This is a slightly-modified version of Birdman's Weekly Letter #284
1. Is Individualism Impossible?
"Nature abhors a vacuum, and most of all she abhors a power vacuum." --JBR Yant
Libertarians are the great advocates of individual liberty -- ie, individual power -- as against the liberty (ie, power) of the State. As I have shown elsewhere, libertarianism is flawed because libertarians do not realize that State power is not the only kind of power which can be used (and hence abused) against the individual; and in fact, as the State is made to wither away -- the desideratum of the libertarian, but a possibility never yet realized anywhere save the anarchist's dream -- it is entirely possible, and indeed likely, that other forms of power will spontaneously emerge to fill the power vacuum that the State has left. Thus while we may all prefer individual liberty, if there is no way to obtain it besides becoming troglodytes, we may be better off trying to shape the powers that affect us so as to minimize the coercion that we are destined to experience.
But is it really true that Nature abhors a power vacuum? I think the answer is Yes, at least in proportion to the extent that individuals are forced into social closeness, ie, in proportion to the extent that they are not troglodytes, who have no interaction with others at all. The proof is as simple as recognizing that, when people work together in an organized manner, they are far more efficient (powerful) than if they worked separately -- a fact that means those who are organized will far outstrip those who are not. Now if this isn't obvious, consider the simple fact that it's a lot easier to move furniture with two people than one -- some pieces are just two heavy for a single carrier. Likewise, it is a lot easier to run a store with two or more people than one: One stocks the shelves while the other deals with customers; or one takes over when the other is sick. Indeed, organization is at the crux of what 'Mr Libertarian' Murray Rothbard cited as the great engine of the Industrial Revolution: Specialization, aka 'division of labor'. When men become experts in doing some particular task or set of tasks and limit their work to that, they work much more efficiently than a man forced to be a jack-of- all-trades and a master of none; but specializing requires an 'economic engine' into which a man can fit himself as a 'part' which provides specialized services, and this 'economic engine' is obviously a product of (conscious or unconscious) organization. One might say, then, that acting in a organized or coordinated manner is a way of amplifying the power of the individual. Indeed, libertarians have discovered this in a covert way by founding organizations such as the Libertarian Party, whose purpose may be to achieve individual liberty, but whose modus operandi is exactly the opposite.
In terms of systems theory, the reason Nature abhors a power vacuum is that organizations, or 'human power amplifiers', are more stable (or at least some of them are) than disconnected individuals. To illustrate, let us take a simple case -- government. As all libertarians know, government is a protection racket that has assumed a mantle of hoary authority, and has woven itself into the social fabric to such an extent that its minions can claim with a straight face that the protection money people pay -- aka 'taxes' -- is a 'moral obligation'. But libertarians, as usual, have not quite got things right. That is, they are right that government is a protection racket; but in recognizing that government is an SOB, they have overlooked that it is 'our SOB' which (gasp!) actually protects us. Or at least it does sort of, and most of the time, and for a very good reason: It doesn't want some other group of shakedown artists to take over its racket. What we are talking here is what libertarians like so much, namely, pure self-interest: The government doesn't want to lose its shakedown money, so it has to keep the barbarians outside the gates so they can't get a cut. The shakedown artists, then -- criminal as their intent may be -- are forced by self-interest to run a clean house -- well, sort of -- because they don't want dissension, which costs them police time, or dissatisfied 'customers' who take their grubstake offshore and deny the government its pound of flesh. They are, in a word, businessmen -- folks engaged in the occupation of extracting money from others -- and they want to run their business in a, well, businesslike fashion. One of the ways to do that, of course, is to claim a mantle of authority handed to them by God, or, since God is now out of fashion, to claim that they rule by an 'electoral mandate' (democracies) or 'for the people' (communists and socialists). All this, of course, is pure hookum, but it is a very warm and fuzzy hookum that the shakedown artists may even believe themselves, at least sometimes.
We said above that organizations are more stable than individuals, but that, of course, is true only of some organizations, and comes about because -- again as we said above -- organizations are human power amplifiers which attract people who -- lest we belabor the obvious -- want their power amplified. This is particularly obvious in the case of political parties, which are associations of like-minded individuals who hope to make their views prevail if they act together. But it is also obvious upon reflection in the case of corporations, whose agenda is not political, but financial: People want to make money, so, somewhat like Willie Horton, they go where the money is being made.
Having said the above, let us now tackle the question which this essay was intended to answer: Is individualism impossible? By 'individualism' we of course mean the libertarians' vaunted 'individual' who is 'free' from 'coercion'. But libertarians just don't get it: Government is by no means the only form of 'coercion', for there are forces everywhere that 'coerce' just as much as government ever did, from your mother and your minister to the local gang or mob. Some of the 'coercion' may be from the obligations which one feels, and some maybe from fear of getting 'knocked upside the head', as my Southern school chums used to say, but all of it is about force.
And what is the individual against all these forces? He may be able to handle moms and ministers, but he is vulnerable when there are two or more people arrayed against him and acting in a coordinated fashion. Which means only one thing: He needs an organization behind him for protection. Back in the bad old days this might have been family or friends in his (small) town. Nowadays, however, when the vaunted individual has been detached from his roots and is just another cog in the industrial machine, he is vulnerable to any little group that comes down the pike, because virtually any little group has more power than he does. Happily, however, there is a group that will protect him -- namely, society, which has all kinds of structures to shelter individuals who do not otherwise have protection. This includes the police, but also includes a wide array of 'services' which are in fact protections, tho they are other things as well: Taxis, restaurants, libraries, stores, rental properties, dating services -- just about anything that offers surcease from a cruel world of vaunted individuals and their organizations.
But while this array of structures makes it possible for the vaunted individual to function without what we usually think as membership in any group, the fact remains that the vaunted individual can survive only because he is a member of society -- or at least modern society -- which is a group that provides him protection from lesser groups. This, however, throws a monkey wrench into libertarian theory, because the vaunted individual is not, after all, a vaunted individual, but rather someone who is dependent on a group for survival. This does not quite reduce human beings to the status of ants, but it shows that we are a lot closer to an ant colony than some might think.
So much for individualism.
The reason that the Jews are running rings around us gentiles is not because they are smarter -- Jews may have a higher average IQ, but the immensely greater population of gentiles means that, in America for example, there are ten times more smart gentiles than smart Jews.
And the reason the Jews are running rings around us gentiles is not because they are richer -- while Jews on the average are significantly wealthier than gentiles, the immensely larger population of the latter means that there is far more wealth in the hands of gentiles than Jews, and far more rich gentiles than rich Jews.
No, the reason Jews are running rings around us gentiles is because Jews are far better organized than gentiles. And not only are Jews organized into Jewish organizations (check the Yellow Pages, and compare the list of Jewish organizations with those of any other religion or ethnicity), but they are major players in gentile organizations, as recent investigations have shown.
Now it is easy to understand why Jews are so well-organized, because acting in an organized fashion gives the participants much more power then they would have in acting as separate individuals. This comes about -- as noted earlier -- because organizations are 'human power amplifiers.' Jews must have discovered this secret early, for they have survived longer than any other racial isolate in spite of frequent persecution from most of those among whom they have lived.
Thus if we are to save ourselves from the actions of the Jews -- or, more particularly, from the NWO conspiracy of Organized Jewry and the gentile elite who are helping them -- it is vital that we too, discover and implement this secret of amplifying our power. Or to put it another way, as I have said many times to my gentile comrades, Organize or die!
So what, then, is preventing whites from organizing? There are several possible explanations, particularly including 'white guilt' which has been implanted in whites by the 'antiracist' Jewsmedia, bad information about the real situation our race and culture are facing, and of course the media-induced couch-potato-ism which hypnotizes the hoi polloi into thinking that there is nothing happening that is more important than cars, beer and the next Big Game -- but there is one thing above all that I believe is responsible: The inability of whites to get along well with others. Exactly why this is a problem for whites but not for Jews is not entirely clear, but there are at least two factors which I believe play a prominent role:
* Jews have a much greater sense of group identity than whites, and this means they will come together to act in the interest of the group much more readily than whites. This theory is supported by the fact that Jews have a profound socialistic bent which has been exhibited by everything from the Russian Revolution (for which they were responsible) and 'racist Marxist Israel' (which they established) to kibbutzes (a type of celebrated communal farm in Israel) and voting heavily Democratic (the party of American socialism). It is also supported by the fact that Jews have survived for so long as a group, since no group could survive that long without a strong sense of group identity.
* Jews have achieved much in the world in terms of money, fame and power, and are thus, on the whole, a self-confident people. A self-confident person, however, can take criticism -- and make the changes which that criticism suggests -- much more easily than one who is not, for the simple reason that the self-confident person can always say to himself, "All right, I admit that I screwed up on x, but I have done a good job on p, q and r, so I am still an OK person." That is, a confession of error does not mangle a self-confident person's ego in the way that it does an inferior person's. But why is this so important? Simply because if people are going to work together effectively, they are going to have to be able to correct their errors as quickly as possible. But if the people in the organization have trouble taking criticism, it is going to be difficult to correct those errors, and that is a big problem for whites. Jews, on the other hand, not only are better at correcting their errors, but they are more willing to place themselves under centralized control (ie, 'fascism' or 'a dictator') because self-confident people are those who have been much better at satisfying their ego needs, and are thus more willing to submerge that ego in a group effort, ie, they are willing to let others take credit (satisfy their egos) in order to promote group welfare. This, I might add, recalls to mind a bit of wisdom given to me by my father, a fairly self- confident guy, who several times remarked that if you really want to get things done, let other people have the credit. He practiced what he preached, too -- he regarded as one of his important accomplishments in life his book How to Get Things Done -- a book on which only his co- authors' names, and not his own, appeared.
So what, then, is the solution to the internecine warfare that besets less- than-fully-self-confident white men as they jockey for ego satisfaction? I don't think there is any one solution, but there are probably several different things that could help. The first thing to do is to recognize that there is a problem -- if we don't recognize it, we certainly can't solve it. The second thing is to realize that disputes can easily escalate out of control -- as among the legendary dispute between the Hatfields and McCoys, where each act of aggression was met by another and even more outrageous act -- particularly when one of the parties starts insulting or cursing the other. A third thing is to develop a dispute-resolution mechanism, eg, a custom of presenting disputes which are 'irresolvable' or have escalated out of control to a trusted third party for binding resolution. But one thing which must certainly be done is to add to the 'magic words' we teach to kids -- 'please' and 'thank you' -- yet another set of magic words, 'I apologize' and 'I was wrong'. It may seem surprising, but it is possible for both parties in a dispute to apologize even when they both think they are right -- all they need apologize for is for causing the other to become upset, "since that was not my intention". Such apologies will then smooth the way for more substantive apologies pertaining to the content of the dispute.
In conclusion, I might say that it took me many years and the gentle hand of a good wife before I ever learned to get along with people (read: I was one of the world's biggest assholes). The basic trick is to try to make others feel good -- and feel good about you. Making others feel good costs you nothing, and is often rewarded -- in the long run, if not the short -- by others trying to make YOU feel good. Of course making others feel good requires that you be sensitive to their reactions -- that you be able to read their body language and read between the lines of what they say -- but if you work at it a bit, you will often be rewarded with good feelings from others, and maybe even a few good friends.
YOUR DONATION = OUR SURVIVAL!
Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *