The Rise of the Bottom Fifth

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Moonbeam:

The fact that in your little dialog you post my responses as a lower case b, and your responses in an uppercase M shows your selfish indignant pride. I've seen you do the same thing with others. Step the hell down from your pedistal.

I dont resent too many things in life. But someone who truely believes they are somehow better or above someone else pisses me off. You may very well be the most self rightous selfish person I've ever encountered.

Ugh
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Moonbeam:

The fact that in your little dialog you post my responses as a lower case b, and your responses in an uppercase M shows your selfish indignant pride. I've seen you do the same thing with others. Step the hell down from your pedistal.

I dont resent too many things in life. But someone who truely believes they are somehow better or above someone else pisses me off. You may very well be the most self rightous selfish person I've ever encountered.

Ugh

As much as i hate moonbeam.... Your username begins with a lowercase b, genius.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Although that article is crap and its already been pointed out, i feel the need to beat a dead horse here.

The article specifically says the bottom 5ths wages increased from working more.

Their wages have not really increased, they are working more to get less.

All you have to do is look around, kids living with their parents until they are 25+ because they cant afford to live on their own... People with families having both parents work 2 or even 3 jobs just to get by... Anyone who really believes the poor are better off recently are just stupid, nieve, or both.
I think you are missing the idea behind the ?working more? bit.
In the old days they just collected welfare and sat around the house.
Now they can no longer do that and instead have to go out and work to earn a living.

You noticed that between 1991 and 2005 their ?earned? income went from $6000 a year to $11,000 a year.
Also, do the math. Minimum wage is $5.15 an hour nationally; in many states it is higher.
If you are only making $5.15 an hour you only have to work 41 hours a week to make $11,000 a year.
The average clerk at Wal-Mart makes $8.50 an hour, to make $11,000 they only have to work 24 hours a week.

So if you are implying that these people are working two jobs 60 hours a week the math does not add up in your favor.
Your math doesnt calculate inflation.
I am not dealing with anything that has to do with inflation.
I am responding to the false idea that these people are making more because they are working 2 jobs/60 hours a week.

Again, in 2005 these people were making on average $11,000 a year via jobs.
That is only $212 a week: at 7$ an hour you only have to work 30 hours a week to make that much.

Get the false notion that the ?poor? are working their asses off to make ends meet.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Let me know when you get back from lunch.
Really, this and my sig is all you need to know to understand yourself:
Moral indignation is jealousy with a halo. -- H.G. Wells
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
The constitution doesn't address the topic, but gives the government broad powers to act for the 'public welfare'. That's how they designed it. The constitution doesn't say anything about protecting wildlife and national parks or putting a man on the moon; about programs to encourage development of poor urban neighborhoods or having an earned income tax credit, but those are all programs that are fine under the constitution. So is a large (or small) degree of what you call socialism. For example, the choices on tax rates by income.
The term ?general welfare? is probably the most misunderstood and most abused phrase in the Constitution. It was not put there in order to allow government to provide ?welfare? for the people as we know it. The idea of welfare as we know it did not even exist when the Constitution was written!! It was not until the late 1800?s that modern welfare emerged, starting in Germany
When written the term ?welfare? would have simple meant: the good fortune, health, happiness, prosperity, etc., of a person, group, or organization.
As shown in the quotes bellow the founding fathers would have been entirely against the idea of taking money from one group and giving it to another group.

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare but only those specifically enumerated."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."
-- Thomas Jefferson (That's a good one since you are always talking about how we should 'take' from the rich)
" I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it."
-- Benjamin Franklin
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.
-- James Madison
In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison
"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions." James Madison, "Letter to Edmund Pendleton,"
-- James Madison
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
From your linked site:

http://inflationdata.com/infla...nflationCalculator.asp

The inflation rate from January 1987 to January 2007 is 82.03%

So is $11000/yr working more still sounding good?
There has to be a disconnect in the numbers.
Based on the data from that website inflation between 1991 and 2005 was 41%.
If this is true then every group in America, except the top 20%, lost buying power during this time frame, and quite a lot of it.
The OP claims that middle three groups saw a 20% increase in their earnings during this time.
A 40% increase in prices with only a 20% increase in income means a LOT less buying power and this would be very noticeable.
We would have to see the raw numbers to figure out what is going on here.

Edit: As found here our GDP more than doubled between 1991 and 2005. The per capita GDP almost doubled as well. So it seems very unlikely that our GDP would increase that much and yet our incomes during the same time frame would increase by less than 50%.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Moonbeam:

The fact that in your little dialog you post my responses as a lower case b, and your responses in an uppercase M shows your selfish indignant pride. I've seen you do the same thing with others. Step the hell down from your pedistal.

