ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

A Collectivist Tyranny

Updated on September 20, 2012

There are two kinds of dangerous people in America today:There are those that are “supremacists,” who call themselves Christian, but are not, and comprise but only a small radical group of people; and then there are those who comprise what is touted as the morally supremacist New Left, which hates capitalism because of its Christian roots and which, therefore, collectively hates Christians because they are seen as a threat and opposing strength (or viewed as a superior moral force) that poses the greatest resistance to its agenda and therefore must be stopped.

This second group, the radical New Left, is larger and more dangerous and potentially more violent than the former “supremacist” since its collective forces have widened and deepened on a larger scale and its followers are now more flagrantly open about their contempt for Christians and capitalism, thus corrupting our labor forces, courts and our entire economic system, simply for a gain of power and control over people’s lives, and whose only present obstacle is a conservative political resistance to its “collectivist” ideals. Although much needed, is a win for the Right Wing political party enough to change the course of our spiritually divided nation? Is it really only our economic future that should be our sole concern?

And though the New Left will not admit it, it is truly a feeling of moral inferiority that has given rise to the hate of capitalism, not anything that was done “collectively” or maliciously against the poor as the New Left wants us to believe. And it was not by the “wealthy” conservatives it all happened either since there are really more wealthy liberals than there are conservatives.[See this excellent hub http://davesworld.hubpages.com/hub/Why-are-the-Wealthy-Liberals]

For want of power only, the left have long sought and still seek to hoodwink the poor into its lies, like when in 2008 the housing crisis was precipitated and cloaked as a way to show a large low-income people how “good” and “fair” life could be under a different leadership that would give them something they could not afford, when in fact the true goal of “giving” away something for nothing – the New Left knew - would potentially destroy an economic system to provide reason to rebuild anew. In short, put them in power. As always, their intentions were cloaked in “goodness” for appearances only, and with consequences far graver than imagined.

Only the uneducated were convinced of these lies, but is it their fault they were purposely made blind to true history and the consequences of collectivism? Even so, what mind is persuaded that this great country of ours can make a transition to “socialism” with our open borders (Canada does not have open borders, as when Bill Ayers was denied access), and the sudden and radical shift?Were we not on the path to socialistic concepts anyway?

What country in the world, what economic system, either communist or socialist, can give something away for nothing as great as huge mortgages and not self-implode? For in the wake of the disaster, did not the socialist countries suffer also? That a people could be hoodwinked into believing such a transparent maneuver can should not convince us we must end by the end of the year, even if it means now we are held captive by such magnificent ignorance we can no longer govern ourselves. But the more educated among us know the truth, the same as they know what they cannot afford.And they know – like we all know Santa Claus is not real – that it is simply not true that the New Left did this because it cares more about people than power.Who can forget Ron Emanuel’s statement about making use of a catastrophe? [It may not be apparent now, but his statement will go down in history books as a call to tyranny.]

Yes, that is right.Christians and their “capitalistic” constructs are the target now simply because they are the only group that have no protective status in the United States – and the only group resistant to socialistic precepts. [Although this administration is flagrantly anti-Israel, animosity is not yet as intense in our country against the Jew as it is against the Christian now. For now, most Jews have voted and continue to support, amazingly, this current administration.But I am convinced this will change.]

The New Left has projected a moral superiority onto Christianity that is a false projection used to arouse hatred towards them since the New Left knows “moral” superiority (or what they perceive as such) is something many people will collectively feel inferior to and collectivize against, whether they admit their motives or not. In other words, they are the ones who truly believe there is “something superior” that must be quashed. And that they believe this as a “group” is a larger threat than its rhetoric. But they are conscious of it since they are doing all they can now to keep their antagonisms in political confines, but not for long. All of what they tout is a lie and mirage. Wouldn’t it be fair and just, given the hate of the Christianity in America today and the feelings of inferiority provoked by their presence, that they be given protective status also if the New Left were true to its claims of a more just society? If so, would that then give form to new ideals which the liberals tout as being their goal?It is not going to happen, for to do so means relinquishing power altogether.If one gives thought to it, Christianity is, after all, the only religion that is not a “collective” one.

[I must interject here to explain why: Other religions (including the new morality of the New Left, which is a religiosity itself) rely on external evidence of goodness and conformity as measure of quality of goodness in a person (i.e., the corporate “culture” of conformity we see in offices today), while Christianity is the only religion where measure of goodness is between the individual and God, without regard to another’s thoughts except when he or she breaks societal laws. Even God is not hoodwinked to believe one is good when his or her “goodness” is dictated by others and apart from one’s conscience – and we know it too when we see in another person pretentious behavior. Capitalism too and one’s success in it is all about one’s inward character – apart from the masses .Who among us does not know that the inward life when surrendered to group concerns is an empty and shallow vessel, even something we used to laugh at in high school?]

Most people understand the value of individual thinking and living as evolved in the history of Western Civilization; that is, until now. After most of us engaged in an exhaustive intellectual inquiry in youth and through own experiences, even for some of us who have known profanity and indulgences of every kind, usually changed when we grew to maturity and as adults developed a more thorough understanding of our inward self (the Left thinks that this is “repression” but if that is so why is it that even atheists had come to eventually view their indulgences in youth as boring and life itself shallow when immersed in “group” callings?) And even when one was bereft of his own motives, maturity resulted from consequences with a time of maturity or awakening that varied with each individual, Christian or not). Even St. Augustine, who was of brilliant mind, was never convinced that those who did not do what he was doing were essentially more “good” than he. He changed for himself apart from other men.

But what the New Left collectivism has created is a means by which moral ruthlessness may abound.Who does not see today the truth of Freud’s statement, “the pervert and the prude are the same” relevant with respect to the collectivist culture we live today?

Is it really a surprise the world now hates Christianity when the world itself has gone “collective”?[Someone posed a question recently on Hubpages regarding what was the “Great Whore” the Book of Revelations referred to.The bible itself makes clear that a “whore” is like a deep, dark ditch that has a dark and hollow and material inward life. Isn’t that what the entire world will become when power arises to suppress the inward man?] Is it not true today, more than any other time in the history of the world, that people have this strange notion that if “everyone is doing it, it must be okay”? The strange paradox being that the more the New Left tries to make things fair, it divides us morally for purposes of power? It seduces with its power of “acceptance” and unqualified moral equivalence, and yet, if one looks behind the veneer what lives and breathes is a morality more controlling and more intolerant than any that exists or has existed under a capitalistic system. (To the surprise of even myself the New Left liberals that I worked with are more intolerant of the poor and homosexuals than any Christian I know!)

Collectivism is now a world goal and that Christians now call it the “end of the world” is no surprise. Worldwide too we are seeing it happen, and as political scientists have always known, and which has been written about almost as long as history itself is that “collectivism” is bound to result in civil unrest or tremendous prejudice and tyranny – since, if we do the math, how in hell is this administration going to give employment to all those people unemployed in our country under their newly divised but never tried before system? Those that give argument that it can be done with the socialistic construct underway ought to keep in mind that in order for socialism to appear working in a country as large as ours, IT WILL BECOME NECESSARY TO TARGET PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS for failure. There has never existed a time when “collectivism” has not done this, particularly in the past when it became NECESSARY to reduce the population for the APPEARANCE of success for those in power under a system converting to purported “socialism” (if that is truly what the system they are seeking to replace capitalism, which I do not believe they are being totally truthful about).

[Why is it that human beings seem to repeat this kind of thing every 40 years or so?]

It is why we see the emergence of “groups” as the ideal. We can blame it on communications like the Internet, but we are grossly misinformed or hoodwinked in our own conscious if we cannot see that the inward man has given up all his value and worth for definition by external and superfluous values. We in America need to talk about this more openly than we do no matter how difficult it might be. We in America are more capable of doing so given our history and a culture that values the individual even though we have forgotten how to live as individuals. We have at least a “memory” of it; do we not?

And we ought to not ever forget that one of the social factors contributing to Hitler’s rise was a people’s identification with a “group” and then an “outsider.” That the Jew was targeted was in keeping with the mood of Europe at the time, and reflected entirely the spirit of collectivism and the hate of capitalism, when, at the time, Nietzsche makes Zarathustra say:

“A thousand goals have existed hitherto, for a thousand people existed.But the letter for the thousand necks is still lacking, the one goal is still lacking.Humanity has no goal yet.

‘But tell me, I pray, my brethren; if the goal be lacking to humanity, is not humanity itself lacking?’

Also, quoted from an article of Dr. Niebuhr’s Moral Man and Immoral Society by E.H. Carr, in his article, The Twenty years’ Crisis [1941], p. 203, there is as he says in other places, “an increasing tendency among modern man is to imagine themselves ethical because they have delegated their vices to larger and larger groups.”

People have forgotten in such a short time that it is capitalism and its glorification of the individual that kept the socialist countries functioning above the cataclysmic level. The global capital exchange that provided investment was enough to sustain any socialist with a modicum of wealth to take summers off in Greece or France is all due to capitalism, even if this is denied until one is red in the face.

And who does not know that the economic collapse of 2008 had also destroyed the delicate and precarious economic balance that supported socialist countries in Europe? And all for what? Answer: So people craving power and a hate of individualism can have power over everyone else. That we are on the road to repeating destruction is only being repeated as it always was in every past generation. That the Jews in the United States have shouted unceasingly “Never again! Never again” is a call that has only been heard for that group, and yet they too are blinded by the seduction of the New Left and its call for collectivist ideals. And from here, as I have written, is it not obvious to surmise from history that our path is one that reflects back the brutality that lurks behind the face of superfluous ideals?

And what good are all the efforts towards environmental concerns when we in our country have aligned ourselves with our weak foreign policy with the larger collective forces in the Middle East that if a nuclear bomb be unleashed will cause more war and environmental harm for all of us globally? Even with our own suicide above our own heads, are we content to give up our lives simply because we have forgotten what collectivism means, or because we disdain more the individual that is superior to us? Isn’t that more vain and contemptible than of all the individual vanity in the world? Is it not in fact a greater vanity than any one individual might hold in his or her own heart? Why are we on the road to suicide? Why are we not content in our lives EXCEPT when we are all the same? What threat does it pose that someone else is different?Answer: Relinquishment of power.

It is of spiritual divide that we worship one or the other – that is all it is. And if one does the math, the numbers of new businesses and jobs that will enable us to turn our country around do not add up. If this administration only created a few million jobs, what will happen to the 22 million unemployed or the 50% of the population when food stamps run out; or when, if business cannot run, food cannot get to the stores so those on food stamps can eat? As Margaret Thatcher was astute to realize, “The problem with socialism is that the money always runs out.”

Indeed, there has been a nurturance of ideals since the end of World War II, ideals that chipped away at capitalism because of its religious roots. Thus, it is hated purely for that reason. The founders of this great country of ours did not run from England for the sake of independence from its government only. They ran to be FREE to believe what they wanted to.

Please defend our nation against this tyranny by voting to usurp this administration’s power for power’s sake philosophy so we can put a stop to this “collectivism” and be free individuals once again.


Comments

Submit a Comment

  • cynthtggt profile image
    Author

    cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

    Hi, rfmoran, and thank you for your kind comments. So true what you wrote about "consequences," and I perhaps remain naively optimistic it all might come into greater focus for everyone before the election and we won't go down that long dark road. But isn't history true that it rarely, if ever, does? Take care.

  • rfmoran profile image

    Russ Moran 4 years ago from Long Island, New York

    In the old Soviet Union there was a dark joke: "We pretend to work; they pretend to pay us." That about sums up the result of the collectivist mentality. A true collectivist, such as our president, really believes tha people cannot be left to their own devices, but must have every thing planned and centrally managed for the elusive good of all. As Ayn Rand put it: "You can avoid reality, but you can't avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Good hub - voted up and awesome.

  • cynthtggt profile image
    Author

    cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

    I should thank you. Not only is that a wonderfully written article, but the comments are so engaging, and your replies so insightful. How could I not share it? .

  • Davesworld profile image

    Davesworld 4 years ago from Cottage Grove, MN 55016

    And I was in a hurry before and forgot to thank you for the link. Thanks.

  • cynthtggt profile image
    Author

    cynthtggt 4 years ago from New York, NY

    Thanks for your comment Dave; however many times it is said, it seems to always repeat itself. You explained it perfectly. Thanks.

  • Davesworld profile image

    Davesworld 4 years ago from Cottage Grove, MN 55016

    Collectivism always fails, largely because it is based on a flawed vision of human nature. People, for the most part, do not work for the betterment of others but work instead for the betterment of themselves. For collectivism to work, the former must be true but, for most us, the betterment of those outside the scope of our immediate family is an after thought. This isn't necessarily bad ... takes a hub to explain it.

Click to Rate This Article