The full comment by this person:

"No one is an "individual" in the way individualism often claims. Everyone came from somewhere, and underwent influences. So you have to understand both yourself as a collective product, as well as how your actions influence others. It's almost impossible for denying this to not have an egoistic element."

This is an absolutely indefensible misunderstanding of what Individualism means.

Individualism holds that every person is a unique, autonomous agent, fundamentally responsible for their own actions and decisions. It does not matter that you 'came from somewhere', you are still an autonomous, conscious, single individual. Responsibility for your life and choices remains singular, not collective.

It does not matter if people are a collective project, if we even agreed to that terminology; that does not change that people are moral agents and self-owners. The group cannot decide for you, you must decide for yourself.

Society is built on voluntary exchanges between individuals. This framework respects that each individual has unique preferences, goals, and values, which guide their actions. The entire organization of the economy is based on this fact. All attempts to build society on the principle of collectivism have utterly failed. Because people are individualis, *not collectives*.

What would it even mean for people to be 'a collective' rather than an individual. That people are globs of multi-personality flesh-amalgamations, with multiple personalities and bodies that co-located in space? Poppycock. People are demonstrably and obviously *individuals*, and it is trying to live in denial of that fact that creates the problems socialism historically has experienced.

Individualist society is characterized by influence over others occurring voluntarily through persuasion or trade. This influence is not inherently oppressive because individuals retain the ability to say “no” and choose their own paths. Thus, the individual is always the ultimate authority over their own life, even within networks of social influence.

The critique of the collectivists suggests that asserting individualism is inherently egoistic. However, individualists would argue that exercising autonomy is not the same as selfishness. Recognizing oneself as an individual does not mean dismissing others, it means recognizing that mutual respect for autonomy is the only basis for peaceful coexistence.

The notion that individuals are collective products implies some level of determinism or communal ownership over personal choices. From the individualist standpoint, this view is dangerous because it opens the door to justifying coercion. If individuals are seen as inseparably tied to the collective, their autonomy can be undermined in favor of "the greater good."

Individualists reject this collectivist framing because it dilutes personal accountability. Regardless of how someone was influenced, they are still responsible for their actions. This personal responsibility is the foundation for justice, voluntary cooperation, and trade.

A person is not merely a product of external factors but an agent capable of shaping their own destiny. Individualism is the only philosophy that fully respects this autonomy while enabling peaceful, voluntary cooperation with others.

People are individuals, not in the sense of being uninfluenced or isolated, but in the sense of having the right and responsibility to direct their own lives. While people interact and influence one another, those interactions must be voluntary, preserving each person's status as an autonomous individual.

Collectivists are denying the reality that individualism respects.

This was an disappointingly small sub... well well, seems like the herd don't understand the beauty of individuality very well... I hope they will learn to one day 😄

In any case: stay peculiar!

We are supposed to love our own families and friends. But have you noticed that since the majority of people lack any individuality, any personal independence, have you noticed how in this herd society and world full of slaves, don't you just hate how much manipulation and control over others there is in this society, even in countries that are supposed to practice some type of liberal individualism like U.S, Europe etc?

This server is a place for individualist feminists also known as libertarian feminists do talk with each other, learn, and debate. Everyone who wishes to learn about individualist feminism is also welcome.

https://discord.gg/NGDg2qQQH

https://open.substack.com/pub/basedmeditations/p/corporate-conformity-the-suffocation?r=222ij5&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

I believe it is possible to build a political system premised on individualism, that respects individual choice and will, and does not use the numerical superiority of the group to force the group will on individuals.

Not only do I think this kind of system is possible to build and function, I believe it is radical and in fact necessary as a next step in the political evolution of the world.

Let's think about what that could look like. We can identify a few necessary qualities of this system that prioritize the autonomy and freedom of individuals over the collective interests of society.

1. Protection of individual rights.

Fairly obvious and something everyone already agrees with. However most people do not typically recognize that group-decision systems like democracy combined with centralized power in the State are completely at odds with individual rights.

2. Decentralized governance.

Most people would say they favor limited government, there can be no greater a limit than the power of the individual to walk away and either start a competing service or patronize another one. There we cannot grant any entity a monopoly on power.

This creates some complexity because we must do things in a decentralized manner, which few understand how to do, that are currently done in a centralized manner that everyone understands how to do. So this is a necessary paradigm change in governance.

3. Market economy.

This system respects individual choice in all things economic, which is why it works so well. There should be no argument against this from all individualist.

4. Decentralized decision-making

The root feature of our current system that makes it anti individualist is it's centralized nature that uses numerical advantage to justify coercion.

If we build a system that is decentralized in nature then we must abandon the idea of majority rule in favor of unanimity, because unanimity alone respects the individual.

To easily build unanimity, take a vote in a group of any size, divide the group into yes and no groups, then divide the groups into new and separate groups, creating two unanimous groups from one divided group.

5. Protection of Private Property

There should be no state property whatsoever, no collective property apart from those who willingly choose that arrangement. Certainly nothing systemically forcing people into that arrangement at birth.

6. Emphasis on personal responsibility

Instead of States treating all people as children, you would be expected to be fully responsible for yourself.

Such a system would maximize the freedom and autonomy of the individual, while still allowing them to participate in organization they find beneficial as they see fit.

I used to be a hard-core misanthropist in my teens, I hated everybody and everything to the point where I wished death upon them and myself, it's such a long story to how I got to that point. Needless to say I don't take sides to race or any categorical inclusion. The way I see it, it's about the individual you run into that matters not the race, there are races in every race that are racist as shit EVERY RACE. I've seen it all. I am getting better the more I age but I cannot shake the internal hatred I have towards people and I sometimes feel like shit because there are good people out there.

The libertarian doctrine begins, not with the conservative community or state but with the individual. Every individual as an independent acting entity possesses the absolute right of “self-ownership”; that is, to own his or her person without molestation by others.

From this axiom we derive total opposition to conscription and abortion laws.

Secondly, each individual then has the right to own any previously unowned resources (such as virgin land) that he finds and brings into use by exerting his personal energy upon the resource.

From this is derived the right of “homesteading” landed property, and, as a consequence, all the other rights of private property.

For if a man owns himself and his homesteaded land, he also has the right to own unmolested the land that he has transformed into capital, as well as the right to give his property to anyone he wishes (hence the right of inheritance) and to exchange his titles to property for anyone else’s titles (hence the right of free contract and the laissez-faire free-market economy).

---

https://mises.org/library/never-dull-moment/html/c/517

After reading some posts by various public intellectuals like Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris and how some of them comments about how the general public gets swayed by unqualified leaders like Hitler and how the biggest threat towards freedom and individualism is the fact most people are blind sheep in following a charismatic smoothtalker..............

I have to ask why brainy people esp bookworms, "rationalist", educated people who got degrees in college, and most of all self-proclaimed intellectuals.........

CANNOT get how someone change the whole room of people simply with their charming presence? And esp Charisma that provokes people to continue fighting on when all is hopeless?

As an Audrey Hepburn fan, believe me hen I say seeing her onscreen in a movie often brings a peaceful atmosphere and you feel charmed as you watch her talk during a scene.........

I finished Masada last night and that miniseries is what inspires this queston...... Peter O''Toole has a certain bright radiant energy despite playing a weary old general. However the one scene that made me realize just why historical big events, alpha males were able to inspire a losing group who feels they are doomed to continue fighting on in a siege or continue working daily despite crap pay to gradualy improve the economy or refusal to betray their oaths tot he state despite promised execution....... Now I understood after seeing it why an entire nation followed Adolf Hitler.........

Was when Peter O'Toole was given new orders to go back to Rome as another general replaced him. This new general was doing a most heartless unbelievably brutal tactic-he got a bunch of local Jewish people and started throwing them at the Jewish fortress like they are boulders. He warns towards Peter Strauss who plays the Jewish general who defends the fortress that if he doesn't surrender soon, he will continue catapulting local Jews at the fortress and all the blame for their deaths will be pinned on him since he is the commander.

Peter Straus went ona breakdown and was about to surrender...... When ironically of all things, Peter O'Toole after hearing the horrifying cries of Jewish people as they scream in terror and pain each time they were catapulted.......... Suddenly rushes out with a sword from his tent as he was preparing his baggage under intent of returning to Rome. O'Toole's Roman general as mentioned is a tired old man-he fought multiple wars for the Empire under the genuine belief of civilizing the barbarian lands and bringingg a permanent stable peace through the EUropean conteinent and the nearby Middle Eastern territories...... He was so hardened and exhausted from war he no longer beleives in his holy cause of Pax Romana and he has grown cynical after seeing so much treachery in Rome and backstabbing and corruption in the military ranks (he even had some officers sent to death forr breaking the peace with Jews)........... He already just wanted to give all up and drink wine at his villa in Rome because he's just that pessimistic and cynical.....

Of all things as he exists his tent he screams "this is not Rome! This is not the ROme I fought for the Emperor!" as he runs out of his tent with his sword and reaches the general.....

He yells at the general to get of HIS THRONE for he is not worthy of it. The general ordes his German bodyguards to arrest him when O'Toole bursts out anyone who wishes to live *stay in your place!**. Just at that moment evne though its just acting, I felt an incredible energy,a charismatic man I fear......... But at the same time I'd trust ont he spot to handle my bank account if he were to promise to watch over it and not use a single penny......... Someone I'd even trust my own life over....

O'Toole yells out "we are not barbarians!" and then asks a few of his troops who is the real general. They all yell loyalty to O'Toole and readily accept him back. The general realized at that point he had lost and just left. You can even see on his face he felt shocked at how regally powerful O'Toole's performance was.

Honestly I at that scene finally understand why people followed Hitler despite his raving lunacy. I would have honestly followed O'Toole's Roman generals without hestiation and march to my death across a bunch of arrows flying at me if I was a soldier in the siege.......

Before I go on, one of the movie stars Peter O'Toole had acted with in his glorious career is my favorite movie star ever Audrey Hepburn, in the movie How To Steall a MIllion. That film was one where the two leads just oozes style and charisma......

