Hutterrites and Deep Thinking = Headache!
Brace yourself, here comes the lightening round of the King of Simple News. Bring your best game.
King of Simple friend, Hotrod, posted a comment that deserves more than a passing glance. Here’s what he said:
“Several years ago I spent considerable time at a Hutterite colony in Manitoba. For those of you who don’t know who Huterrites are, they are similar in religious background to the Amish, but they embrace new technology with a passion. Another tenet of their religion is all wealth is held in common among the entire colony. In other words, you get access to all the food, clothing, and health care you would ever need, but you will never handle any individual cash to buy goodies with.”
“It is pure Communism, right down to the communal dining hall 3 times a day. The interesting observation I made while there is that about 50% of the children stay and about 50% leave forever. I believe there is some genetic predisposition to risk taking and those people probably leave to take advantage of that attitude. The ones who stay are probably the more risk averse segment of the group. Another interesting note is that the elders are quite worried about genetic problems from a narrow gene pool (among the people that stay). Could this be related in some way?”
“It has been written that America was settled by people who took massive risks to get here and get ahead. Maybe we are genetically wired to be selfish, greedy acquisitors after all.”
Wow, talk about opening Pandora’s box, Hotrod even threw away the lid! The first thing that I garnered for Hotrods comments was that Communism is not for everyone; even when they are raised in that total influence. If they have the freedom to leave, those who do not want their lives dictated day by day and line by line, pull out, leaving friends and family behind; it’s that important to them. In the case of the Hutterites, this represents about ½ who prefer Communism and ½ who want to seek put their own destiny.
Can this be the reasoning behind America dividing into two drastically different camps with red states and blue states? Are we genetically predisposed to divide similarly to the Hutterites? The extreme left or Progressives are nothing more than Communists in their basic beliefs…enter Barrack Obama. The extreme right, (Libertarians) believe that it’s every man for himself, root hog or die. Let the chips lie where they fall. Who’s right? In their own minds, and that is the key, both are correct. Uh-oh.
However, getting back to the main point, the stark difference between the American people and the Hutterites is that we aren’t free to choose the system under which we live. We have two versions of the same thing; it’s a “Hobson’s choice.”
At the same time, we have about 50% of our population who vote for Communistic leaning candidates and 50% who want the government to butt out of our lives all together. Therefore, we have a continual Mexican standoff that is not only destructive, but may well never be resolved. Fifty percent of the people will always believe that they have no representation and unfortunately, they will be correct! Is this getting deep or what?
What an important subject this is. Those on the left are absolutely convinced from their toenails up to their scalp lock that some form of Communism is best for everyone. Those on the right don’t want anyone messing with them or theirs and will fight to prove that point. Both may well have been born with genes that formed their adult persuasions. I assure you, I was. I’m as independent as hog on ice.
This line of thinking could also be an important link in explaining the difference between easterners and westerners right here in the good old U.S. of A. The risk takers moved west well after the east was populated by late comers who heeded the call, “Come ahead, it’s safe now.” Alaska was the last to settle and therefore adopted the moniker of “The Last Frontier.” The older Alaskan’s were fiercely independent, and as a whole, Alaskan’s remain that way today.
Taking all that has been said into account; is the possibility of the United States dividing into two entities just plain crazy or a reasonable and sane expectation?
So what do you think? I think this is one darn interesting conversation. Thanks Hotrod.
Subscribe to this blog
Studies like those of Briggs and Meyers and books like, “Unlocking The T-Code”, have pretty much proven that our dispositions, likes and dislikes, are brought into the world within us at birth. Understanding these differences would definitely allow us to live a less frustrating life. It would also allow us to become more tolerant, because we would understand that the things we do not like in many other people is just the way they are wired from birth, They can’t help it.
Smaller population density would definitely help us to enjoy our individuality more, because there would be no need for many laws that have come along with the ever increasing population throughout the world.
Would it be possible sometime in the future to devide our country into two or three separate countries, containing like minded people? It would definitely be a more pleasurable way to live, but it is also not possible.
Many folks have moved from the eastern part of our country into the western states, believing they are shedding their eastern way of life, and adopting a new rough and tumble way of life in the old west. Problem is that most do not shed their difference in culture, they disguise them and attempt to force their new found western neighbors to swallow the ways they believed they were moving away from.
Most people really do not know what type they are and therefore believe they can just adopt a new temperament at the drop of a hat. Also, most people are not willing to study in order to understand the truth in or about anything. Our economy today is a classic example of this. If there is pain or discomfort in the truth, most folks just switch it off and look for someone to tell them something that makes them feel good. Many things in our lives could be better, but cannot be due to our differences. These differences can and do build character and understanding of others, but they will always prevent us from agreeing on how to live a better life; because one person’s perfect life is so much different from another. -bb
Billyb,
Thanks for the well thought comments. You stated,”…because one person’s perfect life is so much different from another.” -bb
That about sums it up huh? One tries to force their beliefs on the other and in the end we don’t really blend; we exist in a state of constant flux.
Hotrod’s observation raises lots of issues, so many it is hard to know where to start. As Billy notes, preferences are pretty much set early in life.
The work of Meyers and Briggs, in particular their personality type indicator, known to people in the training industry as the MBTI, is useful for understanding the differences between people.
However, what I think it also tells us is that how we see the world is determined primarily by genetic predispositions and early life experiences. World views and values are pretty much set in bronze by the age of nine or ten.
As a veteran trainer once told me; “people only change for two reasons, inspiration or desperation - and there is precious little of the former.” Another remarked that “the only person who likes change is a wet baby.”
The work of Meyers & Briggs and many other researchers, as well as the anecdotal observations of professional trainers, seems to beg the question; are humans generally able to overcome their genetic predispositions?
Evidence suggests that the answer is no. Almost all of our current problems were predicted long ago. We have known for many decades that there were limits to growth. Even a cursory examination shows that our current economic system is mathematically impossible to sustain
A prudent, rational, and intelligent species would address that issue before it became a crisis. But we haven’t done that, we have procrastinated and done essentially nothing.
This being the case, it would seem to indicate that our species either lacks intelligence, or we are seriously delusional.
Given the sophistication of our technology, it doesn’t seem that a lack of intelligence is the problem. So what is the alternative explanation?
One hypothesis is that the reptilian and mammalian parts of our brain run the show. The neo-cortex and our much vaunted consciousness and intelligence aren’t able to overcome our basic programing.
If that is the case, we can’t change anything; at least collectively. Individually, some people have the ability to make at least some conscious and intelligent decisions and act on them. However, that trait doesn’t seem to extend to the population as a whole.
I for one, have read too many books that are based upon peer reviewed studies,, that seem indicate that we aren’t consciously in control of much.
Think about this, can you control the thoughts that come into your conscious mind? Do you know where they come from? Can you banish the disturbing ones at will, or do they nag and torment you for hours or days on end?
Try this experiment, go into a quiet and dark room and sit upright in comfortable position. Don’t do anything, just breathe. See how many thoughts come in and out of your mind without your conscious permission. See what happens if you try to wall the thoughts out, or hold on to them. If there are any doubts regarding our lack of conscious control over our minds, this should put those doubts to rest.
What do you think; as a species, or as individuals, do we have any meaningful control over our destiny, or is that just an illusion, a defense mechanism of the ego protecting our sanity?
Greg,
Super explanation of the workings of the human mind. In his literary work, “As A Man Thinketh,” James Allen deducted that all actions are preceded by thought. He indicated that bad thought can never produce good results and that good thoughts can ONLY produce good results.
Since most humans have bad thoughts and are easily swayed by money and power…we got us a problem.
But, to return to the core of today’s blog, we have a government that tries to pound a square peg in a round hole by using a larger hammer. Forcing people to behave differently than they are wired to operate, results in a divided nation. Red states and blue states.
As a for instance, trying to convince me that I do not have the right to own a firearm, and not only a right, but an obligation to protect myself, my family and my property with whatever means are at my disposal…is an impossible assignment.
Yet, many of my fellow Americans believe that police and the military are here to protect me and I should not have access to firearms. They feel as strongly about their position as I do mine. It’s a Mexican standoff. I could name countless issues that fall into this same category.
We have two parties that attempt to blend us into a rubber stamped government issue taxpayer. It doesn’t work. There is no such thing as bipartisan solutions. We ain’t bipartisan!!!
You equate Libertarians with the extreme right? And claim that the choices we have in this country are between Communism and Libertarianism?
I wish.
As a recovering libertarian, I can tell you that todays right wingers are unlikely to vote for Libertarians. While they do believe root hog or die, as you put it, that’s where the similarities end.
Right wingers equate vices with crime. Libertarians make a distinction between vices and crime. For example, few if any right wingers favor legalization of marijuana or other drugs. Many of not most right wingers are law and order conservatives who favor stiff penalties for drug use. RIght wingers seek to criminalize othe vices such as prostitution, pornography, gambling and others. Libertarians consistently say vices are not crimes.
Many if not most libertarians are open borders advocates because they believe people ought to be free to move where they want. Right wingers favor cheap labor as a subsidy for business.
RIght wingers favor the dismantling of civil rights. Libertarians seek to maximize civil rights.
Right wingers tend to have strong religious beliefs and have not problem mixing religion with their politics. Many libertarians are either atheist or agnostic, and these beliefs carry over into their politics. Most right wingers oppose abortion, homosexuality, physician assisted suicide, etc.. Libertarians want maximum personal liberties.
RIght wingers tout “responsible” gun ownership and hunting. Libertarians want maximum liberties. Libertarians want no restrictions of any kind on weapons. Right wingers tend to be law and order types. As ardent supporters of police they do not want me to openly carry knives and firearms, for example.
I could go on in detail about the differences between todays right winger and libertarians.
Most right wingers today are fascists of the corporate variety, a form of socialism. And todays political choice is between left wing socialists and right wing socialists. Libertarians have marginal influence at best.
That being said, the libertarians have lost their way on such issues as immigration and so called free trade. That is why I’ve parted company with them after a very long association. Now I am truly politically homeless.
Perhaps it is just my own “confirmation bias” but it appears cultural splintering through “group and attitude polarization” is well underway.
Bobcat,
My real point was not to paint Libertarians as being the extreme far right, but rather to paint a picture of the vast differences between right and left and the near impossibility of these factions ever coming to the middle and living happily ever after.
That being said, thank you for your well written distinction between the far right and Libertarians, I enjoyed it. I learned a few things that I was not aware of, such as Libertarians being open border advocates.
I too have been politically homeless for many, many years. Party line politics are simply a sham that benefits politicians and big business, while being supported by the people who are being damaged most.
Hutch #6
I agree, it’s here, it’s real, and has been going on for a very long time.
As I stated above, we aren’t bipartisan; it’s that simple. If I have two guns and the left wants me to give up one in a compromise deal; they’re talkin’ to the wrong guy.
My old dad taught me years ago that the way to eat an ox was one bite at a time. I’m not giving those who I oppose the first bite.
Bobcat,
“Politically Homeless” hit me like a sledgehammer. Thanks for that gem.
Hey Mike, what a day to pull my head out of the sand only to realize that I’m in a cardboard box as a politically homeless person. Finally an identity.
Great stuff- - -
I am politically homeless..
I wud suggest that 90% to 99% of the people in this country are between poorly represented, and exploited…
WmA..
As a radical independent I’d like to remind Mike that we’ve already had that major split, i.e., the second American revolution, although some call it the “Civil War” folks down here amongst the Blue Ridge refer to it as the War of Northern Aggression. Leftwing/rightwing are just terms the elite use to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they keep going to the bank. Old Gore Vidal said it best, “It makes no difference who you vote for - the two parties are really one party representing four percent of the people.” Anyone up for the third American revolution yet?
Wma, you said, “I wud suggest that 90% to 99% of the people in this country are between poorly represented, and exploited…”
I think you are overly optimistic.
Hey Uncle Ernie,
Great to hear from you. I’m singing out of the same hymn book, I absolutely detest the terms liberal and conservative. They are nothing more than a new version of blue and gray uniforms to suck normal people into the spinning machine.
Those who see themselves as Independents are growing at a staggering rate. To the point in fact, that neither major party can win an election without swaying that group. The real turning point will come when Independents elect their own candidates. We shouldn’t hold our breath.
In my book, I talked about the non-violent silent revolution of non-compliance. This form of dissension is perhaps the most dangerous to any standing government and it is well underway in the U.S.
Governments can make all the laws that they care to…enforcing those laws is a whole nother matter. Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, Hungry, and the United States all passed alcohol prohibition laws in the early 1900s, how’d that work out for ‘em?
I will add my name to the list of Politically Homeless. In fact, I have always been politically homeless.
I think the political labels are useless at best, mostly they are useful for hiding the truth about Political Homelessness. The labels give the appearance of solidarity and consensus, when in fact there is none. My estimate on the percentage of unrepresented people is 99%.
Americans need to wake-up to the fact that they are not represented in Washington. The country is run by oligarchs and plutocrats, has been for a long time - still is. Obama promised change, but the change was only skin deep.
Shame on the voters, they are so gullible. Shame on the people who voted for McCain too, he isn’t all that much different than Obama, except for external appearances. Both campaigns were funded by the same wealthy business interests.
To the politicians; quit making up new rules and begin to follow the original ones again. If the Constitution were adhered to, there would be nothing that could not be overcome, or to squabble over. Wouldn’t it be nice to see our political system run by Americans for Americans; not republicans, democrats or socialists being run against everyone? However, this would take a society that was educated in the truth and willing to act. Good luck, huh!!! -bb
For many years I thought of myself as a liberal, when in fact I was reacting with a vague resentment to the injustice of the “system”. I have a great deal of compassion for those who suffer, and indeed make it a priority to help where I can, but am adamantly opposed to being forced by government through taxation to do so.
The same sentiment that resents government interference in my life dictates that I not expect to control other people. Live and let live.
The constitution states that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states, or the people.
The states have assumed the power and granted additional powers to municipal governments. The people have been superceded.
An extreme example is the uniform building code and municpal ordinances.
In many if not most communities the local government has the right to enter ANY residence to inspect to make sure the building is up to code and complies with all ordinances. If you refuse to grant entry, they get a warrant, without probable cause or sworn affidavit or other constitutional requirements. If you still refuse entry, they take you to jail.
They normally don’t exercise these powers unless someone complains about you. I expect in the future that they will exercise these powers if you show any sign of resistence.
We have let this happen and go along with it for the promise of safety and order and preventing others from doing things or living in such a way that would offend us, or lower our property values.
We live in “civilised” communities and participate in the “system” for our own gain. As such we all bear some responsibility for the current state of affairs.
It is instructive to consider political differences between us. At some point we have to start working on getting off the train.
We can argue about our differences all we want; that is easy to do and helps us to create a sense of identity. However, it doesn’t really accomplish much. If we want to become a political force, we need to identify common interests and pursue them with other people, regardless of our differing ideologies.
We need to promote common or shared causes via ad hoc political groups. When the end is accomplished, we disband and form new alliances to promote other interests. Sometimes with the same people, other times not.
I have no problem making political alliances with people who have little in common with me except a single shared goal.
For example, I would not normally join forces with religious groups given that I am agnostic and atheist. However, I do share some of their values and goals and would work with them on shared special interests. However, after the goal was accomplished, we would part company on most other issues.
I may disagree with them on many issues, but there is no reason for me to alienate myself from them, or them from me. We are fools if we allow differences to prevent us from working on the limited, shared political agendas where we agree.
If we are smart, we will look for shared goals and pursue them as allies, regardless of our disagreement on other issues. Otherwise, we will remain divided and enslaved to better organized special interests.
If we applied the Constitution as our law of the land in this country, everyone would have the opportunity to mess things up; and they would. But the problems would not be as exaggerated as they are today, because we would have a commonality regardless of party affiliation and a checks and balance systems rather than government manipulation.
The checks and balance system would identify the things that are not working up front and as with the exponential growth economy that quit working in 1970, if we adhered to the constitution, we could repair the things we messed up instead of abandoning the Constitution and beginning the manipulative practices of the past 40 years. -bb
What a deep conversation…just the way I like it.
Greg suggested putting our differences aside and working together on the issues that we DO agree on.
My version of that statement is, “A real or perceived common enemy makes for strange bedfellows.”
A state representative once told me that two opposing parties must have some common ground on which to stand if there is to be meaningful debate. Otherwise, compromise will always be suggested that benefits one side or the other….you know; tails I win, heads you lose.
I question the common ground issue. Is there truly any common ground between the far left and the far right? I say no. Yet, our country is presently being operated by the far left faction. Let alone the right, where does that leave all of the people in the middle? Those who don’t conform to party line politics are left without representation. It’s that simple folks.
And then, there are those of us who have dismissed any possibility of any answers coming from Democrats or Republicans and we have become true Independents…no party affiliation. As Will Rodgers once said, “I don’t belong to any organized party, I’m a Democrat.”