How
does one level the playing field when going against the powerful?
With
the TRUTH
Because
only those hiding behind a lie fear the TRUTH
**Individualism is
not opposed to man living in society. Individualism is opposed to man living in
society as a slave**
Inconvenient: not convenient especially in giving trouble
or annoyance: the truth can be problematic, inconvenient.
“An
Inconvenient Website”
Learn the
Truth about the Subverting of America © Nov. 29, 2007
The
foundation of POWER is www.Bill-Wink.com
which is built on the TRUTH
Prophecy
points to great change by December 21, 2012.
It is predicted that by that date, the world will end as we know it
today. Could that prophecy and date mean
the shift to world governance? Or could
that date mean something else?
“By the year 2012, these changes must be fully
integrated into our economic and political life." 1992 Maurice
Strong architect of Agenda 21 – Sustainable Development
“The real battle in this Country is
not Republican vs Democrat or Liberal vs Conservative
it is Individualism vs Collectivism
a battle between Capitalism and Socialism.” Bill Wink 12/8/10
S
An Introduction to American Individualism:
|
Dear Friend, Steven M. Lukes – Encyclopedia Britannica In
the United States, individualism became part of the core American ideology by
the 19th century, incorporating the influences of New England Puritanism,
Jeffersonianism, and the philosophy of natural rights. American individualism
was universalist and idealist but acquired a harsher edge as it became
infused with elements of social Darwinism (i.e., the survival of the
fittest). “Rugged individualism”—extolled by Herbert Hoover during his
presidential campaign in 1928—was associated with traditional American values
such as personal freedom, capitalism, and limited government. As James Bryce,
British ambassador to the United States (1907–13), wrote in The American
Commonwealth (1888), “Individualism, the love of enterprise, and the pride in
personal freedom have been deemed by Americans not only their choicest, but
[their] peculiar and exclusive possession.” Individualism
as Tocqueville understood it, with its endorsement of private enjoyments and
control of one’s personal environment and its neglect of public involvement
and communal attachment, has long been lamented and criticized from both the
right and the left and from both religious and secular perspectives.
Especially notable critiques have been made by advocates of communitarianism,
who tend to equate individualism with narcissism and selfishness. Likewise,
thinkers in the tradition of “republican” political thought—according to
which power is best controlled by being divided—are disturbed by their
perception that individualism deprives the state of the support and active
involvement of citizens, thereby impairing democratic institutions.
Individualism also has been thought to distinguish modern Western societies
from premodern and non-Western ones, such as traditional India and China, where, it is said, the community or the nation is
valued above the individual and an individual’s role in the political and
economic life of his community is largely determined by his membership in a
specific class or caste. Ayn Rand: The mind is an attribute of the
individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such
thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only
a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a
secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be
performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot
digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for
another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions
of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred. We inherit the products of the
thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes
an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the
process what we receive from others is only the end product of their
thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product
as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty
cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single,
individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men
learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No
man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only
means of survival. The
Soul of an Individualist, For
the New Intellectual, 78 Ayn
Rand is the creator of the philosophy of Objectivism. Objectivism
holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings
have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can
attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept
formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of
one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest,
that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for
individual rights, embodied in pure laissez faire capitalism, and that the
role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by
selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he
can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally. I
took Rand’s Objectivism and put it into my own words: Reality is, no
matter whether you are personally aware it exists. Reality exists and you can attain knowledge
of reality either directly or indirectly. One must accept reality as it is to
find happiness or success and only a society that respects your individual
reality will allow you to achieve your pursuit of happiness. Only laissez faire capitalism allows you
that pursuit. Some reality is without form and cannot be comprehended until
it is expressed in physical form and that expression of the abstract is a
work of art which allows for human response. American Individualism by Herbert
Hoover 31st President of the United States of America Our
individualism differs from all others because it embraces these great ideals:
that while we build our society upon the attainment of the individual, we
shall safeguard to every individual an equality of opportunity to take that
position in the community to which his intelligence, character, ability, and
ambition entitle him; that we keep the social solution free from frozen
strata of classes; that we shall stimulate effort of each individual to
achievement; that through an enlarging sense of responsibility and
understanding we shall assist him to this attainment; while he in turn must
stand up to the emery wheel of competition. In our
individualism we have long since abandoned the laissez faire of the 18th
Century - the notion that it is "everyman for himself and the devil take
the hindmost." We abandoned that when we adopted the ideal of equality
of opportunity - the fair chance of Abraham Lincoln. Whatever
may be the case with regard to Old World Individualism (and we have given
more back to Europe than we have received from her) the truth that is
important for us to grasp today is that there is a world of difference
between the principles and spirit of Old World individualism and that which
we have developed in our country. I refuse
to be damned by anybody's world-classification of it, such as
"capitalism," "plutocracy," "proletariat" or
"middle class," or any other, or to any kind of compartment that is
based on the assumption of some group dominating somebody else. The
social force in which I am interested is far higher and far more precious a
thing than all these. It springs from something infinitely more enduring; it
springs from the one source of human progress - that each individual shall be
given the chance and stimulation for development of the best with which he
has been endowed in heart and mind; it is the sole source of progress; it is
American individualism. The
rightfulness of our individualism can rest either on philosophic, political,
economic, or spiritual grounds. It can rest on the ground of being the only
safe avenue to further human progress. Niki Raapana is an expert in understanding the
Communitarian philosophy which is diametrically opposed to Individualism. To
gain understanding regarding Individualism one must have some idea of what
those who oppose it believe in. You must
read COMMUNITARIANISM
to gain a better understanding of Individualism. “Individual rights versus community rights is the most
ignored topic of the 21st century, and possibly the most important debate in
American history. Maybe it's time we all joined in. Is personal freedom and justice for all outdated?” Niki Raapana PART II 11/19/2010 There is only one type of social system
that provides for individual freedom and that is capitalism. “Capitalism is a
social system based on the principle of individual rights. The term
capitalism is used here in the broader philosophical political sense, and not
in the narrower economic sense, i.e. (that is) a free-market.” Laissez faire capitalism “Laissez faire
capitalism means the complete separation of economy and state, just like the
separation of church and state. Capitalism is the social system based upon private
ownership of the means of production which entails a completely uncontrolled
and unregulated economy where all land is privately owned. But the separation
of the state and the economy is not a primary, it is only an aspect of the
premise that capitalism is based upon: individual rights. Capitalism is the
only politico-economic system based on the doctrine of individual rights.
This means that capitalism recognizes that each and every person is the owner
of his own life, and has the right to live his life in any manner he chooses
as long as he does not violate the rights of others.” What is the opposite of
capitalism? “Statism, in any
form. Statism is the concentration of
power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Capitalism is the only
system which protects individual rights and freedom, but the variety of
political systems which violate individual freedom are numerous: socialism,
communism, fascism, Nazism, absolute monarchies, military dictatorships,
theocracies, or the welfare state are all systems which infringe upon
individual rights, which means they institutionalize the initiation of force
against their citizens. It must be realized
that there are only two fundamental political philosophies: those who are for
freedom and individual rights and those who are against them. The types of
political systems who are against freedom and individual rights are numerous,
for there are many ways to violate the rights of man, but there is only one
political-economic philosophy which upholds that the rights of man are
absolute and immutable -- capitalism.” Is capitalism a just social
system? “Yes. In fact, capitalism
is the complete embodiment of social justice. In social or political context
justice means that every person gets no more, and no less, than what he gains
through voluntary association with other men. A capitalist society is a just
society because all individuals are considered equal under the law.
Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned
and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what
other people have earned. Since all people must live independently under
capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned.
Thus, the expression of social justice under capitalism is that what a man
earns is directly proportional to what he produces, with no antitrust laws or
progressive income taxes stifling his achievement for the sole fact the he
did achieve. All other forms of government, such as the welfare state,
institutionalize injustice by legally expropriating the property of some men
and giving it to others. Many people have
trouble accepting that capitalism is a just system because of the existence
of economic inequality. It is observed that famous celebrities and sports
stars have very large incomes for work that is perceived as trivial, and that
many hard working people make incomes which pale in comparison for jobs that
are perceived to be a greater benefit to society. What people must realize is
that it is perfectly just for a superstar athlete, even with little or no
education, to make a hundred times the income of a scientist who has a Ph.D.
and works much longer and strenuous hours. Why? Because the athlete creates
enormous profits through ticket sales and product endorsements whereas the
scientist generates very little revenue through his research. That is, each
of them deserves what they earn, and what they earn is the result of how much
wealth each of them creates (Incidentally, this is not to say that the
athlete is morally superior to the scientist because he is wealthier). Since
each man has the right to the product of his labor, it is completely just for
the disparity in incomes to exist, and the only injustice to occur would be
for the government to take money from the athlete and give it to those who
supposedly deserve it on the basis of their "need." For more information on Capitalism
go to: Capitalism.org © Bill Wink
11/17/2010 |
pace
“Freedom of speech
is the sun light that exposes the vermin that hide in the cracks of society and
the Internet is a new tool of that freedom.” Bill
Wink
HOPEFULLY I CAN HELP CONNECT THE DOTS
The COLLECTIVIST’S
Flow Chart
Free counters provided
by Andale
Middletown, CA Old West Antiques
|
Agenda 21 is not the “Bill of Rights”. It is not “The
Declaration of Independence”.
And it is not the “U.S. Constitution”.
It has never been decided on by the American people that “Agenda 21”
should be our new
bible. Our guiding
light into the 21st century. It is
being pushed on us by a bunch of self righteous elitist like Nancy
Pelosi. It empowers those who agree
and indoctrinates those who do not, and you are going to think you are having
a bad dream when it comes into your home. |