This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Individualism Vs Sacrificial Collectivism
Submitted by Richard Ebeling via EpicTimes.com,
Free, competitive markets have been the engine for both freedom and prosperity. In addition, free market capitalism is morally based on the principle of individual rights to life, liberty and honestly acquired property, in which all social relationships require the voluntary and mutual consent of the participants.
Private property rights are central to the free society. The most fundamental private property right is the right of each person to own himself – his mind, his body, his peaceful actions, and the fruits of his efforts either on his own or in interaction with others.
The opposite of owning yourself is slavery. Under a slave system some individuals assert the right to own and control the actions of others under the threat or use of force. The slave lives and works for and obeys the commands of another human being with violence the ultimate instrument of control.
Slavery in All Forms is the Opposite of Freedom
For the friend of freedom, it does not matter whether the slave-master is one private individual on his own, or a private group or gang imposing their coercive rule on a number of others in society. Nor does it matter if the group is a political collective that imposes its will on another segment of the society based upon a “democratic” decision-making process.
Regardless of the institutional circumstance and situation under which one person is made to live and work (completely or partly) for another, it remains a total or partial restraint on the individual’s right to live his own life as he sees fit for the purposes that he considers of value and of importance so he may give meaning and possible happiness to his existence.
Critics of this “individualistic” understanding of freedom and its opposite often brand such a perspective as “selfish” or “egotistical.” If to say that an individual should be treated and respected as an end in himself and not the compelled pawn or a tool to serve the ends of another is selfish or egotistical, then the very definition of liberty – if liberty is to mean anything – cannot be separated from the person’s right to be self-oriented.
Collectivist Confusions and Misconceptions
There is no collective mind, or body, or purpose. The fact is, the world is comprised only of individuals. What often causes confusions and misconceptions is that individuals are born into families, grow up in communities, and live their lives in arenas of societal interaction and association.
And due to this many of the beliefs, values, and purposes we hold as individuals have been taken as our own from the surrounding people, groups, and communities of others with whom we have grown into adulthood.
We find ourselves holding many of the same beliefs, values and purposes as many of the others around us. They are the commonly shared and taken-for-granted ideas, ideals, attitudes, and presumptions about “the way things work” and how things are or supposed to be.
Yet, nonetheless, unless and until those beliefs, values and purposes become accepted and motivating for each and every individual influenced by them, they have no effect or power over him.
These beliefs, values and purposes seem to be outside and independent of ourselves, with a seeming life and reality of their own; an transcendent entity of some sort that defines who and what we are, and outside of which our individual life seems to have neither existence nor meaningful orientation.
Philosophers have referred to this as the “fallacy of misplaced concreteness.” To assign physical or some other objective reality to an idea or concept that is used to categorize or classify a series of beliefs, attitudes, or other characteristics that a group of individuals are postulated as possessing in common and which are then is used to define who and what those individuals are, and outside of which those people have no real existence.
Soviet Collectivism and Social Class-Based Sacrifice
If this seems rather abstract or amorphous, the seeming reality of such a transcendent collective entity into which we are born and live out our lives, and for which we are expected to serve and sacrifice has been used as the basis for some of the most manipulative and brutal ideologies of our times.
Marxian socialism conjured up the image of everyone in society divided into “social classes” defined by whether they privately owned the means or production or sold their labor services to those private owners. It was insisted that these two “classes” of people were in irreconcilable antagonism and conflict with each other over the control and use of the land, resources and capital equipment without which needed and desired goods and services cannot be produced.
In this Marxian world, the property-owning capitalists were the exploiters of the workers, who were deprived of part of what they produced. The Marxian socialists portrayed the human condition under capitalism as a great morality play between the exploited and the exploiters.
By definition, anyone in the other “social class” was an inescapable “enemy” of everyone one in your own social class. The Marxian ideologues leading the socialist revolutions of the twentieth century often viewed themselves as, or at least took on the public mantle of appearing to be, secular prophets bearing sword and fire to cleanse the world of the exploiters denying “social justice” to the greater part of humanity.
To cleanse the world not only were tens of millions condemned to death through execution, torture, slave labor, or starvation, but also all members of the righteous “workers’ class” had the obligation to live, work and obey the revolutionary leaders claiming to speak for the good of “humanity” as a whole.
To not do so, to not sacrifice, work, and live for the socialist collective was a sign that one was a “wrecker,” an “enemy of the people,” or an agent of the “class enemies” trying to undermine or destroy the great socialist revolutionary cause. (See my article, “The Human Cost of Socialism in Power.”)
Nazi Collectivism and Race-Based Sacrifice
The other great and destructive twentieth century manifestation of this fallacy of misplaced concreteness was the racial ideology of the National Socialist (Nazi) movement in Germany. Human identity as a biological and social being was determined by one’s genetic make-up, with the defining characteristic of who and what you were being based on “the blood” that flowed in your veins.
Nazism was an outgrowth of the eugenics movement that asserted that what a person is, was dictated by their genetic make-up. But this was not only a matter of the physical characteristics that one inherited from one’s ancestors through one’s parents. No, it was claimed that genetics also was a, if not “the,” defining basis of personality and behavioral proclivities.
Thus, whether one was prone to be a murderer or a malcontent or a moocher on others could be predicted by one’s biological ancestry. Thus, the “sins” of the father and the mother could be predicted to fall upon the children through genetic transmission. The conclusion was that the spreading of the “bad seed” to future generations could be contained through compulsory sterilization and through managed sexual bleeding to create a biologically and socially superior human type. (See my article, “The Nazi Connection.”)
Hitler and the National Socialists defined “the Germans” as the superior and “master” race in physical, mental and social characteristics; they then proceeded to classify all other “races” in descending order of “purity.” Of course, the “Jews” were placed at the lowest level, as sub-humans portrayed as vermin and rats threatening to biologically and socially undermine and destroy German genetic superiority through interbreeding and social penetration of German society.
In the name of racial purity and protection, all those that the National Socialists classified as “Jews” had to be eliminated. Both German and Jew was defined and identified by pseudo-biological characteristics – the shape of one’s nose, the slope and size of one’s forehead or earlobes, the religion of one’s ancestors as indication of one’s genetic inheritance, and one’s attitude and allegiance and loyalty to the Nazi ideology.
