“The enemies of intellectual liberty always try to present their case as a plea for discipline versus individualism. The issue truth-versus-untruth is as far as possible kept in the background.”
— George Orwell
Milton Friedman - Collectivism
I'm Stupid I'm Stupid
Ayn Rand - Individualism
Social Media Links:
Alternate Channel (Celestina Monkey): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClRIx5Yp0CZTCJz7PshfwEA
Bitchute Account: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/SdA7JwX9dfhl/
Gab Account: https://gab.ai/TFMonkey
Instagram (Celestina): https://www.instagram.com/celestina_monkey/
Intro Music: Fling My Turds by Red Pill Chemist
Background Music: Final Reckoning by Asher Fulero. Courtesy of the YouTube Audio Library.
Outro Music: Fling My Turds II: The Rise of Celestina by Red Pill Chemist.
Visualizations created in Winamp and OBS.
What if I told you the entire project of civilization & governance is a manifestation of collectivism we are all collectively participating in every day?
Ya best start believin' in collectivist syetems. You're in one.
I never believed in Santa Claus. My parents never cared about that crap.
I remember one time I told a kid in my 5th grade class that Santa Claus isn't real. Oh shit, the response I got back, the outrage...
That was a nice thought experiment,however if Europe is to be saved from the migrant hordes it has to collectivize along racial lines. Libertarianism is a weak ideology which is based on abstractions and not real life human behavior so therefore in cannot get the job done.
The Left-Right axis measures collectivism vs. Individual liberty: Communism, Nazi, Fascist, various socialism, Demonrats(with their miltant arm, the KKK and the Neo-Nazis and other white supremecists), GOP, Libertarian, unorganized individualists, anarchy.
Extreme rightists would be removing stop signs to stop the government from having that much influence.
I am already on the receiving end of socialism. They impose rules on others because they know better (via bureaucracy). They are tearing down and vandalizing campaign signs of conservatives, then accusing the conservatives (as per Saul Aulinsky - sp) of tearing down their own campaign signs. While some can view this as merely the antics of young immature kids, the darker view, is that these destructive behaviors are the precursors the tendency of socialists regime to compel individuals to tow the line by violence, lies, and intimidation.
It is an error to say the right has *always* been associated with individualism more than the left has, because of Overton window shifts. Allow me to explain.
There are essentially three philosophies at play here:
1. The belief that government should wield power to benefit groups that have historically less successful at the expense of those who are more successful;
2. The belief that government should wield power to benefit groups that have historically more successful at the expense of those who are less successful;
3. The belief that government should not wield power to benefit some groups of people at the expense of other groups of people.
Of those three philosophies, only one is properly individualistic, and that is the last one, which has historically been called liberalism. The other two are leftism and rightism, respectively.
As the popularity of these three philosophies changes over time, the tendency is for individualists to form a loose alliance with the weaker of the right or the left, to stand up against the common foe. For instance, in the current political landscape, individualists align with the right against the more threatening left. However, it is only through guilt by association and looseness with terminology that one might label someone like Carl Benjamin right-wing, which leftist propaganda certainly does. It's not like individualists tend to agree with Richard Spencer on everything, but the strategy of alliance makes both, for the moment, on the same anti-left team.
However, the Overton Window has not always been this far left. Indeed, that our pejorative for leftists to this day is "liberal" belies a previous alliance between a weaker left and individualist liberals against a stronger right. Right-wing propaganda in those times (and to a certain extent, still) would falsely conflate liberals with leftists because they were both enemies of the right-wing establishment.
The left stands for individualism if you redefine 'individualism' as some sort of freaky ass hive mind. XD
I was tearing this communist up in a discord recently and you know you've won when you get them to drop the mask, defend communism directly, and cease arguing your points because 'They don't think you know what communism is' Well, kind of difficult since the bastards who push it keep changing what EVERYTHING means, I don't think they do either anymore. XD
Since you casually brought up the political compass: framing left vs right the way you do draws the left-right axis as the diagonal from authoritarian left to libertarian right. This is just the mirror image of what the fool you're reacting to comes from: left to right as the diagonal from libertarian left to authoritarian right.
