This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
There are very few legitimate cultural divisions in the world. Most of them are arbitrarily created, not only by political and financial elites, but also by the useful idiots and mindless acolytes infesting the sullied halls of academia.
It is perhaps no mistake that cultural Marxists in the form of "social justice warriors", PC busybodies and feminists tend to create artificial divisions between people and “classes” while attacking and homogenizing very real and natural divisions between individuals based on biological reality and inherent genetic and psychological ability. This is what cultural Marxists do: divide and conquer or homogenize and conquer, whatever the situation happens to call for.
They do this most commonly by designated arbitrary "victim status" to various classes, thus dividing them from each other based on how "oppressed" they supposedly are. The less statistically prominent a particular group is (less represented in a job field, media, education, population, etc.) in any western society based on their color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, etc., generally the more victim group status is afforded to them by social justice gatekeepers. Whites and males (straight males) are of course far at the bottom of their list of people who have reason to complain and we are repeatedly targeted by SJW organizations and web mobs as purveyors of some absurd theory called "the patriarchy".
Although cultural marxism does indeed target every individual and harm every individual in the long run, my list of personal solutions outlined in this article will be directed in large part at the categories of people most attacked by the social justice cult today.
I do not write often about PC cultism and social justice because the movement is only a symptom of a greater problem, namely the problem of collectivism. The only true and concrete social (group) division is the division between collectivists and individualists: between those who believe the individual should be subservient to the group mind and those who believe the group is meaningless without the individual mind.
I have already spoken on the root dangers and logical inconsistencies of the social justice cult in articles such as ‘The Twisted Motives Behind Political Correctness' and 'The Future Costs Of Politically Correct Cultism.'
There are many intelligent commentators on the Web who have consistently demolished the PC mob with reason and logic, and I leave that battle to them. In this article I would like to continue my examination but with the goal of presenting some real and tangible solutions. And like most solutions to most problems, it is the individual who is required to draw the line in the sand and change the way he approaches the realm of cultural Marxism. It is not up to groups, organizations or governments.
First, let’s be clear, cultural Marxism has already done most of the damage it can possibly do to our way of life. And by damage, I mean the end of long-standing foundational pillars of society that provide stability and prosperity, including traditional marriage (not government-licensed marriage), family, gender “roles,” etc. (which cultural Marxists openly boast about tearing down).
In Western nations male suicide rates are way up. Women’s proclaimed levels of happiness and contentment are way down, despite the fact that they have had wage equality for decades (yes, the wage gap is a perpetually pontificated Lochness monster-sized myth that was debunked years ago by economists like Thomas Sowell), despite the fact that they have surpassed men in educational participation and despite the fact that they have total control over family planning.
Marriage rates are at historic lows since the 1970s and the rise of social justice activism. Of course, the argument is often presented that economic decline has more to do with this than cultural Marxism. However, setting aside the rising tide of men who fear being bled dry through divorce settlements based on double standards, the West’s economic decline (and thus marriage decline) can be correlated to the increase in overt debt spending. And debt spending is driven directly by socialist legislation, entitlement programs and social welfare addiction, more so even than it can be correlated to military spending.
Therefore, cultural Marxism and its vicious attempts to forcefully “harmonize” wealth through taxation and welfare have indeed caused the very economic conditions by which marriage is made untenable and families are made unstable.
While women become more and more unhappy, men and masculinity are essentially demonized by cultural Marxists (mainly feminists) as “toxic.” This propaganda campaign has been so successful that men in many first world nations are beginning to pursue, for all intents and purposes, an asexual lifestyle safer from collectivist intrusions and judgments.
As if the psychological browbeating were not enough, the chemistry of the male body is also being warped by estrogen-imitating chemicals present in industrial products, plastics and soy-based foods. A decline in normal levels of male testosterone and an ever increasing hormonal feminization of younger generations of men and boys is becoming prevalent.
Indirect chemical influences aren’t the only threat. Direct drugging of boys (with far greater frequency than girls) with psychotropics in order to subdue their natural tendencies towards physicality and frenetic activity is epidemic in public schools, all with the goal of making boys behave more like girls.
Finally, the erasure of free speech and thought is always the holy grail of cultural Marxists; but this is not always done through government power — at least not right away. Social justice cultists rely more on collective pressure and public shaming tactics to engineer an environment in which people feel compelled to self-censor rather than deal with the hailstorm of witch hunters and wagging fingers.
Cultural Marxists do use government force to police what they consider thought crimes, but usually in an incremental manner. One day, it’s the use of government to demand associations, as with a Christian-owned cake business being forced to work for another party that feels entitled to a gay wedding cake. Another day, it might be a public school being forced to allow boys dressed as girls in the girls’ bathroom or locker room. Another day, it might be the implementation of lowered standards and quotas to force businesses to hire people with victim-group status, even if they are unqualified for the job.
All of these actions impede upon the individual freedoms and privacy rights of others, all under the guise of “equality.” And because cultural Marxists need to constantly observe ever greater modes of oppression and inequality in order to justify their existence, the impositions on individual liberty will never end. Today, people may argue that such violations are “minor” and not to be concerned over. It is happening to strangers or distant neighbors, not to them; so why should they care? Liberty movement champions know full well why this thinking is idiotic; the trampling of one person’s individual liberties is the trampling of ALL people’s individual liberties. Totalitarianism is a virus that feeds on one person to the next until everyone is on the menu.
It is not enough anymore to simply continue pointing out the insanity of political correctness; we must also take useful steps toward reversing the destruction already wrought.
And so, here are my solutions, which must be enacted by individuals in their daily lives regardless of the potential backlash. Do you have leftist leaning friends or family members? It doesn’t matter. Are you employed in a workplace crawling with social justice ideologues? Stop seeing them as part of the equation because they do not matter. Worried about losing a relationship if you make a stand? Say good riddance. This is what must be done by free thinkers if they are to counter and reverse the collectivist nightmare of cultural Marxism.
Feel no shame: Social justice relies on shaming tactics, usually by slandering an opponent with a label that does not really apply to him, in order to control his arguments and behavior. If you don’t care about being called a bigot, a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a homophobe, etc., then there is not really much that they can do to you.
Do not self-censor: This does not mean you should go out of your way to be antagonistic or act like an ass, but the thought police have power only if you give power to them. Say what you want to say when you want to say it, and do it with a smile. Let the PC police froth and scream until they have an aneurism. Cultural Marxists are generally weaklings. They avoid physical confrontation like they avoid logic, so why fear them?
Realize there is no such thing as white privilege or male privilege: In reality, there is only institutionalized “privilege” for victim-status groups. There is no privilege for whites, males, white males or straight white males. When confronted with such claims, demand to see proof of such privilege. Invariably, you will get a long list of first world problems and complaints backed by nothing but easily debunked talking points and misrepresented statistics. People should not feel guilty for being born the way they are, and this includes us “white male devils.”
Demand facts to back claims: Cultural Marxists tend to argue on the basis of opinion rather than fact. Present facts to counter their claims, and demand facts and evidence in return. Opinions are irrelevant if the person is not willing to present supporting facts when asked.
Do not play the game of "unconscious bias": If social justice cultists can't counter your position with facts or logic, they will invariably turn to the old standby that you are limited in your insight because you have not lived in the shoes of a - (insert victim group here). I agree. In fact, I would point out that this reality of limited perception also applies to THEM as well. They have not lived in my shoes, therefore they are in no position to claim I enjoy "privilege" while they do not. This is why facts and evidence are so important, and why anecdotal evidence and personal feelings are irrelevant where cultural Marxism is concerned.
Let cultural Marxists know their fears and feelings do not matter: No one is entitled to have teir feelings addressed by others. And, a person’s fears are ultimately unimportant. Whether the issue is the nonexistent “rape culture” or the contempt cultural Marxists feel over private gun ownership, their irrational fears are not our concern. Why should any individual relinquish his liberties in the name of placating frightened nobodies?
Demand that society respect your inherent individual rights: Collectivism’s ultimate propaganda message is that there is no such thing as inherent rights or liberties and that all rights are arbitrary and subject to the whims of the group or the state. This is false. I have written extensively in the past on inherent rights, inborn psychological contents and natural law, referencing diverse luminaries, scientists and thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas, Carl Gustave Jung, Steven Pinker, etc., and I welcome readers to study my many articles on individualism. Freedom is an inborn conception with universally understood aspects. Period. No group or collective is more important than individual liberty. No artificial society has preeminence over the individuals within that society. As long as a person is not directly impeding the life, liberty, prosperity and privacy of another person, he should be left alone.
Maintain your rights; they do not hurt other people: PC cultists will invariably argue that every person, whether he knows it or not, is indirectly harming others with his attitude, his beliefs, his refusal to associate, even his very breathing. "We live in a society", they say, "and everything we do affects everyone else...". Don’t take such accusations seriously; these people do not understand how freedom works.
Say, for instance, hypothetically, that I refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for a couple and I am accused of violating their rights in the name of preserving my own. I would immediately point out that no one is entitled to a gay wedding cake, baked by me or anyone else and I have every right to choose my associations based on whatever criteria I see fit. Now, a corrupt government entity may claim I do not have that right. But the fact is I do, and no one — not even government — can force me to bake a cake if I don’t want to. Also, I would point out that the gay couple in question has every right in a free society to bake their OWN damn cake or open their own cake shop to compete with mine. This is how freedom works. It is not based on collective entitlement; it is based on personal responsibility.
Refuse to deny the scientific fact of biological gender: Gender is first and foremost a genetic imperative. Society does not determine gender roles; nature does. A man who chops up his body and takes hormone pills to look like a woman is not and will never be a woman. A woman who tapes down her breasts and gets a short haircut will never be a man. There is no such thing as “transgendered” people. No amount of social justice or wishful thinking will ever allow them to reverse their genetic proclivities. Their psychological and sexual leanings do not change their inborn biological reality.
By extension, we should refuse to play along with this nonsense. I will never refer to a man in a wig and dress as a “woman.” I will never refer to a woman with identity issues as “transgendered.” They are what nature made them, and we should not police our pronouns just to falsely reassure them that they can deny nature.
Deny the illusion of Utopian equality: There is no such thing as pure equality. Society is not a homogeneous entity, it is an abstraction built around a group of unique individuals. Individuals can be naturally gifted, or naturally challenged. But there will always be some people who are more apt towards success than others.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism). I do have a problem with the lie of universal equality through engineered means.
Standards of success should not be lowered in order to accommodate the least skilled people to facilitate artificial parity. For example, I constantly hear the argument that more people with victim group status should be given greater representation in positions of influence and regard within our culture, from science and engineering, to media, to business CEO's, to politics, etc. The key word here is "given", rather than "earned". There is nothing wrong with one group of people excelling in a field more than another group, and there is nothing wrong with inequality when it comes to individual achievement. We must begin refusing to reward people for mediocrity and punishing success simply because the winners are not part of a designated victim group.
If you are a man, embrace your role: I am a man and cannot claim to know what specific solutions women should take to counter cultural Marxism. I would love to read an article written on the subject by a woman in the Liberty Movement. I will say that men in particular have a considerable task ahead in terms of their personal endeavors if they hope to repair the destruction of social justice.
For thousands of years, men have been the primary industrial force behind human progress. Today, they are relegated to cubicles and customer service, to video games and Web fantasies, to drug addictions and a lack of responsibility. If we have any chance of undoing the damage of cultural Marxism, modern men must take on their original roles as producers, inventors, entrepreneurs, protectors, builders and warriors once again. They should do this for their own benefit, and not for the validation of others.
You don’t have to prove to anyone you do "manly things", just go out and do them. Most importantly, become dangerous. Men are meant to be dangerous beings. That does not mean we are meant to be indiscriminately violent (just as women aren’t meant to be indiscriminately violent), but we are supposed to be threatening to those who would threaten us. Modern society has NOT removed the need for masculinity and I believe people will begin realizing this the more our culture sinks into economic despair. Train in martial arts, learn tactical firearms handling, go hunting and don’t take lip from people. In my opinion, every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.
Home-school your children: It’s simple, if you don’t want your kids propagandized, if you truly want them to be free from collectivist conditioning, then you will make the sacrifice and extract them from public schooling. With the introduction of Common Core into U.S. schools in particular, there is no other recourse but home schooling to prevent the brainwashing of cultural Marxism. If you do not do this, you are relying on the hope that your children will escape with their critical thinking abilities intact. Some do, and some don’t. Others turn into mindless social justice zombies. You can give them an advantage by removing them from a poisonous environment, and that is what matters.
The insane lie that cultural Marxists seem to have conned themselves and others into believing is that their “activism” is somehow anti-establishment. In fact, social justice is constantly coddled and supported by the establishment. From politicians to judges to media pundits to the blogosphere, the overwhelming majority of people in positions of traditional power (even in supposedly conservative circles) have been more than happy to become the enforcers of the social justice warrior agenda, an agenda representing a minuscule portion of the public. There is no establishment for the PC army to fight; the establishment bias works vastly more in favor of their ideology than any other. Cultural Marxists ARE the establishment.
»
- 52016 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
"The only true and concrete social (group) division is the division between collectivists and individualists: between those who believe the individual should be subservient to the group mind and those who believe the group is meaningless without the individual mind."
This kind of binary thinking is another problem, and one that manifests here often. There are those of us who value individualism, but who also see the value of collectivism when it comes to battling oligarchs, who are the ultimate example of individualism gone wild. The two concepts are not mutally exclusve, and it is not necessary for any of us to decide between being a pure individualist or a pure collectivist.
That's something to think about over the W/E. ;-)
The layering mechanisms that oligarchs use to shield themselves from the " human decision making" process, makes them very dangerous.
It's easy, and far more sterile to create layers of responsibility between those pulling vs tugging on the strings. ;-)
<contemporaneous>
This kind of binary thinking is another problem, and one that manifests here often. There are those of us who value individualism, but who also see the value of collectivism when it comes to battling oligarchs, who are the ultimate example of individualism gone wild. The two concepts are not mutally exclusve, and it is not necessary for any of us to decide between being a pure individualist or a pure collectivist.
You have set up a false choice between pure individualism and pure collectivism. Rational individuals understand that there is a difference between voluntary interaction and involuntarily interaction. Why do you insist that without an elite class which forcibly compels everyone else to do their bidding individuals would not be able to interact with each other?
Also, how is instituting an elite class with the right to use force against all other individuals not handing power over to oligarchs directly?
For a poet, you are not very subtle in your effort to redefine what I say. I advocate for ordinary people to band together and form a government to battle oligarchs. You call that an "elite class." The Founders of this country called it a government of the People by the People. Meanwhile, your hero Rand believed in an elite class of "productive" people lording over us. Funny how you don't see it.
Please explain why you believe that individuals can't work together voluntarily but must rather be forced to do the bidding of government through violence and threats of violence.
Please explain why giving the power to use violence against others to a small number of people is not handing power directly to oligarchs.
Please explain why you believe that individuals can't work together voluntarily and must be communists if they want to.
I demand my right to interact voluntarily with others, a right which government denies to its charges.
Have you given up the stance that compulsion is necessary for human interaction and are you now embracing voluntary association?
If so, that's great. But it would still be helpful if you could state why you formerly believed that compulsion by those with guns and prisons is necessary and what made you change your mind.
Do you really need to reframe and misrepresent everything I say in order to make your points? Oh, right.
Why can't you be honest about your position? We both agree that individuals are more productive when they interact with others but you say that that interaction must be centrally managed by compulsion and I say that voluntary interaction produces greater efficiency and is ethically sound.
Are you willing to explain why you support compulsion over voluntary interaction or not?
So what do you do about warlords? Pure individualism without regard for others lead to the Wild West with some of the most astonishing rates of murder ever seen. There was little to no government in most areas only a local sherrif some deputee's and the occasional posse. Meanwhile, armed bandits imposed their will and regularly violated property rights let alone the right to no be shot.
If you believe in pure anarchy as in no government whatsoever, I propose that you are not in touch with the realities of human behavior. Hobbes had a point about a greater power keeping many in check. The key is small tranpsarent, local, republic with rule of law. Government is a very fickle thing. Too much and you have totalitarianism, too little and you have warlordism.
The rule of law within a representative Republic with free markets is the best system we've come up with. It's too bad at the time we had this we also had slavery. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Take the best of what the founding fathers offered and get rid of that which just isn't right (slavery and only landed male gentry voting).
sjw's and miscegenationists are the worst.
Rand, why do you contend that it takes another government to fight oligarchs? Government and top-down limited liability business structures are the problem.
This is an instance when Rand is correct.
Nationalism has nothing to do with governments.
"I will never refer to a man in a wig and dress as a “woman.” " imo brandon smith has not met a good one yet; perhaps montana is not the best venue for really convincing transvestites. but be assured they exist, and in quantity. in the right circumstances far more than referring to one as a woman can transpire before realization occurs (i speak of the experience of a friend of mine, of course).
