Have you wondered why the TEA Party can only make so much headway, or why the conservative movement in general seems to stall without a brilliant leader? Why do liberals, Democrats, collectivists and leftists always seem to win the hearts and minds of the people? Why don't conservatives? This article attempts to answer these questions.
Let's begin with basic premises. The first premise is that collectivists are driven by fear. They congregate for that most basic element of human structure and society, which is security. Whether the subject is guns, global warming, immigration policy, energy, economics, or, really, any other subject, the collectivist appears to be motivated by fear to avoid catastrophe. They worry constantly about ozone layers, Mexican families divided by border, fracking consequences, capitalism in general, and even the personal habits of human beings upon ecosystems. It's all good.
If only the collectivists were able to remain focused on problem-solving, they wouldn't infringe on the rights of those who don't want to participate in their nail-biting. But they can't. In fact, they get so worked up into a frenzy that their explanations become no more than accusations against whoever does not believe their hysteria. How many times have the collectivists forecast the end of humanity due to climactic chaos? And when it doesn't occur, do the collectivists admit their mistake and calm down? No. They change the story to suit their fears. Again, this wouldn't matter so much if the rest of us weren't dragged along in an unending struggle for liberty.
How many times have collectivists cited gun violence statistics which are dead wrong? In order to truly address gun violence, you have to talk about walking into "the hood" and taking guns from gangs, or about a massive portion of the population on antipsychotic drugs, or about border control, or about mafias. And why don't collectivists talk about those things? Because those are scary things. It's just easier for collectivists to say that the law-abiding gun shop, target shooter, and home-defender comprise the problem. It makes their fear feel better without solving any problems.
This is where Evil steps in. While collectivists are innately annoying, and somewhat dangerous when aroused, they become positively destructive when directed by entities behind the scenes who pay the bills and prop the media. When Evil gets hold of collectivism, the crowd becomes a mace, a weapon by which to pummel the populace into agreeing or else...
Or else what? Well, for starters, the tactics of demeaning; what we used to call bullying, and now known as Alinsky tactics. It's mafia psychology. Two big guys breathing down a skinny guy's neck usually makes the skinny guy a willing stooge. But those were the old days. Today, those who disagree with the collectivist message, as directed by the evil of this world, are subject to tax audits, spying, break-ins, police brutality, and NDAA fascism.
So it is that the fear of the collective, even the well-intentioned reasoning through fear which seeks to allay it for the sake of stability and security, is taken hostage quite easily by Evil.
And when we say Evil, we don't even have to enlarge it to metaphysical dimensions. The most basic truth about Evil engaging collectivism is that "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket" (Eric Hoffer).
The second premise is that individualists (commonly, but erroneously, known as "conservatives") in their nature embody a form of courage. Since the nature of the individualist is to be left alone, the individualist naturally must learn to fend, or believe to fend, for himself. This type of courage may be well-founded or totally based on fairy tales, but in any case the confidence of the individualist exists.
It's not that the individualist is against grouping together. Lord knows the individualist enjoys a good party, road trip, cookout, and even church congregation. But when it comes to groupthink, the individualist has a different idea. Perhaps it's even reactionary, as an allergy to being corralled. But in any case, individualists are autonomous, most times don't play well with others, and in the main think collectivists are wimps.
It should be obvious therefore why collectivists and individualists cannot coexist very well. Collectivists view individualist confidence as not only an imaginary bravado but also a danger to the collective. The collectivist views the individualist as dangerous merely because the individualist shuns collectivism.
And whereas the individualist can ignore the collectivist for as long as collectivist shrieking can be muffled, the collectivist spends long hours devising how to either attract the individualist to groupthink, or else, in the worst scenario, how to eliminate the individualist's opinion from society.
Now, whether or not you believe the aforementioned premises concerning individualists and collectivists, you still ought to wonder why it is that the wimpiness and hysteria of the collectivist reaches the heart of the people while the courage and confidence of the individualist seems to strike the people as stubborn belligerence.
Why, for example, is illegal immigration a subject of compassion and not rather a subject for serious concern? Knowing that "no good deed goes unpunished," it seems strange that collectivists should believe their good deeds to be immune from such cosmic realities. Further, the deliberate disinterest collectivists show towards real ramifications of their actions is exactly that which collectivists accuse their opponents, namely, being oblivious to the future.
This is because collectivists, in their hive mentality, are not interested in any buzz which smacks of defeating their chosen purpose, which in their minds ought to have the effect of making everyone happier and more secure. Oh yes, they think this way. Collectivists believe their intentions are pure, their actions are solid and positive, and any consequences which stem from collectivism are the result of individualists getting in their way.
