From: James Thompson (Thompsonj@higgslaw.com)
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 16:00:32 MDT
http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer25.html
>
>
>The Individual and the Collective
>
> by Butler Shaffer
>
> Paraphrasing one of my literary heroes,
H.L.
>Mencken, my last words on the gallows will be
to
>condemn collectivism in all of its forms. In
the
>continuing struggle between "individualism" and
>"collectivism,"
>you will always find me in the company of the
former.
>I recall a discussion I had with classmates back
in
>high school, wherein I uttered what I then
considered
>a cute
>phrase: "I distrust any form of organization
>from two-handed poker on up." In later years, I
have
>modified the thrust of that comment, coming to
the
>conclusion that we need one another's
cooperation if
>we are to live in a condition of liberty wherein
each
>of us is free to pursue our individual "bliss"
(to
>borrow
>from Joseph Campbell). What we have in common
with one
>another, is a need to come to the defense of
one
>another's individuality, a truth now made
evident by
>the police-state hurriedly being assembled by
the Bush
>administration.
>
> In varying degrees, every political system
is
>collectivist in nature, each being premised
upon
> the centralization of state
authority
>over the lives and property of individuals.
Communism
>is
> only the more aggressive and
>far-reaching form of state socialism. But every
>political form
> is grounded in the belief that
the state
>may rightfully preempt the decision-making
authority
> of individuals.
>
> Most of us have been conditioned
to
>confine the range of permissible thought about
the
> nature and extent of political
authority
>to an arbitrary continuum running from the
"Left" to
> the "Right." The assumption
underlying
>such thinking is that if you are dissatisfied
with a
> "Leftist" (or "liberal")
government's
>policies, you can switch your preferences to
>"Rightist"
> (or "conservative") candidates.
But such
>thinking clouds the fact, as noted by a friend
of
> mine, that the "Left" and "Right"
are
>but "two wings of the same bird of prey!" All
>political
> groups want power over others, a
point
>noted in Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's
Dictionary:
> "Conservative, n. A statesman who
is
>enamored of existing evils, as distinguished
from the
> Liberal, who wishes to replace
them with
>others." An awareness of this fact is found in
the
> growing dissatisfaction of people
with
>bot
h major political parties, along with the
sense
>that,
> no matter who they vote for, the
>government always gets elected!
>
> The alleged "polarization" of
viewpoints
>along this political spectrum does not delude
those
> whose interests are driven more
by a
>desire for coercive power over others than by
any
> deep-seated philosophic
principles. That
>so many 1930s Marxists could so easily have
> become conservatives by the
1950s, while
>some "Leftist" radicals of the 1960s have
> become darlings of modern
>neoconservativism, illustrates the fungible
nature of
>all political
> systems.
>
> It is an inner need to forcibly
control
>the lives and property interests of others that
>motivates
> men and women of all political
>persuasions. Philosophic "principles" or "basic
>values" are no
> more to the politically ambitious
than
>propaganda with which to create and solidify a
base of
> power. Like commercial
advertisers who
>declare "we do it all for you," politicians
thrive on
> getting individuals to align
themselves
>with their (and the state's) interests. Have any
of
>you
> bought into George Bush's
promises of
>"enduring freedom" – words not even he can
mutter
> without breaking into his
used-car
>salesman's grin?
>
> All political systems are
dependent upon
>the generation of mass-minded thinking, to
> persuade each of us to lose our
sense of
>individuality and responsibility in the
collective
> herd. We condition our minds to
accept
>identities for ourselves, to think of ourselves
not as
> self-directed, self-responsible
beings,
>but as members of various groups, whose
interests
> are not only mutually exclusive,
but
>antagonistic. Whether we identify ourselves by
race,
> religion, nationality,
lifestyle,
>ideology, economic interests, gender, geography,
or
>any other
> category, we put ourselves into a
state
>of conflict with others. Political systems then
>promise
> to protect us from "them," and
most of
>us are too dull to recognize that our alleged
> "protectors" are the very ones
who
>induced us to play the games that now threaten
us! If
> you haven't yet figured out that
the
>events of 9/11 and their aftermath are but
extensions
>of
> the decades-old politicogenic
conflicts
>manufactured by political systems, then you
have
> been watching too
much cable
television!
>
> Look at the consequences of
losing our
>sense of individuality in collective herds.
Events in
> your daily life should confirm to
you
>that individuals are generally more decent,
peaceful,
> cooperative, loving, and humane
than are
>political collectives. It should be clear to you
that
> all political systems depend upon
a
>modus operandi that is completely contrary to
what
>most
> of us experience with other
individuals;
>methodologies that none of us would tolerate
from
> friends, associates, or even
strangers.
>Politics attracts and mobilizes the basest
qualities
>of
> humanity: a penchant for
coercion,
>intimidation, warfare, and deceit; a willingness
to
>destroy
> others; and an obsession with
forcibly
>controlling the lives of others.
>
> I once defined "government" as "a
system
>of murder, rape, extortion, coercion, theft,
> intimidation, and terror, the
absence of
>which, it is said, would lead to disorder."
>
> If you doubt this
characterization then
>confront these hard facts: during the 20th
century,
> governments managed to kill 200
million
>men, women, and children in wars, genocides,
and
> other acts of formalized
violence.
>During that same century, how many people were
killed
> by individuals acting without
political
>authority?
>
> The 20th century revealed to us
how
>easily the "dark side" of our unconscious minds
can be
> energized toward violent and
destructive
>ends. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and
> American lynch mobs demonstrated
how
>easy it is to manipulate herd-oriented people.
It is
> the individual who is difficult
to
>control.
>
> Just as we try to ignore the
presence of
>a naked man at a social gathering, most of us
tend
> to consciously repress the
uncomfortable
>truths about the nature of collectivized
systems. In
> the aftermath of September 11th,
most of
>us have learned to recite the state's catechism
> that these attacks had nothing to
do
>with policies or programs of the American
government,
> but were simply peevish acts
carried out
>by men who envied our way of life! That these
> men came from a part of the world
that
>has become an abattoir produced and directed by
> various political systems,
influenced by
>a mix of Jewish, Islamic, and Christian
doctrines,
> with costuming (and armaments)
provided
>by the United States, seems not to have tweaked
> the consciousness of most.
>
> Still, there are inner voices
within
>each of us that insist upon reality. Our
emotions,
>intuitions,
> and dreams, are some of the more
>familiar ways in which our unconscious mind –
which,
>if
> nothing else, seems to have our
survival
>as its central concern – endeavors to
communicate
> with our consciousness. I suspect
that
>many of us become angry at the opinions of
others
> that contradict our own, not
because we
>know them to be false, but because we fear that
> they may be true. I will receive
more
>hostile e-mails from this article than I would
from
>one
> in which I developed the thesis
that 2 +
>2 = 5, or that the earth is, indeed, a flat
monolith
> supported by a turtle. "Pay no
attention
>to that man behind the screen," intoned the
Wizard
> of Oz as Toto exposed to his
friends the
>fraud that had been perpetrated upon them.
>
> Our obsession with collectivism
–
>whatever form it may take – is destroying both
the
>quality
> and the existence of human life.
While
>we are social creatures, and need one another's
> cooperation in order to survive,
we are
>also individuals who require mutual respect for
the
> inviolability of our respective
>interests. Only the individual is able to
generate
>thoughts, to be
> creative, to reproduce, to sense
>pleasure, to love, and to have transcendent
>experiences.
>
> The fate of all humanity is in
the hands
>of individuals. If mankind is to extricate
itself from
> the destructiveness of
collective
>systems, you and I must begin to question the
>collective
> thinking through which we
participate in
>such madness. There will be no White House
> conferences, or legislative
hearings, or
>Supreme Court opinions to help us, for these are
only
> expressions of the problem we
must
>overcome. In words attributed to Albert
Einstein: "The
> significant problems we face
cannot be
>solved at the same level of thinking we were at
> when we created them."
>
> For the same reason that only you
and I
>can protect ourselves from the attacks of others
–
> our delusions about police
"protection"
>to the contrary notwithstanding – only you and
I can
> alter our personal consciousness.
You
>and I can either choose to rethink our sense of
"who
> we are" – and, in so doin
g,
withdraw our
>energies from collective identities – or
simply
> content ourselves to sit back, as
most
>journalists seem inclined to do, and observe
the
> collapse of society and the
destruction
>of tens of millions of more lives.
>
> Such an undertaking will be
neither as
>lonely nor futile as you might imagine.
Consistent
>with
> our politicized conditioning, we
have
>been trained to think that only by acting
>collectively,
> can we accomplish worthwhile
ends. But
>events are demonstrating to us that collective
> thinking and behavior are
destroying us.
>It is to you and me that attention must shift if
we
> are to reverse our present
course.
>
> Great music and other artistic
>expressions, inventions and discoveries, and
other
>creative
> acts and ideas, have always come
from
>individuals. The "butterfly effect" of which
students
> of chaos speak informs us that
localized
>acts can, through being reiterated back into a
> system, produce global
consequences.
>Lest anyone doubt this, recall how nineteen
men,
> armed only with cheap box-cutter
knives,
>precipitated the events of 9/11 and their
> aftermath. If individuals can act
for
>destructive ends, isn't it possible for you and
me to
>act,
> individually, for peaceful and
>constructive purposes?
>
> Your efforts will be energized
by
>influences which, as collectivized people, we
have
>long
> forgotten: [1] first, the demands
of
>life, itself, will support you. Like flowing
water,
>life has a
> way of insisting upon its own
>expression. Just as a dammed-up river will
eventually
> surmount, circumvent, or
overpower
>barriers to its free movement, life has a way
of
>insisting
> upon conditions necessary to its
>vitality. Belief systems, no matter how
staunchly
>defended,
> are ultimately no match for the
forces
>of life, a truth made evident by the collapse of
the
> Soviet Union. When biology
confronts
>ideology, it is best to put your money on
biology.
>
> [2] The second energizing source
is one
>which, alone, will motivate your initial
efforts, and
> which will then begin to
intensify
>itself exponentially: the rediscovery of the
human
>spirit. It
> is not to church doctrines or
rituals
>that I refer, but to your experiencing an inner
sense
>of
> connection with al
l of
existence.
>Because such transcendent needs and experiences
are
> unavoidably individual in nature,
their
>expressions have a way of helping us withdraw
from
> the lifeless and divisive
collective
>systems that disconnect us from one another and
keep
>us
> in our state of perpetual war.
>
> We are discovering from many
sources, of
>which the Internet is but one example, that our
> world is becoming increasingly
>decentralized. Our needs for both individual
liberty
>and
> social cooperation are moving us
in
>directions in which our connectedness to others
is
> finding expression more in
horizontal
>rather than traditional vertical forms of
>organization.
> It is not "terrorism" that
underlies the
>Bush administration's war against the American
> people, but the institutional
order's
>reaction to the continuing collapse of
centralized
>systems
> of authority.
>
> It is the desperate effort of
>established political interests to maintain
their
>waning power that
> is driving efforts to expand
police
>powers, incarcerate men and women without
benefit of
> trials, deploy the military to
control
>the American people, and to build concentration
camps
> for "enemy combatants" who, in
this day,
>have become us all. In order to accomplish such
> ends, the state must intensify
its
>efforts to collectivize our thinking so that we
will
>become a
> manageable herd. Its success in
doing so
>can be partially measured by the flags flown
from
> cars or homes by the
"booboisie."
>
> But if we are to avoid the
destructive
>and dehumanizing consequences of collectivist
> behavior, we must turn to that
one
>person who has always been the source of the
creative
> energies upon which mankind has
relied:
>the individual. You will find him or her
outside
> the citadel of the state, not
attacking
>it, but quietly walking away from it."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:58 MDT