The Destruction of Individuality

The Destruction of Individuality

Tim O’Connor – Center for the Preservation of Humanity – 9/24/2022

Chances are this piece is not going to be read by a classroom full of students as it is displayed in front of their classroom. No, you happened to see something that caught your eye and decided to click on the link and to see if there was any value to what was written in the piece. I can't guarantee you that you’ll find anything of value, but I can promise you that you made the decision to see what was written here individually. Even if this is being displayed in your classroom – someone saw it, individually, decided it had merit all on their own, and decided, again individually, to share that with you. The individuality which you displayed in order to get here is at the base of the problems collectivists have always faced.

A US Marine, Mickey Koss, wrote an opinion piece in Bitcoin Magazine which starts, “Subjective values are no way to enforce objective measures and open up society to a litany of anti-freedom and anti-individual action in the name of the greater good.” Koss is absolutely correct. Take for instance one of the catchphrases used by collectivists to try to get people to sacrifice their individuality to mitigate climate change – “doing well by doing good.” What is doing well? What is good? They are subjective terms. Collectivists use those objective terms to try to lower the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – an objective measurement.

The result of the effort destroys autonomy and, thus, destroys individuality. Smart meters allow collectivists to decide what amount of water and energy the rest of the community is permitted to use. Well, what if I happen to have a swimming pool that needs filled up? What happens if its 97 degrees with 94% humidity outside and I want it to be 68 degrees inside. My individuality needs to be taken away for the greater good. Am I doing well? No, I have an empty swimming pool I can’t use and my house is hotter than Hell. Are you doing well – again, no – your swimming pool is empty too and your house is just as warm as mine.

Globalists, like the McKinsey Global Institute, promote the Fourth Industrial Revolution’s economic reconfiguration by making all kinds of claims about why economics need to be changed in the first place. In April 2021, Jan Mischke, Jonathan Woetzel, and Michael Birshan, addressed the issue by writing “Social responsibility and sustainable profit go hand in hand, now more than ever. The depth of the economic challenges we currently confront means the first is needed to deliver on the second.” Social responsibility and sustainable profit are each subjective terms meant to produce objective results. It gives rise to a brand new accounting system called environmental, social, and governmental (ESG). ESG, along with the terms social responsibility and sustainable profit, only works under one broader framework – collectivism.

Those who are early to adapting ESG will be rewarded according to the McKinsey authors. What the authors are suggesting is collectivize with us. Decision making will be far easier because you, small fry, won’t have to make any choices. The globalists will decide what options there are and what course of action you will take. Businesses and former individuals, thinking they can cash in because of the players who have already adopted the collectivist frame work, sign up to make a quick buck, hoping they will continue to flourish under such a system. What these businesses, especially the smaller ones, and any individual with under $5 billion in assets fail to recognize is that they are actually deemed useless by the globalists, just like the rest of the vast majority of us.

Those firmly denying the idea of giving up our individuality will be dealt with by the globalists by bankrupting us. There is a plan called Cloward and Piven and the scheme collectivists and globalists are operating under is a tweaked version of it. Cloward and Piven is a part of the plan, but there are multinational corporations which are driving it even more than the governments of the world. The idea is to bankrupt everything, destroy trust in governments and institutions, and take the institutions and governments over. It has a proven track record – it worked very well for collectivist in New York City. It is broader this time though because the collectivists cannot tolerate individuality nor grass-roots movements. The collectivists are seeking total global control of humanity from the top down today and calling it ESG.

Koss continued his piece by discussing the Keynesian system of economics. He basically notes Keynes because of how inhumane his ideas really are, especially when put into practice in the real world. Koss, who is now in the Financial Corps, recalled a time when he lost points on a college paper for deriving the wrong message to take from the mathematics he performed:

““I do not recommend increasing the minimum wage because it leads to an increase in unemployment. Forcing people out of their jobs is immoral.” [Koss]

“The professor, who had written his dissertation on the elasticity of demand for staple commodities in sub-Saharan Africa — estimated using estimates with little real world value — casually brushed off the concerns using unemployment insurance as a justification. And this was at the No. 1 ranked Public Policy School in the United States at the time.

““Fuck the plebs. Let them become dependent on the government.” [Professor]

“Any act upon an individual can be justified by the greater good of society. There are no limiting principles and that slope is a steep and slippery one.”

Koss makes a salient point here – these ESG collectivists ONLY care about two things. The first thing they care about is their ability to have a platform to demand everyone adhere to the collectivism they have adopted. The second point is that collectivists absolutely detest the idea of individuality. Koss’s story; however, reinforces the idea that Cloward and Piven is the operating system of collectivizing the entire planet.

These collectivist ideas are shoved down our throats at every turn by all kinds of different groups to make them appear separate. These groups are not separate. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the World Economic Forum’s Fourth Industrial Revolution and Great Reset, ESG financing, ESG accounting firms, national government’s willingness to cede sovereignty (the government’s version of individuality) by joining commitments like the Paris Accords, acedemia, big businesses (Apple, Google, Blackrock, Vanguard, Boeing, St. Gobain, etc…) and thousands of non-governmental organizations are all members of the same collective. Collectivists, especially globalists, create this maze with the intent of camouflaging their intentions while still telling the world their intentions. The UN, for instance, has, for years, wanted to ban personal automobiles. The US, now engaging in banning personal automobile use, for years could deny that was one of their intentions. Oh, that’s the UN, not the US is what they could claim prior to now. Now that the US has started down the path to banning cars at the UN’s behest, US policy will increase the speed of the effort in this nation to avoid pushback from the individuals it would affect (all of us). The years between the UN’s stated desires and the US’s action were used to convince as many individuals to adopt collectivism to get us out of our cars more easily by demonizing individual transportation systems the UN doesn’t like.

Ford and Chevy, for their part, have stated they will just stop making gasoline engines. Their contribution to eradicating effective individual transportation systems is to just stop making them. ESG dictates that this is the choice these companies must make. The companies are not concerned about the millions of applications gasoline engines are used for everyday. They will just use the ‘green’ batteries to power their vehicles. The government will give them tax dollars for destroying their revenue stream. The workers will end up without jobs because of the lack of demand. The collectivists figured all of this out with the same mathematics Koss preformed. Koss decided this is immoral – the collectivists decided the greater good is always paramount. The problem with the collectivists’ arguments is that the greater good will be turned into the plebes described by Koss’ professor. Eventually the government will run out of a tax base to plunder and the globalist class can ‘save’ the nations with only a few strings attached – primarily, squelch the rights of anyone problematic to their plans.

Koss’ focus on re-establishing individuality comes from Bitcoin. While I do not share his outlook, I do share his desire to shut down the collectivist ecoterror plot to destroy the middle class through environmentally-driven hoaxes designed for global austerity. The collectivist class as trying to use ESG and SDG weapons to kill Bitcoin mining. They claim it uses too much power making Bitcoin mining socially irresponsible and violates the collectivist ideals set out in the SDGs. Koss writes:

“There is no society without the individual. There are no societal effects. Only individuals making decisions on the margins. Sacrificing individuals is and always will be immoral. If you want a better society, responsibility is probably a good place to start. Bitcoin fixes this.”

Where I disagree with Koss is the idea that Bitcoin will be allowed to exists to fix this. I see the rest of the world going the way of China – banning all cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, and issuing an official digital coin. Bitcoin could effect the changes that Koss sees as necessary for there to be an emphasis on resurrecting individuality to the detriment of collectivist’s hive-minded plans which are ruining humanity’s future. And I welcome the change. I agree that we need to become responsible for ourselves, our families, and our communities. The way to beat man-made collectivization of the globe is to display individuality. Will we be permitted to do this? I don’t think we will. I think that while the few technologies with would allow humans to be individuals is going to be banned and, in the midst of those bans, we will all be watching Russia and China take on the rest of the world. Fear, whether derived through war, pandemic, or hoaxes like climate-change, drive people into camps which are ruled by ideological orthodoxy. Stepping out of that ideology means being removed from the group.

Before I go any further, I want to make it clear that I believe in laws as a counterbalance to total anarchy. People should be able to individually go out into the world, play by the light rules everyone must play by as established by governments instituted by and for the people (do not murder, do not rape, do not rob, etc…), and not affect other humans negatively. For example, I completely reject the institution of gay-marriage because it harms all of humanity by enshrining rights for selected individuals – the rights are not universal, thus they are not valid. Some laws are repugnant to this.

