How Crowdism destroys all good things

radical_individualismThe first secret of Crowdism is that it is never unique. It is a universal human tendency that ruins things, like laziness or narcissism. It does not require anyone to invent it, because it is invented in all of us. It is an inherent pitfall to intelligence. Some might call it hubris.

Crowdism is what happens when individuals, deciding to act in their own interests, band together to make any rule other than “the individual does what the individual wants” taboo. This occurs in gradual stages, and can happen at any level of politics, family, society, culture or any other form of decisionmaking.

The key to this is that it’s a paradox. “Anarchists unite!” makes no sense to most people (it always made sense to me; if you want to change the world, you’re going to do it in a group, even if advocating no group control). Crowdists are radical individualists who are in a group only to use guilt to compel others to yield to them.

“Everyone agrees” is one of the most powerful statements in any language. It is paired with the individualist’s notion of being victimized by my inability to act out my individualistic desires. Both of these are passive-aggressive motions designed to put you into the defensive for opposing an illogical idea.

Suppose I and ten friends decide that we like dessert better than the main course, and want to switch the two. That is, you get half a cake for dinner, and then a tiny dab of steak and potatoes for dessert. We begin eating like this on a regular basis in public. Someone from out of town comes into our community and sees us at the local diner eating this way. “That’s terrible for you!” she exclaims. One of us stands up and asks her why she’s oppressing him. He only wants to eat cake for dinner, see? What’s wrong with that? Prove that it’s so bad. Another stands up and tells her that everyone here does this and it makes perfect sense. Now she’s on the defensive; the burden of proof is on her to prove that what is normal is somehow right. This is how crowdism works. (I’ve omitted the part where we hand a dipsomaniac doctor and two scraggle-bearded researchers a huge chunk of cash in order to have “science” declare cake-for-dinner as not just legitimate, but “surprisingly” healthy.)

There’s a reason that Crowdism overlaps with ironism. It is the tendency to pick that which is not normal, with normal being defined as “what generally works,” for reasons which have nothing to do with practicality. The radical individualist doesn’t care at all about the consequences of his actions on society at large. He wants what he wants; end of story.

Crowdism begins to work through several general principles: first, in order to make itself accepted by everyone, it wages war against standards themselves. That means it demands radical equality of all people, which attracts to it an audience starting from the bottom of society’s people: the lost, the chemical cases, the confused, the perverse. They might be wealthy or not, but what unites them is degeneracy and shame. So they make war on the standards that allow degeneracy to be noticed and shame to be felt. Their goal is pluralism: to legalize all behaviors without any standards, and enforce them through the notion that pluralism and equality are a higher justice than standards.

Here’s where things get tricky: the Crowdist’s goal is to replace all of social function with its new ideology. This requires that organic institutions like family, aristocracy, caste, religion, and even the rites of childhood get replaced with the Crowd itself. Because the Crowd has no voice, it creates a proxy through representative government, which is any government that bows to a large number of people who are agitating for or against something. This is the key to democracy; it’s not about “majority wins” but the fact that any outrage can unite enough people to swing a vote for or against something. When enough members of the Crowd become agitated about an issue, they form a “hive mind” which true to its name generates an internal buzz or droning sound that re-inforces the views of its members until they’re all repeating the exact same meme or mantra.

Representative government is receptive to hive-minds because it fears the votes that tip the balance. For a democracy, business as usual is when the two sides — realists versus idealists — are in balance. This creates an equilibrium of compromise which is totally unresponsive to real issues, but allows government to grow and solidify its position, which makes sense because government is a business and thus does what any business seeks to do, which is strengthen, diversify, build up revenue clusters, etc. The problem with business as usual is that even a small group can tip the balance if a hive-mind is formed, so government ends up being a servant not to the feelings of the majority, but to the activity of the determined (or, for realists: obsessive) few.

Crowdists like this kind of government because they are radical individualists. Radical individualists want zero social standards, which means what they actually want is the ability to shoot down any proposed standards. If all that’s required is that they and a few hundred friends start buzzing like frenetic methed-out drones and thus achieve the social avalanche required to shoot down the standards, that’s optimum for them. It’s easier than anything else because there’s no reality check, no wise elders and no ability to counteract it. If anyone opposes it, they claim to be oppressed and victimized by this taboo on eating cake for dinner, and accuse their opponents of being fascists/royalists.

In order to maintain a Crowd of individualists, a religion of Ideology must be created, which is that everyone is accepted. In politics-speak this means that everyone is equal and everyone is right in pursuing whatever notion they think is right for them (pluralism) and also that all differences between people must be abolished, as these are impediments to equality. Therefore they oppose borders, gender roles, and anything else that reeks of a standard that says behavior x is accepted but behavior y is not. Ideology does not create; it destroys those who attempt to insist that reality is consistent, and thus we should adapt to it and adopt rules that reflect its consistent workings. Ideology has one goal, which is to liberate the individual from rules by using the guilt, shame, passive aggression and cognitive dissonance of the Crowd, and the relative weakness of those who use common sense to oppose it.

Why is it so hard to oppose a Crowd? You don’t have an issue. The Crowd is worried about tangible, deconstructed, and isolated bits of reality like “gay marriage” or “marinalize legaljuana.” It is not worried about “restore common sense” or “let’s try reality for a change!” or other broad, make-all-of-society-sensible projects. These are in fact its anathema because the goal of the Crowd is to deconstruct any complex thinking into small issues that it can complain are oppressions to its members, create a hive-mind, and obliterate. It never tackles the question of “what type of society do we want,” which is the question inherent to the task of reality-based informers. In other words, those who oppose the Crowd have many issues wrapped into a single question, where the Crowd always breaks apart questions to target them as issues, peeling back layers of an onion to deconstruct society itself.

As a result, Crowdism proceeds like an infection more than revolution, although its primary metaphor is revolution because it provides a healthy-sounding goal for people. First, it starts at the periphery, injecting doubt about the validity of beliefs. “Surely not all killers meant to kill,” they say, shifting the issue from how to remove threats to society to a personal judgment about the person involved. That’s how radical individualists work; for them, everything is personal, and everything is a question of victimhood by larger society and its standards. They don’t care if the murderer is a threat. They only care if they can argue for his inclusion in their group, as a victim, and thus to use his situation to argue for fewer restrictions on the group as a whole. This cancerous mentality causes the Crowd to spread as it gobbles up anyone with a dysfunction or a misfortune, because such people are often looking for someone to blame for their problems. The more people it finds, the more it expands. It argues backward from their condition to an alternate cause, which is that they’re not dysfunctional or unlucky, but that they’re victims of an organized agenda to impose standards on people, and that this process is the cause of all human suffering and failure.

By appealing to self-pity and the desire for a scapegoat, Crowdism spreads. When it peels back enough layers of the onion to reach the core of society, it creates a fatal change: it installs taboos at the heart of society that prevent people from ever enforcing reality on the Crowd. That has been its goal all along, and instead of some brilliant subterfuge, what it does is act utterly consistently. Always destroy standards. Always emphasize the individual. Stress victimhood. Blame society for our problems. And so on. When it reaches the core, it creates a series of Soviet rules: all are equal, and any other idea is haram; there are no borders, and no genders, and those who blur the line are good; if some rise above the others, it is injustice; drag everyone down to the same level, force equality on us, and we’re all the same. These usually manifest in speech and behavior codes at a social level more than official government rules.

As a way of trapping dissent, Crowdists create a series of “pet enemies”: consumerism, environmental damage, gated communities and other petty acts of rebellion. They like to create these little safe harbors because they allow you a harmless way to express discontent. If you’re pissed off at us, go buy an SUV! Yeah, that’ll show us! The joke’s on you because you’ve just committed the energy that could go to a significant act and instead put it into a useless one. It’s like that old cellophane wrap over the toilet prank. One of their biggest objections is to classism, racism, ageism and sexism. These are bad because they notice differences between people, which thwarts the Crowdist vision of universal equality for all radical individualists. However, they’re also tempting targets because they lure dissenters into socially-rejected behaviors, which marginalizes dissenters and makes them impotent. If you wonder why society loves it when the Westboro Baptist Church, Ku Klux Klan or PETA stages a demonstration, it’s because it’s the “two minutes hate” where the dissenters come out and act out the drama that official propaganda says they will, and then people yell at them and everyone goes home having cheered for their own team, but the basic gist of it, again, is that the narrative imposed by the Crowdists appears to be true from the events that transpire. Instead of creating dissent, such displays strengthen the forces against dissent.