Six million Jews, three million Poles, half a million Gypsies, over ten million Russians and Ukrainians and Byelorussians, were sacrificed at the altar of Nazi racial collectivism. Plus hundreds of thousands of others who fell under Nazi control during the war.
But neither were racially pure Germans exempt from the commanded sacrifice. As the Second World War was reaching its end in Europe in April 1945, Hitler said to Albert Speer, his favorite prewar architect and wartime Minister of Munitions, that if the Germans lost the war they will have failed their “fuhrer,” and had shown their racial inferiority in comparison to the victor to the East (the Russians); the German people will have forfeited their right to exist and should perish in the rubble and ashes of the aftermath of the war.
If Soviet collectivism is estimated to have required the sacrifice of upwards of 68 million lives to build the “bright future” of Marxian socialism, and if Nazi collectivism imposed the sacrifice of as many as 25 million lives in the name of pursuing a racially pure, German-dominated Europe, we continue to see the effects of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness in our contemporary world today.
Islamic Collectivism and Faith-Based Sacrifice
The world has been seeing the return of violent religious fanaticism in the form of Islamic extremism. It has been captured in the imagery from the Middle East in the form of the Islamic State, though it is certainly not confined to this one variation of religious collectivism.
Are you Muslim or are you not? Do you follow the asserted correct reading of the Koran, or not? Are you willing to kill and die in pursuit of the earthly fulfillment of God’s will and purpose?
All non-believers are to be either converted or threatened with death in a multiple of cruel and brutal forms – thrown off a rooftop, beheaded on social media, burned alive in a cage, or shot in acts of mass execution with the victims thrown into rivers until the water runs red. Or forced into slavery for compulsory labor and/or sexual abuse.
And if you are a “believer” it has to be the right belief system of ideas, practices, and rituals within the Islamic faith, otherwise one is condemned to the same fate as the infidel, the non-believer.
The Islamic collectivism of religious sacrifice requires not only the non-believer to forfeit his life if he does not accept, believe and follow the “true” faith, the believer must rigidly limit his life to the practice and performance of all that is expected and demanded from a member of the community of Islam.
The individual has no right to live, act, or believe other than what the voices who claim to speak for God declare to be the path to righteousness in this life and after. The individual’s mind and body have no existence outside of the prescriptions of Islamic dogma; one is a human cog in the cosmic wheel of God’s purpose as God’s voices on earth dictate your place in the greater and higher cause of the “pure” faith.
In all of these variations on the collectivist theme, the individual is considered “selfish” or “egotistical” if he refuses to accept and act within the confines of the group identity that others conceptually impose on the world and to which he is demanded and commanded to conform under threat of punishment for refusing to sacrifice for a purpose or cause not of his own making or acceptance.
Individualism the Enemy of All Forms of Collectivism
This is why all forms of collectivism – philosophical, religious, political, or economic – reject and condemn all philosophies of political and economic individualism. Philosophical individualism argues that “society” – any formed and continued association of people for shared or mutually advantageous purposes – does not exist and does not have a reality independent of, or separate from, the individual human beings who comprise the participants in these associative relationships.
Political individualism insists that nations and states do not have an existence independent from or superior to the individuals who may be members of a particular nation-state. The purpose of the political authority is to secure and protect each individual’s right to his life, liberty and honestly acquired property (i.e., property acquired through peaceful production and voluntary exchange).
Government’s purpose is not to make the individual a slave or a sacrificial animal to some declared “higher cause,” because there are no higher causes separate from the purposes, values and goals that individuals choose for themselves and non-violently pursues through their actions and interactions with others.
Economic individualism emphasizes that production, work, and creative and innovative entrepreneurial discovery are the results of individual effort and imagination. The “nation,” the “society,” does not produce, work or create. Individual human beings do these things and they do not happen separate from these individual actions and activities.
Economic individualism explains that order and coordination of the actions of multitudes of tens of millions of people do not required government central command or regulatory dictation or direction. From the time of Adam Smith, economic individualists have shown that a system of individual rights, voluntary exchange, and associative interdependence through division of labor – what Adam Smith called a “system of natural liberty” – brings about self-interested incentives and opportunities for individuals to mutually improve their own lives through a network of trades and transactions that rebounds to the benefit of all, without the imposed and compulsory political hand of governmental control.
Philosophical, political and economic individualism, rightly understood, is the ethical and practical bulwark against collectivism and its demands for compulsory sacrifice for imaginary “higher goods” or “greater causes” that justify the denial or reduction of human freedom to the limits of what the collectivist controllers permit.
The philosophy of individualism is the foundation of a free society; it is the basis of a community of men that does not require or demand the sacrifice or enslavement of some for the one-sided benefits of others. Individualism is the premise of a morality for mankind that recognizes and respects the liberty and dignity of every human being. It is the ethical philosophy of freedom.
»
- 19689 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
We are the Borg.....
You have been assimilated.
under that theory, wouldn't tens of millions of people be better off if a few thousand disappeared?
The Borg weren't big on theories.
Every time I wear a bluetooth mobile phone handsfree I become the borg. Others remind me of this.
Well, maybe not the Borg - but you do expose yourself to more electromagnetic and radio frequency radiation than is necessary.
There were no six million Jews who died under the Nazis. However, 20 to 60 million Russians DID die under Jewish Bolshevism.
Professor Emeritus Joseph Levitt Canadian History Department University of Ottawa fought on the beeches of Normandy during the D-Day landing, and he assured me that six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler. Joe is dead now, but he was an influential figure in my life when I was growing up. I have never doubted that six million Jews were exterminated by Hitler and the SS. Denial of that fact is offensive to Jews, and myself, plus millions of others.
People these days have no direct proof or personal experience with any of that. They have no evidence that would cause them to believe anything they are told in general.
It's not surprising that old tales are rejected these days. Right or wrong.
And thus they don't see the relationship between the progressive movements and The Nazi movement.
Hey, there has to be some pay off for taking over higher .edu
NO doubt that's how he got and kept his job. By spouting the party line. He's not alone. There are plenty of paid hacks like your friend. The Red Cross regularly visited the camps. They didn't see any gas chambers or notice large numbers of people dying of anything other than typhus. That was the reason for the Zyklon B, the shaving of heads and taking people's clothing away. Neither Eisenhower nor Churchill mentioned anything about any such holocau$$t taking place in their memoirs. The myth of six million Jews is just that - a myth to establish Israhell and to replace Christianity with the worship of Jews who think they are gods on earth. Another thing. People who have died of Zyklon poisoning would be pink in color. Where do you find it mentioned that those bodies found in the graves were pink. Instead they showed all the signs of having died of typhus. It's amazing how people can believe in things when there's absolutely no evidence to sustain it. But I thank the dumbed down schools for training people in believing instead of thinking. Either you're a shill or just another dumbed down member of the public.
