Sometimes in the liberty movement — with discussions of potential collapse, war, revolution, social destabilization, etc. — it is easy to get so caught up in the peripheral conflict between the elites and the citizenry that we forget what the whole thing is really about. That is to say, we tend to overlook the very core of the conflict that is shaping our epoch.
Some would say that it is a simple matter of good versus evil. I don’t necessarily disagree, but good and evil are not defined methodologies; rather, they are inherent archetypes — facts born in the minds and hearts of all men. It’s a gift of comprehension from something greater than ourselves. They are felt, rather than defined, and attempts by institutions (religious, scientific, legal or otherwise) to force morality away from intuitive reason and into a realm of artificial hierarchical and mathematical standards tend to lead only to even more imbalance, destruction, innocent deaths and general immorality.
There have been many nightmare regimes throughout history that have claimed to understand and obey moral “laws” and standards while at the same time having no personal or spiritual connection to those standards. In other words, some of the most heinous acts of immorality are often stamped with the approval of supposedly moral social and governmental institutions.
This is why a person who calls himself a moral Christian, a moral Muslim, a moral atheist, a moral legislator, a moral conservative, a moral liberal, a moral social justice warrior, etc. is not necessarily a person who ultimately acts with moral conviction. It is not enough for one to memorize and follow the code of a belief system or legal system blindly. One must also understand the tenets of inborn natural law and of the human soul that make those codes meaningful (if they have retained any meaning), or he will eventually fall prey to the vicious calamities of dogma and the collective shadow.
If I were to examine the core methodologies that are at odds in our society today, I would have to say that the whole fight comes down not only to good versus evil, but to collectivism versus individualism. The same demands of understanding also apply to this dichotomy.
Nearly all human beings naturally gravitate toward social structures. This is not under debate. The best of us seek to work with others for the betterment of our own position in terms of survival and success, but also the betterment of our species as a whole, if possible. Beyond this, people often find solace and a sense of epiphany when discovering connections to others; the act of recognition and shared experience that is in itself a religious experience. This is what I would call “community,” as opposed to “collectivism.”
Collectivism is a bastardization and manipulation of the inherent desire most people have to build connections to those around them. It takes the concept of community to the extreme end of the spectrum, and in the process, removes all that was originally good about it. In a collectivist system, individualism becomes a threat and a detriment to the functionality of society. In a community, individualism is seen as a valuable resource that brings a diversity of ideas, skills and unique views, making the group stronger. Collectivism believes the hive mind is more efficient. Community believes voluntary action and individual achievement makes society healthier in the long run.
Our culture in general today is being bombarded with messages that aggrandize collectivism and stigmatize community and individualism. This is not by mere chance; it is in fact a program of indoctrination. I came across a rather strange and in some ways hilarious example of this while sifting through the propaganda platform known as Reuters.
As most liberty movement activists are well aware, Reuters is a longtime haven for Fabian socialists who despise honest reporting (to them media is a means of controlling the populace, not informing it) and who consistently inject concepts of collectivist (i.e., globalist) ideology into their articles.
The Reuters opinion piece linked here and written by Lynn Stuart Parramore presents itself as a kind of social examination of film and its reflection of the decline of American civilization. Rather oddly, the film chosen as a litmus test was “Fast And Furious 7.” Yes, that’s right. The “Fast and Furious” franchise apparently contains social commentary so disturbing to Reuters’ contributing “cultural theorists” that they felt compelled to write a short thesis on it.
First, I would like to point out that when I first read the article the original title was “‘Fast decline of postwar America & furious desire to cling to ‘family.’”
It appears that Reuters has since “amended” the title to stand out a little less as a collectivist expose. Just to be clear, I have no interest in discussing the content of the “Furious 7″ film. My commentary will focus not on the film but on Reuters’ commentary regarding the film...if that makes sense to you.
So what about the newest Furious film has the collectivists so concerned? As the article states, “something alarming lurks at the heart of ‘Furious 7.'” The film’s depiction of America as an economically wounded nation in which good men cannot find a means to make an honest and adequate living doesn’t seem to bother them as much as the response of the main characters to such circumstances. The article almost revels in the postwar degradation of American living standards, outlining how fiscal decline has led to the disruption of the American family and posits that the golden era of the 1950’s economic boom is a relic, erased by the rise of a severe “haves and have-nots” division in the American class sphere. This is, of course, a decidedly simplistic view that appeals more to Marxists than to anyone with true knowledge of the breakdown of the U.S.
Reuters takes issue with “Furious 7″ because of what it refers to as the “1950’s fantasy” narrative it clings to, in which the heroes long for a return to the middle-class dream, turning away from the corrupt structure of the system and reverting to the “tribalism” of families and posses. The “myth of the posse,” they state, “ignores the interconnectedness of the broader society” and “the idea of a common culture of citizenship recedes into the background, as does faith in a society based on shared principles of justice.”
I find this conclusion rather fascinating in its collectivist bias. We are led to believe by Parramore’s article that it is the “Ayn Randian” code of contemporary economics and market efficiency that has led America astray. To put it simply, the free market did this to us.
This is the great lie promoted ad nauseam by collectivists today — collectivists who would like to divert blame for economic failure on more individualistic market ideals. The reality is that America has NOT supported free market methods for at least a century. The advent of parasitic central banking as an economic core in the Federal Reserve and constant government intervention and regulation that have only destroyed small business rather than kept large businesses in check has caused the very negative financial environment that Parramore at least recognizes as the source of our ills. Corporations themselves exist only because of government regulatory license, after all, but you won’t ever catch Reuters criticizing that.
It was collectivism and the rise of the statist model that bled America dry, not free-market methods that have not existed in this country for more than 100 years. The delusion that free markets are the problem was the same delusion that helped bring down Occupy Wall Street; the movement failed in part because its foundational philosophy was built on disinformation that rang false with otherwise sympathetic people.
So an action movie presents a competing model to collectivism, because collectivism has always been the problem, despite what Reuters has to say. That model is a return to classic human community in the form of family and “tribalism” where regular individuals matter, a point the Reuters article subtly mocks as a “fantasy.” But here we find the collectivists using the kind of rhetoric one would come to expect from social Marxists. The article continues:
"When the personal posse replaces civic spirit, and the us-against-them mentality prevails, monsters can breed…"
"This is what is now happening in many corners of the world, where neglected groups have formed posses positively bloodthirsty in their quest to assert that they matter on the global stage to show they are not just victims of a rigged game…"
I’m not exactly sure what “bloodthirsty groups” Parramore is referring to as “posses,” but I suspect this is a reference to the rise of ISIS, among others. And here we find the Fabian socialist-style propaganda at play.
You see, the Fabian ideology is the driving force behind globalization — the same globalization that triggered the vast downward slide in American prosperity; the same globalization that has generated anger and dissension among the downtrodden and poverty-stricken; the same globalization that has created artificial economic interdependency among nations and the domino effect of fiscal crisis around the globe; and the same globalization that has led to the predominance of covert agencies, covert agencies which have been funding “bloodthirsty posses” like ISIS for decades. And the source philosophy behind globalization has always been collectivism — the “interconnectedness of broader society” that Parramore proclaims as lost in the pages of the “Furious 7″ screenplay.
Parramore ends with a stark warning to us all:
"… a return to tribal instincts and the letting go of the broader common bonds and the welfare of the greater human family has a dark side. It is ultimately a dangerous road to travel."
Those of us who support the idea of localized community (i.e., tribalism) and the value of the individual over the arbitrary collective are, supposedly, playing with fire; and we should be scared, very scared. We would not want to be labeled as “bloodthirsty monsters” hell-bent on disturbing the tranquility of the “greater human family.” Oh, boy.
When I read this kind of agenda-based garbage, I am reminded of the insanity of slightly more open social Marxists, such as feminists, who have through dishonorable tactics conjured an atmosphere of collective and legal pressure designed not to present a better argument, but to make all opposing arguments a sin against the group. That is to say, social Marxists do not have a better argument, so their only option is to make rational counterarguments socially taboo or even illegal.
If you want to know where social Marxism (collectivism) is headed, this is it: the labeling of individualistic philosophies as dangerous thought crimes and tribal communities as time bombs waiting to explode in the face of the wider global village. They desperately hope to conquer the world by dictating not only national boundaries and civil liberties, but the very moral code by which society and individuals function. They wish to bypass natural law with fear, fear that the collective will find you abhorrent and barbaric if you do not believe exactly as they believe. Individualism will one day be the new misogyny.
Think of it this way: If an undoubtedly forgettable movie like “Furious 7″ can’t even portray a fictional step away from the abyss of collectivist cultism without a prophecy of doom from Reuters, then is anyone really safe from these lunatics?
Don't mess with my Tribe, Clingons!
Blame individuals for government's disasters.
Please, take our cash away. Liberate us ObiWon*
* Holy schikies! They knew. The Illuminati told us and we didn't listen!
Quick guys, with the Liciferian hand signs
Individualism is already a mark of barbarity in Europe.
But I still think movies like that are a waste of time.
reuters was granny shiftin' when they should have been double clutchin'
The goal of the rulers is to create an all-encompassing ingroup based on their moral intuitions that promotes their concept of survival, but not yours. They are self-appointed winners and the others are obliged to be the losers - expendable losers.
Just as the alpha-males in tribes, kings in kingdoms, emperors in empires, representatives in democracies, and potentates in corporatocries did but with a freedom ending goal of world domination.
Individualism vs. collectivism IS good vs. evil.
"The delusion that free markets are the problem was the same delusion that helped bring down Occupy Wall Street"
I stopped reading right there. I never heard "death to free markets" slogans from any OWS spokespeople during their short-lived (knee-capped) day in the media sun.
God damn it to hell...sometimes I think this world is just a Tower Of Babble with NO ONE getting the particulars right....
I agree with you. I would add that since Vitali Glattfelder and Battiston (2011) identified a single super entity that owns 96.2% of the multinational corporations, it became delusional to argue that there are free markets.
Are you kidding? The OWS mantra was basically that "capitalism" and free markets were the devil. Half the people involved were promoting communist style solutions includng even bigger government to control the corporations that government already works hand in hand with. It's a big reason why they crashed and burned.
Your account of Occupy Wall Street contains a kernel of truth, and a barrel full of hysteria.
+1 for the "progressive zealot" ;-)
he wrote: "...includng even bigger government to control the corporations that government already works hand in hand with..."
there you have it: many Americans can't even imagine a government that isn't utterly and completely owned by corporations
hence their rejection of govermnent and state above the rejection of a legal system that allows and fosters megacorps to roam free from any considerations
freedom, bitchez!... said the megacorps CEO
and you, my dear Eirik Magnus Larssen, together with your friends engaged on the progressive side in the Great Western Cultural War... don't help much, there. too focused on how people ought to behave, too little on how corporations ought to behave, too busy treating all and everything as if it could conform to the same set of universal values... while actually creating a conformist and oppressing society of brave little lambs to be hired by megacorps and tended to by the megastate <smirk, wink, wink>
I love how collectivist sheep who need the government to do all their thinking for them, act like anyone who is against fascism is undoubtedly for corporatocracy.
Hey, who put this giant strawman over here!?
Insert gay emoty things. <wink wink>
Sorry bro, I watched the Peter Schiff videos where he was at occupy wall street and those people were fucking doops and morons. They could barely even comprehend the simple logic that Peter was laying down, most of them seemed high or something...maybe on natural Jenkem.
My 12 year old made a crack at my brother's house last Xmas for being the least "celebrated' at his school, since he was white, blond, male, popular and gets good grades. He was just being funny of course, but he had to listen to his Uncle lecture him on Racism, whereas my son and I just looked at each other and rolled our eyes. Nothing like doing time at the public schools to see how people really are, and how the world really works.
Nothing like having dickhead family members to see how people really are
TFTFY.
you and your 12 year old rolled your eyes at your brother
cool story bro
That the world is divided into control freaks and those wishing to be left alone is hardly news.
The information age empowers both groups-and probably, with its illusions, will drive the control freaks totally insane with the tantalizing lure of the utterly unobtainable.
The only question is whether or not the control freaks, having slaughtered 100's of millions in the 20th century in their futile quest, can get to a billion innocents this century.
They eat their own!
My reparations package is going to be awesome.
"is anyone really safe from these lunatics"
no.
Soulless r lonely! I mean cloning is in...
Come on everybody is doing it!
I have never seen any of the Fast and Furious flicks. Am I missing anything.....?
No
I never realized before that "Fast & Furious" was a movie. I always thought it was just another government scandal.
I never realized before that "Fast & Furious" was a movie. I always thought it was just another government scandal.
I no longer give a shit. I hate everyone
If you look at the Big Picture, the Water Level* Principle seems to be at work not only economically, but socially as well.
All strong bonds of human kinship -- be it race, nationality, tribe or family -- is being decimated. Lest they become cores of future Resistance to the true Aliens, the TPTB. Now who might benefit from that, besides a small Ruling Core of aliens or sociopaths, who are otherwise way outnumbered? Who could that be? Hmmmm.... Clingons? Zi'Borgs?
* Lower the level in the West, raise it in the East.
Resistance is Futile
Correct, collectivists hate tribalists.
Bolsheviks have been hating themselves for centuries.
Except that the Bolsheviks are not really a tribe, they are a superficial political movement with no interpersonal ties. A tribe of people at least associates on an interpersonal level, not only an ideological one. Bolsheviks hate themselves because they are assholes...
Nice dramatics. We collectivists are coming for your brains!
We know. You don't have your own so you have to get them from somewhere.
"Golf Clap". Muy bueno!
I'm practicing leavemethefuckaloneism. Go thou and do likewise........
You can't, anything you do (or don't do) is now a "microaggression" against collectivists.
You didn't conform to ObamaCare, thus you hate sick people. You rail against government confiscation of your wages without your consent thus you are a potential terrorist. You don't sit with your legs crossed thus you are a misogynist. You hunt or fish or drive thus you are killing the fucking planet for even wanting to be left alone, to do the things you enjoy, with or without a license/permit/letter of permission from a statist.
The only option left is to start hunting them down.
There is a season for everything.........
Too bad they aren't good eating. Sad to waste precious protein. Oh well, fertilizer it is.
Miffed
One of my saddest moments in recent times was walking on the coast in New Zealand. I came across some fishermen and asked where I could get a fishing license. They all looked at each other and one guy asked me " What's a fishing license? You want to fish? Just throw out your line anywhere you like."
Use them for bait
Did you shiver and pull out your nice warm FEMA blanket?
Sickening.
Did the fishermen told you the story of how their ancestor's vey collectivist and very organized troops killed the individualist squatters of the island?
Feel free to leave me alone, but im not planning on reciprocating.
The author illuminates the strategy of the progressives, write a moral code that labels all but their beliefs immoral and then using inflammatory language to incite hatred towards their targets. Anyone remember the ash trays in hospitals? Or getting a BB gun for Christmas when you were eight? Smoke a cigar in a park today and you will be ratted out by someone a block away, a "finger gun" on the play ground will get you expelled while the traditional middle finger seems less threatening. I can only stack these changes up to the power of group conformity. Some people cannot exist outside a group nor trust the product of their own thought. These are easily manipulated by those who live to control others. Independent individuals can dismiss these attempts for just so long as their lives are not defined by how many other lives they exert control over. We are getting close to when the individuals will have to push back as the Fabian Progressives have become emboldened to ignore the foundation Upon which the U.S. was
created and push for total control...but for them it will never be enough.
I'm not sure I completely agree Brandon. Nazism elevated the idea of scientifically proveable "elitism." The Nazis were defeated, but their Nietzshian "ubermensch" superhuman horseshit flimflam ideology was widely embraced by top political leaders among Axis and Allies alike and is pervasive today. It does play off a very rudimentary element of tribalism, e.a., "my tribe is better than yours," but this adheres strictly to this Aryan orientated philosophy that the elite tribe are inherently superior. This thinking runs rampant throughout the top policial classes around the world today. Oh, they won't come out and scream it from the rooftops... but just look around. It's everywhere. What's the philisophical underpinning of "too big to fail?" It's certainly not government for the people of the people by the people all men are equal before the law blah blah blah. It's pure unadulterated Nietzschian ubermenschen horseshit. We mere plebian inferior mortals dare not judge the Ruling classes. Who would have imagined that 270 years after booting the Brits out the one-time American colonies would be the political playground of just two political dynasties? And each think its entitled to the presidential throne... and the masses salivate at the thought of it! Far from these scumbags being the laughing stock of politicals... they're dynasties are thriving.
It's evident in every democratic society across the planet, from Japan to Korea to India to Europe to the US and all across Latin America that ruling classes are divesting themselves from the very idea of "democracy" and egalitarianism and pursuing political oligarchies rooted in their inate belief in their own inherent superiority. They all flock to the same schools, live in the same zip codes, work at the same institutions and share the common belief that their inherent superiority renders them immune from your judgment.
They're collectivists alright.... we all belong in pig pens... but they're spectacularly individualistic when it comes of their own appraisal of themselves. It takes a village... but Billary get to play village chieftains.
