Friday, July 13, 2012

Media Matters poster gets irked at my characterization of them as collectivists.

"Danielsangeo" over at MM wrote:
Mike, we don't care if you're an ex-communist. We're not communists either. You're way off base.
To which I replied:
You are ALL collectivists though, certainly. There are many varieties of collectivism, from Marxist-Leninists and National Socialists through fascists and socialists to racists, tribalists and religious collectivists. The only difference between a socialist and a communist is that the socialist hasn't found his AK-47 yet and worked up the guts to use it. An old German surgeon once told me that all political systems should be judged by their results -- principally in terms of how much individual liberty they allowed and how many bodies they stacked up. Viewed thusly, the political continuum is not a line, but a circle, with communism and National Socialism cheek-by-jowl down at the bottom and lesser virulent forms of like collectivisms arrayed up the two arcs of the circle until you get to the apex of the Founder's Constitutional Republic of the rule of law and limited government power enhancing the ability of free men and women to experience the "pursuit of happiness" of liberty, property and life. When you use government power to extort -- by government violence -- compliance for a purpose you find laudable but they do not (and what federal law these days does not come with that steel fist at its core?) you invite defensive violence on the part of people who decline to be extorted. Herr Dokter Richter knew what he was talking about, and he suggested that I read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, followed by Hoffer's The True Believer. He knew the collectivist big lie, having seen the monumental crime of millions of young men killing each other in the snows of Russia for murderous causes hardly much more different than the faces of the leaders. That chance meeting caused me to rethink everything I thought I knew.
We -- that is the folks who I represent a small sliver of a sample of -- and you here at the laughably named "Media Matters" (as well as the larger populations we agree with) are divided upon the answer to the fundamental question -- does the government serve the people or do the people serve the government? Which is to be superior? The collective or the individual? I stand on the side of individual liberty. This is not a question whose answer can be finessed or negotiated for the answers are mutually antagonistic. Historically such conflicts are almost always settled by violence for that very reason. Your "reasonable regulation" is our "intolerable act." From our point of view, we've been pushed back from the free exercise of our God-given and inalienable rights for many years now. You should not be all that surprised that some of us have decided to warn you that we can shove back.
And let's get one thing straight, at least, since everyone here seems to think within the straight-jacket of party politics, this has nothing to do with that false dichotomy. I am not a member of the GOP, nor are most of my friends. I'm proud to say I've been on the enemies lists of the past three White Houses. Mostly that is because I'm a big believer in the antiseptic qualities of sunlight on government conduct. The ATF whistleblowers came to us in spite of our philosophical differences because they knew we shared that principle and that our past track record proved we couldn't be bullied off of it.
I find it ironic -- but perfectly understandable given the propensity of all collectivists to embrace cognitive dissonance -- that y'all spend so much effort defending the bureaucracy of federal law enforcement agencies just because they now temporarily serve the nominal commands of your Dear Leader (anybody remember COINTELPRO?). This puts the lie to your perception of yourselves as "defenders of civil liberties." (They same goes for so-called neo-Cons.) Civil liberties for thee but not for me. I get it. What you don't get is that if somebody decided to start making the trains run to "Arbeit Macht Frei" camps in a future America and fill them with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk (yea, even Media Matters' uncomprehending and foul-mouthed mokes), it would be me and my despised friends who would be blowing up the tracks, cutting the wire and shooting the guards to free you. That is the cost of unbending principle.
Try it sometime.
Mike Vanderboegh


DanielSan said...

I am danielsangeo. I would like to say now that I'm not "irked" at all. Strangely fascinated, perhaps, at how someone could be so completely wrong and still be able to type with correct grammar and spelling, but not at all irked.

But, here's the thing: A collectivist is a believer that we are all connected and that no man is an island. You, yourself, Mike, are a collectivist. You need other people. Whether it's commenters on Media Matters or on your own blog; or your ISP or your
job or the manufacturers of the things you need others. You can't do what you want on your own.

If you don't have this definition of collectivist, what definition ARE you using?

Anonymous said...

VERY well said, Mike. Though, I fear, it will likely fall on deaf ears and closed minds. They are so different than us, that they can't understand our viewpoint.

Anonymous said...

I love reading the responses of all the collectivist morons at Media Matters. They try SO hard to sound smart and insightful.......but they always fall short.

Anonymous said...

Dear Dan,

Its a shame Mike wrote above your pay grade.

Perhaps its time the summation is delivered again.