OK, let's take it that all, or even most, of those that died in concentration camps died of communicable diseases. The very fact that all of those people were herded into such conditions by the Nazi government means they were essentially murdered by the regime, especially once the conditions were discovered. Same difference, in my book.
First six million did not die. Second, there was no policy of exterminating the Jews. Third, Most of those who did die in the camps of disease, starvation towards the war's end etc. were not Jews. Fourth, Jews have turned their phony holocaust into a reparations racket and have extracted billions from Germany. Recently Obama decided to give "survivors" money as well. If the Nazis were so good at killing people, who are all these survivors. I'd suggest you read the book The Holocaust Industry if you want to know more. There were also many Jews in Hitler's military - generals, etc. Read Hitler's Jewish Soldiers. I'm tired of arguing with people who either can't read or won't read. Fuck you.
You are talking to the sheeple and contradicting what their Zionist handlers have told them.
You are a fucking moron.
The most prolific historian of that period based on his collection of first hand evidence is David Irving. Gathering first hand testimony is how history is supposed to be written. I don't thiink David would apologize for his evidence being offensive to you.
I would suggest reading his books, Hitler's War and Churchill's War. In order to understand WWII one has to have knowledge the previous bankster war called WWI.
How does being in Normandy make him an expert on something that happened (or didn't) somewhere else? And why do you believe this? There are people who landed on the beach at Normandy that believe a 2000 year old Jewish zombie that walks on water and performs magic tricks will return from the dead and the world will end.
Whowould believe that?
When Joe made sure I knew that six million Jews were genocided in the Second World War he looked me straight in the eyes to make sure I was getting what he was telling me. When a man that fought on the beaches of Normandy looks you straight in the eyes you get the sneaking suspicion that he is telling you the truth, believe me. Moreover, Joe was a top-notch academic Canadian Historian. His work on Canadian historiography was extremely thorough given the peer-review he was subjected to in CANADA. Joe got his PhD from UofT which is a fairly reasonable Ivory Tower as Ivory Towers go. He was an honest gentleman, and a real stickler for knowledge of history because he had twenty million students that would frag him in an instant if he fucked up in any way. Joe was always on top of subject matter in historiography.
Joe was an agnostic Jew. I, for one, very much believe in Jesus Christ, but my belief in Christ stems from Medicine proper. Furthermore, as metaphysicians go, Jesus Christ was the first Physician if one follows Christian Antiquity, Metaphysics, or Hermeneutics.
As long as a society is tied to a debt based monetary system they are all slaves no matter what sort of illusion of freedom they live under.
The debt based monetary system is a symptom of the problem. It was constructed to allow allow the voting public to elect people who control who wins and who losses. It is a collectivist mechanism at its core.
Individualism is hard to find after one has been conditioned by: a nations one currency, its religion(s), language, security, pledges, constitutions, interstates, borders, laws, sports, flags, marriages, families, relations, inoculations, "public" education, etc. all collective stuff. One discovers/finds that what ever remains is a violation of something/someone. Individualism is mostly found (these days) in one's mind.
Ironically, that's the only place it really belongs.
Ideas that make people die for the elite are always collectivist. It's always for the greater good and collectivism is the extreme of this greater good.
Collectivism represents a real problem for the philosophical notion of any supposed human divined intelligence.
This is because collectivism is more efficient and more dominant in any human social struggle.
From drug gangs to the Bolsheviks and the two major U.S. political parties, it's obvious our philosophical notion of human intelligence has a pretty disgusting fly in the ointment.
So, don't try and impress me with your intelligence. Impress me with your knowledge of the severe limitations of it.
Say, this would be a great time to "collectivize" health care, the national debt, retirements, energy, maybe implement some speech codes & etc...don't you think? ;-)
For a better tomorrow?
Let's throw in a totalitarian police state that seeks to disarm anyone who poses a threat to the status quo and I think we have the makings of a perfect society.
DaddyO
Free at last, free at last
Greg Johnson:
More childish hyperbole of the Ayn Rand variety. White Nationalists are collectivists, inescapably, because whenever the common good conflicts with individual interests, the common good must prevail. Capitalism puts private interests before the common good, thus breaking down all national and racial identity. The childish hyperbole is the assertion that White Nationalism thus entails some sort of Communist, collectivist dystopia as hatched in the febrile mind of Alissa Rosenbaum. Even National Socialist Germany was a capitalist society in the sense that there was private ownership of the means of production, individual initiative, etc. It was socialist only to the extent that private interests had to give way when they conflicted with the common good. Thus businesses could not ship jobs overseas to the non-white world or import non-white workers to depress the wage scale. As for individualism, Hitler’s comments in MEIN KAMPF on the importance of personality (meaning individual differences) as well as race make it clear that he understood that the fountainhead of creativity in culture, science, and industry is individual genius. Thus a healthy society gives the greatest possible latitude and support for talented individuals — as long as they do not conflict with the common good. Sounds pretty reasonable to me. National Socialism might as well be called National Capitalism, since it is socialist only in the ethical sense of placing the common good above private interests when the two conflict, but it is not socialist in the economic sense of nationalizing the means of production and imposing a centrally planned economy.
The "common good" is but the will of a tyrant. You simply offer more proof that the author is correct about misplaced realities in the heads of collectivists.
Society can't be healthy. It has no health aside from the health of its individual members. Sacrificing individuals for the collective good is just proof the collective is morally bankrupt. Your argument is essentially that it is morally just that individuals be slaves to society.
Society can be healthy (or sick). The author's framing of the narrative as a conflict between collectivism and individualism might be due to the cognitive limits of his perceived audience, or his own, but it is not correct.
The conflict is actually between forced collectivism and voluntary collectivism.
Society is by nature and definition a collectivist endeavor. The issue is the nature and mechanisms of the sacrifices of its members.
