This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Collectivist War Against Cultural Heritage

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Brandon Smith from Alt-Market

The Collectivist War Against Cultural Heritage

Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history.

-Carl Jung

Two things make man what he is; his soul, and his memory.  Lose one, or both, and he ceases to exist.  He might as well buzz over his own garbage like an insect.  When a society is drawn into the repugnant shadow of totalitarianism and collectivism, it is usually because the masses have abandoned (or been enticed to abandon) a piece of their inner and outer heritage, something which kept the darkness at bay, a lesson from the past, or a principle long honored.  In the wretched and psychotic quest for the “perfect” establishment system, we are even often encouraged by the elitist ilk to slough off the warm remnants of our cultural inheritance like so much skin and “look forward” to a bright and more promising tomorrow, where everything will be different, and certainly, better than today.    

The ideological brand of so-called progress that we call “collectivism” relies heavily on the notion that the values of the past are inadequate to the requirements of the future.  We are taught by the peddlers of collectivist propaganda that our beliefs and our principles must evolve along with the perceived growth of our species as a whole.  They see themselves as visionaries and prophets foretelling a grand reinvention of the world that we laymen are unequipped to imagine or understand.  We cling to the old ways because we are “afraid of change”, or too ignorant to fathom the beauty of their Utopian beyond…

Pretentious bile?  Absolutely.  However, within the rhetoric and strategies of the collectivist agenda there are treasures to behold; reoccurring themes and indicators that can be found in nearly every modern tyranny and most ancient tyrannies that have ever existed.  Words and actions that warn us of the true intent of the elite. 

The fact is, collectivists drive so hard to admonish respect for the past because every lie they tell us now has been told before a thousand times, to build a thousand gruesome empires.   

The Futurists

To gain an insight into the stunted philosophy that underlies collectivism, globalization, centralism, socialism, communism, fascism, etc., it is important to acknowledge the ways in which these systems seduce the public.  Many people find themselves inadequate to the era in which they are born, or, believe their era inadequate to them.  They wish they could live in a more enlightened age.  They wish they could leap ahead in time and know what the next generations will know.  They fear that they will die as obscure beings in an obscure moment of history devoid of discovery or legacy.  People prone to collectivist fantasies seek to escape the struggles of their present life and transport themselves to a place where mankind has triumphed over the adversities of the “mundane” to frolic like gods amongst the stars.

Now, imagine you are one of these desperate men or women, and someone promises you in a rather convincing manner that their system of social structure and governance will bring that sterling-silver-gravity-defying-Star-Trek-future to you.  What would you be willing to trade for even a glimpse into the next epoch?  Some, sadly, are willing to trade everything, including their freedoms.

A movement from the early 1900’s called Futurism is a perfect example of this obsession with progress that sacrifices the lessons of the past.  A quasi-art movement that also included political activism, the Futurists believed that in order for a society to flourish, it had to amputate its past.  For them, all that was old was now useless, and only technological and cultural supremacy over nature could redeem humanity.  In the 1920’s and 1930’s, the Futurists reveled in the rise of Fascism in Italy and Germany and supported it fully until they found their club did not necessarily fit into the social engineering programs of Mussolini and Hitler.  In Russia, the Futurists also embraced Communism, searching for that far off prosperous sci-fi land.  Leon Trotsky even wrote of the Futurists, though he attempted to separate Communist Futurists from the more “vulgar” and “naïve” Fascist Futurists:

"...Futurism is against mysticism, against the passive deification of nature, against the aristocratic and every other kind of laziness, against dreaminess, and against lachrymosity – and stands for technique, for scientific organization, for the machine, for planfulness, for will power, for courage, for speed, for precision, and for the new man, who is armed with all these things. The connection of the aesthetics “revolt” with the moral and social revolt is direct; both enter entirely and fully into the life experience of the active, new, young and untamed section of the intelligentsia of the left, the creative Bohemia. Disgust against the limitations and the vulgarity of the old life produces a new artistic style as a way of escape, and thus the disgust is liquidated. In different combinations, and on different historic bases, we have seen the disgust of the intelligentsia form more than one new style. But that was always the end of it. This time, the proletarian Revolution caught Futurism in a certain stage of its growth and pushed it forward. Futurists became Communists..."

The value of Futurism, for Trotsky, was measured by the extent to which the movement extolled communist virtues (he felt that they were not living up to his standards).  In his mind, of course, the two systems (fascism/communism) were different.  For the Futurists, though, each form of despotism held the same magnetic charm.  They were collectivists at heart, and to them, the two systems were essentially the same.  Both demanded that society cast off large portions of the past that were seen as “archaic” and stifling to progress.  Both systems waged war on values long held by the citizenry.

The Purge

A distaste or hatred of heritage is very common at the onset of any collectivist restructuring.  These restructurings usually target principles of individual liberty and self governance while masquerading as a fight against oppression or corruption.  The old principles are either presented as too outdated and insufficient to deal with the new problems of a culture, or, they are presented as the actual SOURCE of the problems of that culture.  In either case, the elites wielding the collectivist machine inevitably call for a purge of all bygone ideals.

In Communist China, Mao instituted the Cultural Revolution, which encouraged the mindlessly mesmerized collectivists in the Chinese populace to destroy everything which represented the past.  Artwork, buildings, historical artifacts, books; even teachers and proponents of any brand of pre-communist heritage were targeted.  

In Fascist Germany, the Nazis destroyed countless books and manuscripts, rewrote German history, censored and removed thousands of artworks, instituting state designated artforms that depicted the collectivist vision of the new society. 

In Russia, the Communists focused intently not only on liquidating manuscripts extolling the methods of different eras, but also the people who wrote them.  Under Lenin and Stalin, the goal was to annihilate the memory of the world before, even if it meant annihilating the masses along with it.

A complete reformation of educational infrastructure came next.  The children of the collectivist age had to be indoctrinated as if there had never been another way of doing things.

These purges, as numerous examples have shown, are only temporary.  The great conundrum for the elites has not only been the obstacle of memory, but the obstacle of the soul; that inherent quality in human beings that compels us to pursue freedom, balance, and truth, regardless of the constraints of our environment.  The documents and remnants of heritage that oligarchs seek to destroy are ultimately only expressions of our inborn consciences.  Deep down in each person, no matter what they have been conditioned to believe, there is a well-spring of vital ideas that conflict with the mechanizations of collectivism.  Individualism finds a way to surface, and so, the central rulers must start over once again, looking for an insurmountable method of control.

The American Heritage Under Siege

One simple fact remains:  As long as Americans continue to esteem the vision expressed in the U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Right, and Declaration Of Independence, there can be no collectivism in this country.  The Constitutional Republic formed through revolution against despotism by the Founding Fathers is a solid antithesis to outright tyranny.  So, it only follows that the “Futurists” of today and the puppeteers who pull their strings would do absolutely everything in their power to distance the public as far as possible away from the heritage of those documents and that time.                          

Much like the Cultural Revolution in China, though moving at a slower and more subversive pace, our history is being purged and rewritten to accommodate a centralized dream of the new America.  This dream hinges on the suggestion that the Constitutional structure is outdated, and that it must be remodeled to accommodate the burgeoning Globalist paradigm.  Our own sitting president has voiced similar arguments in the past:

"…the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf…"

While the mainstream media reiterates the message of the “antiquated” Constitution with greater regularity:

American Futurists complain that the Constitution is too restrictive on government, and that it prevents the establishment from making changes quickly.  But where they see a lack of adaptation, I see critical checks and balances.  Where they see archaic law, I see timeless principles of conscience that will remain relevant for all eternity.  Where they see progress in globalism, socialism, and collectivism, I see a devolvement into the dark ages of feudalism.  How “new” and progressive is Globalism really?  Is it not more reasonable to say that the idea of a free decentralized and sovereign republic whose first mission is to protect personal rights is much more rare and advanced than yet another elitist stab at centralized domination?

Is the Constitution a "perfect document"?  No.  I don't know that there is such a thing.  What I do know, though, is that there is no one currently in government with the wisdom or intelligence needed to rewrite the document to be more balanced than it already is.  I welcome critics to name any person they think is legitimately qualified.   

The Founders designed the Constitution to limit the powers of federal government for a reason!  Take a look at the stunning array of liberty rending executive orders that Barack Obama has issued in the course of the past four years.  Now imagine that he and Congress had free reign to etch those orders into the Constitution at will.  What possible meaning would the document have then?  The Constitution was never meant to be a tool of government.  It was meant to be a tool (a necessary tool) for the people to restrain government.  The futurists muse like children over this concept but fail tragically to grasp it.

Despite the obvious faulty logic within the “outdated” argument, the propaganda has hit full steam in recent years.  In federally funded schools around the country, American history before the Civil War is no longer taught, and Constitutional studies are almost unheard of:,2933,584758,00.html?mep

The space in curriculum created by the removal of the American Revolution and everything else important to the birth of the country has been filled with what teachers now refer to as “Global Studies”.  What do global studies entail?  Why not ask the organizations that write the study guidelines, like ‘Facing The Future’:

"I use Facing the Future [lessons] to complement many other materials. I have all of the kids read Global Issues and Sustainable Solutions, as an introductory overview. Then students break into groups to research some of the topics, like governance, climate change, or world view. They have different ways of looking at the future after reading this…”

"We use United Nations materials. I bring in a lot of guest speakers, even someone that was a defense attorney in the World Court. I've brought in scientists who are experts on climate change, we use Al Gore’s film [An Inconvenient Truth], lots of websites that I just let kids dig into…”

Or, we could ask children in Seattle private schools, who are being taught the “evils” of property rights, and how individual ownership hurts the collective:

"…the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society -- a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive...."

This eradication of original American values is taking place on every level of our society, even in law enforcement, which is now infamously illustrated by the FEMA indoctrination of police officers in the video below to consider the Founding Fathers “terrorists”

If attacks on foundational heritage are a warning sign of centralized oligarchy and collectivism as this article outlines, then America is in imminent peril.  These changes never go quietly, and are invariably surrounded by economic depression, collapse, war, and death.  From the ashes of confusion and decay inspired by collectivists, the next elitist experiment is born.  The mad science of the Futurists must not be allowed to prevail here…



- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:40 | 2607858 SemperFord
SemperFord's picture

FEMA guy in the video would quiver and piss himself at the sight of the founding Fathers of America

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:59 | 2607925 hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture



Freedom Fighter = Terrorist

It is all about perspective and empathy.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:06 | 2608179 strannick
strannick's picture

Excellent topic Zerohedge. Keep it up Tylers.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:36 | 2608249 old naughty
old naughty's picture

Two in 20C, Hitler and Mao burned books. Do you like them?

