Tag: sovereign

Collectivism Addiction – The US Society Circles the Drain

The masses have been sold that collectivism, the whole “Diversity and Inclusion” agenda (typical these days to name things opposite of what they actually accomplish, like war on terror, war on poverty, Anfifa and BLM), has been projected to make a better tomorrow, for the “greater good”.

Puke. Anyone with critical thinking skills knows that people are unique individuals, endowed by their Creator with unique talent and gift set, that in community with others “can” achieve amazing things to the benefit of society. Most of the time, this is serendipitous, luck or I contend, a God-arranged group for such a time. Think militias in South Carolina colony that kept Cornwallis behind in his agenda to roll up the southern colonies and join Clinton in the north to finish off George Washington.

From an eight year old article in Lew Rockwell’s web site ( ‘The Scourge of Collectivism’ ) comes some pretty accurate critique of this whole collective approach to life, that no doubt only benefits the ruling elites in the long term.

Unless a man has talents to make something of himself, freedom is an irksome burden. Of what avail is freedom to choose if the self be ineffectual? We join a mass movement to escape individual responsibility, or, in the words of the ardent young Nazi, “to be free from freedom.”

~ Eric Hoffer

Yes, Nazism is pure collective and totalitarian thought. You can group this with Fascism, Socialism, Communism and even Democracy.

As Butler Shaffer pointed out in the past in his great article titled Collectivist Utopias:

“All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority.”

Politics is the place where good ideas go to die. I have seen this inside big business, small churches and the US government.

“Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective — society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc. — is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as a part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.”

~ Leonard Peikoff

This is America’s greatest loss in the last century, the lure of collectivism is an easy out for the masses to pretend they are helping.

The mind of the collectivist is empty and pitiful, and has not the ability to think on its own. It has no uniqueness; it has no individual personality. It does not create, nor does it possess any sense of self. The collectivist mind can’t possess these virtues because it is only a very small cog in a wheel of the group. It is but a speck in the midst of a mob. This is the story of America today, as collectivism runs rampant and individualism is shunned.

It is a very sad story that runs counter to what the founding generation had to offer each colony, the American colonies and the world. Acting as individuals that each could think for themselves, militias came and went, bad battles/strategies had no one to fight them, good battles/strategies had plenty of volunteers. The collective Continental Army was not as lucky.

When collectivism takes hold, individual rights naturally disappear, and mob rule policies take root. This policy transformation of course, is affected by the state. The progression from a system that is based on individual self rule and individual sovereignty to one of community or nation is not in the interest of freedom and liberty. When any political system is in place, this negative progression is easily achieved nonetheless. Only peaceful anarchy allows for the individual to be truly sovereign. Only when the state is absent can freedom flourish.

Ruling “elites” crave this merging of individuals into a societal tumor, because this cancer destroys the power of individual thought. The result of this diseased system can lead only to consensus and compromise. It can lead only to corruption. Consensus leads to no real decision at all, and the following compromise is nothing more than a mass combining of ignorance. When political policy is decided in this manner, it serves only to limit the individual’s ability to achieve.

The state is the poison for society. The state must be minimized for liberty and freedom to thrive. Perceived safety as a goal always leads to little liberty and little safety in the long term.

“.. In the United States today, virtually everything is decided by the few, but with the implied consent of the mob. The U.S. political system has major aspects of socialism and fascism, and is certainly an oligarchy, but most have the misguided notion that the mob is in charge. This is due to a belief by the masses in the farce of voting. Voting gives the false impression that the voters themselves are in control, but nothing could be further from the truth. In essence, those voted into office as “representatives” of the people, are fully controlled by very powerful interest groups, and these groups are the real rulers. This is a very flawed system, but it is one that gives the false impression that the majority rules. That is simply not the case, and even if it were, it would still be immoral! This system is accepted and embraced by the crowd, but in reality, why should anyone rule over anyone else, majority or not? How can freedom survive in a place where one has the power to rule over another? I can tell you, it can’t!..”

In 2020, only those in denial still believe that voting matters.

Finally, be aware of all the ways this collective thought, sounding so true when first heard, can be destructive of families and communities, which is the ultimate goal of the ruling elites.

“.. The collective “we” has been brainwashed into believing that self-interest, self-responsibility, and self-sufficiency are not in the best interest of the group, but just the opposite of course is the case. This brainwashing has been accomplished through a long indoctrination process that is still firmly in place…”

  • Consider the government’s “public” school system, where most every child in the country is taught the same nonsense for most of his learning years, and is indoctrinated throughout childhood to love first his community, state, and nation.
  • Consider the worship for a constitution that gave massive and in some cases, unlimited (not limited) power to a federal government, and lessened greatly the importance of the individual in favor of the “general welfare.”
  • Consider the reliance on government welfare by the people via the multitude of social programs that are meant to make dependency on government almost mandatory.
  • Consider the mindset of the “99 per centers” that aim to force the so-called 1 per cent to be more inclusive, fair, and responsive to the group.
  • Consider the mob’s acceptance of a heavy and progressive income taxation used as a way to equalize outcomes by redistributing private property for the so-called benefit of all.
  • Consider “public” lands or “public” anything.
  • Consider the idiotic term, “giving back.”
  • Consider today’s strict concentration on race, class, society as a whole, community, state, and nation, all more important than the individual.
  • Consider the mass acceptance of the National Anthem and the communistic Pledge of Allegiance.
  • Consider the constant call “for the greater good of society!”

We need to challenge the promotion of this poisonous thought in unique ways that only the individual can carry out being wise as a serpent and harmless as a dove 🙂

Peace out

-SF1

America: Identity Crisis .. Did It Ever Really Have One Identity?

We have civil unions and then we have civil wars, am I right? What was one becomes two (or more) when trust is lost, fear of overt conflict (keeping the peace), lack of commitment, and avoidance of accountability which in fact are four of the “five dysfunctions of a team” in the book of the same name.

When talking about America, well first one has to understand that the whole TWO continents of North and South America were considered “America”.  But if we narrow this down to the British colonies in America, we still have to ensure that we are talking to just the thirteen colonies that decided to seek independence from a colonizing empire.

Once you understand this, only then can you see the birth of this republic was one that had thirteen different personalities! Thirteen sovereign entities decided to “federate” (join forces on a temporary basis) to push out or wear down the colonizing effort England had on these territories.

Each of the thirteen entities decided what government to have themselves first and joined at their own volition into a joint effort against the British.

What got me thinking about this was an article from Abbeville Institute which has been addressing this topic all year and since its inception in 2002. In this article they point out several important factors into the current identity crisis we are having in the United States of America:

Since our conferences in 2018 were on the coming apart of American national identity, it’s appropriate to the end the year with some reflections on that topic. After 15 states peacefully seceding from the Soviet Union in 1991, John Updike famously asked, “without the cold war what is the point of being an American?” A good question. Is American identity based on a historic self-sustaining culture, or has it been held together by the constant centralization demanded by War: the Spanish American War, World Wars I and II, the Cold War, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria? War, Randolph Bourne said, is the “health of the state.”

War unifies, rightfully or wrongfully, since those who are not caught up in the patriotic spirit are indeed marginalized in this country. In other countries, that are more collectivist like socialistic, marxist or communist states, this can easily get you killed! What if our whole identity was held together by having a common enemy for 140 years, as I would add the war on the American Indians in the late 1880s as part of this?

What about the time before civil union led to civil war?

The Jeffersonian America that existed from 1776 to 1860 was not a unitary state “one and indivisible” as it was said to be after 1865. Just as the European Union is a federation of nations and not itself a nation, so the pre-Lincolnian America was a federation of sovereign states and not itself a nation state. The closest thing to a “national” identity were state and regional identities. Tocqueville said that in federating the states had not forfeited their distinct “nationality.” Everyone understood this.

People identified to their community and to their state:

An early 19th century New England poem reads:

Amy Kitteridge is my name,
Salem is my dwelling place
New England is my Nation
And Christ is my salvation.

After the civil war where the eleven states were terrorized back into the “civil union”, the effort was made to cement this union more permanently so that this would not happen again:

the America that emerged after the Union victory in 1865 did claim to be a unitary nation state “one and indivisible” from which secession would be unthinkable.

We are now, after the distractions of many wars and many enemies, face to face knowing in our heart that we are united in name only. What is to become of the “united” States?

the conflict between Red and Blue states is here to stay for the foreseeable future. A recent Reuters poll found that nearly a third of Americans believe some sort of civil war will occur within five years, and some security analysts issued similar warnings.

This does not bode well, however, we can learn from history.  The USSR dissolved into 15 republics, and our own history tells us of better times when the culture extremes were tempered with state and local sovereignty:

The only part of our tradition that has anything to say about these disunited Red and Blue states, and the mosaic of conflicting cultures that are drifting toward violence, is the founding Jeffersonian tradition (1776 to 1860) which worked quite well without being a unitary nation state. It was able to check the growth of central power because it was grounded in state and local sovereignty not the fantasy of “national” sovereignty. What is needed today is political devolution, division, and separation, not more unification and centralization. How to do this in a civil and peaceful way, in a country still under the spell of “indivisibility,” is a much needed national debate.

Unfortunately, at this time, it seems that dialog is not even possible as polarized as the factions in this nation are. To peacefully seek our own separate ways and yet hope for each entity to go in peace and prosperity is a very mature attitude. Can today’s society act mature? That is a tough question to answer. Maybe this nation has to go through some major trials and culture storms in order to emerge on the other end a bit more humble.

Time will tell.

-SF1