Service Before Self: The Subterfuge of Collectivism

To any normal, well-meaning human being, the above military platitude might sound pretty good.  I, as a member of the human race, have a deep desire to look out for my the wellbeing of my brothers and sisters, and to correct injustices when I am able to do so.  We are all connected, after all.  The problem is, we are also aware that there are human beings who walk among us who do not share this feeling of connectedness.  These individuals seem to lack empathy, and appear to look out only for themselves, and their individual best interests, often to the detriment of the lives of the multitude of other beings with whom we share this planet.  We can all think, I'm sure, of a personal example of this type of person, someone we have personally met, talked to, and interacted with.  They exude the Wall Street idea that "greed is good," and take Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" to an extreme.  One of the principle virtues in Satanic Ideology, incidentally, is that of self-preservation over the good of the whole.

So, why are there people who behave this way?  What would make a person not care about the impact of his actions upon others?  Is it possible to behave this way, and truly not feel any pangs of guilt or experience any crises of conscience?  Well, it sure seems to me that such individuals do exist, and the only conclusion that seems to make sense is that these people are afflicted with a mental illness characterized by an inability to experience empathy.  Through many generations of Darwinian inbreeding, they have managed to purify and strengthen this mental imbalance through epigenetic reinforcement.  Sometimes they will speak their beliefs, and play upon the greed that seems to exist within each of us, but most of the time they don't.  The desire for self-preservation has driven these individuals to study the behavior of humans, and they have become very adept at feigning the empathy they lack.  As M. Scott Peck states in People of the Lie:

Erich Fromm was acutely sensitive to this fact when he broadened the definition of necrophilia to include the desire of certain people to control others-to make them controllable, to foster their dependency, to discourage their capacity to think for themselves, to diminish their unpredectibility and originalty, to keep them in line. Distinguishing it from a "biophilic" person, one who appreciates and fosters the variety of life forms and the uniqueness of the individual, he demonstrated a "necrophilic character type," whose aim it is to avoid the inconvenience of life by transforming others into obedient automatons, robbing them of their humanity.

A healthy, normal human being has no need to rule over others.  It is the belief in the validity of the Right of Rulership of some over others which is the root of our collective mental illness, and it has spread through our midst like a mental virus.

The truth, that all intellectually capable and emotionally stable humans know deep down, is that one person does not have the right to commit violence unto another.  Ever.  Violence, as used its truest form, is defined as the initiation of force upon another.  One person does not have to right to initiate force against another.  This is commonly called the Non-Aggression Principle, and it is at the core of Natural Law.  The same principle applies to groups among other groups, and also to cells within the individual organism, and onward and upward in both directions.  Once force has been initiated, however, force may, and sometimes must, be used to neutralize the threat.  Look to the immune system of the complex organism as a metaphor.  White blood cells known as "killer T-cells" seek out and destroy that which is perceived as a threat.  However, the Killer T-Cell does not jump outside the organism, and go off on its own to seek out and destroy all threats in the world.  Nor does it offer its mercenary services to other individuals.

And this is where it gets muddy.  This is where those who seek to rule step in.  They assert that there are dangerous people "out there" who will most certainly initiate force, i.e. commit violence.  (They know this, because they are those very people.)  They propose to protect the masses from "those scary people out there" or "that ominous terrorist threat" in exchange for the relinquishment of personal power.  They convince people to give up their right to defend themselves, in exchange for a promise of safety.  And people believe that they can abdicate this responsibility.  And they also believe that in doing so, they can collectively agree to give those in power a right that no individual person has.  The right to commit violence.  The right to initiate force.

The idea that one person can be given the right to rule others is nothing more than a superstition, but it is one we have all been trained so well to believe, that we can barely imagine anything different.  With the implementation of edicts such as the Divine Right of Kings, Manifest Destiny, and the occulting of sacred information by the many types of priest-classes, they have ruled this planet through fear for many hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  They are the Royal Families, The Bushes, The Clintons, The Rockefellars, The Rothschilds, and so on and so forth.  You need only look to those who wield power over others to find them.

These mischievous beings often hijack metaphors which have been used to describe great truths, and twist them to their own, personal advantage.  By far, the most common of these is the idea that the good of the whole outweighs the good of the individual.  Understand, and always remember, that people who use this type of expression are either ignorant of the deeper implications of such an ideology, or they are the very ones who undermine it.  Notice that within the expression is an imbalance.  Is one really more important than the other?

Look closely.  If a hypothetical person, let's call her Hillary, wishes to force other people to act in a way that she claims is, or perhaps even believes is "for the common good," whose will is she fulfilling?  Who determines what types of actions are for the common good?  If everyone acts in the same manner, is that best for the common good?  If each individual is to choke down his desire to express his individuality for the good of the collective, what then happens to the species as a whole?  Are there historical examples we can turn to which demonstrate what happens when diversity is regulated?

Can you begin to see that this type of control tactic uses as its premise the TRUTH that the good of the whole community is important.  It then gives power to this idea, by adding emotionally charged anecdote and parables, and attempts to convince people that the good of the individual is…
not as important.

Stop right there.

Isn't that which is good for the individual equally important?  Action taken by an individual that strengthens a community is of course very healthy, but only when it is inspired from within the individual.  When a small group of individuals IMPOSES this type of activity as LAW upon the larger community of individuals, superseding the right of each individual to make his or her own free will decisions, this becomes the ultimate expression of self-interest, driven by a desire for domination and control.

The whole cannot be healthy without healthy individual parts.  Each part must be allowed to express itself freely.  Each individual part has an innate connection with the whole, which can be found only by looking inward.  Looking outward, to "authorities" for this connection, will always lead to concentration of power, and eventually corruption and despotism.  

THAT WHICH IS TRULY GOOD FOR THE INDIVIDUAL, ALWAYS ALIGNS WITH THAT WHICH IS TRULY GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY.  AND THAT WHICH IS DESTRUCTIVE TO OTHERS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, OR TO THE COMMUNITY ITSELF, IS ULTIMATELY THE DEMISE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. 

The source of right and wrong is within each of us.

This above all: to thine own self be true.