Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But the world moves as billions, not one.
Bullshit.
The world moves as billions of ones - reality can be no other way.
Individuals naturally make every collective possible, while every collective's insatiable nature is to absorb individuality into itself.
Collectivism simply by definition isn't negative - it's to what degree the collective displaces individuality that matters whether the collective is one of good, or evil (toward individuals and their natural right to liberty).
Government is the ultimate collective, and it neither is negative just by definition alone. In fact, collective government is a gift to civilized man...
...but only if that government is greatly limited in its power and scope by a constitution grounded by the individual liberty of its citizens above all else.
That is the cage Leviathan must be confined to else the zookeepers themselves be eaten alive.
There is always a strain of thought that goes to the idea of, with proper governance and extensive education we can abrogate human nature, here the idea being that one world government would immediately ameliorate conflict between groups of people who identify along some sort of tribal, regional or racial relationship.
This, of course is nonsense. Because we live in a world of limited resource, some groups will always be more wanting than others and no amount of government/education will placate their united complaint because government is notoriously and demonstrably proven to be a very inefficient mechanism by which to distribute resources.
Sure, but the motto of all Democrats ls: NOT MY JOB, MON
When the work starts, Democrats vanish
Democrats all believe they've done their part supervising the rest.
Economist Thomas Sowell was trained in the nonsense that is Keynesnian theory. That somehow, taking resources out of productive use, filtering it through the sticky, inept fingers of civil servants will result in more wealth for all.
He was hired to work for the Feds and quickly realized that the overhead of bureaucracy is immense and cannot possibly be overcome by gains in efficiency, even if that was even in anyone's charter.
Obamacare is a microcosm for the mindset that somehow government demanding lower costs lowers the.
He said succinctly, "If we cannot afford healthcare, how are we going to afford all those same expenses plus a massive bureaucracy?"
Collectivism simply by definition isn't negative - it's to what degree the collective displaces individuality that matters whether the collective is one of good, or evil (toward individuals and their natural right to liberty).
.... and right here folks, is where discussion of Cultural Marxism took a right turn... Pun intended!.
^^^^Exactly. What a coincidence...the speaker used similar terms to yours,AJ. (see passage about the Constitution).
I also added two more captions from the talk, that clarify a bit more his stance :
"1.In the Constitution written by the Founding fathers, it meant that [...] came from the people, and handed to the government. And that the people were the supreme authority,of the sovereignty; they were the ones who created the government and the govt. was subject to Their will.
Because prior to that, it was from top-down until the Constitution was written, then suddenly it was from bottom-up.
Unfortunately, through imperceptible incremential changes, we've now reverted to the old style of government where the government is in charge, and we the people are told what to do by the government. "
As I said, "please fell free to attack the source".
He might be a conspiracy theorist, and one might not share his political stance, but some of the things that he said might apply in various circumstances.
Why not focus on those elements instead? One might call it cultural marxism or neoliberalism, crony capitalism or corporatism, or whatever they like.
My idiosyncratic interoretation of it (I might have gotten it wrong, of course) is that socialism in it's traditional pure sense is a good thing. But that unfortunately, currently we see too often the form of "socialism for the poor and crony capitalism for the rich".
1.Collectivism
The fact that the current movement towards globalization (the EU and UN being a microcosmos) involves mostly top-down decision making, often above the heads of nations.
Nowadays, governments are often biased towards serving primarily the interests of corporations. And that when it comes to sharing the burden, that only involves the little guy (particularly the middle class that is being gradually eviscerated).
- ie: Obamacare: the working and middle class were asked to share the responsibility, not the corporations
- the 2008 economic crash led to austerity measures for laypeople while bankers and Elite maintained their wealth
2.Traditional cultural institutions are gradually losing their meaning
- Religion
Strange trend nowadays in which mainstream religion is often derrided as a whole by new atheists like Sam Harris and so on. Instead of differentiating between the corrupt institutional elements from the functional, helpful parts.
- We are all for gay and transgender rights, particularly legalisation of gay marriages and decreasimg stigma and discrimination of transsgender individuals.
But we also see gender fluidity, the transgender bathroom movements and all sorts of ridiculou fads that aim to challenge traditional concepts. Instead of treating such individuals as minority groups whose rights should be respected, they are often converted to some strange sorts of 60's hip movements leading to conflicts between, as opposed to bridging gaps between groups.
That's not at all what I'm implying.
See point no. 2 above.
Instead of championing for the rights of oppressed minorities, some politicians currently use these issues in order to take away the rights of other minorities and to create further division and discord among the population.
Like the ridiculous move towards "let's take away women's rights to have privacy in certain areas and make all toilets unisex in order to champion for the rights of transgenders". Instead of just adding private toilets or other similar accomodations.
Excellent argument.
Your brief statement just established, without a doubt that I have a low IQ and you have a high IQ.
And please don't join forces with the vulgar, uneducated masses (the likes of Emerson40).
At least you have an education and a brain and are able to come up with arguments, instead of littering threads with gifs and pics. (buttholes or not) like a third grader or a janitor.
Geeze, I told you Einsteins I'am not too smart and completely incapable of relevant thought, and copy and paste every thing that isn't me fishing for attention from Rob or Emerson.
![]()
/////