Attack on America: Result of World Collectivism

The shock of what happened on September 11th in New York City seems to never settle. The seemingly pointless attack on innocent civilians makes no sense. Looking upon this horror from the eyes of an individualist, it is impossible to understand how and why anybody could make this happen. It seems the ones behind these “acts of war” must be totally inhuman, with no emotions and no respect for human life whatsoever. It makes no sense at all, cold-heartedly killing thousands of innocent people one has never met and who have never been a threat on one’s life or well-being. What can anybody possibly intend to achieve by causing this mass destruction and suffering?
      Looking at it in another way, this is “simply” a result of collectivism. The very foundation on collectivism is the conflict involving “us” and “them.” By identifying oneself as part of something greater, with a common goal, one can find strength to carry on in life. In this identification of the “us” one finds natural friends and enemies, and a way of quickly identifying who is who and who is what, drawing a line between good and evil. It makes us feel we belong somewhere and with someone, it helps us construct the illusion of safety among “our own kind.”
      Some forms of collectivism are “friendly” in the way that they emphasize the “us,” and identify the “them” as a collective of no priority or low or no interest. This kind of collectivism is focused on “us,” not caring what happens outside the secured collective as long as it does not inflict on it. The “them” is not of any importance, we do not care for them and they do not care for us. We may build walls to keep them out of what is considered ours, but we do not use offensive violence against them.
      Examples of this non-violent, introvert collectivism are patriotism, stressing the “fact” of our supremacy, not necessarily caring about any other nationality, and non-fundamentalist religions. Everybody in these kinds of collectives is focused on their own collective’s well-being, the “common good.”
      In the other form of collectivism the conflict is more apparent. This violent, extrovert kind stresses the “us’s” supremacy and power partly by identifying a common enemy. This kind is dangerous, since it identifies another collective that has to be destroyed one way or the other. An extreme version of this extrovert collectivism is founded on a common (divine) cause that has to be accomplished no matter what. The members of the collective have strong beliefs in common values, and have enormous faith in one or a few leaders, may it be a God, a priest, or a prophet. What is important is not the own collective’s current well-being, but to enslave, wipe out, or make “the others” learn “what is right” to reach a higher goal in the future. Anyone who does not believe in the cause is an enemy, even if they do not impose a direct threat.
      The leader(s) of this collective could make any member do almost anything for the cause by promising eternal life, honor, or vengeance. The sense of belonging, and the loyalty to the cause, is so strong, most people in the collective would happily die on the leader’s command. This is what some fundamentalist religions are about, and what happened in New York City is a direct result of this extrovert collectivism. It was a logical thing to do for whoever is responsible. Its purpose was to make the own collective’s greatest enemy suffer, and get underway towards the goal. The death of anybody opposed to the cause, or non-believer, is a victory.
      Collectivism in any form is a threat upon humanity, since it is always based on a fiction conflict between two or more subjectively identified abstractions. There will always be people emphasizing the conflict; taking action to get rid of the evil “them” on religious or other grounds.
      This concept of simplifying the world by erasing the existence of individuality and painting the world in black and white by subjectively making other people parts of good and evil abstractions is the most common basis of conflict. What collectivism boils down to is a conflict made up in our minds, to confirm a desperate need to belong. This is one of the reasons the State is so dangerous – it is an instrument of collectivists and a result of collectivist philosophy, made to fit a world of abstractions in conflict with one another. Anybody considering themselves as a unique individual must resist the temptation of making the world simpler through collectivism. It is a philosophy breeding hatred and conflict.
      Anyone you do not know is not an enemy – he or she is a potential friend.

Subscribe to the PerBylund.com Update! Subscribers receive a short e-mail message every time one of Per Bylund’s columns is published, with a synopsis and link.

Subscribe here: www.PerBylund.com/notifier/?p=subscribe