lördag 17 oktober 2009

Truth and nonsense about Politics

Dear Judy

Stop this nonsense about high IQs being connected to political viewpoints at once!!!
This has no bearing at all outside of your Randian private fantasies. And you know it! The people with the highest IQs are often incompetent idiots locked up in mental hospitals rather than successful and noble individuals. Silicon Valley has the most high IQed people in the world but also by far the highest number of autistic children. And don't forget that it was the Nazis and not Randians who invented the concept of the IQ in the 1930s.
My point is that the Zoroastrian community welcomes people of VARIOUS political backgrounds and convictions and I will not idly accept anybody claiming that their political philosophy is the only acceptable one here on Ushta.
Judy, you are welcome here as a Randian fundamentalist if you like. But please respect that others have good reasons to disagree with you politically even when agreeing with you on religious and philosophical matters.
And as for collectives being a lie (not that I have noticed that Dino meant anything other with "collectives" than your concept of "collection of individuals"), well then the individual is a lie too. The only thing we know from science is that there are bodies, six billion of them, who do live in flocks and not solitaire (like polar bears), but whether we refer to them as "individuals" or not is entirely a metaphysical issue and not a scientific one. I'm personally aggressivley opposed to socialist politics but must also admit that my native Sweden seems to work better than any other society on the planet. So there you go. A bit of modesty would REALLY prove your intelligence, not the other way round!
If we ask science, there is not even such a thing as "free will", both the freedom and the will are lies or at best empty beliefs according to brain science. Which makes Randianism a political faith and not a science.
So, can we please have some more modesty between us on this forum? Let's listen more and learn! Political propaganda is just boring and destructive.


2009/10/17 Judy Weismonger

Well...Special, you did not disappoint me...whenever a "liberal" is caught in the trap of logic, they change vocabularly...and in this case, it went from the term "collective" to "community"...and later in your dialogue to attempting to bamboozle me and the reader by an over intellectualized description of an "autopoetic system." However, as is true in about 99% of all such dialogues and interviews, the more someone attempts to explain something using such vague, unproven terms, the more they trap themselves inside their own logic.

And the sociologists you mention and all their questions and quandries exist...because they are not scientists, they are philosophers, societal "engineers"....driven by some degree of self important grandiosity, in which they believe they can construct communes/communities....when in fact, they have not a clue as to what DNA is, or what a neuron in the brain is..or how it functions....A society is a collection of individuals...society is not an entity that can be "engineered" to serve some utopian idealism (socialism/Marxism).

If these failed sociologists you revere as your new priests ever want to progress, they need to begin first with cellular biology and quantum physics...

To wit you described the impact of autopoietic systems:

The term autopoietic was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela in 1973:

An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network. [1]

[…] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection. [2]


Please note...that an autopoiectic system is "self-contained" i.e. a community/collective/ant hill/junta/herd/tribe...and is a concrete de facto regulatory police state. And in 1978...these two "biologists" did not know much about DNA, genetics, physics, or cosmology...making this entire concept of an autopoietic "sociation"...null and void today.

We already know how functioning societies are built, which is first through the establishment of a good justice system...which does not rob the product of other people's work or through socialist theft other people's property. And...an association with a "community" should always be an individual's choice, and not a "regulatory" mandate. Some people simply do not like being part of a community....

Have you ever lived in a condo where the Condo Commandos watch your every move, knock on your door if your garbage is not put in a proper plastic bag...and you used a paper sack? Then, you have no idea how little people in such "communities" can become power mongering twits...who just can't wait...to be the HNIC (Head ____ in charge) and pass all of these communities "laws" to make you be a good citizen of the community.

The major problem with all of these "utopian" idealistic, irrational, dream world, "communes" is that the designers and dreamers such as yourself...have not a clue as to what variances there are in human psychology...and if they do, or were exposed to such facts, refuse to recognize it. Communes attempt to make their systems autopoietic, or a closed system...when in fact, as technology increases, we are becoming a wide open global system....and maybe almost ungovernable in the traditional sense. Oh...too bad.