The grand Crowdist dream of making everybody equal requires that the strong be compelled to help the weak, standards be abolished, national borders be destroyed, differences between people be erased and so on. Anyone with a whit of common sense will find this abhorrent and oppose it, but the Crowdists will defeat them by deconstructing that complex principle into many tiny issues expressed through a binary equation of oppression-victimization or its opposite. The real kicker is that they win on demographics, because for every person who knows the difference between a realistic proposition and a thumb-warmer, there are thousands of “useful idiots” who know nothing and care to know nothing, but have eyes gleaming for the thought that perhaps they can gain personal power by becoming part of the Crowd and, as it snowballs, gain what they couldn’t gain for themselves. (Usually, this is the wealth of those who by persistence, obedience, genius or luck succeeded where the Crowdist did not.)

Great societies are not conquered; they conquer themselves. In the absence of a forward goal, they look within, which encourages the kind of navel-gazing and blame-deference which incites Crowdism. However, the essence of Crowdism will always be the radical individualist, who wants the advantages of society without the obligations. A radical individualist is basically an anarchist who likes grocery stores and quick police response when his iPod gets stolen. The task upon them then is how to get such benefits without being forced to restrain their behavior to the type of behavior that makes for an orderly, values-oriented, upward (not forward) moving civilization; these are the only types of civilizations that develop higher functions like rule of law, hygiene, etc. and thus escape the third world levels of dysfunction, crime, poverty, corruption, filth and disorder that are the default state of humankind. As a result, they come up with a type of logic against logic itself, and use that to gain power and take over.

You, the average citizen, are probably wondering, “Why the heck should I care? They’re doing their thing and I’m doing mine.” The first response is that what they’re doing will eventually obliterate your ability to do what you’re doing by wrecking the inner works of society itself, so that your society will drop from first-world-level to third-world-level and soon you’ll be fighting through a dystopia just to get a loaf of bread. The second is more abstract but more reality-based, which is that who you are responds to your environment. If you let crazies take over your environment, you’ll (slowly) go crazy too, and all of the good things in you — honesty, intelligence, honor, gentleness, compassion, wisdom — will become traits that work against you because those traits are contra-insanity. This will mean that you are nothing other than another warm body ready to follow instructions for money, and all of what makes up your personality and soul will be forgotten.

Tags: , , ,

27 Responses to “How Crowdism destroys all good things”

  1. 03-04 says:

    What an excellent piece of writing!

    Crowdism: A pandemic of passive-aggression masquerading as ideology.

    Brett: Have you ever considered composing a list of the (more or less) definitive Amerika-pieces? Maybe 10-15 articles that cover the basics of the Amerika-thought? The ‘about’-page is good, but I think the site as a whole can still be kind of confusing for a new-comer. It would be cool with an official ‘where to start’-kind of list. Just a thought.

    A piece like this clarifies one of the key-concepts of the site admirably, so it would be a shame if it got lost in the archieves. I think crowdism is something many people sense as a huge part of modern reality, but also something that many lack a proper concept of. They know it’s there, but can’t see it for what it really is.

    • Loretek says:

      I absolutely agree. A “basics” page would be very useful. Especially when attempting to show someone the forum (read these then we talk).

      People love the internet because it give them sound bytes of “knowledge”.

      It seems if it requires thought or directly challenges them, they default to, “don’t believe anything you read on the internet”.

      So places like this might as well be UFO-anonymous.

      Especially considering the by-chance time they look, anything could be the most current topic – Zokar :)

  2. RiverC says:

    I agree with 03-04 here.

    It would also help to distinguish ‘crowd thought’ or ‘mob thought’ (hive mind) from other kinds of human group thought such as standards. One thing the crowdists like to do is make everything one-dimensional and polar so you can equate unlike things to condemn them. So if the crowdist knows you’re against mob-mentality, he flattens out everything into a one-dimensional axis that puts ‘memes’ and ‘standards’ on the same end, trying to logically constrain you to support an anti-standards position in the name of being against group-think.

    In fact, I’ve noticed this is a kind of epidemic; a mental infection most if not all people carry – considering standards of behavior a kind of group-think. To this perspective, the standard against sex outside of marriage is just an older kind of group-think, an antique form of mob mentality.

    There’s another way standards are presented though, as top-down fiat, (which is Feminism’s conceit.) So while belief in God is treated as a form of mob thinking, sex roles are considered a form of power-based thought control.

    Both are neither, since the complexity of real goods makes it inaccurate to present them only as one end of a single contrasting property.

    I myself am not totally against democracy, but I think it must itself be balanced. However, we’ve run into the problem that our court, which is supposed to be a final balance against democracy, is being filled with crowdist thinkers, who would rather please the mob than uphold the principles in the document they are supposed to protect.

    Our own founders were wary of group-think, but it is evident that by the time of the civil war, group think was in full swing. Both sides had developed their own form of group-think, and if God died in that century, it was because his edicts were simply being used to service political agendas. The same has befallen science in the 20th century.

    No working model has newly been presented; we are left to move the semi-conscious way of the mass.

  3. Alex says:

    Great article!

  4. Lortek says:

    How does this article change if you assume the crowdist-crowd is already the majority?

    In my world, I’m going crazy holding on to these values.

    I woke up when I realized people do not share the same meaning in these words that I do. I naturally (in hindsight) lived for what I thought was honesty, honor, gentleness, intelligence, and I knew I could not empathize well the people around me so I thought I lacked compassion, which blinded my wisdom: the crowd has no compassion, they fein the rest to make up for it.

    I’m told by conservatives to follow instructions – just get your money and live happy.

    I’m told by crowdists they have/ I need honesty, intelligence, ect. and to show it by:
    Using “game” for honesty,
    Memorizing for intelligence,
    Lying for gentleness,
    ******* for compassion, and
    Advocating for the movement for wisdom.

    I’m told by tradition to cherish the true forms of these values. Period.

    “But wait it doesn’t say the parts about verbs I should be doing for each, or the instructions? What about the money and happiness? ”

    They are so blinded by the light (concrete/body) that they cannot see the fire (abstract/imagination), and therefore cannot distinguish the bright (visible) from the dark (shadows) around them, and cannot argue which is good or bad, or if we should be worshiping the fire or the light in the first place. And for sure cannot contemplate if perfection of any of these actually exist in reality, as they don’t have a file to move “non-existant” to, it gets deleted.

    Soon enough, as they continue to bask in the light, the bright and dark around them too fade, and get deleted. Then the corner (double “Ying and Yang” superimposed and one a quater turned) is allowed to expand its loop all the way around the circle and establish the new fire light good and bad to its own definition.

    New traditions made, new conservatives born.

    Even if they worship the fire and learn from the bright and dark, they will be as lost as ever as the Forms no longer persist. It was one solid black circle of blinded eyes since the last revolution.

    I find neither/nor sentences work well.

    Neither Dark nor Bright, neither Fire nor Light; this is the circle from which I observe.

    • crow says:

      Leave it all alone and don’t think it.
      Leftists can only feign all those attributes they do not possess, and not possessing them, are unable to recognize them, for what they are, in those that do.
      The other side is incomprehensible, and trying to understand them causes one to become just like them.

      • RiverC says:

        The other side is incomprehensible, and trying to understand them causes one to become just like them.

        The actual virtue of Chastity, in a nutshell.

        • crow says:

          Whatever you meant by that, it made no sense to me.
          Would you like to enlarge?

          • RiverC says:

            Chastity is the virtue wherein you don’t participate in something because instead of gaining knowledge in doing so, you will simply be losing it – you will be corrupting yourself.

            This is typically limitedly applied to sexual stuff, but the virtue is not really about sex except as a metaphor; it is about purity. At one point, the Apostle says, “The mystery of iniquity is already at work in the sons of disobedience.” This is taken to mean that evil is a mystery as well, and that peering into it too deeply is somewhat fruitless if you’re trying to know something about it; it is merely confusion and doing so will draw you into it.

            Chastity as a balance between two extremes would be the line between ignorance and promiscuity – a foil to discretion, if you wish.

  5. 1349 says:

    Thank you. Your texts continually improve my understanding of what’s going on around here.

    There’s one thing i’ve wanted to ask for a long time: is it on purpose that you so often end an article on such pessimistic, gloomy notes? The information that is memorized the most is in the beginning and the end of a text, as you most probably know.
    If we want a “good/beautiful/true” future, shouldn’t we visualise it instead of concentrating on how bad everything is / can become?

    • Mihai says:

      That’s because no one here actually believes in the possibility to make things better through improving the current state of affairs- which is completely un-improvable on its own grounds, and the authors of this blog know this very well, despite lovely talk of a “peaceful and gradual revolution”.

      This is the conclusion to which I arrived lately regarding all these “spread propaganda to change the world” blogs. In reality people just want a place to gather with the like-minded and rant about how bad things are. But it is really not elegant to tell people this is what you keep a blog for, so it sounds better to say that you believe in changing the world through blog posts.

      Seriously, I gave up reading blogs completely (with the exception of one place I visit regularly) and don’t come here more than once a month to see if anything really new has been written about. Almost each time the answer is negative. I mean, really, how many times can you write the same things about crowdism and such without getting bored and boring your audience too.