Just in case we see another in 21C...I am improving my speed reading.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:41 | 2608262 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

When Kindles (and everything else) goes dark and the rest of the book stores / libraries have shut their doors...

Kindle = book burning in "progress".

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:32 | 2608558 AldousHuxley
AldousHuxley's picture

you no longer need books for information transfer.


internet is designed to withstand any book burning by governments via military force.


these days libraries and book stores just have pop culture junk books recommended by Oprah.


Truth, is hard to find as it always has been.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:47 | 2608610 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

My Leonardo DaVinci (book), Salvador Dali (book), and Machinery's Handbook beg to differ.

Also, We're pretty lucky to have an outstanding library, here. I don't believe Atlas Shrugged is on Oprah's list. 

The municipality however, just taxed my ELECTRIC bill to help pay for it.

Oh the irony.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:53 | 2608759 Ezra Pound
Ezra Pound's picture

you don't need to burn books when nobody reads them anyway

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 01:06 | 2608998 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

"collectivists drive so hard to admonish respect for the past because every lie they tell us now has been told before a thousand times, to build a thousand gruesome empires"

Partisan BULLSHIT....

W. was no collectivist....neither was slick Willy, Nixon, Raygun or Obamney....

They all served or serve the Siphon of State™. Governments are instituted among facilitate the LOOTING of the populace.... with an EBT gratuity tossed to the Eloi (like those jewelry heist movies where they always bring a bone for the Doberman)


"admonish respect for the past"?

Shit, that's all this bullshit country does is coast on the fumes of its former glory with its "Greeeeeatest Nation In the history of Mankind"™ Bullshit.

In summation:

Bullshit kleptocracy

Bullshit country

Bullshit partisan POST

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 08:05 | 2609390 ATM
ATM's picture

Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow,

You dumb ass.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 13:08 | 2610257 Bananamerican
Bananamerican's picture

that doesn't even make any sense, you stupid partisan cocksucker!

Don't stop sucking Romney's dick

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 01:12 | 2609019 andrewp111
andrewp111's picture

Forget burning mere books. Egypt's new Islamic collectivists are calling for the pyramids to be blown up.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:08 | 2608799 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Interesting that you say that - I've thought the same thing. Just like the internet, the electronic kindle could be erased, eradicated, shut down, kill switched, and no doubt already is used to see just what it is all those folks are reading out there.......and is it subversive..........

How many bills have there been in the US to limit internet usage, availability, content, etc. and countries like China flat our censor everything. Very mixed blessing the internet and electronic libraries are.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:42 | 2608853 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Or at the "primordial" level... THE FUCKING GRID GOES DOWN.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:14 | 2608341 Simon Endean
Simon Endean's picture

Hitler's followers may have burned books, but the Nazis weren't futurists - their goal was a return to an agrarian past with Aryan supermen ruling over Slavic serfs.  They were collectivists of a sort, but they were a one-off variety.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:27 | 2608656 Waffen
Waffen's picture

I am no fan of socialism, however I believe it can work in a highly homogenous society that has honor and believes in hard work, Germany under hitler 1930s was a miracle turn around of a country.

Btw the real evil of the 20th century were the Bolsheviks. Hitler wasn't anti Slav, he was anti communism on a level we would find hard to comprehend.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:32 | 2608713 TaxSlave
TaxSlave's picture

Go ahead and be an ant.  But don't let me catch you away from your hive.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:55 | 2608765 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Waffen Wurfer .... Communism and Fascist National Socialism were identical sick systems competing for supremacy !   Communism you lose .... National Socialism you lose !  That's all there was for dinner !          Hitler wasn't anti-communist because it conflicted with his Libertarian free market principles .... it merely was the system that ruled over the lebensraum he wanted !   Enough of this stupid liberal mantra that Hitler was anti-communist therefore he was a Republican !          He was a socialist of the first order !     An iconic big government type !         Monedas      1929        Comedy Jihad Hubris In Defense Of Heritage Is Not A Vice

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:05 | 2608793 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Look I am perfectly aware of the communism, national socialism are the same meme.

They are not the same however at least as practiced by the Bolsheviks and Nazis respectively.

again I am no fan of socialism as a libetatian it's just another tyrrany, however as I said before it can work in a certain society and it did indeed work as a miracle for Germany.

Implying that nazism and communism as practiced were even remotely the same is disingenuous, one worked to better its volk and the other worked to destroy and sow terror.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 01:31 | 2609009 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

For a guy who [correctly] posits that Whitey has been 'brainwashed' into a self-hating spiral of cultural destruction, yu shure do seem confused...

the nazism[national socialism] which yu seem to adore was a creation and operation of mischlingers...half caste german&jewish mix whose self-identification issues were manipulated by the Frankist\Sabbateans to create an orc-like monster phylum which would do their bidding...

the "miracle" to which yu refer was not the product of nazism, but of the German people themselves, banded together in recognition of their COLLECTIVE interests against the tyrannical forces which yu[again correctly] identified as áskenazi.

yur narration here on this thread seems to underline the truth of that old adage - a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing...

please stop passing off Khazrian propaganda here as dialogue supportive of Whitey's struggle for survival against the Kultural is not.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:32 | 2608839 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Well, thats the popular narrative. Yeah, totally different than banksters and their politicos ruling over a bunch of distracted wage slaves......

So....about the agrarian society stuff.........if we implement all the policies of the climate change crowd..........we'd be pretty much going in that direction too wouldn't we? Or, at least we'd have some person group determining our allowable energy use or some such thing? Oh yeah, forgot about that solar and wind stuff being able to replace all of the power demand out there.........

Technically, the 'Nazi's' got that name as a shortened version of their ' Nationalsozialismus'  or  National Socialist name. Interesting name there..........

Not sure about futurists, but they led the world in scientists and scientific study  at the time of their ascendancy. Ever wonder where all their scientists went after the war?

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:28 | 2608954 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

not operation paperclip?

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 09:50 | 2609548 zuuma
zuuma's picture

Ever wonder where all their scientists went after the war?

They were sought out (hunted down) by the USA & USSR to exploit thir knowledge - particularly in rocket science & Jet aircraft.  Real - life James Bond stuff. Kidnappings, forced labor, shootouts.  There was a pretty good book out in the 70s called, ironically, "The Hunt For German Scientists", which detailed this.

Despite NAZI party  & SS membership, lots of 'em were granted US citizenship and given prestigeous research jobs. (Operation Paperclip)

One very famous Scientist was named Wernher von Braun. He was (officially) both a NAZI and a member of the SS. Also, he was the main technical leader of the V2 rocket program.

Went on to be one of the most important US scientists in the development of the Saturn V rockets and Apollo Moon missions.

... so it would seem that mad skills can coften trump politics.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:44 | 2608420 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

"In Fascist Germany, the Nazis destroyed countless books and manuscripts, rewrote German history, censored and removed thousands of artworks, instituting state designated artforms that depicted the collectivist vision of the new society."

The author of this article needs to do some research: the Nazis did the above (except I don't know where they rewrote German histrory) in an effort to save German heritage and culture-the complete opposite of the point that this dimwit is trying to make.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:16 | 2608706 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Does anyone wonder what books the Germans were burning and perhaps why they felt so adamant about purging it from their society? Is it possibly a certain group of people were using their control of media to push a certain very anti German and pro collectivism ideology?

It reminds me of all the anti liberty, anti American, anti white pro collectivism garbage taught in our schools and pushed on the public at every oppurtunity.

What is similar to our society that was so under pre nazi Germany? Who was pushing such ideas, who owned the media pushing it?

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:58 | 2608882 Randall Cabot
Randall Cabot's picture

"Does anyone wonder what books the Germans were burning and perhaps why they felt so adamant about purging it from their society?"

Exactly. They were burning books that were ruining German culture-books written by evil-doers like Marx, Freud and the Frankfurt School-the same gang behind the destruction of American culture!!!

This Brandon Smith article is one of the most amateurish, ill-informed pieces ever posted on ZH.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 03:01 | 2609103 verum quod lies
verum quod lies's picture

In his defense, he’s at least trying to bridge the gap between fact and fiction. Yes, it would be more straightforward and intellectually honest to call a spade a spade and write about the European experience and European American experience with private mass media domination and attempts to both rewrite history (e.g., the “Constitution is just an outdated document written by hateful white guys … that needs to be ‘reinterpreted’ by your betters …”) and effectively brainwash people into effectively committing group suicide for their media, financial, and academic overlords. Alright, ‘futurists’ may not be the most accurate name for a group that wants to essentially kill most of us, but it does at least capture a large part of the more recent thrust of cultural Marxism. My reading is that he just can’t, or won’t, mentally trace the roots of this mysterious ‘futurism’ to its roots and current financial and media backers without some degree of cognitive dissonance. This is standard fare for most in society; but he seems to get the basic idea of destroying the past and eliminating those that stand in your way by whatever means. In fact, I suspect there are some “futurists” high on cognitive dissonance trolling this very site that will ad hominem attack in three, two, one …


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:21 | 2608526 Whiner
Whiner's picture

Nice neckless. Crummy lecture.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:35 | 2608569 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Don't forget the depelted Uranium.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:46 | 2608857 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

What a total colossal complete moron. There is a place for empathy  in terms of trying to understand the other side, but his analysis is idiotic with no respect for truth. I can tell you his politics. It is consistent with the now age old moral relativism. There is no right, wrong or judgement. This is breathtaking but I am seeing more of it on many fronts from global environmentalism to this empathy for Islamic terrorists. The common key is that capitalism is exploitative. All things are owned by the collective. Wealth is always stolen or made by the strong exploiting the poor. This is simplie socialist-collectivist ideology dressed up as sociology. Could we guess his politics from his "sociology" presentation?

Let's see, how rich, prosperous and happy were muslims in the Middle East before oil and after oil? Do we actually PAY for their oil? Do we bring the technology they enjoy from cars to iPods to the machinery that provides what wealth they have? Willl they be happier and more prosperous if we discover fusion energy and oil becomes worthless? Do we or their tribal leaders and kings decide who gets paid for the wealth? Do you think Genghis Khan was kinder and more empathetic that the West? He almost eradicated Islam. As far as other religions and the "truth" as the general stated: are Muslims inherently stupid and unable to hear other ideas and compare  their ideas or should we protect them from other ideas and religions? Do they not kill, jail and exhile all different religions? Are they empathetic to the few Jews and Christians left in their countries? Did the West do that? If we leave will they be happier and more prosperous if Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hamas take over? If we were gone would the Sunni's, Shiites and other factions of Islam stop blowing each other up? Should we bring Sadam back?

History is collision of cultures, religions, philosophies and ideas in general. When Saladin was conquering the West he was not terribly empathetic. In the end, stronger cultures and those based more on truth will win out. It is why socialism will always fail. It is based on lies and untruths about humanity, in general. It is also fundamentally immoral. These "nice" guys like Richards leave people in darkness and ignorance and claim to be doing a good thing. When the Taliban return to power in Afghanistan and begin beating their women and throwing them out of school under their tenants of Islam and culture...well, Richards would empathize, I guess. At least the terrible Americans who believe you should not shoot your women, cut their noses off and educate them will be gone.

You know, this is the kind of shallow thinking and analysis I would expect of elementary school kids...but better graphics.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 06:06 | 2609189 View From Germany
View From Germany's picture

The difference between "Freedom Fighter" and "Terrorist" in the long run is the question: Did they WIN...or LOSE?

The Founding Fathers are "Freedom Fighters" because they WON - had they lost, they would have gone into written British History as rebellious Settlers, who received their just punishment on the hands of the glorious britisch Army for rebellion against their rightful king.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 21:16 | 2611658 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

History is written by the victors. Not all victors are the same, though.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:23 | 2608014 Waffen
Waffen's picture

The Ashkenazi wholly own the media. Since the mass producion of the television the media directs the culture. Collectivism, Bolshevism is a Jewish creation.


The Congressional Dodd report in 1953 showed that tax free foundations were intentionally trying to destroy The premicy of American individualism.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:24 | 2608065 MillionDollarBogus_
MillionDollarBogus_'s picture

Waffen,  nice avatar......


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:35 | 2608093 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

The collectivism in his avatar would be deemed very kosher

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:07 | 2608142 Michael
Michael's picture

Indeed Waffen. Even the movie and entertainment industry, virtually wholly owned by Ashkenazi's, use it in accordance with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to achieve their goals.

Norman Dodd On Tax Exempt Foundations

Let's have a national survey and hold all Americans to their answers. Let's find out who the real enemies of the USA are and get names.

1: Do you support the enforcement of the US Constitution? Yes/No

2: Do you reject the US Constitution? Yes/No

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:31 | 2608232 lincolnsteffens
lincolnsteffens's picture

Michael, If you don't behave yourself I will have to sick the Elders of Zion on your children to drink their blood.

How can such a smart fellow be such a fool?  I embrace the US Constitution which gives people like you

the right to attempt to poison the minds of the gullable through hate speech.  You are no different than

the rabid collectivists who want to decide who is evil in thought or deed and purge them by what ever method your favorite authoritarian view can dream up.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:24 | 2608531 Max Hunter
Max Hunter's picture

Are you fucking kidding me?  Please quote the part of Michael's comment that you consider hate. I'll be waiting and coming back to see it..

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:45 | 2608608 Michael
Michael's picture

Thanks Max. Some people are completely incapable of assembling rational thought within their gray matter.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:41 | 2608595 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Red herring

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:05 | 2608904 FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Collectivism and Bolshevism are no more Jewish creations than phyics and Einstein. You have noticed how well Jews fared under socialism whether Soviet or German, right? Marx may have been Jewish but his ideas are not specific to the religion or created for some religious advantage. His pal, Engels was not.  It's hard to reconcile traditional Judaism with "Religion is the opiate of the masses.", right?

This crap is practiced by asians, caucasians, hispanics, etc and it generally comes with atheism or a religion of the State and worship of  the current fearless leader is, eg.' Castro, Kim Jong Un, Stalin, Mao, etc.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:35 | 2608968 Iwanttoknow
Iwanttoknow's picture

Read about early history of bolsheviks and how they overcame mensheviks.Also read who was Trotsky and Beria.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:51 | 2608992 Waffen
Waffen's picture

sorry, but you are wrong, bolshevism was jewish run in order to destroy the orthodox christian tsarist russia and they intended to use it to take down Western europe as well


bolshevism was a tool.. zionist jews are not communists they are anti human psychophants who want world government and will use any tool to get it

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:40 | 2607861 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

+10  Brandon, you are awesome!



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:02 | 2607963 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Agreed, that was outstanding.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:05 | 2608175 NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Yet somehow, it seems there's a couple of collectivists here who don't get it.

Because, for some reason, they just feel the need to be ruled.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:29 | 2608226 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Another case of savemedaddy_dot

I really need to lock in a profit on that little diddy ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:43 | 2607871 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:48 | 2607895 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Hogwash.  This is one of the dumbest articles of all time.  I love how we continually combine communism and socialism (very different things) with fascism and futurism. 

But my favorite line was this:  "One simple fact remains:  As long as Americans continue to esteem the vision expressed in the U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Right, and Declaration Of Independence, there can be no collectivism in this country"

let's just start with the Constitution.  I've read it.  Have you?  Did you understand it?  Clearly not.  Let's begin:

We the People  of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


Nothing collectivist there.  Nope.  Nada.  Just ignore "WE the PEOPLE". ignore UNION, ignore COMMON, and ignore GENERAL. 

I guess the Constitution starts like this:

"Individuals who happen to live within the borders of the United State, rise up individually and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, in order to ordain and establish this Constitution for the Individual States of America!"


I'm tired of people twisting the Constitution into something it was not.  And it most definitely is NOT a document espousing Ayn Randian Free Market Ideology and Individualism.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:08 | 2607931 Colonel
Colonel's picture

Tower of Babel redux. Because its different this time!

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 17:59 | 2607949 Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

Hmm..  you aren't a very good reader.  Collectivism means sacrificing human individuality for a goal or purpose.  The Constitution enshrines individualism. Think group rights vs. individual rights.



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:06 | 2607986 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

reread my QUOTE from the Constitution and then come back at me about comprehension.

Just how, exactly, does one create a MORE PERFECT UNION in order to PROMOTE GENERAL WELFARE, in an all-individualistic manner?  Hmm...?

The founding fathers were not simpletons (unlike many around here).  They understood that there is a balance.  One must sacrifice oneself for the good of the emerging country and for the good of the common man, but one must not sacrafice too much.  this is the delicate balance.   And it is completely missed by this article, and by you.

So I will be simple:  HOW EXACTLY do we from a UNION to promote GENERAL WELFARE, and do it only through individualism?  The answer, you can't.

Now, the Constitution ALSO enshrines individualism to a point.  But don't forget, it was the FOUNDING FATHERS who also enshrined taxation.  Taxation (according to many of you) is evil and against your rights.  but the FOUNDING FATHERS set up that system.  (which has been expanded x 1,000,000,000 by our current Govt).

I'm very much for for personal liberty.  I'm a LEFT libertarian.  But I'm also for personal sacrifice for the greater good.  It's a mind fuck, isn't it? 

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:13 | 2608025 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

You're a jackass. "general welfare" was understood to mean creating a system of laws that collectively helped everyone, laws against fraud, robbery, murder, enforcing contracts and property rights. Those things promote the general welfare. It is not a license to unbridled collectivism as understood by boobus today.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:26 | 2608063 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

It is not a license to unbridled collectivism as understood by boobus today.


You are correct sir.

As I said in my other post, they, like most people, were fighting a balance between indivudalism and collectivism. 


"general welfare" was understood to mean creating a system of laws that collectively helped everyone, laws against fraud, robbery, murder, enforcing contracts and property rights


Oops... there's that "collectively" word again!  You said it, not me.

But "collectively helped everyone" wasn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.  That is your revisionist reading of the forefather's papers.  (if you've read them).

If you were correct (which you are not), then Jefferson would have never pushed so strongly for PUBLIC SCHOOLS on the TAXPAYER DIME, nor would Ben Franklin have proposed PUBLIC LIBRARIES and PUBLIC FIREFIGHTERS

You interpret the Constitution as you wish (we all do), and you limit it to a very narrow reading and IGNORE OBVIOUS PROOF contrary to your claim.

then you leap of the deep end and pretend that I'm saying that the forefathers were Communist.  I'm not.  I'm saying that they were nothing like the what the simplistic Ayn Randian Fee Marketeers would have you believe.


You can all scream to the heavens as much as you want, but I'm just typing out THE CONSTITUTION which is directly refuting your CLAIMS.  the Founders understood that a nation full of whiny individuals had no chance.  We had to bind together in order to win Freedom.  It is clear that some of the Founders believed in MORE individualism and LESS collectivism (like Madison) and others believed in a little more collectivism (like Jefferson/Franklin).

But none of them were like Friedrich Hayek.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:01 | 2608163 Collapsed
Collapsed's picture

*cricket chirps*. Why'd it get so quiet? Cause hmm just took you to school

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:11 | 2608803 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Cubs? Really? wow.......glutton for punishment

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:38 | 2608405 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Your using italics w/0 quotation marks protected you I think--otherwise You assinine remarks would have got more than just my red mark.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:25 | 2608705 Pseudo Anonym
Pseudo Anonym's picture

i dont know about you but i interpret the constitution as a subversive con along these lines:

and i certainly wouldnt agree with this quote from the article:

The Founders designed the Constitution to limit the powers of federal government for a reason! 

"they" left the door open for the hofjuden to take over usa as the corporation it is.

Fri, 07/13/2012 - 08:37 | 2612335 Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

Thanks for the link, very interesting.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:00 | 2608749 TrulyBelieving
TrulyBelieving's picture

There is no mention of the type of collectivism you refer to in the Constitution. All signers of this document created the Fed Gov to do only a few and numerized things (for the benefits mentioned in the preamble).  Everything else was to be left to each state. Without this understanding your words like 'more individualism and less collectivism'(a nice way to say socialism) carry no weight, for this decision for more or less was not granted to the Federal govt. but is only within the power of each state, or the People.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:20 | 2608820 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

you forgot the <sarc off> least I hope you did. Any idea why it took 2 years for all the states to ratify the constitution and why many wouldn't unless certain amendments were put in it? One clue, it wasn't so they could make sure they'd be able to send their tax dollars to help fund some program in another sovereign state of the 'union'. None were like Hayek, but at least they all had common sense and understood tyranny of the nation state, since they just fought for independence from it. But then again, who is like Hayek?

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:25 | 2608069 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Government was constituted to form a more perfect union, promote general welfare, etc. Its necessity was an exception to liberty - a necessary evil - so its powers were clearly delineated and then limited constitutionally to both respect and safeguard. Society is not government. America and American government are not synonymous. Yet.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:37 | 2608101 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Your comprehension sucks

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:03 | 2608157 Questan1913
Questan1913's picture


"It's a mind fuck isn't it?"

"I'm a LEFT Libertarian"

"I'm very much for personal liberty"

You contradict yourself three times in one paragraph.  YOU ARE a collectivist, through and through.  No amount of double talk and ink in the water will obscure that fact, fool.  You have obviously never read or never understood the Constitution.  In the document "we the people" dictate the limited powers of the federal government and nothing that isn't specifically granted can be assumed.  The constitution doesn't govern the people you dummy.  It strictly limits the powers of the federal government.  If a power isn't specifically granted it doesn't exist or it adheres to the states or individuals.  And you feign not being aware that your are a Statist disseminating anti- American ideology? 



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:24 | 2608217 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

It strictly limits the powers of the federal government.  If a power isn't specifically granted it doesn't exist or it adheres to the states or individuals.  

you are arguing the same thing as me, but you're too dumb to see it.

By LIMITING the power of the Federal Government, the Document GIVES power to the Federal Government.  Before the Constitution, there was NO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.  And thus, it had NO POWER.

So the Document on the one hand gives the Federal Government Power, and on the other hand it LIMITS that power.  This is the nuance that you cannot see.

By GIVING the Federal Government Power, it REMOVES Freedom from the Individual.  We The People are FORCED by this Document to submit some of our individuality in order to form the more perfect union.  This will come with benefits, and also with costs.

The Founding Fathers set up Taxation!  Others on this thread scream and gnash their teeth at how against Freedom this is... To RIP their money away and use if for the Government's purposes! 
And you know what?  I agree.  That is EXACTLY what is happening.

And it's EXACTLY what happened in the 1700's as welll.   Our Founding Fathers fought and argued and came to a balance between individual rights and individual responsibilities, and collectovist rights and collectovist responsibilities. 

the Founding Fathers understood this.  Too bad you don't.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:15 | 2608344 BigJim
BigJim's picture

I think most of the people whom you say "scream and gnash their teeth" about being taxed do so about income tax, which was definitely not in the Constitution.

Thing is - I don't think anyone would mind paying tax for the government envisioned by the Founding Fathers, because it would probably be set at a rate of around 5%... a small standing army, policing, administration of the law and a few other things.

Not the behemoth we have today, striding around the planet incinerating shepherds half a world away, locking people into rape farms if they smoke the 'wrong' kind of plant, forcing people to uproot paddocks planted with the 'wrong' kind of grass, prosecuting people for selling the 'wrong' kind of milk, incentivising people who couldn't otherwise afford to have children to do just that, bailing out TBTF banks, etc, etc.

It seems absurd to suggest the Constitution as originally written has anything to do with the America we know today. People just assume so because it happens to have been written for people 250 years ago broadly occupying the same landmass we do today.

But those people are an eternity away from where we are now and what we've become.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:01 | 2608165 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"I'm very much for for personal liberty."

We'll see about that.

"I'm a LEFT libertarian.  But I'm also for personal sacrifice for the greater good.  It's a mind fuck, isn't it? "

lol...not ones stopping you from contributing every last dime you earn or any leisure time you may have to any cause that floats your boat.

Just don't use government to force me to contribute either time or money to what you think is the greater good...thats not libertarian...thats something distinctly different isn't it? ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:16 | 2608206 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Just don't use government to force me to contribute either time or money to what you think is the greater good...thats not libertarian...thats something distinctly different isn't it? ;-)

Not really.  Libertarianism is a misnomer.  Very few people on Earth actually want to live in a completely ZERO tax state.  Most people want something.  It might be National Defense.  it might be Police.  it might be Firefighters. It might be the EPA.  It might be Transgendered Lesbian Studies at the local U.  It might be contract law.

Where we disagree is WHAT IS the greater good.  You have your ideas.  I have mine.  (and you all assume a lot about what I want and what I don't want). 

Unfortunately, living in a stable society demands a few sacrifices.  It just does.  there has never ever on Earth been a Stable society that doesn't.  Complete individualism leads to anarchy which leads to Tribalism which leads to Somalia.

So your argument goes both ways. Don't YOU force ME to contribute time or money on YOUR desires. 
What if I DON'T want to pay for contract law?   What if I DON'T want to pay even 1 penny for any defense at all?  What if I DON'T want to pay to have your property rights upheld?  Hmm?

Sorry charlie.  there's gotta be some give and take.  We aren't 3 years old.

And again, please don't start accusing me of communism (I'm not) or a lover of our government (I hate it) or an Obama Supporter (I'm not).

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:29 | 2608227 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

Meh. Say what you will about Somalia, but there's opportunity there.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:39 | 2608258 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Nobody is stopping any of you.  Head off!

I mean that literally, your head will be hacked off within months of being there. 

Unlike many of you, I've been to several lawless nations.  It doesn't feel as "free" as you think it does.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:53 | 2608282 Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

WTF. I said nothing of freedom, I simply said opportunity and that usually involves some element of risk, including, gasp, failure.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:37 | 2608251 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

You're not fooling anyone here. I would guess you're about 25 years old, technical education of some sort, regular reader of or other liberal news, love jon stewart, atheist, woefully uneducated by classical standards.

I've heard all your arguments before, "individualism leads to somalia", "founding fathers made errors, so nothing they said can be trusted", ... It's all the statist crap that gets passed from moron to moron.

It's good that you've read Thomas Jefferson, and probably of your own accord. There's hope for you yet.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:01 | 2608306 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

I'm 38 (almost 39).

I'm a doctor.  I am American born and multiracial.  (white and black and raised in a white and Ojibwe native american home).  I grew up poor as shit but pulled myself up by my own bootstraps.  Raised in hippie SF, but to conservative parents.  I did use public education.  By high school I was attending classes at Stanford.  I decided to do university at a top "liberal arts" school.  I went to the top medical school, residency, and fellowship programs in the country.   I was not helped by "affirmative action".  How can I say this?  Because I was a National Honor and a National Achievement Scholar (It means I beat everybody in the nation on my PSAT, SAT and ACT). I paid for my school using scholarships and loans.  All scholarships I won were merit based and did NOT have my race on them.

I have lived in other countries, and have traveled extensively.  This includes going to war torn countries across the globe.  I use Somalia because unlike most people I've been there.  I was almost murdered there in 1998-9.  I was there trying to help the Kenyan Embassy Bombing victims, and later we went to Somalia, Uganda, Eritrea, Ethiopia, and Tanzania.  But Somalia is unstable, and we had "problems".  It's a long story.

I have never ever been to  I do like John Stewart but never watch his show.  But I have read DeSoto's Money, Bank Credit, and Economic cycles... and for some time I read but no longer.

For a while it resonated with me, but over time I found what I believed to be failings. 

I read the New York Times, and also the Washington Post.  I visit Nakedcapitalism daily. and this site.  that's about it.

If it matters, I use the word LEFT libertarianism because I'm tired of the Right appropriating that word. 

For instance: I am STRONGLY pro-gay rightsbut have found that most "Libertarians" are not, and the Tea Partiers sure aren't.  I am Pro-life as well.  However, to me this means I'm against war, I'm against the death penalty, and I'm against abortion except in rape/incest.  why? Because I've been involved in abortions, and as a doc I commonly take care of infants born as early as 24 weeks gestation. thus, to me the argument of "life starts at birth" doesn't jive.  But I'm ambivalent about "life begins at conception" too.

As for "classical education" I'm not sure what you mean.  I was a French Major including major French literature.  French literature, if you didn't know it, formed the basis for a lot of the ideas and beliefs of the time of the founding fathers.  I have also done much reading of Greek philosophy. 

I was NOT a history major, and I personally never liked history much.  I've read a fair amount of it, but others are far more adept at that field.  However, I can see by this thread that I know more history than others on here who are simply regurgitating talking points without reading the original documents.

as for this part:

"founding fathers made errors, so nothing they said can be trusted",

I find it insulting.  I've never said anything remotely like this.

it's the people arguing against me who claim the founders made errors.  I think they did a great job, EVEN WHEN I don't agree with them.


does that confirm all your worst horrors about me?  I'd rather tell you about me than have you all keep telling me about me.  fuckers.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:21 | 2608362 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

Well I stand corrected on your age...

"As for "classical education" I'm not sure what you mean"

xenophon, herodotus, aristotle, epictetus, cicero, ... This is the western heritage that the author speaks of, but it seems lost on you, perhaps because you've never known it. 

""founding fathers made errors, so nothing they said can be trusted" I find it insulting.  I've never said anything remotely like this."

Your argument about the founding fathers implies it. They were in no way nuanced, they had a common cultural heritage which they attempted to enshrine in law. If anything they erred in not writing the constitution with the idea that future Americans like you might not share their cultural heritage.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:35 | 2608364 Colonel
Colonel's picture

So you went to Stanford medical school on just scholarships AND bankster financing? Ahhh I see, for "the greater good" right?

Sat, 07/14/2012 - 12:47 | 2608414 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Libertarianism is a misnomer.  Very few people on Earth actually want to live in a completely ZERO tax state.

Libertarianism is a pretty broad political continuum. There are anarchists at one end of the spectrum, and minarchists at the other. And, indeed, the argument that having no government at all will lead to a lawless, chaotic anarchy is exactly why the vast majority of libertarians want some kind of rump state.

However, there's a big difference between a state enforcing negative rights (ie, punishing forms of predation), and one enforcing positive rights (ie, becoming a collectivist predator itself to redistribute wealth). Furthermore, your earlier argument that, a person wanting their nation to raise taxes to support the enforcement of negative rights must necessarily accept another person's views that the nation should raise taxes to enforce positive rights, is jejeune, because the latter always want the negative rights enforced as well. It's not 'either or'. The libertarian has a strict set of functions he wants the State to perform that the Statist also wants performed, but along with a whole lot more.

There is an excellent argument to be made that a government needs to raise taxes to prevent free riders on public goods such as defence, police, and the court system. I have yet to hear a convincing argument for the government to provide private goods such as health-care, childcare, education, bread, shoes, and the myriad other things statist trolls like yourself regularly proclaim are the rights of man.

So go fuck yourself, sophist.  You are probably not a doctor, you are certainly not a student of Mises, but you almost certainly are an asshole; albeit a sophisticated one.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:57 | 2608292 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Libertarians are essentially minimalists and expect results for their participation, not promises.

"So your argument goes both ways. Don't YOU force ME to contribute time or money on YOUR desires."

Well first, you have to hold to your previous argument and your obvious? wish for a results orientated society. 

You started out with government education as a good thing. With the time & amounts spent (K-12) would you say our children have gotten the best primary education money and time can buy and are prepared to lead happy, productive lives?...its a yes or no answer.

Given a yes does over a third need remedial courses before they are accepted into college?

Results are what matters...not emotion, not promises to do better...not appeals to the black hole of forced "charity"...just results.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:11 | 2608331 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

You started out with government education as a good thing

Comprehension fail.

I started out by saying that Thomas Jefferson believed in Public Education.
I said nothing about my own beliefs.  You inferred them.

The rest of your questions are irrelevant, because this isn't about me.  I wasn't a founding father.  It's about Jefferson, who was a founding father.

Funny to me how you all gripe about public education but few of you can follow a logical argument. 

Let me recap the argument.

Original point of article:
-NO collectivist ideas can be found in ANY important documents written by the Founding Fathers.

My response;

-this is dumb.  the Constitution itself has collectivist ideas when it stole rights from individuals and gave those as powers to the Federal Government.  True, it did limit those powers, but it nonetheless still did it.  In addition, the Founders set up TAXATION which is according to many here at ZH, a clear violation of individual liberty.  i do not disagree with this assertion, but I also find it mandatory to have a functioning society.

-in their private and public writings, one can see nuanced arguments about what exactly the "General Welfare" means.  Clearly different Founding Fathers felt differently on the topic, and clearly some of them were ambivalent about what that meant themselves!  Chief among them are thomas Jefferson  who  fought for a Public Education that would be free to those who could not pay and and Benjamin Franklin who proposed a public fire fighting unit.

Various ZH responders

-have wiggled around the issue, used strawman arguments about who I am or who I must be or what I must believe

-they then attacked my argument based on 2012, although I said nothing about 2012.

-then more strawman arguments

-then personal insults.

-then rationalizations that the Founding Fathers can't always be right.

-then accusations that it was ME who said the Founding fathers were wrong. 


So a reminder: I'm not talking about my goals or wishes at all.  I'm simply talking about the documents that the Founding Fathers wrote.  I'm quoting them verbatim.

Clearly I think the state of education IN GENERAL in America is pathetic.  I see it here today.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:17 | 2608680 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Original point of article:
-NO collectivist ideas can be found in ANY important documents written by the Founding Fathers."

My response;

-this is dumb.  the Constitution itself has collectivist ideas when it stole rights from individuals and gave those as powers to the Federal Government."

I've spent all night trying to figure you out...and I think I have.

Its consent...nothing was stolen then, it was the consent of the people to be governed in a certain way. Now its "changed" over time and the consent is no longer extended by a sizable portion. So it returns to a simple treaty abrogation or breach of contract where "they" are at fault for the breach and the peoples consent to participate and be bound by withdrawn. 

It was a contract between us & them, not collectivism...its turned into theft.

You're a good fighter though...respect given but you know what comes next ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:24 | 2608829 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Well, thank yu for having the grace to acknowledge that his performance has been way above the standard of his opponents here -

While I don't necessarily agree with any particular line of argument Hmm put forward, he has not allowed himself to be pinned into any corners that would give advantage to those whose only method of reasoning is to keep harping on some ideologically bound formula like a fighter with only a left or right hook.

There's been very very few times I've ever thought to myself that somebody doesn't deserve to even be here, but the full retard pulled off by "Big Jim" is a classic example of the ankle- biting gnat at it's most irritating.

In a Fight Club, excellence is always acknowledged, no matter our likes or dislikes of the performer.


Thu, 07/12/2012 - 01:06 | 2609012 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

logic fail on your part.

"As long as Americans continue to esteem the vision expressed in the U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Right, and Declaration Of Independence, there can be no collectivism in this country.  The Constitutional Republic formed through revolution against despotism by the Founding Fathers is a solid antithesis to outright tyranny."

which is true, is not equivalent to your straw man:

"NO collectivist ideas can be found in ANY important documents written by the Founding Fathers."

which is not true, It is better phrased as:

"The founding fathers did not write documents that promoted collectivist ideas."

Which again is true. To point out some instances where an idea that could be construed as minimally collectivist happened to appear is to miss the forest for the trees. The declation of independence and constitution represented a triumph of individualism. To try to construe these documents as anything other than that is quite literally an attack on US cultural heritage. You have to be totally ignorant of the history of western civilization to believe some of the bullshit you are writing. And before you tell me "Oh, I'm just repeating facts from the document", understand that we all know why you chose those facts to emphasize.  


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:49 | 2608440 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Your last 2 posts have been interesting. Why not post your credo of your concept of how this world should be.      Milestones

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:07 | 2608797 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Collectivism leads to government which leads to tyranny which leads to the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea, etc.


Somalia is beginning to sound like heaven.


How about supporting panarchism?




Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:51 | 2608279 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Please sacrifice yourself then for our greater good. Don't do it like a candy-assed, failed investment-firm owner either.
We'll follow your lead! Collectivists honor!

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:19 | 2608050 falak pema
falak pema's picture

...Think group rights vs. individual rights.

You push the collectivist analogy into the domain of the marxist era. Collectivism existed in the nation. A concept that even the Greeks understood. Greek national sentiment began with the Persian invasion; 490 BC and Marathon. Menelaus and Sparta had their form of primitive collectivism, it was ethnocentric and elitist. Athenians had a different model. The individual and free will of individual were born with Socrates and Plato, who did not deny collectivist values. They tried to find a common ground between nation and individual, around value systems. 

You opposition of one to other shows an ideological prejudice which is prevalent in this thread. Its as if the libertarian bend of US society has redefined Americanism as a reaction to totalitarian collectivist morph of 19th century Europe. History has a much longer time line and the founding fathers were part of it. Before US society morphed in the empty continent full of land and resources feeding individual hubris, exposing its hidden prejudices fed on Puritan sentiment from Mayflower days. And the founding fathers faded like old parchment. "Just words" as GWB said. 

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 03:15 | 2609110 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Think group rights vs individual rights.


Awesome. The easiness US citizens misrepresent themselves... Mind boggling.

Citizenship is group rights. The Constitution defines citizenship.

And US citizenism is a story of sacrifying human individuality for a goal or purpose.

With US citizens, it is either with them or against them as the tales they are telling are so big you need to submit to their wishful thinking to accept them.

US citizens have continually sacrificed human individuality for a goal or purpose.

US citizens are those people who started their business by declaring freedom an unalienable right to human beings and selectively kept slaves to maintain their living standards.

So from the very beginning, the trend was set and that is again the bet lie US citizens demand their peers to swallow in order to side with US citizens, to be part of the US citizen group.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:00 | 2607954 NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

I blame that on the collectivist nature of that era. It's not like the founding fathers were saints and the most enlightened people of all time after all. The still owned slaves FFS. 

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:18 | 2608042 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Negroids were not considered on par with caucasoids. It's not that hard to comprehend, the negroids of Africa hadn't invented the wheel or even have a written launguage. even today Africans have a sub 70 IQ on average.

Back in those days people valued their tribe/race/subspecies or whatever you want to call it.

Thy also didn't give women the right to vote. Perhaps this was based on historical and cultural knowledge rather then just being mean old men.

From my experience women do not reason, they feel. People that donot use reason to find truth should not have the power to use force of government to direct their will.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:42 | 2608113 falak pema
falak pema's picture

you're a relic from the 1905 colonial exhibition of Crystal Palace?

Barbados and negroid  were its themes. You are surely a descendant from the monkey of Mulligatawny town, famous for its soup, who was a sensation there. As for African women, they worked and some played chess and knew how to write poems and paint on grains of chickpeas which they grew in Tumbuktoo. Did you know that the doctors of Tumbuktoo knew how to operate cataract removal from human eyes way back in...1300?  

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:20 | 2608210 dwayne elizando
dwayne elizando's picture

You white slaves are such a proud people.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:00 | 2608638 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Unfortunately most of us have been brainwashed to hate themselves and their heritage.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:48 | 2608867 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

Hey Waffen

when Whitey wakes up and begins to take note of his\her imperilled state of being, the first they he\she does is not dump on the brother races...

that's Honky shite, brewed up by the Khazarian tribe, whose firstest and bestest trick is to get us all fighting each other whilst they pick our pockets. All yu've done is advertise yur willingness to bite -hook, line n sinker.

Brainwashing is real, and Whitey has indeed been taught to hate the values of our COLLECTIVE CULTURE -but yu won't fix that by putting other folks down to make yurself feel taller...we have no quarrel with the black, brown, red or yellow races, only with the real racial hegemonists who live amongst us pretending to be our neighbors while plotting our demise via a campaign to corrupt our values and dumb down our children.  Yur playing their game, and now yu feel the need to divide us even more by placing the genders at war with each other too?

get back to us when yu've got yur own brand of brainwashing sorted, and can be a credit to yur race, not a liability.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 00:54 | 2608997 Waffen
Waffen's picture

who said I am putting others down, I am just speaking the truth, everyone is not the same, we all have strengths and weaknesses, egalitarianism is a cancer that sucks the life our of our society

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 01:37 | 2609051 JOYFUL
JOYFUL's picture

who said anything about "egalitarianism"....folks be what they be, whatever the color persuasion - and we can all respect each other while staying ourselves.

it deserves to be said agin....

yu don't pull yurself up by pushing others down...

if yu really think Whitey deserves to survive the forthcoming nightmare, yu'll digest that fact and rework yur message in accord with it's truth.

Sat, 07/14/2012 - 09:16 | 2615458 Ranger4564
Ranger4564's picture

I know not to expect more than this from people, so i'm not dismayed, but you're conflating 2 different situations just like you've been taught to.


1. all people being different is a reality but it does not then need to lead to denigration or oppression of large breasted white women in red outfits, simply because i find that disadvantageous.

2. the meritorious / praiseworthy aspects of our society are not the result of most of the people who are contained by that society definition; much of what is considered advancement is by select few individuals, and their ability was not developed, it was primarily innate, so trying to assign value by differentiating as you're doing is a meaningless contrivance given to you by the culture you're being victimized by and victimizing through. it's a fabrication to believe certain conditions of inequality breeds excellence. it's justa lie so large breasted white women in red can benefit at the expense of others.

instead of struggling against your fellow inhabitants, why not use that superior unequalled intellect / ingenuity to advance society to a point where there is no negative consequence to society even if people are unequal from birth? why not develop the society of tomorrow instead of clinging to that of yesterday?because, you've been taught to maintain the pyramid structure, to feed the oligarchs, so your only goal is to figure out how to similarly get othersto similarly enrich you. dog eat dog, but i'm a cool cat.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:32 | 2608225 takinthehighway
takinthehighway's picture

The average person's concept of slavery drives me bonkers.

Everyone knows that a tool, regardless of how well made, must be properly cared for in order to perform at its optimum. It would behoove the slaveowner to treat his slaves well - and most did. The average slave in the pre-war South is documented to have had a better diet and better living conditions than the average Northern factory worker.

