May 13, 2026

Essays

The Freedom Building Culture of The New Civilization

The Freedom Building Culture of The New Civilization

Bill Collier June 26, 2021 0

By Willem IV- Is liberty drowning in the authoritarian barbarism of a woke cancel culture ruled by a corrupt ruling class who lord it over the atomized individuals in their teeming collective? How will we transcend the modern barbaric authoritarianism of the woke cancel culture so that we can live free and prosperous lives? The answer is found in history, in the emergence of a new civilization and in the intentional adoption of culture rooted in the ancient ways, with the lessons of history applied.

One can see lady liberty drowning or one can see her swimming away from the old civilization, toward the freedom-building culture of the new civilization, which is bound to emerge even as the old civilization declines. The bright sun is not a setting sun, it is the dawn of a new spiritual nation, predicated on the culture of freedom typified by a new civilization, and the emergence of that new civilization. Lady Liberty will LIVE on, past whatever this country and its people choose.

Arnold Toynbee, an historian and philosopher, studied the rise and fall and birthing process of civilizations and concluded that new civilizations were most always the result of efforts to restore an old, and dying, civilization to its original foundations and virtues. Oswald Spengler spoke of the birth and spring time of civilizations as a more virtuous period of spiritual and moral/ethical purity which devolved as culture gave way to compromises and the emergence of structures of a more and more authoritarian nature.

Both important thinkers were more focused on Western Civilization, Toynbee saw an opportunity to make Western Civilization the first to overcome the forces of decline and maintain itself in perpetuity, or at least far longer than any other civilization. Spengler saw the decline as inevitable but sought to make his own accommodation with its inevitable Caesarism and actually, at least for a time, made his peace with the Nazi regime as it was established in Germany.

We find Spengler’s accommodation with Nazism execrable and deeply troubling. It is the result of discerning perhaps the right problem but applying the wrong solution. Spengler concluded the West was entering a period of Caesarism, became fatalistic about it, and missed the solution, which was quite clear in his writings- reject the old civilizational paradigm in favor of a new paradigm and thereby escape the Caesars like Hitler and Mussolini or whoever else may emerge in the West’s march toward ruin! It was in his own description of the emergence of new civilization that he should have found a means of liberation.

Neither Spengler, as noted, nor Toynbee ever focused on the inevitable emergence of a new civilization or developed any deep thinking as to the nature or methods of its emergence in light of the aging of the West, despite the fact both men described the cycles of civilization in not substantially different ways.

Spengler sees a return to purity and the blood and soil, using biological language which some have, understandably, interpreted as simple racism. For Spengler, however, one may also see in his dense writing style a way of interpreting his biological concepts on a more spiritual and ideational basis as opposed to a biologically defined racial basis. Even if this was not his intent, when understood on a spiritual and ideational basis, his concept of the emergence and development of “races” as nations of people not defined by biological interpretations of race, can be useful for understanding how nations, cultures, and whole civilizations emerge, rise, and decline.

As for Toynbee, his description of “rout and rally”, in terms of both the emergence of a new culture and the decline of powers and civilizations, informed his thinking and adds to our understanding of civilization in its grand cycles. We can also find inspiration in his idea about the emergence of a new civilization centered on the withdrawal from the mainstream, as we would describe it today, of a minority or even a plurality of the populace on the basis of a rejection of the social and moral decay and out of a desire to resurrect the ancient ways, founded on moral and spiritual purity.

These two thinkers, and others like them, all seemed more or less to concur that the birth and early days of a new civilization were typified by moral and spiritual simplicity and purity and were presaged by a body of people who withdrew, emotionally and even physically as much as they could, from the structures of the dying civilization to restore what they saw as the foundations of that civilization.

It is not true that EVERY civilization had this “restorative genesis”, in other words that they were all attempts to restore the spiritual and moral purity of the old civilizations out of which they emerged. As an example, Western Civilization, it was argued, was an attempt to restore the moral and spiritual purity of the Roman civilization, or Classical Civilization, depending on whether one counts the Greek verses Roman civilizations as one or two civilizations.

Western Civilization is not merely a successor civilization to the Romans, it was immediately preceded by the Germanic Civilization, which had invaded the Western Roman Empire. Western Civilization was in fact largely inspired in its early days, around 700 to 800 AD, by a desire to restore the Roman Civilization, but its actual people, for the most part, were drawn mostly from the then dying Germanic Civilization, and in no small part some desire to restore the primitive simplicity of the more egalitarian German tribal system was also inspirational.