How many stackers mine 100% of their gold? Does some keyboard commando prepper with fantasies of a Mad Max dystopian future and self perception as some Rambo archetype really stand a chance against even a platoon of voluntary collectivist bandits, much less the forced collectivists of the State?
Look at the difference in outcomes between the Waco siege in 1993 and the Bundy ranch siege in 2014... without voluntary collectivism Cliven Bundy would have been barbecued.
Voluntary collectivism is just another phrase for cooperation of like minded people.
Exactly, the problem is that thanks to the dumbed down citizenry and rise of the FSA mentality, modern discussion of individualism tends to focus on rights while ignoring the corresponding responsibilities.
So those engineers laid off thanks to the H1-B program were for the common good? It's good to be the king!
Such tripe. Another piss poor analysis from someone with a chip.
"Even National Socialist Germany was a capitalist society in the sense that there was private ownership of the means of production, individual initiative, etc. It was socialist only to the extent that private interests had to give way when they conflicted with the common good."
So, the common good was starting and then losing WWII. When is it my turn to define the common good?
"National Socialism might as well be called National Capitalism, since it is socialist only in the ethical sense of placing the common good above private interests when the two conflict, but it is not socialist in the economic sense of nationalizing the means of production and imposing a centrally planned economy."
And this merely reflects a realization that you cannot achieve lofty, er goals, under collectivism. Good luck escaping your programming.
The Nazi party instituted universal health care, centralized control of education, and the nationalization of transportation among many other aspects of German society. Owners of industry had to be card carrying members of the party in good standing (read monetary contributors).
High ranking members of the party from Hilter on down repeatedly remarked on their hatred of capitalism.
Your premiss is very wrong and your slap at Ayn Rand juvenile.
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/24/lebowski-enlightenment-a/
https://thinkpatriot.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/pan-galactic-buggery-game/
POVs for your thinking prowess.
it isn't that complicated. man is a hybrid pack/herd animal. man naturally looks for a pack to join and raise a family within. the herd is made up of all these packs and then there are all these different herds essentially competing for the same space and resources. in all these cases the individual is looked upon with suspiscion just as any other outsider would be looked upon. the individual is the odd man out. he may be the oddest man out.
designing a .gov that [protects this person protects all people. the insurmountable problem is convincing the herd that protecting the worst of us is the best way to protect all of us from the powers of .gov.
for clarity, is the worst of us defined as the odd man out?
Nah, that's usually the one trying to convince us that it's in our own interest to protect him. The worst rise to the top.
in any system that depends upon a high level of conformity to function smoothly disruptions cause tension. a nonconforming individual causes tension. he doesn't fit in by his choice or the pack/herd's choice. he is the odd man out. he is bad. he is the worst of us.
Indeed, The Individual walks his own path, as it has been said, and is the enemy of the Collective. A society is not necessarily a Collective, but can be morphed into a Collective through "Tribal Nationalism"; an Universal Principle.
The Collective demands sacrifice; your Sacrifice and offers a Theme, a Belief, a false Myth for those who eslave themselves to the Collective; Eric Hoffer called them: "True Believers".
In analogy, it is as if you check in your Operating System when joining the Collective, an they replace it with a RISC system - limited and constrained, to support this Collective to death. You get the Dogma and the Rites; you obey and believe.
One is born an individual naturally and creatively but immediately upon the moment of birth, he is captured and immersed into the propaganda of the insane:
Three Principles:
The Hero (Joseph Campell) needs to take a Journey, in Risk, alone. If he/she finds himself/herself, this is Providence. If not, this is Destiny; too bad, but you tried and this is all that counts; For Better of for Worse. Up to You.
I have wondered why, all my life: My response to date:
24/10/2015
The Force Awakens (forgive me the dramatic borrowed but it seems appropriate)
Credit to Lucas Films.
It starts to appear to me that the concept of One Supreme God (Egypt ~1300 BCE / India Circa 8,000 BCE) had an amazing impact on humanity.
Simple really; this idea froze, or manipulated, naturally, the minds of the proto-humans to an external, single projected focus point which appears to me to be the stimulus for pursuing Technology, which really did not exist much at that time, especially in language; as it remains today, but this is now obviously changing, on a global scale.
I am speaking, in general, but by this shift, the gaze of Humanity from "the Gods", all of them (multiple causal energies believed to be creative, maternal and paternal, eg rain, storm, crops, fire, death, thunder, etc., etc.), to a single point of reference, from where humanity began a new cognitive behavioural agenda; it lost the ability to comprehend holistically. It became reductionist, specialized and compartmentalized; destructive, duplicitous and irrational. Here is then, Julian Jaynes grande Opus, 'The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and the Birth of Consciousness'.
This major shift in coogntive order and organization, has caused the gaze of the individual enquiry mechanism to be disrupted from matters of Universal enquiry as well as, from enquiry into self. Man is a delicate creature; his evolution is towards Spiritual Intellest which has nothing to do with Intelligence; Mind alone evolves.
I have written for many years now that the cycle of Life evolves from a singularity to complexity and then onwards to a qualitative simplicity and so forth. A qualitative simplicity is a Symbol (R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz), dense with organized and indexed complexity, which impacts upon the wide yet full Spectrum of Human consciousness at its evolutionary stage, satisfying all of the similar natures, in all dimensions; this 'sensed' stimulation being due to the natural processes of complicit evocation.
I say this and posit here, that this focus is now dismantling; unraveling; it is becoming undone; the Internet is providing wide horizons and hence many yet unconsidered questions; the gaze of humanity is seeking the horizon and beyond; indeed, the Universe and its Principles. Humanity is looking around, outward and inward while lsong its focus upon the singularity. The Human Mind, appears to be commencing to function again, in volume.
I believe that we are entering a new scientific Age of Consilience, where knowledge is a Unity; that is to say, knowledge is coming together. Well, over the next 3,500 years or so.
Yes, what is happening in the Middle East, and elsewhere, is the destruction of those focal points amongst the popular intensities of huge populations. Institutional Religion, their Politcal Cults and Sects are beginning to dissipate (and not before time either) to be replaced by a more Universal perspective and bias.
Power is an entity in its own Right; a life form but no human. Power is numercially dependent. Power is a politicalized Cult and built upon a captured belief belonging to a culture, a tribe; a Society. Empire is Power. Power is self centred and can be defined as a single celled Amoeba - much like a cancerous parasictical virus that destroys its host. Power has one agenda- self survival and its strategy to attain this immortality, is Growth.
