Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Liberal Ideas #3 - Individualism vs Collectivism

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 4, 2015 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

24:13

Liberal Ideas #3 - Individualism vs Collectivism

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	It is impossible to understand neoprogressivism or the motivations of neoprogressive activists without understanding the dichotomy of individualism and collectivism.
	While this paradigm has fallen out of public discussion in the modern day, a century ago it was a common method to understand the purpose and consequences of political ideologies.
	Merriam-Webster defines individualism and collectivism as follows.
	Individualism.
	1. A doctrine that the interests of the individual are or ought to be ethically paramount.
	Also the conception that all values, rights and duties originate in individuals.
	2. A theory maintaining the political and economic independence of the individual and stressing individual initiative, action and interests.
	Collectivism.
	A political or economic theory advocating collective control, especially over production and distribution.
	2. Emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity.
	For this discussion, the first definition of individualism and the second definition of collectivism are most important, as we are not dealing with governmental control, but societal pressure.
	All ideologies are either individualist or collectivist.
	These are mutually exclusive perspectives that have no overlap, but the similarities between competing collectivist and individualist ideologies facilitates an ease of conversion between each one.
	Frederick Hayek makes an example of this in The Road to Serfdom, with Communism and Nazism.
	Quote, The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi, or vice versa, was generally known in Germany, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties.
	Many a university teacher in this country during the 1930s has seen English and American students return from the continent, uncertain as to whether they were communists or Nazis, and certain only that they hated Western liberal civilization.
	It is true, of course, that in Germany before 1933, and in Italy before 1922, communists and Nazis or fascists clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties.
	They competed for the support of the same type of mind, and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic.
	But their practice showed how closely they are related.
	To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, and whom they could not hope to convince, is the liberal of the old type.
	While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber.
	Although they have listened to false prophets, they both know there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.
	With all collectives there is, by definition, an out-group, created by the existence of the collective itself.
	The out-group contains everyone else.
	People who are not affiliated with one another by anything more than being declared the common enemy by the collective, by virtue of not being the in-group.
	From the non-Hellenic barbaroi of classical Greece, to the right-wing misogynists, otherwise known as anyone that opposes neoprogressivism.
	The actual political alignments of these people are irrelevant.
	They have been determined to be outside of the in-group, and therefore each individual is, in their own specific way, problematic.
	Put simply, both individualism and collectivism are concepts concerned with determining the most important aspect of a society.
	Individualism posits that the rights of the smallest unit of any society, the individual person, is the most important factor, whereas collectivism is the assertion that a specific defined group or groups take this place instead.
	When anyone takes the time to simply say this out loud, the inherent problem with collectivism manifests itself immediately.
	If the rights of the collective are the most important aspect of society, what happens to the rights of individuals who, although in no way aligned with each other, make up the out-group?
	And what happens when the rights of an individual end up presenting a threat to the collective and its goals?
	The answer is, of course, the invalidation of the individual's rights in order to protect the collective and advance its agenda.
	It is inevitable that every collective will end up violating the rights of any individuals that oppose it.
	The very existence of the collectivist ideology demands conversion or destruction of members of the out-group who threaten the stability and integrity of the collective.
	This isn't merely a by-product of collectivism.
	It is an absolute requirement of it.
	The rights of the individual are not only irrelevant in the face of the collective, but are actively detrimental to it.
	Although every collective is actually a collection of individuals, all participating in individual ways, ideologically it takes on the appearance of a discrete entity in the minds of those participating.
	This entity, be it Nazism, communism, social justice, feminism, Christianity, Islam, or any other kind of collective, becomes something greater than the sum of its parts in the minds of its devotees, and as such must be protected above all else.
	This desire to protect the ideology and the collective becomes the source of moral authority that collectivists use when confronting anyone from the out-group.
	This is the inherent contradiction of collectivism.
	One cannot derive moral authority from a group whose members purposefully create injustices by violating the rights of others in order to protect their ideology and their ingroup.
	It is, fundamentally, not a moral thing to violate the rights of individuals for thinking differently.
	Their individual rights must remain inviolate.
	We can return to neoprogressivism for examples of collectivist thinking.
	Rather than giving specific examples, or too many anyway, I will give several different methods of collectivist argument that neoprogressive activists will use in various situations.
	1. Labels and the transference of criticism Transference of criticism is a method of defense using identity politics, by which the neoprogressive activist need not address the actual merit of the criticism being laid against them.
	This is usually because the criticism will be valid, and there is no rebuttal, and acknowledging the criticism as legitimate will cause the position of the activist to collapse in on itself due to a lack of internal consistency.
	To avoid this criticism, the critic must be dismissed.
	As we saw in chapter 2, this is done by assigning a pejorative label.