"I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of equality of opportunity, which is exactly what we have in this country (except in the world of elitist finance which is purely driven by nepotism)." whoa. really? purely driven by nepotism but, oddly, in only one economic sector. none in, say, politics or hollywood or the military or the law or medicine or computers (gates got the ibm contract because ibm's boss knew gates' mom) or law enforcement or small business . . . .
makes you wonder if there might be a few more exceptions to equality of opportunity. local property taxes paying for most of the expense of public schools couldn't be involved could it? relative rates of crime and disease between rich and poor neighborhoods would be irrelevant as well, right?
seems shades of grey may apply to more than erotic spanking.
End the Fed and the bull shit goes with it.
end the Fed
Governments, in time, naturally grow beyond their established duties? The old power corrupts....in time?
Are we social animals or not? Those choosing individualism should not be punished or controlled by group thought?
Individualism is a threat to the types of a Hillary Clinton, who wants the world to fall in lock-step with her thinking and rule?
The Federal Reserve exacerbates the problem by further enriching "those guys"?
The oligarchs are blamed but not identified, a mysterious controlling group which makes confronting impossible unless you just bash everyone that has X amount of wealth?
Pure collectivism is for weak and insecure people, which there are many as self-reliance is becoming a lost skill.
We waited to long to fix it because now, with CBs around the world, it has metastasized.
Amendment to the US Constitution:
All government officals and all laws will sunset every 50 years. The new government and it's laws will be finalized and approved by the citizens 3 years prior to the effective date of the sunset.
“There's a huge swath of humanity that has developed verbal abilities to extract resources from guilt-ridden people.
They used to be priests, and now they're leftists.”
? Stefan Molyneux
how-stamp-out-cultural-marxism-single-generation
Stamp out Marxists?
The first two minutes of this video is the basic response to SJWs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCZI_uqbVI
The only reason "The Big Lie" works is because it is a lie. For example, if the SJW lie that everyone doing productive work was out to actively screw over their opponents (as opposed to the political class), well, what would happen if indeed every productive person (i.e. you have a job or you made your own job) actually put a chunk of their money to fighting back? Imagine seeing some billboards up on the road, imagine some cities getting the typical politicians kicked out and "freedom cities" established, and so on?
Seriously, a few bucks and 30 minutes a day from enough people and Cultural Marxism will evaporate.
the thing about worshipers of 'individualism' as an ethos---------it takes them quite a bit of time to understand that true indivdualism doens't preclude the right of the individual to coerce others. because that is just ethics.
yes , yes, we all know that preaching ethics , i.e. religion is a nice thing, but in reality there is no intervention by god to punish or STOP the individual who uses violence from coercing other people.
calling this individual 'government' , when his authority is instuttionalized , or 'criminal' when it is either not insitutionalized or corrupted instiuttions---------does not address teh fundamental issue about describing SYSTEM THAT FUNCTIONS.
no human beings are isolated in a vaccum of individual choice. why? because humans are social animals and at the very least, must have sex to have children and must take care of one another lest they die of starvation. without human cooperation, there is almost no ability to get food and process food.
we are evolved to be social, and this means, a system that can be described as a practical guide for human affairs MUST engage both at the indiviual level and the social level. to ignore the fact that VIOLENCE IS BOTH INDIVIDUAL AND SOCIAL IN NATURE for the sake of describing fairy tale situations in which you'd LIKE humanity to exist is just a silly exercise.
and this is why extreme descriptions of 'libertarianism' 'individualism' 'anarchism' are just as silly as calling 'communism' or 'facism' anything other than tyrannical despotism.
life is about territory and power and rules play into establishing stable systems of territory and power . pretending that 'ism'izing everything will help make a perfect logical structure in which reality can nest itself is ivory tower ideological idiocy. III.
Pure individualism without regard for others
Have you heard a word I've said? I support the right of individuals to interact voluntarily. Individuals want to interact with others and their motivation is their regard for others. Furthermore, an individual can successfully interact voluntarily with others only if he has regard for them otherwise they will choose not to interact with him.
These is basic, self regulating human behavior that those who dream of central planning simply can't grasp.
If you believe in pure anarchy as in no government whatsoever, I propose that you are not in touch with the realities of human behavior
I am in touch with reality and that requires observation and rational analysis. Would you agree that a just government must operate according to the will of the people? If that is so then why would the government need to subject the people to taxes, fines, prisons and worse? If the government worked according to the will of the people the people would go along without needing to be forced. The very concept that people must be forced to follow their own will is bizarre.
If the purpose of government is to ensure that each individual is secure in his person and property then the method of government -- that of compulsion by force -- stands in opposition to that stated goal. One can not be free of theft and violence by demanding to be subject to theft and violence.
But Emerson said all this years ago and he said it much better than I could.
"Every man's nature is a sufficient advertisement to him of the character of his fellows. My right and my wrong, is their right and their wrong. Whilst I do what is fit for me, and abstain from what is unfit, my neighbor and I shall often agree in our means, and work together for a time to one end. But whenever I find my dominion over myself not sufficient for me, and undertake the direction of him also, I overstep the truth, and come into false relations to him. I may have so much more skill or strength than he, that he cannot express adequately his sense of wrong, but it is a lie, and hurts like a lie both him and me. Love and nature cannot maintain the assumption: it must be executed by a practical lie, namely, by force. This undertaking for another, is the blunder which stands in colossal ugliness in the governments of the world." -- Emerson's Politics
For every minute you remain angry, you give up sixty seconds of peace of mind. - Emerson
Ode to a Man Who Won't Answer
by Billy the Poet
LetThemEatRand took a pass,
And shoved his head straight up his ass.
He first felt elated,
As his rectum vibrated,
But then he succumbed to the gas.
"Welcome my son, welcome to the machine. Where have you been?"
-Roger Waters
"Would you agree that a just government must operate according to the will of the people? If that is so then why would the government need to subject the people to taxes, fines, prisons and worse? If the government worked according to the will of the people the people would go along without needing to be forced." billy the poet
imo this is preposterous on the face of it and is refuted by, essentially, every page of human history.
but i thought a bit like that at fourteen upon reading "atlas shrugged".
it just doesn't last though; kind of like crack cocaine.
The only thing required for any "system" or ideology to actually work is for every human on the planet to have a shared values and belief system. That will only happen through mass genocide or a new kind of indoctrination that has 100% effectiveness.
For justice and a completely voluntary society to exist we must ALL agree, which will NEVER happen.
The desire for liberty at its extreme demands anarchy, but anarchy only destroys existing power structures so as to create the opportunity for another.
We can study animal behaviors to better anticipate their actions, not change them. In humans we study our behaviors in the belief we can change them, make us into something different.
We study genetics to understand what makes all things what they are. We have used selective breeding to create animals with very specific traits, not just physical but behavioral as well. Yet we deny this even exists in humans, that we can somehow ignore EVERYTHING that is US, that makes us who we are. We simply need a new "system" or better yet, law, that somehow changes who we are into some idealistic new race of peace lovers and hand holders, circling the planet, ending wars, greed, violence, and COMPETITION.
If we want to succeed, SURVIVE, we best understand what it is we are dealing with and ACCEPT IT without necessarily embracing or idealizing it. OUR interests, each and everyone of us, depends on understanding the rules, not ignoring, deluding, or praying for something else.
My beliefs say hope for the best and plan for the worse.
It is only a matter of time before the tested and successful tweaking of animals is applied to humans, usually started in some dark secret corner of the world. Although the common man generally fails to connect us to the animal kindom (a religious based thing), scientist do not.
And will genetic manipulation be tolerated or even embraced when it offers us a new, more peaceful race of humans?
Will we become a race of drones, with a few unaltered queen bees in charge?
YOU KNOW ITS COMING
Will we be given the illusion of choice? Obviously the indoctrination and drugs have not proven reliable, so science will be called upon again, just as Hitler did and almost every other power of tyranny. Science or religion will always be called upon to provide the higher power that none of us can prove or disprove, with only force as the force of intimidation to garner complete "harmony" of thought.
This social exercise demonstrates the difficulties of the collective anything. We are individuals, some more than others, and innately protect our right to be so.
