Individualism? Collectivism? Sobornost!

Obviously this week has been the framing device for a political earthquake, and believe me, we will get to it. For now though, I want to draw attention to my latest Social Matter article. A hot button topic that seems to permeate many seemingly separate arguments, and that is of individual vs. collective action. Is society an amalgamation of individual interests, or rather a collection of group interests?

It’s not an easy question to answer, not even for the Reactionary, because as usual there is some nuance. The solution in my view, comes from the great white east, in the concept of sobornost, the particulars of which I outline in the article. This had been on the back burner since Nick B. Steves critiqued another of my articles for being too simplistic, something he was correct on. However, what spurred me to get it out now was a Twitter argument with the rabid disciples of Libertarian poobah Sargon of Akkad. Anyhow, follow the link below.


In other news, there are some links I need to put out there: First, a truckload of Plebian Podcasts covering everything from Transhumanism to a LIVE coverage of the presidential election results in the US.

Also, another of Reactionary Ian’s Christian hangouts, where we did some talk on Trump and some on Modern Art.


6 thoughts on “Individualism? Collectivism? Sobornost!

  1. Individual integrity within a voluntary collective is white Supremacy…

    The debate between self-annihilating individualism versus a self-annihilating collectivism DOES NOT RISE ABOVE self-annihilation. In fact, the debate makes total annihilation of the Self “whole.” Modern “white man” has, with this perpetual debate, effectively destroyed both his individual self and any regenerately collective collaboration.


  2. Similar to the question: Is salvation the result of individual or collective action? Hard to attain heaven on one's own without loving others, and the Holy Spirit helps us do that.


  3. Ah, that old chestnut. I often respond to these accusations by asking what the hell a 'social construct' is, and they stammer and are unable to answer. To answer for them; a social construct seems to be 'something made up for a social purpose', a 'useful fiction', which can of course quickly become an 'oppressive fiction'. Social constructs are seen as devoid from any anchor in the real world or in fact, and are often the result of shady conspiracies.

    Now, social constructs exist of course. I would argue universal human rights are a social construct. But the things the left criticizes as social constructs, such as gender, nationality, and probably Sobornost if they had any idea about its existence, these things are of another order. They may be metaphysical in the sense that they are not expressed in an immediate visibility (which something like sex is, in the anatomical sense), but they are ROOTED in reality nonetheless. I think it's part of the explicit reductionism that the enemy engages in, based on materialism, which sees all things that are not manifested in quantifiable terms as fictitious. Of course, this is bullshit, and should be called out.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s