If you try to take our guns - we will kill you.

Its really that simple.

Anonymous said...

"[I]f somebody decided to start making the trains run to "Arbeit Macht Frei" camps in a future America and fill them with Nancy Pelosi and her ilk (yea, even Media Matters' uncomprehending and foul-mouthed mokes), it would be me and my despised friends who would be blowing up the tracks, cutting the wire and shooting the guards to free you."

Well said but please understand that in such circumstances my
militia detachment will shoot Nancy's guard with a beanbag gun.


Anonymous said...

"You can't do what you want on your own.

"If you don't have this definition of collectivist, what definition ARE you using."

A collectivist is one who denies a man the right to do what he wants with his own. What definition are YOU using?

If the man agrees, it is voluntary association; if the man is coerced it is collectivism.


Anonymous said...

Very well said. Reading DanielSan's reply above, I see that they just don't get the fundamental difference between a team and a chain gang.

We all need others to succeed at some things. But we voluntarily choose these associations as they are mutually advantageous to each member of the team. Once we are impressed into a group that is forced to associate, regardless of whether it is good for all, some, or none, the collectivist tag may then be applied.

I voluntarily give to charity and volunteer my time. Collectvists like the folks at Media Matters want to appropriate my property and or God given rights in order to benefit others (or themselves) but still want the same credit for altruism that confers from charity. That ain't how it works.

DanielSan's reply aptly illustrates your point that eventually the hard left and hard right end up standing next to each other demanding the same things but believing that the other side is wrong only because their rationale for these demands is different.

Keep up the great work!

Mark R said...

You know whats funny. There are markedly fewer comments on that media matters post now than there were yesterday. Most of the posts that were in defense of mike and people of our fortitude had been removed. Gee, that's just strange.....

And a post from one of them is still here. Hmm..

Longbow said...

I was going to publish a long comment here, but I decided to write a post of my own instead. Keep at 'em Mike!

Dedicated_Dad said...

"Daniel" can't really be THAT clueless, can he?

The main problem with most of these mokes is that they're too young to know what they're missing - which is one of The Enemy's points of genius in their generational strategies.

Kids like him are aware that in the bad old days there was no Internet, no cell-phones, and black folks were enslaved by evil confederates who beat and killed them over and over again for no reason at all.

They MAY know we fought the evil Hitlerites and that the north had to defend itself against the southern devils to free the poor black people from slavery.

They also know that there was a time before welfare when old, sick and handicapped people were left to die like dogs in the street.

What they cannot possibly grasp is that most of what they "know" never happened, and that it didn't all happen the week before they were born.

Worst of all, they can't grasp the truth about the "parties" and that they're basically at the intellectual level of children who just want everything to be "fair."

They have NO intellectual knowledge of the timeframes involved - like all children there is only "yesterday" "today" and "tomorrow.' All the bad stuff happened "yesterday" and "tomorrow" will be GREAT - *UTOPIA*! - if only we can do the right things "today!"

Here's a clue, Son...

When I choose to give 10, 15, 20 or even 80% of my income to charity, out of the goodness of my own heart or in response to/compliance with the tenets of my Faith, THAT is LIBERTY! Freedom! Individualism!

When you walk up and stick a gun in my face, and threaten to KILL ME if I don't hand over the same percentage, That's ROBBERY!

It's also ROBBERY if you vote to have someone else bring the gun!

If I earn $15k per year - working 5-10 hours per week, and spend the rest of my time partying and having fun, why am I suddenly entitled to a percentage of that earned by someone else who worked 50-100 hours per week only to have 50 or 80% of their earnings stolen from them at the point of said government gun?

It won't take long for our much more driven friend to realize that all that work provides benefit only to others, and he'll soon join the looters too!

Robbery is no less immoral when you're paying someone else to do it for you!!

For all their supposed "generosity", statistics prove that so-called "liberals" or "progressives" actually give much LESS to various charity efforts than those evil, selfish "conservatives"! The Leftists are only generous with OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY!

The ultimate difference however is one of FREE WILL!

If I *choose* to work with others, and I get to *choose* who and how I work with them, THIS is "freedom of association" - it's LIBERTY.

If my choices are taken from me - again, literally at the point of a government gun, IT'S *collectivism* - it's TYRANNY - and I'll resist as much as I can!

Tyranny *NEVER* makes things better!

Socialism is for the PEOPLE - NOT THE SOCIALISTS!

There'll still be "the 1%" and they'll still have 99% of the wealth and power - only you'll have a ZERO% chance of ever becoming one of them no matter HOW hard you work!!

This is the ultimate evil of collectivism - it KILLS initiative and all other good qualities as it renders them utterly useless!

In sum, we are a Republic - we operate under the Rule of LAW (or at least we're SUPPOSED to!

When some people decide the law doesn't apply to them (See "The GOVERNMENT Party!) then we are officially in a "Without Rule of Law" situation.

Yes - our Founders understood that times might change, and the constitution might need to change with them - this is why they included the ability to AMEND it, and demonstrated that ability 10 times within the first year or so!

Dedicated_Dad said...

We're in an INcREDIBLY dangerous situation now because the people in power have decided they don't NEED to amend it - they can just ignore it and do whatever they please.

You rail against "The (EVIL) 1%" yet fail to grasp that every one of your "heroes" - all the actors, musicians and politicians - are ALL PART OF THE SO-called "1%!"

And you're just a "useful idiot" to them!

Study REAL history. Understand that people like The Enemy USE PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO PUT THEMSELVES IN POWER! YOU will still end up dead, only they'll kill you LAST!

Do you know how many were murdered by every collectivist regime in history?

Start there!

Find out how many died to make the Soviet Union the "utopia" it supposedly was before it collapsed!
Find out how many had to die to put Mao in power?! Pol-Pot? Kim Il-Sung?!

Individual Liberty and lassiez-faire capitalism made America the greatest nation in the history of the world!

We did more to advance the standard of living for every human being on the planet in 100 years than all of humanity had done in the previous 5,000!! This is because we had JUST ENOUGH government to free people to do what they do best!

Now that they've shifted into collectivism, ignored the constitution and essentially pulled off their coup, exactly the opposite is now true. They're DESTROYING our economy, our culture and our LIBERTY - and fools like you are cheering them all the way, never once comprehending for even a moment that you're selling your SOUL for a few little "freebies"!

But that monster is never satisfied!

The more you give, the more it will take!

Government never does ANYTHING well, except those things it is SUPPOSED to do - per Article 1 Section 8, and even THOSE are subject to failure at times!

Outside those, they're GUARANTEED to fail!

Tell me: Is education better since the federal Dept. of Ed. was begun?

Are we more or less dependent of foreign energy since the Dept. of Energy?

Who has done more to protect the environment - the EPA or private operations like Greenpeace, WWF and etc?

What has happened to the cost of a college education since the .gov got involved?

They NEVER make things better - ALWAYS worse, and they ALWAYS take away our Liberty in the process!

One last point: Are black people better off today than they were before the "civil rights act"?

FACT: Black educational attainment peaked in the 1920s!!

FACT: Black economic achievement peaked in the 1950s!!

FACT: By nearly every measure, black folks are WORSE off today than they were in the bad-old-days of slavery!

They're MORE likely to live in poverty, MORE likely to die from violence or drugs, LESS likely to finish high-school or college, MORE likely to give birth while unmarried...

I could go on, and on, and on... By every possible measure they're WORSE OFF today than at any time in the last 100 years!

But nobody can tell them where to sit on a bus or in a diner, and nobody can tell them what water-fountain to drink from - so they're supposed to be GRATEFUL to the Demmunist party who's put them in these positions?!

I just can't grasp how people can be so G*d-damned CLUELESS!!

Anonymous said...

"They are so different than us, that they can't understand our viewpoint."

So very true. Or as one observer has put it:

"(I do) not give a rat’s hindquarters what liberals (that is, neo-Leninists) think or say or do about anything. At this point in the dialectic, no dialogue is possible with them. They live in their own universe of lies and depravity."

Snaggle-Tooth Jones

PMain said...


The World Dictionary via defines a "collectivist" as:
1. the principle of ownership of the means of production, by the state or the people"
2. a social system based on this principle

Webster's Ninth Dictionary defines it as:
n (1857) a political or economic theory advocating collective control esp. over production and distribution or a system marked by such control

W hat's truly fascinating is that you berate Mike for being “so completely wrong,” “but still able to type with correct grammar and spelling,” when you, yourself, argue without understanding the basest definition of the words you using. In fact, you ask what definition he is using, when he’s using the word and concept as it has been defined since the term was created over 150 years ago.
I agree you aren’t irked, you obliviously just confused.

Anonymous said...

Personally, I wouldn't lift a finger to save any one of them. Socialists hate every one of us and saving them would just not be worth the effort.