This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Tools Collectivists Use To Gain Power
Submitted by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.com,
While many divisions within our society are arbitrary or engineered, there is one division that represents perhaps the most pervasive and important conflict of our time; the division between collectivists and individualists.
Now, people who do not understand the nature of collectivism will often argue that individualism and collectivism are not mutually exclusive because individuals require groups in order to survive and thrive. However, a “group” is not necessarily a collective.
For some reason the core fundamental of collectivism – the use of psychological coercion or physical force to compel participation – goes right over the heads of many skeptics. A group does not have to be collectivist. Any group can and should be voluntary. Collectivism is NOT voluntary. Therefore, collectivism and individualism are indeed mutually exclusive. Collectivists and individualists cannot exist in the same space at the same time without eventually coming into conflict. There is simply no way around it.
From the position of the liberty minded (or the average Libertarian), collectivism is by far the inferior of the two philosophies. Collectivists often boast of the social and economic “harmonization” collectivism creates, as well as the mobilization of labor to “streamline progress.” The reality is that artificially rigged harmony is no harmony at all. If people are forced to homogenize and get along through fear, then peace has not truly been accomplished.
Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time. They cannot be manipulated and shoehorned into a “utopian” framework. Problems will result, like genocide, which tends to erupt during almost every attempt at collectivist utopianism.
Economic harmonization is even less practical, with government force inevitably used to confiscate resources from one group to give to another group, essentially punishing success or frugality. This creates an environment in which achievement becomes less desirable. When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity. Without individual accomplishments and ingenuity, the group is nothing but a hollow mindless ant hill.
Another argument which usually arises is that individualism leads to “selfishness” and the dominance of wealth devouring machines like corporations. I would remind collectivists that corporations exist only through the legal framework and protections of corporate personhood created by governments, and without government protections and favor, corporations could not exist. It is by collectivism, not individualism, that corporatocracy thrives.
At the same time, collectivists consistently blame individualist "free markets" for the numerous ailments of nations. Yet another misrepresentation considering America has not had true free markets in well over a century, and most other nations have never had true free markets in their history. Feudalism and its child Socialism have always been present to plague mankind.
There are no merits to collectivism that are not accomplished with greater success by individualism and voluntary community. In fact, collectivism only serves to enrich and empower a select few elites while destroying the future potential of all other individuals.
Given the disturbing nature of collectivism, one would think that attempts at collectivist societies would be a rarity, shunned by most people as akin to inviting cancer into the body. Unfortunately, cultures based on individualism are the minority in history.
The average collectivist is not usually much of a beneficiary of collectivism. We call these people “useful idiots” or “sheeple” who unknowingly serve the darker machinations of elitists while under the delusion that they are changing society for the better. The reason useful idiots participate in collectivism are many, but I have found that across the spectrum these people tend to be weak willed, weak minded, and by extension, possess a rabid desire for control over others.
It is perhaps no coincidence that “intellectuals” (self proclaimed) tend to end up at the forefront of modern efforts for collectivism. While the poor and destitute are often exploited by collectivism as a mob to be wielded like a battering ram, it is the soft noodle-bodied and fearful academia that acts as middle management in the collectivist franchise. It is they that desire the power to impose their “superior” ideologies on others, and since they are too weak to accomplish anything on their own, they require the cover and momentum of collectivist movements to give them the totalitarian fix they so crave. In other words, they believe in humanitarianism by totalitarianism.
Individualism is under constant and imminent threat as the collectivist obsession with control grows. The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly. It is not enough for them to merely apply force, the greatest power is in the power of consent. Here are the most common tools used by collectivists to obtain power and manufacture consent from the masses.
The Illusion Of Consensus
Collectivists rely greatly on the force of a well-aimed mob to convince the general public they have the consensus position; that they are in the majority. Appearing to be in the majority is the single most important goal of a collectivist movement, even if they are in reality a small minority. The anonymity of web activism gives the force of the mob a new potency. No more than a dozen collectivists working in tandem can wreak havoc in multiple web forums or harass numerous individualist publications while giving casual readers the impression that their ideology is “everywhere.”
The key here is that collectivists understand that the average person does not want to be seen as too contrary to the majority. They understand that the majority view matters to the public, even if the majority view is utterly wrong. If collectivists can convince enough people that their ideology is the majority view, they know that many people will blindly adopt that ideology as their own in order to fit in. The lie of consensus then becomes a self perpetuating prophecy. This problem will remain forever a danger as long as people continue to care at all about the majority view.
The Destruction Of Core Institutions
Those institutions people consider “core institutions” are sometimes vital, and sometimes not. That said, it is the openly admitted objective of collectivists through socialist-style movements to destroy core institutions so that there is no competition to their new system. A collectivist society cannot allow citizens to have any loyalties beyond their loyalty to the group or the state.
So, individual liberties must be degraded or removed, as per the constant reinterpretation of the Constitution as a “living document.” Religious institutions must be painted as shameful affairs for stupid barbaric cave-people. And, the family unit must be broken apart. This is done through economic depravity so pronounced that families never see each other, through state influence over children through public schooling, and through identity politics and propaganda which create sexual and racial conflicts out of thin air.
Dominating Discussion
This coincides with the idea of artificial consensus, but it goes beyond the use of the mob. In our daily lives we are now bombarded with collectivist messages — in mainstream news, in television shows, in movies, through web media and print media. The money behind these outlets belongs to a very small and select group of people, but through them the collectivist worldview is injected into every corner of our society. I would call this propaganda by attrition; an indirect but steady insertion of collectivism creating an atmosphere in which the ideology becomes commonplace even though it is being promoted by a limited number of people.
Exploiting The Youth
When we are young, most of us spend a great deal of time and energy working to be taken seriously. The question is, should we be taken seriously?
In my view and the view of the liberty minded, it really depends on the person’s actions, experience, efforts and accomplishments. Most younger people have little to no experience in life and haven’t had the time to accomplish much. They are still learning how to function in the world, and what kind of goals they want to pursue (if they ever pursue any goals). Because of this, it is hard for those of us who have gone through considerable struggles in life and reached a certain level of achievement to take them seriously when they decide to stroll into a room and pontificate on their moral and philosophical superiority. It makes me want to ask; what the hell have you ever accomplished?
This is not to say that there are not ingenious young people out there, or ignorant and lazy older folks. There are. But collectivist movements seek to exploit younger generations exactly because of their general lack of experience and naivety, as well as their feelings of entitlement when it comes to respect.
Collectivism almost always utilizes a theory called “futurism” in order to appeal to the young. The theory, which was a leading philosophy behind the rise of fascism, proclaims that all new ideas are superior in their social usefulness and all old ideas and beliefs should be abandoned like so much dead skin. According to futurism, those who cling to old ideas and principles are an obstacle to the progress of society as a whole.
The funny thing is, the ideas usually expounded by collectivists are as old as time — elitism, feudalism, totalitarianism, etc. None of these methodologies are “new” by any stretch of the imagination, but collectivists repackage them as if they are some grand new secret to Shangri-La. Younger adherents of collectivism latch onto futurism almost immediately. For, if all new ideas are superior, and all old ideas are barbaric, and younger people are the purveyors and consumers of everything new, then this means that it is the youngest generations that are the wisest, and the village elders that are naïve. By default, the young become the village elders without them ever having to struggle, make sacrifices, learn hard lessons, suffer loss, rise to challenges, or accomplish anything.
The enticing nature of this sudden groundswell of cultural respect is simply far too much for the average person college age or younger to ignore. Collectivism gives the young what they think they want, then uses them as tools for greater conquests.
Forcing Society To Accept The Lowest Common Denominator
Collectivism requires the homogenization of society, to the point that individualism is frowned upon and success is treated as negligible. Whether it is public schools lowering standards to the point that students with little or no reading comprehension graduate, or businesses being forced to lower standards in the name of “diversity” while rejecting employees with superior skill sets because they do not belong to a designated victim group, or government institutions like the military lowering physical standards to accommodate far weaker candidates in the name of “gender parity” while putting every soldier’s life at risk in the process, we are constantly being asked to accommodate the lowest common denominator instead of reaching for the highest level of excellence.