Nonetheless, the same principle applies to Western Civilization: it did emerge out of a desire to restore the purity of the previous civilizations which occupied what became its larger heartland, the heartlands of Western Rome and the Germanic tribes.

The development of an atomized lifestyle, sexual experimentation, lower birth rates, the decline of the nuclear family and marriage between a man and a woman who mostly raise their own (or their adopted) children, and the confusion of gender and gender roles are all prevalent traits of a dying civilization. In 1918, for instance, Spengler predicted that the widespread use of abortion and birth control and the decreased desire to have and raise children would typify Western culture within the next hundred years on its path to destruction.

Atomization means the individual has become mostly an isolated part of a massively centralized collective whole, disconnected from anything but mass-scale structures that dominate their life because their support and sustenance can only be found in these mass structures. The destruction of institutions such as marriage, children being raised by a mother and father figure in their own home, the nuclear family, the extended family, and close-knit, almost tribal, village-like communities with similar extended families as well as religious structures that are more local and familial, are all hallmarks of the decline of a civilization.

Freedom is a casualty of such decay and those who profess that “the family unit has evolved into a multiplicity of forms and functions” are mostly only extoling barbaric social norms as progress and destroying the very foundation of a free and prosperous society. Ruination is the final result, unless this ideology is not stopped and those who adhere to it do not lose power and influence in your culture-bearing institutions.

Whereas in a new civilization during its glorious springtime, the individual is connected to and depends upon very local structures which they can readily influence and participate in, the atomized individual in a dying civilization is isolated from local structures, doesn’t even know their neighbors, and must depend upon extra-local meta-scale structures over which they have no influence. Never again, after the springtime of a civilization, will the individual be more free as a human being, relative to any other period in their civilization’s development. regardless of their so-called political rights.

The assault upon localized, familial, and religious structures which connect people deeply on a personal basis is not always accidental: the communists engaged in this kind of wanton cultural destruction as a means of ensuring loyalty to the state. A localist interpersonal structure mitigates any need for dependence upon a state and, thus, is a source of competition for loyalty.

But whether this development is intentional, as with the communists, or accidental, as a result of general cultural decay, the moral and ethical foundation of civilization is always the hallmark of a dying civilization and may in fact be its cause. The primary loss for the individual is a loos of freedom, which is usually followed be increasing material privation.

Put another way, the moral and ethical practices we might consider socially conservative, such as sexual purity and marital fidelity, and preference for familial units that tend to promote fatherhood and motherhood, are essential to any localized familial structures. If this moral foundation is exchanged for indulgence and depravity, local interpersonal connection based on trust alone cannot be sustained. What we must also realize is that freedom itself is not possible where these strong localized interpersonal structures, founded on marriage the family, do not exist. In their absence, authoritarianism always rises. In their presence, freedom rises.

Not being able to trust a person’s fidelity in something like marriage, or not being able to experience the unique nurturing embrace that being raised by a mother and father figure provide, are all destructive to localized interpersonal bonds. Sexual “liberation” may be physically pleasurable, but it spells the end of civilization and always presages the emergence of anther characteristic of a dying civilization, both universalism and Caesarism. Being able to have and form such connections and communities through freewill association is itself a condition of freedom.

Universalism is a form of imperialism in which national peoples and families are subordinated to a universal state of grand scale which desires, at its core, the domination of its entire known world. Not all empires are or were meant to be universal states, but universal states tend to become centralized empires with little tolerance for any local autonomy.

The early Roman Empire was a largely decentralized empire that encouraged local autonomy in almost every arena, but as its moral and ethical foundation declined, as families were decimated by depravity, it became more and more centralized. The infusion of “Christianity’, after Constantine, may have reversed this trend if it had occurred 100 years earlier, but the rot was not reversible and the enemies of the Western empire were too large to prevent the collapse. But in the East, whose capital was named after the first Emperor who declared himself a Christian, actually evolved into its own new civilization, the Byzantine, which lasted some 1000 years.

Perhaps the cultural depravity in the East wasn’t as far advanced as it had been in the West, but what is most interesting is that while the Western part of the empire fell and its civilization collapsed under the onslaught of a Christianized Germanic civilization, in the East, the empire evolved and made a peaceful transition from the old civilization founded on paganism to a new civilization founded on Christianity but whose sociocultural norms reflected the ancient purity of the Roman and Greek civilization.

The culture of the new civilization will tend to resemble the sociocultural norms, the moral, ethical, and spiritual simplicity and purity, of the civilization or civilizations which preceded it. In the case of what we see as a new civilization, emerging from people and communities distributed all over the world and gathered initially online, we see the roots in not one but four civilizations, each of whose core ideal becomes the basis of four core ideals.

