Today, I'd like to introduce a key to understanding and apprehending the serious and dire consequences of collectivism.
That term is what I've coined Component Collectivism.
Component Collectivism is a neo-collectivist worldview rooted in a dysfunctional and pathological neo-Hegelianistic ideology which is mostly known for being directly tied to the philosophy of Marx, who himself was a young Hegelian (or 'neo'-hegelian). This is to be starkly contrasted with the self proclaimed "Old Hegelians"; these early students of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who is generally recognized as being the most influential philosophe in the entirety of Western Philosophy's history, took his"dialectic" to mean an almost anti-thesis to the broad notion of dialectical materialism and- yea, the "hard" notional inclination to view history in terms of evolution as such. Old Hegelians viewed, according to Robert Solomon (R.I.P.), his dialectic as more an application of Christianity to the methodology of authorship. Anyone keen to Hegel knows, quite simply, that every discipline at every college/university in America and elsewhere is directly derived and indirectly imprinted from and with GWF's stamp and mark. Unequivocally.
The early neo-hegelians, amongst which were the first proto-marxists, had quite a different view of the meaning and functional hands-on utilization's of Hegel's tremendously powerful hermeneutics and Christian theological breakthroughs.
Again, Robert Solomon (author of "In The Spirit of Hegel") surmised the neo-hegelian's formulations as defined by the man himself - Karl Marx.
1) Analyze Hegel as science.
2) Remove "geist" from the equation/formula.
3) Replace "geist" with "Materialism".
By materialism as such is indicated the following: Geist, or spirit, is no longer the central organizing moral formulation. Rather, material goods (i.e. products, computers, phones, homes) determine how a society organizes their cultural focus.
And we all know the webster definition of Marxism; as out of date and irrelevant as it is in our age. Materials are essentially owned by government not individuals, hence irrevocably betraying the most basic and overlooked philosophy of our nation's founding...
That God grants us the freedom to pursue acquisition of property as well as- yea, the general pursuit of happiness. The National Review recently wrote of this "happiness" clause in the constitution to signify directly, in the context of when it was written, to farmers that they had the right to endeavor to buy more property. A bit out-dated and dusty - but in light of Dialectical Materialism, one might glean what the Founding Fathers were attempting to do. The "Happiness" clause is basically and truly a 'fail safe'.
A genius one at that!
Well, fast forward into the early 1900's. Early progressives such as Richard T. Ely and John Dewey along with a slew of proto-marxist disciples endeavored to apply their vision of Dialectical Materialism to the then burgeoning American Politik and Gov'ment.
This is nothing, I assure you beloved reader, like anything an NPR listening neo-progressive can conjur to mind from the last Terry Gross snippet on some far removed FDR rumour.
This was absolutely, in the same sense that Noam "Mr. MIT" Chomsky decried for an entire generation of young Che rebels the horror of defining a Corporation as an individual, a near takeover of our sovereign government by - basically and slightly humorously - "Ze Germans".
All of these leading figures of the early progressive movement were literally trained within the borders of pre-war Germany. All of them learning the scientific (not to mention psychological) methods of inculcating into a society, that is - OUR society, the treasonous philosophy of Dialectical Materialism.
What fruit did their highly successful endeavors yield?
How did this fruit taste and to what degree was it "poisonous"?
Bitter as hell, and with the venom of a viper -
1) Poll Taxes for poor Scotch/Irish and Blacks.
2) Literacy Tests that kept the newly emancipated Blacks from voting.
3) Segregation of the newly emancipated Blacks into ghettos and labor camps.
The fact that the progressive (or "leftist") tide sweeping the South coincided with the darkest moments of the repression of "negros" obviously and painfully belies their current commitment to all things multi-cult. Though, one - even in the age of 'Bama and the Regime - can still see the heritage of the early elitist intellectuals. One can see it in the very notion of that ardently fascist cliche - "Progressive".
In fact, the early engineers of all things Darwinian did facts 1-3 institutionally and with scientific rigor precisely because of 'progress' as such. They believed that the uneducated were, to a point, incapable of understanding freedom or living "free-as-such" lives until they had been sufficiently "Civilized". Their sociological excursions coupled with remarks about the poor and uneducated's (and I quote) "savage blood" etc. reveal an altogether colloquial attitude towards the (and I quote) "inferior races".
In fact, one leading neo-hegelian progressive even went so far as to say (paraphrase) that "the idea that newly emancipated slaves could live in freedom worked [direct quote] 'disaster' and was [direct quote] 'dogmatism'."
Far removed, I'd say, from today's "pragmatic compassion".
Frederick Douglass would probably, in kind, respond "Good Man. Bit off the top."
Fast forward, if you will, once more. To today's age and Politik.
Collectivism has been distilled, through the overthrow of science by neo-darwinists trained in the fine art of profound coffee table quantum physics chattering and tittering, not to mention bulling and cowing, into the deconstruction of the Component as such and the stratification of this verstehen into Collective consciousness. That Component, in a technological era of increasingly rapid advances in the technology of Hardware-as-such, is to be understood to be a Post-Deconstructionist account of the popular abstraction amongst sophomoric students in colleges and universities of the "single particle" or, more to a point, the ancient metaphysical cliche "mote".
Each "mote", in the concrete modern sense, can then be taken from deconstruction and comported (so to speak) in whichever direction our Ideologue Kings desire. Generally, much to the discredit of the Left's "cause", this direction is one which leads the voter down a narrow corridor to a shallow slope of moral and ethical erosion that opens up into an iced-over pond in which the voter is gently but firmly urged to walk to the center and sit down. Shouting from the safety of land, they then yell to the poor soul: "SPIN!"
Component Collectivism could be adequately understood as a "call", understood in the classical Christian sense, which is not of God nor Christian Tradition.
I.E. The removal of "Spirit" from the equation/formula of GWF and it's replacement with - let's just say - thin ice.
I'd say it were diabolical if that didn't understate the real and irrefutable treason that Marxism inherently entails.
RT Stillwell of the Birchers