This makes the concept of success a bit of a joke. For “success” within such a system is easy as long as one follows the rules; excelling as an individual is not a factor. And by success I mean being allowed to survive, because that is the best you are going to get in a collectivist structure. The only way to fail is to not follow the rules, rules which may be arbitrary or idiotic at their core. Individualists are immediately punished for thinking or acting outside the box, when this is exactly the kind of behavior that should be encouraged. A society built on the lowest common denominator is a society destined for collapse. Individuals are systematically weeded out in the name of homogenization and all of their potential achievements and innovations disappear with them.
The nightmare of collectivism is the defining battle of our age. It is in this era that we will decide whether or not individual liberty and freedom of thought are more important than the illusory security and “harmony” of the collective.
I, for one, long to see a future in which individual enterprise is allowed to thrive and voluntary participation is the root principle on which our culture functions; a future in which state power is reduced to zero, or near zero, and government force is no longer an acceptable means by which one group can seek to control another group. I may not see this world in my lifetime, but the liberty-minded can make it possible for newer generations by avidly defending ourselves against collectivism today. As pointed out in the beginning, collectivism and individualism cannot coexist; confrontation is inevitable. Recognizing this, and preparing for it, is our duty as free human beings.
»
- 794 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Do NOT give up yer gunz, men!
Individualists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.
In debates between individualists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Individualism's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.
Paraphrase of a Robert Higgs quote.
You know, Westerners have this simplistic idea of putting everything into boxes. Collectivism/individualism. But it seems much more complicated than that. Is USA now really collectivist, when e.g. rights of minorities are often placed above the rights of the majority? If decisions are imposed on the American public by few powerful individuals? What does collectivism really mean? And if you now compare USA with Russia, is Russia now more collectivist? In some ways yes, in some ways not at all. Yes, the Soviet Union had this type of collectivism imposed from above, which now seems to be in place in USA. Not in Russia anymore. Yet Russia is not an individualistic country and never will be.
This is another definition of collectivism (on the example of Russia): "The fundamental issue addressed by this dimension is the degree of interdependence a society maintains among its members. It has to do with whether people´s self-image is defined in terms of “I” or “We”. In Individualist societies people are supposed to look after themselves and their direct family only. In Collectivist societies people belong to ‘in groups’ that take care of them in exchange for loyalty. If Russians plan to go out with their friends they would literally say “We with friends” instead of “I and my friends”, if they talk about brothers and sisters it may well be cousins, so a lower score of 39 even finds its manifestations in the language. Family, friends and not seldom the neighborhood are extremely important to get along with everyday life’s challenges. Relationships are crucial in obtaining information, getting introduced or successful negotiations. They need to be personal, authentic and trustful before one can focus on tasks and build on a careful to the recipient, rather implicit communication style."
However, this present-day collectivism in Russia is not imposed by the state (unlike in the Soviet times), it is simply a cultural/civilizational lifestyle. On the other hand, Russians believe in a strong state - but that does not mean that this state should impose some collective ideology on them. There is no such thing in Russia anymore and I think Russians would now very strongly oppose it. Interestingly, collectivism now seems to be directed from the bottom to the top, not the other way round - meaning the Russian government has to accomodate to what the public "collectively" wants the government to do and not the other way round:-) One example are the gay rights. It would be impossible for the Russian government to introduce such thing as same-sex marriages, as Russians would "collectively" totally refuse this, even if someone may claim that this infringes on rights of some individuals (gays). However, once again you can see that this power of the collective is from the bottom to the top and not the other way round. The state merely carries out the will of the majority as necessary and has to adapt its policies to the public opinion. It seems more close to democracy than what the West has. However, it also has its disadvantages, as sometimes the government may be forced to do something, which is not wise, but the "public" wanted it. (This is why I heard many Americans talking about "republic" not "democracy"). Well, Russians now seem to have the democracy but not the republic:-)
Identity politics, cultural marxism, victim groups; yes, that is all part of collectivism, it is not at all complicated, and it is always controlled from the top down. A select group of oligarchs conditioning the majority to support collectivist policies through fear and force is not bottom-up collectivism. Study up on Mao's Cultural Revolution in China for a perfect example of this.
I don't know why people felt compelled to down arrow you, it certainly wasn't for being wholly incorrect, but I would quibble. If you really want to know where the cudgel of identity politics and cultural marxism originated, read up on the Frankfurt School, a bunch of communist Jews who were smart enough to flee Germany before things got real. They brought their brand of "Critical Theory" to Columbia U, and infected the US with a virus that lives to this day.
I arrowed him down for dodging the crux of the criticism: Western collectivism simply violates the individual's basic right to consent.
You know, that small word that differentiates things like charity from theft and making love from rape.
That's immoral. And moroever, your comment implies the benefits of the association of people among themselves would not be achieved unless under threats of coercion - fines, incarceration or extrem violence to enforce.
People seek what's best for themselves naturally. The only legitimate use of force is when we protect their right to say no thanks to those who would violate their liberty.
end the fed
Behold the reality of what the collectivist minded technocrats have given us...
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/WM-Welfare-Char...
...from the very smartest people in the room, for the cheeelrun an all ;-)
The Russian people were conditioned to rely on the State for their existence. When the Wall fell many were and apparently by the comment above still afraid of relying on their own. This is the direction that the US is heading to as we near a majority of Americans getting assistance from the State.
A government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" cannot exist when a majority "of the people" rely on the government to help them. They are the government that they are seeking help from.
If I could just borrow some money from myself everything will be all right. Collectivist would say that their system is superior because you can borrow from the collective. But if everyone in the collective is equally in debt, where does one borrow? See the Fed.
If it's "not imposed" ... then it is voluntary ... ergo, it is not "Collectivism".
Dear datura
For several decades Russia--then USSR--was behind the "iron curtain". There was no communication between Russians and Americans. We grew up wondering what Russians were like. In the 1980s the iron curtain began to lift. Russian scientists and engineers were allowed out of Russia to attend technical conferences in the West, and this was the first opportunity I had to speak to them (I am an engineering Professor). A recurrent answer I heard from them, when I would ask, "what was it like to live and work in the Soviet Union under communism?" was: "They pretend to pay us, so we pretend to work." All of us Westerns were stunned by that answer, and I heard that same answer from several different Russian scientists. By the way, these conferences were/are very expensive, so the USSR would only allow their best scientists to attend. These guys were literally Russia's best and brightest, the creme of the crop. This is what forced collectivisms breeds.
Yes! Let's all join together to defeat collectivism!
Yes, you can join together to defeat collectivism VOLUNTARILY. A voluntary group is not a collectivist group since collectivism requires forced participation, but you already knew that from reading the article...
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we ARE all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...
The Crowd: Sch!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079470/quotes?ref_=tt_ql_3
lakecity55 re "Do not give up yer gunz men" :
Why not? You're obviously not using them. Corzine, Blankfein, Dimon ... you know their names, what are you waiting for? Oooooh, you're just gonna use them on the zombies / I mean starving neighbours, while the elite that caused the mess ignore you and the zombies because they sit in their mansions thousands of miles away from you, and you can do nothing to them but they can wipe out your bank account whenever they feel like it.
For the record, I actually do support your 2nd A. right to bare arms and I do understand that you have to fight to keep it. But I think as long as you are worried about your guns then you are not noticing the greater problems and identifying suitable solutions. Your labour is being stolen from you by people who live thousands of miles away. They have media, MIC, computers, satellites and brainwashed Zombie Hordes. Soon they will be deploying drones. Your next move?
Keeping your guns is a part of the solution but that alone is not enough.
Anybody who writes "bare arms" should stick to reading fashion magazines...
/go ahead and edit it
Whoops, too late. The edit function is gone.
You're right. We should definitely arm bears.
Also, my dress code at work requires long sleeves. Can I have the right to bare arms?
My arms are very furry. They almost look like bear arms.
Keeping your guns is the first 'MUST' step on the road back from perdition. Additionally, there is likely a time where the threat of organized use of those guns must be credibly made in order to address some categories of tyranny that are now institutionalized.
The goons will be local, until the local goons are the drones. But the thieves that create the grief live thousands of miles away. Still worth devoting a little bit of time to contemplating how to cut off the metaphorical head that lives thousands of miles away.
SPOT ON ! and he supports YOUR 2nd A also......
collectivists can never win an honest election.
They ALWAYS have to open the immigration gates to drown the native vote, and then distract the immigrants and natives with the resulting conflicts as they implement totalitarian "solutions"
Its what the ancient Greek Trojan horse story is about
It's all about replacing the expensive slaves with cheaper slaves.