The entire concept of "community" utopianism...began with B.F. Skinner, a socialist...whose untried, unproven bio-psychological theories were never tested...but adopted by the Marxists, and Hitler's fascists...in the false belief human beings could be 'trained" and conditioned like one of Pavlov's dogs to "serve the state." Well, no they can't. People do rebel as a statement and an act of individualism....and people really do not like being a disposable tool of the state or a closed "community" unless they are very old or insecure. Today's modern equivalent of the now discredited B.F. Skinner is that other socialist idiot, Noam Chomsky who puts out more bull shit than a bard full of cows.

And, you simply cannot create a "commune" (collective/herd/tribe/junta/) or a community...and have two dichotomous ideologies, i.e. respect for the individual, who is then "forced" or somehow coerced, regulated, held in check, or constrained to 'serve' some kind of utopian "community" (collective/commune/herd/tribe/anti hill/ or junta) for the "common good." Gee...who decides what common good is?

Communities exist all over this planet, who most often have their genetics as an organizing factor. But, does that mean they are successful on all levels? No....Such semi successful communities are bonded by family ties, religion, common heritages, and shared experiences, and education or lack thereof. However, even in such groups, they have individuals who leave the group and immigrate elsewhere...seeking novel (new) experiences and a chance to be an individual.

Human beings for the most part are novel seekers...and communes, quash most desires for the novel and the experiential as being threatening to the group/herd/tribe/junta/ant hill/collective/state/church...etc.

Almost everyone in Sweden is related to each other, the same in Denmark, etc...however, if you read today's recent history, they too are removing much of the draconian utopian communistic idealism that oppresses human individuality and initiative. Living in a world of enforced 'sameness" in the name of social justice and equality is about the most boring existence to ever be imposed on a human being.

What we do know in anthropology, political psychology, and general social psychyology...is that the more educated and "rational" a person becomes, the more individualistic they become...whereby they do not seek out "communities" for protection or security or direction...such successful Individuals...seek self reliance and independence instead. Such persons want the freedom to do as they wish. One of the most liberating things about education, intelligence, and a rational mind...is that one does not have to hide inside a group, or a community, a herd or a tribe...to live and be successful.

Now try this one on for size...the lower the IQ of an individual...or a group, the more they "need" a "community" to survive...whereas, the higher the IQ is of the individual...the less there is of a need for a regulated, held in check, mandated community. Now extrapolate that fact and see what you come up with. By the way...what is your IQ?

Zarathustra...lived 3500 years ago, that was then, this is now....Zism teaches one to respect and develop the individual mind....and not the "collective" mind of the herd/tribe/ant hill/ or any other engineered or regulated society which is devised to control human behavior and thoughts. I would love to live around and near other Zs...but not as a closed community in which the group voted on ...or determined my life's course, thoughts, actions, or degree of independence. Those who seek such "communities" are highly insecure self doubters.

I am sure you simply "hated" George Bush...whose 'tribe' of christians imposed their "community" beliefs on the rest of us. I freaked out when I found out that Bush stopped stem cell research funding.... and was trying very hard to remove an individual woman's right to control her own body. But...that is what "communities" do...they impose their values as an extension of the family...when in fact, the idea of being a grownup...is to be able to leave the family and live as an independent adult.

For example: I have a friend who is a psychiatrist from the Southern part of India. He is quite bright, very rational, or so I thought. One day, I saw that as he walked, he appeared to be in pain. I asked him what was wrong? He said he had a hernia. Immediately, I said...so you are going to schedule surgery and get it taken care of? He said "No"...he had to wait for his father, uncle, and elder brothers to fly in from India in order for them to make the decision whether he was to have surgery or not. I was simply floored.....This man was an adult, lived alone, made decisions regarding patients 100 times a day...but had to wait for his family (a community of relatives) to make the decision whether or not he was going to have surgey. No thank you....

I asked him why he had to "ask permission from his family" to get surgery? He said...that he respected his family and to defy them or make an independent decision...was an insult to the family (community)...Therefore, in your below quotations....it is this same kind of "expectation" you mention...that is also used to destroy human individualism and initiative through peer and family and now 'societal" and community pressure. No thank you...you and your kind need to mind your own business....

Such a "community" as you describe is not anything less than an extended state of childhood, with the community representing a family with a mommy and daddy, i.e. all the big people, who make decisions for the child. I rather like being an adult myself. So called "Liberalism" (a misnomer, in which the term "liberal" was co-opted by the socialists in the 1960s...from the original term meaning respect for the individual as exampled by the founders of the US)...is nothing more than socialism, which is by all of its processes a herd/an ant hill/a tribe/a junta/a church-state dictatorship, etc.

What progress as has been achieved has never come about by a "community" but through the individual creativity of the human mind acting alone, or trading in the "commerce" of ideas with others who are also like minded individualists. Do you think the "brilliance" of the first massive buildings and pyramids were built by a community in Egypt? Hell no...there are records that such incredible pyramids were designed and built through the genius of individual minds. Even the workers on these pyramids were not slaves...but paid, skilled workers. The Jews lied by the way.

The autopoietic communities you describe do not like "individualism" at all. Liberals especially have some kind of arrogant, neo-religious belief system going on that everyone else is just simply stupid and naive but them...and that as the superior ones, the Liberal elitests with the most progressive ideas...then have a right to pass laws and policies to regulate the behavior and commerce of the rest of us....to then save us from ourselves.

Since my taxes are now at about 68%....I have a few choice words to say to all those Liberals...who take my money and give it to those who don't work for it, and don't deserve it...and worse, create even more dependency and nonfunctional, criminal people on this planet.

The Liberal idea of "equality" is simply "Poverty for All." No thank you.

You can hide behind, and use all those extraordinary utopian phrases your sociologists can create in their ample spare time, but the reality is that behind such "nice" words...is a draconian police state, that must exist...to make everyone obey the rules of the "community" to make it work (for a while) for the good of "all."

By the way...I can't find and have never run into the word "sociation." Do you mean association, or socialization? Or is it a term referencing society in some way? Is that a European word that is not a part of the English language? Try googling the word "sociation" and tell me what you come up.

I take it that you are in university training...and as such, you are subjected to not the real world...but the imaginary world of Liberal professors who must dream up new words, and ideas to stay tenured...and appear to be doing original research and publishing as is often required of them. I've lived long enough, and observed enough...to state, you are getting ripped off, and being sold a sack of horse manure and being told that there is a pony inside.

In the vernacular of the left...they use such words, as "democracy, or human rights, or pluralism" to mean something quite different than what one thinks it is and which is far divergent than the original use of the terms....Marxists and socialists use and change these terms all the time to co-opt those who really think they are voting for freedom and equality....when in reality...such words as "democracy" actually mean, that ignorant, utopianized silly people vote through mob rule, to limit freedom and individuality...in exchange for 'security" and revenge....to the point that today, "rich people" are now the new class of those being persecuted as being "greedy."

I have learned...that when anyone tells me that if I give up some or all of my rights for self determination, in exchange for the security of the "community" ...and "justice"...then the end result will be an oppresive, state run dictatorship...and so I run like hell in the opposite direction. Didn't you all learn anything when Hugo Chavez came to power?

You said: "All I wanted to say is that Zarathusthra was concerned with sociation and how to build, maintain and expand liberal, future-oriented and essentially pluralistic communities."

...and the operative word here is "maintain"...and "expand Liberal" (idealism)...without explaining "how" you are going to "maintain" such a community....or explain exactly what a "liberal" is. Are you talking about Thomas Jefferson "liberals" or the co-opted covert socialist Liberals who came to power in the 1960s? Until you can answer those questions...all utopian dreams of such a community and the particular vocabulary you are using to describe 'community" you seek...is meaningless. And to associate Zoroastrianism with marxism/communisn/fascism...or whatever name you want to call it now...simply makes me want to puke. How dare you? Did Zarathustra or any other Z...ever enforce "community values" by any other means but voluntary choice? You know nothing about Zoroastrianism....and its embarrassing. And....do you think that Zoroaster used the word "liberal" at any time in his life? Show me the word "liberal" in the Gathas...I dare you....

What is "future-oriented"....oriented toward what? Science, welfare, social and government policy, tight control of commerce and economics....enforced equality (poverty) of all individuals in such a state/community? What? Actually, I've heard all of this before...and its nothing more than extant infantile emotionalism and wishes for a mommy-state by those who are extremely insecure in their own personhood. Hitler and Stalin ...as well as Pol Pot and Castro, and now Hugo Chavez all used the same propaganda with the same failed results.