Consider this: a slave has to be fed three good meals a day; he has to be adequately housed in clean and temperate conditions; he has to be adequately clothed for all weather. Besides those basics, free medical and dental care were provided (the larger plantations would have doctors in residence); churches were often provided; and regular time off was given, along with the opportunity to hire himself out to a neighboring plantation on his free time - and keep the money earned for himself. Also, the slave could advance in rank on the plantation, which carried extra privileges.

Were there abuses? Of course there were - as there are abuses in all of society everywhere. But if slavery was the constant horror and atrocity we hear it was, why, when the white males left the plantations to fight the war, didn't the slaves return the favor and massacre the remaining wives and children - or simply pick up and leave? Because they knew that the system they lived under had a lot of advantages over being free. Think about it - you have all your physical needs met; you have year-round gainful employment; if there was a problem, it could be reported and dealt with at little or no cost to you. Contrast that to forty acres of unimproved ground and a mule.

All I'm asking is that, when bringing up an emotionally charged issue, know whereof you speak, so that you may deal in reason and not emotion.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:48 | 2608437 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 The average slave in the pre-war South is documented to have had a better diet and better living conditions than the average Northern factory worker.

That may be so. But the latter wouldn't be hunted down by dogs and lynched if he absented himself from his workplace.

 why, when the white males left the plantations to fight the war, didn't the slaves return the favor and massacre the remaining wives and children - or simply pick up and leave?

Yes, we can wonder why people have so rarely risen up against their oppressors throughout history, but that doesn't mean they weren't oppressed, often hideously.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:11 | 2608493 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

I believe the precedent you're overlooking is
FREEWILL, asshole.
I'm no sympathizer, either...
On another note-
Without a "collective" slaughter or justice served
to the sociopathic,upper-crust, we'll be living on a global plantation in no time.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 03:21 | 2609114 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

But if slavery was the constant horror and atrocity we hear it was, why, when the white males left the plantations to fight the war, didn't the slaves return the favor and massacre the remaining wives and children - or simply pick up and leave? Because they knew that the system they lived under had a lot of advantages over being free.


Applaud if you love. Big time.

Wonderful hypothetical.

The answer is simple. Because US citizens did not leave the plantation. On the contrary, they prefered to stay and organize patrols on the plantations to subdue any attempt from slaves to regain freedom instead of going to fight the red coats to free the colonies from the socalled King's abuses.

That is a wonderful utterance of US citizenism.

Dismiss reality by calling in fantasy.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:08 | 2608000 Tirpitz
Tirpitz's picture

Astute observation. But, please bear in mind, that nowadays the constitution might rather read like:

"We, the corporations, have the rights, but no obligations, to pursue monopolies throughout the world, backed by a taxpayer funded military, to keep our profits offshore in taxhavens protected by the same military and legal framework we abuse to screw the people over and over..."

So it is essential to keep the sheeple from being able to defend themselves, proclaim liberty and freedom, while keeping them controlled and manipulated from cradle to grave.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:29 | 2608053 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

Who cares?  How many votes do corporations get?  Zero.

If it weren't for idiots in the electorate, who uncritically buy into garbage like this guest post, corporations would still be useful parts of our society, and not the controlling parasites they are today.  What the TeaParty fails to recognize (and it's as plain as the nose on your face) is that they overwhelmingly vote GOP - yes, they keep in party the power that pushed through the extensions to the Patriot Act, the huge military, that abortion called the "Department of Homeland Security", NAFTA,  etc..

Wake the fuck up!  YOU are the enablers of the crap that corporations are pulling these days.

Next time someone claims "Oh, both parties are the same!" or "Republicans are for individiual liberties", remember the following.

Patriot Act vote tallies:

House 2001 - 66 no votes; 63 Democrats, 3 Republicans

House 2006 extension - 138 no votes; 124 Democrats, 13 Republicans

Senate 2006 extension - 10 no votes, all from Democrats

It's the REPUBLICANS who want to tap your phone, and have their TSA agents jam their hands in your kids' pants.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:47 | 2608125 shuckster
shuckster's picture

That's because Republicans represent the pedophile filled Evangelical Church 

Republicans are scum and are generally Zionists, conciously or in ignorance. The Evangelical Church is the Christian arm of Zionism, which executes the dictates of Israel. 

Corporations? All belong to wealthy Jews. Corporations aren't bad, it's the Jews who control them who are. Look and you will see

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:11 | 2608494 PulpCutter
PulpCutter's picture

I am about as WASP/founding family as one can get, AND I think it's long past time we stopped running American foreign policy to please AIPAC. 

That said, though, I have to quibble with where you're going with that "jews control corporations".  There are tons of jews in top positions in American corporations, universities, hospitals and branches of government.  99% of them got because they earned it, by some combination of talent and working their ass off.  More power to them. 

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:58 | 2608631 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Jews are extremely nepotistic, they also will lie cheat and steal to "earn" their positions.

Look at the art industry of the 20th century as example of not earning anything, but rather destroying competition and all forms of traditional art to completely dominate a field with non talent.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 22:09 | 2608664 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

Or better yet- The "music industry" of the 21st.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:54 | 2608619 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Most Christians are indeed tools of the zionists.

Talmudic Jewry is anti humanity, anti honor anti everything I was brought up to believe.

The tribe of chosen people are indeed our misfortune. You don't get kicked out of a city state/ country 109 times since 250AD and not be at fault somewhow.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:22 | 2608827 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Most people are tools of others possessing higher IQs and sociopathic tendencies.



Thu, 07/12/2012 - 08:40 | 2609486 shuckster
shuckster's picture

Indeed - it gets tiring going around trumpeting Antisemitism, especially when one considers how it affects future jobs prospects, but you really cannot get around the issue - and that is that most of the most evil and destructive policies in our government start with people like David Axelrod and Henry Kissinger. Merit may be their way to the top, but deception and contempt is how they stay there

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:18 | 2608044 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

For those of you who understand that the world is more nuanced than white and black, communism vs socialism, individualism vs collectivism tripe espoused in this article, may I recommend that you actually READ the Letters of Thomas Jefferson.  Also his book, the Notes on the State of Virginia published in 1785.

In it, you will find that

-Thomas Jefferson was a very strong believer in FREE, PUBLICLY PAID FOR, PUBLIC EDUCATION.  (but the student had a choice whether or not they wanted to go).  It's in his Notes on the State of Verginia.  In it, ALL kids would be eligible for 3 years of free public schooling.  If they were near the top of their class after 3 years, they would be advanced on REGARDLESS of ability to pay.  It would be paid for by the STATE out of (gasp) taxes.  Taxation for public school!  An outrage!  Hasn't Thomas Jefferson read Hayek and Rand?


also: which sociocommunist fascist said this garbage about progressive taxation?:

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise"


Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson.


And what bleeding heart hippie fucktard said this?

The property of this country is absolutely concentered in a very few hands…. But after all these comes the most numerous of all the classes, that is, the poor who cannot find work. I asked myself what could be the reason that so many should be permitted to beg who are willing to work, in a country where there is a very considerable proportion of uncultivated lands? These lands are kept idle mostly for the aske of game. It should seem then that it must be because of the enormous wealth of the proprietors which places them above attention to the increase of their revenues by permitting these lands to be laboured.

Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson.


And who proposed a public firefighting system?

Oh wait, that was Ben Franklin.  Never Mind.  I guess there were at least 2 "collectivist" Founding Fathers. 



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:22 | 2608056 Waffen
Waffen's picture

Publi education? As for his genius but flawed deceleration of independence, "purseuit of happiness" rally Jefferson?

Anyway Jefferson wasn't perfect, public education is anathema to a free people.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:44 | 2608119 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Anyway Jefferson wasn't perfect, public education is anathema to a free people.

Ah.  I see.  So anybody who doesn't listen to you is a pinko commie, clearly demonstrated by the Constitution.  Except when it's pointed out to you the Constitution actually SAYS stuff that sounds an awful lot like Pinko-Commie speak, and in that case... well it doesn't really mean that, it means something else, and you will be happy to tell us all what it really means... forget what it says.  By "Union" it meant "individual". And by "general welfare" it just meant war and defence and law documents.  but not law documents you don't agree with.  Only those you do.

and when pointed out that there are Founding Father Documents that extoll the virtues of all you hate... well then they are not "perfect", and cue global statement that has no factual basis such as "public education is anathema to a free people". 

Got it.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:24 | 2608214 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Why do you keep citing the Constitution? you know what the actual document even does or is?

Here is some of what it does...

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

Do you agree or disagree with the original intent of this text?...its in the Constitution ya know ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:30 | 2608230 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Why do you keep citing the Constitution?...

Duh.  Because the original article stated very clearly that not a single collectivist thought could possibly be gleaned from THE CONSTITUTION.  And so I printed out the first sentence which directly challenges that stupid claim.

I also quoted some of the collectivist ideas that a few of the forefathers had.

Please keep in mind: I am NOT saying I like the current USA

I am NOT saying that I like our government

I am NOT saying I agree with current tax policy

I am NOT saying anything like that at all.

I am simply contradicting what is possibly the stupidest article of all time, that made a global statement of:

One simple fact remains:  As long as Americans continue to esteem the vision expressed in the U.S. Constitution, Bill Of Right, and Declaration Of Independence, there can be no collectivism in this country. 

this "fact" is wrong.  And I've shown why. 


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:15 | 2608342 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Citing the preamble and then extrapolating absolute bullshit on top of it does not get you very far around here my man.

I asked a(nother) simple question of you...

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote."

Do you agree or disagree with the original >>>intent<<< of this text?

Answer my question or cede the fact that you have not read any further than the preamble.

I also defy you to find the word democracy anywhere in it...good luck ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:41 | 2608851 dexter_morgan
dexter_morgan's picture

Ah, if only they would have stopped there, but had to compromise and create a house of representatives apportioned based on poulation in order to get larger states to go along with the 'tweaks' to the articles of confederation . So much for the intent of sovereign states.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:47 | 2609161 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

shock horrror! the SS/hitler fan does'nt like public education, after all where would we find the morons who volunteer to die so that us traders can get rich speculating on the success or failure of their sacrifice.

money is transnational, thats why haliburton and Xie have their Corp HQ in saudi arabia, its not just a tax dodge, the elite are above nations and society.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:25 | 2608067 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

I did read his notes and letter and his idea for public schooling is a far cry from "FREE, PUBLICLY PAID FOR, PUBLIC EDUCATION":

Each ward should have a primary school for the three R’s, open to all. Each year the best pupil in each school should be sent to the grade-school, of which there were to be twenty, conveniently situated in various parts of the state. They should be kept there one year or two years, according to results shown, and then all dismissed but one, who should be continued six years. “By this means, twenty of the best geniuses will be raked from the rubbish annually. At the end of six years, the best ten out of the twenty were to be sent to college, and the rest turned adrift."

