Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Ghetto-ization of America: Diet

The world is a ghetto.

-War

     You are what you eat.

-Anthelme Brillat-Savarin

      This post is part of a continuing series I am doing giving examples of degradation of the United States, whether planned, or not.

     Firstly, have you ever been to the "hood"?  What about the corner store in the "hood"? That oft romanticized area of a city that non-ghetto suburbanites aggrandize where you can buy your Newports, your malt liquor, and your fried chicken, all in one place?  Usually run or operated by first or second generation asian or middle eastern owners, where the availability of anything of any nutrition is nowhere in sight.  Where the only apple is the flavor of a blunt wrap, or the flavor of some cold drink with no real fruit juice.

    Now, for those of us who don't live in those areas of town, we tend not to go into those areas, unless we are "slumming" to get some fried chicken.  And we usually feel bloated and disgusting after gorging on such fare.  But what if you ate fried chicken three times a week?  What if every day you drank a 20 oz of soda pop?  Let's just throw in a can of Chef Boyardee as well.  How do you think your physical health would be?  If after 20 years of this, at the age of 35 you developed Type II diabetes, or were factually obese, would you be surprised?  You might be.  Or cancer?  You might assume that, according to the mainstream media, it wasn't a lifetime of eating artificial flavors or preservatives, no, it was your genetics.  Yes, your genetics are why you have colon cancer, or breast cancer.

    

You can't live your entire life eating artificial colors, preservatives, and/or flavors and not expect to get cancer .

     That is just a truth, but I want to segway into my next point:  Quality of what you ingest not only affects the state of health of your body, but also your mind/brain.  Going further, your emotions.  There have been many studies linking high fructose corn syrup, artificial sweeteners, and ingredients to many health consequences.  As well as attention deficit disorder and other behavioral disorders.  Nutrition is the base of behavior.  This is why I think you see the types of behavior in the ghettos.  From murder, to rape, to depression, to all sorts of rash behavior on the one hand to sluggish, apathetic behavior on the other.  In children, you see hyper-activity and attention deficit disorder from a high fructose corn syrup enriched diet.  In adults, you see the effect of decades of poor quality food on behavior. 

     Besides the actual affect of eating garbage, there may also be an unconcious understanding that you are eating sub-standard food, and the mental attitude that may create when you identify yourself with you are ingesting.

     Let's define ghetto, for a moment.  Just in case any one out there thinks that I am some how targeting blacks, in this; A ghetto is a section of a city predominantly occupied by a group who live there, especially because of social, economic, or legal issues (wikipedia).  It has been the "place" of Jews, blacks, Italians, Irish, and Chinese to name a few.  But I want curtail the definition as more an economic one. 

     I also want to defend myself to those neo-liberals who would chastise me in a characteristically off topic way in saying:  "Well, it's not their fault for eating so poorly.  It costs too much to eat well."  To this I would say that, "No, it doesn't."  It isn't the cost of fruits, vegetables, and good meats, it's the availability.  It is also the inclination to prepare such foods after a long day at work, or conversely a day of watching television with no energy.  It also the ability to cook one's own food.  Many in the last generation don't know how to cook the way the generation before us did (that's why we all KNOW that grandma makes the best food, she knows how to cook).

     It's also, and this topic has so many causes and complexities that I am just skimming a few, but it is also the belief that the food you are buying in the stores is good for you simply because it is there.

Just because the food is on the shelves and has been approved by the FDA doesn't mean that it is good for you.

     Up until five years ago, and throughout the majority of my childhood, which was the eighties and nineties, garbage food was the ticket.  We ate Hamburger Helper, Chef Boyardee, and Kraft Mac and Cheese.  These were our comfort foods.  Oreos, Doritos, and Happy Meals put the smiles back on our faces.  And though I would say that much progress has been made in running as fast as possible away from those foods, we still see garbage food on the shelves of all our grocery stores.

     Let me give a personal example.  Just this last November, I was in the northern mid-west hunting white-tail deer.  I stayed at my parents house briefly, and they fed me.  I, being a hipster, needed some coffee, espresso to be exact.  They smiled and told me that they had cappuccino.  They produced a can of powdered, instant cappuccino found in many gas stations.

Nothing sold at an American gas station is either good for you and/or the environment, nor is free of toxins.

     I accepted it, less as an actual coffee drink, but more an extension of my parents love.  I looked into their well-stocked refridgerator.  Most everything had some artificial ingredients.  Their basement was well-stocked with Diet Soda and domestic beer.  They make a few dishes from scraps, but they always pair them with a "Betty Crocker-style" side dish.

     Over the weekend, on our way up to the deer hunting land, I watched the passers-by in their automobiles on the highway.  Everyone we passed had a large McDonald's cup of soft drink. 

In America, we display brands to show status, to disavow any "other"-ness we may be suspected of.

     Driving back home from Wisconsin, I made drove through the "state" of Missouri.  I won't get into what I think of this state, but I will say that of all of the people I saw in Missouri, 99% looked unhealthy.  I think this has to do with the over abundance of fast food chains in Missouri.

     As America's economy goes to bed, we will see an increase in "garbage food" as the norm.  It's cheaper, and with our declining small farms, it will be the factory farms that will supply the nation it's wheat, it's Lucky Charms; it's chicken, it's 30% plastic chicken nuggets; it's tobacco, it's Marlboros.

The increase in cancer and chronic illness in the United States in 2011 is a direct consequence for decades of eating poor quality food.

     With all of it's people getting various ailments, this is why the health care industry is one of the two biggest growth sectors of the economy.  Not to cure any disease, but to treat the symptoms of a garbage lifestyle with garbage medicines that will undoubtedly leave the patient in the grave and his purse in the hands of the pharmaceutical and insurance industries that helped write and lobby for the mandatory health insurance (and unconstitutional) law. 

Solution

The United States policies are profit driven.  As more Americans demanded higher quality food in the last decade, we have seen a movement go from obscurity to mainstream.  Organic food and natural food are the new chic.  Rather than criminalize the use and purchase of cigarettes, booze, drugs, or Hot Pockets, reach out to people.  Let them know in a "none-preachy" way what food is good, and what is bad.  Rule of thumb:  If you read a label and don't know what it is, or where it came from, don't put in your body. 

  

Everyone these days is getting cancer.  If you know someone who has it, it isn't a bad thing. 

Cancer is your body telling you that you have too many toxins/garbage in your body.

Please, be strong.  Be strong of mind, body and spirit.  They are connected, and when one or two are toxic, the other becomes poisoned by proximity.

The Globalist is the Enemy

     The title of this thread may come off as a bit extreme to the novice, but my hope is that through the points I underline throughout, this concept will make more sense.  Firstly, let me write the Wikipedia definition of a globalist:

globalist:  noun

the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.

 

     That sounds very innocuous.  Of course, who wouldn't want to place the interests of the world over the those of individual nations.  And of course, the ideal rarely encompasses the reality.  We need to find out who makes policy, what their actions relay in terms of actual goals, and who will actually benefit.

 

     When I was a young man, I would have said, "How great it is that the world will become a small global village, where everyone can benefit."  How naive I was. 

 

     First, let me illustrate that there is a pyramid of influence.  At the very top, where the capstone resides is the smallest number of people.  From the top, this small group of individuals is able to influence and steer the greater majority of the world's population at the bottom.  This small group at the top is able to run the middle section through various non-governmental bodies, and corporations and even governments of countries.  In this way, the peoples at the bottom can only look up to the next rung of power and place the blame on them, voting them out, putting them in jail, or putting them out of business, while the whole time, the very top is able to sit safely out of view, and continue to influence the majority.

 

     The idea of globalism is flawed in that is not run, nor is it answerable to the will of the people at the bottom.  As it is run by the top, who themselves are members of royalty (for example) and what we could say is the global elite, it views the majority at the bottom as unthinking, uneducated, unelightened cattle to be herded and dictated to. 