      • 03-04 says:

        I don’t think the repetition is such a bad thing. In fact, I think it’s one of the great strenghts of this site. It’s like a continual meditation on the dissolvement of civilisation – and the causes behind it.

        All the talk about liberalism, crowdism etc. serves to remind us that the enemy is a simple, but subtle one – and that the enemy is just as much within as without (hence the beginning of this article).

        One has to be constantly aware. Fighting the cancer of modernity is an everyday task.

        We shouldn’t expect sudden, revolutionary change. We just need to think of the situation in the right way – which means avoiding the pitfalls of liberal/revolutionary/’it’s all the fault of the other’-thinking. Only then – by seeing liberalism for what it truly is when it appears, even in the seemingly least dramatic, day-to-day-situations – only then we stand a fighting chance in the long run. But this requires stamina, and thouroughness above all else.

        Success isn’t guaranteed. But damn it if it’s not worth a shot.

        Furthermore: The everyday struggle – though containing a lot of repetition – is far from a boring one. In fact, fighting ‘the small war’ (not giving up) is the perfect cure for misery.

        Nine times out of ten, misery is just the result of one thinking- and acting like a liberal without noticing.

        • RiverC says:

          Also, I don’t think you can talk about the pernicious ills of our time without ending on a pessimistic note. The point of tragedy then, is to foster a (hopefully proper) negative affection towards what is presented (which is why Romeo & Juliet, for instance, is a tragedy.) Liberalism has many defenses against this, such as reification, deconstruction, positive attitudism, etc.

          I for one believe that a new culture must be created apart from this, which then, we may hope, can gather the strength to topple this idiocy. On the other hand, we may simply be preparing our minds for the next ‘dark’ age, the one ‘brought about’ by science instead of religion.

          The point then at this point is to preserve the germ, the attitudes and ideas and fundamental principles, which is done through repetition. Why do you think monks are so spiritually advanced, of all religions? Repetition.

          • Vigilance says:

            The purpose of tragedy is to evoke a cathartic response. Somewhere down the line art lost sight of that and tragedy became pornography.

      • crow says:

        No mere blog can take on the world and make it different.
        But it can serve to arm the individual against unidentifiable bogeymen, so that the individual may become a more serviceable specimen amid the chaos.
        Changing the world is a non-starter. Changing oneself, however, is eminently achievable. Thus the world is changed, without changing it, one reader/commenter, at a time.

      • 1349 says:

        Reality is like a tree which grows upside down: its roots are somewhere high above, aren’t they?
        I believe that repetition of ideas (“roots”) works (generates the corresponding “trunk”, “branches” and “fruit”).
        And also that anything that can be conceived, can be materialized (it’s almost the same statement as above). And that it makes sense, then, to set goals and order yourself to achieve them. “Order your future to yourself.”(c)
        I might be wrong.

        In reality people just want a place to gather with the like-minded and rant about how bad things are.

        In my particular country there are traditionalists that aim at some real goals, including economical ones, and i try to help them…
        If you don’t want to see people just ranting, and, at the same time, don’t want to try to “make things better” because things are “unimprovable”, then what do you actually want?..
        I, to some extent, do know what i want of my country, region and continent.

        This site doesn’t talk too much about what society, culture and the state should be like. This seems not to be the main goal of the site. Analysis of what’s wrong is useful, too. It’s part of the work.
        I just asked, as i was curious: why is Brett so pessimistic at the end of many articles? (Because that gloom can be detrimental.)

        Also, if things are really unimprovable… What if this repetition is necessary so that we have at least a couple of people with right ideas in their heads when everything crushes down finally – those people who will build everything from scratch? It is said that the start of the new cycle is inevitable – but maybe this inevitability is guaranteed by the inevitability of things like Amerika’s repetition of ideas?
        (This is probably stupid, i know…)

  6. NotTheDude says:

    Lately I have been hit with a stabbing bout of depression, lasting only a few days but brought on mostly by that feeling of ‘they are too many’! I knew i’d get through it because I know that the crowd sow seeds of doubt because they don’t really know the truth and so accuse their foes of believing what they want to, even though that just is what they do. Thinking about certain times when there is doubt as to who is right can bring on a, if I may use a gentle phrase, Mind F***. The Crowd love this because they know that if a Conservative loses faith in what they know as Reality, they can’t fight the good fight and the Crowd can go on, having their opinions validated. An excellent post, the bit about Representative Government is a great clarifier.