This is the thomas jefferson I know:

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” - TJ

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” -TJ

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - TJ

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:31 | 2608068 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

erasing my double post...

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:39 | 2608107 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

This is the thomas jefferson I know:

Yes.  That is also Thomas Jefferson.  But you see, BOTH people are Thomas Jefferson.  As I said, the documents are nuanced and complex, and even contradictory.  That's why the original article is just flat out wrong.  It tries to simplify these into an individualism-uber-all ideology that just wasn't there.

Thomas Jefferson would be excoriated in today's politics due to "flip flops".

On the one hand he believed in Free Public Education and fought for it strongly.  (vilified by many zerohedgers as unconstitutional). 

He also proposed taxation to pay for the Public Education. 

But he also strongly believed everything you wrote.  There are key words in his quotes.  I will bold them for you.  They are very important qualifiers. 

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.” -TJ


We must then define "too much".  clearly in 2012 we have "too much".  but when was "enough" and when was "not enough"?  Was 1800 just right?  1900?  1950? 2000? last month? 

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.” - TJ


But what is government "waste".  Is public education a waste?  Clearly Jefferson did not think so.  He felt that at least 3 years was not a waste.  and clearly full education was not a waste so long as the student was a top student. 

So I stand by my claim.  The Constitution and other Founding Father documents are wonderful historical documents that show the battle to build a country.  It was a mechanism whereby a number of very intelligent men FOUGHT and ARGUED and CAJOLED and COMPROMISED in order to birth a country.  The documents reflect the fact that there were many different beliefs that went into creating them.  And yes, there are even supposedly contradictory desires in these men... such as hating taxation but also recognizing that it is necessary for a MORE PERFECT UNION.

The Founding fathers were not Communists (there was no such thing).  they were not Socialists (there was no such thing).  They were not even Capitalists (there was no such thing). 

They were very much influenced by ideals that were to become Socialism and Capitalism, but these were nothing like what we see today.  (Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations wasn't written until 1776). 

Some were more "liberal" (Like Jefferson and Franklin).  Some more "conservative (Like Madison and Hamilton).  the founding documents show that.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:53 | 2608145 sid farkas
sid farkas's picture

Look, Thomas Jefferson, being human, was of course not perfect. We know today with the benefit of hindsight that public education has been a colossal failure. The teachers pretend to teach, the students pretend to learn, and the taxpayer gets overbilled for the whole affair.

We are advised to build upon the areas where he was brilliantly insightful, and dismiss his errors. Only a moron would harp on the few things he got wrong and use them to dismiss his great ideas (individual liberty and limited government). 


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:36 | 2608248 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

We are advised to build upon the areas where he was brilliantly insightful, and dismiss his errors. Only a moron would harp on the few things he got wrong and use them to dismiss his great ideas (individual liberty and limited government).

I don't disagree.  but you see, now you are a Pinko-Communist like me, because you see that Thomas Jefferson was nuanced.  And so were his writings.

This is in direct contradiction to the original article.  Welcome to my team.

Last reminder: I have not said a single thing about public education circa 2012.  I only bring up the point that some of the founding fathers were very much in favor of it, regardless of whatever qualifiers you choose to use to show me that they didn't envision what we have now.

Lastly, the one area we do differ, is that I don't believe that Jefferson was wrong.  I believe that public education propelled us to the top of the World Economy. 
As always, implementation of an idea, in this case public education, can be a bitch.

For instance, our Founding fathers were very much for Defense.  But would they be for the 2012 US Military?  Hardly.  (in my opinion).  I see nothing in the founding documents that would support the Empire Building Military that we've developed that does everything EXCEPT Defense.

But just because I hate the Military Industrial Complex as it exists today does not mean I disagree with the notion that a country must have a protective Defence, and it does not mean that the founders were "wrong".  It means the implementation has failed horrifically.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:32 | 2608555 Milestones
Milestones's picture

Don't use italics in your first sentence w/o quotation marks. I gave you a red a while ago and now on this post I have to agree with you. I gota read more of your stuff. you are interesting.        Milestones

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 08:12 | 2609409 Bob
Bob's picture

+2  Odd that his "vote counter" became inoperative after a couple votes on every one of his posts on this page. 

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:01 | 2608466 Simon Endean
Simon Endean's picture

@sid farkas: "We know today with the benefit of hindsight that public education has been a colossal failure."


MODERN public education has been a failure.  It was a pretty good system before teachers' unions and hordes of bureaucrats screwed it up.  The standards were actually pretty high up until the late 60s-early 70s, and they didn't really fall off the cliff until relatively recently.

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 03:24 | 2609116 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

We know today with the benefit of hindsight that public education has been a colossal failure.


And what is known with the benefit of hindsight on US citizenism?

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 23:00 | 2611811 akak
akak's picture

"Hindsight" being the innate Chinese instinct for unerringly targeting the sides of their roads with their open spincters.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:41 | 2608115 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Jefferson also said that standing armies were anathema to the republic; he said that every able-bodied man and boy had the natural right to bear arms, and become proficient with them, as part of a voluntary citizens' militia; he said that banking institutions and paper fiat money were some of the greatest frauds perpetuated upon mankind.

He also hypothesized that anarchism was probably the best form of self-government and organization, but his fear was that it would not scale well, e.g., that it might not work in groups larger than twenty, and he resigned himself to the idea that government was a necessary evil.  He also recognized that governments do not exist in static space; they inevitably become more corrupt along their life-cycle, and once that happened, it was good, proper, and necessary for the people to rebel and destroy that government. 

So what's your point?

Others can cherry-pick too.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:52 | 2608140 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

If your question is to me, your post proves MY point.

 I'm not cherry picking. I'm simply pointing out counterfactuals that you claim don't exist.  it is YOU who claim that the founding fathers only believed in individualism, and not collectivism AT ALL.  not me.  That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.  And thus, I've given you some quotes to show that there WAS INDEED Collectivist thought at the time, TEMPERED BY Individualistic rightis. 

My POINT is that the Founding Fathers were complex beings who created a very nuanced document in order to create a country.

My POINT is that this document is not simplistic and it is not white and black, and it is not cut and dry.

My POINT is that there is room for significant interpretation about what was meant by the Founding Fathers when they wrote this.

and therefore MY POINT is that this article is stupid, that claims that there is no possibility for collectivist thinking based on any documents provided by the Founding Fathers, for I HAVE SHOWN YOU DOCUMENTS WRITTEN BY THESE SAME FOUNDING FATHERS that dispute the article specifically.

such as:

who said these quotes that ZH people love? (as do I):

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Why, the same man who said this:

"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."

--Benjamin Franklin




Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:42 | 2608117 nmewn
nmewn's picture

An education does not mean statist indoctrination.

So I will assume you also appreciate and approve of his principles on public debt (and he struggled with that too, personal & the Louisiana Purchase, public) and individuals rights to firearm ownership?

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:57 | 2608154 r00t61
r00t61's picture

Indeed, Jefferson's concept of public education was strictly limited to "reading, writing, and arithmetic."  Once you learned how to read, to write, and to perform simple math, your free public schooling was over.

If you wanted to move on and study the classics, you either earned it via scholarship, or you paid for it out of your own pocket.

No one was going to be indoctrinated about the all-encompassing power of the State, by the State, in Jefferson's model.

No one was going to stand up and salute a flag and recite a pledge of statist allegiance in Jefferson's model.

No one was going to earn a BA in Minority Lesbian and Transgendered Ethnic Womens' Studies on the public dole in Jefferson's model.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:08 | 2608185 nmewn
nmewn's picture

lol...correct on all counts.

I created quite a stir in the fourth grade when I refused to recite the morning pledge of allegiance to a flag I knew little about at that just wasn't done, the teacher thought I was the devil incarnate...counselors and parents were called...great fun.

My parents schooled them ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:09 | 2608190 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Did he propose FREE PUBLIC SCHOOLING, or not?


I see all your qualifications:

"it was limited to reading, writing, and arithmatic". 

Yet still free and public.

Once you learned how to read, to write, and to perform simple math, your free public schooling was over. 

unless you were a top student, in which case he proposed that they continue  so long as they remained at the top, regardless of ability to pay.  He was ambivalent about how to pay for this (scholarship vs taxes vs other).

"but he wouldn't have agreed to a BA in Minority Lesbian and Transgendered Ethnic Women's Studies". 

Strawman argument. Nobody said he would.

"If you wanted to move on and study the classics, you either earned it via scholarship, or you paid for it out of your own pocket" 

UNTRUE.  He strongly believed that ALL kids should be able to go regardless of ability to pay.  He struggled with the HOW of paying for it.  It's one reason why he was not successful in his Public education push in Virginia. (people didn't want to be taxed for it).

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 21:40 | 2608588 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Yet still free and public."

There is no such thing as "free" unless you pick it up off the street...but then someone must have lost it for it to be one is just being unethical in not trying to find who lost it.

Now don't get me wrong...I'm starting to see what (I think) is your overall point here. He was a the classical sense. Not what is termed a "liberal" they are decidely not liberal at all.

"He strongly believed that ALL kids should be able to go regardless of ability to pay.  He struggled with the HOW of paying for it."

And I think we all still do...but not on taxation issues alone, its gone far beyond that for children. The term "kids" can't be used when discussing adults...that is, college age.

I'm always amazed that the sensitive "liberal" can make the leap from promoting sensitivity, to being insensitive of others beliefs and sensitivities of all in a public space...paid for by taxation and not see their own hypocrisy.

This is why publicly funded primary schools should refrain from anything but the three R's. College is different as they are more mature and can rationalize better.

And I saw your slam on do know we're coming to eat all the "progessive" babies we can find right? ;-)

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:44 | 2608120 maximin thrax
maximin thrax's picture

Kindly reference TJ's ruminations on the federal government alone spending almost 30% of GDP, borrowing 10% of GDP annually (which doesn't exist so must be printed), and being in debt a sum equal to the nation's entire GDP. Since,as you claim, he mentioned free education for all and wealth re-distribution he must have considered the ramifications of those policies?

Which did Thomas Jefferson say he preferred - A free republic were per capita federal debt and unfunded obligations equaled over twenty times the per capita annual income, or King George's boot? You know, I don't think he said, because I don't think he ever thought collectivism would have ever taken things so far.

Sorry, but looking back at the wisdom of the Founding Fathers is a way to see clear a path out of this mess, not a way to reinforce the genius that got us here.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:00 | 2608160 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

quit putting words in my mouth.