A current event in Iran shows this extremely well. Iran has a police force which punishes those who fail to enter the public without, what they call, modesty. This includes women always wearing a head covering which masks their face. The parallels between Iran’s Islamic dictatorship and the pandemic’s masking mandates are not lost upon me. When a 22 year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, asserted her individuality by not wearing a hijab, she was detained and arrested and found dead several hours later while still in police custody. Newsweek reported the incident has prompted riots in 133 Iranian cities. Iranian collectivism resulted in Amini’s death. At least 35 individuals have been murdered by Iranian collectivists. Iranian women are burning their hijabs and cutting their hair short – both taboo in Iranian culture. The Iranian government refuses to accept responsibility for their actions. Koss’ point is that individuals are the only entity which can be responsible. So, it would be correct to say that no one in the Iranian government is willing to demand answers for Amini’s death and change the collectivist’s views.

Another current event, this one occurring in North Dakota, involved a collectivist murdering an 18 year-old, Cayler Ellingson. Shannon Brandt, now released from police custody on 50,000 bond (a travesty of justice in the first place), has repeatedly lied about his motives by claiming Ellingson was trying to ‘get him’ by calling out to a mob of Make America Great Again supporters. Brandt claimed that he is not a flight risk, has a job, and has a family to support and was subsequently allowed to post $5,000 to be released. Ellingson, who he murdered, surely had commitments he intended to fulfill as well, but he was murdered by a collectivist democrat. It is being reported that Brandt, while operating a vehicle while drunk, actually chased a fleeing Ellingson into an alley before murdering him with his car. Collectivist ideas, this one the idea pushed by Joe Biden himself – MAGA extremists – convinced Brandt to murder Ellingson. Brandt refuses to accept responsibility for his actions.

There are countless examples of people refusing to take responsibility because of their adoption of collectivist excuses. In my view individuals need some ideal to be responsible to. Some, like Koss, choose to be responsible to themselves. I don’t know what Koss’ goals in life are so I don’t know what that entails exactly. The fact that he is willing to be responsible at all; however, is refreshing. There are way too many people who just go along with whatever their collectivist masters tell them is ‘good.’

I have decided that God’s Laws should be universal and I am responsible for following them. To me that is objective truth. It’s an objective truth I can measure with objective results, too. Of course, religion has been used to collectivize billions of people throughout history; however, it does not have to be that way. The God of the Bible dictates specific Laws to be followed when worshiping Him and how individuals relate to other individuals. The entire premise of the God of the Bible is based on free will which necessitates individuality. We, as individuals, choose to follow God’s Laws or go to war against Him. If we, as individuals, follow God’s Laws we cannot be sucked into the version of collectivism globalism and ESG represent. The collectivists detest, above all else, the idea that individuality can be powerfully displayed through belief in the God of the Bible.

Maybe Koss was trying to get to the idea of where objectivity comes from – God. Again, I don’t know if Koss was or not for sure because I don’t know him. I can say that responsibility entails making sure that what we need is provided through our own efforts and actions. We can make sure we have food on hand just in case. We can make sure we have personal defense mechanisms. We can make sure we have access to fresh water sources. We can make sure there is heat by knowing how to start a fire. We can make independent choices about what to spend money on and this is enhanced greatly with Bitcoin. All of this promotes individual human liberty and represents the destruction of collectivism.

At the end of the day, everything we are seeing is a result of one collectivist idea against another collectivist idea (MAGA vs establishment politics; nationalism vs globalism; environmentalists vs capitalists; Russia vs Ukraine) and all of them threaten do render individuality, and the responsibility needed for the autonomy which it entails, obsolete. We cannot let that happen as a species – without individuality, history will cease to exist. When history stops, humanity will be largely exterminated and completely enslaved. Everything we are seeing is an effort to force this upon humanity. Promoting individuality and responsibility is, thus, the key to breaking the plans collectivists have devised for us to succumb to. Koss is proposing a human future. I think this is what Koss was getting at – I just took a lot longer to get there.

Bless God and God bless.