The United States: How United Should We Be?

Are we mandatorily, irredeemably, and forever united by the people’s history or are we united through a shared respect for individuality?

For collectivists who use guilt to discourage others for power our identities are irredeemably tied to a common and sinister history of oppression.

This origin story is the root of progressive, or now collectivist, religion.  Collectivists use these guilt ridden histories to cudgel the unwitting into converting. 

Up until now they’ve had great success.

Within the sacred halls of academia unwitting student parishioners have gathered to learn how they can be saved from a common history of oppression.

The answer -- according to the gospel of Rawls, a junior acolyte of Marxist redistribution -- was always the same. 

“Only the nanny state can redeem you and the rest of them” Rawls would say through the mouthpiece of unthinking college professors.

So it has always been ever after. And shortly thereafter the left adopted the motto “from one government comes many” for their new collectivist regime.

And they tried to call this regime “America.”

What they forgot, or never knew because of their ignorance of anything other than communist retellings of history, was that in the “United” States of America individuals weren’t united by a common history of collective guilt and socialist redistribution.

Instead the motto of America has always been “ e pluribus unum” meaning from the many one.  Or, in other words, the meaning of America was always from individuality comes commonality and not vice versa.

Thus in America the individual is supposed to come first not government.  Accordingly America is not supposed to be so insistently united after all -- only through our individual differences does a common tolerance arise in us as citizens.

Yet in the socialists’ America, one where government comes first, a common intolerance produces collective indifference. To them that’s unity.