Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
08-24-2011, 02:02 PM,
#46
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:This one's just to piss off R.R.

Actually I feel vindicated. You have further proven your stupidity.

Quote:thinks he can ruin my thread

You ruined the thread the minute you revealed it to be worship of Tsarion. He does not hold a monopoly on what individuality means.

Quote:only give me a headache after two paragraphs.

Actually its not a headache, it is:

[Image: cognitive-dissonance.gif]

Try tigerbalm not tylenols.

Quote:Let's go back to a clear thinker

Yes please.

Quote:not some wannabe over-intellectualizing self-appointed oh-so-high-&-mighty king of conspiracy critics

Ooh I can't wait now, what a build-up.

Quote:blah blah blah blah blah

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

[Image: obama_facepalm.jpg]

Now considering you used the word 'wannabe' to describe me and then mentioned Tsarion, that would thus mean you are saying Tsarion IS an over-intellectualizing self-appointed oh-so-high-&-mighty king of conspiracy critics. I couldn't agree more.

Quote:Now go ahead and take another 8 hours and write

Considering your last response on this thread was on 06-22-2011, it seems to take you 2 months to write a response and when you do they are copied and pasted followed by a few pictures. Hardly original work and certainly disproves any kind of individuality you think you are showcasing.

Quote:R.R.'s ego-tripping screeds

All of your responses to me are due to the ego damage you have suffered by me. Its not a nice feeling to realise you are a pathetic waste of time is it? The individual who can only respond by bashing those that make him feel small and insignificant. The individual who needs the words of others to do his talking. It is not my fault you have failed to realise that individuality is supposed to give you the strength of mind to not follow the dictates of your bruised ego. LOL

If you actually read what I wrote, instead of trying to make it reconcile with Tsarion's opinions, you'll know that the concept of CIVILIZATION is the heart of the problem. Unfortunately for unthinking handlers of second hand opinions like yourself, you are incapable of assimilating any new information that you have not covered. This is not surprising as Tsarion tries to pinpoint the originators of civilization as wonderful beings that had their system subverted little realising that civilization actually was the subversion of man. Go and read something outside of your chosen field for once instead of living in the realm of conspiracy. Conspiracy is only a small aspect of learning truth, but keeping your head anywhere, including Michael Tsarion's ass, will eventually leave you with a head full of shit.

[Image: normal_demotiv_pic_0-shithead.jpg]

Quote:ruin my thread

[Image: crybaby2.jpg]

I won't post on this thread anymore if that will make you happy. I only came to share information, to question and get people thinking - clearly attributes that are not welcome here.
Reply
08-24-2011, 03:28 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2012, 01:57 AM by Negentropic.)
#47
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
[Image: Michael.2009.jpg]

Oh shit, R.R. ! How will I deal with the loss of your incredible
ORIGINAL mind paraphrasing two hundred books
in your own tongue to finally arrive at a 'middle ground'
after 30 pages ! LOL

Don't worry, putting a leash on the friggin ego without
becoming ego-less is one of the hardest things anyone
ever tries, as Tsarion himself had to learn, as Ayn Rand
went to the grave talking and never learning. There are
much bigger ego-trips than R.R. or Tsarion out there, such
as this buffoon from the '60s:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qrMEEN6WxM
You guys are amateurs compared to this guy! LOL

balanced by this guy in all his organic humble individuality



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7Bq_MvkUtU
Reply
08-24-2011, 06:25 PM,
#48
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(04-06-2011, 04:29 AM)concenfla Wrote: Both individual and collective mindsets have advantages and disadvantages. And each of them are themselves made up of different qualities, which in turn have their own advantages and disadvantages.

Individuality has subdivisions called "egotism", "self", "narcissism" and others. All of these subdivisions are quite different from one another, but even each of them also has good and bad sides as well. (Except for maybe narcissism, which doesn't have any advantages, aside from maybe getting people to exercise more.)

Collectivism also has a good and bad side to it. You appreciate humanity as a whole when you're in a group, and if you're working together for an honest cause or celebrating life, then that's a good thing. Unfortunately, due to group-think, crowds are also very easy for smart overlords to manipulate for nefarious purposes. And group intelligence trends downward in almost every working model.