One of the very worst problems your "sociologists" have is that they never read history....Marx by the way, was Jewish, never worked a day in his life, married into a rich, titled Prussian family and sat around in his study writing about the revenge he would take on the rich by the poor. Most of sociology is about revenge...class struggle my hind end! Redistribution is simply theft and out right robbery.

One of the most important parts of Zism...is to think for yourself, seek exactly what the consequences are of one's ideas...and change if such ideas do not work or create failure. One cannot think for one's self in such an organized, controlled "community" or whatever you want to call it. Evolution is messy, it is not always good, or right....nature is filled with mistakes and mutations...and war.

War is a natural state, inside and outside your body and actually serves many purposes of evolution and progress. Just as your white blood cells are at war with bacteria, viruses, and toxins...the body politic is also at war...and the day that there is no "war"...is the day that human kind no longer exists. There is value in chaos...chaos is the beginning process of evolution...."communities" do not like chaos...of any kind.

Do you realize that without exposure to stress, threats, and violence...as is demonstrated inside your body at war....your body then lacks the ability to rise up, mutate, and change to meet the challenge of invaders and defend its self. HIV is now running rampant all over the world...killing more than 90 million people in its wake, however, what is also occuring are individuals whose immunity is changing...and who are not affected by HIV. The human body and the mind has been at war since the first one-celled animal was evolved, and another one-celled animal came along and ate it...Ergo, "communities" cannot prevent war.....war and threats serves a process of strengthening and evolving biological organisms.

I suggest you also read some Darwinism...and see the value of struggle and evolution, and....the very idea of communities who seek to prevent struggle of any kind for the ideal of "peace" is in fact...creating an evolutionary dead end. The US maybe just at this point.

In fact, "peace" is when your enemy is rebuilding his weapons and getting ready to strike those are at peace...and who are the most vulnerable. The cosmos is at war....and simply filled with stars exploding, black holes eating up entire galaxies, baby stars being born, and others dying....and it is simply irrational to believe that one can create such a community that blocks all the processes of creativity, including war, destruction, and chaos whether in the individual human mind, the human body,...or the body politic.

My undergraduate degree is in sociology...and sociology is nothing more than Marxist-inspired crap....profiteered by those who are the most uneducated in all of the sciences. I am embarassed to tell people my undergraduate degree is in sociology. Sociology will NEVER, EVER be able to rid its self of its Marxist origins....sociology simply repackages this old dead, destrutive tripe in new vocabularies and attempts to sell this shit over and and over again. Us old dogs aren't buying it....And...you said:

"Oh, no, I didn't do that. I didn't recommend anything at all. All I said was that sociation is based on double contingency which is held in check by expecting the expectations of others, thus requiring social norms and values. This is only one possible answer (it's Luhmann's and - to a certain extent - Habermas's, to be precise), since there are many social theories available. You'd better read a book on the basics of sociology first?"

(I went into psychology and neurophysiology because sociology is the most irrational, irrelevant bull shit junk that calls its self a 'science" on this planet...and I suggest you do the same and get a real education. Social workers are simply the Marxist community organizers of sociology...and the most silly, irrational people to ever impose their 'social justice' agenda on human kind...and they should all be rounded up and have their brains washed out. In my personal library, I have about 15 text books donated to me by a relative on social work...and it is just awful. None of this crap is "research based" or scientific...it is simply another religion. What a waste...worse, they are rife in government and forcing Marxist welfare, police state policies on the rest of us.)

Once again...the operative word you used.... is" held in check (police state).....through requiring (police state) social norms and values (of whom?.by whom?..who decides these norms and values)...etc." Who gets to be the head honcho, the all-knowing, most elite advisor and dictator of social norms and values? The individual? Hell no...the state.

One of your most bizarre statements was that Zoroaster was one of the original mentors of "community"...which you then associated with modern sociology's vision of utopian socialism...

...when in fact, all of the Zoroastrians I know...are supreme individualists, they are rich, successful, confident, extremely well educated, all of them are PhDs or physicians, and responsible human beings...who give to the community not because Zoroaster told them to, but because it makes sense. However, they choose (and are not forced by peer pressure, guilt, or the community) who they are benefactors to carefully and do not waste their money on people who have been trained for generations to be subservient and dependent on the "state."

