Individualism vs. Collectivism

Despite what the leftist media and our public school system promotes, our Constitution was based on the concept of individualism. Contrarily, most young people like our millenial and generation-Z have been indoctrinated to accept the collectivist model which is the polar opposite.

Unfortunately, too many people of voting age don’t understand the difference or worse, think it makes no difference. In fact, the like the road less traveled in Robert Frost’s poem, it makes all the difference.

The Framers World View

The framers and the colonists didn’t even have to consider this concept. They were a rugged people who had fought for their independence. They understood from their own experience, the importance of individual sovereignty and one’s own effort to earn their place in the world.

No one was handing them food stamps and welfare assistance to get by. In a decidedly Christian world, they practiced the biblical principal of earning your daily bread through your own efforts.

Let him that stole steal no more: but rather let him labor, working with [his] hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that needs. – Ephesians 4:26

They clearly understood, as the Declaration of Independence affirms, that all freedoms which the individual has received have been granted by God- NOT by government.

This individualist emphasis of the person who has inherent rights as a “child of God” has been under attack for quite a few decades by a concept called- collectivism. Our educational systems teach that individualism is selfish, mentioning nothing of the empowerment one gains by developing themselves to be the best that they can be. Individualists are portrayed as bad people, out of step with the group and therefore too self centered.

However, individuals have always led to the greatest discoveries and developments. The people who think outside of the collective box are the ones who lead to the greatest and most beneficial changes.

Louis Pasteur- Example of Individualist

Louis Pasteur – Founder of Modern Medicine

For example, Louis Pasteur, a bible believing Christian, did not accept that life arose spontaneously. He believed, from his study of the Bible, that life creates life after its kind. This eventually led him into the discovery of what has been called “the germ theory”. From that discovery and others such as pasteurization and vaccination for diseases the entire concepts of biochemistry and modern medicine grew.

Yet, the collective group of scientists in Pasteur’s time, felt he was crazy and opposed his theories. Through patient, well-crafted experiments he devised on his own, he was able to prove his theories and also put them to practical use saving the silk worm and wine industries in France and beyond as well as livestock devastated by disease even to human beings facing death by rabies. All because of Louis Pasteur’s individual thinking and efforts.

With this in mind, let’s take a closer look at Individualism and Collectivism to point out the differences. Doing so will help you to clearly show where the idea or person speaking to you is coming from. First, however, let’s take a closer look at the intent of our framers.

The Constitutional Intent

As a consequence of the colonial world view, the ideal that the American Founders set forth when they drafted the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and the Bill of Rights was to affirm and clearly establish the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution and more specifically The Bill of Rights affirms the sovereign rights of the individual such as, but not limited to, freedom of speech, press, privacy, self protection, self government and more.

Later this approach was given the more sophisticated label of individualism. Back then it was referred to as liberty or freedom.

The French Revolution

On the other hand, around the same period of time as our Constitution was being framed, the French Revolution was promoting freedom through the State as the dispenser of rights and benefits.

This collectivist or socialist model was promoted by the Illuminati through the Jacobin Clubs and their hired thugs, the Marseillaise. (See my posts on Le Mis – The Hidden Back Story for more details on the French Revolution.)

This French Revolutionary idea was that the individual’s life belongs not to him but to the group. This over time has blossomed into a mind set known as collectivism.

The individual is only important or of benefit to society, if they serve the groups collective purpose.

People only have the rights that the society or State permits them to enjoy, provided they adhere to the rule of law as determined by the State.

A simplified but clear presentation of the difference between these two world views can be seen in the video below:

[youtube_advanced url=”https://youtu.be/h3MELsBchFs” controls=”no” rel=”no” theme=”light”]http://bit.ly/2ukACda[/youtube_advanced]

The individualist concept of rights is reflected as follows:

1. Rights originate in individuals and nothing constrains them but the rights of other individuals.
2. Every individual has the right to take any action that does not interfere with the rights of another individual
3. Individual rights may only be transferred by the individual’s right of consent.
4. Governments exist to protect the rights of the individual as a servant of the people who consent to be governed.
5. The moral rights of government can never be greater than the moral rights of the individuals who delegated to government its power.

The collectivist concept of rights is reflected as follows:

1. Rights originate from the team or society and are constrained by what contributes to the greater good of the society.
2. Every individual has those rights which are determined to contribute to the greater good, as determined by the State or more accurately, those in control of the state.
3. Individuals exist to serve society or the group and not themselves. This is reflected in the phrase often referred to from Karl Marx “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.”
4. The individual’s production exists to be distributed as determined by the group and not as determined by the individual.
5. Government exists to distribute wealth produced by the workers so that all share equally in the wealth produced. (Liberte, egalite fraternite for example)
6. The moral rights of the individual are never greater than the moral rights of the group.

Examples of collectivism in our modern political climate ( see Part II ) are many in America today- pushed heavily by our political and educational systems. The chart below compares the two models with some important concepts:

The bottom line is that those who are conditioned to not value and protect their individualism, surrender themselves to the power of the group. In short, their power is determined by the leaders of the group- not themselves.

Can you actually call that freedom?

Collectivists hope that you believe so- especially those self-selected to lead.

The Collectivist Model Hard at Work

While it is usually very profitable for them since it puts them in the drivers seat. For the individual of the collective group, their personal power has been surrendered to whomever leads that group.

Learn more about the collective mindset so that you can take back your power rather than surrender it to an idyllic collective. If you do, in fact, really value the concept of personal freedom, becoming aware of the dangers of a collective mindset will aid you in recovering and retaining it.

Below are some resources which will help you gain more background on this important issue: