Archive for April 1st, 2012
One of the most troubling realities that I have seen behind the school levy push in my local neighborhood is one that translates out into the larger tapestry of national politics, the tendency of the advocates of higher taxes to believe that every human being is compelled to assimilate with their needs and desires. The most common enforcement method of this assimilation is the boycott as it is perpetuated by the radicals of a political idea. In my school system this has been a common threat. You can hear how a local real estate agent and her group of pro levy organizers threatened to organize a boycott against a radio station by CLICKING HERE. You can also see one of the most recent examples where a pro levy supporter sent a letter to the corporate headquarters of a local restaurant advocating a boycott because the owner did not support higher taxes upon themselves. If you read the letter closely notice how the boycott advocate suggests that because the restaurant employees “at least one Lakota student” that the restaurant it has an “obligation” to blindly support a tax increase no matter what the financial reality of the situation. This is the mentality that we are dealing with behind boycotts.
Every human being has a choice as to whether or not they elect to partake in a service or not. So a boycott on a personal level is a perfectly understandable thing. The trouble begins when collective minded beings with their warped sense of values decide to bring economic hardship to an organization so to coerce that organization into behaving “properly.” And the proper behavior is determined by the “group” advocating the boycott. In the case of the person sending the letter to the restaurant they act under the assumption that the children of the school district are “state property” and that all children who attend the school are to be protected by their version of reality—in this case—property of the school and their fight to keep the school funded at the level they decide. There are many flaws in this thinking. The first of which is that children are not “property” of the state, or school. Children and their families are sovereign individuals and are not compelled into action by any government organization—especially a school. This argument is made well by this video by the Ayn Rand Institute.
Anyone who mutters the word “boycott” in an attempt to control massive group behavior is a villain to society. It does not matter if they are your friends, your neighbors or your babysitter, they are still villains. If a person advocates a boycott they are attempting a military maneuver against an entity, and that is considered an act of war by any definition. The person who advocated a boycott of the restaurant above was committing an evil act of aggression. The people involved in the radio station situation at the link above committed evil against the station. Anytime a group gathers in force to attempt economic pain to an individual or an organization they are practicing extortion against the personal sovereignty of the attacked.
The boycott advocate believes that they are “right” in a matter and that their action against someone who disagrees with them is to bring pain so that the behavior will change. That is extortion. It is an act of aggression. But how can anyone know that the boycott advocate I right? If they were right, then wouldn’t others arrive at their same conclusions naturally?
The boycotter is often wrong in their thinking, so they must rely on economic extortion in order to get dissidents to participate in their erroneous thinking. The boycotter is attempting to take the rational conclusions of the dissident and alter them into a collective buy-off done by arm twisting and peer pressure applied by group behavior. This is not done out of respect for the thoughts of the target. It is done to force the target to comply to the thoughts of the attacker.
To refer back to the restaurant, the owner did not support a tax increase by the school. So the intent of the letter was to force corporate ownership to apply pressure on the local owner to alter the owner’s opinion through economic terrorism. It didn’t matter if the owner did not agree with the tax increase. All that mattered was that the owner becomes convinced through pressure to change their mind. This is the essence behind the boycott.
In this same community the voters have voted down tax increases 3 times in a two-year period. The community spoke. However, levy advocates do not care that 18,000 voters said no and only 16,000 said yes. The boycotter seeks to change the numbers by attacking 2000 of those voters to and gain leverage on them be it emotional, economic, or perhaps even physical so the next time the vote comes around then they will win the vote by forcing at least 2000 more to voters their way through fear alone.
If a group feels that it must apply extortive pressure through the use of a boycott, it’s a good sign that the content of their idea is a bad one. In the case of the tax levy of my community, if a majority thought it was the right thing to do, they would have voted in favor. In effect the voters who voted the tax increase down had a boycott of their own, and refused to give money to an organization that did not match the values of the community. However, these boycott advocates do not respect those opinions. They believe incorrectly that the children they are “fighting” for are members of the state. They believe that once a child is born from its mother that the child becomes “community property.” (They believe this as a result of their actions even if they don’t say it with their mouths) So the boycott advocates decide to take up a holy crusade on behalf of the children to fill the emptiness of their thoughts which is why they are evil. They are functioning from a faulty political position made so by the weakness of their argument and failure at the ballot box, and resort to boycotts to change minds with the next vote.
A good person is that way because they have thoughts and actions unique to their personal sovereignty. They become bad if they assimilate with a group pack mentality that is wrong, and if they compromise their personal feelings to join with a group in mass. The boycotter is attempting to make a wrong idea right through massive group participation. They believe that if enough people believe something, then suddenly the wrong idea will become fashionable and therefore good.
Many crimes against humanity have been done in this fashion. Religions do it to each other, businesses do it to each other, and politicians do it to each other. Just because it is widely practiced does not make it good or right. It simply means that there are a lot of people functioning from psychotic behavior. It is their broken, distorted versions of reality that are at fault, and they cannot be allowed to inflict their incoherent visions upon the sane just because they can organize a boycott.
Boycotts are conceived by the psychotic schizophrenic who is functioning by many different impulses, just because they look sane from a distance and dress like everyone else it does not make them correct. The psychotic in an attempt to avoid their illness, their broken understanding of reality—in the example above, that all children are members of the state—will attempt group consensus to camouflage their foolishness. They will seek to pull the whole world down upon their heads to protect their faulty ideas from being discovered in the light of day. They will stop at nothing to work the world into their reality instead of the reality of reasonable thinking human beings driving their actions.
This is why such people are dangerous. This is why they are evil. The boycotter seeks to impose their beliefs upon the world around them and they have no respect or sympathy for those who differ from them. If they cannot convince the world of the merit of their ideas though facts, conversation, or emotional pleas, then they resort to extortion—the boycott—if agreement cannot be reached as they see it. They fully intend to bring pain to those who disagree with them. That is the message behind the boycott. And that is the type of personality behind the boycotter, a broken human being who wishes to make the world into their image. A refuge of the small little insanities contained within their distorted principles is reflected in the desire for a boycott. The heart of their folly is the belief that they can make something wrong, correct if enough people are “convinced” to think their way—that if a group can be manipulated into believing something they individually do not, then wrong ideas will be made valid just by the sheer number of opinions cast in their direction. And such an idea could only be conceived by those with distorted perceptions of reality functioning from a derelict philosophic position. This is why my quick term for them is latte sipping prostitutes because there really isn’t much difference if you sit them down in a chair and get them talking. The rationale tends to be similar once the onion is peeled away to reveal the mess that is inside their heads. And to hide that mess not just from the world, but from themselves, they often resort to boycotts.
Oh–you want more proof? You think I’m kidding you? You think all this is a conspiracy, because the knowledge is not convenient? Then read what’s at the link below and you’ll see how it was all set up in 1958 to create the world we are finding ourselves dealing with today. I’ve made it easy for you. All you have to do is look for yourself.