Collectivists: Seen one, You Seen ‘Em All


The subject of today’s article, is a particular Oceanian comrade who simply can’t help committing thoughtcrime against the party and big sister. She somberly, humbly and penitently confesses her sins before the crowd as if pleading for mercy. This level of collectivism is quite nearly beyond belief. I can assure you, what you’re going to witness will make you realize, quite possibly in shock, that my opening statements were not facetious.

The video I’m presenting is actually a response conducted by Mike (Dr Randomercam). The reason I’m using HIS video instead of linking directly to the original is simply because Mike’s video response is infinitely more enjoyable. He rips the entire original video’s script and message to shreds, systematically. If you’ve never seen his videos, I do hope you consider watching the whole thing at some point, he’s devilishly entertaining.

At time code 10:07 she begins describing herself as a mess and a “bad feminist” because she has the gall to express individuality which flies in the face of FEMSOC doctrine. ….yes, really: you can see for yourself if you don’t believe me. She describes herself as a mess full of contradictions and a “bad feminist” because she can’t help having individuality which includes choices, desires and pleasures which feminist doctrine does not approve of. Trust me, I only wish I were exaggerating or being sarcastic.

However, I want to zero in on a particular segment for detailed analyses. So get ready kids, we’re stepping clear through the looking glass with wild abandon.


Allow me to dictate that for you, in case you don’t want to use a bunch of data, or her words aren’t entirely clear.

“If a woman wants to take her husbands name, that is her choice and it is not my place to judge.”
“If a woman chooses to stay home and raise her children, I embrace that choice too.”
“The problem is not that she stays home and makes herself economically vulnerable in that choice. The problem is that our society is set up to make women economically vulnerable when they choose.”

Her “flagrant abuses” of Feminism are respecting women’s rights to make choices in how they live their own lives.

Now: let’s examine. If Feminists actually fought for, advocated and lobbied for women to have the freedom necessary to live their lives how they choose, then the above statements of respecting women’s right to choose how they live would be the greatest virtues upon which she esteems herself.

Instead, her support of women making choices in their own lives to live how they themselves see fit to do so is counted, viewed and reflected upon, BY HER, as being her single greatest unethical shame.

What does it say about her ideology when her support of women’s rights to make their own life decisions is shameful?

It functions as undeniably evident fact that Feminism is a collectivist ideology: and anyone who embraces life choices outside what the party decides is guilty of thought crime. Therefore her support of those very choices is a source of great shame in her mind. For which she feels the need to flagellate, berate and prostrate herself in front of the audience in order that she atone for her sins.

There you have it folks: The greatest sin a Feminist may be capable of is thought crime against FEMSOC.

Here she stands, prostrating herself in Room 101 for being double plus ungood because she failed to enact crimestop before supporting women’s rights.

Folks, just a side note: I, as I hope you know, am a Libertarian. When supporting Women’s Rights is considered a sin I will wear the scarlet letter S for Sinner, AS A BADGE OF PRIDE! This woman, by her own admission, would wear that same letter: as a mark of shame. I am strictly anti-feminist because they do not support gender neutral laws: they support gender biased laws. Also, as seen here: feminists do not support a woman’s right to choose how she will live if it’s not choices that BIG SISTER approves of.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I support Unilateral equal legal rights regardless of gender, religion, sex, sexual orientation or race. Complete Rule of Law: absent of identity quantifiers. Meaning under the rule of law: be that the law’s protections or punishments; you should not be even be quantified as male, female, white, black, straight, gay, Christian or Muslim. You should only be identified as name, person, individual, human: nothing else. Completely neutrality, absent of any quantifying distinctions of any kind.

THAT, dear friends, would be “equal rights.” Feminists…. oppose that (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5).

She literally stood there on a TEDtalk, in front of a live audience, and said her most flagrant abuses to feminism was supporting women’s rights. Why? Simple: they were rights to make life choices which BIG SISTER does not approve of.

Now, let us examine even more closely. Slip down the rabbit hole and see how deep it goes.

“The problem is not that she stays home and makes herself economically vulnerable in that choice. The problem is that our society is set up to make women economically vulnerable when they choose.”

You see how “society” is blamed – for a woman’s choice? This removes agency from the woman and places her as being nothing more than an inanimate object incapable of enacting her own volition, even when it ends by stating she made a choice. In reality, the very act of stipulating that she made a choice means society is a non-factor.

Society is to be blamed for a woman’s non-coerced choice of her own volition.

If a woman makes a non-coerced choice of her own volition, then society is a non-factor.

Society is to be blamed for a woman’s non-coerced choice of her own volition.