Evolution and the strengthening of the mind...as well as a true education, does not always come easily or as a gift. And often, that which is 'given' is thrown away....

One of the very worst things imaginable is for converts to Zism...to then convert and bastardize Zism into some kind of socialist/marxist bull shit.

You have a lot of growing up to do and a lot to learn my friend....Hugs, Judy

--- On Fri, 10/16/09, Special Kain wrote:

From: Special Kain
Subject: [Ushta] A question of sociation
To: Ushta@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 16, 2009, 2:30 PM

Dear Judy,

So drop the word "collectivism" and use "community" or "society" instead! There actually are quite liberal societies on this globe, such as constitutional democracies that support the human rights and political pluralism. All I wanted to say is that Zarathusthra was concerned with sociation and how to build, maintain and expand liberal, future-oriented and essentially pluralistic communities. We are who we are only in relation to the people around us (namely: the entire human race). It's not either solitary nomads or oppressive collectivism!

Secondly, Dino....you did not answer a previous question...which was..."Just how do you suppose the "collective" or the tribe keeps its members in line and a part of the collective? I would appreciate it if you would answer this question honestly.

I already have, see the controversy between Habermas and Luhmann in the early 1970's. And this is the one million dollar question in sociology, since this is THE MOST IMPORTANT sociological question of all: how does sociation work? Even Luhmann who's one of the most important and famous 20th century German sociologists couldn't answer this question (since he couldn't explain intersubjectivity with his sociological take on autopoiesis) .

I know how the tribe/herd/ant hill/church/ state/collective does this and I suggest you read some anthropology on tribalism, before you jump off and recommend a very old, static, nonevolving kind of existence for the rest of us as individuals.

Oh, no, I didn't do that. I didn't recommend anything at all. All I said was that sociation is based on double contingency which is help in check by expecting the expectations of others, thus requiring social norms and values. This is only one possible answers (it's Luhmann's and - to a certain extent - Habermas's, to be precise), since there are many social theories available. You'd better read a book on the basics of sociology first?

Tell me how a "collective" of any kind can protect and endow its self with power to enforce "collectivisation" without force or at the very least...trickery? How do you do that? Please answer this question.... .

This was one of the major questions raised by the Enlightement movement centuries ago. Their ideals, the printing press and the public sphere are decisive here. Citizens should be the authors of the very rules they would adhere to, thus liberal democracies were born (even though Zarathusthra probably was the first to point in that direction millennia ago).

So I guess the problem lies with the word "collectivism" only. I'm sorry for my obviously poor choice of words. I could now write on and on without pause but this would lead to me still typing tomorrow morning. And I'd have to translate everything I know (as a sociologist) into English, but the language barrier just sucks. That's why I try to keep it simple and stupid and get my main points across as simply as possible. If I fail, I'm glad people like you ask such questions, so I'll try and do better next time.

Ushta, Dino

--- Judy Weismonger schrieb am Fr, 16.10.2009:

Von: Judy Weismonger
Betreff: [Ushta] Collectivism and The Wrong View of the Principle of Freshokereti
An: Ushta@yahoogroups. com
CC: dwilsontx@gmail. com
Datum: Freitag, 16. Oktober 2009, 15:43


“Theory and Practice,” Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 137.

The advocates of collectivism are motivated not by a desire for men’s happiness, but by hatred for man . . . hatred of the good for being the good; . . . the focus of that hatred, the target of its passionate fury, is the man of ability.

I have a PhD in medical anthropology and understand quite well tribalism and collectivism. ...which has kept such groups from evolving...because they do not allow any "differentness" ...or anyone to think outside the box.

If you can show me any tribe or "collective" that not only promotes individualism, but within this tribe, it has produced a significant number of individual thinkers and achievers and persons of ability, such as physicists, I will send you a check for $10,000.

Secondly, Dino....you did not answer a previous question...which was..."Just how do you suppose the "collective" or the tribe keeps its members in line and a part of the collective? I would appreciate it if you would answer this question honestly.