 

     Globalism is not the same as international trade, for international trade has been around for millenia.  Nations around the world have always traded goods, from silk and spice, to corn and rice for centuries.  Globalism, in the form of NAFTA, GATT, and the World Trade Organization has operated superficially as a way to bring fair trade to the people of the world while in practice has always been a vehicle for free trade, or the ability of a small group at the top to manipulate markets and the prices of goods at the expense and oft times the detriment of the people at the bottom.

 

     By dictating policy from the top down, globalism seeks to centralize power.  The centralization of power is a bad thing.  It wants to seat the authority of far away countries into the hands men and women who are not citizens of the various serf states, nor are impacted by the actions taken on the serf states.  An example of this would be the European Union.  The seat of power of the European Union is in Brussels.  Just as the seat of British power was in London, the various modern day serf states have realized that a far off seat of power is inadequate at dictating policy that effects the daily lives of someone living in possibly a different culture and/or a different climate.

 

     On top of this is the inherent arrogance in even trying to dictate to someone far away.

 

     Another problem with globalism is that in trying to make collectives with different countries as members, you undermine the sovereignty of the local governments of those countries.  If you join the European Union, and your country had been able to give driving permits to those who were 18, as a hypothetical example, you may have to change your local laws to accept only drivers who were 21.  If your country had allowed arms to it's people to keep the threat of tyranny away, and to arm the potential victims of crimes, under the authority of the European Union, you would be denied those rights.  Even more basic, is that if your country was founded with it's own set of innate rights, you would forfeit those for those written by some people's in a far off land who don't know, nor care what rights your country had developed.

 

     In the homogenization of globalism, your culture and then you're identity become null and void.  This is all well and good for the individual who has the money to fly to and move to any country they like, but again, for the majority of humanity, cultural identity is the identity found in your own backyard.  It is not something to "out grow," nor something that is primitive, or something to be shunned.  It is only the globalist, who cannot understand that the world is not a big, "all-you-can-eat" buffett for the rich elite, who thinks in this way.  It is most assuredly not the citizen of Mexico, who's culture is not the same as a Canadian or an American, who thinks in this way.  Culture is important.

 

     The culture of a land is exhibited in it's art, it's religion, it's food, and it's language. 

 

     Is it reality for the majority of people on the planet, the majority who don't have computers, nor the internet, to believe that the world is a global neighborhood?  Of course not.  Because the majority of people still have to operate locally.  They still have to buy and sell from their local merchants. 

 

     What has globalism done?  Many, if not all of the ail's to the American's "quadriple dip recession" can be blamed on the promises of the global carpet-bagger.  Where did the job's go?  They went overseas to cheaper, more unregulated labor pools.  Where did the manufacturing go?  To economic opponents such as China, India, and Brazil.  Why is our dollar not backed up by a strong gross domestic product?  See above.  Why is the service sector the biggest and fastest growing economic sector in America?  Because there are no more manufacturing jobs because they've been shipped overseas.

 

     Not only has globalism opened up the veins to the American economy to be bled out into the catch pots of unrestricted labor pools, but it also has allowed American businesses to leave our country and set up their corporate headquarters in third world countries that allow bigger tax breaks. 

 

     What does globalism intend to do?  After bleeding us dry, and leaving us to work more hours for less wages, it then intends on putting global taxes on us for having been the "bad guys" to the environment for so many years.  Who were the "bad guys"?  The biggest corporations.  What have the "bad guys" done?  Moved all their operations to "up-and-coming" nations who are and will be exempt from any global taxes.  I am speaking about environmental sanctions masked in "good intentions" in the form of Carbon Taxes. 

 

     Globalism will try to use unfair trade deals and back door cronism to collapse our economy and make the United States rely more and more on international loans made by the same vested interests who have allowed our government to let our manufacturing move off-shore.  Once we are in a state of receivership to the off-shore global monetary institutions to pay our national debt, we can have the last bits of countries resources plundered by who?  Again, the same global elites who engineered the collapse.  A good example of this would be Greece.  Greece has sold some of it's most beautiful islands to billionaires who are seated in the International Monetary Fund who gave them a loan years ago they knew they would not be able to pay back.