Good article for 12 year olds who don't understand that the fundamental problem is sociopaths who will fuck up any attempt to organize oneself individually or collectively.
The most useful idiot is the one who advocates for an ideological construct that has never succeeded in all of human history, except for the individuals who ruled over everyone else.
Funny you and I would make similar observations and pull down the same word: socipaths. To be honest, I always thought you were kind of hit-and-miss on your observations. I might need to reevaluate that.
I am the first to admit I probably miss more than I hit, but I'm with you that the sociopath problem is on the Billboard Top 100 for all of human history.
And who do you think is dividing us (see below)?
The oligarchs, who used to be Kings and Queens (and who still hold those titles in many places).
Good article for 12 year olds who don't understand that the fundamental problem is sociopaths who will fuck up any attempt to organize oneself individually or collectively.
Good comment for a fifty=something-year-old who still doesn't realize that demanding that sociopaths be given guns and put in charge of everybody else is absolutely the worst way to stop sociopaths from controlling everybody.
Absolutely right, Billy. As evidenced by history, sociopaths only fuck with us if have free elections and organized government to try to combat them.
As evidenced by history when you demand that sociopaths rule over you they rule over you.
Agreed again. All of human history teaches us that people asked to be ruled by sociopaths prior to elected government.
I am not asking for it today. You are asking for it today.
Wouldn't it be easier to say that you are rubber and I am glue?
As one who believe in the saving grace of elected government, who do you believe can best run your life for you, Trump, Clinton, Sanders or Carson?
Those are the choices you allow yourself.
You are exposing yourself, Billy. I have said repeatedly that our two team system is completely corrupt and that I no longer vote for that reason. That does not mean (contrary to your binary view of the world) that the solution is no elected government. Did you read Thoreau more closely yet to understand that he and Ayn Rand would have been mortal enemies?
I have said repeatedly that our two team system is completely corrupt and that I no longer vote for that reason. That does not mean (contrary to your binary view of the world) that the solution is no elected government.
That's insane even for you. You insist that the only way to be happy is to demand that an elected official run your life at gunpoint but you think that anyone who could be elected is bad and therefore you won't vote even though that's the only way to be happy. Or is it that you just don't want to admit who your preferred sociopath actually is?
Did you read Thoreau more closely yet to understand that he and Ayn Rand would have been mortal enemies?
I have a degree in Literature in English and scored in the 97th percentile on the Graduate Review Exam in that subject. What are your credentials?
Here's your assignment for toady. Compare and contract the following statements.
“If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away.” -- Thoreau
"If I devote myself to other pursuits and contemplations, I must first see, at least, that I do not pursue them sitting upon another man’s shoulders.”-- Thoreau
"I swear by my life, and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." -- Ayn Rand
"I have a degree in Literature in English and scored in the 97th percentile on the Graduate Review Exam in that subject. What are your credentials? Here's your assignment for toady."
The best example of someone who has nothing to say is someone who falls back on their credentials. And don't call me toady.
The best example of someone who doesn't understand Thoreau is someone who claims to know Thoreau but who refuse to discuss Thoreau.
I call you toady because you're slimy but you really ought to stay out of water this deep.
Right. Honesty as always. And I'm glad to hear you tested well on the standardized tests and are proud of it, you rebel, you.
Honestly, I'm disappointed that that is the best effort you can make in regard to discussing the love of individual freedom espoused by both Thoreau and Rand.
I'll give you that Thoreau was a true libertarian. Rand was a zionist MIC advocating asshole. And neither had any idea how to deal with the problems of the world, other than as it related to them personally. Rand in particular was quite honest that everyone else could go fuck themselves. You are everyone else, but like most Rand followers you don't see that.
The topic was the shared love of individual freedom espoused by Thoreau and Rand. You continue to avoid that subject.
You also seem oblivious to the fact that when two people advocate for the right of individuals to live life by their own lights it really doesn't matter that one lives in a cabin in the woods while the other prefers modern architecture. They each follow their own drummer as Thoreau would say.
Strike three is your incorrect premise that Rand promoted the MIC. Quite the opposite.
"Men who are free to produce, have no incentive to loot; they have nothing to gain from war and a great deal to lose. Ideologically, the principle of individual rights does not permit a man to seek his own livelihood at the point of a gun, inside or outside his country. Economically, wars cost money; in a free economy, where wealth is privately owned, the costs of war come out of the income of private citizens — there is no overblown public treasury to hide that fact — and a citizen cannot hope to recoup his own financial losses (such as taxes or business dislocations or property destruction) by winning the war. Thus his own economic interests are on the side of peace." -- Ayn Rand's The Roots of War, 1966.
Tell it to Greenspan, the non-Randian Randian.
You just go farther and farther afield. Next time you don't want to discuss a topic maybe you should just not bring it up to begin with.
don't forget priests
I am not reading through half a page of Billy arguing with two collectivist fucktards to see whether I care to comment here.
I watched all the Rambo movies. One man can succeed where thousands fail. It is better to have 3 or 4 lions instead of 1000 sheep. Divided We Conquer, United We Fall!!!
Ummm, how do we ensure that the voluntary collectivisms stay voluntary? I guess we need to represent ourselves or else keep a tight noose, I mean reign, on our representatives. Maybe I shoulda read the article properly. Did I miss anything?
Yeah, Clubber Lang kicked Rambo's ass... oh wait, that was Ivan Drago in Syria
sociopaths...aren't the problem...it is the idiots following them and others for not stopping the IDIOTS. Political Correctness now allow you to harangued a for declaring themselves a republican or libertarian...but you want to be a transgender freak boy changing in a girls lockroom...or a black person saying you want to kill white police....YOU are fine.
Individualism is not an ideological construct, it is a part of the inborn nature of choice and freedom. Just because collectivists consistently attempt to interfere with that inherent freedom doesn't mean a culture that respects and fosters individualism should not be our ultimate goal. How are you going to beat the sociopaths unless you promote the antithesis to their strategy? Individualism IS a big part of that antithesis. Your comment smells of defeatism.
That's all well and good if you ignore history. Individuals have never defeated the sociopaths except by collective action. The founders of the US developed a construct to keep them in check, and it worked well for a long time. I has become corrupted, but the answer is not to return to that against which the founders fought.
History supports my point. Individuals joining together VOLUNTARILY have defeated sociopaths in the past. When systems move away from the freedom of VOLUNTARY participation, they become corrupted. Yes, the answer is to not return to collectivism, which is based on forced participation. If it is voluntary, then it is individualism. If it is forced or manipulated, then it is collectivism. The article already made this distinction pretty clear.
The problem we are all dancing around is the presumption that world view is a voluntary choice, when in fact world view is forced upon us by the circumstances we encounter.
Ask yourself -- why do cities reliably turn blue? Even in red states?
The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is that collectivism represents mental illness, a particular mental illness that humanity is prone to when it is subject to overcrowding. Just like dogs get kennel cough and humans get pertussis as physical illnesses due to overcrowding, collectivism is the mental disease of overcrowding.
Humans need space, and the reason why we need space is that we need to be exposed to the cause/effect nature of reality in order to mature emotionally and intellectually, and the only way that maturation happens is if we are forced to confront reality without help, without the crutch of deferring our problems to be solved by someone else. Absent that space, we invent our own imaginary space that we call "anonymity." This is a wholly imaginary reality in which we wander around inches from other humans while pretending that they aren't there. But, this imaginary reality does not have the same cause/effect teaching function that real reality provides, it does not contain the iron laws of cause and effect that real reality contains, and thus the more we retreat into our imaginary space, the less we mature emotionally and intellectually.
The end result of generations of humans that are not forced to mature is the collective, humans who are not hardened and individualistic and fiercely independent as is the natural quality of mature humans, but instead humans who are clingy and co-dependent and fearful of the world, humans who willingly hand over their birthright of freedom and independence for the bowl of redistributionary wealth pottage.
In the early years of our country, many of us had to face reality on our own as we spread across the continent, and this matured us such that we fiercely guarded our independence. We refused to accept the "help" of the state because we correctly smelled the hook buried in it. But, over a century of overcrowding has produced an overwhelming number of juvenile humans, who are not required to prove anything other than chronological age in order to qualify to help make decisions.
The reason why our society increasingly resembles the lord of the flies is because our society is regressing. This is irreversible, because absent famine or plague we cannot reverse the overcrowding. The only solution to preserve freedom is to find new space, and then leave behind the decaying corpse riddled with parasites in order to create a new society.
Worldview is a choice. Environment only increases determinism to a point because we are born with free will. We can listen to our inherent will, or we can choose to hand it over to someone else. I've known many people from Christian families that turned atheist. I've known a few atheists that were born again Christians. I've met many people from liberal and neo-con backgrounds that are now libertarians. People choose to change their world views according to the facts they digest, or the feelings in their soul, or the skepticism in the back of their brains, and "overcrowding" really has nothing to do with it. If overcrowding led to more collectivist control, then the banksters would not salivate so much over population reduction.
Experience is a map that tells us that "you do X, and you get Y." Overcrowding and the political solutions that go with it give those most exposed to the overcrowding a faulty map. Of course a few can see past this, but most can't, and since we have replaced our ideal of freedom with our ideal of democracy, our course is charted by what most do. Faulty experience is why congested areas think blue while rural think red.
Do you have another explanation for this ubiquitous political pattern?
TIme for a new form of governance, Socialocracy.
Yet another article that gets it only partially right. As soon as you see the issue framed as one -ism vs. another -ism, you can rest assured it's wrong.
The game- the ONLY game that has ever been played- is POWER AND CONTROL. Period.
Those sociopaths who seek it will wrap themselves in whatever -ism seems to be in favor at the time and gets them the power that they seek.
Questions?
take control or be controlled it's always been true.
Yet another article that gets it only partially right. As soon as you see the issue framed as one -ism vs. another -ism, you can rest assured it's wrong.
Do you own your own body or does someone else own you? Is recognition of the fact that your own your own body an "ism" or is its a simple fact of nature?
If I stated that two plus two make four and someone decided to call that statement "additionism" would that make it an incorrect statement? If all that anyone has to do to make you disbelieve reality is to append the suffix "ism" to a factual statement then you're in a world of trouble.
The tools collectivists use to gain power: The hopelessly bought off media, feminism, fear, community organizers, Bill Ayers, groupthink, divide and conquer, promises of a future utopia, death threats, mass immigration/invasion,...
"Divide and conquer: The phrase is attributed to Philip II, king of Macedon (382-336 BC), describing his policy toward the Greek city-states."
Modern day: Class, generational, racial, gender, socio-economic warfare. Multi-culturalism and NOT MONO-CULTURALISM. Look around!
I don't disagree, but my point is that these tools have been used before "liberal" or "conservative" were things. As a conservative who hates liberals, what say you?
Speak of divide conquer...
Look out Trump! Latino kids born in the USA have got something to say as they hilariously let loose on Trump pounding his anti-Latino racism point-by-point like a piñata. Some will find what they say shocking (F-bombs ahead) but there's no denying the math that you can't win the White House without the brown vote. The first video from DeportRacism.com, an online movement to fight anti-Latino racism in the 2016 election. Get involved and get a "Deport Racism 2016" T-shirt to support the #DeportRacism2016 mov…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDW1R9OmOr0
OF COURSE they've been used before, it's all they've got! If us "useless eaters" mobilized the .0001% would be toast before the morn. We hate no one. We pray for our adversaries, that they will see the light. Liberals, namely Jeffersonian classical liberals, are not the problem. It is the progressive/communist scum who are the problem. You know, the "collectivists" this thread is about?
"Progressive/communist scum" are by and large normal people who feel fucked by the system. You should redirect your hatred to those who run the system, and then we could all have a rational debate about how best to live our lives. Until then, your hatred of regular "scum" who are fucked by the machine only feeds the machine.
You should redirect your hatred to those who run the system,
Hilarious comment from a guy who demands that the system be run by people with the power to kill in order to make everyone else do exactly what they say.
and then we could all have a rational debate about how best to live our lives.
An even more hilarious comment from a guy who says that no one has a right to live their own lives but must do what the man with the gun demands.
Oh my! If communists are normal, we are proud freaks. You voted for the card-carrying communist Obama. If you don't know Obama, Jarrett, et al., are communists, that is your problem. No, normal people want to be free. Normal people want a tiny government WHO WORKS FOR US, BECAUSE IT IS US. There can be no debate with you people, because you think you know everything. And for the last fucking time, we don't hate you because that would give you power over us.
”There can be no debate with you people, because you think you know everything” – classical projection.
I’m always ready for a debate. My only demand is, that we agree on the definition of terms – otherwise communication is impossible. In US most terms relating to philosophy/ethics/ideologies have purposefully been made useless. Many ZH’er are obviously victims of this corporate propaganda (and as all victims of propaganda they don’t know it).
Give one (good) example of a ’communist’ policy being implemented by Obama? Or just a rhetorical promise (what he’s a master of) of something that could be interpreted as communist?
"Classical projection", go fuck yourself Mr. Psychologist! Maybe you are an intellectual masochist who enjoys sparring with commies over why/why not a halloween costume is "offensive". We have better things to do. If you don't understand the tenets of communism, hit the books son! Remember Joe the plumber/wealth redistribution? It doesn't get anymore commie than that my friend. Barry's ideological, and perhaps biological, father Frank Marshall Davis was a well known communist agitator. This is a fact. Remember his open-mic gaffe to Medvedev about being more flexible after the election? Only a communist mole would say that. But Barry didn't start this. Like everything else in his life, others have done the heavy lifting for him. McCarthy and Cleon Skousen tried to warn us. Read Cleon's list of communist goals and weep, America:http://www.tldm.org/News7/CommunismInAmerica.htm
The REAL problem with all of these -isms, -ocracys, and even religions is the fact that people raised in those systems are basically programmed to believe in them, and identify with them to the point that they just can't be reasoned with - even when believing in those systems proves detrimental to their health. I mean, extremists willingly blow themselves the fuck UP for their beliefs. How can that be dealt with? These people spend their days imposing THEIR vision of 'correctness' on everyone else around them, and they aren't even psychopaths - just programmed pawns in the machine.
This question is what keeps me awake at night: say we get rid of the psychopaths who divide and conquer us...OK, how then do we deal with all the hundreds of millions of mentally broken souls they left behind that still cling to what they know, because that is how they have defined themselves, even when their world has been shattered?
Love and compassion, same as it ever was.
Yes, I guess it really is that simple. And simpler times are coming. Same as it ever was.
I love ISIS and I have compassion for them. I want them to achieve their metaphysical goals as soon as possible, so my chosen tool is the air-fuel bomb. I believe it will be more effective than love and compassion alone in dealing with the programed droids of mohammed.
.
Thank you for bringing it all back to the real. This is a topic I never get tired of reading Radical Marijuana's take on because HE GETS IT. The difficulty we all have--I am definitely in that group--is that we keep forgetting psychological commitment to an ideology/religion/point of view will use every trick in the book to avoid changing. I know I argue with people as if MERE FACTS will change their mind. My bad...it is not going to happen.
We all have to go through an experience, catharsis if you will, that changes us. Experience, not facts or argumentation, will change people's minds.
What does that mean? That we are wasting our time trying to convince anyone of the pointlessness of collectivist fantasy. They will get it when the experience that brilliantly and brutally changes their outlook occurs.
In the meantime, prepare for the inevitable and try to stay open minded and open hearted about how you can make a difference on the Other Side of the reckoning. I have my nose constantly shoved into the obvious truth: Most people DON'T want to know, DON'T want to learn, and DON’T want to think about these things. Their choices say they wish to react when and in whatever way are available when it hits the fans. So be it.
My blood pressure would have been a lot lower a lot earlier if I had learned this lesson years ago. You can't save a drowning man who is doggedly determined to drown himself...whether he knows that fact or not.
Did I just read the Protocols of Zion?
Just to irritate the ziopaths: Hitler on Jews, Jesus and the Protocols.
'Balfour: We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.
White: If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.
Balfour: That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war... Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.1'
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/articles/h...
The collective cunts just got caught in their collective lies. The Zionist haven't told you about skimming off pension funds. The ass leaking of supporting a social security ponzi scheme depleted.
Watch a revolutionary effort unfold. People for the people, not the State.
As cronyism and corruption shoots your thesis all to hell. You live in an illusion of freedom and liberty. It's not about "collectivism" -- you should be worried about sociopathic tyranny, oligarchy, and plutocracy.
You will soon figure out the double speak of Collectivism. Then, add it too your list.
Best wishes...
and the biggest elephent in the room - religion - the original fear-mongering totalitarianism
Sociopathic tyranny relies on the manipulated or forced consent of collectivism in order to gain and maintain power. You cannot have tyranny, oligarchy or plutocracy without collectivism. The only counter strategy is to promote and fight for individual liberty and freedom.
angry saxon time soon, gonna be ugly
The price of chutzpah.
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.
Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.
It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
A Indian friend of mine told me the difference between Indians and Americans is that when Indians get into a traffic altercation, they jump out of their cars, arms flailing and screaming at the top of their lungs. Eventually they both return to their cars and continue one.
One or both Americans will very calmly take the pistol or rifle in their car, walk to the other car and blow a hole in the drivers forehead. Then return to his car and continue on.
Every race is different. Western Europeans/Americans have a lot to answer for in their imperial depredations of other people. However...for the topic at hand, the poet is correct.
You will not see the slow rise of burning rage. You will see the explosive finale of an underground fire that has smouldered a long, long time.
I knew someone would have it to hand, thanks huge.
Every day...
Every fucking single day...
We collectivists rail at those bastards who wrote the Bill of Rights.
How we howl and curse them.
Yet in our hearts we know that the distant shadows cast by the Founding Fathers are more powerful than us, the living totalitarians.
Curse you, Doctor Warren, and all the rest of the scurvy lot who are cheating us of our prize.
Why can't you be more like the Europeans. Or the Chinese. Or the Japanese. Hell, anybody but Americans.
You've got a bargain with some old dead guys, which is why the new guys think it's worth exactly fuck all,
"Human beings must come to their own conclusions on cooperation and tolerance in their own time." Problem is, humans are not endowed with the instinct of the other animals. We use culture to pass forward the lessons of the past instead. And after 100,000 years of homo sapiens we stilll have not figured out a way to pass on the most basic of all fucking lessons, that you should treat others as you want to be treated. Face it, we're no better than reptiles. So it should come as no surprise that many people do not trust their fellow human beings to come to these conclusions.
Face it, we're no better than reptiles.
That depends on whether you enjoy eating flies and slithering through mud or eating a ncie filet and sharing ideas with others.
Mere distrust is in no way a license for some people to use force to control other people. Don't make your problems other people's problems.
The tools collectivists use to gain and keep power are:
1. Standing armies and professional police forces
2. Fractional-reserve banking.
Finding the wherewithal to pay big men with guns to force people to do your bidding on a regular basis becomes a lot more difficult if a friendly banker can't just lend you someone else's gold. Force a collectivist to pay his own way and he'll never rule anything with an iron sceptre bigger than a cult compound in the desert or jungle---and you'll never hear about him till his followers are found dead next to a tub of poisoned fruit punch.
Any people serious about self-government must re-asset their right to issue money and regulate the value thereof.
I believe part of the reason for the rising death rates among less-educated whites aged 45 to 54 is the loss of collectivism in this country. When unions used to give workers not only living wage jobs but health care benefits and pensions, the American Dream was fairly easy to maintain. Now that globalist free markets have stripped away the good jobs, everyone is scrambling to get by. It seems an individual is more likely to feel alone and abandoned rather than "free" in the ideal libertarian state. It also seems that globalist oligarchs would prefer the libertarian state, where they can trample on peoples rights and treat them as disposable worker units who should realize when they have lost the game and just give up.
The favorite mass collectivism tool used in the West is consumerism. They give you the illusion you have a choice, that you can be unique but the market is controlled by only a few brands. Marketing, PR and television influence you what to buy that fits 'your lifestyle'. Pseudoscience controlled by them tells you what is good for you. That is how the whole fast food sector came about. That is why white males 45 to 54 are obese and well on their way to coronary diseases and cancer (others as well mind you). Back in the 1940s an average American male had a 1 in 16 chance to get cancer in his lifetime. Now that is 1 in 2. And virtually everything nowadays gives you cancer from the stuff you eat to the stuff you use and wear cause, as a recent study shows, your skin absorbs toxins through the skin. Stuff such as PAH, biphenols, phthalates, etc. used in all sort of households material find their way into your body. Let's not even touch radiation.
Fuck all you either or guys. When you're finished doing your worst, we pragmatist will shove your bodies into large ditches with D9 Cats and go about trying to save what’s left of the planet like it's actually still possible. Engagement!
The best will of course be awarded with R&R that will include a ritual pissing on Ayn Rand’s grave.
The last time I heard something that inspiring, I was 11 and my Cub Scout master was going over camp sanitation protocols.
Well played. Damn well played.
This is a good article. I find it is within this very debate the accents of social engineering become blatantly clear. Observe how the greater good is always championed while the individual is villinized. The unintended consequences of all collectivist movements are always ignored, say the enabling effects of "free" health care or welfare. Yet when there is wrong, it is always an sole individual responsible, never an industry or group as a whole. Politicians being one glaring example of this.
It couldn't be more obvious that almost all law, especially corporate law is built around protecting the institution/collective first. The "individual"(a term I'm losing taste for as it tends to denote someone else instead of people understanding it is their own person who bound within this collective frame work) has almost no equality when a discrepancy occurs against the collective. This is a clever construct as it allows insane imbalances within societies value system, and is almost impossible to reverse as it is always able to garner support from an usually undefined group people aka the greater good.
I would think that most people with a fair amount of life experience would be aware of this important issue and its enabling institution, but the fact is that the conditioning for the greater good runs extremely deep through most people's psyches, to the point which they are prepared to make major personal sacrifice despite knowing their efforts are mostly for naught. And I don't exclude myself from this misguided group.
So I challenge you, Brandon Smith, or whoever, how do we relearn that we have to take care of ourselves and our personal rights first as it is my experience that it will literally be YOU the individual against the world.
Well said. A case in point is that the bank bailouts set in place give seniority to corporations over people.
I think the individuals will indeed relearn self reliance and collectivism always collapses over time. This time however will be slow as there is not a competing system for individuals to port to.
there is not a competing system for individuals to port to.
Sure there is. Individuals can organize voluntarily in an effort to achieve security and prosperity rather than organize in a compulsory system to achieve those goals. It's a simple concept that one can work with others with whom one shares ideas and values rather than submit oneself to the power of those who promote elitism and violence.
"I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto, — "That government is best which governs least": and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe, — "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have" -- Thoreau
Beginner: "When the student is ready, the Teacher appears."
Master: "When the student is ready, the Teacher disappears."
I'm not so confident. History shows how quickly people will reach for the organization and security of the collective. There is no doubt in my mind there will be a "new and better" system prepared to embrace the masses
Yes, this should be rich. "WE" will meet all your "Armies of One" on the field of honor and afterward we will centrally plan what to do with your bodies, and how to re-educate your women and your children to be decent human beings.
If you believe that people who are forced to work together by violence outperform those who work together willingly am I to assume that you regularly beat and shoot your family and friends? Or are you on the receiving end of the lash and loving it?
Please. He hasn't thought through this, as he brilliantly exposes with each post.
Any ruling elite is a collective dedicated to expansion of their powers with other individual ideas or needs of the members of the 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, desolated outside of the society, a recipe which would bring quick demise to any ruling elite 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.
In fact the ruling elite members are failures as individuals and draw their strength solely from a collective 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...
I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of those who frequent ZH have some tools of their own for dealing with Collectivists.
Careful not to expose the truth that any decent armchair philosopher knows..
Sorry, but collectivists won the intellectual battle long ago, and implemented a system that cannot be beaten from outside (but can collapse if individualists escape).
While honest, ethical, benevolent individuals spend their time & effort producing, collectivists learn, improve and implement their schemes.
The main reason individualists lost is a huge intellectual error they made! They accepted just a few collectivist ideas that they somehow thought were reasonable and viable. But those few collectivist ideas were more than enough to completely infect, thwart and enslave them.
What do I mean?
Well, consider how life would work in a fully individualist world. Assume for purpose of argument that everyone walked around with a pair of pistols on their hips, like in visions of "old west America".
If someone tries to harm you, what do you do? Shoot them. If someone tries to steal your cattle or horses, what do you do? Shoot them.
You defend yourself, your family, your property. YOU do.
What is the collectivist way to deal with these situations? That's obvious, "call the cops". The first consequence of this approach is... the problem cannot be taken care of immediately. The second consequence is... the human predator usually gets his way (does harm, steals goods). The third consequence is... the victim is rarely made whole.
But perhaps most important is this. The human predators realize they can greatly improve their situation if they control "the cops", or in modern terms, "the justice system".
Hell, they don't even need to control the cops, or the entire "justice system". They only need to control... oh, let's say... "the judges". Hell, all they really need to control is "one judge", plus the individual who assigns specific cases to specific judges.
Now, when any of the "favored predators" who gained control of this tiny part of this inherently "collectivist system" can do [nearly] anything they want, and be confident they will never suffer significant consequences.
-----
The above section is only one way to answer to this issue.
Almost all individualists are willing to let packs of collectivists (predators) conspire and collaborate to dominate individualists (producers), but are not willing to conspire and collaborate with other individualists (producers) to evade, defeat or become independent of collectivists (predators).
They simply don't. I for one tried for many, many years to form collaborations with other highly productive individualists, but they won't. And as I look around, I see that the fault isn't entirely mine, because they rarely do anywhere else either. In fact, I see few if any instances of such collaborations.
After many years and many attempts, my decision was to "give up" on ever being able to organize individualists to collaborate for their own benefit. And so, all on my own, all alone, moved to the extreme boonies in the southern hemisphere and created by own little self-sufficient "community" of one... just me and me alone.
I was able to do this, and become independent of all collectives, and thus secure and safe from all human predators. This required a great deal of time, effort and work! And I realize most folks could not pull something like this off. For one, I had about $400K of savings to work with, which was barely enough to create a truly 100% self-sufficient place to live (where I literally need ZERO external supplies (or money) to live for decades). Plus, I had previously lived alone at, and maintained, a remote fully self-sufficient research station for several years, so I had the knowledge, experience and confidence to do so again.
BUT... with a little collaboration, most individualists could achieve the same. In fact, they could potentially achieve even more and better. But what did I find? Zero willing collaborators. Oh, several individuals showed interest. But in the end, no action.
-----
Over the years, I have recognized several very attractive ways to largely to completely escape the collectivists (predators). But most of the easiest and most attractive ways were too expensive for me alone. They were, however, within the reach of just 3 or 4 people in my situation (3 or 4 people/couples with $360K or more savings).
Yet every attempt to form a collaboration to implement these opportunities failed. Right now two of these opportunities exist, but only two individualists are willing to collaborate on them. Without at least one more collaborator, the opportunities just don't work. With two more collaborators, they work great (are fully paid for, and have almost zero expenses from now to forever).
-----
This seems to be the state of reality of individualism today. Most individualists are incapacitated because they accept tenants of collectivism, or they attempt to implement individualism by means of collectivist approaches.
This is a self-contradiction and cannot possibly work, though they don't recognize this.
Frankly, virtually the entire "liberty movement" seems to fall into this category. They actually believe the proper, effective (and usually "only") way to achieve individualism is to "convince over 50% of the collective to vote for individualism".
This is, of course, absurd! The entire notion that one must "convince the majority to support your position" is a 100% collectivist notion. Yet, as I explained above, the minds of almost every individualist is infected with collectivist assumptions that incapacitate them. As usual, the collectivists win without need for action... they infect other with bogus ideas that disable their potential adversaries, and effectively convert them into their willing submissive prey.
-----
If any dedicated individualists exist out there in ZH land, think about what I said above. Are you willing to throw off all the collectivist nonsense that may have infected your brain? Of if your brain is completely uninfected, why not search for other uninfected individualists and take advantage of the greater efficiency of small-scale collaboration?
Perhaps my bottom line comment to every individualist is this. Forget "society". Think of yourself as utterly and totally independent of "society" (which I do, and now literally am in the physical sense). Think exclusively of what kind of life you want to live, then look around the world for the best place to implement that kind of life, then make your plans, then implement them. And if you don't have all the expertise and/or financial resources to do everything yourself, form a small-scale collaboration to help you. But keep your vision as small, simple, modest and practical as possible to avoid "biting off more than you can chew". Don't be one of the thousands of dreamers who "think big" then "do nothing".
I think Bundy Ranch was a perfect example of why the fight has not been decided yet. People seem to forget that we came within a breath of outright war with the feds. Individuals without preexisting organization made that choice to come together to fight, and it is only a matter of time before a similar situation takes place again. The founding fathers had to go through decades of British trespasses before they reached the moment of rebellion, and in the meantime, they nullified by removing themselves from dependency on British production. The act of widespread individualism is really a process, not a singular event. It takes time, and to the casual observer on the shore the moving tides seem negligible, but they are powerful.
I'd love to believe what you say. But humans in previous times were not utterly and totally brainwashed. And they were not so utterly and completely monitored. And they were not so utterly and totally outgunned either.
What evidence do I have?
Look what already happened in Europe.
Look what already happened in Australia.
Look what happened so many places on this planet.
The example of Australia seems rather extraordinary. With so much empty space, how could such a place become so disarmed? Answer: brainwashing (I have to assume, combined with effective intimidation).
-----
I'd love to believe people in Canada and/or the USSA will refuse to be disarmed. But they've been UTTERLY enslaved in every other way already, so I am extremely skeptical they will come to their senses before "game over".
I hope you're right. But all evidence makes me super skeptical.
BTW, I agree the Bundy Ranch event was an exception, and extraordinary. It surprised the hell out of me! And it does illustrate that this kind of behavior can still work (at least in certain places given a sufficiently large number of people who are willing to put everything on the line and refuse to back down).
I hate this expression, but "the Bundy Ranch case is the exception that proves the rule". Again, hope I'm wrong.
Well, consider how life would work in a fully individualist world. Assume for purpose of argument that everyone walked around with a pair of pistols on their hips, like in visions of "old west America".
If someone tries to harm you, what do you do? Shoot them. If someone tries to steal your cattle or horses, what do you do? Shoot them.
You defend yourself, your family, your property. YOU do.
Wrong.
That's what you would do but other individuals would organize themselves to first educate others as to property rights and secondly to protect those rights through means that did not depend on violence as a first and only resort.
Individuals may organize voluntarily with others while remaining individuals. Your intellectual mistake was to believe that your interpretation of what a society based on individualism would look like without understanding that other individuals can and do think differently than you think and might live differently than you imagine that they would.
Sure, nothing wrong with explaining the fundamental nature of productive human life to other human beings... when they are children. If they haven't learned by then, you'll never succeed.
If someone attempts to harm you, then you MUST shoot them... otherwise YOU are dead, or likely dead. If someone attempts to harm your family or friends, then you MUST shoot them... otherwise your FAMILY or FRIENDS will be dead.
If someone attempts to steal your stuff, then you can LET THEM, or you can STOP THEM. If you want to stop them, you MUST shoot them, otherwise they will very possibly kill you.
To take such kinds of risk is insane, plus you give every advantage to the human predator who doesn't have any ethics (just like a predator of any species). That leads DIRECTLY to the world today, in which predators rule producers.
I enjoy that other individuals think and live differently... in every respect except one.
What is that respect? That respect is, in fact, the fundamental bifurcation that happened thousands of years ago, when humans learned to be producers. Before this time, all humans and other animals were necessarily predators, simply because they did not know how to be producers (in any significant way).
My comments are based upon the following FACT.
In any conflict between a predator and producer, the predator will win unless the producer acts to stop the predator.
This should be obvious! Just look at how predators behave. They ACT. And so, if producers do not also ACT, the predator will always achieve the consequences it desires (due to causality... actions have consequences).
-----
OF COURSE no individualist or producer has any objection to having conversations with other humans to explain the distinction between producer and predator (and how they will respond to predatory acts by animals of any species).
OF COURSE individualists and producers should feel free to communicate, collaborate and cooperate with each other to achieve common purposes more efficiently and/or more effectively.
But make no mistake, no true individualist cares AT ALL whether other human beings have different ideas, different strategies, different approaches. They prefer that, because it leads to advantages for all... including the efficiencies of "division of labor" and "trade".
What individualists DO and MUST care about A LOT is whether a predator is trying to destroy them, their family, their friends, their property.
Why so? Because destruction is inherently and metaphysically vastly more potent and powerful than production. And so, effective steps must be taken immediately against destruction, otherwise production is useless (destroyed).
Do you doubt my claim that "destruction is inherently more potent and powerful than production"? If so, consider the following and note how this example applies to just about everything in life.
production
It takes a large quantity of time, effort, skills, expertise and resources to build a nice home.
destruction
It takes a few seconds, little effort, no skills or expertise, and only a few free matches (and $1 worth of gasoline at most) to utterly destroy that nice home.
If someone attempts to harm you, then you MUST shoot them... otherwise YOU are dead, or likely dead. If someone attempts to harm your family or friends, then you MUST shoot them... otherwise your FAMILY or FRIENDS will be dead.
If someone attempts to steal your stuff, then you can LET THEM, or you can STOP THEM. If you want to stop them, you MUST shoot them, otherwise they will very possibly kill you.
So if someone steals apples from my tree you insist that I shoot him? If a woman slaps her husband you insist that he shoot her? You continue to believe that the way you envision the world is how the world must be. That is the continuing fault of the collectivists and like the collectivists if you act on what you believe is reality rather than what is actually real then you will suffer from unintended consequences.
You also display the mistaken belief that life's choice are binary: either be harmed or kill someone, either have your goods stolen or kill someone. There are many other options available.
Do you doubt my claim that "destruction is inherently more potent and powerful than production"? If so, consider the following and note how this example applies to just about everything in life.
production
It takes a large quantity of time, effort, skills, expertise and resources to build a nice home.
destruction
It takes a few seconds, little effort, no skills or expertise, and only a few free matches (and $1 worth of gasoline at most) to utterly destroy that nice home.
You forget that the vast majority of individuals want to work with others in order to make a better future while only a small number want to steal from others and an even smaller number wish to burn down the world.
The productivity of the majority has and will outweigh the destructive power of the minority absent a nuclear war. If that wasn't true then the world would be a smoking ruin already which it is not.
How a producer responds to predator assault... is entirely up to the producer.
To be sure, most producers will not shoot someone for minor transgressions that pose little or no risk to the producer (like stealing an apple from a tree in my garden), and I am certainly in that camp. However, even in such a case, the fact the predator is willing to steal greatly increases the probability they are willing to ignore many or all other ethical considerations.
Also, a case like your wife example is somewhat different, because you know the perpetrator, and can thus be fairly confident you know how much danger that specific individual poses. Nonetheless, a great many people would support a wife who kills her husband when he assaults her, and it has to work both ways.
With an unknown predator, a producer has no idea how much harm the predator intents to cause, or is willing to cause in any given confrontation.
What you also seem to forget is this. MOST of what producers produce... ends up feeding, supplying and strengthening the predators! That's VERY BAD, not good, because it aids, abeds, supports and strengthens the predator.
I've had similar experience.
There is a cultural aspect to that - I 've had much more luck finding collabrators in Serbia where I come from than in LA or London. For anything - buyig a house or a duplex together or starting a comune on a mountain in the middle of nowhere etc.
In my experience it helps if you look for collaborators in countries that are not religious. I got this idea after spending 2 months in Greece recently. Greeks are famous for not trusting any other fellow greeks (I read about that i Michael Lewis' Boomerang and my Greek friends confirmed)- it's a part of their problem - inability to aggregate meaningfully. We Serbs are very similar to them (the only diference seems to be forced religion we don't have in Serbia)
I've noticed that children in primary school are forced to pray before they are allowed to enter public schools in the morning. I asked my friends' 8 year old what woudl happen if they refused to pray and cross themselves - they told me they would be punished. So this forced praying is done regardless of whether parents are religious or not. Children understand that and they feel betrayed both by their parents and by their teachers - and I think that's one of the reasons they grow up to not trust others (and to expect divine forces to fix their problems and to accept responsibility).
I also think that's done on purpose - divide and conquer.
Your commune of one sounds great - I wish I could see it. I will be in Buenos Aires in February for a month at least - if it's not far away I'd love to see it.
My "commune"? You mean the one I conceived, designed, funded and built all on my own... and live in all alone 125km from the nearest human being?
You call this a "commune"? Hahaha. :-)
The other two options I mentioned, which friends are trying to organize (and only need one or two more partners/collaborators) will not be communes either, in any sense of that term I've ever heard of. Unless you consider every partnership and every collaboration to be a "commune".
The causes of the current difficulty for individualists to partner and collaborate are probably correct. But I'm sure more factors exist too, including those I mentioned (which are mostly intentional or unintentional adoption of collectivist ideas).
BTW, I came to clearly understand that I could not trust adults at age 4. I have described my reasons for this many times in this website, so I won't repeat them again here (unless someone needs to know). So that certainly does tend to add support to what you said.
yes that's what I meant - sorry for the loose English
.
Clarification: When I said above that the collectivists won the argument, I don't mean in a logical, rational or intellectual sense.
I mean the actual world humans live in is almost entirely structured per their collectivist model, not the model of individualism (liberty). They IMPOSED their model on us individualists (and everyone else), not persuaded us.
The collectivists (predators) also took over most schools and media, and thereby brainwashed the vast majority of weak-minded sheeple to finance, sanction, and very often actively support most of their collectivist ideas, projects, programs and atrocities.
this article could be used as an exercise in spotting "false dichotomy". It breaks everything down into two extremes, often false, leading the person with low critical reasoning powers and little education to make wrong decisions. It could have been writtten by Hitler or Stalin's propaganda ministers.
ZH is getting really fucking stupid. they are hell bent on being just as worthless as the rest of the planet
Mostly the media. If you remember how small a role in people's life they played 40-50 years ago you can really see how out of control they are now. They try and dominate your every thought process. Turn off the t.v. That is the biggest mindfuck ever. Hollywood is pure propaganda, the news little more than chunks of vomit. Baseball scores...that's about the only truth. The rest...mindless drivel.
ZIRP encourages collectivism. QE propvides the liquidity to provide for the funding of the policies.
Collectivism - the walking dead. Individualism won't confront with them. The individualism walk away before the SHTF and eat their lunch before they wake up in the morning.
The ultimate end game of collectivists is to derive submission from individuals, to corner people into handing over their individualism willingly.
This is also the psychopathic urge. Collectivism is a psychopathic religion.
Psychopaths only care about themselves.
G Edward Griffin masters this topic on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU
The ideas of individuals free to do what they want is as utopian as socialism but probably even more ridiculous.
It actually acknowledges people are selfish, but misses out what selfish people do, e.g. exploit other people, steal stuff, etc ....
Throughout history people have used their wealth and power to exploit everyone else and live a life of idle leisure apart from battles and wars to steal other peoples land, property, wealth and resources.
After a while a nation state forms and stops the wealthy within the nation fighting each other to steal each other’s stuff and they collectively head abroad to steal other peoples stuff.
War is the word elites hide behind when they go to steal other peoples land, property, wealth and resources.
Every square inch of the Earth’s surface is stolen property.
William the Conqueror stole all the land in England off its rightful owners soon after 1066.
All land in the US was stolen from its rightful owners after conquest by the UK.
Etc ..... everywhere else.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all provide a life of leisure and luxury with someone else doing all the work.
Feudalism - exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism - exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
We had un-regulated, trickledown Capitalism in the UK in the 19th Century.
We know what it looks like.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
Greed and self-interest make Capitalism work.
Greed and self-interest make Socialism and fair, individual societies fail.
Even economic theory is governed by the self interest of the economists:
Ricardo - came from a banking family - points out exploitation of land ownership but not of debt and compound interest (the bankers tools)
Malthus - hides exploitation of land owners and speaks up for them in Parliament
Austrian school - Austrian aristocrats of the European Leisure class looking to use inherited money to invest and line their pockets.
Not everyone is born equal. We all need to accept our nitch in society.
Some have - or work hard to acquire - the skills and abilities to make a success of their lives in business or some other profession. These people end up standing on their own two feet and derive a lot of personal satisfaction from "achievment". It works wonders but takes hard work.
Others prefer to take the easy road and live off the backs of the aforementioned.
Why should the first group be taxed and bled dry by government to fund the freeloading lifestyle of the second group? There surely comes a point where the incentive to hard work is obliterated. Then what? Shall we all live off the backs of those who work hard? Well, there won't be any.
Individualism is the right solution but it does need laws/regs to prevent abuse. The existing laws/regs are not intended to prevent abuse but to allow it. Re-distribution by socialist governments fails because it also doesn't solve the problem of abuse, it just taxes people to death to use other peoples' money to buy votes.
