Friday, March 03, 2006

Herr Winn and Individualism

The kleinverzet blog has a post replying to my post on equality. He explains the importance of balancing Equility and Liberty by introducing an Individual-Collective dichotomy. Individualists are accepting of Inequality. Collectivists do not. I am simplifying his reasoning a bit here.

My thoughts: one should not isolate Individualism too much. Man is a social animal. Individualism always exists in the social setting of a collective. The Collective (Tribal) man is older than Individual (modern or Western) man. The value Individualism can only meaningfully exist if it is enshrined, cherished and protected by our society, our Collectivity. Individualism is vunerable and unstable. It grows in times of peace and prosperity and wanes in times of poverty and unrest. The greatest danger to Individualism by the Collective is the monopoly on Laws, Force and Violence of the Collective. If the Collective lets down Individualism there is nothing an individual can do.

A question to Herr Winn: why was Christ crucified on the Jewish Pesach, the celebration of the Exodus from Egypt?

Let's move on. Herr Winn writes: "If we do nothing, if we stay silent, what Snouck describes may very well be (part of our) future. But I am not ready yet to shut down my computer and call it a day."

My post was pessimistic on the survival of the territorial nation state and therefore on future of formal LEGAL equality before the law that Westerners hold dear. But I am not pessimistic on the survival of the West, albeit in another social organisation than the secular state.

I wrote: "Look, I just do not think we will get rid of the Left. And the results of Leftism are disastrous and are partly irriversible. The problem with Leftism is that we deep down ALL want to believe in it. The Left is too well woven into our moral fabric.

By the time we understand how serious and damaging Multiculturalism has been, it will be very late and the way back will be exceedingly unpleasant.

Plus there are changes in military technology that make territorial nation states unviable in the future. WMD can be used against territorial states without fear of retribution to the networks (Al-Qada) that use them. I am interested to hear what your thoughts are regarding this and the thrust of my article on equality?

I do not think the situation can be easily repaired. That is no reason to be sad though. I am happy to see such a challenge in our time, and I try to let that happiness shine thru in my blog.

There is life after the national State's demise. Civilised life. It is our honour to be called upon to transplant our civilisation into that new Era."

Let's go out and do it!


Charles Martel said...

good points raised there Snouck.

in my view, we need the left, as much as the right - that's democracy. our tolerance of both left and right is what powers western civilisation.

it would be utterly boring and stagnant if everyone adhered to the same views. and it would be downright dangerous to our civilisation.

however, i draw a line when certain individuals call for the destruction of democracy, or the destruction of freedom - be they from the left or right or from relgion (such as islamism). in that regard, we have to confront those people head on. and defeat them.

then , once that is done, we can get back to our reasonable debates, such as whether we should have a flat tax or not - or whether individual liberty should override the collective of the nation state.

Kleinverzet said...

Answer's up. Awaiting your response.