Not yours

What is most interesting about liberalism is that it defines itself through negatives disguised as positives.

For all of its discussion of progress and fairness, the underlying goal of liberals is to show how they are not like the rest of them.

If you want to differentiate yourself, you have to come up with some reason why the rest of them are wrong and you are right. The essence of collectivist movements, or those focused on a social group instead of an individual or an idea, is that there’s a password. There is some state of mind or activity in which you have to participate in order to be in the club.

Once in, of course, you’re entitled to your share of the spoils. In an organized group, there’s a hierarchy for spoils; they go to the most capable, so they’ll do capable things with that wealth and thus make more of it. In a disorganized group, everyone gets the same amount or it’s grab whatever you can. Liberalism is a disorganized group that distrusts hierarchy.

Thus the cardinal rule of liberalism is that every person in the raiding band gets the same amount of spoils. This doesn’t change if you already have wealth; you just can’t take more than anyone else. This is a negative ideal in that it knows what it doesn’t like more than what it does.

Negative ideals are there to make people feel better about a situation that they don’t think will change. If life is so inherently bad, you need to find some way to make yourself feel better, and the easiest way is to set up someone else as an object of derision and ridicule.

Liberals have a pathological need to feel better than those who are not-liberal. That isn’t just conservatives; it’s anyone who hasn’t joined the great People’s Crusade for progress, compassion, tolerance, etc. Pick any word that makes you feel accepted and add it to that list.

As a result, liberals always have an enemy at hand. Fanatical brain-dead Nazis, ugly racist cops, rich people or faceless government spies. They will unite their little group with hatred of outsiders and a sense of moral superiority.

Can we deny the sneer lurking behind the word “progress”? It implies — with enough deniability for a beltway lawyer — that everyone else is in a primitive state except that lightbringer who carries progress to the ignorant. That person is (by definition) smarter, better, cooler than the rest.

The reason this fantasy is appealing is that it confers acceptance without qualifications. All you must do is take communion of the Ideology, repeat it to others, and sneer at those who don’t adopt it. Then you’re in and entitled to an equal share.

Liberalism programs the brains of its victims to expect this kind of order. They get a social high on feeling superior to others, and since they expect liberalism is the only “true” order, when they’re not shown acceptance without qualifications, they get enraged. This enables them to feel they are the victims, and to attack without feeling guilt.

The manic desire for equality of the modern time as a result does not arise from a concern for our neighbors not getting their fair share, but from envy itself: why does someone else have something I do not? After all, we’re sharing the spoils; if they got more, it’s unfair.

In contrast to that, hierarchies exist because different people have different levels of performance and are rewarded unequally to send most of the wealth, power and acclaim to those who are doing good things; this is the polar opposite of acceptance without qualifications.

These hierarchies insult liberals because they damage the liberal sense of self-worth, which is based in being a member of the group. You know you’re a member of the group when you get equal spoils.

To a liberal, when they see a hierarchy that rewards some people for greater intelligence, wisdom, labor or ability, they do not see that this is the only way to run a functional society. They take it personally. It refutes their sense of superiority.

All they hear is “not yours.”

To them, these are fighting words.

It may be an opportune time to start using this as a weapon against them. Saying “not yours” is not confrontational; it’s part of the basics of cooperation, sharing and taking care of each other. We share what we can, but each person has some things that are not shared.

For example, we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to deny them entrance into our bodily orifices, or to give them control over our minds. Not theirs.

When a liberal is confronted with an unemotional and rational “not yours,” their extreme behavior in response seems so out of place that it makes them look insane. The radical professor is suddenly a masked anarchist smashed the windows of stores he’d love to shop at.

In an instant, liberalism is debunked. All the fancy language about helping others, progress, tolerance, compassion, etc. goes out the window. It is replaced by a more concrete vision: a child having a tantrum because it is denied something that someone else achieved.

The fact of life is that nothing is equal. If it were, there would be no change; the universe would be in a static state and no motion would occur. In the same model, if we take something valuable and give it to everyone, it loses its value.

This in turn makes people lose the will to do more than the minimum, and also makes them lose sight of reality. They replace reality with a social collectivism in which each person gets equal spoils.

The first step to unraveling this crazy mindset is to put out a vertical flat hand and say Not yours. Instead of taking liberals at their word, this reveals the underlying superiority complex and shows how unstable it really is.

18 Responses to “Not yours”

  1. 1349 says:

    For example, we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to deny them entrance into our bodily orifices, or to give them control over our minds. Not theirs.

    Several minutes before you posted this i was reading about the “glass of water” theory and sex and marriage politics advocated in Russia/USSR by certain marxist schizophrenics in the first decade after 1917.

    “Kollontai admonished men and women to discard their nostalgia for traditional family life. “The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers.”

  2. Esotericist says:

    Equality means we all share. Why are you against it?

    Oh so the smarter/better people should get more. Why do they need it? After all they’re better.

    Oh they’ll do better with it, well what about what all of us would do with it? We could spend it on the poor and then everyone would be equal, there would be no strife.

    The only reason you don’t want to share is that you’re selfish, and there’s no reason you’re better than us. You say you’re not better than us, just smarter or better at the skill of spending money wisely? well prove it because my 4×4 is more important than your thoughts of wisely spend money.

    (You cant reason with the mob.)

    • ferret says:

      “Equality means we all share”

      There are couple of types of equality: equal opportunity, equality before the law, equality of outcome, gender equality, etc.

      I guess, you are talking about the equality of outcome.
      In a Capitalist society it means redistribution of wealth (see wiki, Redistribution of wealth), that doesn’t work great: it kills economy.

      Just imagine we take the total wealth and distribute it among all people evenly. My calculations’ result was about $7000 one time payment. The poor would buy a second-hand car and then unable to enjoy it: no money for gas, registration, insurance, maintenance…

      Don’t over-estimate the available total wealth. Also, this money is not stored at home, it keeps economy alive by investing in businesses. No investmens – no economy grows, we are poor, unhappy, and hungry.

      Now, let’s imagine we decided not to kill economy, but instead to take from the rich only that part we believe they don’t need: expensive goods, food, etc., and give it to the poor. There would be almost nothing if distributed.

      At the present, there are no alternatives to Capitalism (see wiki, Capitalism). Killing the Capitalist economy by equal distribution would result in complete economical collapse. We should be realistic and make a study before trying to “improve” something.

      Capitalism does not survive without inequality, grows followed by resessions, wars, imperialist and colonialist international politics – all that is inherent in it.

      • Tom Gray says:

        Hep me out with this one, please:

        Imagine 8 dudes are on an island. These 8 dudes subsist on water and coconuts. Each day, 4 dudes go to one side of the island to collect water. They collect 2 buckets of water a piece and bring them back to the center of the island, where everyone lives. The other 4 dudes go to the other side of the island and collect 2 coconuts a piece and likewise meet back in the middle of the island. In this way, each man receives daily a bucket of water and a coconut, having traded for either the necessary/reciprocal share of food or water.

        Now, one of these dudes is not like the other. In his free time, while others relax, he works to invent a machine with which to collect coconuts at a faster pace. One day, he does. Now, say, only 2 dudes are needed to gather as many coconuts in as much time.

        In this small system, now, two men have been freed up. There isn’t a need for more coconuts, as, on this island, each dude only needs and desires one coconut. Accept, for argument, that 2 dudes are freed up, please.

        There has been a disruption in the island economy. What do we do? Actually, I’m more interested in what you name the remedies for such a disruption (Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism, et cetera). If Capitalism is the redistribution of wealth through government I’ve got a few things mixed up in my mind.

        Directed at the guy above me.

        • Sun says:

          If Capitalism is the redistribution of wealth through government I’ve got a few things mixed up in my mind.

          Capitalism is not the redistribution of wealth through government.

          Depending on whom you ask that is either socialism or communism.

          Capitalism would be the coconut guy sells coconuts to the guys who have water; and thus, you have a start of an economy/commerce.

          The two guys who lost their jobs due to the invention of the coconut collector (copyright included) are screwed and have to find something else to sell (maybe their labor to make huts in exchange for coconuts and water), if they can’t they die.

          What you described sounds like Communism. The type of communism that apologetic Anarcho-Marxist espouse where there is a stateless and classless society where everyone helps everyone else; i.e. a community (note the same suffix). Its a “primitive communism (which never really existed)” that most hippies support.

          So under your system either the two guys would starve/be kicked out due to not helping the commune survive or b) be moved to another job on the island by the “leaderless leader.”

          If it was socialism you would have the coconut collector getting rich off of excess coconuts and the worker’s vote to redistribute the coconuts to poor and needy (i.e. to the two people who where laid off).

        • ferret says:

          Sun has explained the situation really well *. And by googling “Capitalism” one can find a lot of information.

          * “primitive communism (which never really existed)”
          Primitive communism means cooperation and food sharing in “early hunter-gatherer societies, that had no hierarchical social class structures or capital accumulation.”[wiki, Primitive communism]

          Native Americans had a similar order in their villages.

          • Sun says:

            Why did the blockquote not work. Bummer. Must have forgot.

            There was no such thing as primitive communism. It is a perfect example of selective history to fits one ideology.

            Of course hunter and gather societies at many times shared, but this was for survival reasons. Many times not everyone got an equal amount of food and the kill often time went to either the family or someone important in the tribe.

            The biggest fallacy is the idea that their was no hierarchical social class in tribes.

            Even Native Americans tribes had Elders or some type of leader.

            Shamans were also revered in such societies due to their powers to either punish rivals with magic or talk to the gods for various concerns (like having good crops or hunting this year).

            And of course you had the crust of society who got barely anything.

            In fact, you had more social class, especially between men and women doing different roles, because there was less technology and more physical labor involved (requiring the different attributes for each). Men were more expandable as were geared towards war and hunting. It took less men to reproduce. Women were less expandable due their ability to reproduce and provide for the future of society.

            Leaders and social order was essential for the survival of such tribes. There is no such thing as primitive communism.

            • ferret says:

              The definition of primitive communism based on social classes as F. Engels defined them, i.e., according to the relations to the means of production. You are probably using Weberian definition of classes.

              It’s a good point that we cannot have a homogeneous tribe, there should be a leader. But, the primitive communism, as it was understood by Engels, wasn’t about homogeneous group. It was about lack of property and surplus that could be used for exploitation. This is a materialistic approach.

              • Sun says:

                Do you believe that in primitive societies there was no such thing as property rights and any private ownership of any kind?

                Or particular people/families/etc within the tribe, due to various factors, getting more surplus of some goods? Or even have certain rights/privileges that other in within the tribe did not?

                Do you believe that there was no exploitation because everything was shared equally by everyone?

                Sounds like you believe in the Noble Savage.

                • ferret says:

                  I have re-read my comment and found I was wrong when used the word “lack”. Because it means both, deficiency and absence, I made an ambiguous statement. I meant deficiency.

                  Of course, people had personal properties, but much less than, say, in a developed capitalist society. And, most important, there was no production and means of production. That was the important distinction between primitive communism and other types of society. Engels was talking about an ancient classless and stateless society, assuming the definition of a social class according to Marx, not Weber.

                  I repeat, this society wasn’t homogenious. And I have never idealized it. This Noble Savage doesn’t belong to what I’m trying to tell.

                  If you have time, you can read wiki articles “Capitalism”, “Primitive communism”, “Communism”, and “Social class”. We use different definitions of these notions, and that makes our argument meaningless.

                  By the way, these definitions are not so easy to understand. For example, most people living in Capitalist countries cannot tell the difference between Mercantilism and Capitalism, cannot define Capitalism, believe that Communist society is a state where money is distributed equally, etc.

                    • ferret says:

                      Also a good video, and it was close to what I can imagine when thinking about ancient men.

                      However, there is a misconception: The savage was “noble” as he killed without hatred, not due to his peacefulness.

                      It was hatred, not violence, learned. Originally savage had primitive emotions.
                      I guess, they kill each other without any impression on their faces, just performing a rutine task.

                      I’ve read somewhere, that a killer does not create bad karma if he is professional and kills without hatred. You see, nowadays we also can be noble :)

      • Sun says:

        Well I’m eager to see “Socialist” Hollande completely make the rich flee his country.

        But that is another story for another day.

  3. Tom Gray says:

    Also, I somehow arrived here through Counter Currents. Seems as if you two should be linked.

  4. EvilBuzzard says:

    This is timely stuff. I hit on a similar theme wrt what Brett Kimberlin tried to do to Patterico.

  5. […] destroy him as an effective agent of intimidation. Brett Stevens of in a post entitled “Not yours” describes best how we should handle the Brett Kimberlins of the world. …we reserve the right to […]

  6. […] “Not yours” describes best how we should handle the Brett Kimberlins of the world.…ron=1337968744 …we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to […]

  7. […] is an appropriate answer to being told to “check your privalege.” Brett Stevens articulates it well. “..we reserve the right to deny others entrance into our homes. We also reserve the right to deny […]

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>