Comments on: The rebel against the controlled world

By: bleak

bleak — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 17:24:55 +0000

What about spirituallity? Aren’t we all connected, maybe on another plane? If idividuallity were the end of it, we might as well just say “fuck it, I’m going to do whatever the hell I want.” That is exactly what the one-world government bastards tell themselves. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.” I’m not saying that I disagree with this article, just that there is even MORE to the story. I consider myself a rebel against evil but not everyone is evil. The “We” in “We the People” is very important, I think. So is, “love thy neighbor as thyself.” Anyway, great article, Jon. Glad I caught it.

“Fortunately, some are born with spiritual immune systems that sooner or later give rejection to the illusory worldview grafted upon them from birth through social conditioning. They begin sensing that something is amiss, and start looking for answers. Inner knowledge and anomalous outer experiences show them a side of reality others are oblivious to, and so begins their journey of awakening. Each step of the journey is made by following the heart instead of following the crowd and by choosing knowledge over the veils of ignorance.” -Henri Bergson

By: vuelvancaras

vuelvancaras — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 21:36:29 +0000

cheryl,
well said. artists are always on the fringe. it is where the light gets in.

empires are all militaristic and conformist. communalism/collectivism for the poor and working class is about survival and the ability to be able to be turned into a robot. not that a person wants that. but at the level of survival the matrix thing is a hoax. but from the standpoint of usa’s imperialism collectivism is the matrix.

jon’s attacks on marx are part of usa imperial mind bending. marx’s class analysis and understanding of the outcomes of capitalism still hold true and assist all who study them in seeing right through the matrix. they also give those whose lives are more social and extroverted a strategy for creating social change.

By: Randy

Randy — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 19:33:36 +0000

TY JON

This was a very good article and I’m sharing it with the collective. LOL Just can’t escape it it seems! How far down the rabbit hole are we? Just layer after layer of Onion skin. You peel one layers off only to discover there is more and more and more.

By: milo

milo — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 16:45:51 +0000

There is not a conspiracy and no-one is out to get you. In relation to the state, individuals feel powerless and frustrated the more they try to understand politics and the more they think they are not heard the more suspicious they become. But the mighty state cannot interact as a whole with individuals. Knowledge cannot be distributed equally. Levels of expertise are just part of the overall economy of knowledge. When we use language to capture inductively, general features of our experience, i.e. classify, we inevitably create boundaries: what is and what is not an element of the class or set named by the word or expression, who is and who is not part of our religion, social group, tribe, party and so forth. If our linguistic categories or code is restricted, these terms can simplify our experience in such a way as to limit our understanding of others and set limits, sometimes divisive and hostile, to our mutual understanding. Referring expressions and names do this exactly. Instead of doing Political Science we can transform the state into an enemy in just this way. What general class terms don’t do is offer an explanation. Explanatory concepts or theories (they are also concepts) such as those of the natural and the social sciences, augment understanding by offering quantitative or qualitative explanations of the relations between the elements brought together under the concept. So where restricted linguistic divisions are created which set supporters of ‘this’ tribe, team, group, against ‘that’ tribe or group, a more elaborate linguistic code, such as that used in scientific understanding, shows their relations and obtains an explanatory understanding. I would not blame sociologists for trying to understand the complexity of society. I would encourage their attempts. So I take a more optimistic view.

By: milo

milo — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 15:36:47 +0000

Individuals can interact meaningfully with individuals with whom they share the same linguistic code (elaborated or restricted – Bernstein) and institutions with institutions and states, states, each with an institutional or legal language. Interactions between the individual and institutions and the state are difficult except where the state has to initiate action, as in the case of crime. Its a simple problem of numbers. Writers, academics, some politicians and celebrity figures who have something to say, can take a short cut and ‘Speak Truth to Power’ in publications, the press and social media, like Jon himself. Essentially the argument is contained in Benjamin Franklins remark, ‘If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both’. So it does boil down to how the apparatus of the state can be organised to listen to individuals. At the same time social media and networking is creating its own lobby. So the future resolution of these issues lies in technology and the willingness of politicians to engage with it.

By: Cheryl Hugle

Cheryl Hugle — Sat, 01 Jun 2013 01:35:33 +0000

I see it a little differently.

Individualism like collectivism has two types, the types tolerated in elite society and the types tolerated in lower classes, servant or the disenfranchised.

No matter Soviet style or American style society… there are distinct class differences. And there are ‘quotas’… so many artists may be tolerated, even nurtured, but a society of artists? Never!

Free thinkers? Yes, maybe, but what type of free thinking? The type that might lead to freedom? Well, no. That would not be advisable unless of course you are a member of the elite and only wish to secure your own freedom and are otherwise harmless.

These are all possibilities or limitations experienced within the empire societies. And, they are more or less meaningless outside of strictly controlled, empire artificial realities.

Outside empire culture, a rich experience is possible. Inside, no matter how when argues… the argument itself lacks substance, reality, experience, noesis.

Outside, we meet sentiences beyond our own… way beyond, and we glimpse our own, way beyond the imaginings possible when straight-jacked as we are by the limitations imposed by empire acculturation… no matter at which level one is reared, falls to or attains.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Fri, 31 May 2013 15:23:23 +0000

Lest it be overlooked, the Reality Manufacturing Company includes the terrifying agencies that hide behind national security, i.e. CIA, NSC, etc. and the ones purported to protect the public such as, EPA, DOE, SEC, repeat ad nauseum.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Fri, 31 May 2013 08:54:39 +0000

Rabbitnexus – I don’t think (lack of) Individuality has anything to do with Marxism, Capitalism, Collectivism, etc.
Social Engineering in regard to group thinking or imposed behaviourism is ideology-independent and particularly present in spheres with strong powers. It was definitely more visible in China or North-Korea (still), although Soviets and Cubans were not less individual than the average US citizen. Communism, especially in the 30’s was a testbed for imposed behavioural control and it tried to abolish the structures of family, church and nationalism by force and by propaganda. It never really succeeded. Propaganda was better tuned in the US ( and in lesser degree in Europe) through group division (youth, woman, gay, black, …) by creating subgroups with strong identities (fake individuality). At the same time the message was broadcasted that this was true freedom and only possible in the USA. Patriotism. Then came the laws to protect these groups and the imposed mindset for political correctness was established and exported in the 90’s to Europe. From then on it goes downhill. Almost everything becomes forbidden. Paranoia and distrust rules and the State takes a role as patriarch (and matriarch) to ‘protect, take care and secure’ its citizens by all means against other fellow citizens and against oneself. It becomes a centralised platform for individual human interaction (conflict & frustration)). It all goes through division and intolerance planted in fake individual identities. A true individual rebel today is a bit of a loner and outcast, who is able to recognize a kind of universal morality which is by its nature independent of intrusive memes. A true rebel is mainly a victim today. Unconnected to mainstream thinking. Well, there are still enough of them out there and I have the impression that this group is growing although it will always remain a minority.

By: abzu2

abzu2 — Fri, 31 May 2013 06:49:16 +0000

Lucid thinking.Rare.

By: Rabbitnexus

Rabbitnexus — Fri, 31 May 2013 02:52:12 +0000

Daniel I think that you’re just referring to selfishness. It is possible to be an unselfish and co-operative individual who is part of a society. You’re right there’s a balance involved, some degree of individual freedom is sacrificed for a functioning community, but that has been taken to the extreme today, where the individuality is being sacrificed for the perfect functioning (from the controllers point of view) community.