	This allows the neoprogressive activist to expropriate responsibility for their words or actions to an abstract group, by claiming you are not criticising them as an individual, but instead you are criticising all members of a group that share one or more of their characteristics.
	For example, if you are criticising a female activist, you will be accused of attacking women, and labelled a sexist or misogynist.
	If you are criticising a non-white individual, you will be accused of attacking all other people within that race or ethnic group, and you will be called a racist.
	The same applies for any other kind of categorisation.
	Therefore, the criticism is avoided by counter-attacking the critic's credibility and motives.
	2. The tyranny of statistics The tyranny of statistics is most often applied when discussing the highest echelons of power, such as government, business or education.
	Very rarely are neoprogressives concerned with the glass cellar, the number of women cleaning sewers, collecting rubbish, etc.
	As we saw in chapter 1 with Diane Smith Gander, chairman of Transfield, any number of individual injustices can be perpetrated using statistical results as justification.
	The inevitable conclusion of studying statistics is to trend towards planning, specifically in the form of quotas and affirmative action.
	Jobs that have a specific physical requirement aside, there is no given reason other than diversity to recommend quotas of any kind of minority or gender.
	When a quota is applied to a job position, the experience and merits of the applicants are, de facto, less important than achieving a separate anti-meritocratic goal.
	To hire someone who is not the best qualified for a position over someone who is, purely based on arbitrary and essentially immutable conditions, such as skin colour or gender, is to discriminate against individuals based on these very same qualities.
	This is inherently unjust.
	3. The mouth of progressivism A neoprogressive activist will almost always approach an argument as if they have been chosen to speak on behalf of a demographic, such as women, ethnic minorities, or trans people.
	This will often be used as the source of conflict, as the initial line of attack against the transgressive party that is being targeted.
	Normally they will be a part of the demographic on whose behalf they have decided to appoint themselves as the mouthpiece, and will use the false sense of moral authority generated by the apparent backing of their collective to make their assertions.
	They, of course, do not speak for everyone they purport to speak for, or probably anyone they purport to speak for.
	No woman has been elected to speak on behalf of women, and doubtless many women oppose what she has to say.
	The same can be said for any other kind of demographic category, no matter who is speaking and why.
	4. The hypocrisy of stereotypes One major objection neoprogressive activists have towards generalizations is the perception of stereotyping, an excellent example of which can be seen in the conversation between Sam Harris, not a neoprogressive, and Ben Affleck, a neoprogressive, on real-time with Bill Maher.
	Harris attempted to discuss the issues he has with the illiberal precepts of Islam, and Affleck immediately, heatedly, denounced this as racist stereotyping of Muslims.
	The irony of course is that neoprogressive ideology relies on broad and inaccurate stereotyping to establish and maintain its worldview.
	To suggest to a neoprogressive that we do not live in a society where men have male privilege, white people have white privilege, and women and minorities are oppressed is to oppose everything about the neoprogressive understanding of Western society.
	It does not matter that the 2 to 1 majority of the homeless in the US and Canada are males, or that most university students in the United States are female.
	Stereotypes are bad.
	All women are oppressed by the patriarchy, a system that is designed to benefit men.
	And when men do go to university, they need to be sent on consent courses because they are inherently likely to rape someone, at least according to the neo-progressive stereotype of what a racist looks like.
	White men will be treated to an array of stereotypes.
	They will be called bros and treated as if they are all climbing the corporate ladder through the old boys' network with much backslapping and sexist harassment of their vulnerable female secretaries, or perhaps they are neck-bearded, misogynered gamers who spend all day keeping women out of gaming on the internet.
	Whatever the stereotype, they will not be treated as individuals operating in liberal, majority white societies, and the outcome won't be treated as the result of a myriad of individual choices that produced these results.
	5. The cultural stasi and the potentially offended Political correctness, the desire to avoid offending others with words and deeds, has opened the door to many quiet tyrannies due to the idea of potential offence.
	This can be most clearly seen in the concepts of cultural appropriation and microaggressions.
	Cultural appropriation is defined by Oxford Reference as a term used to describe the taking over of creative or artistic forms, themes or practices by one cultural group from another.
	It is in general used to describe Western appropriations of non-Western or non-white forms and carries connotations of exploitation and dominance.
	The concept has come into literary and visual arts criticism by analogy with the acquisition of artifacts by Western museums.
	Microaggression is defined by Dictionary.com as a subtle but offensive comment or action directed at a minority or non-dominant group that is often unintentional or unconsciously reinforces a stereotype.
	Microaggressions such as I don't see you as black.
	Both are collectivist concepts and both are an attempt to restrict language and behaviour because there is a chance that someone somewhere may take offence.
	Importantly, it does not require an individual to actually take offence to anything that has happened.
	If, for example, if one wears a Native American headdress to a Halloween party, there is a chance that a Native American person could be offended by this cultural appropriation, and so it is prohibited.
	If one were to ask a non-white person living in a European country where they or their ancestors had originally emigrated from, this microaggression could potentially cause offence by the apparent subtle implication that the individual does not belong in that country due to their skin colour.
	Due to the potential for offence, again, whether or not offence is actually taken by any individual, the neo-progressive activist is given license to act as the cultural stasi and police the words and behaviour of others in the name of a group that did not appoint them nor care at all about the idea of cultural appropriation or microaggressions.