Deeper still, I think there is a genetic predisposition to collectivism. I think this predisposition overrides the more reasonable ideas of public safety. Why should the collectivist believe that open borders are not sieves for terrorism, disease, crime, and collapse of culture? Even now, the border is turning into a refugee camp which is the very embodiment of such horror. But do the collectivists abandon their notions? Not at all! They simply chant that it takes breaking a few eggs (and laws) to make an omelet. And then they blame others for the resulting chaos.
Meanwhile, Evil, which has a different agenda, gleefully uses the hammer of collectivist fear to pound the individualists. You see, the reason the collectivists are useful is that they move as a group. Things in groups have mass, weight, force, capability. Individualists, on the other hand, are like BBs. BBs sting, but they really can't do much harm. It takes a barrage of BBs to make a shotgun blast, and most times this is sprayed about anyway. Collectivism, on the other hand, is a bludgeon.
Whether or not directed by Evil, collectivism is not the same in every region of the world. For the most part, Caucasian collectivism, as practiced in most of continental Western Europe, Australia, America, Canada, and England, embraces multiculturalism as the delight and goal of that collectivist, who almost always is a white liberal of some economic means. On the other hand, in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America, nationalist collectivism is the rule, and race often has great meaning here.
Collectivism is also apportioned differently among the religions. Today, Christians and Jews around the world hold a collectivist view of the liberal white variety. Multiculturalism continues to divide these two foundational religions. Islam, on the other hand, is so nationalistic that Arabic must be spoken to be considered among the purest. And while we may split hairs on Eastern (India, China, Sikkim) religions, these are nearly all nationalistic as well, the open hand of collectivism still smacking down anything that doesn't spell hegemony.
And this is where we land: hegemony, that is, cultural dominance. America is now run by Evil, puppeteers who grab and use the fear of the collectivist. This fear is massed and weaponized against the individualists, who in their strongest state, collectivized, are currently (1) gun owners, (2) TEA Party, and (3) libertarian Republicans. These people are accused and blamed for everything wrong in America, even that which collectivists themselves perpetrate in the open, such as ignoring immigration laws, using the IRS against political enemies, and circumventing the Constitution.
All the while, collectivists claim "good intentions." But this is not true. Garden-variety collectivists do things out of their own fear, which one might even say is a form of self-hatred, from their feelings of helplessness. Evil then takes this collectivist fear, and masses it for chaos and control.
But that which is most fearful to all, that is, Evil, is not attacked by collectivists. Why? Because Evil offers security.
Does not religion also offer security? It depends.
When religion offers security, it often comes couched as personal security, not societal security. Only when religion demands obedience to God's Law does religion offer societal security. Faith and Grace are for personal security, not societal security. Only when the faithful are also lawful does society benefit. God's Law, Torah, is that which Jews and Christians ought to be following in order to have societal security.
Whenever Evil attacks Good, it is to establish a law other than God's Law. The state becomes the law. Statism becomes the religion. Collectivism becomes the faith.
Thus, collectivism is sent by Evil to attack religion. But only against the Law of God. The rest of it, faith and grace, makes no difference to the statists as long as the Law of God is ignored. All you have to do is observe the homosexual militancy against the commandments forbidding homosexuality, and the case is made.
This is also why today's Christianity is so weak. The Church today is a collection of individualists, of BBs, believing they have strength merely because they have numbers. But numbers must be collectivized to have power. Since the only collectivizing powers of the Church are faith and Law, faith being personal, Law being societal, it is obvious why the Church is losing to Evil.
Evil will not care if you have faith, as long as you don't interfere in statism as the religion. For when God is the Law, statism is laid bare as corrupt and empty.
Karl Marx predicted this. When the collectivism of religion regards inner peace and tolerance as the most important things, the State wins. When the collectivism of religion makes Law most important, God wins.
Islam is spreading throughout the world. Why? Not only due to the scimitar, but also due to the discipline applied through their law. What if Judeo-Christianity applied Torah Law, God's Law, in the same manner? We would win over Evil, and over Islamic hegemony.
It gets worse. I believe we are now experiencing a civilizational shift. Not a societal shift. A societal shift occurs within the framework of society without truly changing the framework. The end of the Victorian era was a societal shift. The 1960's was a societal shift. The coming of Sharia and the rebirth of communism is a civilizational shift.
And unfortunately, unlike in times past, the majority of the population do not live with a vague notion of liberty and prosperity, but in a perpetual state of shapeless fear. Therefore, the populace becomes more collectivist. Those who rock the boat even a little, that is, the individualists, are reviled and attacked.
Collectivism is not shaping only society, it is changing our very civilization. And there is only one solution.
Let's begin with basic premises. The first premise is that collectivists are driven by fear. They congregate for that most basic element of human structure and society, which is security. Whether the subject is guns, global warming, immigration policy, energy, economics, or, really, any other subject, the collectivist appears to be motivated by fear to avoid catastrophe. They worry constantly about ozone layers, Mexican families divided by border, fracking consequences, capitalism in general, and even the personal habits of human beings upon ecosystems. It's all good.
If only the collectivists were able to remain focused on problem-solving, they wouldn't infringe on the rights of those who don't want to participate in their nail-biting. But they can't. In fact, they get so worked up into a frenzy that their explanations become no more than accusations against whoever does not believe their hysteria. How many times have the collectivists forecast the end of humanity due to climactic chaos? And when it doesn't occur, do the collectivists admit their mistake and calm down? No. They change the story to suit their fears. Again, this wouldn't matter so much if the rest of us weren't dragged along in an unending struggle for liberty.
How many times have collectivists cited gun violence statistics which are dead wrong? In order to truly address gun violence, you have to talk about walking into "the hood" and taking guns from gangs, or about a massive portion of the population on antipsychotic drugs, or about border control, or about mafias. And why don't collectivists talk about those things? Because those are scary things. It's just easier for collectivists to say that the law-abiding gun shop, target shooter, and home-defender comprise the problem. It makes their fear feel better without solving any problems.
This is where Evil steps in. While collectivists are innately annoying, and somewhat dangerous when aroused, they become positively destructive when directed by entities behind the scenes who pay the bills and prop the media. When Evil gets hold of collectivism, the crowd becomes a mace, a weapon by which to pummel the populace into agreeing or else...
Or else what? Well, for starters, the tactics of demeaning; what we used to call bullying, and now known as Alinsky tactics. It's mafia psychology. Two big guys breathing down a skinny guy's neck usually makes the skinny guy a willing stooge. But those were the old days. Today, those who disagree with the collectivist message, as directed by the evil of this world, are subject to tax audits, spying, break-ins, police brutality, and NDAA fascism.
So it is that the fear of the collective, even the well-intentioned reasoning through fear which seeks to allay it for the sake of stability and security, is taken hostage quite easily by Evil.
And when we say Evil, we don't even have to enlarge it to metaphysical dimensions. The most basic truth about Evil engaging collectivism is that "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket" (Eric Hoffer).
The second premise is that individualists (commonly, but erroneously, known as "conservatives") in their nature embody a form of courage. Since the nature of the individualist is to be left alone, the individualist naturally must learn to fend, or believe to fend, for himself. This type of courage may be well-founded or totally based on fairy tales, but in any case the confidence of the individualist exists.
It's not that the individualist is against grouping together. Lord knows the individualist enjoys a good party, road trip, cookout, and even church congregation. But when it comes to groupthink, the individualist has a different idea. Perhaps it's even reactionary, as an allergy to being corralled. But in any case, individualists are autonomous, most times don't play well with others, and in the main think collectivists are wimps.
It should be obvious therefore why collectivists and individualists cannot coexist very well. Collectivists view individualist confidence as not only an imaginary bravado but also a danger to the collective. The collectivist views the individualist as dangerous merely because the individualist shuns collectivism.
And whereas the individualist can ignore the collectivist for as long as collectivist shrieking can be muffled, the collectivist spends long hours devising how to either attract the individualist to groupthink, or else, in the worst scenario, how to eliminate the individualist's opinion from society.
Now, whether or not you believe the aforementioned premises concerning individualists and collectivists, you still ought to wonder why it is that the wimpiness and hysteria of the collectivist reaches the heart of the people while the courage and confidence of the individualist seems to strike the people as stubborn belligerence.
Why, for example, is illegal immigration a subject of compassion and not rather a subject for serious concern? Knowing that "no good deed goes unpunished," it seems strange that collectivists should believe their good deeds to be immune from such cosmic realities. Further, the deliberate disinterest collectivists show towards real ramifications of their actions is exactly that which collectivists accuse their opponents, namely, being oblivious to the future.
This is because collectivists, in their hive mentality, are not interested in any buzz which smacks of defeating their chosen purpose, which in their minds ought to have the effect of making everyone happier and more secure. Oh yes, they think this way. Collectivists believe their intentions are pure, their actions are solid and positive, and any consequences which stem from collectivism are the result of individualists getting in their way.
Deeper still, I think there is a genetic predisposition to collectivism. I think this predisposition overrides the more reasonable ideas of public safety. Why should the collectivist believe that open borders are not sieves for terrorism, disease, crime, and collapse of culture? Even now, the border is turning into a refugee camp which is the very embodiment of such horror. But do the collectivists abandon their notions? Not at all! They simply chant that it takes breaking a few eggs (and laws) to make an omelet. And then they blame others for the resulting chaos.
Meanwhile, Evil, which has a different agenda, gleefully uses the hammer of collectivist fear to pound the individualists. You see, the reason the collectivists are useful is that they move as a group. Things in groups have mass, weight, force, capability. Individualists, on the other hand, are like BBs. BBs sting, but they really can't do much harm. It takes a barrage of BBs to make a shotgun blast, and most times this is sprayed about anyway. Collectivism, on the other hand, is a bludgeon.
Whether or not directed by Evil, collectivism is not the same in every region of the world. For the most part, Caucasian collectivism, as practiced in most of continental Western Europe, Australia, America, Canada, and England, embraces multiculturalism as the delight and goal of that collectivist, who almost always is a white liberal of some economic means. On the other hand, in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America, nationalist collectivism is the rule, and race often has great meaning here.
Collectivism is also apportioned differently among the religions. Today, Christians and Jews around the world hold a collectivist view of the liberal white variety. Multiculturalism continues to divide these two foundational religions. Islam, on the other hand, is so nationalistic that Arabic must be spoken to be considered among the purest. And while we may split hairs on Eastern (India, China, Sikkim) religions, these are nearly all nationalistic as well, the open hand of collectivism still smacking down anything that doesn't spell hegemony.
And this is where we land: hegemony, that is, cultural dominance. America is now run by Evil, puppeteers who grab and use the fear of the collectivist. This fear is massed and weaponized against the individualists, who in their strongest state, collectivized, are currently (1) gun owners, (2) TEA Party, and (3) libertarian Republicans. These people are accused and blamed for everything wrong in America, even that which collectivists themselves perpetrate in the open, such as ignoring immigration laws, using the IRS against political enemies, and circumventing the Constitution.
All the while, collectivists claim "good intentions." But this is not true. Garden-variety collectivists do things out of their own fear, which one might even say is a form of self-hatred, from their feelings of helplessness. Evil then takes this collectivist fear, and masses it for chaos and control.
But that which is most fearful to all, that is, Evil, is not attacked by collectivists. Why? Because Evil offers security.
Does not religion also offer security? It depends.
When religion offers security, it often comes couched as personal security, not societal security. Only when religion demands obedience to God's Law does religion offer societal security. Faith and Grace are for personal security, not societal security. Only when the faithful are also lawful does society benefit. God's Law, Torah, is that which Jews and Christians ought to be following in order to have societal security.
Whenever Evil attacks Good, it is to establish a law other than God's Law. The state becomes the law. Statism becomes the religion. Collectivism becomes the faith.
Thus, collectivism is sent by Evil to attack religion. But only against the Law of God. The rest of it, faith and grace, makes no difference to the statists as long as the Law of God is ignored. All you have to do is observe the homosexual militancy against the commandments forbidding homosexuality, and the case is made.
This is also why today's Christianity is so weak. The Church today is a collection of individualists, of BBs, believing they have strength merely because they have numbers. But numbers must be collectivized to have power. Since the only collectivizing powers of the Church are faith and Law, faith being personal, Law being societal, it is obvious why the Church is losing to Evil.
Evil will not care if you have faith, as long as you don't interfere in statism as the religion. For when God is the Law, statism is laid bare as corrupt and empty.
Karl Marx predicted this. When the collectivism of religion regards inner peace and tolerance as the most important things, the State wins. When the collectivism of religion makes Law most important, God wins.
Islam is spreading throughout the world. Why? Not only due to the scimitar, but also due to the discipline applied through their law. What if Judeo-Christianity applied Torah Law, God's Law, in the same manner? We would win over Evil, and over Islamic hegemony.
It gets worse. I believe we are now experiencing a civilizational shift. Not a societal shift. A societal shift occurs within the framework of society without truly changing the framework. The end of the Victorian era was a societal shift. The 1960's was a societal shift. The coming of Sharia and the rebirth of communism is a civilizational shift.
And unfortunately, unlike in times past, the majority of the population do not live with a vague notion of liberty and prosperity, but in a perpetual state of shapeless fear. Therefore, the populace becomes more collectivist. Those who rock the boat even a little, that is, the individualists, are reviled and attacked.
Collectivism is not shaping only society, it is changing our very civilization. And there is only one solution.
No comments:
Post a Comment