 

     What good has globalism done?  Hmmm...  I suppose that if one wanted to visit Thailand, and eat a wholesomely nutritous McDonald's hamburger, one wouldn't have to travel outside of Thailand.  It has brought some of the cheapest and most biologically toxic goods from the annals of China, right to our own Wal-Mart (the same Wal-Mart that has put your local clothier out of business).  Globalism has made the rich richer, and the poor poorer, and at best, made the rich richer and spread the bread crumbs from rich's table from countries like the United States to other countries like Mexico.

 

     Who benefits from globalism?  The globalist.  And if you believe that the better the food on the Master's table, the better the scraps thrown to the Slave's, then so be it.  I for one am against it.  Be wary those who exclaim the benefits of signing on to global pacts and treaties and disavow those who would sign you on without your vote or your voice.  They will most assuredly do so for their own benefit, and not for yours.

What is Grammar, Logic and Rhetoric?

     From my limited knowledge of classical educational systems, I am going to briefly describe the notions of Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric, and how it pertains to the American people.  These three levels of knowledge were known as Trivium. 

     I won't go into the obvious lack of the ability to effectively use logic that the American people display, or rather, don't display.  The proof, as usual, is in the pudding.

     Classically,  a child was first taught grammar.  Grammar was the equivalent to facts.  You would be taught as many and all facts that your teacher could tell you.  I refer to Grammar as pieces of a puzzle.  Without all the pieces, you wouldn't have the big picture.  Sometimes, if someone was misleading you, or lying to you, they would give you puzzle pieces to a different picture all together. 

     In speaking of these facts, in this, the 21st Century, you need to rely on a reliable source.  And you need to agree (with yourself, at least) what you will rely on.  Will you rely on the scientific field?  Will you accept facts from the mainstream media?  Remember these questions.

     In the United States, for whatever reason, children are possibly taught distorted facts, half facts, and sometimes not taught all the facts at all. 

     The second step, and one in which I feel that my fellow Americans are lacking, is logic.

     Logic is the ability to utilize and incorporate the grammar, or facts you have been taught.  Grammar is the puzzle pieces, as Logic is to the picture on the box.  The inability to properly use Logic is one of the main problems in this country today.  Also, arrogance in not knowing all the puzzle pieces, as well as the stigmatizing of other Americans who continue to find all the puzzle pieces are two other problems today. 
  
     If an American is not given the correct puzzle pieces and gets their puzzle pieces from the mainstream media, or from the dialogue used in modern sitcoms, they will most definately believe that the picture on the box is whatever they have been given.  This lack of searching for answers and accepting the grammar given by popular culture and at worst, cable news channels, leads them to see a very different cover on the box then one who does their own searching, and their own research.

     Today in America, those who see the Grand Canyon that is from the mainstream culture's puzzle box, have also been given two tools to secure their picture they cling to so readily:  defamation of other conflicting puzzle box pictures (in the form of conspiracy theorist, or worse, crazy person), and denial ("I don't/can't believe such a thing.")    

     For those who see the Dracula's Castle that is the reality of the United State's on their puzzle box, it becomes very dismaying.  And there is no way of telling which, nor how many pieces of grammar have been omitted and/or distorted in the opposing American's logic.  This leads to the next step...

     Let me give one more example.  The American who searches for truth outside the mainstream, uses sources from Associated Press, Reuters, historical documents from different historians on the same events, as well as "white papers" from our own government and non-government think-tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations or the Rand Corporation and comes to the logical conclusions that:

1)  We are heading towards a scientifically enforced tyranny/dictatorship.
2)  That we are, and for the last decade at least, been losing our middle class and are heading   
      towards a collapse in our currency.
3)  That both parties have been operating against the better interests of the American people.

     There are many facts to back these three points up.  It would take the ability to remember facts, and then the ability to use logic to put pieces of the puzzle together.

     Let's say that the three aforementioned points are three different puzzles.  If we were to look at our box and see a scientifically enforced police state in the United States, we could definately see at least a dozen pieces to the puzzle.  I will give a few here as an example:

Pieces of Grammar in the form of codifications of Law:
1.  The United States Patriot Act of 2001.
2.  The Military Defense Act of 2007.
3.  The National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.

White papers from government and non-government bodies:
4.  The Project for a New American Century
www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
5.  A Stability Police Force for the United States by the Rand Corporation
www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG819.pdf
6.  The MIAC Report
www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf
Legal Precedents set by the Federal Government
7.  The Torture Memos by Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the United States John Yoo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torture_Memos
8.  The Extra-Judicial killing of American born Muslim Cleric Anwar Alwaki (who committed
     no violent act against the American people).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki#Targeted_killing_order_and_lawsuit_against_the_U.S.
9.  The use of unmanned Predator drones on a couple in North Dakota.  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/dec/10/nation/la-na-drone-arrest-20111211

     I again won't get into all of the puzzle pieces from similar puzzle boxes in history that have shown something that looked like tyranny before.  My point, is that the puzzle pieces are there.  You just have to be smart enough, and have the inclination to put them together. 

     The last part of the Trivium, is Rhetoric.  Rhetoric is the ability to tell someone else what the picture on the puzzle box is.  Here lies another problem with dealing with most Americans.  Instead of someone just telling you the truth:  "I have a nihilistic streak in me that only allows me to worry about drinking, partying and only thinking about myself and none useful skills," they will instead argue with you, knowing none of the facts (and with no ambition to find the facts) that the picture you have put together that is the picture on the box (plus or minus a few cactuses), is indeed the Grand Canyon.  Somtimes, the subject will shrug off the notion that you can trust a certain source, in which case it is agreeable to initially set and agree upon a common source of facts.

     Even if you were adept at Rhetoric, and, as the last part of knowledge being the most nuanced, if you were talking to someone with none of the Grammar, trying to illustrate Logic to them would be impossible at best, futile at worst.  You would be, in effect, wasting your time.  If the picture on the box was a big sign saying, "Run! Fire," what good would warning your fellow Americans do?  How would you educate them the Grammar, and then the Logic in the time span it would take before the house you were both in burned to the ground?

     So, I leave it to you, the reader, conscious American that you are, to be patient with your fellow American.  Don't start with the Rhetoric.  Don't even start with the Logic.  Start with the Grammar.  What could happen?  Why didn't your fellow Americans learn the Grammar themselves?  Quite possibly a fear of even the basic Grammar for where we find ourselves.  What is a person who abhors even the basic Grammar?  I don't know.  But I would hardly call them a human.  Maybe they are just a highly evolved animal, fit for no more than eating, drinking, and the occasional sexual arrousal.

An introduction...

Dear Reader,
     Though I hope to create this blog, as an expression of my views, in as close an alignment to Absolute and Universal Truth as possible, I hope that you, the reader, will verify what I have written here through your own experiences and research.
     This blog will use the modern, over-used crutch of validation that is sourcing as possible, but it is not necessarily a rule of mine.  Sourcing, in my opinion, is an off-spring of the American form of education that teaches by memorization and not experience.  The example I would offer would be:  You can tell me that two dimes equal twenty cents, but can you tell me why?  You may be able to offer a source, but if you don't know the context or expression of the fact, you truly offer nothing.  This is why, as best I can, I will fall back as much as possible on a more classic form of philosophy; what I see around me, I will describe and analyze through my own cultural and social reference points.
     You will find my views on government, health, mind, body, and society.  I will come at these opinions from the prespective of a white male from the lower-middle class/upper-lower class.  I can only hope that the reader will at best find agreement in my opinions, and at worst, have an open-mind to question how my opinion has come to that conclusion.
     Finally, feel free to you all, common brothers and sisters in world, to contact me in messages, comment to my pages, and most importantly, to constructively criticize my words.

Sincerely,
Franklin Fehrman

The Rise of the Individual vs. the Decline of the Collective

      In this modern age, we are given with definitions of the individual and of the collective. Society has always, since the birth of societies, offered it's own personal definition of individual expressions. These expressions are spirituality, sexuality, gender roles, survival/employment, entertainment, etc. This function of a society is it's definition. Society is tasked with the role of offering commonality to the members of it's population in it's various institutions.  These tend to be the most popular expressions, but it begs the question of whether the individuals introduced the expression, or adopted the expression from the State.
      Societies have sought to show the exceptionalism of their populaces by offering institutions of an ascended and more evolved status than their contemporaries. But formerly, the society was as much a creation of a small cadre of men that sought to shape their country in the best possible way in favor of the physical, mental, and spiritual betterment of it's lowliest habitant, as it was of the populace that participated in it's maintenance. That a society has become the playground and testing site of the "masters of the universe" of the global elite and the social scientists they convort with and learn from is actually an abomination of the natural law of the strongest surviving.
      In the global elite's striving for a Great Work that would unite the Earth under one ruler, they have given access to the common man and woman of the United States tools that are now right at our very finger tips. Tools and resources that were not there for us twenty, thirty, even fifty years ago. Tools like the internet, and resources that only a global economy can provide. Inadvertently and most likely, unintentionally, they have given the ability for the apt to become as highly individualized as one would like.
Thus, we can see that innovation, and the capital gains that one would expect from introducing a new thing to the market only excede the imagined impacts on the cultures, societies and individuals exposed to them. Was the internet introduced and sold to the people as a way to instantly furnish them with information that would be so damning to the global elites? I hardly think so. More that it was introduced as a way to sell non-tangible goods directly to the homes and hands of the consumer, such as music, movies, books, etc. As well, to allow instant communication. The unintended side affect was greater availability of information that is damaging to the state (see: Wikileaks), and the ability of poor peoples to more easily mass and to mobilize (see: Arab Spring 2011).
      As was mentioned above, society offers it's own flavor of the basic human institutions, but it does so not in as much a lofty idealic way. Society offers these institutions and the result is a normalcy, and at worst a conformity to a usually unidentified social standard, or norm. If we use the United States, we can see that it offers it's own flavors of institutions, and we will see, by outlining these institutions that they are given to the masses who dare not tread on the lonely path of self-mastery.
     I will outline the institutions in the United States and outline the state prescribed expressions of said institutions.  I will also say, that none of the following evaluations of state sanctioned expressions come anywhere near where I personally would hope for any of the institutions if I could control them; they are merely the state sanctioned, or put more aptly, the status quo.  If one doesn't believe these are the status quo expressions of the following institutions, try telling someone who follows the following sanctioned expressions that you are now going to start to do the opposite of what they are doing and watch their reaction.  That will be the reaction of majority living in the collectivism I am speaking.

• Religion-  The institution of religion/spirituality the American is given Judaism/Christianity.  For simplicity, I will just say Judeo-Christian.  This religion, being an opiate for the masses, is a religion built on a guilt complex.  I will write more about that later.  
• Education-  For the institution of education, the United States prescribes something known today as college.  It is highly expensive and offers nothing but a piece of paper.  It is a sector of the economy advertised to the commoner as a means for acquiring more wealth, a stepping-stone to better job placement, and a place of higher learning.  In actuality, though, it offers a form of intellectual complacency and retards the reaching for a intellectual "wholeness" through a process known as "specialization."  Once said "piece of paper" (diploma) is acquired, it allows the commoner to become self-satisfied and to stop the pursuit of knowledge on their own.
• Politics- In the United States, the commoner is offered two parties, the Republican, and the Democrat.  They are two sides of a corporate controlled coin.  
• Gender Roles-  For straight men, the prescribed expression of the societal institution of gender expression involves watching sports, talking about sports, becoming a father, being a dummy, and having sex with as many partners as possible.  This expression of masculinity is witnessed on any television channel on any prime time television program.  For women, the prescribed expression is to pay lip-service to gender equality, to be shallow, concerned primarily with physical expressions of beauty and cleanliness, and, after pursuing the paper tiger of state-sponsored feminism, to either retreat from said feminism or to live out one's life in a very solitary place whilst pursuing love in all of it's many avenues.  Women are taught by society to paradoxes from the very start.  To be whores, and at the same time, ladies of virtue.  To be successful, independent business women, but at the same time, be supporting wives and mothers.  To be free from the beauty myth, but at the same time, to always stress about their bodies, hair and looks.  Both sexes are expected to see intellectualism and individualism as abhorrent and unattractive characteristics.
• Medicine-  For the institution of medicine, the American is taught that once they develop a disease, that the only thing they can do is treat the symptoms, and not to focus on a cure.  Again, the institution of medicine is akin to the institution of education; they are both profit driven, and therefore not driven to actually solve society's woes.  A solution is a cure, and cures don't make money.
• Economy/Financial System-  Related again to the education system, most Americans are expected to work low tech jobs in the three biggest growth sectors in the economy: health care, service sector, and educational/governmental employment.  I say related to the educational system because Americans are not taught in public schools how to understand finance, commerce or how the economy works, lest they would be able to see plainly that 1% of American citizens own 95% of the wealth, and demand more.  Most employment these days, at least in the private sector, belongs to the mega-rich, multi-national corporations such as Wal-Mart, McDonald's and other such corporations.
• Food Production/Nutritional Availability-  This is the institution through which Americans put food in their bodies.  American's are conditioned to believe that if it comes in fancy packaging, that it is good for you because it has been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.

     There, that wasn't that hard.  A little long-winded, I know, but I wanted to outline the aforementioned societal institutions to explain that in the age of the internet and the age of global commerce, there is no excuse for the individual to align themselves to the aforementioned "state sanctioned" expressions.  The knowledge is at the individual's fingertips.

"Ahh," you say, "but how does all of that coincide with the title of this post?"


     The title of this post is "The Rise of the Individual vs. the Decline of the Collective."  The individual is someone who has self-defined their own personal expression of the aforementioned socially prescribed expressions of American institutions.  An individual may have one or more self-defined expressions of American institutions.  For example, you may shirk the socially prescribed political institution in favor of a "third party," but still receive allopathic treatment (socially prescribed medical institution) for an illness.  You may be a man who expresses himself in a more traditional way by going out hunting regularly, or participates in sports as opposed to watching them from a chair in your living room, while at the same time, eat a steady diet of food created using artificial ingredients and flavors (socially prescribed nutritional institution) found on the grocery store aisle.
     The rise of the individual equates to a growing awareness facilitated by the internet.  I say the internet, because the internet is a collective conscious. The internet also facilitates global commerce which again, facilitates personal expression and sovereignty. Today, you could grow up in Kansas City, MO and by the time you were 18, could be a self-taught master of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, an amateur chemist, and raise Tibetan alpaca for wool.  You could have done that in the 80's, but the internet, and global commerce have facilitated the ease through which you had bought your jiu-jitsu DVDs, your chemistry set and You Tube chemistry lectures, and your baby Tibetan alpacas.
     The individual in the 21st Century has the potential of becoming nothing less than a fully actualized human being pursuing any and all intellectual and physical pursuits in the history of the world.  The only danger he or she would have would be a curtailment of his or her freedom and access to pure, uncensored information and goods from the internet.
     Where is the collective at?  Physically, the collective of the United States is in the toilet, waiting to be flushed.  I mean that they are eating artificial food, and watching sports and television, and they're developing cancers and diseases that, by prescribing to the institutional expression of medicine, will not be taught the true source of their diseases.  They will instead be forced to shift a higher and higher percent of their income at a lowly service sector job to an equally worthless medical field.  The collective will be of course placated by the promise of better jobs by the two party system, television shows will show the low income majority of the United States medical breakthroughs that they will never afford to enjoy, and will be given more and less expensive technology to distract themselves.
     In short, they will be killed off slowly by the state sanctioned expressions of institutions they require.

     So, I beg the question to the reader, are you an individual, a sovereign human?  Or are you member of the herd mentality?