FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
How to win the Cultural War.

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Jenifer Johnson



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:24 pm    Post subject: How to win the Cultural War. Reply with quote

The issue is Individualism versus Collectivism, where Collectivism violates one's individual Values, Standards, and Beliefs.

Everyone on earth is a uniquely distinct individual, where no one is the same or has ever been the same. As an individual, the only thing that separates us all is our standards, values and beliefs; where your's are as valid as mind. The right to accept is as valid as the right to reject. We establish our standards, values and beliefs, to make our choices in life in the pursuit of excellence to give meaning and success to one's life. Only the individual can determine what is best for them and what their purpose in life should be (personal happiness); therefore, all freedom and responsibility flow from the individual. As an individual, everyone is unique and no one is the same, where everyone is inferior/superior to someone else. The basis of any idea that can be considered right and wrong conduct is: No one has the right to violate another's rights, therefore, no one has dominion over another.

Laws of Nature have absolute axioms, that establish rules or principles or self-evident truth. Reality is Truth, and truth is the control mechanism for reality.

By definition, Politics is the competition of group interest, competing for power and leadership over the individual, by divide and conquer. Judaism is a political system of Talmudic Laws based on tribal beliefs in superiority, designed to justify third party control a.k.a. God over the individual. The conn-game of monotheism is, there is only one God, and as a representative of God, you must do what I say. Until they can present god, they are only a conn-artist promoting their OWN agenda shrouded as the "collective good". This political system of laws promoting the collectivist mentality is now the Church of Political Correctness of "government said", which is the same mentality as Judaism of "god said".

Reality:
Everyone is a unique and distinct individual where there are NO forced labels of distinction. Jew is ONLY a label of distinction that distinguishes them from someone else because of their belief in Judaism.

Judaism:
Race is Jewish Dogma "a Jew is one that is born of a Jewish Mother". The concept of race, that there were forced label of distinctions, is FALSE. If you believe in the concept of race, then you are a JEW!

Reality:
One only has a perception of what one think someone is, then give them labels to communicate their perception to someone else. You have no proof of what anything is but your perception. Example: I think someone is a tall well-built handsome young green man. If there were forced label of distinctions, then the man must be green. First they create the dogma (forced label of distinction), then they project their own beliefs onto others while slandering (calling others racist/racism) them for the same exact behavior of communicating their perception of reality.

Race is politicizing human value from a group perspective, used as a political tool to force their group agenda. Political Correctness is social propaganda to promote a group persecutive to encourage or force government sanctioned behavior on to the individual. Political Correctness is the politics of group control. The main instrument to force Political Correctness was The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is codification into law, making the claim that one has the right not to be discriminated against from a group persecutive.

To framing the argument in terms of race, we will continually loose claiming one group is better than another. The goal should be to over turn the Civil Rights Act (the group perspective) by disproving the concept of race (a Jewish agenda), and not playing their con-game of who's group is perspective as best. The Civil Rights Act (forced assimilation) and Jim Crow laws (force segregation) are only opposite sides of the same coin. Anyone that promotes the Civil Rights Act is as immoral and unethical as anyone that promoted Jim Crow laws. Civil (government) Rights violate individual rights, because someone is always external to someone else's group think.

To violate one's individual rights is a crimes against humanity. The goal of Collectivism is collective control, which is the core of evil. It is organized crime committing crimes against humanity.

I think by showing that the concept of race is false and showing that they are the ones that are actually promoting the racism (a group perspective) will show their only objective is to control individual values. This is about individual freedom versus a group CONTROL of values. To framing the argument in terms of Individual Values, Standards. and Beliefs, One's individual freedom will always win. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 violates one's Individual Rights.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stevensnell



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 8:50 am    Post subject: What happened to 'United' Nations? Reply with quote

Hi Jenny,

Your post got me thinking about the UN. In my naive youth I actually believed in the UN as a force for good. Maybe it was too many Captain Planet episodes (http://www.turner.com/planet/), but I actually thought we could go somewhere with it.

You state that "everyone on earth is a uniquely distinct individual" and I agree in terms of human morality. The political struggle for rights - e.g. Why can't I as a white/black male/female have a right to drive/vote/work in our 1st World - is exactly that, a political struggle, rather than a human or conscience based one.

A good example from the UK would be fox-hunting. Apparently the Houses of Parliament here in blighty spent around 700 hours debating the 'rights' of Fox hunters to kill foxes. I hear we spent around 41hrs debating the War in Iraq and around 22hrs debating Afghanistan. Its pretty clear where priorities lie. Much like any other media panic (funny example is the 'Brass Eye - Paedoph-iles UK special') MP's like to appear as leaders, shouting passionately about their chosen subject. Its like Mastermind for people with tourrets.

I think that we're living in a particular interesting time in regard to 'alternate' societies and power distribution models. With people like Evo Morales introducing new ideas (for right or wrong) and workers of Buenos-Aires (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0426596/) resisting corporate 'collectivism' there are foundations to build upon.

Westerners have got a lot to learn from our South American friends.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jenifer Johnson



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Mon Feb 13, 2006 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Steven,

The paradigm of "God said" has been established is to legitimize third party control, but the only legitimate control can only come from the individual.

Every living organism feeds off of another living organism. In order for you to live another day, you have to violate another living organism's life or potential for the continuation of life. There is no moral high ground because your basic needs dictate your selfish objectives. In other words, it is human nature to pursue what is in your best interest.

In order not to kill each other, the God paradigm of third party control was established which only amounts to politics. A sin is a crime against God; which is open to subjective interests controlled by group objectives (collectivism). Government is the current manifestation of this paradigm of "government said".

Everything in life has value, and its value is the control mechanism for positive or negative evaluation. Objective interest is individualistic, because the only way I can get you to do something is to present positive ramifications of it for your self-interest. Therefore, good and evil is in the eye of the beholder. Homosexuality is revolting to me only because it has no value, but to others, it does have value. My only right is not to be subjected or have homosexuality forced on to me.

The correct paradigm is Individualism, where the only law is "no one has a right to violate another individual's rights"; where the pursuit of excellence (value) is the control mechanism for good and evil.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
stevensnell



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 88

PostPosted: Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Jenny,

I take your point about 'God said' and think that the widening split between Religion and spirituality is worth debating. Even before organised religion and the 'sin' against god, civilisations were accepting a rule of law, so to speak. I'd refer you to the Hammurabian Code (http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm) as example, although based on a monarchy, rather than theocracy. (we could debate the origins of the code as divine inspiration (spirituality) rather than organised-centralised-religion however)

In regard to your point about having to violate another living organism's life or potential, I would like to offer another viewpoint. Let's discuss a flower. This life, and a metaphor for others, exists in a symbiotic relationship with the 'birds and the bees'. There are numerous examples in nature of this balancing act in many ecosystems, so it would seem logical that humans have some sort of symbiotic relationship with some one/thing- rather than exclusively selfish in nature.

If the flower were a selfish lifeform, would it display such bright colours in order to attract insects to harvest pollen? I appreciate the argument that this is in the flower's own selfish interest to breed, but different plant-life use other methods like wind distribtion to procreate. In fact, thinking on this point, it would seem that many 'hive' based lifeforms (bees/ants) use plants in a symbiotic relationship - the hive mentality acts in one thought direction (food) and the plant/flower adheres to another (procreation). Could it be that the hive (collective) and individual(s) (selfish) exist together for their own common goal - survival?

I agree we're all basically selfish (hence our posts:) but feel your standpoint on homosexuality is worth reconsidering, for your own benefit - as you say, you find it revolting.

Thanks for replying.

Regards,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.