Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
06-22-2011, 11:36 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2012, 01:54 AM by Negentropic.)
#31
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(06-15-2011, 03:08 PM)JazzRoc Wrote:
Quote:So those two areas, the healthy anger, the blue flame of anger which is born of a total, clear understanding of the world, a zero tolerance of lies and falsehood, the ability to fall in love with the word 'No,' and that idea that all forms of independence are never given to you by your master.
That's an Irish count, then.
"born of a total, clear understanding of the world" - and WHO has THAT?
I have no master. But I have a mistress...

Quote:The world is never going to make your free, the world is never going to make you independent. That is a gift that you give yourself, through your own abilities, just as you give the world meaning, instead of waiting for the world to give you meaning, you give meaning to the world from inside yourself if you're capable of doing that.
I'm all for "giving meaning".

Only by co-operating with each other can we ever become powerful. But most people aren't sufficiently nice or generous in spirit to form a co-operative with people they know personally.
They apparently have to be coerced from a distance and remain alienated from their co-workers.

So there it is: become wise enough, and nice enough, or stay as you are...


Tsarion sure doesn't have a total clear understanding of the world but he has enough clear understandings of enough areas that other people are maybe still struggling with that he has 700,000 people watch his google videos, pay money for his dvds and pay to go see him lecture at conspiracy conventions. What he's probably trying to say here is that at a certain point in this journey of investigating into conspiracies a person's understanding reaches a point of 'know' return, (like the name of the famous Kansas album), where there's no return but there is 'know' return, the return to knowledge

[Image: kansas.jpg]

where he understands clearly that these conspiracies are for real and the understanding of the world that he had has become, as a consequence of pursuing the truth behind these conspiracies, so clear that there is no turning back, no more bullshit is tolerated in the exposed and illuminated areas. It's another way of saying what Muhammad Rafeeq and Daryl Bradford Smith used to say on the French Connection, "once you become a pickle there's no going back to being a cucumber."

As far as co-operation with others goes, the question is 'which others'? Tsarion's point is that there is no need to inform somebody who's not interested in conspiracy truth, who feels blissful in their ignorance and conditioning, loves their servitude as Huxley would say. Every once-in-a-while you'll get a convert if you go out there and proselytize to others but it's not really worth your energy and effort. It's better to conserve your energy and spend it only on those who come to you themselves, who show interest and curiosity themselves. Basically what Tsarion is saying is that you can't become a real conspiracy truther, you will not be capable of it unless you are able to face your own emotions, unless you're first pscyhologically tough. In other words, spiritual sovereignty is the true reward of becoming a 'truther.' It's the black-belt of 'truther' martial arts. Once you get to that point then you become part of a special club comprised of totally different individuals which draws its strength from individuality, not from the collective. It's like a whole bunch of islands that are able to join together in a powerful land mass when needed out of individual free choice not because of a guilt-trip or any special obligation or duty to do so.

The last paragraph is a prediction of what Tsarion thinks may be in store in the near future and I think he seems to have the right idea, human beings are changing in significant ways & the cream-of-the-crop of kooky, loony truthers are actually in the forefront of that evolution, the ones most likely to have a new road open up for them, not the establishment Ph.D's and all these other clowns who can't even figure out 9/11 or the Moon-Landing Hoax or if they have, do not have the psychological strength to face the consequences:


Quote:And with that is the psychic immunity and also the attitudinal independence. Because the person who has these things, who's psychically immune, who's spiritually sovereign, who's moral, virtuous, who's using his critical judgment, who's centered in himself, he's completely secure no matter what kind of nonsense arrives in the world tomorrow. He has also pinpointed where the source of the fear is coming from and he makes himself immune to that. All of these factors is what makes a true rebel, a true iconoclast, a true free thinker. This whole idea of an age of revelation and awakening, a kind of apocalypse, a kind of critical mass in which there is perhaps a splitting of the ways and people who are not happy and have no interest in facing their own emotions they start slipping, sliding, going down and those individuals who are capable of doing that, another road opens up for them. Is this what the Maya were talking about? -- Michael Tsarion



[Image: 2012%20Symbol.jpg]
Reply
06-22-2011, 03:10 PM, (This post was last modified: 06-22-2011, 03:22 PM by R.R.)
#32
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Haha still with the Tsarion worship.

Quote:Tsarion sure doesn't have a total clear understanding of the world but he has enough clear understandings of enough areas that other people are maybe still struggling with that he has 700,000 people watch his google videos, pay money for his dvds and pay to go see him lecture at conspiracy conventions.

Right and Justin Bieber is the greatest musician in the world today because MILLIONS watch his videos online and MILLIONS pay for his cd's and dvd's? If the criteria for 'understanding' is viewership and sales.....well I'll leave you to figure that out, I am a promoter of individual thinking afterall.

Quote:What he's probably trying to say here is that at a certain point in this journey of investigating into conspiracies a person's understanding reaches a point of 'know' return, (like the name of the famous Kansas album), where there's no return but there is 'know' return, the return to knowledge

The 'no return' can be in anything - it is called permanent closed-mindedness which often masquerades as open-mindedness or even worse; truth. In reality it means someone has studied or vested so much into a particular school of thought that they are unwilling to re-evaluate what they have learnt preferring to remain or retain the conclusions drawn from their research even if it is demonstrably wrong.

If there is a 'return to knowledge' at what point did the individual 'forget'? Or is this statement only relevant if you believe in reincarnation? Either you don't know the genesis of where these ideas come from or you are simply parroting Tsarion, taking onboard, uncritically, his ideas.

There is nothing mystical about the concept or even deeply psychological - it simply means it is harder for you to re-intergrate into a society where you now have beliefs or information in contrast to the majority of that society - and then you have an inner conflict when you realise someone 'beneath you' (that hasn't looked into your field) can sensibly discredit your information. Faced with the cognitive dissonance of two conflicting views, the individual 'picks a side' which also means the 'other side' becomes an enemy. There are many philosophies designed to drive out cognitive dissonance, primarily the new age/mystic idea of only concentrating on positivity. In the context of the 'conspiracy community' this manifests as deriving your sense of self based upon a comparison of yourself to the braindead masses (which is actually quite stupid). This is especially more pertinent to newcomers or self-styled conspiracy professors who, rather than go through information and break it down especially in relation to opposing concepts and ideas, we constantly hear the continuous beratement of 'the people' with catchphrases such as 'how many people know' (insert whatever here), 'I can't believe that people still' (insert whatever here), 'most people don't' (insert whatever here) and on and on it goes. What this really masks is the projections of these people and shows their weak minds primarily because in reality they are attempting to elevate themselves via a comparison to something stupid. Its the equivalent of saying 'look at me I'm a 3-week old half-eaten sandwich sitting on the pavement but I'm better than the dogshit across the road'. I'm not eating either.

Quote:As far as co-operation with others goes, the question is 'which others'? Tsarion's point is that there is no need to inform somebody who's not interested in conspiracy truth, who feels blissful in their ignorance and conditioning, loves their servitude as Huxley would say.

I suppose 'the others' have to be worthy right? Or have to CONFORM to, not 'conspiracy-truth', but Tsarion-truth. Also where does Tsarion show he is free from conditioning? As I've mentioned in several posts in another thread to you, why does Tsarion in fact show no individuality based on the fact that he promotes aryan philosophy, pagan spirituality, Jungian psychology and anti-Judeo-Christianity which are not new or individual by any stretch of the imagination as associated themes. Why are these concepts consistent with the man's claimed upbringing? He is no individual, never mind truthseeker, but uses those ideas to mask what is essentially a promotion of existing biases that were probably ingrained in him since childhood. His pagan spirituality immediately puts him at odds with the monotheistic faiths without having to delve into the history of them. Paganism, often considered the genesis of western civilization (and therfore the pre-eminent world civilization) due to their association with Greek mythology, leads nicely to aryan supremacy, which Tsarion tells us by 'Irish' he means Aryan. This doubles up on hatred to the monotheistic faiths because they were outgrowths of Judaism and the Jews aren't aryans. Also there is the promotion of 'magic' or pagan spiritual practices which were given a boost in credibility by Carl Jung (and also explains his promotion of Jung). Many of these practices came straight out of the lodges he is apparently against (because they are subverted by Jews). One of these books I've mentioned to you before, but here is another one:

[Image: 927865.jpg] [Image: 978-0-226-29390-5-frontcover.jpg]

Taken to extremes, collectivism can create a hive-mind, but individuality can create a god or messiah-complex. Balance is the only solution. In both cases the problem arises from the individual in society and as human creatures we are sociable animals simultaneously trying to maintain our individual minds while being accepted by our peers. There are many methods in doing so, primarily by gaining strength of mind which allows your mind to function healthily in society.

Tsarion's solution on the other hand is to run away from society and only congregate with the 'conspiracy community' and like-minded people which is counter-productive to his alleged anti-collectivist philosophy.

Quote:Every once-in-a-while you'll get a convert if you go out there and proselytize to others but it's not really worth your energy and effort. It's better to conserve your energy and spend it only on those who come to you themselves, who show interest and curiosity themselves.

Further evidence of a messiah-complex. Indeed one wonders how much this is instilled from the concept of becoming a god or apotheosis.

Quote:Basically what Tsarion is saying is that you can't become a real conspiracy truther, you will not be capable of it unless you are able to face your own emotions, unless you're first pscyhologically tough. In other words, spiritual sovereignty is the true reward of becoming a 'truther.' It's the black-belt of 'truther' martial arts.

Like Tsarion wrote the manual for becoming a 'conspiracy truther'. Traditional and legitimate martial artists laugh at the concept of the black-belt also, it is another example of trying to make relatively modern concepts seem like they have an ancient and spiritual origin. However these myths are peddled precisely to make money. Those belts and gradings aren't cheap and neither was Tsarion's mystery school priced at $555.

Quote:Once you get to that point then you become part of a special club comprised of totally different individuals which draws its strength from individuality, not from the collective. It's like a whole bunch of islands that are able to join together in a powerful land mass when needed out of individual free choice not because of a guilt-trip or any special obligation or duty to do so.

