We are multitudes

Collectivism is, or should be, anathema to those who truly and honestly love freedom and liberty. Collectivism speaks in terms of sacrifices for “us” by “you”. There is no talk of what “you” should or could do for you. Collectivism is the cornerstone of socialism and its follow-on, communism. I know that many will read this and scoff. “Oh, you are just fear-mongering, Communism is just society looking out for all its members and making sure that nobody is left out.” This goes with “socialism is roads and public schools…do you mean you don’t like those?”

Those comments only serve to display the ignorance of the speaker. Socialism and communism are economic policies designed to control social and economic aspects of civilization along with the political. They are not benign peace, love and flowers types of government or government regulation. I have spent 25 years reading about these forms of government. Trust me when I tell you they are not made of sweetness, light, and caring for your fellow humans. Quite the opposite.

In response to the creeping collectivism in the U.S. today, a woman named Sarah Chamberlain wrote a cris d’couer on Medium. She titled it “An Open Letter From An American Coward.” I found this via another Sarah, Sarah Hoyt, on her blog AccordingToHoyt. But what Sarah Chamberlain has not realized is that she is far from a coward. She admits that she doesn’t want to do anything openly for fear of losing what she has and retaliation against her family. Knowing that, she went ahead and wrote her piece and asked for wide distribution anyway. That is not the act of a coward.

Sarah addresses the collectivization she is starting to see and she pegs it exactly:

Instead, modern communists adopt a rhetorical stance where they assume that all people and all property are ALREADY COLLECTIVIZED, then calmly discuss what WE should do:
– What WE should ALLOW people to own.
– What WE should ALLOW people to do.
– What WE should ALLOW people to say.
– How WE should ALLOW people to use their property.
– How WE should ALLOW people to conduct their businesses,
– … and WHO should be ALLOWED,
– … and WHERE.
– How WE should ALLOW people to raise their children.
– Who should be GIVEN which roles within society.
– etc.

The issue under discussion is always something sympathetic, something most decent people would like to see fixed: Intergenerational poverty, police brutality, environmental degradation, bigotry, violence.

But the solutions modern communists put forward are rarely passive, and they are never liberating. If a problem can be solved by individual action, voluntary charity, by the free market, or by the passage of time, that is never seen as good enough. In fact, nothing that fails to increase the power and control of governments or certain institutions (or to grow the people’s dependence on them) is ever regarded as a solution at all.

Go read the whole thing. Seriously go read it. She is exactly right. The collectivist believes that government is there to do all the things for an individual. That method removes all personal responsibility for anything and everything. Lost your job? Must be a racist employer. Did poorly in school? The fault of previous teachers. In jail for selling drugs? Society’s to blame for not giving you a job. What Sarah puts her finger on here is that almost everyone agrees that there are issues and problems that need to be solved. But where we all seem to strongly disagree is in the solutions to those problems. The left, as collectivists, argue that it is government’s job to make sure that nobody insults you, fires you for doing a bad job, grades you down for poor work, or even never work for a living if you so desire. Non-collectivists believe that yes, problems exist, but for many of those problems (real and imagined) government is precisely NOT the solution. Previously, we could disagree on the path to a solution. Now, we must all agree on a single solution to a given multi-faceted problem. If you disagree with the proposed solution you will be canceled.

This is where it is important to understand that you are not alone when you disagree. There are many who, like Sarah Chamberlain, may not speak out because they fear for their ability to take care of their family. But here’s the thing…we are multitudes. And we are many multitudes more than they are. We are not alone and we will no longer be quiet. I used to read the late Mike Adams who was at UNC-Wilmington and I admired the courage he had to speak out as loudly as he did. He suffered a lot of canceling and other horrendous reactions. Sadly, I think he thought he was alone; I think that may have contributed to his suicide. The other person I read/follow and admire his outspokenness is KC Johnson at CUNY. He too has endured insults and attacks beyond imagining and persevered in the face of it. I hope he realizes as well that he is not alone. When I was a faculty member, I couldn’t imagine speaking out like those two did. I knew I would not get tenure if I did that and tenure was my ultimate goal, my raison d’etre even.

Mike Adams and KC Johnson are two people with national stages who may or may not realize they were and are not alone. Imagine how someone like Sarah Chamberlain feels. Someone with no national stage. Someone who believes her lying eyes.

She’s not alone at all. Neither are you.

We are multitudes.

8 Replies to “We are multitudes”

  1. I’ve recently been running into an issue that seems to be a product of governmental intervention, that of narcotic pain killer use. The opiod My wife had surgery a couple of weeks ago. They gave her a bottle of hydrocodone and told her to take two every four hours for the pain. The problem being that the surgery was on Friday, and the bottle only contained ten pills. Let me do the math real quick. Hmm, that doesn’t seem to be enough to get through 24 hours, let alone an entire weekend starting on a Friday. Messaged the doctor on Monday, no response. Called on Tuesday and left a message, no response. We finally got a return call on Wednesday! I can easily see why so many people on prescription pain meds end up OD’ing on non-prescription drugs, they don’t prescribe enough legitimate meds to get the pain under control to begin with and people turn to alternatives. I’m not saying they should be handed out like candy, but they need to have enough to be effective.

    1. Yeah, I’ve seen that happen with other people. I’ve read that the government overreach was in response to people freaking out about opioid abuse. So, the blanket solution was to cut everybody off, not just the individuals who were clearly abusing. Any ethical doc or NP can tell when somebody is overdoing their meds due to addiction. Cutting off legitimate patients with severe pain is not the answer. In your wife’s case it should have been enough to get through the weekend with instructions to call on Monday to discuss pain levels with doc. Then doc can decide how to proceed. Seems simple, but I know that logic has no place in these things.

    2. *angry at the idea of someone hurting that doesn’t have to*

      The DEA warned congress that this would happen if they did their dip-***** targeting of legit, US companies instead of smuggled in Chinese elephant tranqs.

      And it’s happening, exactly like they said it would– and now they’re simi-regularly getting kilos of fentanyl in drug busts.

      That’s the stuff that if you go to the DEA website and look at the “what a fatal dose of this drug looks like,” it’s got a close-up of one of those vials like you’d keep eyeglass screws in, with what looks like a couple of grains of salt at the bottom.

      The so-called logic from our lawmakers is that fentanyl is a medical drug… it’s used kind of like a morphine drip.

      1. One of my upstairs neighbors died from an OD of heroin and fentanyl last summer. He was a pharmacist so I assume he knew exactly what he was doing.

        1. I’m sorry.

          It’s possible his seller used fent to cut it– it’s way cheaper than heroin, so that’s fairly common– but ugh.

  2. Y’all recall that I’m not exactly Mr. Legalization?

    I think you guys are being a little too charitable in your attribution to causes.

    Outrage was motivated by an information campaign, and the information campaign was probably for the purpose of justifying the specific policies later on.

    China obviously has some interest in our recreational drug situation being a mess. If one presumes that they have been running a long term manipulation campaign, and do not wish for our policies to be functional ones, then a dysfunctional policy may actually be as designed.

    Why couldn’t this have been an intentional act by the Chinese Asset (CA) faction of the Democrat Party?

    Why should we be assuming that it is not?

    1. Good point. I hadn’t thought of it that way. But given what we’re learning (and have been) about software “bugs”, and all the past problems with manufacturing, etc. it makes sense. I guess I looked at the China connection as a giant conspiracy theory, but if it’s government policy to do whatever to undermine the US, then that’s not really a conspiracy, is it?

      And as far as intentional by the Dems, I’m sure they would justify it as simply working with trading
      to arrive at the best possible solution for all concerned. (They get their payoffs, the Chinese get their access and the crumbling of the US).

      Damn. I don’t like you making me think like that!

Comments are closed.