Consume Product

I think that a community recognizing the talents of its individual members is still quite a collectivist thing. Because, as you said, it's recognizing their abilities and how they can contribute to overall wellbeing.

Simply put, we cannot survive if we do not look out for one another. This is the most base instinct on the planet, even niggers can fully comprehend it, but somehow the western world has just forgotten about it due to specific strains of enlightenment ideology (definitely *not* all of it though, a common misconception, but the theories engendered by anglo-centric liberalism in particular. The "collectivist and statist" liberalism arising from france ironically forms the primary backbone against it, even if not envisioned by its authors and philosophers. This is where people like Mussolini, Hitler, and JAPR among others can find their deepest ancestral ideological roots)

The way I see it is as follows: literally everything is based on enlightenment era liberalism in some variety. Genuine reaction is utterly moribund. So which one do you choose? The "anglo-dutch" liberalism of being in perpetual antagonism towards the state, liberty *in spite of* the state? Or do you fall into the camp of "romance" liberalism, where liberty is engendered by the state which executes whatever is in the best interests of its constituents? The former is bound to result in a low trust and negative society no matter what, because if it creates in people, by default, a hatred towards the state and its institutions, the state will respond in turn by hating its people, and it empowers people who are asocial and all other sorts of bad actors because it rewards this behavior. The latter is volatile and can end in absolute catastrophe when it is used in the hands of bad actors, such as the bolsheviks, but it can also create beauty and renewed vigor for a nation and its people, such as fascism et al.

Furthermore, I consider that Israel must be destroyed