Why Groups Are a Form of Imprisonment for the Individual

Related image

I don’t like groups. I don’t think I’ve ever liked groups. Groups are literally the anti-thesis of the individual. As a Radical Individualist, I strongly dislike groups because they are in every way, shape and form a weight and, in some cases, a prison for the individual.

In a group, a consensus must be created. An individual’s own opinion or preference may be discarded or ignored because it is not ‘in accord with everyone else’s’. In a group, people must make compromises – they must co-operate, and this of course means that ones individuality is sacrificed.

Most groups have a leader, but even a leader must be careful of what they do, because if their actions cause unfavorable results this could lead to their removal as leader. Thus, even the most authoritarian and dictatorial of leaders will at times compromise their true desires in order to remain in power. Compromises are abundant in groups – such as political parties, activist organizations, company boards and so on – if one wants to get even more personal, one must compromise in a family, a relationship, and with friends. Even though these ‘groups’ are not based on an ideological consensus, they still require co-operation, sacrifices and compromising.

Obviously, each individual has their own desires and opinions. In a group, you have several individuals, thus you inevitably have differing and opposing views. The only way you’d have a truly ‘unified, all-in-agreement’ group would be one in which every member is too stupid to think for themselves and, without any hesitation, these members unanimously agree with everything their leader says.

No two individuals are alike, and thus, in a group, the individual is suppressed and cannot live as they truly see fit. Groups are inevitably a threat to individualism. A true individual does not need a group to support him or herself. A true individual is fine on their own. A true individual then, is their own group.

Advertisements

There Are No ‘For the People’ Movements

Image result for populist

Be especially critical of every movement that claims to be ‘for the people’. The reason why is because all movements are selfish in nature. Every activist, politician or leader is merely trying to get the world ‘in-line’ with their own viewpoints. They say that they are ‘for the people’, and in their defense, they are probably unconscious of their selfish motives (meaning they truly believe that they are indeed putting the needs of others before their own)

However, every human acts according to self-interest, and since humans have such a complex consciousness, this means that selfishness can disguise itself as being altruistic or compassionate. But nonetheless, every movement is led by people who are only involved because it somehow, in one way or another, works to their benefit.

So there are no ‘for the people’ movements. Populism is merely an illusion. Every movement is led and organized by humans who are not ‘for the people’ but are simply ‘for themselves’.

The problem with this is that these movements are essentially lying right off the bat. Commonly, these movements have some moral-high ground, act self-righteous and parade themselves as being the champion of all people. Of course, as mentioned, there are no ‘for the people’ movements. These little tactics and tricks and simply a way for one or more individual leaders to gain power. So be especially critical of populist movements – they are not really ‘populist’, rather they are ‘individualist’ movements that are adept at making people think that they are apart of something greater – something that actually cares for their needs. But this is not true. A populist movement is simply one intelligent leader commanding a bunch of simpleton people who are too moronic to think for themselves.

Pro-Weapon

Image result for monks with guns
I am a very strong supporter of the idea that people should be armed with weapons. To say ‘I support the Second Amendment’ would seem hypocritical though, at least to me, seeing as how I view the constitution as nothing more than a worthless piece of paper. Nonetheless, I guess you could say I am very pro-gun, in that I do believe people should be able to own guns for personal use. I do not care what kinds of guns – automatics, glocks, an AK47 with a grenade launcher. I take things one step further though, and I ultimately believe that people should be able to own any weapons they want. Brass knuckles for some reason are illegal in most states, yet I think that they are a legitimate form of defense. If a person wants to buy and own a grenade, a land mine, a sawed-off shotgun, a missile, a working tank, a fighter jet – honestly I am not opposed to making any of these things illegal. If a person wants to own a weapon, and if they are willing to pay for it, then by all means they should have it.
But I digress. The point of this post is to show that I am very pro-gun (pro-weapon is more accurate term actually). One of the things that bothers me the most are those miserable liberals who want to not only ban certain weapons, but they want the government to take away weapons that people already possess. The worst kind of liberals are those that want to ban all guns in general, or enact a very strict gun law similar to ones in Europe. The idea of civilians being disarmed, and having only the military and police have firearms is a thought that disgusts me. I do not trust the police or the military. They are simply puppets to the government. People need weapons (like guns) to protect themselves not only from criminals, but from the police and military. The whole idea behind the Second Amendment was that, in case of an emergency, the common folk would be armed and able to defend themselves. While I don’t care for the constitution, the reasoning behind the Second Amendment’s creation is logically sound and understandable – weapons protect people.
Another reason I am pro-gun is because gun ownership is very individualistic in nature. A man with a gun is able to protect himself and those he cares for. Without a gun, a man must rely on the police or military to protect him. A man must essentially give away his ‘freedom’ to protect himself. His fate is now largely in the hands of the police and military. This idea is a dream for liberals though. Liberals are like children and they view the government as a strong adult – they want to be taken care of, provided for and protected. The liberals cannot do these things themselves, and thus any person who espouses a lifestyle of individualism, self-protection and resourcefulness is deemed a threat to them.
Guns are a necessary tool that man must use for self-defense. Liberals talk about championing “equality” – yet they are opposed to guns, which essentially make everyone equal. Think about it – it doesn’t matter what gender, or race, or height or weight or sexuality a person is – a gun will protect them better than if they had only their bare hands. On a one-on-one fight between a 6’7 300 pound linebacker and a 5’6 100 pound woman – there is no denying that the 6’7 guy would win. But if each one of them had a gun then it would be a ‘fair’ fight for the most part – or at least, it would be a much fairer fight than the two of them going one-on-one. Guns make people equal, or at least near the same level.
The other hypocritical thing about liberals is that they are constantly bashing the police for brutality, or the military for its many aggressive acts of war and violence towards civilians – yet these same liberals want these same police and military to be the only ones allowed to own guns.
These same liberals seem to believe that banning guns will help end crime, or it will stop school shootings. But again, banning things never seems to work. The government banned marijuana and yet the plant is practically everywhere in the US. The government banned numerous other drugs and yet, with not much effort, one can easily find a drug dealer who can sell you an illegal drug. If banning drugs did not work than how will banning guns work?
A person who wants to shoot up a school or commit a terrorist attack will do whatever means necessary to obtain a gun. They won’t think “oh no, guns are illegal. I guess I won’t shoot up that school now”. No – if a person is really that psychotic to even contemplate on shooting up a school then surely some petty little law won’t stop them from going underground and finding an illegal arms dealer.
Are guns dangerous? Yes, they are. But so is just about everything else. Cars, airplanes, the food we eat, the technology we use – all of its dangerous. Indeed, dangerous things are usually quite fun (at least to me). A world without dangerous things would be a boring world. But I digress.
I am against any form of gun regulation or ban. I see any form of gun control as nothing more than an authoritarian attempt to limit mans freedom and to make him dependent on the government.
Guns should not be made illegal and they should not be regulated. I do not need the police or the military to protect me – I can protect myself with my own weapons, as should every other man who is not an absolute leech.

 

Might Makes Right

Image result for spartan soldier

The term ‘Might Makes Right” means that whoever is in power determines the rules a society must follow. In other words, the leaders use their might to determine what is right. What we constitute as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ depends on the environment we live in and the rulers who determine them.

Everyone has difference opinions about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Some people follow a religious text, others follow their own personal beliefs, and some refuse to accept that there is any right or wrong way to begin with (I belong to this last category BTW). Nonetheless, since there are so many differing opinions, how can any of them be implemented? After all, surely some of the ideas of what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ would contradict or conflict with other ideas.

‘Might Makes Right’ means that the strongest – those who rule over a society or its subjects – get to determine what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. The strong defeat the weak, and thus the strong are able to implement their moral ideals into a society, which others then follow. If these moral ideals are broken, then the disobeyer is punished.

There are two ways we can look at ‘Might Makes Right’. One is on a small scale and another is on a larger scale. On a small scale, imagine a parent and child. The parent gets to determine what is ‘right’ for the child. Parents have different rules they make for their children to obey – some may make them eat only healthy foods, some may make them wash their hands or pray before every meal, some may punish them for getting bad grades. Each family has rules that are a little different from one house to the next. Basically. the parents use their might (i.e. intelligence, physical strength, age, money) in order to enforce their idea of what is ‘right’ for the child, or what rules the child must obey. Even though the child can disobey, this usually results in a punishment which is meant to deter the child from further disobedience. Whereas in one house a child may be punished for staying out late, in another house there may be no curfew at all. The rules that parents set differ, but nonetheless the parents exert their ‘might’ to determine what is ‘right’.

On a larger scale, this applies to government, or whoever rules or exerts authority over society. The government gets to determine what is ‘right’, meaning what rules, laws, and punishments must be exacted. In some countries, say the United States, the government uses its ‘might’ to make people pay taxes. In another sense, the US government has determined that economic freedom is a ‘right’ and thus the US has a free-enterprise market. Whereas in North Korea, the government has used its ‘might’ to create an isolated military dictatorship, which is views as ‘right’.

This ‘Might Makes Right’ policy not only applies to the physical world, but it can also apply to a spiritual one. God, for example, is apparently the only being that can set forth what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In the Bible, God gives numerous commands about what is morally right and should be done, and what is morally wrong and should be avoided. But why do people listen to God? Because God has might. If God did not have the super-natural powers he supposedly has – then would anyone listen to him? I am not a Christian nor do I really believe that there is a God, but I admit that the only reason Christianity has an ‘objective morality’ that people follow is because people are afraid of God’s wrath. If you disobey God, he may punish you. God’s ‘might’ is what makes people obey his laws – his concepts on what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. Without his ‘might’, very few, if anyone, would listen to God and obey him.

Those who rule are those that get to decide what is right or wrong. This done not mean, however, that morality is necessarily subjective. A person can believe, for example, in an objective morality set forth from God (i.e. Christianity). However, if the ruling group is an atheist state, then Christianity morality means little because it cannot be implemented. Even if it may be an objective morality, the rules of a society ultimately determines what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, because they have the power to enforce their views. So, ‘Might Makes Right’ simply means that a persons ‘might’ determines what shall be considered ‘right’. Therefore, next time you think ‘oh this is the right thing to do’ or ‘oh this isn’t right’ – remember that your concept of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ were probably forced onto you by society.

People I Don’t Like

I dislike any group or organization or even person who thinks that they know what is truly right and wrong, and then forces their viewpoints and rules on to you. This one of the reasons why I dislike politicians, police, religious extremists and any other authority figures. I do not believe there is such a thing as an ‘inherently good/bad’ or a ‘morally right/wrong’ action. There is no ‘correct’ way to live. The politicians want to shape the world according to their views – they want you to live by their rules. The police then enforce these arbitrary rules. As for religious extremists, they are perhaps some of the most annoying – because they believe that some higher power or absolute is commanding them to ‘carry out their will’. Ha, pathetic. Morals are subjective, laws are subjective, and in all honesty I don’t care for them. And so I especially dislike people who try to force their view of right and wrong onto other people.

The Distinction Between ‘Civilian’ and ‘Combatant’ No Longer Exists

Image result for gioventù italiana del littorio

In every war or conflict, there are ‘civilians’ and there are ‘combatants’. Combatants for the most part are soldiers, members of a militia, police – essentially people whose job/duty involves fighting an ‘enemy’. Civilians are supposed to be the opposite of combatants – they are the average people who mind their own business and, for the most part, should have nothing to do with the war.

Ideally, a war would be fought only between combatants. Only combatants would fight, kill, and harm each other. The civilians would be safe from any danger and would not have to suffer. Of course, this is not the case in any conflict.

Although I am not a fascist, there is one tenet of fascist theory that I do 100% agree with – and that is that the distinction between civilian and combatant no longer exists in the modern era. The Italian Fascists of the 1920’s believed that modern technology and the advent of ‘total war’ created a world where civilians and combatants are no longer distinct.

And they are right. After all, a bomb doesn’t care if its killing civilians or soldiers. A land mind is unable to discriminant between the enemy and an innocent passerby. Toxic chemicals and biological weapons effect everyone in their radius – regardless of the persons role in the combat. Even guns and their bullets are chaotic – stray bullets can fly just about anywhere and hit anyone.

As time goes on, more and more civilians die as a result of warfare. In the Ancient and Medieval times, civilians causalities tended to be much lower (at least compared to today’s standards). The reason why is mostly due to technology. A sword and a few arrows can only kill so many people. Even combatant deaths in medieval era were relatively low. According to the book Medieval Warfare: A History, on average only about 5% of soldiers died per battle in Europe.

Before all this technological warfare (say in Ancient or Medieval times), soldiers would meet at a designated place and fight. Civilians were out of the way (sure, civilians were sometimes involved, such as with sieges or raids), but it was never to the extent that civilians are involved with nowadays.

However, modern technology has made it extremely easy to kill people. The problem is that most of these people are civilians. In World War I, there were 11 million combatant causalities and 7 million civilian causalities. 7 million! In a way, the only reason more combatants died here is because of Trench Warfare, which for the most part ensured that only soldiers fought other soldiers.

Out of the 80 million or so people that died in World War II, about 55 million of those people were civilians! 55 million civilians dead because of a war!

During the Vietnam War, about 2 million Vietnamese civilians were killed, whereas only 1 million NVA and Viet Cong soldiers were killed.

In the Iraq War (2003), there were 174,000 causalities – with only 39,000 being combatants. That means around 77% of the causalities during the Iraq War were civilians.

Now, the point of this post was simply to point out the Fascists were right. In our modern era, the distinction between civilian and combatant is no longer existent. Civilians, for the past 100 years, have been paying the price for wars that are supposedly fought between soldiers.

It is foolish of us to think that things will be different in the future. If anything, more and more civilians are going to die as a result or wars. Technology does not make a distinction between civilian and combatant.

One of the things that Fascists taught young children was how to defend themselves. The Hitler Youth for example taught young boys how to fight, shoot, work with weapons, and practice military drills. The underlying foundation behind Hitler Youth was the idea that at any moment a war could erupt, and that these civilians (young boys) must be prepared to fight said war.

The Gioventù Italiana del Littorio (Italian Youth of the Lictor) was an Italian Hitler Youth-esque group comprised of young boys receiving military and weapons training. Similar to the Germans, the Italian Fascists taught that war could break out at any time, and that civilians must be prepared to fight said war.

Now, it might seem crazy to give young boys weapons and to teach them to fight, kill and so on. But look at what happened to both Italy and Germany during World War II. Italy lost 153,000 civilians as a result of the Allied invasion. Germany suffered even more, with 1.5 – 3 million civilians being killed by Allied bombings, raids and so on. Pictures of the bombed ruined cities Germany, Italy and Japan from World War 2 are further proof that, in the modern era, civilians are the ones who suffer during warfare.

The point of this post is that the distinction between civilian and combatant no longer exists. People must realize that just because they are not conscripted soldiers does not give them a free pass to war. With modern technology and rising tensions between numerous countries, it is very much likely that a war could unfold just about anywhere. Americans have become largely ignorant of this fact, seeing as how the last war fought on US soil was the Civil War (there was the Aleutian Islands campaign but that was so minuscule it isn’t worth including). What I am trying to say is that civilians must learn to defend themselves. Civilians must realize that a war is no longer fought solely between soldiers.

Whenever a war breaks out – civilians are the ones who are going to suffer the most. Therefore, it seems reasonable that civilians must learn to arm and defend themselves. Civilians must take on the role of combatants and be prepared for anything. Civilians must toughen up and realize that soldiers will no longer be the ones protecting them – if anything, its the soldiers (enemy soldiers) who will be their greatest threat, since it will be the enemy soldiers weapons aimed at them.

The difference between civilians and combatants is in name only.