"Individualism vs. collectivism" is too simple of a paradigm. I know a lot of "awake" people who say that individualism is the way to go, and that individualism is under attack. To an extent that's true. Each person's unique sovereign "self" is under attack. But on the other hand, each "ego" is being fed. And each person is being psychologically bribed into becoming their own little precious narcissist. I'm not even going to get into how "selfishness" is different from "self", but there's a distinction there, too. People like Ayn Rand are totally into redeeming "selfishness", but it's not that simple. None of these terms are that simple, and most of them depend upon specific contexts in order to decide whether they're good or bad, useful or harmful, in the given instance. Broadly speaking, the elites of the world, via their media, are feeding the bad sides of both individualism and collectivism--actually feeding the bad sides of each subdivision of these two divisions--and thereby creating disadvantageous conditions for us, advantageous conditions for them.


Exactly, you nailed it. There is no one way fits all. Its a fine line we need to walk, moderation in all things
Reply
08-24-2011, 11:13 PM,
#49
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have sort of an individual right. Either you own yourself or you don't. All this 'moderation' thing is well, but there's a place for that, and it doesn't fit everywhere.
Reply
08-26-2011, 02:07 PM,
#50
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(08-24-2011, 02:02 PM)R.R Wrote: If you actually read what I wrote, the concept of CIVILIZATION is the heart of the problem. Unfortunately for unthinking handlers of second hand opinions like yourself, you are incapable of assimilating any new information that you have not covered.
This is not surprising as Tsarion tries to pinpoint the originators of civilization as wonderful beings that had their system subverted, little realizing that civilization actually was the subversion of man.
Go and read something outside of your chosen field for once instead of living in the realm of conspiracy. Conspiracy is only a small aspect of learning truth, but keeping your head anywhere, including Michael Tsarion's ass, will eventually leave you with a head full of shit.
Nice. This isn't a half-bad answer. Quite entropic... Smile

Absolutes are to be avoided at all costs, and issues (once defined!) have to be dealt with using relativism and be frequently reviewed. Eternal vigilance...

It's something we're pretty good at, if we remember to do it.

Reply
08-27-2011, 01:36 PM,
#51
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
"Absolutes are to be avoided at all costs."

How sure are you about that?
Reply
09-13-2011, 01:15 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-27-2012, 02:01 AM by Negentropic.)
#52
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:You can't be a little bit pregnant. You can't have sort of an individual right. Either you own yourself or you don't. All this 'moderation' thing is well, but there's a place for that, and it doesn't fit everywhere


Exactly.

Moderation is a concept for living your own life as an individual, AFTER your individual rights are guaranteed, being balanced and tempered and therefore moral by free choice (what's rationally 'good for you' in a free society does not conflict with what's rationally 'good for' another individual, does not need to violate another individual's rights). When it becomes a political concept then all that translates to is violating the rights of the individual in order to benefit this or that group in the name of 'moderation.' Everything can be justified in the name of 'good sense' and 'moderation' and then 'the common moderation or the common good.'


People are controlled through their vices and like Tsarion says "Often the vices that we have were once virtues taken to extremes." So they can control and exploit you through your virtues taken to extremes which become vices, for example, in the realm of sex, you have on the one hand, repression and on the other libertine hedonism; both those extremes become vices and as vices become exploitable, whereas a healthy sexuality has a boner ph balance of 7.5 slightly Alkaline or passionate, horny but not hedonistic. This stuff can't be legislated or forced. In fact, as soon as someone is forced to do something it ceases to be moral because it was not made of his own free choice. People have tried forcing this or that code of behavior from this or that religion or dogma down people's throats for millennia and it never works because as soon as force is initiated against the individual and his free choice eliminated, the whole point of moral conduct becomes moot. At that point people exercise their free choice to rebel against the force from above at any cost, even at the cost of their own destruction because as Nietzsche said no cost is too high to pay for the privilege of owning your own self. Fascism, contrary to popular belief and 60 years of non-stop propaganda, provided enough free choice and individualism to keep most people except for the communist agitators and such from rebelling. Shit, they didn't even ban guns, in fact, Hitler was totally pro-gun and anyone that wanted to leave the country could get the fuck out, unlike the vast prisons of the communist bloc.


