Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

The Borg Vs. The People

The American Declaration of Independence is an intellectual and moral challenge to excessive collectivization, an eternal declaration of war “against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

by
Ronald R. Cherry

Bio

November 21, 2013 - 3:40 pm
Page 1 of 6  Next ->   View as Single Page

Drones_FC2

Government power derives from collectivization of the people’s property. When government – a small group of other people after all – owns or controls vast amounts of the people’s property it is thereby empowered – like the Borg – to employ others to carry out its predictably self-serving desires – where resistance is supposedly futile. Flush with the people’s property, and thereby their power, collectivist government can also redistribute property to a government-dependent so-called proletariat class in return for votes – while at the same time expropriating property from the laboring middle class – the social engineering of economic class struggle. Total collectivization of property into the hands of a Marxist-type government leads to total government power; thus Karl Marx, in Orwellian fashion, advocated the abolition of private property, not for “social justice,” but as a means to concentrate property, and thereby power, into the hands of a few.

“It had long been realized that the only secure basis for oligarchy is collectivism. Wealth and privilege are most easily defended when they are possessed jointly. The so-called “abolition of private property” [Communist Manifesto] meant in effect the concentration of property in far fewer hands than before… In the years following the Revolution it [The Socialist Party of Oceania] was able to step into this commanding position almost un-opposed because the whole process was represented as an act of collectivization… It had always been assumed that if the Capitalist Class were expropriated Socialism must follow; and unquestionably the Capitalists had been expropriated. Factories, mines, land, houses, transport, everything had been taken away from them; and since these things were no longer private property it followed that they must be public property. Ingsoc [Socialist Principles of Oceania], which grew out of the earlier Socialist movement and inherited its phraseology, has in fact carried out the main item in the Socialist program with the result; foreseen and intended beforehand, that economic inequality has been made permanent.”  George Orwell – 1984 

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (33)
All Comments   (33)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
By the by, the idiotic comments about Anarchy not withstanding, this is a fantastic article. Timely, too.

I don't think the Administration understands just how much fire it's playing with, and how quickly it will get burned.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Any political scale, a measure of how much government is forced on people - and inherently, how much liberty a people may enjoy - must have Anarchy at one end and Totalitarianism at the other.

Think of it as a percentage of government that goes from 0% - 100%. Some of you insist Anarchy doesn't belong on that scale? It sounds like you're being intellectually dishonest.

http://www.sternresolve.jaycenrigger.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Political-Spectrum-2013-1024x219.png
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Anarchy is at the far right on this scale – where there is no government

This is idiotic. Anarchy is by definition not on any political scale at all.

Political spectra are supposed to represent the full range of political theory, of answers to the problem of government and society, by measuring a single variable which is an attribute of the various governments that result from the underlying theories. Under a proper spectrum, the variable is liberty; under the commonly used Ackbar Spectrum, nobody has identified the variable but invoke "left" and "right" as if everybody knows what it is.

Anarchy, by contrast, is not a political theory; it is the absence of one. It is the vacuum that exists after the total destruction of one social order and the imposition of another. It cannot, therefore be on a political spectrum; it cannot be an "opposite" of any particular political system, it is an "opposite" of ALL of them.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Seerak's argument goes like this:

0 shouldn't appear on the number scale, because it's not a number. It's the absence of numbers, therefore, it doesn't belong on any number scale.

I'd love to see you argue that point with the software engineers at my company.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am a software engineer and I understand Seerak's analogy where you do not. Zero has a place value, that is, a position on the number line. Anarchy, in contrast, has no analog to place value with respect to any political theory.

Try again.
34 weeks ago
34 weeks ago Link To Comment
Also, Anarchy is not the "opposite of ALL of" the political philosophies. It's one of many, but not the opposite.

Is the opposite of "elected representatives voting for legislation" anarchy? No, I'd say the opposite of that would be the people casting their votes directly.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Anarchy is absolutely political theory. Anarchy brings for a certain type of society every time a government falls to it. Anarchy is to politics what Atheism is to religion, and let me tell you, Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity.

This should help you understand: http://www.sternresolve.jaycenrigger.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Political-Spectrum-2013-1024x219.