I know how the tribe/herd/ant hill/church/ state/collective does this and I suggest you read some anthropology on tribalism, before you jump off and recommend a very old, static, nonevolving kind of existence for the rest of us as individuals.

Marxism is "collectivism" (i.e. tribalism/herds/ ant hills/churches, etc.) on a grand scale...however, whether collectivism or tribalism is large or small....the "collective" always demands --and if it can-- "enforces" a cult-like magical, and neoreligious idea that it is somehow endowed with special knowledge, and anyone who challenges such "specialness" then causes the collective/group/ tribe/herd to feel threatened and vulnerable. And...ask yourself then...what happens when a group feels that its "collective" power (and it is power we are talking about)...is threatened. It subsequently removes that threat (i.e. a police state).

Between 1900 and 1999, more than 180 million people died (180,000,000) because one kind of collective or another (facists/communists /socialists/ churchists/ Islamacists) who all believe in thier own "view" and "right" of the collective.. .demanded individuals submit to the collective.

Tell me how a "collective" of any kind can protect and endow its self with power to enforce "collectivisation" without force or at the very least...trickery? How do you do that? Please answer this question.... .

The collectivism of Marxism, or the collectivism of any church-state has no differences in function and process....none. If you can tell me if there are any differences in the "collectivism" you are recommending and Churchism or Marxism...please do so.

The idea of a "collective" is no more new or astounding than an ant hill, a herd of cows, or a church-state collective, and the most outstanding and original idea to ever come about in world history...was for the founding fathers to eliminate by law...any kind of "enforced" collectivism by either the church or the state, or any other group...who punishes individualism. True Zoroastrianism is the "anti-thesis" of "collectivism. ....

This is what Ayn Rand said about "collectivism, " and she was right:


Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

“The Only Path to Tomorrow,” Reader’s Digest, Jan. 1944, 8.

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, 17.

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

“Racism,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 128.

Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.

“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180.

Modern collectivists . . . see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.

“Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 103.

The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality.

Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind.

Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.

From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.

“Nazism vs. Reason,” The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1.

The political philosophy of collectivism is based on a view of man as a congenital incompetent, a helpless, mindless creature who must be fooled and ruled by a special elite with some unspecified claim to superior wisdom and a lust for power.

“Who Will Protect Us from Our Protectors?
The Objectivist Newsletter, May 1962, 17.

What subjectivism is in the realm of ethics, collectivism is in the realm of politics. Just as the notion that “Anything I do is right because I chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of morality—so the notion that “Anything society does is right because society chose to do it,” is not a moral principle, but a negation of moral principles and the banishment of morality from social issues.

“Collectivized ‘Rights,’” The Virtue of Selfishness, 101.

As a cultural-intellectu al power and a moral ideal, collectivism died in World War II. If we are still rolling in its direction, it is only by the inertia of a void and the momentum of disintegration. A social movement that began with the ponderous, brain-cracking, dialectical constructs of Hegel and Marx, and ends up with a horde of morally unwashed children stamping their foot and shrieking: “I want it now!”—is through.

“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 266.

Collectivism has lost the two crucial weapons that raised it to world power and made all of its victories possible: intellectuality and idealism, or reason and morality. It had to lose them precisely at the height of its success, since its claim to both was a fraud: the full, actual reality of socialist-communist -fascist states has demonstrated the brute irrationality of collectivist systems and the inhumanity of altruism as a moral code.

“The Cashing-In: The Student ‘Rebellion,’”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 269.

Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end—sacrifice as a way of life. It is man’s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy.

Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man’s well-being.

“An Untitled Letter,” Philosophy: Who Needs It, 10

Judy: In effect, the founders of the US were by nature scientists, and ergo functional Atheists...who revered "individual" human existence as allowing freedom to the human mind to create and explore Wisdom...in comparison to the collectives of the church and kings...who declared by "divine right" their mandate to enforce "collectivism" on individuals. Haven't we evolved far past any idea of "collectivism? " Aren't we now held together and evolving through law, which appreciates and respects the "individual" and not the "mob" rule of the collective?

Please a) show me how you think collectivism works...b) demonstrate to me how the "collective" will enforce its will, and c) demonstrate any real or known benefits of collectivism to the individual.

Hugs, Judy

Inga kommentarer: