|
A new mindset for collectivist "individualism."
Q: Why can't we all just get along?
Dangers of Social Behavior
As humanity has further adopted an unnatural environment, our fervor for "individualism" has become more adamant. There are many incentives to "get along" - the desire to please potential clients, the fear of being out of step with one's neighbors, and a culture which glorifies convenience and personal profit over effective, intelligent social change. This phenomenon has been building since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and plays into the hands of technocratic leaders by isolating the individual as a source of grassroots action except for special, fragmented issues like abortion or entitlements, neither of which affect the whole of the political system.
The result of having a society based entirely upon a facilitative economy is that compromise reigns over any practical wisdom. A room full of people will agree on nothing because they will all be personally invested in identifying themselves with smaller issues, thus some smart person will see opportunity and speak up about a compromise plan. The problem with compromise is that it does not allow for any dynamic, radical or even roughly "pure" change - all change must come about through universally accepted means, offend no one, and be able to be expressed in the most basic terms, meaning that no long-term planning is possible.
Antisocialism
Humanism, or "a philosophy that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individual's dignity and worth and capacity for self-realization through reason" according to Merriam-Webster, has come to mean in an industrial age a benevolent and merciful view of the universe centered around human beings. Antisocialism opposes this movement on the grounds that an absolutism of human focus or preeminence of social behavior will lead to a negation of positive long-term planning attributes, as well as an inability to make crucial decisions.
Indeed, having linked the world via an Internet and television/radio/newspaper network, we can now see how uniformly true it is that most people (80% was one qualified estimate) are utterly unfit to make any decisions larger than what to have for lunch. These are not ready for the kinds of decisions that modern governments, law, industry and philosophy demand. Those who can, should do, but those who cannot will only get in the way. Where our forefathers saw the individual above all else, we now see ideas as being the most important commodity of our time and the competition between ideas as necessary for scientific progress. Democracy turns real-world events into symbolism; cannot the reverse be true, in which inferred data from real-world events is the goal?
Our primary antisocial solution is twofold. First, we propose a cascading meritocratic hierarchical system for choosing the most competent person in any position. We say "cascading" because there will be hierarchies at the level of individuals, groups, ideas, and other containers which inherit properties from the larger association to which they belong - regardless of political system, this natural tendency will exist. This is to say that for the Special Forces, you start considering candidates above the cutoff for what you'd call a "normal" soldier; the first hierarchy is that of the Army, the one inside that the hierarchy of the Special Forces, and finally, within that is a spectrum of individual talents and abilities. Hierarchy is a fact of life, and is disguised by our social and economic systems to reduce the stinging reality of the human meat market.
Our proposition also follows Mr. Nietzsche's advice that what is needed is a "re-evaluation of all values" in light of the debunking of supernatural mysticism, individualism and humanitarianism, so that a stronger, more realistic society might be build in order to provide a better and more intellectually coherent future for our selves. The values we propose are abstracted as a response to postmodernism, technocratic politics and globalist religious/moral indoctrination.
The general process of our thinking goes as follows: too much social behavior will cause unhealthy dishonesty, so what is needed is civil antisocialist culture. There is no reason to expect others to be compliant, broken, and trained humans when most of their problems arise from being frustrated by the complexity and totality of their social interaction. Our value systems espouses ultra-tolerance of non-destructive behaviors, but also total intolerance for that which is destructive the natural environment or social mission of humanity. Further, we avoid the symbolism with which previous generations wielded "right"/"wrong", "mercy", "justice" and "freedom" in times of corrupt war, and consider antisocial behavior to include antisymbolic thought.
Values for the Next Future Era
It is our collective choice to find a new future, but the secession of the individual from social participation cannot continue. As our values degenerate, so do our cities, our prospects and our interactions with one another. We claim the romanticism of earlier ages, but there is longing for simpler times when bitterness was not this absolute, and emotion so fake. The citizens of the world's media pay attention and emulate what they see. The result often is terror in a sublime, time-detonated format. To avoid this, and to for the sake of enjoying life contribute something to our collective existence, the choice can be made to architect a new system where culture and shared values are more important than governmental actions.
|
The inherent problem with social structures is that they are self-consumptive. Once people begin to recognize each other in an egotistic sense, the individual takes precedence over the whole, making it difficult to balance overall goals with immediate, short-term, "personal gain." Not only that, but for the purposes of social control, an internal language of symbols is created which identifies social values, making it easier for individuals to justify their actions in terms of society and not that which it facilitates, the interaction between humans and their natural environment.
Part of the problem with analyzing any social system is our collective conception of causality: we see a future arising from the past, and assume that it is predetermined. Therefore to it we accede, and fail to realize that within our grasp is whatever future social conception we desire, and that depending on its correspondence to the inherent tendencies of our nature and environment, it will succeed according to its strengths and weaknesses. Where the U.S. Constitution originally conceived of the individual as the free agent whose choices drove the success or failure of the individual, it is now clear that the stakes are larger.
Second, we propose that inequality be accepted as a social value over equality. Pledging daily that we are all "equal," in individual or grouping, forces into our heads the ludicrous notion of normativization, an enforced humility to avoid offending others by revealing individual ability. If one soars above the rest, like Icarus, he must be struck down for daring to be a "god" among men. A founding influence on Antisocialism was the work of F.W. Nietzsche including his concept of the "übermensch," or overman: someone who surpassed others in all areas by diligent, focused work and a passionate romanticism regarding life itself.
The conclusion of this effort is that we will be able to separate ourselves from the cloying morality of the previous failed society, and will embark on the new without a need to judge whether something is "good" or "evil" but to respect the chaotic and organic nature of all things and people, as a culture. The differences in social values brought on by this change will prompt a reduction in harm and progress for some elites toward new heights of intellectual, physical and spiritual feats. Whether or not we conceive of it, nature does not create one of anything, and so it is safe to assume that elsewhere in this universe are species that, by the nature of technology and resource conflict, are competing with us to reach a position of dominance.