Civil rights was a bad idea. Why? Because individual rights were being violated in favor of 'moderation' or righting the so-called 'wrongs' of the past, slavery and its legacy, etc. When you have a truly free society you don't need anybody to force somebody who doesn't like you for whatever reason, rational or irrational, to deal with you, on their own property. That person is happy because he doesn't have to deal with people he doesn't like. 'We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason' right? Well, just try that in today's world and see if you won't get sued. In a true free market of the libertarian variety, people are only able to ostracize each other from each other's property. They are not free to use government force to make any other group do anything they want and neither are the opposing groups. Why? Because it would violate the individual's right within that group. People who do not discriminate for irrational reasons will obviously have FAR more business opportunities than those who do and therefore prosper and acquire more property where they can be rationally tolerant. This becomes an incentive for a lot of the irrational discriminators to see to the error of their ways as time goes on and they limit their opportunities.


America, post 1776, was built on extremist ideas or reaching for the ultimate individualism possible whereas the Soviet Union, China and the whole communist bloc reached for the ultimate collectivism possible. Fascism is not the extreme of collectivism as most people have been foolishly led to assume but actually the middle ground, since it's basically just National Socialism or Corporate-State Capitalism but with the important distinction that unlike other socialisms of today like France and Sweden, banksters are not included in the equation. There is more conformity but simply because the parasite is not allowed to steal, more is kept of whatever advancement is made by the nation. The system holds as long as the leaders are trustworthy and not corruptible and adhere to the main principle which is not being beholden to any usury and / or practicing the theft of fractional reserve banking as the disgustingly hypocritical Islamic government of Iran does with its double digit fiat money inflation which has gone as high as 25%. Also no one in their right mind would compare the degree of individualism allowed in European fascist states with the backwards medieval laws in theocracies like Iran. There is no advancement or prosperity in a shithole like Ahmedinejad's Iran, there are no Jet engines and Helicopters and computers being invented as in Hitler's Germany, only misery for most of the population and whatever big talk of a so-called pathetic 'nuclear program' that's supposed to scare Westerners into supporting the never-ending manufactured 'war on terror.'


US Has Given Over $100 BILLION To Companies Defying Its Policy On Iran

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/06/us-has-given-over-100-bil_n_488787.html

Here's how I would rank the more recent and past political systems I know of in order of preference, in so-much as I've been able to determine the pluses and negatives. It's inevitable that they're all comprised of different degrees of individualism and collectivism with the more individualism allowed almost always coinciding with that nation's advancement or prosperity if not lack of anxiety or neurosis. This is independent of whether people were controlled by banksters or not, with the difference being that under banksters everything they created could be taken away from them at anytime, since they didn't legally own . It would be interesing to see some other people who's commented on this thread give their preferences and their reasons why ('moderation' and 'the middle ground' will put you in National Socialist Germany and Fascism Icon_biggrin):


1. The United States in the post Jackson and pre-Lincoln years when Jackson had kicked the banksters asses back to Europe and they couldn't do jack-shit about it, although it was not for lack of trying. This was the freest any country has ever managed to be. This didn't include the Indians and the Blacks, of course, but that was the legacy of the past. The Indians were a bunch of constantly warring tribes who were not the first to be here anyway but that's not what determines who has the right to a land. He who makes the best use of the land has the right to that land, the land becomes an extension of the work that he put in it, and therefore his property. That's natural law before laws on the books were even written. The Blacks were brought here on JEWISH slave ships not white Christian as everybody has been led to assume.


The Real Slave Bringers
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-atrocities-slaves-jewish-slave-ship-owners.html

Source: Elizabeth Donnan, 4 Volumes, 'Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade to America' Washington, D.C. 1930, 1935 Carnegie Institute of Technology, Pittsburgh, Pa.