In the compass itself, both Hitler and Stalin are centrists and insanely authoritarian. No dictator or mass murderer of any kind are to be found in either libertarian quadrant. This is where we meet. Love your content.
Not to say that the political compass is be all end all, but both diagonals are plain foolish.
When I was a teen people liked to point out that if Hitler took over the US the first thing he would do is kill off the people in the neo-nazi groups. The progressives agreed, the didn't understand why but they agreed because they hated the neo-nazis. But It would be the same reason that if Stalin took over the US he would kill off all the Communist protesters. These groups can be useful to get into power but once Hitler or Stalin take over these groups get disillusioned when they see true communism/socialism. The activist have to be culled so all that is left is the docile masses.
Individualism and collectivism have right leaning a left leaning interpretations. There is no clean equivalents between these concepts. This is why people make mitakes such as the one you describe. Left and right are vague abstracts with little meaning or use.
Linking ANY ideology or partisan beliefs to individualism is asinine. Whether those beliefs be left or right. Sure the left is collectivist. But you're on bath salt or plain disingenuous if you don't acknowledge the loud blatant conformity demanded by the right:
1. Not native to the collective?: scram
2. Not religious, like the collective?: You can't even run for office
3. Don't support our wars? You don't support our troops, hippie?
4. Pretty sure it's the right pushing traditionalism. Don't think the left cares if MGTOW conforms to the collective.
5. Left: Have sex for sex sake
Right: Have sex to procreate for the collective.
Again, the left has their slogans and rules and conformist bullshit too, clearly. Yet, MGTOW is the closest to a group preaching actual individuality. I personally don't consider it partisan at all. I'd be curious to know how and why that's erroneous.
TFM's comment about giving it another name at 3:33 got me thinking about this video where Karen Straughan posed the question of whether or not Feminism could ever be defeated in one of her monologues, and what came next was a long pause as she stared away. First she looked thoughtful, then wistful, then depressed as she realized that all Feminists would do is relabel their ideology.
It was the look of someone swallowing a tough red pill; the fight is futile.
This was, incidentally, when I stopped paying attention to MRAs and started paying more attention to MGTOW content. The world started making a lot more sense from then on.
i remember once in school, when our female teacher was showing us a magazine, where socialism was praised, with all the pros and cons and a guy next to me completely destroyed this utopia, while she was roling her eyes lol
it was really funny to watch, at the end i said to him "you da man" and gave him a fist bump lol
With the left, everything good is us and everything bad is them. It’s very simplistic. Like when Bill Maher said that Stalin was a right winger, it just boils down to us good them bad. That the left contradicts itself minute to minute doesn’t matter to them, they do not care about the truth.
Socialism is government ownership and control of the means of production, but what is the means of production, what does that mean?
Simply put people are the means of production, it is you. All production is created by people, socialism is government ownership of the people, socialism and indeed all collectivist forms of governance is slavery to the state.
The problem is the left has controlled the media and entertainment industry for so long even normies have a bias that the left are good and the right is selfish.
Lefties do not care about helping the truly disadvantaged, which to me would be the mentally or physically handicapped. They want to take from the productive and give to the unproductive. From what I've seen it's usually right wingers, often religious people, who adopt and fight for the mentally handicapped. The left just says they should have been aborted. I think the left are jealous of the mentally challenged because they get taken care of while the stupid and lazy left are supposed to fend for themselves.
The right thinks it's better to treat non-retarded adults as adult and loser have themselves to blame. Yeah maybe their parents were shit but Ben Carson came from a poor background but he didn't puss out on himself. He worked hard and became a neurosurgeon. He did it because he motivated himself, and the right thinks the best think is to motivate people to be better then they are. But the left says that's mean because it's ok to be a loser and just because someone is a loser doesn't mean they shouldn't have a middle class lifestyle.
The left pretends to be compassionate but they are selfish. The left is stupid because they claim to hate the rich but will kiss the asses of the tech elite and Hollywood idiots, they won't riots in the gated communities of Democratic politicians like Nancy Pelosi or the Clintons.