The Western Civilization gives us Unity in diversity, the Germanic gives us Popular sovereignty, the Classical (and Byzantine) gives us Democratic equality, and the Hebrew or Meddle Eastern gives us Rule of law. In the balanced application of these ideals, and if they are understood with a Judeo-Christian worldview as our perspective, we find a new sociocultural foundation that will restore the localized familial and interpersonal structures that remove dependence upon meta-scale mass structures of hierarchical control.

Unity in diversity is often expressed as individualism. Popular sovereignty is often expressed as loyalty. Democratic equality is often expressed as justice. And Rule of law is often expressed as righteousness. But these ideals are bigger than such simple terms.

Individualism without a unity based on shared virtues is hedonism. Loyalty without respect for both the sovereignty of individuals and their ability to freely associate is feudalism. Justice without the consent of the people (demos) and without equal application becomes mob rule. Righteousness without deference to the actual laws of cause and effect and the consent of those under such laws, and for the benefit of all, becomes hierarchicalism

Hedonism, feudalism, mob rule, and hierarchicalism all become authoritarian and form the basis of universal states that reduce the individual to a mere commodity to be used and exploited by an immoral, corrupt ruling class.

The new civilization we envision emerging in the hearts of individuals and nation of people will have all four core ideals as its basis. Their balanced application, using a Judeo-Christian interpretation of their meaning, is manifested primarily in localized familial interpersonal structures primarily, and only secondarily through larger structures of which these localized structures are the core constituent entities.

The nuclear family wherein most all children are raised by their own biological or adopted mother and family and which is connected in a mutually-sustaining bond with a larger extended family and familial village-type community become the typical expression of the culture of the new civilization. The purity and simplicity of human society and culture based on the simple fact of our biology, wherein a man and woman mate to give birth to children and then raise them together, is the restorative agency through which the new civilization emerges an then thrives.

This does not mean every marriage MUST result in children, but it means that, for the culture of the new civilization, marriage itself, whether it not the couple can reproduce, is modeled in the norm that most all children are either raised by their own biological parents or adopted by a mother and father who treat them as their own biological children.

Children being raised by their own biological parents, or at least by parents who treat them as their own biological children, is the essence of the simplest and purest form of human culture. Cultures that lack this tend to be barbaric and savage tribes or advanced and dying civilizations. As much as the cultural leaders of Western Civilization today treat their refutation of this norm as something bad and ‘backwards”, it is their cultural norms that are archaic and backwards and that reflect a precultural barbarism.

Arguments about whether people have a right, in a political or legal sense, to step outside of this norm are largely irrelevant because if the underlying culture is morally backwards no laws or prohibitions will change how people behave and live, What is more, those who embrace a morally advanced sociocultural norm rooted in children being raised by father and mother in a loving and nurturing home do not need any laws or policies to encourage them to connect in such a manner with others or to form localized interpersonal structures.

The problem is that the authoritarianism of a declining civilization with its bent toward universalism and Caesarism will tend to view a return to such localized interpersonal structures, based on a more advanced sociocultural norm suited to human progress, demands that these alternatives to its influence and control must be proscribed. One either embraces the new barbarism, which is sold as progress when in fact it is archaic savagery, or one faces proscription in some form.

It is not that the adherents of the more advanced sociocultural moral ethic are determined to proscribe anyone else who choose alternative ways to live, it is that the barbarian caesarists cannot abide even the vocalization of any claims that the more advanced sociocultural norms are best, and nor can they abide any criticism.

Even if the more advanced cultural adherents positively refused in any way to force anyone into their way of life, it would not be enough for the barbarians. The people seeking the restoration of the lost advanced cultural norms, rooted in this familial ethic and in localized interpersonal structures, find that they must essentially withdraw from dependence upon the meta-structures which consider disavowal of the advanced cultural norm as a basis of acceptability.

Independency in material needs is the only way for the national peoples of the new civilization to survive and make it to the point where the new civilization emerges. From this perspective then, we see that the culture of the new civilization is not only marked by familial and localized interpersonal structures, with children raised by a mother and father in a loving home within the maternal enclosure of a familial community. The culture of the new civilization is also marked by the material independency of its individuals, their nuclear families, and their localized interpersonal and familial structures.

This material independency is not merely an adherence to an idea in an ideological basis. It is a simple necessity because the condition of reward and demand of participation from the meta-scale structures of a dying civilization is always the disavowal of the advanced sociocultural norm and the embracing and participation in the barbaric sociocultural norm that presents itself as “progressive.”

Whoever does not embrace and participate in the barbaric sociocultural norm is materially punished by the meta structures of the dying civilization, therefore we always witness in the conception phase of a new civilization a withdrawal from material dependency and an intentional creation of material independency by adherents of a new civilization. All the things we may point to as signs of spiritual and moral decline which lead to civilizational collapse, the barbaric caesarist ruling class of the old civilization present as modern advancement or progress. The advanced culture is deemed archaic and backward and there are claims society is evolving and the old norms are no longer necessary or useful to human civilization.

All of this is terribly easy to predict because it repeats so often, albeit in many ways and on different terms, throughout the course of the larger human civilization which is tends of thousands of years old.

The question we may ask is, given the modern technological means of tracking and controlling people and the centralized economic structures, can a plurality of people peacefully withdraw from dependency and adopt material independency without earning the forceful rebuke of the existing ruling class?

This is where the concept of “gaps for freedom” becomes so critical. Gaps for freedom are legal and technological means by which individuals, small groups, and even larger scale structures can escape the scrutiny and/or the interference of the ruling class and their systems of influence and control.

Using legal structures like fraternal benefit societies, mutual benefit corporations, credit unions, land trusts, mutual assurance funds and non-governmental organization, adherents of the new civilization can create new structures which combine these exiting legal structures to stake out a more independent life out of the reach of the ruling class. What is more important in using these legal structures is that if the ruling class removed them as options they would incur more and more dissent as more and more people are materially harmed by their edicts. Additionally, the ruling class need and use these legal structures and doing away with them or arbitrarily limiting their use on ideological grounds would expose the naked authoritarianism and hasten a societal uprising against them.

The culture of this new civilization will be materially supported through a plethora of legal gaps for freedom which are combined in new ways to build what are essentially new structures. The new structures will resemble in form and spirit the lost ancient structures which typified the old civilization in its springtime.

The physical gaps for freedom come in the form of actual real estate, property, alternative forms of trade (trade scrips, local currency, or even cryptocurrency), new architectural designs to support multi-family extended household groups and revived and larger nuclear families, local food and energy production, and even physical safety and preparedness supplies (or structures) shared by small groups and networks of such groups.

The adoption of the new culture, based on the advanced culture that typifies of strong nuclear family connected to a cohesive familial community, a personal choice that begins to connect the people from whose brows and blood sweat and tears the new civilization will emerge.

This is not a mere re-creation of the old culture. In America, this isn’t the mere re-creation of the America of the 18th or 19th centuries, an America that in some ways was less advanced in our understanding of human dignity and human rights than we are now and that was technologically a very different place than anything we could or would want to build today. Going back to the start of this essay, the new civilization often emerges because some people rebel against the barbarism of a culture that claims it is progress and desire to restore the moral and spiritual purity which they imagine was the foundation of their existing, and dying, civilization.

We use the four core ideals described in the previous four civilization out of which the new civilization will emerge as the name of this new civilization and its core ideology and philosophy, “the Upadarian” civilization and ideology. The new civilization will embrace a more advanced culture, rooted in the same elements of all advanced cultures, such as parenthood, children being raised by a mother and father, and localized interpersonal structures. The present devolution of culture, under the banner of progressivism, which is barbarism in a thin disguise, will lead to sociocultural, socioeconomic, and eventually political collapse in the coming decades. The attempt to halt the downfall through raw, dictatorial force, in the name of keeping the ruling class alive and at the top at all costs, will ultimately fail.

The question is, as with the Roman Empire, will the new civilization be allowed to develop peacefully, or will it emerge as through the fires of ruin and collapse? Will all or only part of America be more like Byzantium, or will it fall to barbaric hordes as in the West?

A survey of the details of how Byzantium emerged versus how the Western empire fell, may reveal that the number of people who had already more or less adopted the cultural norms of the new civilization was simply greater in the East than the West and that the new religion, Christianity, had stronger and deeper connections and institutions than in the West. We can certainly say of the Byzantine Civilization, that while it too embodied the Democratic equality ideal of Classical civilization, it also found roots in the Rule of law of the Hebrew or Middle Eastern civilization. Ge Basically, this means the Byzantine Civilization had a deep and broad sociocultural foundation that was weaker in the West.

What this means for us today is that if we intend to see our country emerge in freedom from the Caesarism of Westen Civilization, more and more people must CHOOSE the advanced cultural norms of the new civilization, just as they did in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, thanks to a global communications system, the internet, global trade, and the relative ease of international travel, adherents of the new civilization can connect for mutual support outside the borders of the United States of America and can even physically remove themselves to places that accept them if the need arises.

The culture of the new civilization is the antithesis of the woke cancel culture of modern “progressive” barbarism, built on a combination of atomization of individuals, hedonism, and caesaristic hierarchies of control. These parrots of the new barbarism imagine they are the next evolution and the only legitimacy one can find comes through the approval and support of their structures and sociocultural backwardness which they present as inevitability and progress.

The culture of the new civilization will more or less restore and rebuild marriage, family, and familial local interpersonal structures, but not as a replica of the culture of our civilization from its founding or even 200 or 300 years ago. In spirit, this will be very much more like the ancient ways, but in practice and methods, and even in structures and how we define nationality or how men and women interact, it will offer some modern, and necessary, innovations.

The notions women are less than men or any notion that any human is “lesser than” based on their ancestry or skin color, will not be revived. These notions represented a flaw in our ancient culture and may have contributed to the emergence of modern barbarism, which was, in part, a rebellion against these injustices.

Modern barbarism has just rejected the flaw of ancient culture, which was more advanced than our own because it at least promoted familial bonds over dependency on the state. Modern barbarism has rejected the most advanced elements of ancient culture; marriage, parenthood, family, extended family, local autonomy, and nationhood as a spiritually based sociocultural construct.

The culture of the new civilization will not resemble our atomized, hedonistic, and hierarchically controlled culture, but even if in spirit it has strong roots in our ancient foundations and the ancient culture, it will not be a mere replication of that either. The culture of the new civilization will go beyond the past but will reject the barbarism of the present. The culture of the new civilization, experienced within and through modern gaps for freedom, will itself promote and advance freedom in new ways, far beyond anything achieved in the past. Through the adoption of this culture and way of life, you will be able to personally, and within your own family and community, transcend and overcome the weak woke cancel culture barbarism being imposed by a corrupt ruling class.

Once Again We Must DEFEAT A War On Freedom

Once Again We Must DEFEAT A War On Freedom

Bill Collier June 16, 2021 0

We must make a fresh determination in our hearts, as did the men and women in World War Two, to fight to defend freedom! We do this by defending and advancing what makes America good and defeating the ongoing war on America’s goodness. This is a war on freedom by today’s version of the Axis Powers, the woke communists!

Freedom is rooted in goodness.

Take away goodness and freedom is reduced to libertine license and animalistic savagery. America’s freedom stands on our goodness. This is why we say that a war on America’s goodness as the line of attack against freedom by the new Axis of woke communists!

Let’s begin by asking, “What makes America good?”

It’s not what you think, and if you get this right you understand what is truly at stake is the very existing of our country. If you get this wrong you become distracted and fight meaningless battles that won’t change the outcome of this war on freedom.

Trump’s slogan remains “Make America Great Again”, MAGA. But the word “great” implies our military power, wealth, or economic clout and standing compared to the world. On the contrary, when we focus on how America is GOOD we get a different feeling in two ways.

First, we aren’t trying to make America good, it is good. Second, we aren’t necessarily trying to compare America to other countries or imply that only we can be good.

So many people support Trump because, whatever else is said about him, they deeply believe he loves America as America, not as some weird globalized hybrid devoid of our heritage. Whatever the truth behind the myth, the people following Trump are generally drawn to him because they inwardly feel that which is the essence of America is under siege.

The war on America’s goodess, both in denying it is a real thing and in attacking its historical moral orthodoxy, is all-too common among the new Axis of “woke communists”, right and left, who occupy places of power in both political parties and every major institution.

America is not good because we have wealth or military might, we are not good because we are great compared to other countries. America is also not good because we unhypoctritically adhere our stated ideals and values across the board. These things are not the source of our goodness.

America is good because the foundational ideals create an arc of history toward a free and pluralistic society. This is a vision predicated on God’s standards of righteousness and justice.

America fulfilled in its ideals is a society made up of spiritually sovereign human beings created in the image of God. It may thay these ideals, as some rightfully explain, are violated in practice. But they are real and they are good. The sociocultural and spiritual heritage, constitution (as in our spiritual constitution), and true manifest destiny of America as a free and pluralistic society of equals is what makes America good.

If America chooses to betray and turn its back on its innate goodness, out of some deconstructionist pique about how we haven’t yet fulfilled our ideals and our potential, then America will not only cease to be great, it will cease to be America!

America is great because America is good and if America ceases to be good, it ceases to be great. This was the sentiment of Alexis de Tocqueville and many of America’s foundational thinkers and builders. Even Thomas Jerfferson, despite hypocritically owning slaves, could not deny that all men, as in all HUMANS, are created equal. The sentiment and truth may have escaped him in practice, but its essential veracity cannot be denied and should never be denied.

Take the notion of manifest destiny. It was warped into an imperialistic lust for lands and colonies in the late 19th century. But, setting aside such a notion, which doesn’t fit our spiritual constitution, the idea of a manifest destiny for individuals or for this country is a sound idea.

America’s manifest destiny isn’t land or power, as was presented in the late 19th century, it is the fulfillment of our goodness as a free and pluralistic society of equals. And to fulfill that manifest destiny we must ever resort to and use America’s goodness as our guide!

This goodness is found in our virtues and ideals, our values and our convictions. It is a benchmark and guide for everything from personal conduct and free enterprise to policy and law.

There are those who are at war with America’s goodness because, at the core, they are waging war on freedom itself. Some call them woke communists, as in a new form of communism which employs private and public institutions and uses the woke cancel culture to suppress opposition. Their favorite tactic is deconstruction.

Deconstruction involves inflating every sin, using guilt by association in the extreme, ignoring anything good about America, and removing the ancient landmarks of right and wrong. Its insidious purpose is to pave the way for an essentially unjust system of top-down and centralized micromanagement of your life. The goal is totalitarianism of some kind.

America’s goodness is more than a foundation for our alleged greatness. Who cares how great we are if we are not good. A great society that isn’t good is only beneficial for the few at the expense of the many. In utilizing our virtues and moral foundations to guide behavioral expectations, public life, and law and in being led by the essentials of our goodness, we acheive goodness that benefits all, excluding none! Goodness is its own reward, it is not just something that gets us something else.

Goodness will generate some form of greatness, but this is the effect, not a goal. Goodness generates freedom and prosperity, it creates a just society that is also pluralistic, and it establishes prosperity as the norm. Don’t let a anyone con you into thinking our goodness isn’t real, isn’t worth defending, and it’s essential to our survival as a free country.

The battle to save and then advance America’s goodness to new heights of fulfillment is a spiritual and then sociocultural battle as well as, albeit secondarily, an economic and then a political battle. The aim is to both defeat the combined agents of a new form of woke communism and to impart and promote America’s goodness as something practiced by individuals and their free associations as well as in our public life, policy, and laws.

Our aim should not merely be to hold back a further advance of the Axis of woke communists and their allies, both right and left. Our aim must be to expose, confront, and defeat efforts by the woke communists to wage war on America’s goodness.

As we Freedomists see it, America’s true manifest destiny, from the perspective of our Judeo-Christian roots, is threefold:

1. to become a decentralized empire of freedom (through virtue, liberty, and independence) with maximum individual and local empowerment according to God’s standards of righteousness and justice

2. to become the cradle of a new civilization founded on shared values and convictions based on our Judeo-Christian roots and worldview and our core ideals

3. to fulfill our spiritual constitution based on a balanced application and Judeo-Christian interpretation of the four core ideals of the new civilization, namely Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law

In such a free and pluralistic society even those whose personal beliefs are neither Jewish nor Christian find a place of liberty and justice that accepts and loves them on the basis of our shared human dignity. But, we assert, without a Judeo-Christian worldview, America’s goodness is untenable and will disappear and so too will America.

Though individuals should be free to choose, it does not stand to reason that things like the accepted sociocultural norms, public life, policy, or law should be turned against those who adore and seek to emulate and propagate America’s goodness. Indeed, we also assert, America’s goodness founded on our Judeo-Christian worldview, should be favored, even though tolerance for those who beliefs and practices differ is also essential to our goodness. In other words, while law should favor the familial unit based on our Judeo-Christian moral foundations, it doesn’t have to compel all to follow such a view of family.

The fact the essence of America’s goodness, which has deep roots in marriage and the family according to thousands of years of historic Christian and Jewish orthodoxy, is being positively demonized by every major institution, public and private, is alarming. This is just one example of the woke communist war on America’s goodness. The net effect is not the advancement of the rights of those whose views on such matters are outside this historic orthodoxy, but, rather, it is the reducing of the rights of the majority to both practice their lifestyle in peace AND promote and propagate it as the BEST approach to marriage and family.

The war to defeat the woke communists and their war on America’s goodness is essentially spiritual and sociocultural, the economic and civic aspects of the the fight being important but not core. We must create and build sociocultural bonds and associations rooted in our spiritual heritage, which is the Judeo-Christian moral orthodoxy, without apology or compromise and on the basis of freewill participation.

We support any and all efforts by people to form freewill participatory associations on any basis, provided the essentials of liberty as defined by the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights are respected. But our focus and aim is on building such freewill participatory association on the basis of what we see as the foundation of America’s goodness: our historic Judeo-Christian moral and ethical orthodoxy which to us remains relevant both to our present needs and future advancement.

America’s goodness is under assault by unscrupulous purveyors of a woke communism that employs public and private institutions to micromanage your life. They, the woke communists, want to deconstruct our goodness on frivolous grounds, without of course explaining that their alternative is far, far, worse than anything our country has allegedly done in violating our standards of goodness.

No country, including ours, will perfectly fulfill its core goodness, if it has such a core, for everyone, all the time. But the woke communists desire to use the excuse of our past and present failures to live up to our goodness as an indictment of our goodness so that, instead of moving toward fulfilling our goodness for more and more people most all the time, we fulfill it less and less for almost all the people, almost all the time.

Defeating the Axis in World War Two took a massive mobilization. Defeating the Axis of woke communists today will require a similar mobilization of citizen activists who soar about the lies and build freedom together!

The relentless assault on America’s goodness by the Axis of woke communism is regressive and barbaric. Their alternative, which they refuse to candidly admit, is an atomized society of nameless, undifferentiated cogs in their machine who are told exactly how to think and act on pain of being canceled right out of existence. Such a hellscape version of tomorrowland for this country would spell the literal end of America.

Without forcing anyone to fit into our mold, but asserting our own shared rights of self-preservation and self-determination, our goal is to promote and impart America’s goodness and to work to see our true and deeper manifest destiny as a free and pluralistic society of equals become more and more fulfilled in our lives, associations, community, and our whole country.

In World War Two, our brave men and women didn’t fight the Axis powers only to watch America fall prey to the new Axis of a woke communist authoritarianism, they fought to defend and advance America’s goodness! We Freedomists will stand in that noble tradition.

Anyone who vilifies us or smears us over this or who tries to make our lives harder simply because they cannot abide us being happy as we define happiness is a totalitarian and a morally backwards, barbaric human being. Our right to be and pursue as well as proclaim and seek legal protection for a life lived by the guidance of America’s goodness should never be interfered with by any person or by any public or private entity.

Efforts to cancel people or punish people because they pursue America’s goodness are unacceptable and intolerable. Together as Freedomists who love America, we will expose the war on America’s goodness, we will defeat the war on freedom, we will peacefully overthrow the woke communists, and we will strive to find practical ways to live out our values and convictions in peace.

The Axis of woke communists and their allies in every major US institution may seem formidable and mighty, like Britain facing the Axis in June of 1940, but we will awaken the sleeping giant and then the tide on these barbarous hordes!

Please consider SUBSCRIBING to The Freedomist so we can create content and build a network of Freedomists who will fight to preserve and advance America’s goodness and defeat the woke communists and their war on freedom!

Photos by the author, Bill Collier

America Still Has Slaves

America Still Has Slaves

Bill Collier May 15, 2021 0

By Bill Collier- We have slavery in America today.

Everyone in prison for crimes they didn’t commit or that don’t warrant indentured servitude as a punishment is being enslaved unjustly. Everyone in jail or prison for doing real and direct harm to others is an indentured servant, because their servitude is justified.

Indentured servitude in prison, corporal punishment, restitution, suspension of status or privileges, suspension of rights, and even execution are all justifed punishments that absolve the land of the guilt of evildoers. To place a person in prison when it not justified is to enslave them, which is injustice.

The only way to absolve the land of the guilt of evildoers is to punish them in proportion to their crime, otherwise the land bears the guilt of all evildoers who knowingly go unpunished by the magistrate. We enforce law based, ideally, on our best understanding of God’s righteous and just standards for the benefit of all and we punish evildoers so that the land does not bear their guilt.

To punish an evildoer in a disproportionate way or to punish the innocent, or even to write laws that outlaw otherwise morally and ethically defensible acts that do no harm nor bring shame to the land, also brings guilt to the whole land. The only way to expiate this guilt so that the whole land does not suffer the consequences is to punish those who did these evil deeds.

To be clear, treating someone as an evildoer who has made a mistake and deserves correction, like a first time DUI where nobody was harmed, is itself unjust and the guilt of allowing that to happen is born on the land and, therefore, brings negative consequences to all. When you do this you have made them a slave.