Please reference where I said that the Founding fathers would be happy with our current government.  I'll wait.

Thank you. 
Now, let's please listen to what I SAID and try not to argue things I have NOT said.

What I DID say is this:

The founding fathers noted that we as individuals had individual rights, but we also had individual responsibilities to the general public as a whole.  Our responsibilities included, but were not limited to, taxation for the "General Welfare".  There was in 1776, and is today, disagreement about what exactly "the General Welfare" was.  However, it is clear that the founding fathers initiated and enshrined into law the tyranny which you all abhor... taxation.

they tried to counterbalance the taxation by adding representation.  But they even disagreed as to how we should be represented. 

After much arguing, they made COMPROMISES and SACRIFICES to their own individual ideologies (gasp!) and created a wonderful document called the Constitution.  Even after that, they continued to argue and compromise.  Because, you see, this stuff is COMPLICATED.

Nothing above says anything about today's USA which has lost all vestiges of a Free Nation.  But neither is it a Socialist Nation.  Nor a Communist nation.  You see, what we have is the worst of all worlds,  which is a corporatocracy and a kleptocracy

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:32 | 2608236 Oldwood
Oldwood's picture

AS the basic requirements of life are still the same as at the founding of our country and constitution and yes there is always different interpretations of even the word "is", do you really believe for a moment that any of these founders could have envisioned much less approved of what we have today? Just because you may not be able to absolutely define something does not mean is has no meaning at all. We have always been concerned with concentrated wealth and power and in what way would you suppose that concentration is any less destructive in the hands of the government? Tyranny has always come from government. Its is a completely different subject to discuss the inequality of wealth distribution and its forced redistribution and one of inequality of opportunity to aquire wealth. A government that pursues distribution of unearned wealth destroys everyone it touches.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:17 | 2608351 Hmm...
Hmm...'s picture

Please reread my posts. nowhere have I said anything about 2012.  you keep putting those arguments in my mouth.  I only stated that the Founding Fathers understood that there is a balance between collectivism and individualism.  That's it.

Tyranny has always come from government.

Not true.  There was Tyranny in Somalia as well when it had no central government. 
Tyranny always comes when one group oppresses another.  Sometimes they do that through Government.  Sometimes they do that through other means (like the Private De Beers Corporation who enslaves its workforce and routinely cuts off their hands if they steal or cuts off their feet if they try to escape.

however, Government is very effective at Tyranny.  Including our govt today.  but, you see, that's not what I've been arguing.  Unfortunately most people around here are too dumb to see what I am arguing.

Guess I gotta keep it to soundbites and catchy Phrases like

Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:23 | 2609155 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

"You see, what we have is the worst of all worlds, which is a corporatocracy and a kleptocracy"

Give mittens a chance and he'll bring back slavery as well.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:54 | 2608136 Spacemoose
Spacemoose's picture

do you actually believe that the founding fathers would approve of 40,000 pages of of regulations in the federal register, promulgated by unelected bureaucrats.  or that i cannot build a wall in my backyard over three feet high without governmental approval, or goverment restrictions on selling halfway decent showerheads, or government taking off the market asthma inhalers which work well based on computer projections of global warming or the taking of 40% of my income for the collectivist pet projects such as building a high speed rail line from armpit california to nostril california? really...?  REALLY???  you sir, are delusional. and i ... am... fed ... up... with government micromanaging every significant detail of my life to the extent that the only thing of significance i can do in my life or with my property without government approval or interference is ..  is..  well shit...

edit:  i thought of something...  i can be a homeless bum.  yes i think i might be able to do that free of government interference. 



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:20 | 2608167 Colonel
Colonel's picture

"edit:  i thought of something...  i can be a homeless bum.  yes i think i might be able to do that free of government interference."

You would think so but just ask this man...

And the jackboots are uprooting lots of people from the Obamavilles as well, but those banksters got their bonuses isn't that right leftards? Just more leftist-liberal-statist "tolerance".



Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:09 | 2609149 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Starting a post with italics so you cant get voted down is kinda cheating.....

Sun, 07/15/2012 - 12:05 | 2617375 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

I hope that vote down is sarcasm.....nobody can be that daft on purpose.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:32 | 2608235 Chump
Chump's picture

I'm sorry to say that no, you cannot even shit on your own property without massive government intervention, even if you live in a rural area outside a municipality's planning jurisdiction.  Building or expanding a septic system will require at bare minimum a site visit and perk test by the county health department.  Cost: $150-$200.  For the inspector(s) to even come out you will need to have had your boundary lines marked so they can confirm setbacks.  Cost: Varies wildly but since we're talking rural and likely wooded let's just say a ballpark of $500-$750 for an average size lot.  After the perk test you'll need to submit a site plan showing the new/expanded septic field, existing/proposed building foundations and footers, property lines and setbacks, R/Ws, driveways, any water resources, easements, overhead and underground utilities on the site, and whatever else the county might require.  Cost: after the survey and drafting let's just round up to $1,500.  Then, after you have permission to build a septic system you'll have to pay to have it inspected and final construction permit approved.  Cost: $175-$250.

So at a minimum, and not even including the cost of actually building the septic system, you're going to be out of pocket around $2,300, just for approval to shit on your property.  You could always go out back and find a tree and some leaves, but God help you if the county gets wind of such audacity.  And if you live in a protected watershed buffer, geez, you better squeeze those cheeks and hold it until you die.

And being a homeless bum might not work out so well either, especially if you want to sit down on "public" sidewalks:

It's over.  The government is entrenched.  Vote with a bullet.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 23:54 | 2608878 The Gooch
The Gooch's picture

You wouldn't know "Geometrical progression" if a .308 FMJ hit you in the midst of your skinny jeans, laddy.

I think you missed tonights "lactating man" @ 7. Location: Starbucks. (off the turnpike)

Maybe next Wednesday.

Meatloaf says hi.

Ben (not the bernank for once) has a key he'd like to chase storms with, too.

It's attached to the string of a "collectivist" pride kite.

You can re-discover electricity and share it with everybody.


Thu, 07/12/2012 - 04:07 | 2609148 Colonial Intent
Colonial Intent's picture

Hmm, you are casting pearls before swine.

ZHer's only want facts that support their prejudices, it stops them having to analyse an argument based on merit rather than their own greed.


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:27 | 2608076 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"let's just start with the Constitution."

The Constitution is the framework of far, its still consensual, despite the "collectivists" best efforts.

Taken together, the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights outline what the "collective" (using the blunt force of government) can NOT and should not do and what we allow it to do.

For instance...without a Bill of Rights, many of the states representatives (the peoples representatives) would not have consented to form a federal government at all. Which of course means...there would be no need for a Constitution...or if there was one, it would look different from this one.

Now go read (and understand) what the Bill of Rights is.

You will see a people who were afraid of the collective government their representatives were forming...its clearly stating One through Ten what the collective (government) cannot do and where the power the states and individuals.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 18:40 | 2608112 bankruptcylawyer
bankruptcylawyer's picture

AGREED. the problem is that just because things are bad and getting worse in society doens't mean that every rant and rave makes sense. this rant was nonsense. 

a few rebuttals just to explain: 


collectivism relies on the notion that the past values are inadequate for the future. ----you say this like it is anomolous. any set of ideas confront changing social conditions. even traditionalism in the face of a changing society must 'stop the change'. which is itself a new value, one of the fact that doing the same as usual will allow change to happen thus requiring action to prevent that change. that action is a value, it is a new judgement call. look at the hasidic jews in williamsburg (whom i know all too well ) their form of traditionalism has had to change enormously in order to keep their community in the same way as it has been ---while the world changes. 

collectivism is used to build empire-------collectivists in the united state want to restrict the military and end the u.s. empire. 

collectivism = globalization and socialism-----------ruthless capitalism has gutted capitalism and with the rise of the trade lobby (prominent amongst both democrats and republicans) ---the trade lobby has 'globalized' the current economy. there is nothing collectivist about the motivation to purchase the cheapest labor and sell goods at the lowest price. it is anti-collectivist as it breaks down collectives into units of smaller poorer individuals who will work as cheaply as possible. current u.s. socialists are against outsourcing. 

a movement from the 1900's called futurism 'died'. -----this is perhaps the silliiest assertion. futurism actually transformed into numerous movements and cultural values in the mainstream. the internet, transhumanism, drone warfare, -====our whole culture has practically become futurist. even the catholic church is confronting the realities of our new world. 

the constitution is not 'outdated'--[ because collectivists say it is and they are wrong. ]======the constitution has been updated with amendments numerous times. there is even a constitutional method for updating it so that full revolution shouldn't be necessary. the constituion has also 'allowed' for the rise of a fully captured and corrupted government that can prevent the effective usage of democracy to make new amendments and as a result the supreme court has spent decades making law from the bench----frequently using the interstate commerce clause to deliver power both to national corporations and to the federal government at the expense of the states with no recourse. a multi-decade bubble of federal and corporate authority has been blown in tandem with skyrocketing public and private debt held in the clutches of the money-interests. this has happened numerous times in american history and the disparate monetary interests of the banks , and the government, with different industries in the united states caused the civil war and the great depression amongst other moments of constitutional crisis where armies, or national guardsman were brought in to 'enforce' the emergency power of the executive branch---constitution is just words. 

America constitutes a whole nation of indiviuals acting separately and together. they do so with guidance of law, and the constitution the pre-eminent law of them all. Guidance cannot be 'timely' or 'outdated' , it is only a matter of interpretation. 



Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:30 | 2608172 GoodMorningMr.V...
GoodMorningMr.VanRumpoy...'s picture

Do you know anything about law, contracts, and contract drafting?


The Preamble is the recital to the contract (between the people and the states).

It’s a statement of purpose for the two parties transacting together, not an independent provision granting powers under the contract.   

Hence "Preamble". Powers, Rights, Duties, and Obligations begin after the subheading "Article I".


Wed, 07/11/2012 - 19:36 | 2608246 DanDaley
DanDaley's picture

For collectivists, the Constitution is merely a type of rorschach test in which they see whatever the hell they want to see.

Wed, 07/11/2012 - 20:16 | 2608347 Republi-Ken
Republi-Ken's picture

Yeah! The Constitution is a very liberal document with progressive ideals...thats why Conservatives hate that Liberals are always right when creating new safety nets...they are actually employing the Constitution's specific ideals into actions...the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of Life...and the right way to put The Golden Rule into real Christian action... again Conservatives hate Christianity when they have to pay for it.  Conservatives think The Golden Rule is a passive suggestion that should not cost money.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!