I am tired of watching a national debate between 2 sides of the same coin. No I'm not talking about the bought and paid for Congress, though even the slightest review of them is enough to make you vomit!! Those sons and daughters of bitches have been bought and paid for so long we can't even remember what it's like to have an honest congress, or for that matter honest politicians.
And why should the politicians give a shit, more people watch American Idol than have the slightest idea what's going on in the political realm. I had a discussion with one guy during the debate over stimulus 2 (that's the one Obama put in. Stimulus 1 was under Bush. You might remember the check they sent everyone to stimulate the economy... Fuckin' Idiots!) and when I mentioned it to him, Stimulus 2 that is, he was clueless. It had been on radio, tv, newspapers...heck if you even listened to the top 40 DJ between songs you heard something about it. And this shithead sat there like a deer in the headlights.
Of course he was there on Election day to vote for President. With numskulls and nitwits like this walkin' around, why should the Congress worry about taking bribes? Like this guy and his cohorts are ever gonna know the difference!
But this blog entry isn't about them, it's about a broader issue, the underlying philosophies of the 2 major sides in the national debate. Problem is no one ever looks deeper, really looks past the issues. Of course with our friendly neighborhood voting shithead above, why should I expect people would?
Funny thing, even the "smart people" rarely see the underlying premise. It's a mind control/influence technique. Those familiar with sales, or influential writing, or NLP, or cults, etc will be familiar with the technique.
If you frame an argument a certain way, very rarely will anyone, even very smart people, look outside that frame. So if the country's smart people won't look outside the frame how can we expect my shithead "friend" too?
Problem is the REAL debate isn't about abortion or fiscal responsibility or gay marriage, or anything else you hear the talking heads slap their lips together about on the tv and radio, the REAL debate is over individualism or collectivism. Right now collectivism is winning.
For those of you who don't know what collectivist means, Wikipedia has a delightful definition:
Collectivism is a term used to describe any moral, political, or social outlook, that stresses human interdependence and the importance of a collective, rather than the importance of separate individuals
The progressives reading this will find the definition familiar, it is the basis for socialism, fascism, communism, and progressivism.
Of course conservatives are bristling right now, "I don't believe is any of that stuff. I'm no Commie!! I don't have anything in common with those pinko liberal freaks!!"
No? Well you don't have any details in common, but you share a collectivist philosophy almost for sure.
Let me explain, notice the word moral in the definition. Your morality says that you have to live your life beholden to some undefinable, unimaginable gawd, and if you dare to stray from what that gawd has dictated for you he will send you to eternal suffering in some gawd forsaken hell (pun intended), populated by demons and devils who get their jollies off torturing you. (As a side note that sounds pretty harsh to me for eye-balling your neighbors Mercedes.)
Basically what you want, what is good for you, the fruits of your labor, your entire life is in "service" to gawd.
Progressives collect taxes via guns and jails with a promise of services that make your life easier, Christians collect tithes via the threat of eternal damnation and the promise everlasting life in return. (Christians don't have nearly as immediate stick, like guns and prisons, so they have to have a much bigger carrot, like everlasting life)
Progressives demand selfless social responsibility, Christians demand selfless contributions of time and money to "increase the flock."
Oh I know some of the specifics are different, but the underlying philosophy is the same, you are nothing and you have a responsibility to sacrifice to the greater authority, be in society or gawd.
I have a better idea, how 'bout placing the importance on the individual. Sacrifice, by it's very nature is immoral. (I'll get into that in another post)
How 'bout we insist that every relationship we take part in has some sort of definable mutual benefit. No one has ANY claim on me or my production, except those I choose to trade with.
This kind of mutual benefit was called the gifting cycle by the Pre-christain Northern Europeans.
You have something of value to me, I have something of value to you.....let's trade. If on the other hand you don't have anything of value to me, I'm not giving you anything, unless I choose to out of charity.
In short, the philosophical point of view that's been left out of the debate is individualism. And why should anyone include it? No power in that. You can't control individuals, you can only truly control collectivists because they feel they have a responsibility to the collective and they can exploit.
So next time you hear your asshole pastor tell you about digging deep and sacrificing for the lord, or your favorite bought and paid for politician talk about shared sacrifice, after you get done puking tell them to...
FUCK OFF!!
You're now an individual, released from any responsibility to anyone but yourself. Go forth and live life based on YOUR hierarchy of values, not the collective's!!! No one has any lien on you except for those who bring value to your life. Anyone else - including politicians, clergy, friends neighbors, family, or anyone who acts as if you owe them part of your life without bringing visible definable value to your life - is just a hanger on and can (and should) be cut off at your whim.
Everte
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hi Everte, While I agree with the premise of colectivism vs individualism and that individualism is far better, I find it interesting that the two groups you are Progressives and Christians. It is like you are saying that if you are a Conservitive, you must be a Christian. That is where I think your logic breaks down. While there are certainly there are some religious people who are Conservitives, there are also religious people who are Progressives. I certainly do not think that one has anything to do with the other.
ReplyDeleteDom Cassone
Dom,
ReplyDeleteI understand your point. I wasn't saying all conservatives were Christians, but many are. As a matter of fact their so prevalent theirs a name for them, the "religious right."
As far as Christian progressives, I think that just proves my point. The 2 philosophies, which as first blush seem sooooo different, are actually very similar, dare I say almost identical in their true nature. That's why they go so nicely together.
You'll never see progressive individualist. And if you are talking about the most ardent if individualist, you'll find they aren't religious, at least not in the traditional "Sunday go to meetin'" way, at all. They may be spiritual, but NOT religious.
The point of my post is Christianity is a collectivist religion, just as Progressivism is a collectivist philosophy. There are a few individualist in the mix, like Ron Paul, but ultimately the only people getting any airtime are collectivist. It's just a matter of what degree of collectivism and some other window dressing. Either way, the individual is far LESS important than the group in this country.
That's unacceptable to me.
Everte