Give it a thumb
The War on Terrorism
The Mistaken Means of Social Change - Part 3
THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS
The view of individualism was expressed clearly in the United States Declaration of Independence, which said: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men." Nothing could be more clear than that. "Unalienable Rights" means they are the natural possession of each of us upon birth, not granted by the state. The purpose of government is, not to grant rights, but to secure them and protect them.
By contrast, all collectivist political systems embrace the view that rights are granted by the state. That includes the Nazis, Fascists, and Communists. It is also a tenet of the United Nations. Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights says: "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights provided by the State … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law."
The reason this is important is that, if we agree that the state has the power to grant rights, then we must also agree it has the power to take them away. You cannot have one without the other. Notice the wording of the UN Covenant. After proclaiming that rights are provided by the state, it then says that those rights may be subject to limitations "as are determined by law." In other words, the collectivists at the UN presume to grant us our rights and, when they are ready to take them away, all they have to do is pass a law authorizing it.
Compare that with the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. It says Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of freedom of speech, or religion, peaceful assembly, the right to bear arms, and so forth - not except as determined by law, but no law. What a difference there is between individualism and collectivism.
REPUBLICS VS DEMOCRACIES
We are dealing here with one of the reasons people make a distinction between Republics and Democracies. We have been taught to believe that a Democracy is the ideal form of government. Supposedly, that is what was created by the American Constitution. However, if you read the documents of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution, you find that they spoke very poorly of Democracy. They said in plain English that a Democracy was one of the worst possible forms of government. And so they created what they called a Republic. The bottom line is that the difference between a Democracy and a Republic is the difference between collectivism and individualism.
In a pure Democracy, the concept is that the majority shall rule. That’s the end of the discussion. You might say, "What’s wrong with that?" Well, there could be plenty wrong with that. What about a lynch mob? There is only one person with a dissenting vote, and he is the guy at the end of the rope.
Ah, wait a minute, you say. Maybe the majority should not always rule. How can we protect the individual from the group? Maybe the group could become dangerous. Perhaps we should put limits upon Democracy.
That is precisely what a Republic accomplishes. A Republic is simply a limited Democracy - a Democracy with limits on what the group can do, with limits on what the majority can do. Republics are characterized by written constitutions that say the government - even though it represents the majority - shall not do this; the government shall not do that; and it shall be prevented from doing that, also. We have individual liberties and rights that stand higher and are more important than the group. And so we begin to get a handle on the debate here, the issue, the cleavage between these two concepts: collectivism on the one hand, individualism on the other.
COERCION VS FREEDOM
We come now to the next element of this debate, which is how to bring about desirable group action. The collectivist says you have to force people. That’s why he has an affinity to government. Government is the embodiment of legalized force. You can always spot a collectivist because, when he confronts a problem, his first reaction is to say, "There ought to be a law." His attitude is that we must force people to do what we think they should do, because they are not as smart as we are - we collectivists. We’ve been to school. We’ve read books. We participate in discussion groups. We are smarter than most of those people out there. If we leave it up to them, they are going to make terrible mistakes. So, it is up to us. We are the privileged, fortunate ones. We are the ones who shall decide on behalf of society and we shall enforce our decisions by law so that no one has any choice. That we should rule in this fashion is our obligation to mankind.
By contrast, individualists say, "We also think we are right and others are wrong, but we don’t believe in forcing anyone to comply with our will because, if we grant that principle, then others, representing larger groups than our own, can compel us to act as they decree, and we will have lost our freedom.
The collectivist will say, "I think everyone should wear seatbelts. That just makes a lot of sense. People can be hurt if they don’t wear seatbelts. So, let’s pass a law and require everyone to wear them. If they don’t, we’ll put them in jail." The individualist says, "I think everyone should wear seatbelts. People can be hurt in automobile accidents if they don’t wear seat belts, but I don’t believe in forcing everyone to do so. I believe in convincing them with logic and persuasion, if I can, but I also believe in freedom-of-choice."
As an individualist, I am not opposed to collective action. Just because I believe in freedom of choice does not mean I have to move my piano alone. It just means that I renounce the right to compel someone to help me. Individualists seek cooperation based on voluntary action, not compulsion.
And so here we have a second distinction between the collectivist and the individualist. The collectivist believes in coercion. The individualist believes in freedom.
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
There is one more issue to cover before restarting out time machine, and it has to do with the political spectrum. We often hear about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do these terms really mean? For example, we are told that Communists and Socialists are at the extreme Left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme Right. Here we have two powerful ideological forces pitted against each other, and the impression is that, somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all. They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze Communism and Nazism, they both embody the principles of Socialism. Communists make no bones about Socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international Socialism, whereas Nazis advocate national Socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is absolutely no difference between Communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists, and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find that Communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian concepts. Why? Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism and Socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical extension of their common ideology. They cannot help becoming what they are. More government is needed to solve bigger problems, and bigger problems require more government. Once you get on the slippery slope of collectivism, once you accept that ideology, there is no place to stop until you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is 100% government. Regardless of what name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different, collectivism is totalitarianism.
In truth, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical place for us to be is somewhere in the middle. We need government, of course, but, the concept of what kind of government must be built on individualism, an ideology that pushes always toward that part of the spectrum that involves the least government necessary to make things work instead of collectivism, which always pushes toward the other end of the spectrum for the most amount of government to make things work.
JOHN RUSKIN PROMOTES COLLECTIVISM AT OXFORD
We are finally ready to reactivate out time machine. From the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, we recall the curious words: "We must control education in America." Who is this " we? " Who are the people who are going to control education in America? To answer that question we must set the co-ordinates on our machine once again, and we are now moving further back in time to the year 1870. We find ourselves suddenly in England in an elegant classroom of Oxford University, and we are listening to a lecture by a brilliant intellectual, John Ruskin.
Ruskin was a Professor of Fine Arts at Oxford. He was a genius. At first I was prepared not to like him, because he was a total collectivist. I didn’t think I would like anything about him. But, when I got his books and started to read the notes from his lectures, I had to acknowledge his great talent. First of all he was an accomplished artist. He was an architect. He was a philosopher. About his only flaw was that he believed in collectivism. He preached it eloquently, and his students, coming from the wealthy class - the elite and the privileged from the finest areas of London - were very receptive to his message. He taught that those who had inherited the rich culture and the traditions of the British Empire had an obligation to rule the world and make sure that all the less fortunate and stupid people had proper direction. That was basically his message, but it was delivered in a very convincing and appealing manner.
Ruskin was not the originator of collectivism. He was merely riding the crest of an ideological tidal wave that was sweeping through the whole Western World at that time. It was appealing to the sons and daughters of the super wealthy who were growing up with guilt complexes because they had so much wealth and privilege in stark contrast to the world’s poor and starving masses.
In this milieu there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth. One of them was Marxism, which offered the promise of defending and elevating these downtrodden masses. Wealthy young people felt in their hearts that this promise was worthy and noble. They wanted to do something to help these people, but they didn’t want to give up their own privileges. I will say this about John Ruskin, he actually did give of his own wealth to help the poor, but he was one of the rare ones. Most collectivists are hesitant about giving their own money. They prefer to have government be the solver of problems and to use tax revenues - other people’s money - to fund their projects. Collectivists recognize that someone has to run this governmental machine, and it might as well be them, especially since they are so well educated and wise. In this way, they can retain both their privilege and their wealth. They can now be in control of society without guilt. They can talk about what they are doing to lift up the downtrodden masses using the collectivist model. It was for these reasons that many of the wealthy idealists became Marxists and sought positions of influence in government.
THE FABIAN SOCIETY
Some of the more erudite of those from the wealthy, intellectual classes of England came together and decided they would form an organization to perpetuate the concept of collectivism. It was called the Fabian Society. It is now 1884, and we find ourselves observing a group of these people, including Sydney and Beatrice Web (founders of the London School of Economics), George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and people of that high caliber. The Fabian Society exists today, and a lot of very prominent, influential, and powerful people are members. Tony Blair, for example, England’s Prime Minister, is a member.
H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide for Fabians and their friends showing how collectivism can be embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open Conspiracy, and the entire plan is spelled out in detail. He even said that the old religions of the world should give way to the new religion of collectivism. The new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control.
As mentioned previously, there were two powerful ideological movements coming to birth in this same period of history, and they had much in common. One of them was Marxism, which eventually was physically planted onto Russian soil and manifested itself as Communism. The other was Fabianism. Please note that Communism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their participants often move from one group to the other with ease - or may even be members of both groups at the same time. Communists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may disagree intensely over procedural issues, but never over goals, because their mutual goal is collectivism.
Fabians say, "Let us come to power quietly so as not to alarm anyone. Let us penetrate and capture control of the organs of society: the educational institutions, the media, the labor unions, agencies of government. Let us penetrate into the power centers of society and quietly guide it in the direction of collectivism. No one will realize what is happening, and there will be very little opposition or bloodshed." Fabians consider themselves to be humane. To emphasize this strategy of patient gradualism, they adopted the tortoise as their symbol, and the emblem on their shield is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Communists, on the other hand, are less genteel. They are adept at using all the same tactics of deception and quiet penetration into power centers as used by the Fabians, but they are more inclined to rely on violence and terror to accelerate their progress. They raise the clenched fist and say, "Let us come to power through revolution. Let us put masses into the streets and overthrow the target government by force and violence. Let the land be drenched with the blood of our enemies." Communists are in a hurry.
What is the debate. The only difference between Communists and Fabians is a question of tactics. They may compete over which of them will dominant the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of collectivist power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial pre-eminence over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood brothers under the skin, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition to collectivism.
The Fabian tortoise and the wolf in sheep’s clothing are emblazoned on a stained glass window that used to be in the Web house. The Webs donated their home to the Fabian Society, and it is now the headquarters of that organization in Surrey, England. The window was recently removed, but there are many photographs of it showing the symbols in great detail. Perhaps the most significant part is written across the top. It is that famous line from Omar Khayyam: "Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?" Please allow me to repeat that line. This is the key to modern history, and it is the key to the war on terrorism: "Dear love, couldst thou and I with fate conspire to grasp this sorry scheme of things entire, would we not shatter it to bits and then remould it nearer to the hearts desire?"
Elsewhere in the stained glass window there is a depiction of Sydney Webb and George Bernard Shaw striking the earth with hammers. The earth is on an anvil, and they are standing there striking the earth with hammers. "Shatter it to bits," That’s what they were saying at the Carnegie Endowment Fund. That’s what they were saying at the Ford Foundation. "War is the best way to remold society. War! Shatter society to bits. Break it apart. Then we can remold it nearer to the heart’s desire. And what is our heart’s desire? Collectivism."