2. The United States in the post-Lincoln years to the turn of the century, the so-called Gilded Age years. Banksters had their tentacles back in and the rot had started but full control of central banking was still a few years away. The United States being still the freest nation on earth was now well on its way to be used as the ultimate host for the ultimate parasite

Quote:The Gilded Age is most famous for the creation of a modern industrial economy. During the 1870s and 1880s, the U.S. economy grew at the fastest rate in its history, with real wages, wealth, GDP, and capital formation all increasing rapidly.[1] For example, between 1865 and 1898, the output of wheat increased by 256%, corn by 222%, coal by 800% and miles of railway track by 567%.[2] Thick national networks for transportation and communication were created. The corporation became the dominant form of business organization, and a managerial revolution transformed business operations. By the beginning of the 20th century, per capita income and industrial production in the United States led the world, with per capita incomes double that of Germany or France, and 50% higher than Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age

3. The United States at any other period between 1776 and 1976

4. Any Western European country in the post-WWII years to the 1980s. The rotting corpse of American-inspired or rejuvenated individualism and the rotting corpse of old Europe mixed together. Also Australia and New Zealand

5. Any Western European country from the turn of the century to WWII. Also Australia and New Zealand

5. U.S. occupied Japan from the late 1950s to right before Fukushima

6. Fascism or National Socialism - Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain. The middle ground between Collectivism and Individualism. Only limited individualism that benefits the nation is encouraged, all extreme behavior or self imposed degeneration is either forced back into conformity or is cut off at the balls and booted to another country. Hitler's Germany had more economic growth in a shorter period than any other nation in history except the U.S. during the aforementioned 'Gilded Age' late 19th century period but they did this AFTER they kicked the bankers out whereas in the U.S. the rise of the Rockefellers and J.P. Morgan and other industrialists coincided with more outside bankster control. .

Germany under Hitler produced many inventions and discoveries, among which were:

The first electro-mechanical, binary calculator (Konrad Zuse),

The first fully functional programmable computer (Konrad Zuse, equipped with three logical circuits and 2,600 relays, used in 1941),

The first fully controllable helicopter (Heinrich Focke 1936),

The Jet Engine (Hans Van Ohain) and the first Jet-Powered Aircraft (Messerschmitt Me 262),

Nuclear Fission (Otto Hahn, 1938)

The first Night Vision Technology

The first Guided Missiles
http://germanoriginality.com/madein/inventions.php

National Socialist Germans were so 'not resisted' by the French whose country they occupied that over 200,000 children were born to German-French couples during the war years. Rape was punishable by immediate trial and if convicted, immediate execution.

http://concen.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=37947

Can you say the same for the Bolshevik invasion of Germany?

'They raped every German female from eight to 80'


Antony Beevor, author of the acclaimed new book about the fall of Berlin, on massive war crimes committed by the victorious Red Army.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/may/01/news.features11

or how about the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan or the barbaric Israeli occupation of Palestine?

7. Argentina under Peron

9. Lebanon from 1918 French rule through independence to the late 1960s

10. Any Eastern European country before and after communism

11. Some of the better puppet states of the post-war bankster-slave USA, such as Iran under the Shah from 1953 to 1978

12. Brazil post WWII

13. ZOG Obama Bin Biden United States Post Patriot Act 12. Just as long as I don't have to live in Detroit. Only to pretend to be 'free' with the rest of the slaves.

14. White led apartheid South Africa. That doesn't mean that I'm for government enforced apartheid, it just means that I favor countries with white leadership based on the general law and order and standard of living achieved, given the historical facts. People forget that blacks themselves used to move from other parts of Africa to South Africa under apartheid because they preferred it better there.

15. Western European countries in the 19th century

16. European Monarchies post Renaissance to 19th century

17. Byzantine Empire, 4th Century to 1453 --

18. Stranded on an Island with two beautiful females. One b/f is also accepted but no other guys

19. Mexico and all other South American countries post WWII;
16. Ottoman Empire

17. The more secular Moslem countries in the Middle East including Saddam Hussein's Iraq

18. India under British Rule as and any other British or French colony while under strict British or French rule

19. India post Gandhi to now under Rothschild / Lubavitch build-up to suck-dry stanglehold

20. China or any other Asian country before or after communism or at any time while not under communist rule or absolute monarchy

21. Sharia law Islamic Fundamentalist countries such as Saudi Arabia and Ayatollah Khomeini's / Ahmenidejad's Iran or Taliban Afghanistan and all other religious dictatorships

22. Communist ANC / Mandela black led open-season-on-whites South Africa or any other African led African country. Let Spike Lee go live there if he likes it so much.