If people like succeeding on their own merit we would abolish inheritance.
The US has atrocious social mobility like the UK.
http://www.oecd.org/centrodemexico/medios/44582910.pdf
Inheritance, private schools and universities are the mechanisms of social stratification.
They should all go and then people can work to succeed off their own backs.
So who becomes the benefactor of a mans life work?
Should the man not have the right to give the product of his lifes labour to whomever he pleases?
That weath cannot just vanish at the moment of his death, its got to go somewhere. So either he has the right to give it to someone of his choosing, or it becomes property of.... the church... the state.... or whichever collectivist group gets its name in the law?
I dont think youve thought that through at all.
The SJW movement is a tool as well... From the WTF department:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2015/11/04/feminists-are-trying-to-frame-l...
No shortage of useful idiots.
Collectivisme is great when everybody puts his back under it.
But it only needs 1 lazy person to start off a chain of events where force becomes a option to spur the lazy men to put their backs under it and those who implement the force gain the power and become lazy, creating a feedback loop and creation of classes that eventually lead to fascisme.
It's a endless discussion but in all, people are individualists who all want to survive, and that's why a collectivist or socialist system always implodes.
The whole promise of collectivism is it guarantees my right to food and housing no matter how hard or easy I work.
So why break your back? Will you get extra money and be allowed to accumulate wealth and live in a nicer house? Nope. We're all going to live the existence of equal results regardless of effort.
Brandon you truly are a legend in your own mind. You and Quinn have repeatedly repeated the obvoius with absolutely no solutions. Grow up you are not Captain America
BS Collectivism and Individualism do not exist. This dualism is forced on to us so we can be easily managed. Real life has much more choices. We are all ruled by someone. You got to serve somebody. It is all a game by the powerful to make us even more compliant and dumb.
Absolutely, its like capitalism and democracy, they are actually quite contradictory, yet they coexists. Of course that is the real game, make people THINK they have a choice so they will keep working. "Collectivism" AKA socialism, is not a bad thing, when you have a close nit cooperative society, America 1930's-40's. Today we have a nation which is over run with immigrants, who could care less about democracy, they just want government goodies, and Washington gives it to them.
When a nation has one language you can have viable socialism, that is not America, everywhere you go everything is in English and Spanish.
Individualism is a lie, few of us can exist without the others. Corporations promote "fake" individualism, to promote consumerism, they want us to fill the void left within us, because we all feel so isolated. We have sports teams, political parties, gender roles...all tools of separation and conflict. The mass media NEVER focuses on our commonality, its always divide and conquer.
Agree with you buddy. On some level indivualism can not exist without the colective. That is what makes it special. You need reference point to position yourself. Individual is someone thinking with his own head unlike the collective. But, they are symbiotic creatures, they feed on each other. The collective produces individualism, individualism produces people that make a difference. The contemporary individualism is just misrepresantation by Mr. Bernays and using it as means of consumption. But hey we are all "special" and we all need "awards" for participating.
>> When people do not have individual incentive to pursue achievement, they see personal effort as wasted. Innovation and entrepreneurship fall by the wayside, and society as a whole begins to diminish in prosperity.
The corollary of the above - that "innovation and entrepreneurship nurture prosperity" is untrue where innovation and entrepreneurship are applied to military adventures and/or financial dealings. Or to create unneeded health services and products.
Fair enough that industry (other than pharmaceuticals) is privately owned. But in a fair society the army, police, health service, post office, and all banks, stock exchanges and the like must be owned by government. The money changers' profits must go to the people. Even while the profits of the miners, farmers, fishermen, manufacturers, truckers and so on do not.
I dont think you have the faintest idea about economics.
Military and financial "businesses" are non-productive. they dont make anything. they are both costs to be borne by rest of the economy.
health services and products are productive. stuff is made, and there is a demand for them. the problem comes when false demand is created via (for example) goverment fiat declaring that all people must buy it. the same is true of any industry; false demand leads directly to inefficiency.
The money changers profits exist only because they have successfully enshrined their particular fraud into law as allowable (buy only by those with a "banking lisence"). All a government would do with this "profit" is spend it on more guns, more means of control and having the ability to decide who becomes wealthy are the exact reasons why govt should not run the financial sector. Ever.
I'm still waiting on Brandon's Oath Keeper friends to ride in on a white horse and save us.
Perhaps the Oath Keepers in uniform are too busy busting pot growers, seizing assets, and bombing brown people.
Pledging not to seize citizens guns (an unrealistic and suicidal mission) is a wonderful pledge, but what else have they really done to change things in law enforcement and the military??
Libertarian articles and comments are always so condescending yet self-stultifying.
Railing against collectivist "shoehorned utopias" whilst pining for their own "truly free markets" which in the writer's own words "have never existed". They never will. You are preoccupied with the numinous. Jesus isn't coming back either. Nor the angel Moroni. Your dogma is twice as tortured as that of any religion.
Heard a sad story from a friend a few months ago. He is an ambulance medic. Went to an elementary school where a little girl (14) fainted during gym class. She was OK when they got there, just pale and exhausted. They gave her some food. When they asked her what happened, she said she did not eat well. Her mom has multiple sklerosis for a few years now. Dad left them. She has a 12yr old sister. They called her in to see her sister and asked her if she wants to eat something, and she said no give it to my sister cuz I don't need to it. Kids and school help as much as they can, but it is not enough for a normal life. But this is normal life for them.
So what does an individualist society does about this? IS THIS HOW WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A MODERN SOCIETY? Fuk you, you selfish prick Brandon.
one of the collectives goals is destruction ofg the family. well illustrated here.
Darwin.
So what does an individualist society does about this? IS THIS HOW WE ALLOW PEOPLE TO LIVE IN A MODERN SOCIETY? Fuk you, you selfish prick Brandon.
First of all government demands that our society not allow individualism. Everyone expects the government to take care of the disadvantaged. People are brainwashed into believing that only the government can do so and then the government takes half of everything we earn so even when we want to help our neighbors our resources are limited.
But I would give those kids some food and talk with them about making their future more secure. But, yeah, fuck me for being such a terrible human being.
How nice it must be to be you: an individual so compassionate that he can't even imagine reaching out and helping a neighbor with his own hands.
I helped, don't you worry about me.
I love my earned freedom more than anything. Earned everything I own. But here I am saying that this type of situation has to be systematicaly worked on. Call it whatever you want, the state, the city, collective, commune. But there has to be an institutionilized pre-emptive response to these situations.
Other people helped in this case as well. But when? When the problems got so big that they are in everyones guilt. And how long will it last? This is one time pump for that family and soon they will be forgotten as the next brutal thing comes along. Individualism is the exact problem here as everyone is taking care of themselves and their families while overlooking everyone else. Individulaism is as dangerous as collectivism as everyone fighting for themselves and overlooking other people problems (as is normal in our society) causes a lack of compasion (dont see dont hear). It also causes a mindset where most people have this thinking that it will not happen to me. Whatever cause of poverty. Even the dreaded .gov. If the .gov takes backtaxes from a neighbour by selling his house, individualist will comment on his dumbassnes and how it will never happen to them. One of the best cases is all the mass murders that Brandon describes. They all happened because people in concentration camps and gulags had this base individualistic fear and thought of it is not going to happen to me. Instead of creating and working with collective to escape or fight, everyone just hoped that they will survive if they are good, if they work, if they dig their graves.
Fuck you too, your sad sad story is made up. Very poor kids get two free meals at school. If you visited some schools that serve poor communities you'd see some extremely "well fed" children. The US is not that much of an individualist society any more, but even if you looked at the US is its first century as an example of hard-core individualism, how would that compare to hard-core examples of collectivistism such as the Soviet Union, Communist China, or North Korea. In which one is your little girl better off living in?
As a practical matter, no. In our modern society the collective takes about 1/2 of a normally productive person makes in income, and will always claim that they are doing it to take care of orphans and the blind.
The kid is attending a public school, almost all of which have free breakfasts and all of which have free lunches. Now that the "authorities" have become aware of this situation they may well call CPS and take the kids away from the mother with MS and into a foster home.
So, Brandon might be a selfish prick, but the failures you are getting all weepy eyed about are failures of our existing huge collectivist welfare state.
The alternative is tribe. Tribes take care of their own, and are a collective to some extent. But people can wander away from a tribe if they choose. unlike a government.