If a woman makes a non-coerced choice of her own volition, then society is a non-factor.

Society is to be blamed for a woman’s non-coerced choice of her own volition.

If a woman makes a non-coerced choice of her own volition, then society is a non-factor.

Two utterly conflicting concepts which are purely antithetical to each other are conceptualized not just in the same mind simultaneously: but in the same sentence; spoken aloud to a live audience without anyone in the room throwing a shoe at her for giving them an instantaneous migraine, or collapsing of a sudden brain aneurysm.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” ― George Orwell, 1984

What you’ve just witnessed, recorded live for all of you: was a speech about Oceania’s war with Eurasia, then without skipping a beat it suddenly became about Oceania’s war with Eastasia: and no one batted an eye.

“The speech had been proceeding for perhaps twenty minutes when a messenger hurried onto the platform and a scrap of paper was slipped into the speaker’s hand. He unrolled and read it without pausing in his speech. Nothing altered in his voice or manner, or in the content of what he was saying, but suddenly the names were different. Without words said, a wave of understanding rippled through the crowd. Oceania was at war with Eastasia!

The next moment there was a tremendous commotion. The banners and posters with which the square was decorated were all wrong! Quite half of them had the wrong faces on them. It was sabotage! The agents of Goldstein had been at work! There was a riotous interlude while posters were ripped from the walls, banners torn to shreds and trampled underfoot. The Spies performed prodigies of activity in clambering over the rooftops and cutting the streamers that fluttered from the chimneys. But within two or three minutes it was all over.

The orator, still gripping the neck of the microphone, his shoulders hunched forward, his free hand clawing at the air, had gone straight on with his speech. One minute more, and the feral roars of rage were again bursting from the crowd. The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed. The thing that impressed Winston in looking back was that the speaker had switched from one line to the other actually in mid-sentence, not only without a pause, but without even breaking the syntax.” ― George Orwell, 1984

George Orwell couldn’t have choreographed this any better for you folks.

Observing Libertarian
Latest posts by Observing Libertarian (see all)
Facebooktwitterredditpinterestmailby feather

About the author

Observing Libertarian

I am a Humanist small L libertarian Minarchist. In that order - As a result of this philosophy: I cannot in good conscience condone the actions of any group, movement or organization which seeks to oppress another individuals human rights. By education I have an Associates of Occupational Studies in Gunsmithing, and am qualified to testify in Open Court on the State's behalf as a Firearms expert. I am also an NRA Certified Firearm Instructor. I am currently in the Process of writing two books on Philosophy, and have only recently joined the MHRM.

<span class="dsq-postid" data-dsqidentifier="155376">1 comment</span>

  • I’m not watching either video, but I looked over the transcript of the original.

    I don’t actually think “choice feminists” are half as choicey-choicey as they try to come off as. If you look at their rhetoric about how women were *not anything more* than housewives, or how women should have the option to be *more than* such, it is pretty clear they view feminine roles as inherently inferior to masculine roles. They just think some women can prefer the inferior role. But then sometimes they get a lightbulb moment of “wait, why would a woman prefer the inferior role without social pressures?”

    This is exactly what is going on in the mind of most feminists, and why you have them blaming society for women’s choices. It’s because they still hold to the premise that feminine roles are inherently inferior.

    And if they truly viewed feminine roles as equal to and important masculine roles, it becomes a little harder to down the “women were oppressed” route. (The only way out I could see is arguing that women were more restricted to feminine roles than men were to masculine roles, which is just slightly harder to defend.)

    I came to reject most ‘individualism vs collectivism’ rhetoric a long time ago. Most self-professed collectivists view individualism as advocating hermits and denying that everything and everyone is interconnected, and a lot of our individual identities are based upon how we relate to the rest of the world. “Tribalism” instead of “collectivism” might work better.

    “The problem is that our society is set up to make women economically vulnerable when they choose.”

    This is a weird way of putting it. If you become dependent on someone paying for your life, that’s a privilege backfiring. A spoiled child is just as “vulnerable” economically if he/she gets kicked out.

    What’s her solution, though? Make sure a housewife has financial support if she divorces?

    I’d also like to point out that the reason feminism will never get working-class women in, is because it’s far harder to convince a female sweatshop worker that laboring for 16 hours a day to provide for your family is a privilege. If you look at the relative minority of black/Asian/etc. women that identify as intersectional/third-wave feminists they’re all pretty much at the top of the socioeconomic ladder as well.

By Observing Libertarian

Listen to Honey Badger Radio!

Support Alison, Brian and Hannah creating HBR Content!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments





Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrssyoutubeby feather