18. Bolshevist Soviet Union, Communist China & all other Communist Block Slave States

What was day-to-day life like in 'the worker's paradise' communist countries? Here's a first-hand account from one who lived it:

Truth Quest with Melodee Hallett, August 20, 2011

http://mp3.oraclebroadcasting.com/truthquest/truthquest.2011-08-20_16k.mp3

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh spoke on her experiences growing up in Communist Romania and her warnings of the US going down the same path of control. My co-host was Lark from Texas



19. Occupied Palestine - Worse than being in prison in many ways but at least you're on the side of the oppressed and underdog.

20. Israel - Not even if I was born a Jew like Jack Bernstein

[Image: markis1.jpg]

Read entire book here:

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/israel.htm

Quote:"In a motion last week the Justice Department asked a federal judge to block any public testimony about the circumstances of Padilla's interrogations during the more than three years he was detained and interrogated in a military brig in South Carolina. For most of that time, Padilla, a 35 year old, Brooklyn born, U.S. citizen who was raised in Chicago, was held incummunicado, unable to meet with his lawyer or any other visitors.'

So, here it is guys. When the spotlight was on them, the torture fiasco at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo and now to find out this was an American citizen tortured right here on American soil and so they were undertaking every measure to hide that fact but AT THE SAME TIME, let's face it guys, if they didn't want you to know this, they wouldn't have reported it AT ALL ! You're supposed to believe that the media is simply doing its job see, reporting this stuff that the government didn't want out. No they DO want it out ! They want to see if there's going to be any reaction. So this isn't the media doing their job and telling you the truth. The media, or I should say, the ones who run the media, are the same ones who run the torture fiascos, our little friends with dual citizenship. The fact here isn't that 'oh they were reporting this even though the government didn't want it out.' No that's not what you need to be focusing on. You need to be focusing on the fact that they were indeed torturing a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil. NO ACCESS to anyone at all, to his lawyers or to any visitors, never even formally charged with anything until years later. It makes no difference if you didn't like this guy. Even if you hated this guy, let's say he was your next door neighbor, you knew him from when he was a kid, he was a spoiled brat and later became a juvenile delinquent breaking into houses, stealing cars, IT DOESN'T MATTER ! To find out that he or anybody else, an American citizen, had their rights trampled like this, was tortured without even being charged with anything, there should have been MASSIVE OUTRAGE, but nope, once again, in classic form, the American public, snoozed the hell away.

--- Charles Giuliani - Truth Hertz
Reply
09-15-2011, 12:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 05-06-2012, 11:01 PM by Negentropic.)
#53
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Schwarzenegger

"I was inspired by individuals like Reg Park and Steve Reeves."[8] When Reeves died in 2000, Schwarzenegger fondly remembered him: "As a teenager, I grew up with Steve Reeves. His remarkable accomplishments allowed me a sense of what was possible, when others around me didn't always understand my dreams ... Steve Reeves has been part of everything I've ever been fortunate enough to achieve." In 1961, Schwarzenegger met former Mr. Austria Kurt Marnul, who invited him to train at the gym in Graz.[6] He was so dedicated as a youngster that he broke into the local gym on weekends, when it was usually closed, so that he could train. "It would make me sick to miss a workout ... I knew I couldn't look at myself in the mirror the next morning if I didn't do it."[8] When Schwarzenegger was asked about his first movie experience as a boy, he replied, "I was very young, but I remember my father taking me to the Austrian theaters and seeing some newsreels. The first real movie I saw, that I distinctly remember, was a John Wayne movie."[8]

In 1971, his brother Meinhard died in a car accident.[6] Meinhard had been drinking and was killed instantly. Schwarzenegger did not attend his funeral.[12] Meinhard was due to marry Erika Knapp, and the couple had a three-year-old son, Patrick. Schwarzenegger would pay for Patrick's education and help him to immigrate to the United States.[12] Gustav died the following year from a stroke.[6] In Pumping Iron, Schwarzenegger claimed that he did not attend his father's funeral because he was training for a bodybuilding contest. Later, he and the film's producer said this story was taken from another bodybuilder for the purpose of showing the extremes that some would go to for their sport and to make Schwarzenegger's image more cold and machine-like in order to fan controversy for the film.[19] Barbara Baker, his first serious girlfriend, has said he informed her of his father's death without emotion and that he never spoke of his brother.[20] Over time, he has given at least three versions of why he was absent from his father's funeral.[12]

In an interview with Fortune in 2004, Schwarzenegger told how he suffered what "would now be called child abuse" at the hands of his father:[7][21]

My hair was pulled. I was hit with belts. So was the kid next door. It was just the way it was. Many of the children I've seen were broken by their parents, which was the German-Austrian mentality. They didn't want to create an individual. It was all about conforming. I was one who did not conform, and whose will could not be broken. Therefore, I became a rebel. Every time I got hit, and every time someone said, 'you can't do this,' I said, 'this is not going to be for much longer, because I'm going to move out of here. I want to be rich. I want to be somebody.'


In 1969, Schwarzenegger met Barbara Outland (later Barbara Outland Baker), an English teacher he lived with until 1974.[94] Schwarzenegger talked about Barbara in his memoir in 1977: "Basically it came down to this: she was a well-balanced woman who wanted an ordinary, solid life, and I was not a well-balanced man, and hated the very idea of ordinary life."[94] Baker has described Schwarzenegger as "[a] joyful personality, totally charismatic, adventurous, and athletic" but claims towards the end of the relationship he became "insufferable – classically conceited – the world revolved around him".[95] Baker published her memoir in 2006, entitled Arnold and Me: In the Shadow of the Austrian Oak.[96] Although Baker, at times, painted an unflattering portrait of her former lover, Schwarzenegger actually contributed to the tell-all book with a foreword, and also met with Baker for three hours.[96] Baker claims, for example, that she only learned of his being unfaithful after they split, and talks of a turbulent and passionate love life.[96] Schwarzenegger has made it clear that their respective recollection of events can differ.[96] The couple first met six to eight months after his arrival in the U.S. – their first date was watching the first Apollo Moon landing on television.[20] They shared an apartment in Santa Monica for three and a half years, and having little money, would visit the beach all day, or have barbecues in the back yard.[20] Although Baker claims that when she first met him, he had "little understanding of polite society" and she found him a turn-off, she says, "He's as much a self-made man as it's possible to be –he never got encouragement from his parents, his family, his brother. He just had this huge determination to prove himself, and that was very attractive ... I'll go to my grave knowing Arnold loved me."[20]


[Image: article-2022205-0D4969C300000578-27_468x396.jpg]

From this
[Image: arnold-schwarzenegger-as-kid.jpg]

to this

[Image: arnold-schwarzenegger-032.jpg]



[Image: arnold-pot.jpg]

[Image: 810jrhrMR8L.png]

[Image: arnold_schwarzenegger_raquel_welch_640_f.jpg]



So it came to pass that the most self-made individualist it was possible to be came to visit Rothschild, that great benefactor of individuals everywhere. Icon_biggrin

[Image: arnierothschild.jpg]
Reply
09-27-2011, 09:43 AM,
#54
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
I have really enjoyed this thread so far.
What do you individually know about anarcho-syndicalism and permaculture?
How compliant are these ideas with the contents of this thread, do you think?
Reply
11-06-2011, 11:18 AM,
#55
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
I enjoyed this thread until the random posts showed up. What does Arnold have to do with a philosophical debate? Seriously, this is how all attempts of a real debate end. Funny, random utterances of nonsense. It's soooo cool not being able to think straight.
Reply
11-12-2011, 08:15 AM,
#56
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
no conversation about collectivism is complete without including the Shivalila experiments of the 70's. You can read their manifesto, The Book Of The Mother here: http://www.archive.org/details/TheBookOfTheMother the big difference imo in this kind of collectivism, is it's limits. That is the collective that is to be created isn't a huge state, but a clan. I upped this file and did the write up many years ago, but do think that this book is important and way for people who are so inclined to experiment with collectivist thought/ideology without the dangers of huge statism. which is extremely dangerous, obviously. also the "nonviolence" part of the shivalila covenants might also put some minds at ease. I'm into looking beyond either/or thinking and seek to bring balance to a both/and perspective, as long humans keep the scale of their projects small! much love,
al
Reply
11-17-2011, 11:24 AM, (This post was last modified: 11-17-2011, 12:04 PM by Negentropic.)
#57
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(11-12-2011, 08:15 AM)al_uh_looyah Wrote: no conversation about collectivism is complete without including the Shivalila experiments of the 70's. You can read their manifesto, The Book Of The Mother here: http://www.archive.org/details/TheBookOfTheMother the big difference imo in this kind of collectivism, is it's limits. That is the collective that is to be created isn't a huge state, but a clan. I upped this file and did the write up many years ago, but do think that this book is important and way for people who are so inclined to experiment with collectivist thought/ideology without the dangers of huge statism. which is extremely dangerous, obviously. also the "nonviolence" part of the shivalila covenants might also put some minds at ease. I'm into looking beyond either/or thinking and seek to bring balance to a both/and perspective, as long humans keep the scale of their projects small! much love,
al