So you join a 'special club' or a gang or a reading club or a lodge where you derive a sense of power or belonging but its not collectivism? Ok. What do you do in this club - laugh about the sheeple and play tarot card strip poker? I'll repeat: Tsarion's solution on the other hand is to run away from society and only congregate with the 'conspiracy community' and like-minded people which is counter-productive to his alleged anti-collectivist philosophy. In fact he is a 'concrete jungle' version of the ascetic. And ascetics think they know all about the 'other-side' too and generally don't like human company.

Quote:All of these factors is what makes a true rebel, a true iconoclast, a true free thinker.

If 'these factors' result in Tsarion, pardon me if I conclude they are bullshit.

What does Tsarion propose to do upon the elimination of the new world order? How will we eat? What will we eat? Will there be an economy? What of technology? How to overcome the problem of scientific need for resources versus those resources being blocked by so-called primitive communities (which is conveniently masked as corporations trying to make money - as if profits outweigh ambition)? Who'll clean the streets? What is the criteria for being a streetsweeper? What will education be? Will there even be education beyond what is needed to survive?

There are some legitimate research areas and quite frankly Tsarion covers none of them. Instead he promotes the very philosophies that lead to feelings of privelige and exploitation of 'inferiors' (he loves Ayn Rand) by promoting silly myths which really justify the problems and effectively amount to victim-blaming.

Now stay on topic, if you don't mind. I find it laughable that you would promote individuality by using another man's words. Do you not see the oxymoronic nature of that action? What have you INDIVIDUALLY learnt about the concept of individuality?
Reply
07-22-2011, 08:53 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-22-2011, 09:00 PM by JazzRoc.)
#33
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(06-22-2011, 03:10 PM)R.R Wrote: What have you INDIVIDUALLY learned about the concept of individuality?
That's a better reply than mine would have been. What an arse/Barf/hole. Kudos.

Reply
07-24-2011, 01:55 PM,
#34
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
How did you get from "Individualism vs Collectivism - The true debate of our time" to "Michael Tsarion - How everybody who listens to him is an idiot"? Focus, guys, focus :-D
Reply
07-24-2011, 02:10 PM,
#35
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
every time i read this title i have to laugh.

OUR TIME?

Reply
07-24-2011, 03:46 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-24-2011, 03:49 PM by ZeroCenter.)
#36
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Is this discussion about a true dis-similar polarity? Isn't it a false dichotomy so can a solution exist before we create a new question?
Aren't BOTH "individualism" and "collectivism" two extremes of DEPENDENT labels?
Are they not BOTH based in Materialism, i.e. dependent upon other "isms" for definition?
Do either contain a unique moral code that can be demonstrated and evaluated? Obviously not, and to try one would have to be borrowed from something substantial.
What would be a more USEFUL evaluation of opposites?

There is always a "Third Position" to the false paths. One grounded in the primacy of Spirit in all things. While not discounting the material, the spiritual is primary and the guiding force of the material. Life is not evaluated by our physical senses, but by the consciousness evaluating that data. Consciousness is what sets us part from the animals. So it can never be an "individualism" vs "collectivism" debate that will conclude with any satisfying answer, until the conscious will (i.e. spirit) has primacy in the discussion.
Individual vs. collectivism is an impossible and false choice without spirit. We operate with both considerations in evaluating all choices. "We" (spirit/consciousness) make the choice, not the ego-body-brain (survival choices). We, as individuals, are inseparable from the collective and make all choices with both considerations in mind. So isn't it really about choice?
Choose freedom over slavery and you've answered the problem.
* What if the solution is simple & free?: http://www.youtube.com/nv3p
* Choose Freedom & Be the Change: http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=36698
Reply
07-24-2011, 08:35 PM,
#37
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
You can't moan about definition of words and then proceed to use the words 'spirit', 'consciousness' or 'freedom' as they are some of the most undefined words and concepts ever.

Care to elaborate?

ZeroCenter Wrote:Consciousness is what sets us part from the animals.

So after bashing 'materialism' you then pick on all known non-human species. Remind me, who actually practices materialism? If spirit is 'primary' is 'in all things' and 'guides the material' why aren't animals factored in? How do you even begin to show differences in 'consciousness' between humans and non-humans without resorting to material factors? What has led you to conclude animals have no 'consciousness' - the fact that animals don't build cities with their associated material benefits? Where do humans that have not developed civilization fit in?

It seems that in order for you to make your claims, you will inevitably have to resort to the very thing you decry.

Some would call that hypocrisy but I'll leave the definitions up to you.

Define 'spirit', 'consciousness' and 'freedom' for us please.
Reply
07-31-2011, 12:21 PM,
#38
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
It is about individual choice, not my job to tell people what to think.
Wisdom isn't earned by blaming others for our poor choices.
Take responsibility for your own definitions and answers, and make a choice, take action, learn from the mistakes and try again with the new-found wisdom. There is no wrong choice, except to give up or blame others for our stupidity, failures or apathetic laziness.
* What if the solution is simple & free?: http://www.youtube.com/nv3p
* Choose Freedom & Be the Change: http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=36698
Reply
07-31-2011, 03:22 PM,
#39
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:It is about individual choice

But you said individuality (and collectivism) was based on materialism, and therefore null and void because they are not grounded in the 'primacy of Spirit in all things'. That is a stupid statement too because IF spirit is in ALL things, everything has a modicum of spirit including materialism; it cannot help it for it forms its genesis. Perhaps this is why there is a phenomena known as atheist spirituality:

[Image: 4527226_e257583a64_m.jpeg]

Yes spirituality within materialism, essentially denying anything beyond the physical. That is why you should define your interpretations of those concepts because self-evidently, people can use the same terms and be talking about totally different things. Does your spirituality jive with the atheist version? Or the Hindu? Or the Christian? Or the Buddhist? This is fundamental because if spirit is the genesis or foundation, any flaw or corruption will lead to problems in the future, like a crack in a pillar that will eventually crumble when it is used to support a structure.

