This week I'll be doing a study of the components of the ideology of collectivism, brought to you by Domestic Democracy United's SUPERpac. If you would like to donate charitably to Domestic Democracy United (DDU) in return for god's favor on the dates specified in the header, I urge you to contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I would gladly ask that all contributions be made anonymously. Due to recent advances in the scientific realm of collectivism, I will be using internet references - which I do not use in Politalk whatsoever as a way to avoid the dulling down of ecstatic truth in journalism. To begin with, I should state some of my presuppositions which one may or may not agree with. First and foremost, I believe that collectivism is inherently bad - so don't go thinking that I'm sympathetic to collectivist ideology (as in philosophical positioning by intellectuals, academics, etc.), nor the results of collectivism that very often, I'd wager conspiratorially enough, manifests itself in the publik as idolatry (as in, say, watching too much television and such cliche's). This is my position, my genuine belief, and a fundamental platform of Domestic Democracy United. Secondly, I'll try to limit my apologetic philosophizing in regards to my knowledge and affection for G.W.F. Hegel and his Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel as a theorist, as he is in his later works, is not of much interest to me - and that seems to be the origin of the vast majority of the interpretation of Hegel that gives the disclaimer quite early - Hegel is a collectivist. But Hegel as a phenomenologist is, I think, a due explication of what we call today in english 'Passion', and of great interest to me. I'll simply say that should the name George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel arise in the course of these discussions, it should be noted that it is not the result of a concession to Collectivist Ideology - nor in any way referential to the many things which students of Hegel went on to do, which I am thoroughly against; Rather, it is specifically to be taken in an individualist/ethico-moral context, not a political one - and most definitely not an historical one. Beginning, I'll merely start with a short quote from "God and Man at Yale", which as someone who made anti-collectivist ideology an early underpinning of DDU's platform, is the best book I've read to date dealing with the degree of institutionalization and systematization of Collectivism. Mr. Buckley says the following: "...No one is to be so naive as to expect that I could conjur up a list of professors and textbooks who advocate the overthrow, violently or otherwise, of all vestiges of capitalism in favor of an ironclad, comprehensive socialist state. There is very little of this at Yale; but this approach is not needed to accomplish, ultimately, the same transformation. Marx himself, in the course of his lifetime, envisaged two broad lines of action that could be adopted to destroy the bourgeoisie: one was violent revolution; the other a slow increase of state power, through extended social services, taxation, and regulation, to a point where smooth transition could be affected from an individualist to a collectivist society." I've added italics on the last part of that quotation due to the shocking revelation that collectivism, if not inherently Communist, is surely the main framework for the Communist vision itself, as defined by Marx - who, of course, for the sake of transparency I'll just note I think was one of the most evil, in a classical christian sense, men in history. I'll try my best to make this week as objective as possible with my limited scientific knowledge, as I thoroughly believe and know that collectivism is a false ideology. Thank you, and I encourage you all to make it your prerogative to fight against the implementation of collectivist policies in your own life.
Brendan O'Connel_FOUNDER AND MEMBER OF Domestic Democracy United