I dont resent too many things in life. But someone who truely believes they are somehow better or above someone else pisses me off. You may very well be the most self rightous selfish person I've ever encountered.

Ugh

Hehe, when you hate yourself everything that passes seems like some sort of personal slight. But if you will notice in other posts above and in other threads, if you're really interested, I always use the letter that the person uses himself in his own name. I use V for Vic and b for blackangst1 so as to be as clear as possible to whom I refer. There are many times when I have had to distinguish between folk with a capital and non capital same letter and do this only by habit. Nothing personal there I can assure you. I don't believe I am better or know more than you. I don't think I know anything. In that I may, however, be wiser than you. Either that is just a fact or not, but an any case, if you think that makes me better than you all that is in your own eyes. I am not in a competition because everything I treasured in the way of truth I had to give, and long ago, up to know what I know. You can't grind down dust from a mill.
 

Fox5

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2005
5,957
7
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
From your linked site:

http://inflationdata.com/infla...nflationCalculator.asp

The inflation rate from January 1987 to January 2007 is 82.03%

So is $11000/yr working more still sounding good?
There has to be a disconnect in the numbers.
Based on the data from that website inflation between 1991 and 2005 was 41%.
If this is true then every group in America, except the top 20%, lost buying power during this time frame, and quite a lot of it.
The OP claims that middle three groups saw a 20% increase in their earnings during this time.
A 40% increase in prices with only a 20% increase in income means a LOT less buying power and this would be very noticeable.
We would have to see the raw numbers to figure out what is going on here.

Edit: As found here our GDP more than doubled between 1991 and 2005. The per capita GDP almost doubled as well. So it seems very unlikely that our GDP would increase that much and yet our incomes during the same time frame would increase by less than 50%.

Incomes did increase by about 50%, but inflation was still more. There's a net loss in wealth there and the higher average incomes are due solely to inflation.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Moonbeam:

The fact that in your little dialog you post my responses as a lower case b, and your responses in an uppercase M shows your selfish indignant pride. I've seen you do the same thing with others. Step the hell down from your pedistal.

I dont resent too many things in life. But someone who truely believes they are somehow better or above someone else pisses me off. You may very well be the most self rightous selfish person I've ever encountered.

Ugh

As much as i hate moonbeam.... Your username begins with a lowercase b, genius.

Oh the ironing :laugh:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
From your linked site:

http://inflationdata.com/infla...nflationCalculator.asp

The inflation rate from January 1987 to January 2007 is 82.03%

So is $11000/yr working more still sounding good?

There has to be a disconnect in the numbers.

Based on the data from that website inflation between 1991 and 2005 was 41%.

If this is true then every group in America, except the top 20%, lost buying power during this time frame, and quite a lot of it.

The OP claims that middle three groups saw a 20% increase in their earnings during this time.

A 40% increase in prices with only a 20% increase in income means a LOT less buying power and this would be very noticeable.

We would have to see the raw numbers to figure out what is going on here.

Edit: As found here our GDP more than doubled between 1991 and 2005. The per capita GDP almost doubled as well. So it seems very unlikely that our GDP would increase that much and yet our incomes during the same time frame would increase by less than 50%.

I find it hard to believe you are new to this.

Your heroes have been skewing the numbers since 2001 is where the "disconnect" is.

Good luck on finding the "raw numbers", like I said your heroes have it and we'll never see them.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Acanthus
From your linked site:

http://inflationdata.com/infla...nflationCalculator.asp

The inflation rate from January 1987 to January 2007 is 82.03%

So is $11000/yr working more still sounding good?

There has to be a disconnect in the numbers.

Based on the data from that website inflation between 1991 and 2005 was 41%.

If this is true then every group in America, except the top 20%, lost buying power during this time frame, and quite a lot of it.

The OP claims that middle three groups saw a 20% increase in their earnings during this time.

A 40% increase in prices with only a 20% increase in income means a LOT less buying power and this would be very noticeable.

We would have to see the raw numbers to figure out what is going on here.

Edit: As found here our GDP more than doubled between 1991 and 2005. The per capita GDP almost doubled as well. So it seems very unlikely that our GDP would increase that much and yet our incomes during the same time frame would increase by less than 50%.

I find it hard to believe you are new to this.

Your heroes have been skewing the numbers since 2001 is where the "disconnect" is.

Good luck on finding the "raw numbers", like I said your heroes have it and we'll never see them.

Do you just throw sh1t against the wall and see what sticks? :confused:
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
How did i interpret anything wrong?

Have YOU taken economics courses?

if prices went up by 81% (not even including volatile goods which are much much much higher) and wages went up by less than that amount, and the poor are working MORE to get to that amount, how the hell is everything ok?

Please, show me where my giant fallacy is.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus
How did i interpret anything wrong?

Have YOU taken economics courses?

if prices went up by 81% (not even including volatile goods which are much much much higher) and wages went up by less than that amount, and the poor are working MORE to get to that amount, how the hell is everything ok?

Please, show me where my giant fallacy is.

Im not denying prices went up for that period of time. At all. Your fallacy is not taking into consideration other factors. For instance...how many jobs actually pay min wage anymore? Even Taco Bell and 7-11 pay 9 to 11 bucks/hour...you dont even have to be a high school graduate to get those jobs! And is there a shortage of fast food or convenience store jobs? Hell no. Which goes back to my original point: the poor stay poor by choice. By many choices actually. And let me remind you of my caveats: no, they wont be very comfortable, but so what? Use it to improve youself...extras such as smoking, chewing, fast food, internet, cable TV, etc are just that-extras. How about giving some of that up for awhile? And finally, generalities are generally true so dont go and whine about exceptions. Of course they exist.

There's no reason why the majority of the poor in this country cant get ahead. Education is virtually free. Even the above mentioned jobs pay benefits. It's a hollow argument.

Oh by the way. There are less and less "poor" in this country every year as illustrated HERE. Which brings us full circle to the OP's thread: How the poorest are earning more and taking less. They ARE earning more and they ARE taking less in the way of social services.

/wave
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
How did i interpret anything wrong?

Have YOU taken economics courses?

if prices went up by 81% (not even including volatile goods which are much much much higher) and wages went up by less than that amount, and the poor are working MORE to get to that amount, how the hell is everything ok?

Please, show me where my giant fallacy is.

Im not denying prices went up for that period of time. At all. Your fallacy is not taking into consideration other factors. For instance...how many jobs actually pay min wage anymore? Even Taco Bell and 7-11 pay 9 to 11 bucks/hour...you dont even have to be a high school graduate to get those jobs! And is there a shortage of fast food or convenience store jobs? Hell no. Which goes back to my original point: the poor stay poor by choice. By many choices actually. And let me remind you of my caveats: no, they wont be very comfortable, but so what? Use it to improve youself...extras such as smoking, chewing, fast food, internet, cable TV, etc are just that-extras. How about giving some of that up for awhile? And finally, generalities are generally true so dont go and whine about exceptions. Of course they exist.

There's no reason why the majority of the poor in this country cant get ahead. Education is virtually free. Even the above mentioned jobs pay benefits. It's a hollow argument.

Oh by the way. There are less and less "poor" in this country every year as illustrated HERE. Which brings us full circle to the OP's thread: How the poorest are earning more and taking less. They ARE earning more and they ARE taking less in the way of social services.

/wave

You wont get far on a high school diploma.

And college is near free? I must be doing something wrong because im going about $10k in the hole a year.

LOL @ the poor shouldnt have access to fast food, the internet, or cable tv.

The richest country in the world indeed.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Acanthus
How did i interpret anything wrong?

Have YOU taken economics courses?

if prices went up by 81% (not even including volatile goods which are much much much higher) and wages went up by less than that amount, and the poor are working MORE to get to that amount, how the hell is everything ok?

Please, show me where my giant fallacy is.

Im not denying prices went up for that period of time. At all. Your fallacy is not taking into consideration other factors. For instance...how many jobs actually pay min wage anymore? Even Taco Bell and 7-11 pay 9 to 11 bucks/hour...you dont even have to be a high school graduate to get those jobs! And is there a shortage of fast food or convenience store jobs? Hell no. Which goes back to my original point: the poor stay poor by choice. By many choices actually. And let me remind you of my caveats: no, they wont be very comfortable, but so what? Use it to improve youself...extras such as smoking, chewing, fast food, internet, cable TV, etc are just that-extras. How about giving some of that up for awhile? And finally, generalities are generally true so dont go and whine about exceptions. Of course they exist.

There's no reason why the majority of the poor in this country cant get ahead. Education is virtually free. Even the above mentioned jobs pay benefits. It's a hollow argument.

Oh by the way. There are less and less "poor" in this country every year as illustrated HERE. Which brings us full circle to the OP's thread: How the poorest are earning more and taking less. They ARE earning more and they ARE taking less in the way of social services.

/wave

You wont get far on a high school diploma.

And college is near free? I must be doing something wrong because im going about $10k in the hole a year.

LOL @ the poor shouldnt have access to fast food, the internet, or cable tv.

The richest country in the world indeed.

You wont get far on a high school diploma.
Need I remind you most tech jobs do NOT require a degree. Im talking $100,000/year jobs as one example.

And college is near free? I must be doing something wrong because im going about $10k in the hole a year.
Yep, you are.

LOL @ the poor shouldnt have access to fast food, the internet, or cable tv.
Nothing I hate worse than having words put in my mouth. I didn't friggin say they shouldnt have access. Your reading comprehension blows. Did *you* finish high school?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Well this thread seems to have died when logic attacked.

Really? So, 30 years ago, did you have a faster PC with a faster connection to the internet?

Oh... wait...

This thread died because it went back on topic with "logic" that only the-world-is-evil-because-I-make-myself-see-only-the-evil McOwen could appreciate.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
There is no evil. There is only the illusion that your feeling that you are worthless is the truth, the only fear, the belief that what you feel and don't know you feel, is a fact. Evil is the identification of the self with something called the good that the self is not. The good is evil because it is not real. The real self died to save your life and you have hated everything ever after. Positive and negative arise out of this single fact. This is how it looks to me.

If self hate is unconscious you do not have the option to be positive because you can't see what it is that holds you back. The exploration of the unconscious, feeling what we really feel, fishes up our feelings into the light and allows for healing. You can't be at peace of you are haunted and don't know it. This is just information I think people miss because of that very unconscious motivation not to admit to the negative.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no evil. There is only the illusion that your feeling that you are worthless is the truth, the only fear, the belief that what you feel and don't know you feel, is a fact. Evil is the identification of the self with something called the good that the self is not. The good is evil because it is not real. The real self died to save your life and you have hated everything ever after. Positive and negative arise out of this single fact. This is how it looks to me.

If self hate is unconscious you do not have the option to be positive because you can't see what it is that holds you back. The exploration of the unconscious, feeling what we really feel, fishes up our feelings into the light and allows for healing. You can't be at peace of you are haunted and don't know it. This is just information I think people miss because of that very unconscious motivation not to admit to the negative.

But what if we DO realize our self hate is unconscious...is it then conscious? Then, by acknowledging this, we have two choices: either acknowledge and feed our hate, OR make a conscious decision to move away from hate towards truth and goodness. I am the latter.

Doesnt change what I said though.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,333
136
Moonie's doctrine of "we were taught to hate each other as children" and "self-hate" is IMO pretty much the only thing he gets right. The problem is that he begins with that correct original premise and jumps immediately to the wrong conclusion. Namely, that we should embrace and completely conform to that same anti-individualistic collective that taught us to hate ourselves in the first place. And just why did the collective do that to us? Because it fears the individual and demands that the individual -- ALL individuals -- conform to it. Please refer back to my earlier discussion in this thread about how, although we all equal, we are also all different. And these differences need to be respected and allowed, which means the individual must be prized above the collective. While humanity has come a long away, we're scarcely a generation away from racism, and less than 100 generations past ritual mass infanticide (very few Christians seem to know that the Genesis 22 story is really about the Hebrew god not wanting people to sacrifice their own children, a practice that was very widespread 3,000 years ago).
And what's it all about? Why does a rooster crack eggs?
 

Mavrick

Senior member
Mar 11, 2001
524
0
0
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why would anyone chose a system in which some can have much and others almost nothing when if you distribute things equally everybody who has almost nothing gets a tiny bit more?

Why reward those who are personally ambitious when you could reward the whole human race by creating a society in which the real rewards go to those who give to others.

We could turn our government and educational system into a machine that has as its aim and goal the promotion of the wealth of all people, no?

You greedy folk know how you are self motivated to perform. Just imagine how a person who feels God within him or her will perform. Imagine if love of others instead of self infatuation to mask self hate were the real reward. Oh it is but not many know it.

Consider the sparrow. It toils not, neither does it want. One has within ones self riches beyond belief, but for attachment and worship of the self.

Capitalism and competition are nothing but the manifestations of self hate directed outward at others.

Winner!! True success is not to get more cash than the neighboor, it just means being able to achieve your dreams, do what you like, be good and be at peace with yourself.

Many rich people who has earned their wealth by working on their passion (W.Buffet, B. Gates, J Rockefeller...) know this, and that's why they tend to have a different vision of the importance of wealth than "semi-rich NYC lawyers" doing 150K a year and spending it all on suits, restaurants and BMWs.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There is no evil. There is only the illusion that your feeling that you are worthless is the truth, the only fear, the belief that what you feel and don't know you feel, is a fact. Evil is the identification of the self with something called the good that the self is not. The good is evil because it is not real. The real self died to save your life and you have hated everything ever after. Positive and negative arise out of this single fact. This is how it looks to me.

If self hate is unconscious you do not have the option to be positive because you can't see what it is that holds you back. The exploration of the unconscious, feeling what we really feel, fishes up our feelings into the light and allows for healing. You can't be at peace of you are haunted and don't know it. This is just information I think people miss because of that very unconscious motivation not to admit to the negative.

But what if we DO realize our self hate is unconscious...is it then conscious? Then, by acknowledging this, we have two choices: either acknowledge and feed our hate, OR make a conscious decision to move away from hate towards truth and goodness. I am the latter.

Doesnt change what I said though.

If we do realize it that is just a first, but very important step. If you know that you do not know what you feel, but that you do actually have unconscious self hate, that does not make you conscious in a way that can change how you feel. It does however make it possible to cease to take yourself seriously intellectually. You can take the first steps in distrusting your opinions as anything but opinions directed by feelings you don't know you have. It allows you to step back from yourself and watch how you react without having to believe or put your energies behind your reactions. A racial bigot, for example, might observe that he has an emotional reaction to blacks. He can't make his reaction go away by seeing it, but he can cease to believe it's objective and some universal truth.

This is a step that allows one to step back from being a fanatic.

The process of actually getting what you feel out into consciousness is not an easy matter because of the tremendous pain we feel and don't want to re-awaken, but it can and has been done by others, say in therapy. One has to learn to find a way in by first noticing, perhaps with help, that one is experiencing something or other and allowing it to express. I have seen folk in a group setting react to somebody in the group and go into a race only to fall on the floor trying to protect themselves from invisible blows as they relive a beating. I have seen folk frothing with rage collapse into tears as memories rush in that they were the guilty party in their parents divorce. All of these kinds of things come like a bolt out of the blue. We are feeling them, suffering from them, without any ordinary awareness that we are until we find a setting that is save that can allow us a chance to go there. These things are like layers one peals back one at a time till one can arrive at the core. There are not an endless number of layers. But once a real feeling is relived and shown light again after so many many years the person awakens to the knowledge that was previously a mystery. This is what I have always been feeling. Now that it is no longer hidden, now that the boil is lanced, one can begin to truly grieve for oneself and begin to heal.

This is the step that brings change to deeper and deeper levels. As lie after lie are broken you find a point where you become real damn certain you are really OK.
-------------

I don't know what you refer to that you say doesn't change, so I comment on whether I agree or not.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,238
6,338
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Moonie's doctrine of "we were taught to hate each other as children" and "self-hate" is IMO pretty much the only thing he gets right. The problem is that he begins with that correct original premise and jumps immediately to the wrong conclusion. Namely, that we should embrace and completely conform to that same anti-individualistic collective that taught us to hate ourselves in the first place. And just why did the collective do that to us? Because it fears the individual and demands that the individual -- ALL individuals -- conform to it. Please refer back to my earlier discussion in this thread about how, although we all equal, we are also all different. And these differences need to be respected and allowed, which means the individual must be prized above the collective. While humanity has come a long away, we're scarcely a generation away from racism, and less than 100 generations past ritual mass infanticide (very few Christians seem to know that the Genesis 22 story is really about the Hebrew god not wanting people to sacrifice their own children, a practice that was very widespread 3,000 years ago).
And what's it all about? Why does a rooster crack eggs?

I don't see where I want to conform to anything as you describe. My problem with individuals is not a problem with the individual but with what individuals identify with is a false ego. Because of self hate people identify with popular sources that receive popular support and praise. I become a Catholic because it is the one true religion, or an American because we are the greatest of people, or a Yankee fan because they have the best team and a thousand other things. I identify myself as normal and sane, a good person and not that which I was made to feel that I am. I warn of the fanaticism these identifications create, the desperate clinging and defensiveness they engender because of a fear of loss of face, a fear that has already happened and is repressed from memory.

My objection is to the false ego we all think we are, that which we assume is our real identity. Yes we are different, but the differences pale in comparison to how we are all alike, perfect in our individual but true real selves. Each person is a facet of a perfect gem. It strikes me that it is the ego that is the enemy of the individual and the collective.

Since I see the greatest threat to humanity as its infatuation and support and stimulation of the ego I have focused my attention there trying to point out that danger. It is collections of egos, I think, that threaten individuals. I think that egoless people have compassion for everything and that is their collective. They aren't fanatics who believe in forcing some theoretical common good, but lovers who love others they meet.

In communities of false egos the individual tries to screw the group.

In communities of false egos groups of individuals will coalesce to screw individuals.

In a community of real people, were there ever to appear such a thing, the distinction between the individual and the group, I should think, might be meaningless.