Only one person getting way above his station around here, and that is YOU
Billy you never addressed how to deal with warlordism. Lets say we create your situation with a puff of smoke and there we are in Billy-land. Where everyone works together on a purely volunatry basis (of course there is no historical record of this ever happening other than perhaps among some native american or other indigenous tribes). Then I come with my buddies from over the hill. I of course have a bunch of automatic weapons and so do my buddies. I now impose my will on everyone. How do you deal with that within your frame work of what I'm reading as ZERO government? You have to hope that the rest of your people all have weapons (waht if they freely chose NOT to have them) and that you quickly organize, cause me and my boys have been raiding for awhile now and we're pretty good at it.
Point is history is RIFE with examples of where governments have collapased and in the overwhelming majority of cases, unless there was a smoot and quick transistion to a new government, there was chaos and the rise of warlordism.
Also how the fuck did I get 18 downvotes proposing a return to founding fathers era government but WITHOUT slavery and only landed gentry having the vote. I'm talking a representative republic with rule of law and free markets. Has this place gone completely bat shit insane and all that's left is the racist facists and anarcho capitalists? I like the anarcho capitalist ideal I just don't see that it has much basis in reality. I certainly am not a fan of the vast sprawling centralized government with no accountability and no transparency. If government currently is at an 11 I want it at like a 1.5 or a 2.
Billy you never addressed how to deal with warlordism.
I've addressed that subject at length in other threads but in short:
Don't give money to warlords and don't enlist in their army. A healthy free market provides much better opportunities than to be a grunt for an egotistical madman. Problem solved.
If you'd like to know more see the exchange between LTER and me concerning private security services here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-18/clinton-considers-mandatory-gun...
So private police and military forces. How could THAT go wrong? Treaty of Westphalia was a mistake in your opinion then?
I find it mind boggling that you think the problem of human violence can be solved merely by privatizing it. What makes you think Warlords won't pay their troops very, VERY well? Far from being a grunt, the officers in particular for warlords tend to get whatever women and loot they want. That's why that form of organization (mercenary, pirates, raiders, warlords) is so successful. Precisely because they DO offer amazing returns for their soldiers. Rape and pillage. Have you ever read a history book?
Reality and history show that mercenaries, pirates, raiders and warlords are RIFE in areas that lack any even limited form of government. That's why government arose in the first place. People banding together to deal with the issues of the community. The problem is it got too big, too complex, too centralized and too unaccountable. Limited government like the Forefathers wrote about within a Republic with Rule of Law and Free Markets with minimal regulation. It's really not that hard to see that it is the one form of things that worked very well.
The proper framework to look at this through is concentration of power.
When power is distributed relatively evenly across the population, individuals will have the greatest freedom and personal ability, responsibility, and liberty. You will likely have a lot of crime (depending on the demeaner of the people). These are the "wild west" days.
Out of this situation, some individuals, which you've called warlords, rise in power over others. Individuals may have to give up a little of their power to appease these warlords, or they might fight back against them despite being at a disadvantage, or they may team up to fight against them.
When power is centralized in a government, individuals have reliquished some amount of their personal power and freedom. The government will prevent most individuals from commiting crimes by monopolizing force and crime and imposing rules and limitations on all of their subjugates.
If warlords in the wild west became powerful enough, joined together, and centralized, they'd become indistinguishable from a government.
Systems like "a representative Republic with free markets" are attempts by a group of people starting out with relatively decentralized power (say, after they just overthrew a previous government) to delay the eventual centralization of power by creating a series of checks and balances and by encouraging all individuals to prevent the government from getting too large with force.
But most of these systems can't work indefinitely, even in theory. For example, in "free market" capitalism, power will eventually become centralized in a small group of people.
Generally, the problem with such ideological systems is that they try to ignore or stifle part of reality, a part that their creators didn't like because it's not in their personal best interest. But, since man hasn't found a way to change the laws of physics yet, these systems are bound to fail as reality diverges from their premises.
In the example of free market capitalism, crime and coersion are typically frowned upon. However, crime and coersion are actually the tools by which the little people can eventually fight back against the centralization of power to prevent tyranny of the corporations which have centralized all of the power.
So far in the history of Earth and of human beings, power has been in continual redistribution. Governments rise and fall, revolutions occur, some nations conquer others, and so on. Similarly, new species evolve, some species conquer others, the distributions of species and their numbers vary. One might go so far as to define this state of constant change and flux as "life". It is driven by "evolution" and has created all the diversity we now have. It is what drove humans from hunters and gatherers through centuries of development to the present day, and will continue to drive us beyond.
The most obvious system we can think of in which power would remain equally distributed indefinitely would be a world devoid of life. A biologically alive system that is in a state of perfect sustainability (lasts indefinitely without changing) would likely be analogous to a world devoid of life. It also seems extremely improbable to achieve: evolution and all its causes (such as mutation of DNA caused by solar radiation) would need to be eliminated or controlled.
And that, my friends, is actually the goal that many people have for the future of the world. It goes by names such as "sustainability", "equality", or "peace", when taken to their logical conclusion. It's an idea of a Utopia based on some delusional ideas about how the world works. It was invented by pessimistic religions and persists even in many atheists today. Adherents to this dream believe that some part of life is bad -- for example: violence, oppression, poverty, inequality, etc -- and ought to be eliminated. In seeking to eliminate part of life, they have not yet realized that they'd need to eliminate the entirety of life to do so. They have not yet realized that the chaotic, unstable, ever-changing nature of life is precisely what gives it its value.
Back in reality, we all do what's in our best interest. For many, our interests are misguided or delusional, but that doesn't stop us for fighting for them. We often like to call those who don't share our Utopian ideals "sociopaths". All of our fighting fuels the continued evolution of the world. We may some day acheive what many of us subconsciously desire in destroying life entirely, or we may evolve to a point where we outgrow that dream and humanity moves on a higher objectives. What system of government we consider the best depends entirely on our personal interests.
What you are describing is exactly what Localism aims to do. No system can replace a virtuous population, but as far as system can go the key is as you outlined it, keeping power distributed http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Philosophy-Government-Mark-Moore/dp/06922...
Now this post I can get on board with. Great points. I don't disagree with any of it including the futility of holding back the darker parts of human existence. And yet we must simply do the best we can within any given situation. Thank you for your thoughts.
Just keep in mind that dark and light are relative. What Christianity and common little-person moral values today call "dark" and "evil", is the same thing called "light" and "good" by many people throughout history, including smart & "psychopathic" people today. It boils down to whether you want to be an optimist (real life = "good") or a pessimist (real life = "bad"). Maybe in the future humanity can become overwhelming optimistic. We're currently overwhelminginly pessimistic.
"Pure individualism without regard for others lead to the Wild West with some of the most astonishing rates of murder ever seen."
Link? What a liar. This isn't even remotely true. Don't confuse Hollywood Jewish propaganda with reality.
The Culture of Violence in the American West: Myth versus Reality
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=803
Wow that link blows my mind! I have mostly studied middle ages to the ancient world for history with a good bit of WWII and financial history. I will say mea culpa on the Wild West claim. I am incorrect and this link you provided is fantastic. I will say I was wrong, but it was an honest mistake. I was not intentionally lying, I was ignorant of the facts and stand corrected. Thanks for the link, because this really does open up interesting possibilities that I had taken on faith as not possible due in large part to the Wild West history that I'm now realizing is likely propaganda. I humbly apologize and will admit this turns many things on its head. Thanks for the education.
Bring the Gold, I believe you are correct in your assessment. We bestow on ourselves as sentinent beings human rights claiming they come from God or whereever. There are no rights in nature. The first thing American settlers often did when building a community was elect a sheriff. In Canada the law was most often present before settlers arrived. Self government sets limitations on what a person, and now corporations, may do so that harm is not done to another person under law. To rely on a person obeying rights law of their own volition as under Anarchy or Libertarianism is to either turn the clock back to some less populated time and start over with reeducation and hoping for the best or having a code of laws and rights as they pertain to the world we live in. The balance of limiting rights and slipping into dictatorship needs to also be satisfied in law and in a flexable structure so that logic can be applied in reforming old law or bringing new law forward as the need exists and the nature of the law making apparatus needs addressing so that it does not begin to accrue power to itself. What we need is a new form of governing that defines the current problems and provides the fix. The fix is what is neeeded and done without all the gobblygook of classifying the fix as collectivist or individualist, socialist or capitalist as it is the fix that is needed and the fix must be the most logical solution for the greater good with an eye always on the protecting of that greater good from those who would pursue their own interests over others. It is my posit that either we begin moving in this direction or submit to the growing tyranny of the wealthy and powerful which will in all likelyhood lead to the destruction of the environment and our species as well as most others. What we need is an honest judiciary and a government of limited power in service to the people's courts that must eschew any ideology in service to the greater good as seen as a best solution logically. This at times may hold the individual's rights as more important than the collectives and vice versa depending on how property is perceived.
It seems to be because he cannot understand the difference between the words "cooperation" and "collectivism". Also, he does not seem to realize that government by it's nature is force. There is the idea that because people form a government it somehow loses the use of force. It does not, even if there is some sort of democratic process.
Most anarchists do have to turn one's position into an absolute. There are a couple of reasons for this. One is that their position is an absolute and in order to keep it from looking ridiculous they have to turn the position of those who believe government can be better for us than no government into an absolute as well. The other factor is age. Young people have not seen the state as protector as previous generations have. If they have been coddled in the burbs they only see government as a potential violator of rights, not a protector of them. For more on that, and a critical look at why anarchism, and even the harder forms of libertarianism, are not necessarily true and cannot protect their citizens from either internal or external threats see http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
For a description/explanation of that middle ground that so many anarchists do not wish to admit can exist, see Localism, a philosophy of government.
http://www.amazon.com/Localism-Defended-between-Anarchy-Central/dp/09962...
OK so even for those of us hardish libertarians and quasi anarchists who recognize there are a very few positive attributes of good government done right, you must agree that in the current state of affairs what we have is NOT good government and that that we increasingly face something that is way way out of control, a huge and menacing leviathan that has more negative attributes than positive by a long long mile, right?
Yes. I agree with you. On the spectrum between anarchy and a totalitarian central state we are way over toward the latter. An anarchist would want to go all the way across the spectrum to the other end while I would stop somewhere closer to the middle, but in the meantime we can walk the same road together. A Localist thinks that all contracts between governments should be voluntary while an anarchist goes further and says all contracts between individuals should be voluntary. I know there are some anarchists out there who are pro-localist because they see it as an evolutionary step towards anarchy. I don't myself, I think they are based on different foundational principles, but as far as the journey goes it makes sense.
Let me add that Billy is trying to lump all "individuals" together as much as he is all governments together. No, not all individuals are virtuous enough for self-government. When I was a testosterone filled young buck I was not as worthy of it as I am now. Not all governments are equally hurtful of individual liberties, and not all individuals are respectful of the rights of others. He is taking what is at best and Average and attempting to apply it as a constant.
All systems of centralized power seek more power. Some are more effective at achieving it quicker, but they all are headed in the same direction.
Too many see a particular ideology as superior to all others, and undoubtedly some are much more quickly destructive than others, but our attempts to defend one over the other tends to drown out the underlying reality that it will all fail over time.
Any thinking observant person understands the corruptive nature of centralized power, just as many others do of the power a single person with a gun may hold. We also understand that there is not perfect "balance" as it is constantly changing. The balance remains at the center of a continual argument, one extreme against the other...as we see here many times. Lets just hope it remains no more violent than it currently is....but i doubt it.
I agree with your first sentence. That is why I am a localist. If you don't build government with the goal of keeping it local, keeping it within the reach of the individual, then it will centralize over time. That is what happened in the US, every generation of Americans lived with a government more centralized than the one of the previous generation. That happened whether people voted for it or against it.
Actually I agree with everything you said accept the part where you don't seem to give much stock to one ideology being superior to all others. Since you correctly ID the problem as centralization, I should think you would be more like me and see the philosophy of government called Localism as superior.
Some ideologies will drive us more quickly to the end, no doubt, and as such should be resisted. I simply believe that ALL ideologies are derived to create consensus about a "central" idea and that in itself constitutes power. It is naturally occurring and as such not defeatable in the long run. We should strive to slow the process of self destruction that occurs naturally with the corruption of power that IS inevitable. I just resist the notion that any ideology will insulate us from that inevitability. Awareness of the inevitability of corruption is our best defense against it and to glom onto some Ideology distracts from that.
This is why i see our drive to elect representatives who support our notion as doomed to failure as we are "empowering" people to remove their own "power", which in the long run CANNOT SUCCEED.
Resistance is our only real option. Like in life we must accept the inevitability of our own death, but that is not to say we should embrace it and run towards it. We seek a long and meaningful life while still accepting our inevitable death. To worship death BECAUSE it is inevitable is simply a waste and destroys all hope for meaning.
My hope is that we can embrace the principles of a conservative life that also celebrates liberty, without ignoring our realities. We are in a battle against nature and mostly with ourselves.
Let me add that Billy is trying to lump all "individuals" together as much as he is all governments together. No, not all individuals are virtuous enough for self-government.
That's why individuals must have the power to organize voluntarily for the purpose of self defense. I have not claimed that the world is full of angels but rather that most individuals understand that the right to self determination belongs to others as well as themselves and that there is strength in numbers particularly when those numbers are organized voluntarily in accordance with sound principles.
The goal of those who organize voluntarily is virtually identical to the stated goal of those who insist that government is necessary: the protection of the individual person and his property. The difference is in method, Voluntary interaction achieves the goal of individual protection more efficiently and more ethically than an involuntary system which infringes on individual rights in a supposed effort to protect those rights.
If it is so much more efficeint then why don't we see more (any?) of it?
Billy, you really should re~charge your batteries.
You're wasting your time.
BTW, what's the spread on the Spanish 10 year vs 10 year GILT?
The reason I ask, is that the British Isles' might leave the prospect of EU membership.
No one said that, you unbelievable cretin.
Becauss VITAL ESSENCE!!!11
Dr. Strangelove - Precious Bodily Fluids - YouTube
I've got a fantastic topic for you to theorize.
Literary prowess moves the masses. Financial prowess destroyes the masses.
It's called. ' Expectancy Violations Theory'.
Iz don' like white folks wit gunz.
I say old chap, you're spot on. White men with firearms are a serious threat to the consolidation of my power.
Cuz Ya lives in da gun free ZONE?
Get over yourself
The oligarchs employ the elite class--(there's the difference between the "pullers" and "tuggers" of the strings)--to do their
bidding. We have the pretense or semblance of control through faux elections. Until big money is extricated from the
political process we will stay on our destructive trajectory. The motivations of our "leaders" has morphed into an abomination
of what was envisioned by the founders. Jefferson's metaphorical tree is desiccated and over due nourishment.
Well done.
I'd suggest that you use your " Native tongue" when spreading the word.
Signed,
Hillary Clinton
Thank you Hillary, I guess.
I was " teasing" you.
Get some rest, and buy some calls, if you own the shares outstanding.
Those weren't my down arrows. Have a nice evening. Thanks for the advice.
Zero Hedge is about charts and finance.
I love the Tylers.
Zero Hedge is more than charts and finance.
Zero Hedge rocks by its social activity.
Digvtsugi Clinton gvnedana naquo!
I think she'll like that.
For Marx views consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_jRd59qy0A
For Thomas Sowell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2-DZexXjKg
"This kind of binary thinking is another problem, and one that manifests here often."
and from the post:
In my opinion, every man should know how to kill things, even if he never plans on using those abilities.
I did find it interesting that in a post where he is championing individual liberty and rights, the author then proceeds to tell me what I need to do to "be a man". I am totally confident in my masculinity and have no killing instinct. This is not the definition of a man. I do fully agree with the overall thesis that pc thinking is detroying both male and female gender identities as naturally expressed. But the solution to that is not to layer just another "supposed to be this..." on to the already artificial "supposed to be this..." that the SJWs are proposing. I agree that men who are aggressive should be allowed to be aggressive, and the author does a nice job of distinguishing between socially aggressive and socially violent. And I fully agree that it is NOT the job of society (which is a code word for state action) to lean on people's social attitudes. They love doing that! But let's be careful not to fall into easy stereotypes of what "being a man" or "being a woman" means, either. Gender is more complex than either the SJWs (who want to eliminate it altogether, yielding automatons who accept groupthink equally) or the above comment permit. Back to the original point, it is an individual quality. Respect that.
You've hit on the ultimate irony of the author's argument. If you don't agree with him about thinking like he does in terms of individualism, you're an idiot. Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh discussing the evils of groupthink.
LetThemEatRand,
Over the years we've been in some interesting conversations. In many cases I'm completely in agreement with you and sometimes not. I have some issues with some of the icons in the liberty movement namely Ayn Rand. I've read her books and watched many of her interviews and find her and her philosophy to be absolutely devoid of human compassion and vastly oversimplified. She illustrates the problems with a socialist/cronyist government structure quite well, but much of the rest I find repugnant. I am a firm believer in individual human rights and with that an individual (not compelled) personal responsibility to help your fellow man/woman. I fall more into the ideological camp of Hayek and Mises.
There was an interesting podcast a few weeks ago about a book and study about human cooperation even to individuals own possible disadvantage. People do not absolutely work in their own interests. We're all wired to help each other. However that "skill" is rusty since society has abdicated their responsibilities to a government agency. The podcast is here: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2015/09/crime_punishmen.html
So, I'd like to understand your position on these things. Could you describe your philosophy. I would imagine you may not be far philosophically from me, but maybe not. I would think that many of the downvotes and arguments against you in this thread may be a lack of understanding of your philosophical position. Could you please elaborate?
I am totally confident in my masculinity and have no killing instinct. This is not the definition of a man.
Sounds like the definition of "a man" to me, assuming that by a lack of killing instinct you mean the desire not to initiate violence rather than an unwillingness to defend yourself and your family. Ron Paul would fit that definition and he's one of the best examples of "a man" that I've ever seen.
Gender isn't complicated at all. It has already been defined by centuries of natural inclination. It's only pretentious academics today who think they can redefine it based on made up complexities.
I am a man, but I can change, if I have to, I guess.
Gender isn't complicated at all to come by. I was born male, and I remain male. Trying to surgically alter that fact is spitting in the wind. I agree completely with the author on that. Those of us born male are male. That's the definition for me of the male "gender".
That said, to try to define what it is that makes "a man"? I know a lot of men. Some are assholes. Some are nice. Some are athletic. Some wouldn't know their way to a sports field if you paid them. Some are straight, some are gay. Some are inclined to fight. Some tend toward diplomacy. Every single one of them is a man.
By limiting what "a real man" is, I guarantee you will weed out some of the most interesting and culturally influential men throughout history.
It's like that supreme court case on porn: I know it when I see it. I will judge people based on their individual merits and abilities, and I will ignore what anyone tells me men are "supposed to be".
You are conflating the issue. Yes, all men and all people have personal character traits that are unique to them, but ALL men also have objectively observably and universal genetic imperatives which are different from women's genetic imperatives. The average male has a built in need to protect and provide, for example. Women have a built in desire to be provided for; the nesting instinct, if you will. This is predicated on a long evolutionary track record. Only in the past few decades has it suddenly become "unacceptable" to define men and women along these longstanding biological markers, and only recently have men in particular been demonized for pursuing those natural inclinations.
You use two different terms. First you say:
"ALL men also have objectively observably and universal genetic imperatives which are different from women's genetic imperatives."
Then in the very next sentence you say:
"The average male has a built in need to protect and provide, for example."
With your first statement, I disagree. If all males had the same imperatives, homosexuality would not exist. Apparently, homosexuals don't feel the need to pass on their genes. Seems like that would be the most basic imperative possible, no? If there is an exception in that department, exceptions in other behavioral areas seem trivial by comparison. I disagree with any absolute statement that does not allow for the diversity which is the hallmark of our universe.
As to your second statement, on its face I agree with it. But this highlights my problem with the concept of "gender" in the first place. There is no such thing as gender. There is sex. That's it. Sexual characteristics do carry with them certain biological behavioral tendencies, statistically speaking. But once people start talking about gender, they suddenly want to pin certain behaviors absolutely on all members of a class. As I said above, that simply doesn't work. Testosterone (among the "male" hormones the most famous) leads to lots of instinctive behaviors. But it is clear that there are large variations in testosterone levels among males. If we define "men" according to high-testosterone behaviors, how are we supposed to understand the men who have less testosterone naturally, but are still absolutely male? So yes, what you say is true in the population, but leads, ironically, right back to the same problem, which is trying to force all members of a sex into certain pre-fit molds. Your molds are just different than those of the SJWs.
That said, I 100% agree with you that the demonization of men for behaviors traditionally common among our sex is completely wrong, and what truly sickens me is watching boys receive powerful and poorly understood pharmaceuticals to "treat" behaviors which have been around since the dawn of our species. In that way (among others), our culture is committing suicide, because we are fighting against a very long evolutionary process, as you rightly point out. Trying to fight biological tendency in the name of "social justice" and the current trendy social ideal is insanely stupid.
Can we recognize tendencies among the sexes without having to "define" the sexes according to those tendencies?
You'll find that many homosexuals have the instinct to protect and to provide as well, even to kill and conquer (Alexander the Great, by all accounts very gay). Yes, ALL men have this innate survival instict, that does not mean SOME men will not have that instinct oppressed by their particular environment. Exceptions are a product of an environment counter to innate instinct. The two issues coincide, they are not mutually exclusive. In the past, men who allowed their masculine instincts to be supressed were often subject to natural selection. Today in our welfare based society those men are coddled.
As far as "gender" is concerned, I suppose we could play semantics with our vocabulary all day, but I will stick with the dictionary definition of"gender". i.e. traits commonly associated with the masculine or the feminine. Most such traits are genetic in their origin, and biological in their nature, and this includes many behavioral characteristics. A person might attempt to artificially deny these traits as if he/she has control over their genetic imperatives, but that doesn't make them go away. In fact, as the article points out many men commit suicide because they cannot find a way to fullfill their genetic drives, even though there are few threats anyomore that pressure them to do so. The point is that these traits are universal and biological and not subject to the whims of arbitrary social activism. And yes, whether people like it or not, they are at the very least partially defined by those traits.
A man who is not willing to defend himself or those he cares about, for example, will always be seen as not quite a man; a substandard man. There is nothing that SJWs can do to change this defining characteristic of masculinity. It is ingrained in our very genetic code to abhor male cowards because they threaten the survivability and prosperity of those around them by shirking their biologically defined job as protectors and providers. We are defined by our biological imperatives and always will be.
Now, a person can have many unique traits beyond their biological foundations, and that is fantastic, but the caveman will always live within every modern man.
The problem is that humans do not have complete liberty. From a biological perspective, there are a variety of things that we must do if we wish to survive: consume an adequate diet, regulate our body with respect to the environment, defend ourselves against predators, and reproduce.
Your idea of "individual liberty" seems to be "anything goes". "I don't have to eat if I don't want to!" "I can be a catkin if I want to!" This the problem that Cultural Marxism has inflicted us with: we've come to violate some of the basic rules of survival such as reproducing and defending ourselves against predators. Hence, our culture and people are currently dying off. Hence, it needs to be stopped, and we need to return to way of life that plays by nature's rulebook.
You're right that it's not necessary for you to know how to kill, but only on the condition that you live in a community where others will defend you and prepare your food for you. And if you're absolutely dependent upon others like that, then how much "individual liberty" do you really think you can have?
Government is THE apex predator. It looks something like a sheepdog that regularly kills some of the sheep. It pretends to fight other predators for us but those are actually rivals.
When one is fat, dumb and happy they could care less about .....well anything that does not affect their situation.
@SofaPopa
"Gender is more complex than either the SJWs (who want to eliminate it altogether, yielding automatons who accept groupthink equally) or the above comment permit."
"Gender" is not complicated unless one makes it so. It becomes complicate just after denial begins.
The author is perfectly correct in his analysis. You have confused collectivism with community; they are not the same thing. Community is people working together voluntarily for a greater purpose. Collectivism is people being forced into participation or servitude to a cause that is possibly against their best interests.
You cannot have individualim and collectivism at the same time. They are in fact mutually exclusive. They are antithetical to each other. You can have community and individualism, though, as long as the community is based on voluntarism.
Our society has devolved to the point of collectivism for the many and individualism for the few, with financial means determining the
dichotomy. Wealth is all about having choices--i.e. to express your individuality if you possess it, or not if you don't. A kid born
into abject multi-generational poverty will be a drone, if good, a pariah if bad, and a lucky as hell if extricated from the poverty.
A kid born to wealth has many more choices in front of them, and odds of success are much higher. The rub is that upward mobility
is waning, and has been for some time, but now many see it for what it is, and the propaganda of "you can be anything you want
in America" is seen as a trite myth.
End the free shit army so that people will have to get a real job and deal with reality. End college loans for nonsense degrees like gender studies and the like so that all the professional Marxist tenured drones are out of a job. Problem solved within five years.
You make a valid point. However, I would include sweet heart government contracts and the like as "free shit army" give-a-ways also.
Likewise, when evaluating the validity of social programs that are supposed to be for the general welfare of the society as a whole,
ask yourself what would happen if all social buttresses were removed? Not just ending EBT, housing and child care subsidies and the like;
but also ending the Judicial/Penal/Law enforcement subsidy programs. Envision no doughnut eaters keeping the welfare "reformed" from
going on "shopping sprees" in the gated communities. If we are going to repeal social programs then roll them all back, don't just pick
to keep the ones that are for the benefit of the elite.