Ignore Power and it dies; this is the only antidote.
Government is Power; it is always growing. No matter how you Vote, Government ie Power, always wins.
References: Julian Jaynes, The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and Birth of Consciousness.
Consilience: Edward O. Wilson
Rene A. Schwaller de Lubicz
Hannah Arendt
Genesis: Adam and Eve, the Solar Temptation - Dr. P. Engel The metaphysics of Man and the evil of the Collective. (my interpretation).
Joseph Campbell
And all those Giants that went before me. Courage is the Volitile Will to find and acknowledge yourself.
Ho hum
"The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation." - Thoreau
FYI
Joseph Campbell's 'lingua franca' was the JUNGIAN Hero and the Collective CONSCIOUSNESS and you will have to delve into that specific concept not your misleading pseudo-Communist labels and past the general Egyptian mythology (being a derivative of Babylonian mythology...being a derivative of Sumerian history) unless you want to be left just holding a bag of magic beans...
but as Thoreau would say...'Talk to the cabin in the woods...'
"....because quite frankly buying into this central bank-driven mania confirms most investors are from another planet bereft of common sense..." Tyler Durdan
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-23/crude-crashes-stocks-soar-globa...
Are you from another planet also?
Ho hum
Screams of Heinous and hysterical Laughter (SOHAHL)
Portugal:
The EU doesn't recognise democratic elections- Who would of guessed?
Power is in Control so screw everybody - The Banking System is hungry.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/constitutional-crisis-looms-...
Portugal? Will NATO start bombing to protect the citizens?
Will the "moderate terrorists" be redirected to Portugal as refugees?
When does the US start dropping arms and Toyotas?
These Clowns just can't help themselves - probably because they all come from other planets - or that is their excuse; More like their programimed risc chips got fried.
Naked "True Believers". This is really funny.
LOL
In addition: Portugal
http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/38598
"This serves as a warning that whatever form of government we attempt to create, it will always try to preserve its own self-interest. "
Of course, Power is an entity of itself; it is government and no matter how you vote or what you say, only government wins. Government doessn't give a shit about YOU because it is NOT HUMAN.
Power is a parasitical Predator that feeds on Humanity.
When will we ever learn:
Man does not Manage his own affairs, as he Kneels before Power.
Ho hum
You are one fucked up motherfucker.
I´m tired of these "this is good, this is bad" kind of posts.
You cannot compare something that does not exist, nor had existed in western society to something we already have.
Collectivism SHOLD be based on individualism, since each part is as important as the whole.
The problem with all those examples cited by the author are Directed "Collectivism", where a group or individual is above the rest of the people. In "real" collectivism, this should not happen, since for the "good of the whole" psychopaths and sociopaths would be filtered and unable to achieve any kind of power, since they would be seen as a dangerous element for society.
And the thing with "free individualism" is that since "each one is for themselves", any negative social element can achieve great power since there is nothing that would stop him until it´s too late. With this scenario, the real "free world" would last a very short period of time, since any psycho would change the system to mantain himself at the top of it and get the most from it.
Free societies have courts and laws to stop one persons freedom from infringing on anothers. Also, I think to blame Hitler for the death of the Jews is to miss the point. He came to power because the collective wanted him in power. Thus those cheering at his speeches and rushing to put him in power were as much responsible for what follows as he was. The problem with collectivism is the huge amount of power it wields and the damage it can do. Hitler was the result of the unrestrained power of the collective.
What about the Corporate Collective? Yes, there is on one hand a misguided force for the Socialist Collective. But in control is another equally pernicious set of rules, regulations, rights and privileges which favour the advancement of a Corporate Collective.
The Corporate Collective cloaks itself in a mantle of freedom and independence without acknowledging its own tendencies to misappropriate the value created by individuals and redistribute that value to the corporate elite and, the true masters, the 1% that hold 60% of all financial assets. The Corporate Collective also does not acknowledge the advantages it obtains from the system.
Truly free markets feature a multitude of buyers and a multitude of sellers. The balance of power relative to the price of labour is currently tilted in favour of the smaller number of large buyers (aka the Corporate Collective). Small wonder that wages and salaries have been stagnant.
Paul
Marxism rocks!
You left out the sarcistic footnote.
Bla, bla, bla [FFW]... The timeless secret is:
"A dynamic balance between Individual Responsibility/Response-ability, and a Consensual/Cooperative Collectivism - where Top-Down Strategic Intent meets Bottom-Up Tactical Execution".
You will need to ponder some deep DO cycles on this, lest your Reptilian/Monkey brain responds reflexively (and incorrectly).
Author is so loaded with propaganda notions that it is hard to even start correcting his/her chaotic rant. First, why author did not include founding fathers of the US who rejected slaves and landless "free" people from the constitution due to collectivist views that they are low-life creatures not capable to make adequate and responsible decisions. Pure collectivism of the ruling elite.
Moreover, all the examples of supposedly horrible collectivism and its crimes he forgot that it was an individual will of the leader, Hitler and Stalin, king or small ruling elite that was imposed on millions using brutal force rather then mass collectivist psychosis that caused mayhem not collectivism itself which requires a sort of democracy and compromise among peoples views, goals and methods to achieve them.
In fact from Roman Emperors to Pol-Pot it was superior notion of morality of an individual, a leader that killed diversity and moderation of the collective views of society.
And author’s references to Marxianism/Marxism expose author’s utter ignorance of the subject. Any ruling elite is a collective dedicated to expansion their powers with other individual ideas or needs of the members of ruling elite, threatening that objective, rescinded.
The ruling elite clutch to a strict class solidarity and unity and push on the rest of us a fallacy of individualism designed to confuse and divide people, under the guise of freedom and liberty they hide a trap of desolation, weakness and ultimate failure of an individual separated, outside of the society, a recipe which would bring to a ruling elite quick demise if they followed it themselves.
In fact the rampant exceptionalism as well as rampant individualism are concocted as highly collectivist ruling elites’ moral justification for their crimes. That's all it, is a part of propaganda of “justified” submission in the name of liberty and freedom. It just means that they may collectively steal murder, enslave, rape and dominate because they are exceptionally successful, moral and good and we are total failure as individuals. In fact the ruling elite members are failures as individuals and draw their strength solely from a class morality.