Quote:not my job to tell people what to think.

I'm not asking you to tell ME what to think, I'm asking you to tell me what YOU think? You are typical of a large proportion of spiritual seekers, who keep things very vague and ambiguous because when you reflect and think about your statements, the cracks begin to show under the weight of questioning and what you have built eventually crumbles. If you are sincerely seeking, your pillars will handle anything placed upon them as opposed to running away from the light of question because the architectural design of your edifice cleverly conceals the pillars' cracks via the use of other pillars to cast a shadow over those cracks.

Quote:Wisdom isn't earned by blaming others for our poor choices.

True but an irrelevant comment based on this conversation, unless you are saying I am blaming you for something that is my fault? Remind me where have I blamed you for anything? Especially in relation to myself? You may know how NOT to attain wisdom, but you also do not (yet) know how TO attain wisdom.

Quote:Take responsibility for your own definitions and answers

Yes you are a shining example of that. I am still waiting for your definitions or are you not responsible enough to let them be known?

Quote:and make a choice, take action, learn from the mistakes and try again with the new-found wisdom.

Show your definitions, find out if they have mistakes and try again. This statement shows an hypocrisy generally found in 'seekers'; you say one thing but do another. Or are you afraid to make a mistake? In either case you are in need of wisdom.

Quote:There is no wrong choice

If there are no wrong choices then this is impossible:

Quote:learn from the mistakes

For what is a mistake if not a wrong choice derived from poor judgment in the initial (the genesis or foundation) phase that leads you to not realise you are on the verge of a mistake? Or is the use of the word mistake an early get-out clause to avoid responsibilty for one's actions when you cross that line in the future? What is the point of taking responsibilty if there are no wrong choices anyway? I'm beginning to hear creaks.

Quote:except to give up or blame others for our stupidity, failures or apathetic laziness.

Now we see what all this gobbledygook masks; the sanctimoniousness that infects the very religious. Apathetic? Yes like being unresponsive (the very definition of apathetic but oh wait I forgot you make your own definitions) to answering questions such as:

So after bashing 'materialism' you then pick on all known non-human species. Remind me, who actually practices materialism? If spirit is 'primary' is 'in all things' and 'guides the material' why aren't animals factored in? How do you even begin to show differences in 'consciousness' between humans and non-humans without resorting to material factors? What has led you to conclude animals have no 'consciousness' - the fact that animals don't build cities with their associated material benefits? Where do humans that have not developed civilization fit in?

Oh yeah, and the definitions. You were somewhat less apathetic in that regard; blaming me for not knowing what you are talking about - the onus of responsibilty is on you in that regard by the way (responsibilty is something you claim to be a part of your tenets) - now I don't consider myself a victim but you have just shown a very common theme among 'seekers'; victim-blaming, which generally arises when you are faced with something that can potentially obliterate what you hold sacred. Faced with the prospect of losing the sacred cows that are penned in by the foundation posts you have built to domesticate your own thoughts, you strike out blaming others for your own inadequacies. Also what is more lazy; long-winded posts like this one or four lines trying to sound like a mystic? Stupid, well the messiah-complex in you leads to you feeling you don't have to answer relevant questions, instead you accuse others of your own incompetence - which is also projection - and your iron mountain has just been shown to be a straw hut, with faulty foundations making your frivolous delusions even more inane. Failures? Well I don't know you personally, but you will have to deal with those yourself.

Now I understand what you meant by this:

Quote:blame others for our stupidity, failures or apathetic laziness.

Luckily your philosophy allows that to be a wrong choice and you already know what to do:

Quote:take action, learn from the mistakes and try again with the new-found wisdom.
Reply
07-31-2011, 07:51 PM, (This post was last modified: 07-31-2011, 07:52 PM by p4r4.)
#40
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
.

A documentary on topic...



"This series is about how those in power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass democracy." —Adam Curtis' introduction to the first episode.

Sigmund Freud, the founder of psychoanalysis, changed the perception of the human mind and its workings. His influence on the twentieth century is generally considered profound. The series describes the ways public relations and politicians have utilized Freud's theories during the last 100 years for the "engineering of consent".

Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in public relations, are discussed. Freud's daughter Anna Freud, a pioneer of child psychology, is mentioned in the second part, as is one of the main opponents of Freud's theories, Wilhelm Reich, in the third part.

Along these general themes, The Century of the Self asks deeper questions about the roots and methods of modern consumerism, representative democracy, commodification and its implications. It also questions the modern way we see ourselves, the attitudes to fashion and superficiality.

The business and, increasingly, the political world uses psychological techniques to read and fulfill our desires, to make their products or speeches as pleasing as possible to us. Curtis raises the question of the intentions and roots of this fact. Where once the political process was about engaging people's rational, conscious minds, as well as facilitating their needs as a society, the documentary shows how by employing the tactics of psychoanalysis, politicians appeal to irrational, primitive impulses that have little apparent bearing on issues outside of the narrow self-interest of a consumer population. He cites Paul Mazer, a Wall Street banker working for Lehman Brothers in the 1930s: "We must shift America from a needs- to a desires-culture. People must be trained to desire, to want new things, even before the old have been entirely consumed. [...] Man's desires must overshadow his needs."

To many in both politics and business, the triumph of the self is the ultimate expression of democracy, where power has finally moved to the people. Certainly the people may feel they are in charge, but are they really? The Century of the Self tells the untold and sometimes controversial story of the growth of the mass-consumer society in Britain and the United States. How was the all-consuming self created, by whom, and in whose interests?




Reply
08-06-2011, 08:38 PM,
#41
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:A poet is somebody who feels, and who expresses his feeling through words.

This may sound easy. It isn't.

A lot of people think or believe or know they feel - but that's thinking or believing or knowing; not feeling. And poetry is feeling - not knowing or believing or thinking.

Almost anybody can learn to think or believe or know, but not a single human being can be taught to feel. Why? Because whenever you think or you believe or you know, you're a lot of other people: but the moment you feel, you're nobody-but-yourself.

To be nobody-but-yourself - in a world which is doing its best, night and day, to make you everybody else - means to fight the hardest battle which any human being can fight; and never stop fighting.


As for expressing nobody-but-yourself in words, that means working just a little harder than anybody who isn't a poet can possibly imagine. Why?

Because nothing is quite as easy as using words like somebody else. We all of us do exactly this nearly all of the time - and whenever we do it, we are not poets.

If, at the end of your first ten or fifteen years of fighting and working and feeling, you find you've written one line of one poem, you'll be very lucky indeed.

And so my advice to all young people who wish to become poets is: do something easy, like learning how to blow up the world - unless you're not only willing, but glad, to feel and work and fight till you die.

Does this sound dismal? It isn't.

It's the most wonderful life on earth.

Or so I feel.

- E.E. Cummings, A Poet’s Advice

http://www.enjoy-your-style.com/a-poets-advice.html
Reply
08-10-2011, 08:56 AM, (This post was last modified: 08-10-2011, 09:03 AM by Infinite.)
#42
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Collectivism basically is 'the New World Order', so anyone who's aware of this conspiracy should be an invidualist. Really I think there should be more focus in what's broadly called the truth movement (do people still call it that?) on political philosophy. People like Alex Jones will have paleoconservative and libertarian guests and then have a liberal like Webster Tarpley on the next day and both will be presented as being right even though they have very contrarying views. Personally these days I think that libertarianism, free markets and invidualism is the way to go. Anything else requires force and majority or state rule. Majorities are often wrong, that's why individual rights must be protected in order to sustain freedom. Plus the left wing, who are the collectivists, hate men (leftist men are generally self-loathing) and are obsessed with promoting stuff like gay parenting and abortion, which in my opinion are dysfunctional. They also support gun control, carbon taxes and global government.

Also I disagree somewhat with attacks on 'consumerism', what they really are attacking is capitalism/free market. What they want to replace it is socialism/communism, but they can't come out and say that because most people wouldn't listen so they instead go after 'consumerism'. But I'd rather be a consumer making voluntary choices about what I want rather than a recipient of government rations for everything! There's also a lot of needless pessimism in the conspiracy movement that makes me wonder if it's even worth continuing with. Ideas spread by people like Alan Watt like oh stores are bad, money is bad, socialism is bad too so everything is bad! Life is evil! Life is good and bad. You get through the bad and work to make it as good as you can if you're intelligent. These guys are fucking up people's mental states with that stuff, or since I'm an individualist I should say that people are allowing themselves to be messed up by it. Not me any more. I'll deal with the conspiracies that are real but to hell with this everything is a conspiracy and all of life is bad crap. You guys need to go smoke some weed or something. Try actually smiling from time to time.
Reply
08-10-2011, 11:28 AM,
#43
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Damn it, I just came up with a counterpoint to the philosophical argument for individualism (negative rights). What if a person is bleeding to death in the street, are you morally obligated to assist them rather than walk by and let them die because you don't feel like it? I think so! So that's a 'positive obligation', the 'positive right' of the bleeding person to be assisted if possible. If you were that person's spouse or family member, would you be pissed off at the person who chose to walk by and let your loved one died? I know I would. You wouldn't say "oh well it was that person's right to not do anything because we only have negative rights so no one was obligated to help." That's an extremist view in my opinion. So maybe the person who suggested a balance between invidualism and collectivism had it right.
Reply
08-10-2011, 06:03 PM,
#44
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:Also I disagree somewhat with attacks on 'consumerism', what they really are attacking is capitalism/free market. What they want to replace it is socialism/communism, but they can't come out and say that because most people wouldn't listen so they instead go after 'consumerism'.

Consumerism would work in either a capitalist or a socialist based system. It simply means excessive and largely unneccessary consumption (eventually wasteful) meaning more of the commodity must be produced. In the socialistic sense this could be either turning on the printing press (devaluing currency somewhat loosely equivalent to economies of scale where increased production lowers value) and churning out more paper notes, or having the various free services abused thus bloating government and creating dependancy. I don't mean it to blast capitalism, although I can see what you mean, and I certainly don't promote socialism. Besides I don't see the free market anywhere and it is largely a myth that it was ever really practiced for the simple reason that what people deal or trade in - paper currency and gold before that, had to be 'legitimised' as legal tender or a unit of exchange by a centralised authority which used force and their authority derived from them being intertwined with the state to impose it on a population - a very old routine which was partially why the Spartans were at war with their neighbours as they did not want to accept silver or a currency that was out of their own control.

It is often assumed that ordinary people simply accepted gold as currency and then paper when in reality they were always met with hostility as will the next upgrade of digital microchip currency, but after a generation or two when dissenting voices are virtually eliminated it will seem 'normal' to new generations of humans and the history ebooks of the future will make no mention of the opposition that occured in order for history to reach its existing point. The same applies to technology. We are often tricked with terms such as 'New World Order' for it gives off the assumption that such ideals are new. Its like saying we are going to have a new president, or buy a new car; the individual person or vehicle is new but the concept of a president or transport is not thus a New World Order has occured many times in the past - they are basically times of huge social change, new ways of living with new philosophies and technologies although led by the elites of that era. The New World Order our generation is going towards is a technocratic dystopia; the post-industrial age (the industrial revolution was also New World Order as were the various Masonic revolutions of the 17-1800's as the visible forms of rulership were changed - the end of monarchies) and a modrnised form of feudalism. To avoid derailing the topic, these are further discussed here:

'New World Order'

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=40754&pid=222100#pid222100

Small review of monetary history and how it intertwines with central authority:

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=35849&pid=215047#pid215047

Anyway modern consumerism is tinged with various propaganda conforming to predictive programming. Almost every product is designed to illicit some psychological response within the consumer - on the base level it confirms your 'place' in society creating the total opposite to individual freedom it claims to bring. Read Vance Packards 'The Status Seekers' for more depth about that. Aiming at 'different markets' based on peoples' socio-economic status is pretty much proof of a class or caste system which were always intertwined with slave driving systems of previous eras and pretty much requires several collectivisms to function. For instance as an individual I disavow terms such as working class, middle-class, rich, poor etc to define me. I am not out to impress anybody so I wear what I like the look of even if the clothing or the labels carry a certain stigma. I eat organic meat, plenty of vegetables, drink distilled water and green tea, 9% lagers, read books, etc which makes it hard for me to make friends as I am 'weird' or do not conform with what the rest of the hive are doing. Not that I want friends who are heavily into popular culture anyway, but the point I was getting at was that people are segregated into differing philosophies/ways of life and they follow it to the tee leading to the creation of stereotyped people/communities. As an individual experiencing this reality, I choose to look into/do many things which, as a consequence, confuse people a lot because I apparently should be pigeon-holed, predictable and conform to something made for me before I was born or had little say in its creation. The individual that transcends the boundaries imposed by the system is the real threat to that system as the system has always relied upon conformity and acceptance of things unquestionably - which is also a valid criticism of promoters of free-markets etc as they unquestioningly accept the authority of precious metals even though they were the previous era's paper money.

Quote:Ideas spread by people like Alan Watt.....

It sounds like you are conforming to the Austrian school analysis where as people like Watt (and even Tsarion) have at least looked at a wider segment of humanity's history before reaching their conclusions. The Austrian school is awesome for criticisms of socialism/collectivised states but essentially advocate an older method of social manipulation. It is deeper than simple events of recent centuries. At every civilized point in history, as anthropologists, archeologists and anarchists are aware, we have the problem of state imposition of laws, slavery and basically forcing others to work. Conventional science tells us that man has been around in its existing form for almost 200000 years, we have been civilized for around 6000 years. We are told that it is natural, evolution in action yet civilization seems to be a failed experiment as every new discovery creates more problems than it solves eventually meaning civilization will collapse aside from perhaps the very elites of the world. Even if we accept that humans are much older than conventional science tells us and there have been prior ages of high technical advancement as mentioned in various indigenous traditions, we must still ask why those civilizations collapsed or vanished and, for me, that would be because civilization itself carries the seeds of its own destruction primarily because it immediately demands division of labour which must be overseen by a dominant minority effectively creating hierarchy who destroy the individuality (some even equate individuality with spirit) within the various servile populations precisely because it is those divisions which make civilization possible. That is why I said in earlier posts that the 'right' only go so far with individuality as it would lead to some uncomfortable conclusions. We do not have a time when there was NOT human abuses or authorities forcing populations which must be factored in when advocating any philosophy. Anthropologists are well aware of the relationship between slavery and civilization; one can not exist without the other.

Quote:So maybe the person who suggested a balance between invidualism and collectivism had it right.

That would be me. You gave a good example of why in your post.
Reply
08-24-2011, 10:15 AM, (This post was last modified: 09-17-2012, 03:57 PM by Negentropic.)
#45
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
This one's just to piss off R.R. LOL who thinks he can ruin my thread with his egotistical Mr-Know-it-All pontifications that only give me a headache after two paragraphs. Let's go back to a clear thinker, not some wannabe over-intellectualizing self-appointed oh-so-high-&-mighty king of conspiracy critics:


Quote: The ego has all the chaos and havoc going on in the world perpetually. Every day there's something to troubleshoot. Constant conflict, constant upheaval, constant domestic minutiae. In order to perpetuate its own existence the ego uses what we call conflict. If you're observing you'll see conflict in your life everywhere, even when it's just driving the car or going to the store, conflict at work, conflict with the neighbors, conflict with the builders, conflict with the contractors, all this perpetual conflict on level after level and tier after tier. It's all actually by design. It's all there because the ego gets a booster out of it, the same as flexing a muscle when you're weight training. The ego is nothing but a psychic muscle and it breeds on conflict. Of course, what does that do for us? It wastes a lot of our life energy, a lot of our chi which goes into troubleshooting a life full of conflict. This results in the stressed life that everyone is living and nobody knows how to take it back to the problem of the ego. And then, of course, when the trouble gets really bad, the ego comes in and says 'oh I'll help you, we've got gurus.' The adventures of the inauthentic life, renovation, you hate the life you're living but you just try to decorate it better? Well this is when gurus come in. Of course the ego knows that this house is in absolute disarray, so with gurus you bring in the super-organizers, not to take you out of the tower but to decorate the tower: 'oh, we'll streamline this place for you! We'll super-organize your inner architecture and that'll be brilliant.' Short term solutions.

Another thing you've got to realize about the ego is that what we call myth and what we call history is the ego taking notes.. Just like you might keep a journal about your day-to-day existence in which you write down notes, the ego has been taking notes from the moment of its inception, and that journal is mythology. So when people say all the mythological characters seem to be the same, well, yeah, they all have the same author. Everyone has one thing in common all over the world, a brain, an ego. So we have to realize that there is a diary being kept as this ego progresses down through the millennium. And it's not a diary being kept by the soul as people like Jung thought, it's a diary being kept by the ego to commemorate and memorialize its own movement because the essence of the ego is narcissism. The ego is like this crazy director with a bullhorn, a Cecil B. De Mille and the parts of history that it likes the best it likes to replay. That's why you have this constant replay mythologically speaking.

What is the self? The self is not an idea. The self is not an idea created by your ego about yourself. In fact, many people have to deconstruct all the ideas that they have about themselves-- they can either do this through a psychologist or personally through personal ritual--- but in order to get to even the remotest understanding of what you are as a self you're going to have to deconstruct the ideas of the ego about your self and on top of that you're going to have to deconstruct the rubbish that people tell you about yourself. "Although the self is my origin, it is also the goal of my quest." If we want to talk in religious terms, the self is the soul. The soul is something that you create during your life through what is called experience. It is not something which is just given to you. So yes there is something called the self but believe me, the self is something that people have to work on. It's certainly not given to you by some papal priest or some god. We're here to create a thing called the self.

Nietzsche said that the individual (or the self-person) has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will often be lonely and sometimes frightened but no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself. In order to get to selfhood you have to avoid being overwhelmed by the tribe. The collectivist factors in this world are there to erase your sense of self. We are living in a world full of people who have no clue about themselves and are operating from the sphere of the ego. That means that these people, from the spiritual or religious point of view, are ghosts walking around. They are people who don't even register, their voice, their meaning, their life, has no registration. You're talking about the connections between the physical and the psychic world. Now that we have this interior life, how does it operate? One you have things that happen outside you in the world and then at the same time you have this whole other hemisphere or world within your head. Jung said 'If things go wrong in the world, this is because something is wrong in the individual, because something is wrong in me. Therefore, if I'm sensible, I shall put myself right first." By this he means that all the tyranny and all the cruelty that you see in the world and all the problems are caused by this disarrangement within the psyche of the person. We've been brought up in schools that do not even introduce you to your self, in fact, their whole job is to keep you away from your self. And they do not explore this incredible connection between psychic and physical energy.


--- Michael Tsarion on Red Ice Radio 1/18/ 2007


[Image: Michael.2009.jpg]



Now go ahead and take another 8 hours and write another boring book-length point-by-point pointless analysis and dissertation I'll never have enough Tylenols to read. LOL


And by the way if 'the middle ground' between individualism and collectivism is the answer, the BIG ANSWER all you guys came up with, then all of you should just have the balls to be logically consistent and be National Socialists or FASCISTS, since that's the only system in modern times that ever kicked the Jew bankers and their collaborators asses out and established the 'middle ground' of non-Marxist European socialism and succeeded. After all, National Socialism or Fascism is just a political platform. Any nation of people can adopt it and run with it. If you guys are not 'racists' then you can have Mixed-Race Fascism with the Mexicans, Blacks and Asians and Middle-Easterns and end up with Brown-Race Mongrel Fascism after a few generations since they will be in the majority and the whites that built the USA in the minority, and suffer the consequences or whatever 'benefits' you think will accrue, but Fascism is the ONLY middle ground not infected by NWO banksters or whatever you want to call it 'ELITES' that has ever succeeded in actual reality. In fact, it was destroyed precisely because it succeeded. And don't give me no nonsense about Proudhon and all the supposed non-Nationalist socialists who were anti-Marx. Their systems were never adopted and never proven a success under real world conditions. A system under the yoke of banksters and central banks which print money at will and practice fractional reserve robbery cannot be considered a success on any level. It is rotten at the core, Sweden, Norway and all the so-called BS 'success stories' of middle-ground bankster-controlled socialism included. Let's face it boys, if you guys love collectivism so much but still want to retain some individuality and definitely kick bankster ass out, then FASCISM is your beautiful dream. Get used to it or else get used to the blood-sucking bankster-funded communitarianism you're living under now.

Communitarianism
A Three Level Con Job
By Niki Raapana

http://www.rense.com/general76/commnu.htm

[Image: socialism.jpg]



I know all you guys have been brainwashed to hate Hitler and Mussolini no matter what to the end of your dying days but which one of you computer commandos would rather follow or even suffer the indignity of living under some worthless pieces-of-shit like Obama Bin Biden and their 29-standing-ovations-Netanyahu-Israel-Ass-Kissing U.S. Congress instead of following a heroic Fascist Nationalist like Corneliu Codreanu?


[Image: codreanu5fm0.jpg]


Corneliu Codreanu

FOR MY LEGIONARIES

http://www.jrbooksonline.com/PDF_Books/For%20My%20Legionaries.pdf
A great read written by a humble man. Guaranteed to never have you reaching for the Tylenols like R.R.'s ego-tripping screeds.

[Image: zelea2.jpg]


Corneliu Codreanu

The Nest Leader's Manual


http://www.archive.org/details/TheNestLeadersManual_148

Let's face it guys, Corporate-State 'middle-ground' Fascism, especially Fascism led by people of established high culture is the best type of collectivism there is, better than Monarchy, and 100% preferable to COMMUNISM or CHRISTIAN or ISLAMIC or Any Other Religious FUNDAMENTALIST Theocracy. If it was to be forced on me against my will due to circumstances out of my control, being an American Jeffersonian individualist and libertarian, I wouldn't like it all that much, a little too much government and regimentation for my taste, but I certainly would like it better than than the ROTTED CORPSE of a communitarian, collectivist system masquerading as individualism we're living under now or even worry about it any more than the partying French did during the non-existent 'resistance'

V for Bullshit, Alex Jones & the Non-Existent French 'Resistance'
http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=37947

or half Jew Heinz Weichardt in his account of life under Fascism in Germany, (granted that you cannot compare the low-culture, degenerate no-discipline white Americans of 2011 to the even post-Weimar demoralized high-culture high-discipline Germans of the 1930s.)

Under Two Flags

by Heinz Weichardt


http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com/under_two_flags.htm





That's the problem with Ron Paul types of individualists. They don't have half the balls of nationalist so-called 'collectivists' (who actually allow plenty of individualism in their countries or they would not have any economic success to speak of) like Hitler, Mussolini or Codreanu, much less true individualists like Thomas Jefferson, Henry Ford or Andrew Jackson. Ron's Senor No-Balls passing the Motza Balls to the tune of 37 million dollars raised-&-disappeared even when he says aid to Israel and all other countries should be discontinued. No go Ronny boy, REAL LIBERTARIANISM is more akin to what your son suggested, it BEGINS with the REPEAL OF the Civil Rights Act and every other law ever passed giving groups benifits or rights over that of the individual. After real libertarianism is firmly re-established back in the USA then there is no reason whatsoever that Anarchism (complete elimination of formal government, everything run by competing private enterprise and informal government by individual groups themselves adhering to the non-initiatory-force non-aggression principle) cannot also be experimented with, within careful bounds, to see how it works. What people have to remember is that in this system there will be no easy finance and fractional reserve money-from-nothing creation, so you cannot extrapolate from the INSANE, rotten-to-the-core, corrupt system of today to a system like this, until you have ended the FED and taken banksters completely out of the picture.


So Individualism VS. Collectivism: TRUE DEBATE of 'OUR TIME' or 'ALL TIMES,' makes no difference. Those are the parameters and try as you might, you cannot go outside of them.


[Image: 1831778212_3e24399ece.jpg]
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Hidden Systems That Have Frozen Time and Stop Us Changing The World nofunclub 0 1,275 07-30-2014, 04:58 AM
Last Post: nofunclub
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 3,179 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  GMO Ticking Time Bomb datars 0 1,026 10-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Last Post: datars
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 887 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The great thermate debate JFK 82 38,159 12-04-2011, 08:05 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
Information Google pulls the same shit it bashes China for... (this is worth your time to read) h3rm35 3 2,057 10-20-2010, 01:21 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Oil of Wight: Under-fire BP boss Tony Hayward takes time out to enjoy Cowes Week --- 2 1,411 06-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Last Post: ---
Question What is a True Manchurian Candidate? NickHedge 0 3,762 04-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Last Post: NickHedge
  Extra! Extra! Read All About It!!! The Truth About Al Qaeda Told For the First Time! NickHedge 2 1,476 04-26-2010, 04:09 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan h3rm35 0 976 03-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Last Post: h3rm35

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)