You and I agree that what most people believe to be a political spectrum is screwy, with totalitarianism at one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism at the other, where somehow "freedom" ends up in the middle. That's pure statist nonsense.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"...and let me tell you, Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity."

No, it is not. Atheism is not a religion. It is a belief system, sure, but not a religion. A religion is more than simply having a belief. It also requires supernatural aspects and beings (such as Gods, Angels, Demons, not to mention supernatural powers such as resurrecting the dead, pyrokinesis, aquakinesis, superhuman abilities, ferrokinesis), not to mention an afterlife. The latter two aspects are stuff Atheists lack, especially as Atheists lack any belief in the supernatural or even an afterlife. Only religion has those aspects.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Sounds like it meets all of your requirements of a religion to me. It's a belief system that has a statement to make on supernatural beings, supernatural powers, and the afterlife.

So, how does that make Atheism not a religion?
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Atheism does not believe in supernatural aspects. They just try to explain it all away as being science and all of that. Atheists also believe that, once they die, that's it, they're gone from existence, which means NO afterlife at all. A belief that an afterlife exists IS fundamental to religion, and is what differentiates it from a mere belief system. A religion requires that the person BELIEVE in those things. Disbelief in them automatically invalidates them. from being a religion.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Atheism does not believe in supernatural aspects."

True.

Also true: "It's a belief system that has a statement to make on supernatural beings, supernatural powers, and the afterlife."

Still true: "Sounds like it meets all of your requirements of a religion to me."
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Hi, EJ01.

Buddhism doesn't believe in an afterlife. Does that make Buddhism just a philosophy per your definition, or is it a religion?

The Carvakas don't believe in an afterlife or even reincarnation. Are they atheists by your definition? Because I think they'd disagree with you that "belief that an afterlife exists IS fundamental to religion". Maybe not. Perhaps they recognize you as the ultimate authority on religion you believe yourself to be.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Buddhism would not qualify as a religion, more a philosophy. It's at best a quasi-religion due to Buddha allegedly encountering supernatural beings.

Believing in the afterlife, not to mention believing in supernatural powers and beings is what separates religions from philosophies/belief systems. It requires more than simply having a belief to qualify as a religion. I believe Misty should come back to Pokémon, but I realize she and her show isn't real and I definitely would never say that's a religion.

I haven't heard of the Carvakas so I can't comment one way or another, but if they believe in supernatural beings, they are quasi-religious.

There are three main trappings to religion:

1. Holding the belief:
2. The religion possessing supernatural beings and powers.
3. The religion possessing an afterlife.

It has to match all three to qualify as a religion.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Anarchy brings forth a certain..."

What's funny is Anarchy never lasts for very long. Within moments of Anarchy sweeping across a geographical region, you quickly get tribalism.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
I agree that anarchy is not a political theory, yet a state of anarchy does fall to the extreme right on a scale which measures government power over the individual, with Marxism and Fascism at the extreme left (as does any form of totalitarianism). Paradoxically, as the embedded video explains, anarchy always leads to the formation of a powerful leftist form of government whose justification is the abolition of anarchy.

35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, I'm pretty sure the French Revolution and its anarchistic actions were purely of the left since its inception, not even being affiliated with the right-wing even once (heck, the French Revolution and Reign of Terror was the reason why the term "left-wing" was even formed). Not to mention the Matrix Trilogy, according to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1408419/posts this article here, promoted both Anarchy and Marxist Revolutionary fervor. Heck, the Joker from the Dark Knight was both an anarchist (as explicitly stated by several character, including Joker himself) and was very clearly left-wing.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
The French Revolutionaries can call themselves "anarchists" if they like, but they turned right around and imposed a statist regime, therefore they were not anarchists. Calling a cow a pig does not make the cow say "oink".
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, actually, they are indeed anarchists and not statists, as their actions more than prove it. Don't forget, during the French Revolution/Reign of Terror, Commander Grignon, when leading his armies to wipe out Vendee, ordered his troops to "kill everyone on sight, even those who support the Revolution," meaning that they were effectively going to kill everyone off, even their own allies, simply to satiate their newfound freedom to massacre each other.

The definition of Anarchy is no government, no law, no order, absolute chaos. Heck, The Joker actually advocated Anarchy specifically because he enjoyed chaos and destruction. I know if I were an anarchist, I'd do every single depraved action imaginable specifically because statist things such as rules are nonexistent to me or anyone else. That article I linked regarding the Matrix Trilogy and its connections to both anarchy and Marxism also is enough proof of that.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"I know if I were an anarchist, I'd do every single depraved action imaginable specifically because statist things such as rules are nonexistent to me or anyone else."

That statement makes you a despicable human being, not an anarchist. The desire to perform depraved actions has nothing to do with government, and everything to do with morality.

I can see you have a very difficult time separating those things. Again, due to your inability to understand things beyond what you see on the surface. Good luck with that.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Here's a good example of the definition of Anarchy, as taken from Liquid Ocelot from the game Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots: "America will descend into chaos... It'll be the Wild West all over again. No law, no order. Fire will spread across the world. The people will fight... And through battle they will know the fullness of life." It matches up with the definition given by the Joker from the Dark Knight, and even the definition given by Neo himself at the end of the Matrix ("...I know that you're afraid... you're afraid of us. You're afraid of change...I'm going to show these people what you don't want them to see. I'm going to show them a world without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible."), something that at least two sources explicitly show as anarchy.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's why I do not desire to be an anarchist, because they ARE despicable human beings who will destroy any morality, laws, and other senses of control. In case you've forgotten, anarchy doesn't just mean "anti-government," it means anti-order, anti-law, basically the destruction of ANY form of control. I know how anarchy works because I've seen it occur that specific way countless times throughout history. Heck, the Joker is shown to be quite an anarchist, even explicitly referring to his actions as anarchy. And BTW, if you actually READ that link I gave you, it demonstrates just how Marxism and anarchy (anarcho-nihilism, specifically) went hand-in-hand in the Matrix Trilogy, citing specific examples from the Matrix Trilogy among other things.

You're just not getting it. Anarchy is all about lawlessness. Heck, God himself is ruler over all of us, in other words, He (God) IS our true Government. I know the definition of anarchy, so don't call me superficial, because I'm not.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
EJ01,

I don't claim to know all anarchists, but I've met people who truly want Anarchy who also believe that theft and killing innocent people is wrong.

I don't need to read your link to know your fundamental premise is wrong.

Cheers.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Except the point of anarchy is also to destroy any law and order, rules and controls, and all things associated with government. That means, yes, if anarchy does happen, theft and killing will occur. Heck, an anarchist would also destroy the ten commandments if he or she feels its a control mechanism. Anarchy effectively means to go wild. The anarchists you mention most likely don't even know the full extent of anarchy. I do, because I've seen it throughout history and its definition is always repeated in exactly the same way, from the Matrix series to the Joker from Batman to the Metal Gear series to pretty much everything where anarchy came up.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
"the point of Anarchy"

Anarchy doesn't have a point, it's a state of "no government". You don't have to seek to destroy law and order as an anarchist, you can simply recognize no law that applies to you.

There are a lot of libertarians who would tell you that anarchy can exist while maintaining "order". I don't agree with them, but theoretically it's true.

My point is that you ascribe meaning where none exists. You've done this several times on this comment thread.

For instance, you ASSUME theft and killing will occur in an "Anarchy". Theft and killing occur now. What's your point?

It seems to be that you think Anarchy "causes" theft and killing. No, it simply offers no governmental deterrence or justice for the acts. It doesn't encourage the acts, nor does it guarantee they will occur.

Cheers.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yes, actually, you do have to destroy order and law to achieve anarchy. It's even in the very definition, not to mention those who believed in anarchy, as I have quoted, have in fact attempted to do so specifically for anarchy. Conservatism is about rule of law, and believe in "limited government." Anarchists do not believe in the rule of law, much less that there be any government. Law is a control mechanism for everyone.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Your comment is like saying "because King Edward "Longshanks" ordered his men to kill their countrymen, King Edward was an anarchist and didn't support the Monarchy".