Very interesting take on origins and core of modern exceptionalism as well as debunking some misconceptions about Ideas of Marx that author unfortunately fell pray to, can be found at:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/subversive-ideas-of-karl-marx-lessons-unlearned/
An on the social methods of control of an individual:
https://contrarianopinion.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/matrix-of-control-a-s...
See if you can follow the simple logic. Collectivism only works if the collective has power over the individual. Leaders like Hitler had the power they did because the collective wanted power over the individual and gave that power to Hitler. Thus the power over the individual that collectivism creates is what is ultimately responsible for all the things the author cites.
And we haven't yet managed to learn such a simple lesson. So we will repeat it and those cheering for collective power over the individual will be responsible for the millions that die to the power they create at the hands of those they put in power to serve the collective good.
And author’s references to Marxianism/Marxism expose author’s utter ignorance of the subject. Any ruling elite is a collective dedicated to expansion their powers with other individual ideas or needs of the members of ruling elite, threatening that objective, rescinded.
What? You find fault with this statement?
"In this Marxian world, the property-owning capitalists were the exploiters of the workers, who were deprived of part of what they produced. The Marxian socialists portrayed the human condition under capitalism as a great morality play between the exploited and the exploiters."
I know Eberling to be a scholar and an expert on this subject. He's saying the same thing you are saying, only in different words.
Poster scatha pointed out that the article to be question as a whole, not that particular excerpt. The article started out good and gathered my attention but the more I read there it was a fair amount of bullshit propaganda. Fifteen seconds of a good read and then,,,it was gone.
If 1% control the politician via compensation how is there freedom for everyone else ?
The rules dictate major portion of success - those with the gold dictate the rules
How could politicians serve the 1% without the power to infringe on individual rights. Those with the gold only dictate the rules because we stopped paying attention to our own constitution designed to stop them from doing so.
The Non Aggression Principle is the Occam's Razor of politics. If it is not free and voluntary, then it is force. If force is used to compel, it is slavery.
No other discussion needed.
Boom! Headshot! Concise and correct. It is absolutely this simple.
The modern variant of "collectivism" is the most insane and absurd. Think about it. If making the lives of other individuals (the collective) better is good, then you've already said making the lives of individuals better is good.
Then why is making your own individual life better NOT good?
As Ayn Rand might say...
BLANK OUT.
-----
Incidentally, since every individual has different tastes and values, obviously each individual inherently knows best how to make HIS OWN life better. Not only that, but pain, pleasure and values give individuals direct and quite visceral incentive to take actions that avoids harm and furthers benefits. And so, individualism is inherently and unavoidable vastly more efficient.
And boy is that ever an understatement!
well said, althogh today most people have lost touch with their own intuition, ie the ability to determine what is best for them.
That's their problem, not mine!
-----
BTW, everyone must remember. No true individualist would ever object to individuals voluntarily joining groups if and when that appeals to them. If some humans are so convinced they are abject failures in figuring out their own values, and planning their own lives, then they are entirely free to survey the planet to find values and approaches to life that others have developed.
The only limit is... forcing anyone to fund their scheme, or comply with their scheme.
Making myself better for my own journey is much different than making myself better (I benefit) for the collective (as in "Imagine" all the people).
In the end all human systems -whether they are collectivist or individualistic- will be dominated by psychopaths because these systems don't have any safeguards against them.
The only possible safeguard is... honest, ethical, productive, benevolent human beings decide to DEFEND THEMSELVES. Which means, exterminate human predators who threaten or try to harm them, just as they would exterminate other animal predators that threaten or try to harm them.
Humans used to know they had to take these actions, but that understanding has been lost by 99.99999% of the population.
So it is incorrect to claim humans are destined to be dominated by psychopaths. They need not be, but do need to take actions to avoid this fate.
which is why the current system is geared towards emasculating men. the elite know that strong, willing, and able men are the only form of resistance to tyranny. and I'm afraid they are winning in this particular effort.
Yes. However... don't let us girls off the hook. I see no reason girls shouldn't become expert with weapons and self-defense. Our vision is just as good as guys, we can learn just as well as guys... and it takes very little strength to pull a trigger.
Yes, girls need to learn not to let emotions make them freak in emergency situations, but this can be achieved by developing the appropriate mindset, and also by training and practice.
Frankly, enough examples of competent females exist to show that most "problems" with girls is simply learned attitude and behavior, not inherent disability.
Yes, on average a girl may have less raw strength, but that's simply justification for more and better training, equipment and preparation.
They just need to turn off their television and tune in to ZH.
Wrong. How about a system of limited government power with courts to prevent one individual from infringing on the rights of another.
INHERENTLY IMPOSSIBLE and IMPRACTICAL.
-----
Why so?
Two primary reasons.
#1: The courts (and police) are not there when a predator attacks. Therefore, they cannot and do not prevent consequences of predator attacks. They may try to reverse them sometime later, but this is usually ineffective (because the predator is not identified, escapes, or the damage done cannot be reversed).
#2: Every effective government with limited power ends up grabbing ever more and more power... and becomes VASTLY more dangerous and destructive than individual human predators. If you doubt this, just go check the statistics of how much is stolen by criminals vs government, and how many are harmed or killed by criminals vs government. Case closed!
In the end, society will get shaped by the character of the individuals that comprise it.
If their character is bad, a collectivist society will behave like a smoke screen where the governing elite will loot the people. Also, you won't be saved by freedom if the character of individuals is bad.
Freedom gives you the oportunity to save yourself or to condemn yourself, and does not let that decision on the hands of a governing elite.
Yes indeed! And so, if a sufficient percentage of those individuals exterminate dangerous predators when they threaten or attack, then predators will never become a huge problem... much less dominate.
Every "collectivist society" is inherently destructive... more-or-less in proportion to how collectivist it is in practice.
There is simply no way around the obvious fact. Every collectivist scheme is simply predators and parasites stealing from producers. PERIOD.
It is enslavement when a small minority of "individuals" own everything and collect the rent from their slaves.
How can that small minority have gain power over the individual unless government has dispensed with the idea of protecting individual freedom.
Simple. They just dominate public education and mainstream media, then brainwash everyone to believe "liberty == slavery", "war == peace", and endless other Orwellian lies and nonsense.
And if you think that doesn't work... just like at the entire history of mankind!
