Collective Salvation, Collective Guilt

Collective Salvation, Collective Guilt

As we stand one week out from the side-show of collective damnation which the Left engaged in over the Tucson shootings, it shouldn’t surprise all Americans that this is what they have witnessed.  The Progressive Left and, by default, the Progressive Right–the collectivists in both parties–operate off of the assumption that we are all responsible for each other collectively.  You will take notice there was not much condemnation from establishment “machine” Republicans against those falsely accused: Beck, Palin, the Tea Party.  Many in America have been bemoaning the fact that, for a long time, we have had no real choice in our political leaders.  Really…what choice was their between McCain and Obama; tyranny light and tyranny?  Many have speculated, including Glenn Beck, that had John McCain been elected, America would not have had the awakening it did in the form of the Tea Party movement.  Individual Americans, the public, outwardly reject the Left’s collectivism every time it is imposed upon us.  We swing back to the Right expecting that the Right will do something about the bloated government and instead all we receive in return is simple manipulation of the mechanisms the Left has already put in place.  Why?  Because Progressives in both parties operate off the same false premise of collective salvation rather than individual liberty.  Barack Obama was elected on a wave of “collective salvation.”  In fact, I would argue he was also elected on a wave of collective guilt hung around our necks by the accusatory Left, who, for generations have convinced Americans they are racist.  “Oh goody!  I get to alleviate my (supposed) racial guilt for voting for the black guy!  No matter what kinds of realistic evaluations tell me that he’s an Alinskyite Marxist!”  How could we possible expect the Right to shrink government when they hold the same basic premise as the Left–that it is government’s job to take care of people rather than protect rights.  Until the Right learns how to challenge the philosophical premises of the Left–they will continue, by default, to accept them.  The Left counts on this and plays the game by beating the Right over the head and shoulders with such words as:

You don’t want to help the poor, the sick and the infirm.  You’re hateful!

If the Right woke up and learned, philosophically, how to answer those charges on a conceptual basis, they could deflect charges like that as easily as Superman deflects bullets.  But, oftentimes they don’t–either because they are part of the game or simply because they are intellectually incapable of doing so.

I remember learning in high school about the “sphere of liberty” which surrounds each individual person.  Our nation was founded on the sovereignty and freedom of the individual precisely because it was collective ideas down through history which inevitably bring tyranny–aside from the “good intentions” of the collectivists.  All collectivists have good intentions, however, all collectivism is incontrovertibly tyrannical; whether it is a hard tyranny or soft tyranny makes little difference.  Ayn Rand states and Objectivists hold: 

Your intentions don’t count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian…What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.

Altruism is incompatible with individual freedom.  Unfortunately, these ideas of individual freedom were implicit rather than explicit in this nation’s founding documents and were left open to too much interpretation and false compromise.  This is why collectivists of all stripes have been able to corrupt the system.  You can’t continue to compromise with tyranny and expect to remain free.

To the Left, it is completely “rational” to accuse everyone who recognizes individual freedom as the standard for determining collective guilt for the shooting in Tuscon, Arizona.  Anyone who stands in the way of their imagined Utopia is precisely why everyone who values individual freedom is guilty.  Conversely, it is epistemologically sound to recognize that people are individuals, not cattle.  Even aside from being able to defend that view on a philosophical basis–which takes time and study–most people can recognize that it is inherently true simply by observation.  You are not completely free when living under your parents roof–under their rules and their terms.  The same thing happens when everyone is “taken care of” by government–government’s rules, government’s terms to exist.  You are not completely free to do as you please in whatever work environment you inhabit–you are subject to the conditions of your boss–even though contractually, at the time of hire, you may have come to certain mutual understandings, it is still their business.  Ultimately, the success or failure of that business is up to them, therefore, the boss and the boss alone is free to make the decisions he deems are in the best interests of the company.  We all have different talents, drives, desires and goals.  None of this can flourish when put under the yoke of collectivism.  No man of dignity and true self-esteem should be willing to allow himself to be enslaved by his government for supposed “security.”  Benjamin Franklin stated:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Indeed, it is the ability for individual freedom to flourish which, I would argue, is the true representation of the “Utopia” the Left seeks to impose upon everyone through the force of law.  Imposing Utopia under the force of law is, in and of itself, a contradiction–if something is imposed under the force of law–it cannot, therefore, be considered “Utopia”–at least not to the particular group of people who is being sacrificed to make the other group of people “comfortable.”  Ultimately, someone has to sacrifice so someone else can live–that is the ultimate degradation.  It is the idea of exchanging, voluntarily, value for value, not sacrifice for value, which can uphold the true free-society unburdened by compulsion.  It is for this reason, that pure laissez-faire capitalism is the only political system which upholds individual rights.  Anyone who upholds any other system or “mix” of systems–is not upholding the tenets of individual rights and freedom.  There can be no compromise on basic principles.

This display of desperate malignancy by the Left has certainly given Americans a glimpse of what people turn into when they are consigned to collective societies.  They become animals.  Since everyone is collectively responsible, everyone is collectively guilty.  Therefore, you get growing numbers of pressure groups willing to feed off of and fight each other for the scraps which the benevolent collectivists get to hand out.  Why?  So the collectivists can satiate their need to cry their benevolence to whatever secular or theological powers they feel commands them–whether it is their emotions or their God.  In some cases, it really is simply a lust for political power one man seeks to hold over his brethren.  It breeds a society of contempt, jealousy, and malignancy–exactly the opposite of what the Left and Progressive Right’s stated intentions are.  The principle I am outlining here is the Marxist creed of “from each according to his ability to each according to his need.”  Ayn Rand addressed this hopelessly illogical and contradictory creed in Atlas Shrugged in her “story within a story” about The Twentieth Century Motor company.  You can find an excerpt at my Facebook page here

Love of our brothers? That’s when we learned to hate our brothers for the first time in our lives. We began to hate them for every meal they swallowed, for every small pleasure they enjoyed, for one man’s new shirt, for another’s wife’s hat, for an outing with their family, for a paint job, on their house–it was taken from us, it was paid for by our privations, our denials, our hunger. We began to spy on one another, each hoping to catch the others lying about their needs, so as to cut their ‘allowance’ at the next meeting. We began to have stool pigeons who informed on people, who reported that somebody had bootlegged a turkey to his family on some Sunday–which he’d paid for by gambling, most likely. We began to meddle in one another’s lives. We provoked family quarrels, to get somebody’s relatives thrown out. Any time we saw a man starting to go steady with a girl, we made life miserable for him. We broke up many engagements. We didn’t want anyone to marry, we didn’t want any more dependents to feed.

The collectivist’s damnation of everyone who seeks to uphold individual freedom is also a mockery of justice.  If everyone is collectively responsible–and everyone is collectively guilty–then there are no such things as “criminals.” Why have a legal system?  It’s amazing, isn’t it, how all these things when presented come together to form a coherent whole?  It’s not so mysterious anymore why the Left always seeks to uphold criminality and a depraved society void of all human virtue.  In fact, why even attempt to uphold the ideal of a government subordinated by society to moral, objective law?  Let, anarchy and tyranny (two sides of the same collectivist coin) commence!

You scream loudly to me that you are not collectively guilty of the shooting in Tuscon, America?  Well, then–I think it’s about time we get to kicking some serious collectivist ass, in both parties.  Don’t you?  If not, you better get used to liking and living with your collective guilt–because that is the damnation that awaits all of us if we don’t.

Objectivism: The Collectivist Can Be Defeated

Philosophy.  Who needs it?  America needs it–especially our youth and business people.  Their futures are being consigned to economic slavery due to the false education they are being provided by Leftists…and not just Leftists but “compassionate conservatives” as well.  Without economic freedom there can be no social freedom; for gays, women, blacks or any other minority.  Whenever a society ceases to allow individuals to keep the fruits of their labor–they are then, by default, living for the state and they are no longer socially free.  A society cannot have it both ways and still call itself a “free nation.”

That philosophical truth is the basis for Ayn Rand’s novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, as well as her other writings on philosophy that followed…and it is within that philosophy, that which she called “Objectivism”, in which the collectivist can be defeated.  She arrived in America when she was young–having escaped the collectivist nightmare under which she was living in Russia. 

If this nation is to survive…collectivism must be defeated.  I recently posted on my Facebook page the following:

“There is no such thing as a compromise with collectivism.  You cannot state that, ‘We’ll just have a little socialism.’  There is no such thing.  It either is or is not collectivism. You cannot say, ‘I have self-esteem’ as an individual and then consign yourself and others to collectively live for each other. That is inherently a contradiction…and there are no such things as contradictions. There are only philosophical premises that are incorrect.”

From Atlas Shrugged

“Contradictions do not exist.  Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.  You will find that one of them is wrong”.

An individual’s lack of self-esteem is what drives him to allow himself to be put in chains.  Conversely, it is also a lack of self-esteem (or perhaps hyper self-esteem?…certainly not a healthy self-esteem) which drives statist maniacs like Chavez and Hitler to exist.  It is the force of their minds that allow them to believe they can possibly know what is best for an entire collective population made up of individual brains. 

Philosophy, as we all know, can be complicated.  However, the basic premise of her philosophy is as follows:

Man’s only means of knowledge and survival is his own mind.  There is no such thing as a “collective brain”…there are only individual brains under which people can live together within the civil, lawful society our Founders created in our wonderful documents.  However, even in Ayn’s view our Founders almost had it right.  Their idea of limited governance was correct, however, economically she believed they left to many loopholes available to allow politicians the opportunity to assault true laissez faire capitalism.

You often hear politicians say, “It is for the public good.”  Who is the public?  What does the “public” consider “it’s good?”  There is no such thing as the public.  There are only individuals…because there is no such thing as a collective brain.  The idea of the “public good” is built upon a false premise–and is precisely why we are devolving into a nanny state.

We have had communal experiments in our country–almost since it’s founding.  They almost always failed and even if they survived it was usually because they were still sucking off the teat of the capitalism that surrounded them.  The collectivist will try to reason with himself saying, “The reason my collectivism doesn’t work is because all of you individualists keep destroying my effort.”  Accept, that’s not the case.  Collectivism doesn’t work simply because it is philosophically flawed in it’s very premise.  Even when you have an entire group of people who agree to the experiment it will fail.  Hypothetically, let’s say an entire group goes to a deserted island to try the experiment.  The commune must have some sort of rules by which it must govern itself…and usually it is up to an individual or group of individuals to exercise those rules.  Someone must decide who is more or less “equal” than someone else when handing out rations or responsibilities.  Inevitably what starts to happen are jealousies and resentments among the collective–and it devolves into chaos. 

Objectivism promotes what she called “rational self-interest”.  That is not the same as “selfishness.”  They are two very different things.  A man’s rational self-interest is that which benefits those things that he values as an individual.  Selfishness, as she stated in an interview once, is when you allow your spouse, someone you value as an individual, to perish because you decided to go out and spend money on that visit to the night-club rather than giving him the money for the operation he so desperately needed.  Her philosophy doesn’t necessarily condemn charitable efforts.  She only condemned charitable efforts if it meant that you, as an individual, were sacrificing your own rational-self interest–the means by which you need to survive.  She regarded altruism as evil…putting your own self-worth above others when doing so damages your own survival.

She once stated, “Look at Russia.  Communism is based on altruism.  Look at Nazi Germany.  The Nazis were more explicit than even the Russians in preaching self-sacrifice and altruism.  Every dictatorship is based on altruism.  You can’t fight it [altruism] by merely saying it is a difference of opinion.  It is a difference of life and death.” 

Man’s reason and logic is the means to his survival.  It is the ability to add two and two and get four.  Ayn rejected the Leftist, secular, “mystical” notions of feelings to arrive at knowledge–since feelings are subjective and not a true barometer of knowing objective truth.  It is also the reason why the collectivist attempts to convince you there is no such thing as right and wrong, good and evil, or even objective truth; it is their attempt to mold society to fit their emotional premises.  She also rejected those of faith who use their faith to know reality (and there are those both on the left and the right who use their faith to justify legislative decisions and collectivism).  Faith requires a leap of the mind.  It is personal for each individual.  There is no way to know for certain that what those of faith say and believe is real.  By it’s very nature it is contradictory and does not lend itself to scientific, observable proof.  She did accept morality as an objective truth.  Morality is man’s only means to deal truthfully in a civil society with each other.  Without morality and concepts of right and wrong we would not be able to live with our fellow human beings; society would quickly devolve into chaos.  On a side note, Ayn was an atheist.  I am not.  However, I have taught myself to base my political arguments and debates on reason and evidence–while keeping my faith out of it.

The individualist can defeat collectivism based on this philosophy…because it always leads you to the objective truth.  There are many on the religious right who find her philosophy uncomfortable because they feel their faith is threatened.  However, I would contend that there is no reason to have that fear because when you are dealing with a philosophy that leads you to objective truth–you simply cannot go wrong.  Of course, the Leftists have always despised her philosophy because it lays bare their emotional assumptions on which they base their debates.  There is a reason liberals and Democrats don’t like to debate.  Conservatives, while they sometimes use their faith to make their arguments (a habit I wouuld like to break them of), tend to approach things naturally from the rational, logical perspective as part of their inherent nature which already exists within them.

From the beginnings of this nation’s founding, a founding based on classical liberalism (free economics and a free society), there have been leftists who led our population to believe that–they were still classical liberals even while they grew government.  Then when the population figured out that lie and realized what some were calling “liberalism” was really “collectivism”–the collectivists then changed what they called themselves to “Progressives.”  The collectivist must always change what he calls himself to hide what he is doing…and this is why we can no longer compromise with these people.  It will destroy us if we allow it.  There is a reason they say, “No good crisis should go to waste.”  They use any crisis as an excuse to grow their political power–and it is ONLY about growing political power.  It has nothing to do with helping “the little guy.”  And…unfortunately, we have been subjected to these collectivist notions from both sides of the aisle.

“A leash is only a rope with a noose on both ends.”  The Fountainhead