“Where Should the Power Be?”

{Also see: The night the world recovered its sanity}

A close friend wrote the following message to his college aged son. He has given me the okay to share it with you:

“Reform yes, Transform yes, Inform yes. But conform? Never!

Blind conformity is cowardice.

Be yourself. Improve yourself. Enlighten yourself. Change yourself… but never allow yourself to be assimilated into someone else, or some group, or some collective idea.

Conformity is capitulation.

Conformity drains the very soul from your identity.

Conformity is slavery, bondage. surrender..

Conformity is intellectual laziness.

Independence often leads to isolation and estrangement, even loneliness…

So be it.”

I could not agree more. I only wish I would have had a parent like my friend to set me free at that age.

****

Conformity to a herd-mindset is death to the unique and naturally-free individual. Conformity is selling one’s soul to ‘the devil’, and so losing one’s own identity, one’s own self.

The only collective/community that has or will ever work, is one that is made up of individuals who are truly free to be who they are, and to choose their own direction while in the collective/community; a collective/community where conformity is never preached or practiced, and so will never be demanded. You can witness these kinds of non-conforming collectives/communities where artists gather around the world. Conformity is death to the true artist, the artist who doesn’t create strictly to ‘make a living’, or in other words, sell his artistic soul, in order to please everyone but himself.

What we the individuals are faced with today, is a worldwide despotic-system/order of conformity and control; a despotic system/order that is determined to destroy the individual by forcing him to be conformed to the collective mindset, a conformed and never truly free herd-mentality:

Where should the power be?

by Jon Rappoport

October 1, 2018

There are various kinds of power. Perhaps you’ll recognize the type I’m referring to in this article.

WHERE SHOULD THE POWER BE? This is a question that has been asked and answered for a hundred thousand years. Wars, death, destruction, deception, grand theft, heroism, manifestos have all provided evidence of the struggle.

We now have people behind the curtain and peeking out of the curtain claiming the answer, for our sake, is global governance. Call it anything you want to. New World Order. Globalism. Planetary management system.

They assert their motives are altruistic. That’s right. They’re not doing this to make a power grab, they’re helping us. They’re solving the problems of the world. They’re maintaining order. They’re bringing us into a new era of peace.

They’re all liars.

There isn’t an altruistic bone in their bodies.

And as far as we are concerned, we have a whole lot of self-deception going as well. Why? Because we keep falling into collectivist language and thought. We think we can’t talk about power unless we address the great WE, the group, humanity, The People.

We’re afraid of mentioning power in the context of the individual.

It has to be family, community, group, species.

It’s we against them.

Well, it isn’t.

That’s just another delusion.

It is now, and always has been, the individual.

WE is about mystical religion. WE is about submerging the individual in some delusional fictitious Whole.

In that box, it’s just the WE of the globalists versus the WE of the vague mystics. And the outcome, in the long run, will be the same.

The New Age people, no matter what disguise they are wearing, are afraid to make a proposition about individual power and back it up.

They cower behind pseudo-science and limp philosophy to create another WE.

Behind all the drugs and rebellion and music and so-called freedom of the 1960s, the real and lasting failure was the omission of the INDIVIDUAL. He was never spoken for. And the clear reason for it was fear, that’s all. Fear of power for one person, and then another person, and so on.

Then and now, people say to themselves, “What power? How can I have power? What would that look like? What would that feel like? What would that be? I don’t understand. I can only see power in a group.”

It’s as if a blind person believed he could only regain his sight as part of a collective. On his own, it would never work, but as a member of a group, a cipher, the rebirth might occur.

Notions of various Utopias are always about the group. History flows into a paradise where the species lives, and the individual is finally and miraculously submerged in the collective.

Yes, well, that’s the definition of non-consciousness. It’s a sketch of fascism.

The mystical WE says to the globalist We, “You want coercion and slavery. We want peace and love.”

The truth is they are both heading to the same place.

The illusion of power rests in the group. The reality of power rests in the individual.

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

Source: Where should the power be?

6 thoughts on ““Where Should the Power Be?”

  1. I dunno, Dave. Seems to me that groups do exist, and they exist to the degree that they incorporate individuals into an ‘organization’ with a ‘command structure.’

    Of course, theoretically speaking, no group can cohere and regulate and coordinate the actions of many individuals without the willing compliance of the individual to the discipline required by the group if it is to exist.

    Some groups are illusory. They truly exist only in one’s imagination, even if the image of that illusion is broadly disseminated among a great many individuals.

    The idea of the “nation,” for example, as a social-political unity in an objectively class divided society is an “illusion,” but for all that, a powerful illusion that has real world repercussions for the individuals infected by the illusion, an ‘illusion’ that in fact translates into the real and effective power wielded by the power elite who command the heights of the institutions to which the ‘illusion of the nation’ binds the many.

    On the other hand, it’s true: in the last analysis, I decide whether to comply or not with any group imperative.

    But if I choose not to comply with the certain group imperatives, there may be real consequences against which I may as an individual be powerless to fend off. There are drastic limits to my power as an individual.

    By the same token, by complying with the imperatives of groups comprised of individuals in rebellion against the imperatives of other groups considered to be illegitimate, it may become possible for me to effectively resist the potentially onerous consequences of refusing to submit to the imperatives of groups I consider to be illegitimate.

    Yeah, you are an individual. But you are also a social creature, which means that you cannot exist but by interacting in a coordinated and cooperative fashion with other individuals, that is to say, but by existing as a member of a group, and in reality, as a member of multiple associations.

    Groups may limit individuals in their actions; but they can also become the levers through which individual action is augmented and amplified.

    Where is the power?

    It is in both the individual and in groups.

    But the effective power of groups is always greater than that of any individual, unless that individual happens to sit at the apex of a group’s command structure, but then do notice that even here, without the group, even that individual is as nothing, and then the executive itself is subject to the structural imperatives of the group it commands.

    Like it or not, humans live in groups.The individual is not and cannot be completely sovereign.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Perhaps. you missed the following?

    “The only collective/community that has or will ever work, is one that is made up of individuals who are truly free to be who they are, and to choose their own direction while in the collective/community; a collective/community where conformity is never preached or practiced, and so will never be demanded. You can witness these kinds of non-conforming collectives/communities where artists gather around the world. Conformity is death to the true artist, the artist who doesn’t create strictly to ‘make a living’, or in other words, sell his artistic soul, in order to please everyone but himself.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. No, I didn’t miss that, Dave.

    Groups come in a variety of types and guises.

    One does not choose the society into which one is born in the manner that one can choose to club with this or that set of musicians for the purpose of creating music.

    Groups into which people are effectively socialized pre-exist the birth of the individual, and long before he can have any kind of say about it, the individual has already been incorporated into a variety of institutions or associations.

    Only after these primordial and fateful incorporations or inductions does the individual arise to a kind of narrow freedom of movement or choice between available memberships, whether formal or informal, from among an array of pre-existing associations, or in joining others for the purpose of creating new and original associations.

    No man is island however much he may believe that he is.

    In this connection, if I may quote a favorite passage from Einstein who in my opinion was more astute as a sociologist than as a physicist 😉 :

    Quote begins:

    Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

    It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

    Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

    Quote ends

    There is more to me than simply me. Without others, I wouldn’t be who I am.

    But, yes, of course, do mind the mob.

    When not in a subversive mood, about most things, it is mistaken.

    On the other hand, the greatest and most effective revolutionaries have ever been mobs of subversives.

    Long live the mob! Because without it, revolutions simply can’t happen. And you know, as well as I do, that we really do need a revolution! 😉

    Like

  4. A mob of sheep, or a mob of empowered individuals, Norm, which? Who controls the group in this world today? Not the individuals, and you know I’m right! I am speaking of the power of the collective, made up of non mind-fucked, herd-mentality individuals.

    Why is this so troubling to you? I know why!

    You are so determined to have a communist government. Remember, Norm, I despise all forms of government, except the small self-governing/sustaining community types. And just because this will never happen, doesn’t mean I will ever embrace the herd mentality, no matter what ism is chosen: capital, social or commun.

    Enough, we don’t agree!

    P.S.

    It isn’t like this is my first post on this issue:

    https://anoutsidersojourn2.wordpress.com/the-individual-rebel/

    Why haven’t I heard your complaints before?

    Like

  5. Jesus, Dave, lighten the fuck up!

    Is it or is it not true that you can’t live but in association with other humans? If so, to some degree, groups must be embraced as part of our reality.

    As for the unavoidable intellectual conformity of groups, well, that is unavoidable, isn’t it? Neither you nor I invented most of what comprises our intellectual baggage out of wholecloth. Most of it came to us from someone else, even the idea, and most emphatically so, that the individual should be exalted above the so-called herd. But that we cannot but be conformists is a fact of human nature. It’s unfortunate, but there it is. Certainly, one must guard against it and sometimes struggle against it, for the sake of one’s sanity, and for the sake, perhaps, of the group’s enlightenment, assuming that one may have something valuable to impart by way of an insight or two.

    A person is an individual, but also a herd animal. Why elevate the former aspect of the human condition over the latter? We should embrace ourselves in our completeness, in what we are as human beings, and celebrate that. That’s my point, I think. Otherwise we denigrate an essential aspect of ourselves and of others. I’m preaching love of oneself and love of others. Period.

    Anyway, I’m about done with WordPress and spouting my communist propaganda, and doing my best to enslave you against your will, Dave. Renewal is around the corner, and I can’t. Things go offline sometime between now and December.

    I note that it’s October 3rd, I really ought to be out hunting.

    I still love you, though, and always will. Take care of yourself.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. I’m glad to hear this, Norm,. I wasn’t sure anymore. You don’t make connection, and then when you do, it’s to seemingly correct me in some manner.

    “Lighten up”, you say! Exactly, Norm! This is what I intend to do. As with you, I am through caring about all of this ancient, continuous bullshit. Nothing is going to change, except for the worse!

    My days are numbered, and so it is no longer my problem.

    I love you, too, Norm, thus my many attempts, over the last year, to make connections, and in other ways than this piece of shit blog.

    I’m in a bad place now, and I know you can relate.

    By bringing up my comment on communism, I understand your response above, but that wasn’t my intent. You have only helped me, in my understanding of communism, as has Migo. But I just can’t buy into another major form of government. I guess I’m just too fucked up, too old, too senile, perhaps.

    Anyway, I apologize for being aggressive in my responses to you. I think this is a message, from somewhere (not you) to find other things to occupy my time and days!

    I have already cut back, but maybe I need to cut even more?

    Sorry again, Norm. Be safe hunting!

    Like

Comments are closed.