"The most fundamental private property right is the right of each person to own himself – his mind, his body, his peaceful actions, and the fruits of his efforts either on his own or in interaction with others."
Strange the last bit is straight from Karl Marx.
"to own himself ......... and the fruits of his efforts"
This was Marx's argument why worker's should own the factories they work in.
Bloody communists.
Then Marx was much ado about nothing. A capitalist system never prevented the workers from starting their own factory.
you completely missed what Marx was argueing about
main idea is that capitalism becomes inherently unstable when it has no more space to expand into
the workers can not start businesses of their own because:
1) all the capital (land, resources) are owned by someone else
2) well capitalized businesses are more efficient than a new starter with a high debt rate
Obviously Marx was full of shit. You are confusing free market capitalism with state capitalism. Monopolies have a short life unless the state protects them as is the case now.
free markets have never really existed in modern society. people rant and rave against the abhorance of capitalism but it was always a crony style capitalism or even facism. free markets haven't existed in recent history.
free markets have never really existed in modern society.
Nonsense! You are confusing free with pure socialism where the state owns the means of production. Free markets exist everywhere people exchange of their own free will. That's what free means.
The State can distort the free market price system, but it cannot outlaw it out of existence without causing a major collapse as what happened to communism.
As Warren Buffett has said his class has gone to war and they are winning.
The smart money works collectively.
The evolution of the state.
Just study any early European history to see how the wealthy constantly fighting each other to steal each other's wealth, land and property.
Eventually nation states emerge and the wealthy stop fighting each other within nations and then head abroad to steal other peoples wealth, land and property.
The native Americans and Australians stood no chance against the UK state.
The cult of the individual ignores human nature and any nation that goes this way is going to be easy prey for a state looking to steal its wealth, land, property and resources.
It's as Utopian as Socialism.
War is the word the wealthy hide behind when they go to steal other people's stuff.
Jesus Christ laid it all very clearly:
1) i give you freedom even to enslave
2) Taxation is bad, donations is the way to go
The world comprises myriad group minds. Free thinkers are rare. Ever seen a cult? Their brains are more like tape recorders than computers, let alone living, independent minds. Such people simply do not think. Some think they think but that's not usually the case. I call them parrot people.
The committee must decide.
Who makes the rules?
The rules are already made. And the knowledge of their workings has been hidden from you. If only 1 person clicks this link and gets it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUHN3gNxWo
You state: "Government’s purpose is not to make the individual a slave or a sacrificial animal to some declared “higher cause,” because there are no higher causes separate from the purposes, values and goals that individuals choose for themselves and non-violently pursues through their actions and interactions with others."
What is your definition of "non-violent"? When there are several trillion (not including leverage) dollars floating around the world in the hands of "individuals" who are and will do everything and anything in pursuit of "profit" on their money, and their "individual" actions cause currencies to crash, commodities to skyrocket or other abhorrent behavior to occur in our supposedly "free markets" which in turn leaves millions of people starving, without shelter or worse, is this considered "non-violent"?
I would like to know how far your "individualism" theme actually goes? Because it is clear to me, that this planet is getting way to crowded for your pure individualism theme to last much longer. You damn well better come up with a better formula soon or your little protected ideological dominion will get burned to the ground faster then you can get out your next rant!
'By definition, anyone in the other “social class” was an inescapable “enemy” of everyone one in your own social class.'
Here we are once again: black or white, with us or against us, ad infinitum.
I consider this article obnoxious and pretentious (it takes one to know one!)
The real solution to all of this is - COOPERATIVISM.
m
(sorry bold does not unselect!)
Any of the isums could work well if it was not corrupt. To bad about human nature being what it is.
The corruption needs to be delt with everywhere one looks. From where Im sitting it starts with the coin being spoiled/corrupted and infects everything it touches.
What is really needed is some form of recourse ie a system of justice that works.
Sadly its all been tainted at this point. We on planet earth are governed by and thru corruption. Making whatever isum you favor moot.
No, not all -isms work the same. Contending that they do is a dipslay of monumental cyclopean ignorance.
In theory they could work. In reality not if they are corrupted. But no there is no perfect system. Arguing over what corrupt system is best is just silly. My point was they are all corrupted systems.
I as a producer of course prefer a free market system. But that system is busted now. Address corruption. Then we can talk about what system is best.
If an 'ism' could theoretically work if only people were not as they are, then the 'ism' cannot work, theoretically or not.
Free association, economically and socially work even where prohibited. Else why do black marketeers profit?
Can anyone show similar evidence for any form of oligarchical socialism or so-called 'progressivism'?
Funny how that works in spite of the isums or even force.
Let us try what love will do? William Penn. Might be the best idea ever.
Re: "ndividualism is the foundation of a free society; it is the basis of a community of men that does not require or demand the sacrifice or enslavement of some for the one-sided benefits of others"
Agreed. Now consider that it is a legitimate function of government to enforce the return of stolen property. That is all Bernie wants to do.
Somehow Bernie seems to think the government might be able to go after the government itself.
9/11
Lois Learner
Hillery
The supream court
and on and on.
Boy, do YOU have a distorted world view. You must be a total idiot to believe that crap.
Bernie Sanders is an evil old bastard out to enslave you, and all you can do is beg to be enslaved. You deserve your chains, fool.
Free Trade is for suckers and rich POS.
The following is part of an essay I am currently working on. It is only about 1/3 complete but I will throw it in here as it is relevant to the discussion.
The saying, “Money is the root of all evil”, has been with us since biblical times. A common derivative, “The love of money is the root of all evil”, is also well known. The truth of these two memes is widely accepted but in the industrialized west the only solution to the problems being caused by ‘money’ commonly discussed is ‘reforming’ the monetary systems.
Barter, a system based on the concept of exchange of non-physical, ‘agreed upon value’, rather than ‘physical money’ is commonly suggested as the only alternative to a monetary system but as I will explain further on in this article barter is a close cousin of a full fledged monetary system and has almost identical pros and cons. Barter is not an alternative, it is only a derivative.
Why are the concepts of value and money so deeply rooted in our consciousness that we literally cannot visualize a functioning society without their existence?
To keep this article from becoming overly lengthy I am going to mainly discuss monetary systems. Barter was a precursor to money based exchange and almost all the pros and cons between them are similar. There are a few important differences best discussed elsewhere in detail, but I will suggest to you below that the ‘cons’, (pun intended) of both systems of exchange far outweigh the pros.