"A kid born to wealth has many more choices in front of them, and odds of success are much higher. The rub is that upward mobility"
My observation is that most kids born into wealth are dysfunctional. Not all, most. I was born into a lower middle class family and had to struggle. Now doing well.
Children of the wealthy are even more exposed to the indoctrination of education and its built-in self destruction than those who only graduate from high school. There is no safe place. No indoctrination free zone left. The infection is global.
Granted some elite's offspring will be spoiled tools, but they'll oftentimes still be afforded a shot at an Ivy League education
and a nepotistic positional job offer. Also, if they have brushes with the law, heads can be turned, carpet sweeping employed,
etc..., the infraction isn't likely to set back or ruin their lives.
Good point, explains why the kids of immigrants oftentimes are more motivated.
The difference is that a rich kid's dysfunction is usually spun into some sort of face-saving easy career in the family company or field, or at the very least a shut-in life of relative comfort. The dysfunctional poor kid otoh...
Generally, the first parent that gets rich goes on a tear to "buy my child the things I never had." But the child doesn't develop the character necessary to "buy the things I never had," and blows the family fortune. This is the exact story of my great-grandfather and grandfather, the latter blowing the family fortune and leaving my dad/uncles in abject poverty.
'Wealth' and 'poverty' and how each is subjectively defined is at the core of this debate.
Are the wealthy really rich? Are those in (relative) poverty really poor?
Depending on the definition, it seems like you are espousing that wealth = happiness.
Kinda. I'm espousing wealth=more choices. I've been broke. I came up hard relative to my peer group, but now I've
done OK for myself and my family, and I can honestly say I'm happier now than when I was broke. I'm not necessarily
attributing correlation or causation in the relation of wealth and happiness.
I see it like a bell curve. When you are at a point that the brakes on your car going out means skipping meals, then yes, more money is definitely more happiness. Once your realistic needs are met, you start getting diminishing returns on additional wealth.
Very true. Kinda depends on your positioning on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
LTER,, I don't think individuals uniting for a individualist cause could be defined as collectivist. They know when the cause or effort has been solved they will all return to their own individual lives. True collectivists would never dream of doing such a thing.
@LetThemEatRand
And what gods do the SJW's pray to? Your social olgarchs of course. Those sitting atop academe and the corporate world of non-profits and NGO's.
You received your teachings well.
Where did the original post with this comment go?
This kind of binary thinking is another problem, and one that manifests here often. There are those of us who value individualism, but who also see the value of collectivism when it comes to battling oligarchs, who are the ultimate example of individualism gone wild. The two concepts are not mutally exclusve, and it is not necessary for any of us to decide between being a pure individualist or a pure collectivist.
However, one must start with a solid foundation in performing analysis of a social system. Starting with the concept of individualism/decentralization vs. collectivism/centralization is a great starting point.
Your point is a good one, though it is quite possible for the individual to follow law and order when the law and order has a solid foundation to protecting the individual and his rights. I believe Brandon is one of the best analysts of social systems appearing on this site.
I have also noticed over the last couple years there is less discussion concerning proper methodology in social analysis and more emotional rhetoric coming from the mouth of babes.
Brandon you and Quinn ought to get married and do novels
One can battle oligarchs just by himself. Get a gun, be proficient at using it, USE IT.
No need for colectivism.
I saw a resume today where the girl had a minor in "Womens Studies"
are you serious, you had to study women when you are one.
I threw it away, would never hire this ugly cunt ever.
Dated a girl once who took a WS course at one of the MBA factories. She said the other "women" in the class refered to her "The Breeder." Could he hearsay, but not a stretch given the Feminists I've encountered.
Must be rayciss somehow.
I have a masters in Women's Studies, I earned it by being born to a single mother and dealing with women over the past 40 years.
My God, her hair!?
In my mind Sowell won before he picked apart even one of her arguments, and that in spite of his budding fro.
She was an actress in her youth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDAaTzccCik
Hell YEAH! Crush these totalitarians like grapes! It's called the First Amendment, bitchez. I/we/you can say whatever the hell we want and if it offends you, well, that is your problem!
TD,
Actually the press is free for those who own it. If a private employer doesn't like what you say and fires you, tough shit. If your self-employed and a customer is offended, too bad. Manners are still important, although not to Bluto Blutarsky.
Au contraire, mon amie! Manners are everything, which is why you'll never catch us rushing the stage at a Bernie Sanders rally grabbing the mic and saying, "we're tired of you social justice fags blaming everything on us white males..."
This reminds me of Why Men and Women do What They Do.
Well, Brandon Smith, we can change our culture. You might have to find another job, though. Trader may not be so popular in a post Cultural Marxism world.
How about this: southern street fight match, loser leave town. I'll bring a folding chair.
Quite obviously written by someone who has never read the works of Karl Marx.
Did you know that Karl Marx was PAID to write the Communist Manifesto:
"Karl Marx was paid by the "League of the Just" (later named the "Communist League") in 1847 to write the Communist Manifesto, and paid again to rewrite it in 1848. The Manifesto was intended to incite violent revolution, was a recipe for tyranny itself, and was later used as propaganda (a 'glorious goal' to believe in) to blind followers to the realities of the brutal dictatorships that oppressed all workers and slaughtered millions under Communist rule."
http://www.conservativeusa.net/10planksofcommunism.htm
How to refute communism: describe the horrors of capitalism but call them "communism."
Capitalism is an economic method whereby one sets aside some of today's profit (capital) so that one can be more productive in the future. A farmer who refrains from eating his entire crop but rather saves some seeds for next year's planting engages in capitalism. There are no horrors involved. The horrors come when the farmer doesn't save his seed and can plant no further crops. It's called "eating your seed corn," and it leads to starvation and death.
Kinda like the TBTF banks gobblin' up everdamnbody's seed corn?
No, that's communism.
The Ten Planks of the
Communist Manifesto
1848 by Karl Heinrich Marx
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
So the Fed is RUN by the STATE and not by the JP MORGANS AND ROCKAFELLAS SINCE 1913?
The FED is the ESSENCE of PRivate Capital's hold on the STATE. The Squid is its most recent private sector and hegemonic creation.
Pax Americana's hegemony on the World is based on the Private sector RULING the State and dictating its culture and power meme on the world (TPP/TAFTA).
That is current reality. And its not State control of the world. Its Oligarchy inequality (thanks to Bankster monopoly gone virally global in runaway motion like a rogue train) that controls the World Gordian knot (Monetary monopoly, Energy monopoly and Massive Military Supremacy mantra).
You seem to have totally ignored the factual demonstration here at ZH of the Fed's pivotal role in protecting the Oligarchical construct of private power to the detriment of public's vital interest.
When Private POWER is confused with Public Power we return to Pericles' Funeral oration during the War of the Peloponnese; aka to the beginnings of Western Civilization; that incarnated the rivalry in the Nation between "Hoi Polloi" and "Hoi Oligoi".
Nothing has changed; Hegemony and the battle between the people and the Oligarchs rages on.
Lincoln's Gettysburg speech was a repetition of Pericles's speech : Of, for and by the People. Thats how constant is this battle in a nation. Its Western civilization's political/social/cultural timeline.
Today, Pax Americana iconises the victory of the Oligarchs over the People.
Why are you defining those working in one office as being any different from those of another. Even people within the same office will not necessarily agree, but their actions all work for one common goal...absolute rule. Why do you care if it is JP Morgan's office our that of the White house? They are ALL working against us, and can only succeed through our participation and enablement.
I'm not talking about people; I'm talking about power constructs.
The WHite House power function is now deemed subservient to that of the OWNERS of WS. Money runs the US system. Don't look at the guy in the WH to decide where the world heads. He just rubber stamps it; like the Congress. CAUSALITY is not effect.
If you can't understand that you won't ever be able to differentiate real meat from processed meat in your plate. What you eat is decided by those who define Causality; not the flunkeys who define the effect on laws bent to serve the CAuse.
So the Fed is RUN by the STATE and not by the JP MORGANS AND ROCKAFELLAS SINCE 1913?
It is the state which forces individuals to accept the fiat currency of the Fed. Without the state's guns and prisons the Fed would have to rely on the voluntary acceptance of its fiat currency. If that is not true then why did the Fed not have power until after it was sanctioned by the government through the Federal Reserve Act?
You also forget that the Fed's fiat currency does not come into existence until the government issues bonds which are simply paper vehicles backed by nothing which the Fed then purchases with their own paper backed by nothing called the Federal Reserve note. Any way you slice it the process starts with and is empowered solely by government force.
The elected have the responsibility to start the process in a REpublic; but they don't control it as the banks have all the latitude to ramp it up 10/1...
Even Woodrow Wilson admitted that, once he had allowed the private CB initiative to be created at the behest of the Oligarchs, he could not control it. The private banks owners of the FED had the free hand to print at their will and also to promote their own kind into office (Harding, Mellon and Hoover) until the speculation of 29 brought that private house down.
If you don't like STATE and Republic you will get Dictatorship or Monarchy. Choose.
It's not up to you make me choose. My choice is my choice. That's something which you central planners simply can't comprehend. If you think that only certain choices are available that's fine but don't try to force your opinions on me.
I do not insist that you live freely as you seem to hate the idea. I allow you to make your own decision about your desire to be ruled. Why not allow me the same courtesy?
I don't ask you to choose personally; its a rhetorical question...it is addressed to all who think rationally.
Poetry is not incompatible with rationality and I'm no central planner, more a man who expresses his free will and has never worked for government.
Don't tar people with a brush 'cos they don't buy your reasoning; your OPINIONS are your own, your reasoning is a domain which is common to us all.
Given the US versions of the Deep State and Republic (lost), and European versions of Monarchy and Dictatorship, I choose Anarchy.
I cannot conceive of a worse operating system than the one we are using: steal from the productive, give to the indolent, and punish anyone who objects (Irwin Schiff comes to mind). Can you really tell me that Wild West streetfights, starving folks that won't work and cutting government back to a manageable size are less desirable? Or less practical, given the upcoming collapse of the dollar when everyone finally gets the joke (hint" it's on us)?
Anarchy is a poor system but better than the corruption / plunder / theft and lying version we have now. And it's not like we will have much choice, really; once the game ends, there will not be another dealer, deck of cards or even a table to be found. Anarchy is the most likely result of what we have been doing, so get prepared, however you think will work.
I think at this point in the evolution of our society/culture the line between the public and private sectors has blurred to the extent of
virtual non existence. To rail against one is to rail against the other. It is simply a matter of perspective and prejudice. The Tea Party
rail against the excesses of "big government", while the Occupy/99%ers rail against the excesses of "big business"---it's the same
fucking thing!!!! The two groups agree, but don't realize it!!! Why is that? Beau coup bucks are spent to make sure these groups
do not coalesce; because that will signal trouble on the horizon for the oligarchs. MSNBC vs. FOX, blue vs. red, them vs. us. Play
the game and be laughed at like chumps while your freedoms disappear.
"Railing" appears to me to be a function of what groups, not matter how small, that the media will put a microphone into their faces. It seems that those images and messages that most are exposed to are set to deliberately deliver a prescribed perspective. There are many, if not most, who associate with Tea Parties around the country that have no love whatsoever for big business or cronyism of any type, but that which is presented to the public will be always portrayed as big business, racist and evil.
We have seen many instances in recent history where well meaning and peaceful convergences are routinely ignored and dismissed if not enough negative illustration can be added, while a relatively small but noisy subset of a particular cause gets front and center coverage, Obama himself, speaking in their behalf.
Admittedly there is much of the left right debate that is for public consumption and distraction,but make no mistake, the leftist agenda, which has as its dominant feature the overarching domination of society by, not government, but elites, is winning. Yes, big business is winning also, but as the two are actually the same, it is irrelevant. I know NO conservative looking for domination by government OR business. Conservatism is about small government, but has been dominated by those who, regardless of their stated ideologies, firmly believe in the power of the state and in using it. There is no conservatism left in government. It has died in the shadow of its political success.
And it is funny to hear you use the term "evolution", evidently believing that the factors that have always driven mankind have somehow changed. That cell phones have revolutionized fear, greed and the lust for power.
As with our constitutional scholar Obama, using his knowledge of constitutional law to piece by piece destroy the constitution, we also see those who claim to embrace evolution, trying to use its theories as justification of defeating it, in attempting to change our direction of evolution to a more perfect society. As they have found force, coercion and indoctrination inefficient in producing the desired results, we can fully expect them to next resort to direct genetic manipulation in an attempt to alter or "improve" our human disposition. Forget GMO's and embrace GMH's.
I agree with some of your sentiments. In regard to my use of the word evolution, feel free to substitute the word change.
And by change I'm refering to the society itself, and not mankind's motivations. I think you give Obama to much credit
for his influences. For my part, you could take Obama, Clinton, Bush the !st & Bush the 2nd, put them in a bag, shake it,
dump them out and find very little difference in them.
If the extreme ends of a political spectrum are compared you'll find they begin to resemble each other to
a remarkable degree, and begin to differ only by the name of your master.
Ponzi Casino Crony Capitalism was annihilated just like Professor Emeritus Karl Marx said it would be.
Marxism rocks, Ponzi Casino Crony Capitalism does not.
The end.
Marxist asshole
Ponzi Casino Crony Capitalism jerkoff
If this leads to a *revolutionary civil war*, 3% will serve to actively resist and slay the beast.
The other 97% will serve as collatorators and informants for both sides, useful idiots, spectators, and meat shields.
Assuming they get to keep eating.
Financial markets in chaos, the real economy close to collapse.
Health care is super-expensive and badly lags outcomes in civilized countries.
The fattest country in the world, but one fourth of its children are classified food-insecure by one measure or another.
The richest country in the world has more of its citizens in prison than any other.
Wars all over, world peace more in danger than at any time since the end of WW II.
Etc.
Whst has this rant in common with the identity politics it decries?
Neither is of any relevance to the real world.
Identity politics is one of the main tools used to remove your rights.
>The richest country in the world
Seriously, when your country's national debt is the largest in the world, doesn't that make you the most indebted country in the world?
It's both, money==debt. Well, yes, it's welfare on the back of the poor, those that have to cough up everything because of 'our' debt.
I'm not surprised our masters are so taken by Marxism. They're the ones waging class war against the rest of us, and they're fighting to win.
Final victory will come when our masters get the best and brightest proles to design robots to do all the work human proles used to do. Then, with our usefulness as tax- and debt-slavés at an end, they will assign our robotic replacements the task of exterminating us.
Robots will make far better New Socialist Men than humans ever did. Even free markets will be old hat. Robots don't have wants, just fuel and maintenance requirements.
Der Sozialismus siegt.
After reading this I just pulled out my sexiest picture of Ayn Rand and jizzed on myself.
What a great read - thanx. Do it again.
Oh yeah, Ayn Rand, what a babe, I'll bet she broke a lot of hearts in her day. Z/H should sell Ayn Rand pinup posters IMHO.
I just threw up in your mouth - from a thousand miles away. And I'm not sorry.
She's a money honey if there ever was one.
Call me crazy but I'd rather give a big fat kiss on the lips to Ayn Rand than to Karl Marx. Not sure why some folks think that sexiness should be a criteria for political advocacy but that's my take on it.
Fascism in the USA prompted Rosenbaum to suck up to Corporatists and the Rand Corporation in particular. Ayn Rand sold her novels to housewives before they were emancipated from child rearing and housework. Women bought Freidan, Steinem, and Rand, at the bookstores. My mother bought her books, and I'm still throwing the damn things in the garbage to this day. When my mother purchased Atlas Shrugged it sold for $1.65 for paperback.
My nickname for her is 'Anus Rosenbaum' because she was an anal retentive personality with a typical Jewish fixation on retaining money. Freud would have cringed at Anne Rosenbaum's anal retentiveness that is evidenced in all of her work, and philosophy. She was an anally fixated individual that obviously transferred her anal fixation onto money because that was socially acceptable in those days. Furthermore, she lived in New York shitty, and her philosophy regarding 'Capitalism' was buttressed by her disdain for Communism at that time in history. Don't forget McCarthy, eh, and don't forget where Anus Rosenbaum came from initially before becoming a US citizen.
You are the one who displays a profound scatological fixation.
I majored in Personality Theory when I was doing my B.A. Honours in Experimental Psychology, Billy the Poet.
But did you learn anything about yourself? Or was it more an exercise in rationalizing why you are so much more superior to the rest of us?....Master...?
Well at least your are still experimenting.
I'm only 'superior' to the one per cent, the ninety nine per cent are my peers. Furthermore, I learned how to completely destroy Ponzi Casino Crony Capitalism without being detected by radar.
:)
Good