    • crow says:

      What you know about reality is your defense against depression.
      It is what it is, and you can see it, while others can not.
      Seeing those others as the deluded enemy can overwhelm you, but seeing them as a plague of locusts makes it easier. Would you worry about explaining things to marauding insects?
      Avoid those places where there remains anything that an insect would want to eat, and wait them out.
      Enjoy the summer :)

  7. RiverC says:

    So, what do you all think of the 3-d Printed Gun?

    Here are the facts, as I understand it:
    – The blueprints for it can be downloaded by anyone with an internet connection and a computer
    – The object itself can be printed by anyone with a 3-d printer and the proper resin solution, plus electricity (of course.)
    – The resulting unit is not highly durable, but is guaranteed to be lethal for at least one shot.

    The downside is this means criminals could print untraceable, possibly undetectable guns.

    The upside is that the government could not stop worthy citizens from being armed.

    It seems to return firearms to the old status of weapons – anyone with skill and some raw material can make them. Intelligence, knowledge and a middle-class level of capital is all that is required.

    • Loretek says:

      Ehh, I wanted to get on board with/against this but could not find the grounds. If we are advocating for its trade, ie the smithies of old, a one shot, bang and run, gun can be assembled out of a pipe and firing pin. Nothing in this guerrilla physics says the gun has to be made of 3-d printing.

      Now if, like modern art, this is a stepping stone to a real make at home show of force, new questions are raised, but old ones about intractability and yadda yadda are still null, as the work around is already in place, regardless of new forging techniques.

      I find myself advocating, if not simple apathy and observation, as right now I can still buy a gun with little effort.

      And as far as the background check argument goes. I’ll let you in on a secret. They already know all they need to. The form this type of bureaucracy comes in is a letter, sent to your home address, that when opened reads a “disclosure” of laws, then all information that they need you to “give” them, and at the bottom is a place where you fill in you credit card info to pay the background check “fee”.

      Although non-gun related I got vaccination one for my dog. It stated that under blah blah blah of article this number all vets must notify the government of vaccinated dogs, and under this subset the owner must also “register” the pertinent information with the government. They then post exactly what you need to tell them ie name address ect in a nice table and then under that another law that is a $5 fee for enforcement of the above law.

      They make you pay $5 in order to regulate all dogs get vaccinated, but have all the information already, that they obtained from my vet when the same law mandates the vet notify when a dog gets a rabies shot.

      I paid/might pay $5 and have to submit my mind to a government document taking a whole page to describe one thing: Thank you for being a good dog owner and vaccinating you pet, your vet already sent us all relevant information; we will now steal $5 because government, boo!

      • RiverC says:

        True, as a friend told me, there is no law preventing you from making your own gun. Selling that home-made gun is something else, though. Probably gifting it is also a problem.

        Still, the overall cost for running this plastic gun operation is much less than the smithing operation (at least as I understand it) and yes, it does open the door for some more sophisticated engineering, perhaps including the construction of energy weapons.

        The part that is interesting though, I guess, is how much easier it makes it for an intelligent person with a bit of cash to acquire deadly force. It may not mean much as you say, I bought a shotgun for less than $400 and had to have no background check. (Pistols are, obviously, used in most crimes and thus the main target of any sane background check.) Sawing off said shotgun would be highly against the law.

        The worry then, is about it BEING PLASTIC. Not everything is, I think, I didn’t see any PLASTIC BULLETS that claimed to be deadly, but of course bullets are harder to detect than a gun.

        This may simply finalize the argument that a populace must be armed to be safe. Metal detectors won’t stop a criminal, possibly.

        • Loretek says:

          Ah, I see. The metal detectors are a good point. If we aren’t given fair toys to protect ourselves against our protectors, we will be forced to get creative – and nothing scares a government more than people that are getting creative.

          I can see it now, wrist mounted 3D printing- select weapon/ammo type – atom materializers- rendering gun laws obsolete.

          A little imagination makes most laws obsolete, actually :)

  8. […] opinion that what we’re actually seeing here is a universal tendency of human groups called Crowdism. When radical individuals gather, they form a Crowd based not on what they want, but on a desire […]

  9. […] am fortunate to have one of my articles, “How Crowdism Destroys All Good Things,” translated into Portuguese by the writers over at Ação Identitária Paulista. I appreciate and […]

  10. […] a variant of Crowdism, Leftism is based in individualism. Every individual in the group wants guaranteed acceptance by […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>