The left claims to be smart when they are dumb, claim to be peaceful when they are violent. They claim to be tolerant but hate all with differing opinions. They say many lies.
I think the "rational" left are just right wingers who think being a right winger is a bad thing, so you get guys like Tim Pool who say "it's the far far far left who are for socialism". He's smart but stuck on a mental hurdle.
You are missing for forest for the trees. The republicans are NOT your saviors. Republicans/Democrats, Left/Right SAME DAM DIFFERENCE! If you refuse to accept observable realty, then you are just apart of the system exploiting left/right divide for FINANCIAL GAIN (weather its on main steam media or new media) just like the Dems/Repubs party and politicians do.
I got to say that I find self-sacrifice to be admirable but I am referring to true self sacrifice, it is admirable as it is scarse and only very few individuals, and individuals is the most important part here, get to be at that stage, not this easy feel good crap that makes useless worms fell nice inside with their meaningless actions, yeah share some shitty hashtag or put some stupid flag in your facebook profile every time a massacre occurs that´s the way to change the world in their heads, this kind of half-baked homemade humanitarians that always feel so good, so right inside are the most self-indulging and retardatarian parasites we have in our societies and their collective actions do more harm than a thousand trucks of peace.
Ayn Rand was Capitalism personified and rejected both the left and right. She was the only rational woman ever, before or since. I definitely recommend reading her works even if I dont agree with everything she thought.
What is this, multiple instances of quality content within one day?
Don't get me wrong, the segments are entertaining, and they have their place, but they sacrifice quality for the sake of quantity and entertainment.
Jews are hyper collectivist. They have 7,000 interest organizations in the US alone. Jews, and their gate keepers like Juden Peterstein, tell white people to be individuals - it stops white people fighting back.
Good job at 3m30s on catching these commies trying to rebrand themselves as Libertarians, TFM. They're trying to hang that "Under New Management"™ sign on their shop window. Nice try, regressive shitheads!
For the left the agenda is paramount above all else. To them, any means to accomplish their agenda is right and moral. They don't have to rationalized their meaning, they know what they mean. For them, there is no grappling with their morals, they have replaced their morals with their agenda. For them, there is no soul searching, because they have already sold theirs to be part of their great consensus.
Milton Friedman- amazing speaker, but that was a different time. In his videos where he goes up against leftist, there was civility. I guess the left feels that they are so close to their goal they can drop the civility charade and let their true self show without fear.
In a personal liberty and labelling, they are extremely individualist.
The problem is that they forget that economic freedom is a PIECE of individualism.
Those 72,000 genders and different kinds of labels to “win the oppression olympics” is a form of individualism, of an extreme try to make everyone so unique, that they try to bend the laws of nature and human behaviour in order to be individualistic.
I suspect we're talking about Tim Poole (I'm only naming him because other have already identified him in the comments). I am subscribed to him. His criticism of the left is fairly good but damn he talks some crap. I was so pissed off at something he said in his 'Gender Diversity Initiatives backfire' video that I wrote a near-1000 word rant lol. I almost unsubscribed also. I decided not to because at least he does keep me updated on what goes on in America (I am from the UK).
As to whether he is lying or stupid, I have to admit he does seem to genuinely try to be neutral in his reporting and he seems a genuinely good person. So I have to conclude he is stupid. He is unable to reason effectively. He reasons emotionally rather than logically.
He is dead set on his nonsense that people from poorer families are being held back against rich people. Bullshit. In the West there is no excuse. They just have to work hard. That's all. Everyone has access to internet. These 'under-privileged' people should learn some skills instead of acting like victims ffs. You might have to work harder but who said life is exactly fair? It's impossible to be exactly fair. If you want a good life in the West there is no one stopping you. I know this because I came from a poor family who had f-all. Also my family are from Pakistan. So I am one of these 'disadvantaged' people Tim Poole is talking about. I have never experienced racism or any form of discrimination in the workplace. I think I have experienced one incidence of very minor racism (some drunk dickhead talking shit on the train). What did I do about it? I just shrugged and carried on with my day laughing to myself that the punk was a loser who is probably on welfare while I earn a very good salary as a self employed person.
Very few places in this day and age discriminate. If you have the skills you will get a job to match. It might be you have to move to a different city. Boo f***ing hoo. I did.
Learn how to write a CV. Start by flipping burgers if you have never worked a job. Start somewhere. Anywhere. Don't just sit on your asse. My first job was a Saturday boy in a cinema. Believe me that was not glamorous.
Tim Poole really got under my skin with the comment he made about bias against 'under-privileged' people. He does a major disservice to all the people who had nothing and made something of themselves through hard work.
You can tell by the length of this how worked up I am about this topic lol.
I agree with most of what was said. I don't believe people should be forced under threat of prison and therefore death if one is not compliant, into giving up what is theirs for others. Sure though, we will always need a tax for the ESSENTIALS, but supporting a woman's 27th abortion, is not essential. Supporting research to see what college has the hottest cheerleaders is not essential. Supporting the defense of your country is an essential. But I have faith in the voluntary generosity of others, look at people like Donald Trump. He's donated tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars to charities, has personally helped others less fortunate, looks out for his employees and has sacrificed his place on the forbes top 100 to be hated and ridiculed by half the USA in order to help the country. You'll always have the Scrooges, but there are a lot of people who are truly generous. As for the people who cry for help while sitting on their asses in front of the TV, fuck em, sink or swim motherfucker
Ok as the "Leftist MGTOW" in the group let me be clear, if you believe the far right is for individualism you are either lying or you are stupid, if you believe the far left is for individualism you are either lying or you are stupid, notice NIETHER side is for individualism. Individualism is a BYPRODUCT of our political system. I remember days of the left being for individual rights, yes I know a far time ago, but when the right was knocking on people's bedrooms demanding they "conform" to "their" norms, who was in the individual's corner, the left was. But you know who is in the individual's corner when it came to business issues most of the time, the right. Notice I said both political sides have supported individualism, but in different areas and both have supported collectivism in different areas. If the right wing when I was growing up had their way, they would have kicked out all of the "other" religions, different "types" of people, and endless other xenophobic behavior; however because they lacked "power" they had to change their positions, because they did not have a monopoly in the government. Now the left had a near monopoly in government for some time and could move the Overton window left. This imbalance of power led to collectivism over individualism, either side would do the same thing. Only when neither side has power can the individual exist, only then can a man "run between the rain drops", there is freedom in balance not imbalance. Stardust (thinking-ape) talks about this, and if you want a more "neutral druid" approach I suggest you check out his videos on it.
Here are three quotes -- there are many more if one performs even the most perfunctory of searches -- for out Lefty "friends" to ponder, all variations on the same theme: (1) “Society's needs come before the individual's needs.” ... Adolph Hitler; (2) “We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...” President Bill Clinton, USA Today, March 11, 1993, Page 2A; (3) “We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.” ... Hillary, 1993 Clinton. Yes sir, the Left sure is into the individuality thing with both feet, aren't they?
that anime drawing of celstina is way more sexier and attractive than most real life modern women you see today.
I was tricked into believing in altruism for a long time during my youth (and super hero themes don't help), but when I took the red pill I finally started realising that that mentality got me no where. ideas like altruism are weapons that are way more deadlier than a knife or a gun
You're not the only one who've met someone who claimed that the left stands for individualism. I'm a friend with a guy on FB, who's very individualist and a hardcore follower of Rand's philosophy, yet he supports the left (even the communist). I tried explaining to him that the left is anything but individualist, and I'm surprised to hear his reason why he is in bed with the left. His reasoning is that the current right wing govt is suppressing the leftists and their institutions, and the left actually stands for liberty and individualism.
And the title of this video is exactly the sentence that came in my mind when I was having a debate with him "Either he's lying or he's is stupid".
OK so he's right on the idea that morality is subjective, but that says nothing about Marxism being individualist or not. You may perceive Marxism as moral or immoral, but that doesn't prove it to be individualist.
+Turd Flinging Monkey that's kinda what I said actually. That professor committed a non sequitr fallacy when speaking about it. His argument was I think along this line
1. People usually judge capitalism and socialism as moral or immoral.
2. Morality is relative and depends on individuals.
3. So socialism is individualist.
His first premise is true, second premise is partially true. But his conclusion doesn't follow the premise. And yes, I agree Marxism is the opposite of individualism.
All this Right, Left, Centre, and whatever other political etc. labels there are, are meaningless. People are just people. Their supposed political stance does not define the person. Especially, when people are usually (unless they're really nutso) a mixture of all different kinds of morals, political stances, etc. Where I come from, I've never even heard of Left/Right until this recent feminist blowup in the usa and talk of antifa etc.. As far as I know, they're just terms used in the usa -- every country uses their own labels. It's better to talk in terms of followers, thinkers, conformists, etc.
They are trying to make the Truth into a lie......and a lie into truth.
Ex. They want to push women to lead and men to acquiesce to women.
How does one pass along a deception like this? Thru Witchcraft.....
This is how the Socialist behooves the masses.
Adolf Hitler - Mein Kampf. "I would have called our party the German COMMUNIST party, but the name COMMUNIST was already taken, so I chose "The German Workers National Socialist Party"...... So the socialists and the communists had running street battles between them.
I rest my case.
Names don't matter a fuck.
There is only decent and constructive, or indecent and deconstructive. Honesty or Dishoesty. Forthright or Deceitful.
we are destroying the fondations to build a new society based on morals and feelings. those retards are thinking the left is about the self when in fact its Always been about communism. if you look at those sjw's and die hard feminist , they preach collectivism and the enslavement of man ! HOW IS THIS SELFLESSNESS IF YOU DEPEND ON THE ENSLAVEMENT OF A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELF ?
The Right => Makers. Creators. Most charitable. The Individual. To become strong and independent is a virtue.
The Left => Takers. Parasites. Least charitable. The Collective. To become weak and dependent is a virtue.
...There is a reason why Europe is now politically shifting towards the Right. The Left have failed, many have been hurt, and people have had enough.
Hey Monkey thanks for educating this Monk from an infested Europe.... when Europe falls, i will come to the U.S. where there are still Monkeys prepared to teach Bonobo's and hate beards to not mess with us! Stay well!
Here is another subject where I disagree with you.
I see that you define the right and the left as libertarianism and authoritarianism respectively. Seems to be an American thing... I think it is a consequence of your two party system.
From my perspective, and probably also his perspective there are three positions rather than two: libertarianism which is individualism from the perspective of competent people who thrive in freadom, the left which is individualism from the perspective of incompetent people who need handouts to survive and the right which considers it a requirement that some sacrifices be made by people in the present to uphold and enrich society in the long term.
I do not consider leftists to be collectivists. They wear the skin of collectivism to make pretexts to justify their actions to those around them and, if you ask me, to themselves but it is obvious that they do not serve society. They only serve themselves. And their ideas cause harm to society but they are not ashamed of being its infection.
Only the right preeches true altruism and self improvement.
Before you apply, the following information should be reviewed to ensure the appropriate program and start date is selected:
Be aware that Student Visas, if needed, can take time (approximately 3 months), so we recommend that you apply as soon as possible. For non-EU applicants under age 18, please review the additional requirements (legal guardianship is required) needed to apply for an Austrian visa.
English Language Requirements.
In order to qualify for any of Webster Universitys academic programs, a minimum level in English proficiency is required. To learn more about our language requirements and how to ensure you meet them, please click here.
Selecting your Entry Date.
First-time freshman students are encouraged to begin their studies with the Fall 1 and Spring 1 starting dates. However, if classes are available, freshman students are furthermore welcome to start with our Fall 2 and Spring 2 starting dates. First-time freshman students are unfortunately not able to start with the Summer term.
All Bachelor transfer students - transferring from an accredited university (accredited by the Ministry of Education in your country) - can also start in all of our 5 terms, if classes are available.