Audrey Hepburn...... She is simply legendary for her spellbounding charm and a peaceful ppleasant energy she gives around to other people everytime she entersa room. Even before she became an actress, men and women were dazzled by her charisma and pleasant personality. I will stop here before I go on and on. Everytime I see a clip of her in her movies or an interview with her, I feel like the happiest man in the world. Like I met a a real servant of a Goddess, to exagerrate I met someone who the Catholic's Mary had chosen as her underling on Earth. Honestly it makes me wonder just how serene being in the presence of Jesus Christ might have been!

So I'd have to ask. Bringing bak Adolf Hitler, its common to see intellectuals rant on about how people are so stupid for choosing him as a leader and esp in the public education field (esp teachers below university level adn grade A student) and internet posters online, they cannot het why anyone would be so influenced by Hitler after seeing a speech of his.

And its not just Hitler and historical leaders, its common to see people online and even teachers irl rant about how modern kids are sheltered idiots for being swayed by the energy of people like Madonna and Brad Pitt. Often people in the education field and netizens and even irl intellectuals with multiple masters even PhDs don't understand at all about how Salma Hayek shoots out so much sex appeal or ther certain charm Elvis Presley is known to be around in person.

I'd have to ask why? Why is it so difficult for your typical intellectual person esp bookworms to understand why alpha jockish gangbangers and athletes can inspire loyalty by lesser nmen so mucch to inspire them to do his bidding including breaking the law? Why do so many of them immune tho the peaceful presence someone like Pope JOhn Paul II gives out not just in person but even in footage caught on tape?

What is exactly about the intellectual mind that makes them bash commoners as stupid sheep when they follow people with invigorating energy that infects others including historical leaders like Richard I of England the Lionhearted and Napoleon Bonaparte?

In the future, when it will be closer to totalitarian end-world state of control-induced happiness, but still not quite there, and lots of non-political things a mediocre individualist might enjoy will be banned (like stonks being stolen, or copyright claims being everywhere, or YouTube's algorithm recommending boring memes to hide interesting things), there will be places on the internet to help them cope.

Maybe, a never-ending story that imagines you as the boss fighting off these mediocrities, because, as we know, the more the intelligence, the more the hate, reasonably.

Maybe games with interesting stories, vaguely resembling reality by their darkness, calming the player/letsplay watcher.

Maybe even, a game where you can pick a specific build/look of your own, and still perform outstanding amounts of solo kills on multiple players, proving better than others.

And yet, even despite the hate, these games won't try to shoo the individualist away - because they intend to differ from the mainstream, and if they betray, the individuals will quickly "cancel" them, so no money for the author. They will feign darkness-hidden kindness well, and the individual will finally be able to relax in the virtual world.

Now, the first part of what I said already exists, as luckily, there is a person in the world that's strong enough to do it solo and know how to attract attention. The second part also exists, but in small amounts... That's what I am to rectify.
And the third part, which is an individual-focused multiplayer game, will more likely be done when the environment is fostered by the first two... and then the individual will be happy.

Listen, learn, and BECOME YOURSELF. Send any questions, comments, concerns, or insults below. Enjoy!

Spotify, Google, Apple, and more: https://anchor.fm/into-the-absurd/episodes/43-Self-Reliance--an-Analysis-with-Mynaa-Miesnowan-Part-4-e17j8rf

YouTube: https://youtu.be/7XU3IYXpJCA

PS: Each episode stands on its own.

Individuals are naturally inconspicuous and thus I never expected to see 500k subscribers here, but there are people on Reddit with minute habitual passions to be loud, to be heard, and they could flock here and present selves in numbers rivalling selfless members of societies constantly attacking individuals anywhere but here.

A beam of light as high as possible needs to be placed to signify a presence of a safe cove for individualists, survivers-not-growers, joy-seekers and -experiencers, people happy to be alone, people not willing to peek in any other's business projecting their expectations of lively conduct and people not preoccupied with matters they can't control to the extent they couldn't possibly think of anything else.

This world is place to a constant tension between individuals and societies. The former are not minding the causes of their bringing to existance and are maintaining their lives to think, to feel, to act. The latter is an immaterial psychosomatic virus parasyting off the individual in their own attempt to be alive. Both an individual and a society survive by progressively accumulating resources they need: individial - all the stuff a human as well collects and creates, and society - humans to burgeon upon. The latter's proliferation only distracts individuals from happiness and survival ultimately killing them. Selfless individuals go onconversion sprees against individuals and representatives of competitor societies.

Society's DNA (much like in a real virus) is its uniting core - the rallying point for humans to be distracted about. By now I have collected perhaps nine of them: religions, strongmen (kings, generals and presidents), nations (ethnicities), races, ideologies (political parties), artificial minorities (LGBT easily classifiable here, but pro-vaccers are situationally more relevant now here) and trades (groups of work and interests). Such societies present varying danger to the individual but the most ferocious ones need to be thoroughly avoided by contact of individuals with this sub. Here shall one see that being himself is not an a vicious act (let alone vice and virtue better be abandoned as concepts) and self-control is everything they have between their consciousness and the material world outside their bodies.

LET US REINVIGORATE THIS SUBREDDIT!