You have a problem understanding things beyond a superficial level.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
That's completely different, as Edward "Longshanks" did in fact order his soldiers to kill their countrymen. From what I've read on the subject of the French Revolution, Grignon hadn't even received ANY orders from Robespierre or any of the other Jacobins to slaughter everyone, he just ordered his men to do so (and let me make clear that Robespierre and the Jacobins were absolutely disgusting in their actions, so I'm not saying they were innocent in any of this).

And I'm no superficial person. I'd believe the Vietcong to not be Communist if I were, which, BTW, I am fully aware that the Vietcong were in fact Communist and mass-murderers, not heroes, and am in fact disgusted that George Lucas had used them as his inspiration for the Ewoks. And had I been superficial, I'd take hook line and sinker that the French Revolution was just like the American Revolution when taught to me, when I can say with upmost confidence that it clearly wasn't.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
EJ01,

I didn't call you superficial. I said you have trouble understanding things beyond a superficial level. I'm sorry you can't tell the difference, but that difference is there and it's tremendous.

Good luck in your life.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's different? But you said the French Revolutionaries' murder of their own people proved they were anarchists.

I guess you meant it proved something else? Listen, when I use your own logic against you, you can't change the subject and tell me how I don't understand. I understood your statement perfectly. You just don't like the fact that your thought process is sloppy.

Cheers.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Perhaps I should have been more clear: The French Revolutionaries killed their own after killing off any and all forms of government, and also did many of these things even without the orders of the technical leaders of the Revolution, the Jacobins, whom as history proved, ended up being placed under the guillotine themselves, and were not innocent of the butchery of the revolution (some of these things, though not all, as Grignon's order to kill off their own allies proved, had been ordered by the Jacobin's after all). It was anarchy in all its trappings. No law, no order, no control, no rules, literally people going wild, the entire government being shattered with the kings and nobles having their heads being cut off. And there are plenty of places that go into full detail of the French Revolution and its horrors. The Grignon and Vendee incident that I cited, for example, was from these sites:

http://www.monarchistcrusade.webs.com/apps/blog/entries/show/5000664-the-horrors-of-the-french-revolution

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/Fidelity_archives/parricide.html

They go into full details of the acts undergone in that revolution.

And saying that I have trouble understanding things beyond a superficial level is in fact saying the person is superficial. Superficial means you either can't see or have difficulty seeing something beyond the surface. I've done extensive research into this and came to these conclusions based on the data I found.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Yeah, Anarchy is not of the far right, and probably doesn't belong on any political scale.

If any political position is closer to total anarchy, it's actually that of the left. The first modern instance of total anarchy was the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror (which was effectively a slaughterfest against everyone, a free-for-all, every man for himself), which happened after they beheaded the king, and proceeded to cause massive riots, massacres, rapes, inhuman executions (such as "republican marriages", which involved tying two naked bodies (namely of opposite sex, though same sex as well if there isn't enough of one sex) and then literally sending them down the river). Its stance as Anarchy is best shown when Commander Grignon stated when leading his soldiers to Vendee that they kill anyone on sight, "even if they are a supporter of the revolution." Keep in mind, BTW, that the French Revolution was left-wing, caused by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's writings, who is considered to be the founder of the modern left. Let's also look at the Joker from The Dark Knight: He was explicitly mentioned to be an anarchist, and yet it was also made very clear that he was not right-wing at all. Heck, the Matrix Trilogy's main themes were the promotion of Anarchy for the sake of Anarchy (as FreeRepublic and other essays revealed), yet it was also extremely left wing (as it basically promoted Baudrilliard, Marx, and the like). Ironically, Communism is actually slightly to the right of Anarchy, according to a graph I saw once on Facebook. The same graph also revealed that the most-right wing position is actually theocracy, with constitutional monarchy being second most.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
Anarchy, by contrast, is not a political theory; it is the absence of one."

Interesting and not a bad point(s) at all. One might say that to insist that anarchy is on the political scale is like insisting, as some do, that atheism is a religion when it is the lack of any and all religion(s), and by definition, even though some atiests can have an almost "religious like" fervor.
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
excellent essay
35 weeks ago
35 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All