Invisible Empire - "A New World Order"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6qPivUiCCQ
The hidden government of the United States - and the world.
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
"Renaissance Thinking About the Issues of Our Day"
Invisible Empire - "A New World Order"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6qPivUiCCQ
The hidden government of the United States - and the world.
Comments
Well, there is more than the current elitist idea of a New World Order, isn't there? How would you like to see the world organized?
Currently, its's being organized to service financiers, transnationals and the like....with the U.S. military as its enforcement arm.
The transnationals operate through the World Trade Organization. It's rules superceed that of mere nation states. Nation states are accountable to the transnationals who make up its membership. They may not pass laws in violation of its rules that serve their global trading interests...
Finance operates through Central Banks. The dictates of the European Union Central Bank for example, is dictating what national parliaments may or may not do. Greece, for example, may not apply traditional means of extricating itself from its economic collapse. To do so would be detrimental to international financiers/bankers...the EU Central Bank's clientele..
Domestically, the New World Order operates through lobbying firms....the "Shadow Government" that writes laws to be rubber-stamped by the elected one.. Pharmaceuticals, for example, wrote Medicaid D legislation. Health Ins. firms wrote "Obamacare".
Those concentrations of economic power at the top ...a very few...act collectively to promote their shared interests. The rest of us don't.
There is always a "world order". How the world functions as individual nation-states in relation to other nation states just as there is within nations...how one community or community of cities/states functions in relationship to one another within a nation-state. They function "collectively". Federal Blvd., for example, doesn't become Jefferson Blvd. when it crosses fthe Denver City line into Wheatridge.
In our own country, governments are supposed to function collectively through representative governments. Cities function collectively through counties. Counties through states. States through the nation.. To the extent democracy works, collective action works.
The Iroquois Confederation of seperate "states" functioned collectively and democratically. It's governments were pretty weak, yet it maintained over 4 centuries of peace. Women had the right to vote before "enlightened" nations even dreamed of the idea. .
A vast difference. It was egalitarian. No individiuals or groups of individuals could obtain enough wealth to capture government and use it to service their own ends. No one could out-bribe another.Wealth was distributed fairly equally.
Historically, all governments get captured either through corruption or by force when concentrations of wealth are encouraged. The only time that doesn't happen is in egalitarian societies...where wealth is fairly equal.
If you aren't willing to address that, you're beating a dead horse. The New World Order of, by and for the few becomes unstopable. That it's already becoming firmly entrenched should be obvious. It explains a lot domestically and internationally if you're paying attention. Why are national governments unresponsive to the voters and needs of the people? I'll give you a guess.
"They rule without appearing to" - Sheldon Wolin, Princeton. Univ. His book, "Democracy, Inc. - The Spector of Inverted Totalitarianism" should be a must read.
Just exactly how would you like the world and the nation to function? A world order that served the many rather than the few, and that was immune to capture by a few would be my own preference. Historically, that's only come about in egalitarian societies. Concentrations of wealth always, and without exception, have historically captured government to serve wealth. If you aren't willing to address that, you're beating a dead horse.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
"The very word secrecy is repugnant, in a free and open society. And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
But we are opposed, around the world, by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy.
It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources, into the building of a tightly nit, highly efficient machine.
It's preparations are conceiled, not published. It's mistakes are buried, not headlined. It's dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, not secret is reveiled. "
- JFK
Polycarp2,
Spoken like a true Anarchist - in the political sense of the word.
The thing about Anarchists is that their image can easily be hijacked by individuals who are perpetrating violence for violence sake. However, intellectual anarchism may hold the solution to many conflicts, especially in places where the imposition of a singular state on disparate nations or clans has only leads to conflict between those clans.
Somalia and Afghanistan are prime examples.
There is an excellent book called
The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia, by Professor James C. Scott
It also helps dispel some of the 'onward and upward', linear and positivist views of 'Civilisation', in that it shows that people can choose to leave the unitary state on their own volition (head for the hills), rather than having been left behind by 'progress', and have done so throughout history.
And also:
The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa, by prof. Michael van Notten (law, University of Leiden, which is the world's oldest university)
This shows how without how government can be reduced to conflict settlement between communities based on mutual consent, in the absence of a national government. The system is (imperfectly) called Kritocracy, or 'rule by judges' (in the Somali system, judges are not rulers but referees, who draw their authority from their trackrecord of just judgments and mutual consent between communities).
PS, I mean to say:
This shows how without a central government, government can be reduced to conflict settlement between communities based on mutual consent, in the absence of a national government. What are otherwise the separate branches of government of a centralized government (Judiciary, Parliament, and Executive (police, army) can exist on their own.
The system is (imperfectly) called Kritocracy, or 'rule by judges' (in the Somali system, judges are not rulers but referees, who draw their authority from their trackrecord of just judgments and mutual consent between communities).
I have been asking anarchists to address precisely these questions of governance, and these examples are anything but the libertarian individualism models they contrast with government. Nonetheless, I fear there is much other than egalitarianism at the "tribal" or "clan" unit, and as we have seen in the American utopians, the rise of charismatic 'leaders' instead of Poly's Iroquois Confederation culture led to other problems.
Without units of homogeneity, or where inter-clan mobility exists, the problem confronting the referees can become complex and raise other issues of governance. I think that we can agree that the 'legal construct' we call a corporation cannot continue in its present form. At the very least it has to be the creature of the state instead of a free roaming beast.
The central question is the feasibility of democracy as the government of, by and for the people. I like the idea of collective investments in our collective security and prosperity. Liberty and justice for all continues to be a noble vision, and the necessity of a high degree of equality of power means that wealth has to be redistributed to insure that all belong as human beings and not as reduced status beings.
Graeber's anthropological analysis of Debt points out that there is a basic level of human life that is not ordered by Commerce he calls "communitarian." It is where no price can be put on the social, human and moral obligations we bear to each other. But, we all know why some run away from home and how sibling rivalries and questions of parental authority do not disappear into a wonderful eden. Graeber also acknowledges the charismatic who are able to mobilize and motivate their disciiples. The Iroquois solution was to have only women vote and to forbid any debt enforced bondsmen. But, there was a lot of culture at work and far more cohesion than we know today.
Thanks for introducing these new works to the discussion. It is clear that the Corporate World Order is demonic and impractical. We need to appreciate that the Westernmost "Civilization" is the last part of the world to come of age anthropologically. Rather than being the product of cultural evolution and 'modernity,' what our Anglo-Saxon social institutions represent is barely the adolescent version of Viking raiding culture. Our images of freedom as escape or personal autonomy are primitive, and unless we grasp the universality of Paine's slogan that it is freedom for all, or none, we will continue to misconstrue its political and economic implications.
If freedom is participation in power without any dominance in the equation, we are still faced with the question of "order." Democratic governance without a state may be possible, or we may find that there is a non-statist state that actually is the tool of "the people" for governance. That we must govern ourselves is clear to me, because the alternative is not some state of anarchist freedom. We govern ourselves, or others will rule over us. Preventing the latter is what makes the former necessary. How it is to be done is the subject before us. Thanks again for your contribution to this discussion.
ren, my friend, I was not ignorant or lacking in appreciation for the contributions you have made to several conversations about governance, etc. My challenge was to the self-identified 'anarchists' and critics of the state and government to get into a positive discussion of what would allow us to govern ourselves beyond individual autonomy and voluntarism. I hope we can get past the Libertarian swamp and address an earth-related humanism in politics and economics. Thumbs up, as always.
Yes, I agree with DRC (Sorry to edit past your post, I forgot some links in this effort), Roger, welcome to the discussion and thank you for bringing these ideas to the board. I beg to differ with DRC in that for me, anyway, they are not new, though I admit that all my efforts to explain them in the past may go unrecognized for what they were. But I feel some of your ideas, do resemble many of the ideas that I've been bringing to bear for discussion here for years, ideas like ecopsychology, rhizome networks of communities, decentralized and dehierarchicalized living arrangements that allow people living in any given area to have a direct input in how they go about living sustainably. But it's welcome to have someone else here who seems articulate with these notions. I don't think many have thought these ideas through up until now.
An idea of a hidden world order is certainly not new. But what it actually may be is difficult to expose, difficult to explicate in a narrative, let alone get different people to agree upon. As Sheldon Wolin points out, we actually may in fact make an inverted totalitarian system work simply by doing what we take for granted to be the foundation of living itself; granted you have to be pretty much ignorant of history -- and especially a couple hundred thousand years of pre-history -- to take what we do today as THE foundation of living.
For my part I see it epitomized in the works of anarchistic thinkers like Jacques Ellul through his structural analysis of behavior in modern day industrial-based societies, in works like The Technological Society, and Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes. What this work exposes for me is that the idea of a "New World Order" is merely a growing recognition of something that is already in place. Something much more fundamental that we have all created together.
While I and others have said the following in many different ways on this board, I enjoy bringing yet another individual whose voice summarizes what I mean by a "pathological world order" that is not all that new, but is ever being redesigned, or reconceived at a governing and business model level, and like your youtube video shows, we have had many people over the past century, going back to H.G. Wells, recognizing and labeling something or another as a (New) World Order. But I think essentially it is one order and it's identifiable. Thus I offer Guy McPerson, ex professor of natural resources, who writes in Nature Bats Last:
In short, as I wrote in the leading journal in my discipline, "the modern world essentially requires one to live immorally. There is no doubt that a society that enslaves, tortures, and kills people and abuses the lands and waters needed for the survival of our species and others is immoral, yet these actions are produced with stunning efficiency by the world’s industrial economy, as epitomized by American empire. Most people know that Big Energy poisons our water, Big Ag controls our food supply, Big Pharma controls the behavior of our children, Wall Street controls the flow of money, Big Ad controls the messages we receive every day, and the criminally rich get richer through exploitation of an immoral system. This is how America works. And, through it all, we think we live moral lives in the land of the free.
It should be clear that the industrial economy is making us sick, mentally and physically, and also greatly reducing habitat for our species on Earth. As a result, I’m a big fan of terminating this set of living arrangements — that is, I’m a fan of terminating industrialized civilization — and replacing it with a more sane and durable set of living arrangements.
In that piece he links to what he describes as his field's leading journal, Conservation Biology, where he writes of his own anarchistic response to this system, in which he says this:
My response as a 49-year-old, tenured, full professor was to resign my position and go back to the land, where my wife and I share, with another family, an off-the-grid (i.e., not connected to public utilities) dwelling and I try to inspire others to change their lives to become more supportive of life on Earth. The reasons for changing my lifestyle reflect my core beliefs. I no longer contribute to an empire built on an industrial economy based on consumerism, and thus resist imperialism (i.e., the dominant paradigm, which is characterized by oppression and hierarchy), or live in a city, which is not supported by my moral imperatives. As an academic, I could not devote enough time to my messages to people of the world’s industrialized nations about the consequences of addiction to fossil fuels. Because I am increasingly self-sufficient, I can extend my life for a few years beyond completion of the ongoing, human-induced economic and environmental collapse.
The first step in dropping out of the empire was the most difficult. I am a product of a culture that values economic growth and personal prestige over morality, and my abundant ego interfered with my decision to give up the “good life” of a university professor. My ego has not shrunk since I quit, and I still struggle daily with my 2-year-old decision. But recognizing the industrial economy as an omnicidal, imperial beast has forced me to cross a threshold of denial, most people find far too formidable to attempt.
ren, my friend, I was not ignorant or lacking in appreciation for the contributions you have made to several conversations about governance, etc. My challenge was to the self-identified 'anarchists' and critics of the state and government to get into a positive discussion of what would allow us to govern ourselves beyond individual autonomy and voluntarism. I hope we can get past the Libertarian swamp and address an earth-related humanism in politics and economics. Thumbs up, as always.
Appreciate it, wasn't really targeting you. I know what you have been going up against here. Those you hope to get past are going to keep on keepin' on creating their rational gummy bear swamp I suspect. We will not get them off our teeth. I don't think those people are exactly anarchists. Libertarianism is not a true form of anarchism, it's the genitically modified American Free Enterprise version, crossed with American Exceptionalism and all sorts of follies, and it sort of lacks a more than rational recognition that humans are social beings too.
I think that DRC invited me to check this thread out from the 'Lack of civility' thread. I'm not sure what the problem is that DRC is addressing--nor how this thread tries to answer it--but the last part of my post on the other thread ended with this:
....To me, 'mutuality' on its own just doesn't justify the imposition as an imposition of any government (or institutional) implementation. Or, look at it this way, whether done in the interest of 'mutuality' or not, if done by someone against someone else, there is still going to be an interest that acts just like a 'selfish one'--no matter what excuse is, otherwise, offered....
I'm not sure how 'self-regulating communes' (or anything of that type) addresses my problem with 'command and control' authority placed in either government or corporations (my point about 'any institutional'). I am suspecting that those who opt for 'self-regulating communes' are all about 'live and let live' model of governance--which is just the opposite of any institutional impositions done under any guise.
And, while libertarianism continues to get blanketly attacked in such discussions as this, I'm not sure why its the form that I promote--a government that secures and guarantees individual rights--nor am I actually certain how a 'live and let live' communal governance system is actually any different in form from one that 'grants individual rights to others as well as acquires them for oneself'....but, apparently, that is just me despite all lack of any comments concerning the 'communal distinctions' in that regard.....
Or, is my setting this up as a 'live and let live' communal governance policy to contrast this to going to be called a 'strawman argument'?
My point is that anarchism is not reduced to voluntarism and that a government that does not have the negative characteristics of a state to those who decry "statism" has to be more than the establishment of individualism. This discussion broadens the discourse, and I thought you might find it challenging and useful for those reasons. I think ren. has offered a number of promising concepts above, and I think this is a very civil discussion, so far. I am really not looking for a fight, far from it, so I hope you can find my suggestion that this might be helpful a friendly invitation to do better than we have elsewhere. Have a nice day.
I'm not even sure I understand what you said, DRC. Is a 'benign anarchy' something to emulate--or is it an 'unrealistic distraction'? What order are you promoting in any issue that is being discussed here--and how does that order differ in context and content from one 'who grants individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself'?
The posts introduced scholars who give examples from societies in upland Asia and Somalia where other than "statist" alternatives can be seen instead of just imagined. I think this expands the range for anarchism and governance beyond the tired and trite posturing of the Libertarians. I doubt that they found these societies on the primacy of the individual or individual rights, but they may provide some interesting cultural fodder for appreciating alternatives to tyranny or the arguments posed against the Libertarians who quote anarchism as a positive alternative. They need to appreciate that there is a history of political 'anarchism' where the communal and mutuality is not about voting for President.
They need to appreciate that there is a history of political 'anarchism' where the communal and mutuality is not about voting for President.
OK, what is it based on then--and can you compare and contrast it in context and content to one who 'grants others individual rights as much as acquiring them for oneself'? For instance, what has the 'anarchy' be 'orderly and benign' otherwise?
I hope you can read and understand what has been posted about anarchist governance as in the Somalian system of judges to rule in disputes involving clans. The clans, or tribes, or particular communities all begin with a brother's keeper morality instead of "individual rights." It just is not about some "state" that exists above and beyond that localism of familial bonds. Individuals do not get to thumb their noses at the village elders or whatever form of loyalty, bond and authority is present at that local level. I do not think that individualism can produce a politics, only an anti-politics.
Sounds sort of feudal to me. Is just the appearance of peace enough for you, DRC? I think we've mentioned that before. Concentration camps at some points in time could appear peaceful.
You seem to like to disclaim 'individualism' (and, perhaps, conjure up the view of 'the rich' or 'the corporation' as representing 'individualism')--and ignore 'individual rights' (either granting them or acquiring them)--in this discussion on politics. While you seem to understand Paine's idea that if it is freedom for one, it has to be freedom for all--but, in the same context, you leave out 'the one' concept to emphasize 'the all'. The whole point about 'the one' concept is that is exactly how every-ONE thinks--and, while you seem to want to disclaim rational analysis in its political context, from the viewpoint of any political implementation that I would choose to be a part of, I want a rational analysis to go along with it that I can compare its consequences to--and weigh it against power's inherent oppressive and prejudicial potential.
Tribes may be able to do this on a more intuitive level--but I do not think that large societies and their governments can do so. In fact, I suspect that when a 'non-rational' perspective is being passed off to the people, a 'rational advantage' is being taken by the ones who claim it--and are in positions to do so. In the same order that many may be able to say when you want to understand the real motive, then follow the money, I think that you can make the same assessment of when a person in power is making an 'emotional appeal', you better get a practical appreciation of his point of view before deciding it......
Quote:Historically, all governments get captured either through corruption or by force when concentrations of wealth are encouraged. The only time that doesn't happen is in egalitarian societies...where wealth is fairly equal.
Roger Casement replied: Spoken like a true Anarchist - in the political sense of the word.
poly replies: Not really. Just a statement of fact. I'm not against government....depending on the government. Government of, by and for the many is fine. It's government of, by and for the few that I have a problem with....as now.
A world order that served the many rather than the few, and that was immune to capture by a few would be my own preference. Historically, that's only come about in egalitarian societies. Concentrations of wealth always, and without exception, have historically captured government to serve wealth. If you aren't willing to address that, you're beating a dead horse.
Egalitarian societies, had governments.. they weren't run amok anarchies.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Hi Polycarp2,
You wrote:
And...
As by your statement, eventually all governments get captured.
What we are really talking about is this - how can democracies defend themselves against domestic enemies (as the US constitutions says, "All enemies, foreign and domestic" - for which the Rockefellers and Kochs would qualify), in order to remain democracies.
How do you guarantee free speech, but limit propaganda, slander, etc? How do you keep the political process honest and free from private donations? My solution would be to demand public funding of campaigns only, and make illegal all public contributions.
The problem is that as soon as someone becomes a trillionair, they are immediatly rich enough to buy legislation, which means they have a huge advantage over any other business or entrepreneur. In fact they are writing legislation to prevent competition. Which is most of the 'regulation' the TEA party crowd protest against.
In agriculture, you have a few corporations writing standards that only they can comply with, like chipping every cow on a farm.
Thom Hartmann made that point in the first edition of his book, Unequal Protection. In a world where corporations already have gained the advantages of 'limited liability' that no person (as an individual) can take advantage of (real individuals are still held to real personal responsibilities for their conduct), corporations now have the added advantage of being the ones that write the regulations for their own industry--what that usually translates into is that such written governmental regulations are then able to be used to confine any liability that such an action of the corporation may have only to what the regulations require. It's a brilliant sleight of hand maneuver on the corporate-government collusion's part--but it has nothing to do with 'protecting and serving the people'......
And, I suspect that that is exactly how the financial industry used 'government policy implementations' (policies the industry itself made through government) by declaring to each loan officer on the ground, 'You have to make that loan because of governmental policy or risk your job!'--even if that loan officer could determine 'These people can't afford these loans'. But, 'the industry' had other ideas to be used--and ways to make money for itself--with such 'loans'. And, as I've mentioned in other areas before, the medical industry is doing a similar 'bait and switch' manuever in the 'corporatization of medical practice'....
Quote:poly wrote: Just a statement of fact. I'm not against government....depending on the government. Government of, by and for the many is fine. It's government of, by and for the few that I have a problem with....as now.
Roger Casement replied: As by your statement, eventually all governments get captured.
poly replies: You ignored another statement: Historically, all governments get captured either through corruption or by force when concentrations of wealth are encouraged. The only time that doesn't happen is in egalitarian societies...where wealth is fairly equal.
Unless your willing to address that, you're beating a dead horse
If you want to maintain encouraging wealth concentrations, what you get is government of, by and for the few The U.S. won't be, and certainly isn't, the only historical exception to that. Kerry illustrates that pretty clearly in the post above this one.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Demythologizing money is what Graeber helps us do. I also like the contribution of Raj Patel's THE VALUE OF NOTHING, the other half of Oscar Wilde's bon mot about "the price of everything" defining the cynic. The idea that we can price our world is part of the myth of "economic man" as if that were anything other than the worship of Mammon where we become the image of that God.
If we do not pretend that money is anything other than it is, it cannot be "speech" or what allows any citizen to dominate another in hiring. "Jobs" can no longer be the sale of self but must be decent exchange of moral value. "Living wages" is just the start of what is needed. It also gets to the idea that it is "my money" rather than a shared commodity like water which must be available to all as a basic right of life. How we use "our money" collectively to serve the health of a society becomes the moral measure of an economy when we demystify the 'profit motive' and regain a sense of human vocation where the creation of value with personal meaning and purpose replaces the lust for power or wealth.
We can all agree that money corrupts the professions as well as government. It is time to take seriously how economies serve societies and how societies serve humanity rather than subvert it. I think this does leave "individualism" on the ash heap of history, but not "individuality" or relationships of freedom and mutuality where we are responsible for more than ourselves. It does not keep individuals from being rational, but it does not make the linear and literal Age of Reason rationalism the metaphysics of human nature or our relationship with others and the world. That model is too simple to account for human reality. Uncertainty and risk are existential realities, but it is not chaos if we are aware rather than rigid or closed down by fear or alienation.
Kerry, I think your model is only applicable in close personal relationships, but even families cannot be reduced to rational and voluntary consent. Broad participation governance simply shares out the vision and keeps the consent from being dominated by the few. We allow a lot to constrain the majority and to keep individuality a prized aspect of our mutuality; but we also have to agree to disagree and go along with the consensus when we dissent, or head for the hills into a non-society.
The question raised by stateless societies or anarchist communities is how to avoid dominant forces that corrupt all relationships. Democracy suggests that we can own our politics collectively instead of needing parental authorites ruling over the children. It is not a sure thing defined and controlled by rational law and order, it is a work in progress where we act as adults recognizing that we are also human beings who behave as children at times. This is why love, grace and forgiveness matter more than 'righteousness' or being 'correct.' The rhetoric of personal responsibility needs to include more than being correct and doing the right thing. It has to include confession and repentance and forgiveness.
That model is too simple to account for human reality.
That's what you say. But, is whatever model you are replacing it with too complicated to make any sense of--in a way that can be taken advantage of by 'the adept'? In fact, 'making sense of it' requires a rational analysis....
Kerry, I think your model is only applicable in close personal relationships, but even families cannot be reduced to rational and voluntary consent.
We aren't talking about families. We aren't talking about tribes. I'm not actually sure what you are talking about, but I am talking about politics and what 'we' can decide are appropriate political motives for a democratic government to emulate. If that's not a 'good government securing and guaranteeing individual rights' to its citizens, what is it? And, how are you going to apply it in a way that reduces and/or removes the oppressive and prejudicial tendencies of power that our Age of Reason thinkers were trying to remove with their rational premise on government to begin with?
We allow a lot to constrain the majority and to keep individuality a prized aspect of our mutuality; but we also have to agree to disagree and go along with the consensus when we dissent, or head for the hills into a non-society.
I think that there is an area where we can 'agree to disagree' and still stay in a social order and I know how you don't like it--but I do. It's called RIGHTS. You know, those things that power cannot remove without due process....and due process meaning some form of 'open and up front consideration to remove it'--sometimes in court, sometimes in legislatures.....
The question raised by stateless societies or anarchist communities is how to avoid dominant forces that corrupt all relationships.
Absolutely. What type of action from a government that even claims it is based on 'socializing community interest' are you proposing will keep a check on that government's potential to adhere to 'dominating forces'? And, what reasoning, or proposed motive, are you going to give to such a 'socializing community interest'-based government to affect the same 'anti-dominating force'? And, moreover, how is that action and that reasoning any different from a government that is to secure and guarantee individual rights to its citizens?
Will this do it:
....This is why love, grace and forgiveness matter more than 'righteousness' or being 'correct.' The rhetoric of personal responsibility needs to include more than being correct and doing the right thing. It has to include confession and repentance and forgiveness.
And, if so, how do you envision that being acted upon--and acted with? Where in the pantheon of actors with their actions are you placing 'personal responsibility' along with 'grace and forgiveness'? Are some going to have to be 'more responsible' as others are offered 'more forgiveness'? And, how are you going to get government to fairly and justly qualify that--with or without 'individualism' for that matter.....
I agree with JFK. There should be no secrecy, especially in intelligence departments, comparmentalized to the extent it has allowed unethical persons to introduce into government their secret societies from long ago and use government assets and human life to benefit private, possibly criminally organized secret fraternities.
Scottish Rite, as it once was revered in Washington as a secret society for gentlemen, was revised by Albert Pike to include swearing the oath of secrecy to never turn in a brother, even if you witness his committing murder. This is not a good tradition to perpetuate in our Congress. To think that it doesn't persist today is a mistake.
Secret clubs are rude, is what Katherine Kryder taught me.
The 1933 Coup Attempt in the USA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1KwaLa8zTQ
On the American Liberty League
Your connection, Roger Casement, ends with Benjamin Franklin's statement concerning the point that those who would chose safety over liberty deserve neither safety nor liberty. In line with some of what your connection discussed on 'fascism coming to America', E.M. Halliday in his book, Understanding Thomas Jefferson, says this:
Jefferson has lately been accused, in a book by Conor Cruise O'Brien (The Long Affair, 1996) about Jefferson and the French Revolution, of being romantically obsessed with the very notion of revolution, to the point where he is better qualified as a hero to the right-wing paramilitary groups in America today who declare their hatred of the federal government, and are prepared to express it with guns and bombing, than he is as an icon of American democracy. They are fond of quoting--even on their T-shirts--Jefferson's famous remark occasioned by the feeble and short-lived Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1786-1787: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
But this is an example of how Jefferson's recurrent penchant for rhetorical bravado, in the name of popular resistance to governmental excess, could lead to misunderstanding of his basic faith in democratic republicanism. He surely would have been appalled if Shay's Rebellion had ballooned into civil war, and it was a cardinal principle with him that under a properly operating representative democracy, founded on the equal civil rights of all citizens and responsive to the will of the majority, there would be little or no force necessary to guarantee a peaceful and happy society.
This is not to deny that Jefferson was forever suspicious of the tendency for power to feed upon itself and corruptly violate its responsibility. His whole career as secretary of state and vice president was a struggle to prevent the American ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence from being subverted by an opposing force, represented by Federalist leaders like Alexander Hamilton and (to some extent) John Adams, which encouraged the idea that common people were not to be trusted: that what they needed was a strong ruling class, consisting of the wealthy and cultivated, to run the country and tell them how to behave. Jefferson's lifelong opposition to any such unbalanced "consolidation" of governmental power against the ultimate control of the people has been misinterpreted by some historians as resting on a fundamental "hostility to government," a "conviction that government is at best a necessary evil." But, as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, Jefferson understood very well that the "inalienable rights" it proclaims are not self-protecting. Indeed, it is the primary obligation of government to "secure" those rights, and to exercise its power toward the "safety & happiness" of its citizens.
Yeah, a republic if we can keep it. This is the reason democracy and the vision of the Pledge is where the discourse needs to be focused and not on polemical versions of the Constitution. We have seen how the Federalist Society and others in the past have taken that document to erect a Corporate Empire. Government of, by and for the people is not limited to your theory of absolutized individual rights and voluntarism. To whom are "our" politicians accountable? To "the people" of whom we are part, but not to "me" other than to my conscience, mind and body as a free citizen. The citizen part matters, and it is not an asocial term. It is about being a member and participant in a society where power is shared instead of concentrated.
Jefferson may not be the romantic "tree of liberty" radical some believe, but he was definitely not a libertarian.
The Empire isn't always invisible.
The SS, or Schutzstaffel, was the police and military force of the Nazi Party, which was distinct from the general army. Members pledged an oath of loyalty to Adolph Hitler.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/09/us-marines-nazi-ss_n_1265930.html
I like to stand back and look at arm's length at what is going on. It's easier to see timelines and motivations that way. The other night I watched "There Be Dragons" which just released on DVD and Bluray. It's about film, semi-biographical, about a priest who and his boyhood friend and how they were involved in the Spanish Civil War. That war, like what we are seeing today, was a class war and I was struck by so many similarities. But then it's all just a repeating cycle isn't it? It seems to happen about every 80 years just in time for those who remember to pass on leaving those who don't to start another rebellion or foister one.
Well, this is the section of Halliday's statement that I took particular note of:
...But, as the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear, Jefferson understood very well that the "inalienable rights" it proclaims are not self-protecting. Indeed, it is the primary obligation of government to "secure" those rights, and to exercise its power toward the "safety & happiness" of its citizens.
And, it is a good reason why I'm a leftist libertarian....Jefferson's 'interest in community' went only as far as that community's 'respect for unalienable rights'--to each citizen involved....
Close, but no cigar. Of course it is the proper duty of the State to support rather than foreclose our inherent rights. We protest against laws that deny equal protection or advance prejudice and dogma all the time. We press for the greater inclusion of all human beings in social reality; but we do not do so merely as individuals, we do so in the fullness of mutuality knowing that freedom must be for all, or none. It is our collective commitment, and like love, we have to be all in to make it work. United, we stand, or we fall individually. When they come for the least loved of us, and we let them do it, they will come for us at some point and there will be no one there for us. This is about solidarity, not isolationism or some kind of voluntary option.
You call 'socialism" utopian, and your idea of socialism probably is. I am certain that what you posit as individualism is not a viable social model and is as utopian as politics can be for that reason. It is not socialism that matters here, it is democracy as government of, by and for the people. I am all in for democracy, a most realistic alternative to having others rule over us. It is about governing ourselves, and that is political and social, not an exercise in individualism.
Until now, I've always heard the Ku Klux Klan referred to as "The Invisible Empire"...
Scottish Rite, as it once was revered in Washington as a secret society for gentlemen, was revised by Albert Pike to include swearing the oath of secrecy to never turn in a brother, even if you witness his committing murder. This is not a good tradition to perpetuate in our Congress. To think that it doesn't persist today is a mistake.
The Scottish Rite is nothing more than one branch of Freemasonry. Anybody of good character who wants to can become a Mason, if they're willing to learn and do the lodge work.
As to Albert Pike, he was a Confederate general during the Civil War, and a lifelong Freemason. After the war, he wrote several learned tomes about the history and substance of Freemasonry. His treasonous service under the Stars and Bars was much more unethical than anything he ever did in his capacity as a Mason.
There are secret societies and there are secret societies. They're not all the same and all are not mysteriously evil. As long as membership is voluntary, one need not join if bothered by secrecy. They're only evil when they work unwarranted harm on the unsuspecting and the innocent. For example, one can now sit in an armchair and condemn vigilantism, but nobody can argue with the success of the Vigilantes of San Francisco's Barbary Coast during the Gold Rush. The sworn lawmen there were corrupt and crime ran rampant, reaching into the everyday lives of honest citizens with great regularity, and there was nothing else for it, so the secret society called the Vigilantes cleaned it up and kept it cleaned up until honest police could be recruited and brought on line.
Kind of reminds me of a story a friend of mine told me. His family immigrated from Russia when the USSR broke up. He said they had a big garden there, and when the crows would flock in to raid it, they'd shoot one with a shotgun and hang it on the fence, upside down. When other crows saw it, they left the garden alone. The Vigilantes hung some known murderers and armed robbers from lamp posts and, Katie Bar the Door!, violent crime and street crime went waaaaaaay down in a New York Second. I'm not advocating vigilantism here and now. I'm merely illustrating that all secret societies are not bad, and accuracy and discernment always matter.
Then folks here might want to watch National Geographic's "Doomsday Preppers" which is a new series. They shot some stories of what different people who believe in doomsday scenarios are doing to survive. Then they have "survival experts" grade what preparation these people have done. Really interesting stuff and even some ideas worth thinking about especially for us folks who live in earthquake country.
The "C St. Family" is a lot closer to the Klan as a Secret Society of people committed to covering for each other because of the bs dogma about being selected for "God's Service." Real creepy stuff about the Power Jesus where "the least of these" are left behind.
The real reason Reagan wanted the mental institutions defunded was so we couldn't put these insane ilk where they belong. ;)
I tried watching the video, "A New World Order" that began this thread. I couldn't make it all the way through because, well frankly, it was putting me to sleep. Grand conspiracy theories are boooring. There's no need to look under every bed skirt for conspiracy theories when there are so many explicit examples and attempts by various players to manipule or try to manipulate our lives and economies. This silly, libertarian brand of neurosis, which imagines grand conspiracy theories in which disparate interests, including conservative neo-liberals working hand in glove with communists and socialists, attempt to secretly dominate all the World are hurtful to sincere attempts at reform. They only work to imbue real and concerning issues and plots with doubt and undeserved questions of credibility among the public. In other words, you're crazy ass paranoia only makes it easier to discredit the pushback that comes by way of real democratic initiative.
There isn't a secret conspiracy. Everything is done pretty openly. The new world order of, by and for the 1/10 of 1% has been in place for some time.
Just one example: The Greek and Italian Parliaments are now over-ridden by appointed Financial Czars from the EU Central Bank. Those nations are no longer sovereign states. They may continue to debate such things as who can marry who. Building a new bridge or financing a school lunch program requires approval outside of the democratic process..
It's just an on-going entrenchment. It isn't being done in secret.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
There isn't a secret conspiracy. Everything is done pretty openly. The new world order of, by and for the 1/10 of 1% has been in place for some time.
It's just an on-going entrenchment. It isn't being done in secret.
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
Yes. They don't have to conduct closed meetings at secret sites, although a little of that may go on from time to time by some subgroups of the 1/10 of 1%. They have a developed consensus of what they think needs to be done and when and where to do it in order to garner and retain hegemony over world economies and subsets of same, and they simply act accordingly. Sometimes it may be in consultation with their consensual colleagues and sometimes they act in sync without previous conferral, just because whatever is required to build economic hegemony in a given situation is the obvious thing for any of them to do, so they don't have to consult anybody about it.
They've won, across the board. Who knows when and where ultimate challenges to this dynamic will occur, and the only question, if and when any such challenges arise, is whether the Army and the police will side with the world's corporate owners or its deprived masses. The economic aristocracy already has a paramilitary arm, analogous to the Nazi SA/Brownshirts, for use against the people; it's an amalgam of organizations such as the one which used to be called Blackwater. If any serious challenges to its hegemony arises, the aristocracy will activate them as both overt combatants and Fifth Columnists, to attack and disorganize any popular movements in motion against it. At that point, the Army and the police will be the deciding factors. If they are bought off of popular movements by the aristocracy, via economic handouts to them and their families, they will side with the oppressors; if they are conscience driven and want true change which will benefit all of humanity, long-term, they will side with the masses and put an end to the paramilitaries.
None of this is secret or hard to see, for anybody who pays attention. It's been the pattern for decades in Third World dictatorships, which can, on this point, be reasonably seen as microcosms of the rest of the planet. In this hemisphere, we've seen the rise and fall of Fulgencio Batista, Anastasio Samosa, the guy they used to call "Pinehapple Head" in Panama, and the dictators of Chile and Argentina. There are many other examples in the rest of the world. The usual pattern is that they stay in power as long as they meet the needs and protect the interests of Wall Street and the wealthiest corporatists from the rest of the world and keep the Commies at bay in their own countries. As long as they do that, it's never mattered to the corporatists how much they oppress their own people and they get to keep all the perks and graft that they can steal, at the expense of their own countrymen. But as soon as they get minds of their own, like Saddam Hussein, the corporatists use their militaries to take them down. Nobody should forget that while Saddam Hussein was indeed a major sonofabitch, until he got overly greedy and threatened corporate oil interests by overrunning Kuwait, he was "our" anti-communist sonofabitch, and there were precious few calls for human rights in Iraq by the U.S. government until they decided to use the U.S. military in fulfillment of the corporate priority of taking him down.
An Alternative to Capitalism (if the people knew about it, they would demand it)
Several decades ago, Margaret Thatcher claimed: "There is no alternative". She was referring to capitalism. Today, this negative attitude still persists.
I would like to offer an alternative to capitalism for the American people to consider. Please click on the following link. It will take you to an essay titled: "Home of the Brave?" which was published by the Athenaeum Library of Philosophy:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/steinsvold.htm
John Steinsvold
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."~ Albert Einstein
We certainly need to rethink the meaning of money. Graeber's DEBT makes that clear. So does Raj Patel in THE VALUE OF NOTHING. The construct of "economic man" makes "the economy" a false god instead of a social institution which ought to serve a human purpose, and humans ought to be part of nature instead of trying to overcome it or finesse it.
However, before we entertain this very radical proposal, one which hardly has a chance of getting anywhere in the present culture, we might want to look at some other ways to get substance in front of symbol where 'money' could have a role as a tool to do some worthwhile things the author places under the role of community decision-makers. As Korten makes clear, for example, there is a huge difference between the Real Economy where value is created by work and artisanal skill and the False Economy where 'money makes money.' Allowing investments to be made in the creation of real value, and using the symbol, money, to represent the decisions made about the allocation of resources, labor and distribution, honors the substance.
The problem in definitions is that "capitalism" is just a way for these decisions to be made and accounted. Returning "excess wealth" to productivity by taxes regularizes the decision-making process described in the article and need not prevent anyone from being included in needs met.
Patel wants us to rethink "bottom lines" in ecological reality, and once again the issue is substance and value v. the attempt to finesse reality by the worship of the symbol. We might even drop the two siblings of the Enlightenment economics, capitalism and socialism, and recognize that this is an entirely secular matter, economics. It serves the most sacred of things, what it means to be human and to keep human life human in this world. Being human is about our relationships with others and with all that is under the general rubric of "integrity."
Money is a tool. We may only need to remember that, forgive debt, and use the tool wisely instead of becoming besotted by it. There is much to commend the article for raising a serious alternative to the exaltation of money to sacred status. There are far greater limits to its utility as the measure of life and living than we have thought. But there is a legitimacy to commerce where transititory relations and exchanges have a legitimate place. Placing all the questions of production, distribution and value under the governance of councils or other decision-making bodies raises other issues of power and justice than I believe steinsvold can control in his proposal.
That said, insuring that there is no poverty or domination by wealth is a worthy subject for our serious consideration and commitment.
We press for the greater inclusion of all human beings in social reality; but we do not do so merely as individuals, we do so in the fullness of mutuality knowing that freedom must be for all, or none.
And, how, DRC, is that any different for such 'freedom' being for each as ONE? Once you separate it from that, there will be no way that you can assert, or even assess, such an action's 'emphasis on freedom'.
I think that you are smoking the wrong end of the cigar--or, perhaps, the wrong cigar--if you think that 'the all' is defined 'collectively'--or, think that 'the all' doesn't have to be defined in a way that each ONE can see it....to be able to assess any application's fairness and justice....
I am certain that what you posit as individualism is not a viable social model and is as utopian as politics can be for that reason.
I am not looking for 'utopianism in government (or society)' as much as I am looking for 'reasonableness to impose'--as the only real way of assessing any action as being 'just and fair'....you seem to disregard all of that for your own form of 'collective utopia'--even claim 'rational' and 'reasonable' cannot be a part of it.....
It is about governing ourselves, and that is political and social, not an exercise in individualism.
How do we 'govern ourselves' in a 'collective' without an individual component to assess it, DRC? You know, the 'thinking individual' component that your 'collective' appears to so despise....and, what authority you are replacing the thinking individual with--and how that authority so justifies its actions against individuals--in its 'collective' manner, I'm not really sure you have ever explained--but, then, 'explaining' would require a rationale, wouldn't it?
This reminds me of Jefferson's comment that I've already quoted on another thread:
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer the question.--First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
Especially one that claims to have the 'collective interest' at heart--but cannot even explain it in a way for anyone to understand....
Well, monasteries operate as a "collective". Each monk has one vote. If a monk chooses not to abide by the democratic majority, they are free to leave. If the Abbot (Chief Executive) doesn't impliment the majority consensus, he's replaced within 5 minutes...and is also free to leave.
A function of an Abbot is to coordinate the will of the majority....to see that its done. In your system, the function of the Chief Executive seems to be to impliment the will of a minority...economically and socially. You call it a democracy. LOL
Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"
DRC, I offer this as something that might provide you with something to think about in your pursuit of understanding pathological societies. Our Empire is merely one example. And I offer it especially in light of this constant and frustrating assault you keep getting; that is, the demand that you provide a rational, systemically mechanistic explanation for something that takes more than a rational understanding, and is perhaps beyond any human capacity to systematize in a way that meets the persistent demands:
Schizophrenia and the Family II: Paradox and Absurdity in Human Communication Reconsidered
Excerpt from the Abstract:
About forty years ago, Bateson, Jackson, Haley, and Weakland (1972/1956) published a paper entitled 'Toward a theory of schizophrenia'. This paper generated considerable interest because of its radical claim that the symptoms of schizophrenia might be the result of the internalization of contradictory patterns of communication in the family. Bateson et al. called such patterns double bind interactions. It was hypothesized that the consequence of prolonged exposure to double bind is that people gradually learn to perceive their universe in double bind patterns, and act on their environment as if every input from the environment is contradictory. This style of responding, it was argued, characterizes schizophrenic symptoms.
Double bind interactions are defined as conflicting messages conveyed more or less simultaneously, as in the situation, well known from Bateson et al.'s paper were a mother tells her son that she loves him while at the same time turning her head away with a look of disgust. In this example, the mother conveys two messages to the son: one of love, conveyed verbally, and one of disgust, conveyed non-verbally.
The results of empirical research on Bateson et al.'s double bind theory have not been deemed very encouraging (Abeles, 1976; Olson, 1972; Schuham, 1967). Extant research has been criticized, however, for the fact that the operationalization of the double bind construct has been inadequate (Abeles, 1976; Haller, 1989; Koopmans, 1997; Olson, 1972; Watzlawick, 1963). Meanwhile, the scientific community has more or less accommodated to the fact that while double bind may be a useful heuristic model for therapists and social workers, it is deemed unsuitable for empirical scrutiny because of the elusive nature of the proposed family dynamics (Abeles, 1976; Haller, 1989).
Recent developments in nonlinear dynamical systems models have made it possible to be more explicit about some of the dynamical constructs underlying double bind theory. The purpose of this paper is to bring out some of these implicit notions with the help of the contemporary Nonlinear Dynamical Systems vocabulary, and further specify some of the more elusive constructs of the theory. In this endeavor, we rely on the following basic NDS notions: (1) Positive and negative feedback in family communication, (2) The unexamined link between schismogenesis and double bind in Bateson's writings, (3) Bifurcation and second order change in families, (4) Autopoiesis, and (5) The logical underpinnings of paradox and contradiction. For a justification of our concern with double bind theory to examine the relationship between schizophrenia and family dynamics, see Koopmans (1997).
I bolded the following:
"Meanwhile, the scientific community has more or less accommodated to the fact that while double bind may be a useful heuristic model for therapists and social workers, it is deemed unsuitable for empirical scrutiny because of the elusive nature of the proposed family dynamics (Abeles, 1976; Haller, 1989)."
because I think it illustrates the rationalist dilemma that we face almost constantly in a society that has lost its humanity. Especially the logical positivist assertion for the possibility of a world that can be described and justified as "reasonable" in utterly rational terms, which they then use to bully and beat us into submission when we try to draw upon our humanity in protest. What you tend to get with a rational system of law, originally deemed to protect individual rights, is an objectively rational system that the purveyors of justice survey in their chambers, unravel with their definitional process and proclaim from their assessment a so-called conclusion of logical justice. That system can then be employed by highly trained experts for purposes that may not have been the original intent of those who erected it as a form of individual rights protection. Bateson himself spent a great deal of effort trying to help find ways to make this understandable. But he also admitted it may be beyond our human capacities, at least as social entities.
The Invisible Empire was the KKK's nickname for itself, just like the film "The Birth of a Nation" was about the birth of the invisible nation, The Klu Klux Klan.
If your problem is 'rationalist thinking' in any profession--law or medicine (or basically any profression)--what do you propose to offer in its place? The very point of the thought construction that professions are based on follow the same pattern of correlative sequences that can be conveyed--and compared--intermittently. It's the same line of thought that all rational patterns are compared to--each other and whatever 'extant reality' it is comparing--just like the patterns used in all scientific thinking and processing.
As a science, the medical profession has long realized that few rational analyses and descriptions of processes have ever been delineated in a complete--and succinct--pattern. ren's 'social description' of schizophrenia is matched with the 'neurotransmitter mismatch' description (a 'reverse order' from Parkinson's in the brain stem--supposedly proven because medications used to 'improve schizophrenia' that target that mismatch show 'improvement') in the brain--and appearing to be a more empiric analysis (with real 'substance' to it) than just 'social interactions' (a very weak 'science' in that the variables possible are unlikely to ever be identified and managed in any 'controlled trial study' to any complete and succinct 'description').
So, as the practice of medicine, the profession has long realized that there is a lot of leeway in assessing and treating each symptom that comes to the practitioner. But, this hasn't removed the rational--and comparative--premise to medical practice. In fact, the public expects a complete and succinct description and treatment program for every symptom and problem they present with--and, while it is incompletely relieved by rational analysis, there is no other mechanism of thought that can come anywhere near approaching a 'complete and succinct' analysis and treatment program other than rational processes. And, while medicine has for a long time realized that there is an 'art' to the process, that 'art' has been systematically--and rationally--removed through the social mechanisms that forge the legal, medical, and industrial processes of medical applications into 'policies' and 'standards of care'--and, despite the apparent emphasis here on 'non-rational thought', its has become more rational in the processing--and more structuralized into what I call 'the corporatization of medical practice'. Any 'uniqueness' that could come from the personal input of each practitioner with their patient is being 'systematized--and rationalized' out of existence. What the 'new world order' believers in non-rational thought are offering in its place, again, I have no idea. Power has its own way of regimentation.....
Which gets to the point of the power of government--or any imposing power--from a political perspective. While there may be many forms of rational premises to induce power structures--and it is rational premises that do induce power structures--the only one that will harbor anything of the type of implementation that recognizes the 'uniqueness of human life' in a way to allow it without complete impositions upon it (no matter what the 'rationale') is, as far as I can tell, just like the one that 'we' with the American experiment in government are supposed to have--a 'power structure' where 'good government' is defined as 'one who emphasizes securing, protecting, and guaranteeing individual rights'. In fact, removing the rational premise for a power structure does NOT remove that power's ability to oppress and prejudge through it. Every power structure is going to have a 'linear dynamic' in its mechanism of imposition--as regimented as the military or as politicized as the corporate-government collusion--but it will have a regimentation--in its applications and in its reasons to apply. The least likely regimentation--and rational process--to oppress and prejudge would be one based on 'securing and guaranteeing individual rights'....
Thanks ren, I return the the question of how to make and keep human life human in this world, and I don't think that is reducible to any "rational process." This is why Kerry doesn't get why the "for all" is not just the aggregate of individual rights. Developmentally, the We is a consciousness of mutuality and not just of individuality universalized.
Kerry 'doesn't get it'. I love how judgmental you have become, DRC. And, you throw around this 'we consciousness' like you not only really know what you mean--but how you are enacting that in any political set-up that I can imagine. But, I'm wondering if that is where you are at with this description--other than, as the theologian that you are, banking on an aspect of 'faith' that you really cannot confirm. And, as such, don't know what anyone else means with it that 'agrees' with you....
You keep on insisting on the primacy, not the both/and, of the individual. You are stuck with your perspective and when I describe it you get testy about it. Human development theory does get to interdpendence, something more than the universalized ME. If you don't understand that, what am I supposed to do?
And, likewise, DRC, you claim a 'we consciousness' that doesn't even acknowledge anything related to personal responsibility--as if some 'socialized order' can magically appear without it. Your 'descriptions' are not actually complete--I haven't seen you really explain your 'stand' against many conditions of humans in reality--including elective abortions. You haven't even explained the distinctions that you seem to be making against 'one who grants individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself' up against what you claim is something you say is a 'community interest acknowledging individuality', or something to that effect.
What are you 'supposed to do'? Well, as ren might claim, nothing. What can you do with your position that 'interdependence' offers the saving grace to humanity's woes? I'm wondering if you really have ever connected those dots as much as you claim....starting with what distinction that your position has on a 'community interest with individuality' and 'one who grants individual rights to others as much as acquiring them for oneself'....
The individual IS the primary constituent of society! Living in society, the "collective" if you will, can produce tremendous benefits. However, the crucial point is that I do not believe individuals should be forced in collectivism by coercion or force. In the US, the government is the only authority which has toe power to force one to act involuntary. This country was founded upon the idea that government does not create or establish rights, rather they are intrinsic to each individual (granted by God) – and that government is established only to protect or secure those individual rights. Power lies primarily in the individual – not the government. Consider the Bill of Rights. Is the Bill of Rights a list of rights that government gives to individuals? No. It is a list of Rights in which the government cannot impede. Which is rapidly disappearing in this country and sliding into totalitarianism.
Any form of collectivism that does not respect the rights of the individual is doomed to failure. The collectivism DRC invisions, in the way I perceive, is there is no amount of good a liberal can do with somebody else'e money. A form of altruism. Where , for instance, parents spend their entire fortune to save their terminally ill child . Instead he would have them sacrifice that child and spend the money to save as many other children.
If the collective does not respect the individual then that individual has no moral obligation to the collective. I think DRC and his coherts have it backwards. IMO
Keep the faith , brother.
Bullwinkle, since you do not state my position as I have stated it and misconstrue it badly, allow me to try again. My position is the both/and, not the either/or of individual and collective. I do not believe that any individualism that lacks a social consciousness is healthy, nor do I believe that any society that does not nurture and respect individuality and the rights of conscience and mind, and human liberty, is a decent society. So, I would agree with you if you did not move from the inability to accept a society that does not respect the individual to individualism as the place to oppose the collective.
It may seem to be a subtle or even meaningless distinction unless you appreciate that the false dichotomy of the paradox undone is what makes either Libertarian Individualism or "the Party collective" supreme. Paradoxes are about more than one thing being true at the same time, without compromise or conflation. It is like "speak the Truth in Love," a both/and which cannot be reduced to half truths and half love. In our theological tradition, I believe this is the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity which is not about the gender of God nor is it limited to the Three other than as the move beyond binary, either/or thinking.
The geometry is simple. A and B can be placed on a linear line. But C, the result of both being truths, cannot. It must be found off the line, opening the space of the first, triangular, expression of more than one at a time. Many and one is also an expression of this principle. The Many and the One must both be true at the same time.
This confounds logical positivism. It makes "definition" too limited to express the truth fully. It opens description as the alternative, and it retains the mystery of truth being beyond our full grasp. The Age of Reason did a lot of good about the rejection of top-down authority and the monopoly of truth in the established powers of 'ordained' authority. We owe bottom-up to the Enlightenment, but it did not give us the last word on truth and reality.
This is why Newtonian physics revealed more than it could explain in its Rational model. We have moved to both quantum and particle physics, and both tell us truths while we cannot conflate these two models into one supermodel. Does this upset scientists? Not really. They have discovered the delight of discovering more of the mystery and learning that their questions rarely get solved so much as replaced with better questions.
While there is no backwards or forwards in a both/and model of symbiosis in the paradox, there is a developmental reality to the need to get beyond the Me into the We of mutuality and interdependence to be able to see why social reality is not secondary to individualism. The points to appreciate are that there is a developmental truth in reaching maturity, not that it is a final resting place, but that without embracing the We in which the Self (Me) is brought fully into its true fullness, social reality remains ephemeral instead of existential.
One can see this in game theory where the premise of ontological autonomy as the state of reality cannot embrace what it takes to love in full commitment. The idea that we find ourselves by giving ourselves away to another works when mutuality is involved. The idea that love is a calculation of enlightened self-interest, but always a risk to be hedged messes up relating.
Until the point of the game is everybody winning, we will perceive our transactions with others as threats to our own 'self-sufficiency.' When we really go "all in" and embrace being our brother's keeper, we can appreciate that we are also "kept" and are dependent upon love and grace rather than our own earned virtue. I have known a lot of very smart and high achieving people who do not get this point and who are a lot less happy and 'successful' than they could be. I have known some low intelligence people who get it intrinsically.
American culture is rife with individualism, and a lot of liberalism does not move beyond a theory of "enlightened self-interest" that attempts to make loving a rational choice. I think love songs tell more about it than their theories do, and among our cultural myths and blind spots, the idea that we are rational beings instead of dependent upon love and grace plagues both Left and Right. It just has become high dogma on the Right behind a strange rewriting of Christianity. I think the Right is obsessed with redemption without grace, loving being Jesus' best friends while missing everything important in the Gospel.
I hope this allows you to understand what I am for so you will not continue to mischaracterize my position as you did above. May grace and love be yours.