Interesting stuff ! Just glanced through it but I'll have to find time to read it. Whatever happened to this LSD cult?



LSD puts you in a mental state relatively free of conditioning for a while and lets you tune yourself if you can manage to work through it and not freak out, novices with guides, of course. It won't make a tribal culture individualistic or an individualistic culture tribal, just put you in a state where you can work on your mind, for better or worse, depending on what you bring to the table and / or whether you follow the guideposts given to you by the acid . It's not the LSD conditioning these people to be collectivist but more a case of the collectivist conditioning getting in the way of LSD doing what it was meant to do, help create harmony between distinct individuals with similarly functioning brains. In a relatively de-conditioned state it is easy to slip into the extremist state of 'loving everyone' because a heavy burden is lifted off the shoulders. 'Loving everyone' is, of course, loving only what's 'good' and 'life affirming' in the human spirit of everyone but they often make the mistake of going off the deep end and assuming that evil is an illusion. Actually nothing 'good' can exist without its opposite, that which hurts and destroys life. The evil, perverted, dark forces can be minimized but never eliminated. Thus morons who engage in too much 'it's-all-good' hedonistic, positive thinking, self-destruct faster when they decondition themselves from beneficial cultural conditioning designed to navigate dark seas or the basic values that enable them to tell the difference between right and wrong and truth and falsehood, good and evil, black and white and all the gradients of gray in between. When they 'love the fuck out of everyone straight out of that basic capability,' malfunction results in their evil-detection radar and they get sneak-attacked all the time. They start hurting and the more they hurt the more the hatred of what hurts and increases seemingly unnecessary suffering returns. This usually marks the beginning of the end of the clan or cult as more and more defect its ranks when they see even the people they looked up to, unable to get their shit together anymore and fix their basic malfunction at its root.

Can you give some examples of

either/or thinking converted to a both/and perspective

that worked for you? And why was this a better way of existing in harmony with your envionment in your waking hours?
Reply
12-01-2011, 10:37 PM,
#58
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(11-17-2011, 11:24 AM)Negentropic Wrote: They start hurting and the more they hurt the more the hatred of what hurts and increases seemingly unnecessary suffering returns. This usually marks the beginning of the end of the clan or cult as more and more defect its ranks when they see even the people they looked up to, unable to get their shit together anymore and fix their basic malfunction at its root.
Generally so VERY true, but it's possible for maturity to intervene with tolerance and compassion.
Most of my friends still have their shit together. A couple of them were in my/our rock band of the early sixties. I still see them when I've saved up the airline ticket money. It was an exciting time...

Reply
01-04-2012, 12:30 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-29-2012, 12:06 PM by Negentropic.)
#59
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
(12-01-2011, 10:37 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Generally so VERY true, but it's possible for maturity to intervene with tolerance and compassion.
Most of my friends still have their shit together. A couple of them were in my/our rock band of the early sixties. I still see them when I've saved up the airline ticket money. It was an exciting time...

Everyone who functions in a monetarily reimbursable state in a situation that is called a 'job' outside of a mental asylum without anti-depressants or without drinking to excess or doing other things to excess has their shit together on one level, but they're really in the mental asylum of society's conditioned reality, you see, they're well-adjusted to a dysfunctional world and evil always triumphs sooner or later in a dysfunctional environment.

Inability to identify facts = instability in the mind of he or she that cannot locate the facts and is purposely barraged with falsehoods of all shades and colors 24 hours a day which then outweighs truth and mangles the inner life & then the outer life into a graceless state only escaped through years of patient deconditioning or the paradoxical grace and balance of all-out instability or the refuge of what is called psychosis or 'madness.'

When people try to escape the conditioned reality, that's when the problems start and the shit starts to untangle. In order to create a new and better reality, many individuals have to decondition separately and then synergize together in a relatively fertile culture. When this synergy happens in large enough groups or pockets of society that de-condition and still keep their shit together, this impresses many others and you have major change as in the 60s that spread into the mainstream of American and European culture by the 70s. When it starts to fail, you have people running for safety and spiritual regression. All this stuff is also engineered from the top down, so one major flaw, such as collectivism, in the deconditioned movements, can be exploited to disintegrate it and force the rebels back into the fold.

“If I am mad, it is mercy! May the gods pity the man who in his callousness can remain sane to the hideous end!”
― H.P. Lovecraft, The Temple

“Too much sanity may be madness. But maddest of all, to see life as it is, and not as it should be!”
― Miguel Cervantes De Saavedra, The History and Adventures of the Renowned Don Quixote, Volumes 1-2


“If we feel our way into the human secrets of the sick person, the madness also reveals its system, and we recognize in the mental illness merely an exceptional reaction to emotional problems which are not strange to us. "
The Content of the Psychoses”
― C.G. Jung, The Psychogenesis of Mental Disease


“H.P. Lovecraft, the unrivaled master of early-20th-century horror... Frequently imitated and widely influential, Howard Phillips Lovecraft reinvented the horror genre in the twentieth century, discarding ghosts and witches and envisioning instead mankind as a tiny outpost of dwindling sanity in a chaotic and malevolent universe.”

editor’s notes by S.T. Joshi from
The Call of Cthulhu and Other Weird Tales by H.P. Lovecraft


[Image: 1833131193.jpg]


[Image: the+overlords+small.jpg]
Reply
02-14-2012, 08:21 PM,
#60
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time
I dont defend collectivism, but dont we have as a species a biological imperative for it? Most if not all of our ancestors lived in collectivist societies. I mean it could explain why as was elaborated on the videos that even though our founding fathers put in the appropriate provisions to protect the rights of the individual we have still gotten closer and closer to a totalitarian state. And another thing that kind of confused me was that throughout the video he seemed to put a lot emphases on the needs of the individual being more important then that of the masses. I definitely agree that we have certain rights that we are endowed with at birth and that the state by no means should have power to deny us those, but what are those rights? Does a corporation like monsanto have the right to poison our food with pestisides in order to maximize profits while we (the consumer) being the majority just has to sit and take it because this corporate entity has the appropiate amount of funds to protect it's interest? Like if there were a town and out on their borders there lived a small cult that partook in cannibalism should they still be heard from even if the majority of the town's people didnt agree with their practice? And how could a complete democracy lead to a totalitarian state any more than a democratic republic could or already has? He's right that with too much collectivism we get totalitarianism, but I feel at the same time too little government control in the right areas such as business leads to a plutocracy. He mentions minimum wage, but the only reason minimum wage had to be established in the beginning is because certain individuals had amassed so much wealth and control that they were in a position where they could pay dirt and get away with it and the majority for a long time was helpless to stop it. Im not saying government is the answer I just feel that people like the Rockefellers and Rothschilds of the world are a perfect example of what happens when people are allowed to do whatever they want. People have the capacity for both good and bad and most of the time we a person's own individualism doesnt start infringing on another person's until it's too late and they're almost too powerful to be stopped. I guess Im more or less for what he said in the videos about finding the median, but I just think people forget what happens under a hardcore republican after having such a hard core democrat in office. They're both bad.
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 1,273 07-30-2014, 04:58 AM
Last Post: nofunclub
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 3,175 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  GMO Ticking Time Bomb datars 0 1,023 10-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Last Post: datars
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 886 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The great thermate debate JFK 82 38,123 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 2,053 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 1,408 06-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Last Post: ---
Question What is a True Manchurian Candidate? NickHedge 0 3,760 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 1,472 04-26-2010, 04:09 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan h3rm35 0 974 03-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Last Post: h3rm35

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)