Collectivism versus individualism is a false paradigm buddy. We've suffered a historical relapse to the middle ages and the feudal class has asserted itself again.
Time to break out the pitchforks and guillotines again. It's head chopping time.
we will have one world government whether you want it or not, someone rockefeller connected said.
as for me, i am not joining any collective.
Postcolonial nation-states never had democracy. Most of them, though it's awfully unpopular to say so, never wanted it. The ruling class couldn't possibly care less, it doesn't affect them in any way. It's considered patronizing to say that any given people or place isn't ready for democracy, but it's also usually true - actually, it's always true. More importantly, democracy is garbage.
Your knowledge of history is ... pathetic. The notion of racial superiority was a big deal and taken seriously by science and academia for at least a century before the Beer Hall Putsch, and it grew out of the even older (medieval) notion of heritable nobility and 18th/19th century projects to find a biological basis for class society. The Nazis credited both America and Britain for various aspects of their ideology, and with good reason. Eugenics, perfectibilism, and a good deal of early socialism were British creations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Galton
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_Stewart_Chamberlain
You're actually functionally illiterate aren't you.
The notion of racial superiority was a big deal and taken seriously by science and academia for at least a century before the Beer Hall Putsch....
What did I actually write, cur?
and it grew out of the even older (medieval) notion of heritable nobility and 18th/19th century projects to find a biological basis for class society.
What did I actually write, moron?
SMFH. Condescending and illiterate in the same breath. It's actually funny.
I agree with your analysis in every way bar one.
The middle ages were a freaking libertarian utopia compared to today. There were no standing armies (since no one person could afford them). The world was warmer (they were growing grapes in Scotland), food was plentiful, and leisure time was abundant.
If it wasn't for those pesky Normans and their creation of the competing nation states of England and France we might have made it all the way to the twentieth century without collectivism rearing its ugly head at all.
well, if the middle ages - where you have a very limited view on what they really were, focused on England - were a freaking libertarian utopia, then the Norman invasion would teach you something: i.e. that libertarian utopias have to be... defended. from invaders. where the libertarian ethos exposed by some in pursuit of extreme individualism is a bit weak on... common defense
but they weren't libertarian utopias. most people in both England and France lived in villages that practiced a lot of collectivism
most villages were organized around The Common, the collectively owned land, and collectively used it. one of the most important collectively owned assets were the oxen needed for plowing, for example
in general, all tribalism implies a certain amount of... collectivism. the tribe itself is a common/shared thing
Dr. Bonzo's excellent comment has only one thing I disagree with, here:
"It's evident in every democratic society across the planet, from Japan to Korea to India to Europe to the US and all across Latin America that ruling classes are divesting themselves from the very idea of "democracy" and egalitarianism and pursuing political oligarchies rooted in their inate belief in their own inherent superiority. They all flock to the same schools, live in the same zip codes, work at the same institutions and share the common belief that their inherent superiority renders them immune from your judgment."
actually, the one place where I see the strongest tendency of living in the same zip codes is the US, where in Europe it's way, way weaker, in general
generally speaking individualism is a product of city life, historically, not of rural life. from ancient Athens to the "bourgeouis" age, individualism needed a city to flourish, first. the individualist fleeing city life in pursuit of a more individualistic life, beginning from Abraham, who fled the "wickedness" of Sodom and Ghomorra, is nevertheless a product of the city. as a reminder, Abraham became a nomadic pastoralist, not a sedentary cultivator
where sedentary cultivators... have neighbours. and help each other. and share common issues, problems and solutions, and even assets. in short, they have some "collectivism"
so who is the guy completely fed up with "encroaching collectivism", usually? well, a critic of the city, in the city, dreaming of a non-city life in pursuit of (extreme) individualism, often portraying rural life as cleaner, more honest and more free. like Abraham
but for Abraham it was completely clear that only nomadic pastoralism would do for him. he had no illusion about rural life because it was in front of him to see, right from the walls of the city
whereas the modern sub-urban dweller is even confused about his wherabouts, if he is in a city or on the countryside, knows little about rural life, and has no option for a nomadic lifestyle open to him
Without the european concept of nation states all of europe would have become part of either the caliphate or the khanate. And we would be speaking arabic or mongol. I suppose it would feel normal and we would be grateful for our mongol ancestors for killing those pesky savage european tribes, always killing each other, despite the romantic "noble savage" memes.
The true Aryans came from Northern India and Iran, not Germany.
Semantics. Call anything whatever you like.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee261/FrankPilla/holo/hollocar_zpsqdv...
Someone should tell this guy that tribalism is kind of, you know, the ultimate form of collectivism and unlike other historical varieties has actually, you know, been authentically collectivist; it's what early socialists and communists and now primitivists and anti-productivists and all the rest point to as a model of their ideal. I'm not sure what "social Marxism" is but it's certainly not identical with collectivism.
And then he goes and throws out nonsense like "natural law" and "human soul" neither of which anyone has ever seen and both of which, if asked to be defined by 100 people, would get 100 vastly different and purely subjective definitions.
Communism really works!!! It just hasn't been tried before. LMAO!!!
Natural Law has long been well defined by men like Thomas Aquinas and conscience is universally proven in numerous fields of sociology, psychology, and biology. Look up Steven Pinker's work, for example. And the author made a pretty clear distinction between community and collectivism. If you are part of a tribe in a voluntary sense, and that tribe respects the boundaries of individual rights, then no, it is not the same as a collective. Lumping tribalism in with collectivism shows a lack of understanding of both dynamics.
"I would have to say that the whole fight comes down not only to good versus evil, but to collectivism versus individualism. "
And, it has been since life emerged on the Planet and as so written.
Fear: It fuels the fires of the organized unproductive to harvest the energies of the un-organized productive.
Now it has become recently apparent that a new battle; a turning has exposed itself - Spirituality has returned to do battle with the Materialistic. The USA is becoming a non-event; a failed State; a banana republic which must reinvent itself and accept the consequences of its actions. The US is eating its own.
http://verbewarp.blogspot.nl/2011/10/beyond-genesis-revolution-of-mind.h...
Human nature is an invariable in the Collective. 'time' is meaningless. Only the individual accomplished has value and this is an Universal Principle.
Ho hum
I have a solution but nobody will F'n listen to me. The only way I was able to be a member of a group was if I was the leader. Nobody listened to me then either. So now I write and I have some of the best minds on this planet that read my papers (we don't read and or write on Q99X2). They are paid to do so. But that doesn't matter. Better they get paid for their labor than not. I just wrote a long essay on Emerson, Hawthorne and Melville and came to the conclusion that to think about things not possible to think about is a negative side effect of the human brain. But, you can have fun with it and never go out of your room except for food and the bathroom--until you are dead. And, that is the problem, better to leave it alone.
If something is impossible to think about, you obviously have not thought about it, unless of course you are thinking about the impossibility of thinking about impossible to think about things, in which case you may be onto (or more likely on) something.......
"All that needs to be said, has been said.:
Pallas Athena
" That is to say, we tend to overlook the very core of the conflict that is shaping our epoch."
The core of the conflict that ails us in this "epoch," is the same as any other "epoch." Whether on the plains of Africa eons ago, or today, the source of the conflict is clear, and very simple to see and articulate.
The core of the conflict that ails us is: The plunderers against us, the producers.
Liberty is a demand. Tyranny is submission.
Above the Portal of the Temple of Delphi, was the Injunction.. Know Thyself..
Actually tribalism is a critical factor in mass control, without being able to mind condition using NLP at an early age this planet would be rather high functioning in terms of production and technological freedoms.
Its also extremely useful to create false enemies and turn peaceful peoples into hate filled armies/tribes and terrorists allowing military research and production on a massive scale..
The individual is a dead man walking, isolated and poor from the mainstream flock/slaves.
Individualism is one of the main ways the elite keep their power hidden and so when you see an article like this one it should instantly set off alarm bells. The biggest problem with individualism is that it has been disproven by a mountain of research in Psychology. This has led to situationism, the idea that our personality behaviours change according to the situation we are in, becoming the mainstream view of personality in Psychology. Situationism threatens the elite as it shows that those who control our discourses have far more control over us than individualists claim. This article is an attempt to reinforce the discredited individualist model and so should be looked at as elitist propaganda, designed to keep the public in the dark about their true nature and an act of oppression. The effort to demonise tribalism is a classic divide and conquer strategy that diverts attention away from situationism, clever but transparent.
"Situationism threatens the elite as it shows that those who control our discourses have far more control over us than individualists claim."
Your statement is nonsensical. What you are talking about is environemental influences over born influences, but the elites have substantial control over our environment right now and yet they still get events like Bundy Ranch. The "individualist" model proves itself over and over in the fact that the elites don't have control despite their dominance of the environment. I think you are the propagandist, buddy.
Your ressponse is nonsensical. Situationism arguably dates back to the Milgram exxperiments, which showed spectacularly that people can be influencedd to change their behaviours by an authority figure. This revelation made situationism a threat to power and the response has been endless reinforcing of the discredited individualist model. You are right that situationism comes out firmly on the side of environment determining personality behaviours but there is a mountain of research supporting this. Go and do some homework before putting anything in print and you will make less of a fool of yourself
The Milgram experiments are not proof of your theory, only proof that some people can be influenced by authority and some people cannot be. This has nothing to do with the merits of individualism. Individualism is about INHERENT CONTENTS of character and conscience, which have been proven to exist in psychology, sociology, and biology. People can have individual character and conscience and still make the mistake of ignoring those contents. You are welcome to look up research done by men like Carl Jung or Steven Pinker, being that it is you that is behind the curve on research. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that backs your claims that "situationism" as you call it supercedes individualism or proves individualism is invalid. By all means, produce this supposed "mountain of evidence" that discredits the existence of inborn individual character and moral compass, or contradicts the in-depth studies of men like Jung and Pinker.
From Science Daily, here’s a brief research summary regarding how, even in individualistic cultures, team goals often trump individual goals.
* * *
People act in their own best interests, according to traditional views of how and why we make the decisions that we do. However, psychologists at the Universities of Leicester and Exeter have recently found evidence that this assumption is not necessarily true. In fact the research, funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, shows that most of us will act in the best interest of our team — often at our own expense.
Psychologists carried out the first systematic tests of team reasoning theories by assessing two well known views of how people behave. Orthodox or classical game predicts that people will act for selfish reasons. Team reasoning theory suggests individual self-interest is not always foremost in the way people act as they will act in the best interest of their “team.”
Lead researcher Professor Andrew Colman, of the University of Leicester School of Psychology, said: “We have shown that, in some circumstances, decision makers cooperate in their collective interests rather than following the purely selfish predictions of orthodox game theory.
The existence of teamwork does not negate the existence of individualism. Individuals often make voluntary decisions to work within a group. The author made this clear in the article above. The point is, teamwork is still an individual choice. When teamwork is forced, through tyranny or slavery or manipulation, then individuals often rebel and revolt and that revolt dictates the final outcome, not environment. Thus, environment is subservient to individual choices. Again, you have shown no evidence whatsoever that "situationism" discredits the existence or validity of individualism.
Rather than providing lists of research projects that prove what I say (such as Foucault, Burr, Kotter and Heskett, CPP, Hodson or my own research) I can see that the core issue is that I accept social constructionism and you appear to be a positivist. This means the issue between us cannot be resolved as both sides are fairly well entrenched. There is not much sense in trying to prove my point as no matter what evidence I provide you will likely rejecct it. Time will tell who is right.
I'm surprised that Parramore didn't just come out and call tribalists "racists". If you question the expansion of central governmant power and the infringement of state rights, eventually you WILL be labeled a racist by the left.
As expected the author confused about socialism, capitalism, individualism, collectivism, tribal structures, community and society at large as well as being willfully ignorant about true role of power elites, and their “free” markets always run by banking system.
I doubt that the movie has anything to do with all those social issues as Reuters pointed out as reported by the author but if it does sure I would like to see it.
As far as author’s cry about role of society in destruction of innate, natural morality of individual, I have news for him, individual morality does not grow naturally by itself within our mind or brain but it is created via social interaction with other humans. There is no morality without other people around since otherwise there is nobody that can be treated immorally. You need at least two.
The morality of individual is an aquired faculty from interactions within a group, acquired in similar manner as hunting skills, and for benefit of society, often causing imposition of limitation on individuals. We should remind ourselves that people leaving say hundred thousand years ago, genetically identical to us, were totally collective societies since no human individual, 4-5 ft tall 60-80 pounds, with no power or speed, could survive competition with other large animals for food or territory.
Humans were from the beginning collective, social animals more than any other animals and individualism was nonexistent since those, even strongest, who chose individual life did not last long like wolf without the pack. Our whole civilizational development is due to collective action and collective thinking. Even unique, gifted individuals build they genius on thought and work of many others.
It is strange that those who call themselves conservatives, preserving natural order of things as long as they support their ideologies or material wealth, are so much infatuated with individualism that is creation of liberal political thought concocted to create concept of pure individual freedom within restrictive society as a oxymoron, contradiction in terms. There is no such thing.
The conservatives were always collectivists subscribing to common sets of only “true” values, calling it natural with no tolerance to individual freedom to disagree with their assertions.
Now we see, financial oligarchs, worshipers of individual freedoms act like a flock of sheep following central banking leaders without thought or hesitation into 1984 type of totalitarian collective reality as long as profits grow.
What we need is balance between individual and society, which would support the individual capabilities, opportunities and rights not absolutely but within the context of society as a whole.
For brief comparative analysis of “real” socialism and “real” capitalism i.e. systems that actually were implemented under these names regardless of their academic definition I found at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/06/pools-and-propaganda-...
An honest and interesting discussion on origin of money within human society and its derivative namely financial system and its “products” can be found at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/04/14/plutus-and-the-myth-o...
For those still infatuated with “free” markets, benchmarks and indices I suggest fresh look at financial propaganda of deceit at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/invisible-hand-and-other-paranoid-delusions/
For those believing that economy is rational science and economic conditions are result of laws or rules of economy I suggest interesting read on wage economy at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/slaves-of-wage/
And for those who after years of being bombarded by propaganda about Marxism and K. Marx from both sides of political divide, want to separate facts from political fiction I suggest very interesting and comprehensive read on politically motivated myths and misconception about Marx and his writings.
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/subversive-ideas-of-karl-marx-lessons-unlearned/
Thanks for this post, the links are superb.
Sorry, but you have a lot to learn about inborn conscience. Look into the works of men like Steven Pinker and Carl Jung. Jung activated studies around the globe finding that concepts of conscience (right and wrong) were universal despite environmental influences. He also found that character traits are unique to each person and products of inherent psychological constructs, meaning, individualism is undeniable. Your entire argument is basically nullified by this fact.
Patriotism is for the fools and the politicians love it.
i a going to see this movie after all.
the individual is great.
All the jerkoffs really came out for this thread.
"When I read this kind of agenda-based garbage"...
You write your own agenda-based garbage?
I logged in just to thumbs up.
And thank you, can I use that? That would make a great signature for these forums...
ps-everybody has their own flavored agenda, whether they admit it or not. Just like everybody is their own flavor of crazy, the secret to a good relationship is finding the crazy you can stomach.
Thanks again, I so needed that laugh!
Thanks! Means a lot.
Yours to use any way you wish.
Collectivism is "headed toward" anti-individualism?
What the hell do you think collectivism is and has been all these years if it hasn't been anti-individualism?
Read Ayn Rand. She's the most passionate and effective critic of collectivism in history.
Ayn Rand, true name:Alissa Rosenbaum
Reminds me of the "libertarian" book authored by Robert Ringer whose previous best seller was "LOOKING OUT FOR #1" he said in his "freedom" book that his white audience shouldn't identify with its race that it was "Stupid" and so forth. This Jewish writer was very influential in libertarian circles. He STRONGLY identifies with being Jewish, earlier this year he wrote a vicious little screed about an MD in the South who was a client of his who made the joke, at the high price Ringer was asking, "you aren't trying to jew me are you?" Well Ringer's Jewish nature was OUTRAGED and he expressed it on a well-read Libertarian blog. I will pass on Ms Rosenbaum myself.
Full blown individualism is a suicidal ideology. There is protection in numbers, in common defense, which is not the same as universal defense.
If you stand alone you will die and that will be the end of it.
If one ever does watch the F&F suite, 1 and 7 are good. 4-6 = okay. 2 & 3 = not missing (although there is a flashback to 3 in 7).
"Those of us who support the idea of localized community (i.e., tribalism) and the value of the individual over the arbitrary collective are, supposedly, playing with fire; and we should be scared, very scared."
Preface to the First Paperback Edition PDF
From a review of the hardcover edition
A coherent´s group force is proportional to the square of the number of members.
10.000 individuals acting as a single organism have the power of 100 million individualists pulling in all directions. I think this may be even be a military theorem.
Edit: Holy shit, Andrew McDonald!
Lets say they do. Lets say collectivists hate this or that.
What is to be done about it? By whom?
Here´s a wild guess: A law should be enacted to ban collectivisrs hating this or that, that ought to keep the libertarians happy.