	These two ideas have reached their logical conclusions in modern universities, which have appointed costume sensitivity consultants to preside over which Halloween costumes students may wear to avoid the potential for offence.
	It has even gone as far as one Ontario high school preventing a Colombian boy from dressing in a mariachi costume, despite the fact that this costume originates from his own culture.
	This is, of course, not out of love for Colombian culture, but instead due to the desire to exercise authority over others, to enforce collectivist thinking instead of individualist thinking.
	Apparently, to protect a group from the apparent oppression of the individual.
	So why individualism?
	The concept of individual rights is not a new one.
	800 years ago at Runnymede, King John signed Magna Carta, the great Charter of the Liberties.
	The purpose was to rein in the arbitrary power of the king and prevent the depredations of that office and the state.
	Clause 39 reads as follows.
	No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land.
	This is the foundation stone of individual rights that codified the idea that the state does not have the right to violate the rights of the individual, but is instead there to defend them.
	But why is this so important?
	What is the difference between supporting the rights of an individual and supporting the integrity of a collective?
	By defining a collective, you create an in-group-out-group dichotomy.
	There is no way to avoid this, and therefore there is no way to avoid defining the out-group as people who do not deserve the same protections as the in-group.
	Individualism supersedes this entirely.
	There is no ingroup, there is no out-group.
	There are just individual people whose rights are sacrosanct.
	Whenever the rights of any individual would be violated, the full support of the entire society is behind them, because when you defend the rights of one person, you defend the rights of every person.
	No matter who is at risk, no matter what in-group or out-group to which they belong, the concept and sanctity of individual rights precludes anyone from having their rights unjustly violated.
	There is no other way of ensuring that everyone in a society is protected fully by the law, and any attempt to raise the rights of a collective above the rights of an individual should be anathema to any person who cares about the freedoms and rights of others.
	This is the purpose of individual rights.
	By protecting the rights of others, you protect your own rights.
	You raise the individual above any arbitrary power and confirm that every single human being is the most important component of society.
	An interesting demonstration of these principles can be found in the case of Baha Mustafa.
	In May 2015, Baha Mustafa, then diversity officer for Goldsmith University Student Union, came to prominence after discriminating against white people and men in a post on social media.
	She created a public community event and posted to it, If you've been invited and you're a man and or white, please don't come.
	This garnered Mustafa mainstream media attention, with several papers publishing stories about her allegedly racist activities as a student diversity officer.
	Among these were her activities on social media platform Twitter, where she had apparently posted messages using the hashtags hashtag killall white men and hashtag misandry.
	Public awareness of Mustafa's Twitter activity brought her to the attention of the Metropolitan Police, who charged her with sending a threatening communication for her use of the hashtag killall white men and for sending a grossly offensive message via a public communication network.
	Many people, myself included, who care about individual rights and the protection of liberal ideas such as freedom of expression, publicly railed against Mustafa's arrest.
	What she had said was intensely disagreeable, but she had every right to say it, and the state should not prohibit this on the potential that some people may have been offended.
	The great irony of this is that Baha Mustafa herself is someone who actively supports the curtailment of free speech and is herself a neo-progressive purveyor of potential offences.
	The charges against Mustafa were dropped on the 3rd of November 2015, and Mustafa was subsequently interviewed by Vice magazine.
	In the interview she says, I am absolutely for free speech, and I think these people who accuse me have a very misguided understanding of free speech.
	However, she contradicts herself in the next paragraph by saying, No platforming, however, is a practice that the far-left organization and feminist movements have been practicing for a while, and it is something I do believe in.
	Mustafa does not believe in the principle, she believes in the action.
	She believes in free speech for some under certain conditions, controlled by certain actors.
	She does not want the state controlling the speech of others, but it is acceptable when it is the student union controlling the speech of others.
	When questioned about her unlikely allies, who supported her free expression against the state, Mustafa had this to say, I did not ask for their support, and I don't want it.
	They stand for everything I am against.
	I did enjoy watching the twats of the Gamergate scandal squibble online over whether or not to support a feminist slash social justice warrior, because not to mean their entire free speech platform would come crashing down.
	To them and many other right-wing pricks, free speech means the right to be as offensive as possible.
	For many of us, free speech means the right to bring the injustices of the state to the fore, so that we can organise against it without fear or intimidation, prison or death.
	Mustafa's hatred for her political opponents evidently blinded her to the fact that her political enemies were protesting in favour of her right to freedom of speech and attempting to bring this injustice of the state to the fore so it could be organized against without fear of intimidation, prison or death.
	Mustafa is a collectivist and this is very evident by her position on her own free speech rights.
	As she says, they stand for everything she is against.
	They stand for her individual rights, whereas Mustafa would curtail their individual rights if given the opportunity.
	She is a neoprogressive activist.
	Anyone not in her in-group is automatically seen as opposed to her plight, even when they are directly supporting her to the letter of her own definition of free speech.
	Baha Mustafa's collectivist ideological indoctrination prohibits her from being able to accept individuals from her out-group, even when the out-group is in direct support of her own principles.

▲