Skip to main content

The fundamental point of division.

 


The fight has never been between good people or bad, or compassion or not, or racism or equality.

It's always been the individual vs. the collective.
Group politics, race theory, gender studies, demands for nationalized services, healthcare, universal welfare, and the destruction of individual rights, even something we'd never have imagined under threat such as free speech, the press, or the simple right to participate in the economy.
The people accused of racism aren't racist you know, they're just not collectivist. They view every person as an individual, the same as they view themselves. Every individualist is a feminist because they believe in individual rights and equality, not group judgements. But they'll be called a sexist or misogynist. Racism is officially not about anyone's personal biases or beliefs or behaviors any longer. It's about your group. It's about compliance to a collectivist outlook on all issues.
Lets be certain to address our divisions where they EXIST rather than wasting time addressing those divisions where they manifest.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Excellent point and succinct. I have often wondered about this - though not as pointedly as you.
It has always struck me as odd that people will express their individuality by doing and dressing as all the fashionable people.
'Isms' are very attractive to group-thinking as they shift responsibility?
"I was just doing it 'cause everyone else was."
"I was just following orders."
The Banality of Evil.
If Existentialism is Catholicism without God, then GroupThink is anti-existentialism.
No Responsibility, No God, Just the Collective.

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...