Individualism versus Collectivism

I just read Edgar J. Steele’s latest “Nickel Rant,” titled Anarchy With Honor, in which he tries to reduce politics to being a conflict between “collectivists” and “individualists.” This is a concept that’s been heavily promoted over the years by the John Birch Society (a jewish false front, sometimes humorously referred to as the B’nai Birch), especially ex-JBS member G. Edward Griffin (of Creature from Jekyll Island fame).

I’m wary of people who try to divide the world between “collectivists” and “individualists” for the following reasons:

1. Because it is impossible to live in a society — any society — without giving up at least some of one’s individual freedom, and without society, one cannot survive. That’s why societies exist in the first place — to ensure our survival. If anyone wants to dispute that, then try this — get yourself airdropped naked in the middle of a wild terrain, and see how long you last. Not even Unabomber Ted Kaczynski was able to live in the wild by himself without occasionally going into town to pick up supplies.

Most people find giving up some of their individual liberties in exchange for roads, clean tap water, cheap electricity, national security, public decency, etc., to be an acceptable trade-off. So it’s not really a question of “collectivism” versus “individualism”; it’s more a matter of what degree of “collectivism” you’re willing to accept in exchange for the perceived benefits.

2. Because the collectivist/individualist paradigm is constantly used to attack white nationalism. The people who embrace this dichotomy view any sort of white racial consciousness as a form of “collectivism” (which it is). If you view people strictly as individuals, then it is not possible to view them as members of racial or ethnic groups. Case in point — I had a white lady, a lesbian, who fanatically believed in all this JBS “collectivist vs individualist” baloney, stubbornly refuse to accept that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites, or that society even has a right to look at whether or not they do. After all, we’re only supposed to judge people as individuals, not according to which race they belong to, right? I’m sorry, but any world-view that requires its adherents to deny reality cannot be good. The “collectivist vs individualist” paradigm almost seems like a secular version of Christianity’s universalism — that every human has a soul and that every individual should only be judged by whether or not he is a good Christian.

Going back to point #1, I maintain that racial collectivism is necessary for our survival, and that anyone who attacks it while promoting “individualism” is either consciously or unconsciously a tool of the New World Order, whose primary goal is the creation of a global plantation filled with rootless, uniformly brown people (ironically, the people who are pushing for this New World Order say they are in favor of “diversity,” when what they are actually trying to do is destroy it).

What those who are concerned about personal freedom (including many so-called “fascists” and “nazis”) ought to oppose is tyranny and despotism, not “collectivism” per se. Collectivism is unavoidable and necessary, and fighting against it is as futile as fighting against the air we breathe.

8 responses

  1. Igor Alexander | Reply

    In the JBS’s own words:

    “To be anti-communist … is to be opposed to the brute classification of individuals by group. Because racism is nothing more than an arbitrary classification of individuals, real anti-communists must invariably oppose racism. As such, the John Birch Society has always held that racism and anti-Semitism are not only morally repugnant, but are the tools used by communists to sow discord and rancor amongst the citizens of a nation.”

    http://www.jbs.org/index.php/jbs-news-feed/1717-racism-and-the-john-birch-society

    So there you have it. According to the B’nai Birch, if you’re a racist and an anti-semite — in other words, if you’re pro-white — you are a communist.

  2. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Dr. William Pierce on collectivism vs. individualism:

    “One listener criticized last week’s broadcast because I referred to Ayn Rand as a ‘Soviet Jewess’ who preached a religion of selfishness. He wrote to me that that was like saying that Ayn Rand was a believer in both communism and individualism at the same time, and that didn’t make sense.

    “Actually, my reference to Ayn Rand as a ‘Soviet Jewess’ was intended to mean only that she was a Jewess from the Soviet Union, not that she was an apostle of communism. Unlike many of her fellow Jews at the time, she did not preach communism. She was, however, an apostle not only of selfishness but also of other destructive ideas preached by nearly all of her fellow Jews, such as the idea that race doesn’t matter. In her book The Virtue of Selfishness, after railing vehemently and at length against what she called ‘collectivism,’ she wrote:

    ‘Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.’

    “Furthermore, Ayn Rand’s brand of selfishness was a far cry from the sort of self-reliance and individual responsibility in which I believe. The atomistic sort of selfishness she preached was intended — again I say intended — to sever a person from his racial roots, to kill his feeling for his race, to lead him to put his personal interests above his responsibilities to his race as a whole, and, in fact, to abjure his racial responsibilities altogether. And this was deliberate.

    “I don’t like to sound spooky or irrational about this, but I should tell you that many years of experience have led me to believe that a maxim we all ought to be guided by is, ‘No good thing cometh out of Israel.’ When a Jew preaches anything to us — whether collectivism, as in the case of Karl Marx, or extreme individualism, as in the case of Ayn Rand — it is intended to do us harm, to deceive us, to weaken us, to make us more vulnerable. Even when it appears to be anti-communism, it is slyly twisted so as to equate communism with every form of collective feeling, and from there to make any form of racial feeling akin to communism. And as I said, this is done very slyly, very cleverly, so that it fools many people, especially the simpletons of the Right. Many anti-communists today have let themselves be persuaded by Rand and her cohorts that racism is a form of communism.”

    http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs001b.html

  3. Igor Alexander | Reply

    More from Dr. Pierce:

    “Today let’s begin by talking about individualism and individualists. I’m using those words in a special sense. In this broadcast today when I say ‘individualist’ I mean a person who habitually fails to consider or to give proper weight to the group context in which he belongs when viewing the world, formulating ideas, and reaching decisions; and who in evaluating other people fails to put them into the group context to which they belong, instead focusing narrowly only on the individual at hand.

    “I also will use the word ‘individualist’ today to designate a person who makes an ideology out of his individualism. In this sense an individualist is a person who believes that it is good, moral, admirable, proper, and so on to disregard group contexts; and immoral, unpatriotic, reprehensible, and wicked not to do so. Actually, it’s impossible to avoid group contexts, and the ideological individualist himself divides people into two groups: namely, individualists, who, like himself, are good people; and ‘collectivists,’ who, like me, are bad people, akin to communists.

    “I’ve spoken with you in earlier broadcasts about the ideology of individualism, and today I want to focus more on some of the practical implications of the attitude.

    […]

    “Everything which in healthier times helped give our young people a sense of collective racial identity and racial pride has been kept from them deliberately in the schools. The teaching of history and literature has become a joke. The Jews and the feminists and the egalitarians have ripped the guts out of everything in the schools which used to have White racial content. The multiculturalist ideologues think this is wonderful because it prepares our children to be world citizens in the New World Order of multiculturalism and diversity. For the multiculturalists it’s a religion. But the conservative Republicans who have made an ideology out of individualism think it’s fine too: at least, it’s not collectivism; it’s not racism.

    “But having a sense of collective identity, a sense of who we are and what group we belong to is what is natural. We evolved with a need for this sense of collective identity. That’s the way we survived in the past.

    […]

    “The individualists have preached that we should look only at individuals committing crimes against other individuals, and we should shut our eyes to the fact of Blacks committing crimes collectively against Whites. The individualists have preached that for Whites even to notice what Blacks collectively are doing to Whites collectively … is wicked; it is racist. It is wicked to notice what the collective Black presence in our society is doing to our society, to our civilization.

    […]

    “These are poisonous doctrines, racially destructive doctrines, both the doctrine of sameness and the doctrine of individualism.”

    http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0103d.html

  4. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Bob Whitaker on “Wordism” — the notion that it’s the Constitution and similar documents which made America great, rather than its founding race — which is what the JBS and most other patriotards (including libertarians) subscribe to:

    Wordism: The Propositional State

    “A nation based on race has to keep other races out; A country unified only by principles or the American Ideal or Wordism has to keep other IDEAS out. You simply cannot have free speech [in] a country whose only unifying force is ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.’

    “When you define patriotism as a set of words, a propositional, a BELIEF, you also define TREASON as having the wrong ideas and being loyal to the wrong proposition.

    “No matter whether the Wordism is ‘all men are created equal’ or Marxism or Catholicism or Islam or Protestantism, you simply cannot allow anyone to say things that might damage the proposition which is the only foundation your country has.

    “A nation based on race, like the original United States, can afford free speech.

    “A country based on Wordism, or ‘dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal’ must impose that proposition on everybody in the country.

    “That is why I said that a RACIAL state can afford plenty of variety of IDEAS.

    “If some people want to live in a place where reveille sounds at 6 am and everybody has to turn out to do a Nazi march, they go to that community.

    “If someone wants anarchy, they go to the anarchy place.

    “Their only obligation is to stand for their race.

    “No free riders on RACE.

    “But variety of IDEAS? Variety of living styles?

    “Sure. Why not?

    “Wordism, a diversity of races and only one single ‘multiculture.’ Even its racial diversity itself has to be uniform in a propositional or Wordist state.

    “A race-based state offers every kind of real variety.”

    http://www.nationalsalvation.net/thepropositionalstate.html

  5. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Whitaker explains how he came up with the term “wordism”:

    “Those who want lawyers, bureaucrats and academics to rule are the opposite of nationalists. Nationalists believe that men are united by a common heritage and by blood ties, not by words and documents. Lawyers, bureaucrats and academics believe that the only thing that makes one a citizen of a country is words. A person who believes that men should be united according to their nation — their common race and culture — is a nationalist. One who believes that men are only united by words should therefore be called a ‘wordist.'”

    “Every wordist says that his philosophy will unite all mankind into one huge, loving community. But in the real world, different kinds of wordists are every bit as divided as nationalists are, and infinitely more vicious. Communism is a form of wordism. Communism is supposed to unite all mankind into a single, loving unit. The Communist form of wordism has killed over a hundred million people this century.

    “All wordists claim they love everybody and that their words unite everybody.

    “Then they proceed to kill real people by the millions, all in the name of their words.

    “Every wordist claims that his particular words will unite all mankind. The religious wars that slaughtered millions of Europeans in the sixteenth century were fought between fanatics who believed the words of Protestantism united all men and the fanatics who insisted the words of Catholicism united all men.

    “Each form of socialism is a form of wordism. Each form of socialism claims it makes all mankind one.

    “There are many different kinds of socialism, and each form of socialism claims to unite all mankind. Actually, each type of socialism unites only the people who are dedicated to the same form of socialism. Willy Brandt, the anti-Communist mayor of West Berlin during the 1950s, was a Democratic Socialist. He was the opponent of his fellow socialists, those of Soviet Communist variety, in East Berlin.

    “Meanwhile, the Chinese Communists, who claimed their form of socialism united all mankind into a single loving unit, were enemies of Brandt AND East Germany. And, as usual with loving wordists, the Chinese Communists were busy murdering tens of millions of people in the name of their particular form of Love and Brotherhood.

    “A lot of noise is made about how brutal and vicious war between different nations or different races can be. But the worst wars in history were wordist wars. Those who devoted themselves to Catholicism and Protestantism in the sixteenth century were wordists. Like all wordists, they said their philosophy, their books, their doctrines would unite all mankind. But, as usual, the only people they united were the people who agreed with their books and their dogma. But people who subscribed to the OTHER wordist dogma were their deadly enemies.

    “When the Protestant wordists and the Catholic wordists went to war with each other in the religious wars of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the slaughter was incredible. In our century, we talk endlessly about Hitler’s killings, but he was an amateur compared to Stalin. Hitler was a piker compared to the wordist Communist Mao Tse-Tung.

    “Today, the media talks about the ethnic cleansing of Milosevic. But compared to the Cambodian Communist Pol Pot, Milosevic is nothing. Pol Pot killed a QUARTER of the entire population of his country, whose population was about equal to that under Milosevic. By comparison, Milosevic is small change.

    “But Pol Pot is excusable, because he did what he did in the name of wordism.

    “Milosevic is a fanatical nationalist, so he is like HITLER. Wordism is dear to the hearts of a society ruled by lawyers, bureaucrats, and academics. For the wordists who rule us, it is nationalism, not killing, that is the only crime that matters.”

    http://www.nationalsalvation.net/wordismvsnationalism.html

  6. Igor Alexander | Reply

    Revilo P. Oliver was one of the eleven founding members of the John Birch Society. AFAIK, it was also he who started referring to it as the B’nai Birch. Here are some of the things he had to say about the JBS, its jewish controllers, and American conservatism in general:

    “After the conference between [Robert] Welch and myself in November 1965 … I embarked on a difficult, delicate, and prolonged investigation. I was not astonished, although I was pained, by the discovery that Welch was merely the nominal head of the Birch business, which he operated under the supervision of a committee of Jews, while Jews also controlled the flow, through various bank accounts, of the funds that were needed to supplement the money that was extracted from the Society’s members by artfully passionate exhortations to ‘fight the Communists.’ As soon as the investigation was complete, including the record of a secret meeting in a hotel at which Welch reported to his supervisors, I resigned from the Birch hoax on 30 July 1966 with a letter in which I let the little man know that his secret had been discovered.”

    […]

    “The B’nai Birch … may bask in the approval of their amused and contemptuous Jewish supervisors, and they may feel some satisfaction that they keep their minds so pure and moral that they hate the wicked ‘racists,’ who believe, rightly or wrongly, that our race is fit to live, and who have the one cause that might conceivably generate sufficient political power to preserve us from the ignominious end of cowards fit only for slavery and a squalid death. But even in this respect the Birch hoax, now so insignificant that the prostitutes of the press forget to say unkind things now and then to make the members feel important, has become so impotent that it will not measurably affect our fate, whatever that is to be.

    “So long as it was honest (if it ever was), the Birch Society represented the last hope of American Conservatism, of the effort to restore the values and the freedom of the way of life of our Aryan forefathers on this continent — to regain what they lost when they thoughtlessly permitted their country to be invaded, their government to be captured, and their society to be systematically debauched and polluted [by] whining aliens. The American tradition was a fair and indeed noble one, and it still has the power to awaken nostalgia for a world that no man living has himself experienced, but for practical purposes, it now has only a literary and historical significance. To be sure, there are, outside the inconsequential Birch playpens, earnest men and women who still hope to restore the decent society and strictly limited government of that tradition, and their loyalty to what has ineluctably passed away entitles them to respect, just as we respect the British Jacobites, who remained loyal to the Stuarts and nourished hopes for a century after Culloden, and as we respect the earnest men and women in France who, as late as 1940, remained loyal to the Bourbons and dreamed of restoring them to their throne. But such nostalgic aspirations for the past are mere romanticism. They are dangerously antiquarian illusions today, when the only really fundamental question is whether our race still has the will-to-live or is so biologically degenerate that it will choose extinction — to be absorbed in a pullulant and pestilential mass of mongrels, while the triumphant Jews keep their holy race pure and predatory.

    “American Conservatism is finished, and its remaining adherents are, whether they know it or not, merely ghosts wandering, mazed, in the daylight.”

    http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/NetLoss/NetLoss-Oliver.html

  7. In reply to:

    I just read Edgar J. Steele’s latest “Nickel Rant,” titled Anarchy With Honor, in which he tries to reduce politics to being a conflict between “collectivists” and “individualists.” This is a concept that’s been heavily promoted over the years by the John Birch Society.

    I’m wary of people who try to divide the world between “collectivists” and “individualists”.

    You’re right, and well spotted.

    It’s an intellectual cage Jews like to keep the Goyim – especially conservative Goyim – in. They’ve been pulling this trick for decades.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: