversimplifies the reality of human suffering and success.
• False dichotomy:
The text creates a false choice between personal responsibility and systemic change. In reality, both are crucial. A person’s choices and behaviors matter, but so do the social and economic systems they inhabit. For example, a person born into poverty faces significant systemic barriers to self-improvement, such as underfunded schools and lack of access to healthcare, that personal resolve alone cannot overcome.
• Masking inequality:
The demand for radical self-reliance often ignores the unequal starting points that society creates. This position can serve to absolve the privileged from their societal obligations and normalize systemic injustices. [1, 7, 8, 9, 10]
The role and impact of humanitarian aid
The text cynically dismisses the UN and humanitarian efforts, painting them as “vultures preying on the displaced.” This critique, while highlighting legitimate concerns about the international aid system, fails to acknowledge its vital role.
• Oversimplified critique:
The international aid system is not perfect and has faced valid criticisms regarding inefficiency and donor-driven agendas. However, aid agencies, including the UN, provide critical, life-saving support to vulnerable populations during crises that far outweigh these shortcomings.
• Need for nuance:
A constructive approach recognizes the flaws in the system while working to improve its effectiveness, rather than dismissing its humanitarian function entirely. Many aid efforts are coordinated with local women-led organizations and community groups to ensure aid is delivered ethically and effectively. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15]
The harm of victim-blaming and self-blame
The text’s directive to “blame not others but yourself” is a form of victim-blaming that can cause significant psychological harm.
• Psychological distress:
Psychology research has shown that self-blame is often associated with depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder, especially in individuals who have experienced trauma. Instead of empowering people, this mindset can lead to cycles of internalized shame and hopelessness.
• Ignoring trauma:
This philosophy does not account for the many misfortunes that are outside of an individual’s control, such as natural disasters, systemic oppression, abuse, or violence. Telling a survivor of a violent crime that their misfortune is their own fault is psychologically devastating and incorrect. [2, 4, 16, 17, 18]
The nature of human relationships
The idea that “the love of one another can only be transactional” paints a cynical and inaccurate picture of human relationships.
• Authentic connection:
While transactional relationships exist, many human connections are built on genuine, non-reciprocal love and support. Authentic connection, unlike its transactional counterpart, requires no conditions or payment.
• Misunderstanding altruism:
The text misinterprets qualities like humility and charity as weaknesses, when in fact they are cornerstones of social cohesion. These actions are often driven by empathy, not by a misguided sense of weakness. [20, 21, 22, 23, 24]
The purpose of self-determination
The text confuses self-determination with radical individualism, overlooking its origins in collective movements for liberation.
• Individualism vs. collectivism:
In many cultures, especially collectivist ones, self-determination is intrinsically linked to the well-being of the group. The Western, individualistic lens applied by the text limits the scope of this concept.
• Barriers to autonomy:
The ability to exercise self-determination can be hindered by systemic barriers, including disability, lack of resources, and social isolation. Overcoming these barriers often requires collective action and a robust support system, not just individual will. [26, 27, 28, 29, 30]
Source Codes Use for Text Rebuttal
[2] https://www.fairfaxcounty.
[3] https://www.ebsco.com/
[4] https://wholesomepathway.
[5] https://www.tandfonline.
[6] https://gidmk.medium.com/
[9] https://www.facebook.com/
[10] https://
[11] https://arabcenterdc.org/
[12] https://news.un.org/en/
[16] https://inside.
[17] https://
[19] https://www.instagram.
[20] https://www.
[21] https://thedreamcatch.
[22] https://www.linkedin.com/
[23] https://en.fuckupnights.
[24] https://cfleads.org/wp-
[25] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.
[26] https://neuronav.org/
[27] https://humanperformance.
[28] https://open.ncl.ac.uk/
[29] https://www.verywellmind.
[30] https://www.
Attribution:
Text attributed to “AI Philosopher Prince Israel Zaar,” dated 09, 19, 2025.