THE PROS
Within communities of individuals there are many different skill sets. Any single individual usually has a limited set of skills and can often benefit from the labour of individuals with different skills. Such differing skills mostly complement each other. IE… A good hunter, or fisher, could benefit from the labour of someone skilled in growing agricultural goods in the form of a more balanced, and varied diet.
In communities the greatest good for both individuals, and the community as a whole, can be achieved by making it easy for all individuals to have ready access to the full variety of goods produced by all members of the community as a whole.
In a society based on ‘value/barter’ it became possible to exchange different types of goods between individuals because each good was assigned a value and these defined, or negotiated, values could then be used to determine things such 4 fish were of equal value to a pair of shoes so an exchange of items of equivalent value could be made. There is a fundamental problem with barter that a monetary system overcame; if the value of items desired to be exchanged varied greatly in value. Ie… A fisherman needed a boat but a boat was worth hundreds of fish, and the boat builder had no use for 100s of fish as a lump payment, no exchange could be made.
In a monetary based system the fisherman could sell his 100’s of fish to many different people who individually only need a few fish each. In return he got a medium of exchange, money, and he could then exchange the money with the boat builder while allowing the boat builder the option of getting different things as needed instead of getting a bunch of fish he had no use for.
Money also has the benefit of being a longer term store of value. IE… If a fisherman has a good catch of fish but can’t find people who need the fish within a short period of time, his catch will soon become worthless. If the fisherman can immediately exchange his catch for money then the money will store well and retain exchange value during the period until the next fishing season.
The pros of a monetary system that benefit individuals also benefit communities as a whole. The monetary wealth of many individuals can be combined to fund large community scale projects that would be impossible for individuals to accomplish. IE…. Hospitals and schools.
The above mentioned pros are the basis of our monetary system which are constantly hammered into our heads as the only way to achieve such results. We are constantly told that without money there could be no civilization. This is an outright falsehood but before explaining why I wish to explore the ‘Cons’ of a monetary system which are never mentioned in polite company. I believe that by people coming to understand clearly the many ‘cons’ of value/monetary based societies, they will also come to see how we have no choice but to define a new organizing principle for society that is not based on either barter or money.
THE CONS
If the world was a perfect paradise and all individuals where honorable and honest barter and/or money would work well as the core structure of our societies. It is obvious by now that the world is no paradise and that there are many individuals who are far from honest or honorable. In fact it is very obvious that even though they are few in number, the .001%, they now have the upper hand and are rapidly destroying our societies.
What isn’t commonly understood is the fundamentals of how the .001% came to their positions of power. Yes we now know about some scams such as usury and the abuses of privately owned central banks, corporations and governments but the understanding that is missing is the basic ‘cons’ of the monetary system that allow such abuse to happen. Understanding these few basic cons that are enabled by a monetary system should quickly convince us try to conceive of a different way of organizing ourselves as it is plain they cannot be overcome within such a system.
My take on this situation is that, “Money is the root of all evil, and the love of money is it’s enabler.”
The No 1 enabler of mischief within a monetary system is the ability to hoard money gained by fair or foul means for indefinite periods and retask it for other purposes. IE… When stealing an apple crop instead of ending up with more apples than you can eat just going rotten, you can sell your excess stolen apples and use the extra money gained for whatever other purpose you desire. A good example is hiring an army to intimidate others.
The No 2 enabler of mischief within a monetary based system is the anonymity that ‘money’ provides. You can steal a crop of apples in one community, sell it in another, and use your ill gotten gains in a 3rd community to become a wealthy upstanding citizen. Then; as an apparently good citizen, you can use ill gotten gains to hire other’s to do your work for you.
The no3 enabler is a little more complex to explain. Without money the only alternative to getting access to desired goods produced by others is to be on good terms with others in your community (accountable?). Yes you can steal what you desire for yourself but your ability to benefit is limited to personal possession. You cannot launder your ill gotten gains. Possession is difficult to hide and often leads to being caught. Word gets around very quickly and known thieves do not thrive for long.
In a valueless society the basics necessary to survive are freely shared by everyone in the community so a thief can take without contributing. However such thievery is easily visible to the community. There is much more to quality of life than the basics needed in order to survive. Things such as shelter which require cooperative effort by skilled individuals. In a value/money based system a thief can use stolen value to hire carpenters, plumbers, electricians and so on. In a valueless system this is not possible. In order for a thief to get a shelter they need the good will of their neighbors to volunteer their labour to a respected fellow community member.
Yes such a valueless system allows for a base level of thievery to exist but it does not allow thieves to prosper. Allowing for such thievery is actually healthy for the community as it respects the right of everyone to chose their own lifestyle. Yes you can choose to be a thief but it has consequences. No violent repression or regulation needed. Refusal to cooperate with thieves is the only act required.
How 18th-century, with a good dose of bankster apologetic added to make it look updated. We've learned that life is a lot more complicated since we allowed pirates (oh, excuse me, "free traders") to take over the English-speaking world and put all the peasants off the commons because they were "inefficient". Nobody ever mentions that the very same advocates of individual liberty for Englishmen, were responsible for creating Negro slavery -- by force, fraud, and coercion, not by any "agreement" on the part of the victims that they deserved it.
Your grand edifice of Anglo-American Liberty has always been built on the bones of brown slaves. Get over yourself and recognize that we all have both rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
Oi vey. Another jew using intelectualism to wag the Nazi's. Will they ever stop? Nah.
I would not reject the idea of a 'collective' mind, although I would not call it that. After all, does 'consciousness' belong soley to the individual? Or, rather, is 'consciousness' like a stream that we are all within? Before you reject, ponder whether your thoughts, ideas, experiences, et. al. are 'data' within consciousness. That 'data', so called, 'belongs' to you, the individual (and 'ends' with you, the individual). Consciousness itself is 'pure' and likened to 'Freedom', 'Energy', 'Love'. So, it is not the 'content' (e.g. data) that defines consciousness, but the other way around. In that respect, consciousness is not 'collective' per se, but all inclusive. To expound; each data affects the 'movement' of consciousness while consciousness itself is not moved. The 'essence' of consciousness is 'Love', which is 'Freedom'......And when 'Freedom' acts, it is 'Righteous'.