People who deserve prison should be made indentured servants to the community they violated to expiate their offenses, and then, unless they have committed henious crimes deserving of death, given a path to restoration. But indenturing people to prison who do not deserve it makes them chattel slaves, and this is a crime against God’s standards righteousness and just standards for the nations!

Our country literally enslaves millions of people, a disproportionate number whom are black or minorities, because their imprisonment is without justification, as in their offenses do not merit enslavement as a punishment. There are many other punishments short of indentured servitude in prison that would suffice and, therefore, to go beyond these things is injustice, it is slavery!

Gina Carano Firing Is Aimed At Intimidating Dissenters

Gina Carano Firing Is Aimed At Intimidating Dissenters

Bill Collier February 13, 2021 0

Popular. Likeable. Capable. Like Pedro Pascal, Gina Carano somewhat wears her politics on her sleeve. Like Pedro she made a comparison of her opponents to the Nazis, which is generally bad form in most circles.

But Pedro is being feted and adored and being offered new gigs while Gina is being sacked and pilloried.

What’s the the real difference, except their respective politics? Gina’s politics are not favored by the billionaire robber baron class who use wokeness and race as a form of distraction from their many crimes against humanity. Gina is part of the dissent. Gina is a beloved actress who portrays a popular character. Taking her out of a hit series that finally racked up some wins for the whole Star Wars franchise, crushed under a cancel freedom agenda out of step with its fans, is pure messaging.

The old adage about tyranny is that one doesn’t have to shoot all the rebels, one only has to publicly execute a few to frighten the many.

While milquetoast faux “conservative” Ben Shapiro is also banging on about the same theme, and has offered Gina a new gig doing a movie with his outfit, the shrill-voiced, fast-talking lad also sided with Nikki Haley in her refutation of President Trump. She was basing her rather shrill depiction of a denouement of the Trump saga on outright fabrications and lies by the corpostate-party press.

Shapiro on one side of his fast-moving, ever-flapping mouth hails Gina as the stand-in for all the dissenters while, on the other hand, gleefully sucking up to the cancel America crowd when it comes to President Trump. While we support Shapiro in doing a movie with Gina Carano, it is disgusting how easily distracted the man is from the truth and the big picture.

Our concern and objection isn’t that Shapiro criticizes President Trump, it is his inability to recognize the real “play” here that is designed to distract everyone from the deeper and more dangerous problem. If Trump was a so-and-so and badnick, the people opposing him and wanting him destroyed are far worse and more insidious.

The whole edifice and infrastructure of freedom is burning as crazed arsonists light more fires and Shapiro wants to carp on the guy across the street who won’t mow his lawn, which the crazed arsonists want you to also be focused on.

Gina Carano is in fact a warning to all dissenters- if you don’t comply with the cancel America agenda, you will be canceled yourself. Period. This also applies to President Trump: what better “public cancelation” could there be?

We are not of the sort to make anyone, including Trump, our totem for freedom. Trump has many deep flaws that we equate as much to his own will and character as we do to the moral and spiritual decline of this country’s culture. Trump was no worse for your own welfare and freedom than any other President, perhaps better, and the shrill-voiced over-the-top reactions and denunciations of the entire establishment were never warranted by actual events.

President Trump did not, in the end, fully comprehend the forces arrayed against him nor the malevolent intent and implacable opposition to him as a symbol of dissent. Additionally, President Trump was all too prone to gift his opponents with many gaffs and erratic content that was easily inflated into hysterics to delegitimize him.

There are many cases where Trump’s words are twisted into hideous caricatures, but in many of those cases even a novice Public Relations professional would not have opened the doors to such exaggeration. As Trump has chosen to be his own solo voice in all things PR and has refused professional counsel, he is like a novice lawyer who is his own counsel in a major legal case of extreme import.

Turning this into an opportunity to illegitimize every opponent is beyond the pale. But Trump certainly brought this on himself and us and his over-the-top conduct was and remains worthy of censure. So, why not censure him and move on?

The point isn’t that President Trump colors outside the lines or does things we or others may consider also beyond the pale. The establishment doesn’t care if you are beyond the pale in terms of morality or the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. They only care if you encourage dissent from their cancel America agenda.

Many Presidents have gone further than President Trump in fomenting crises and lowering the discourse. They were doing so in a way that didn’t encourage actual meaningful dissent from the ruling class of the corporate-government industrial complex. (In our shorthand we call this the “corpostate.”)

Gina Carano could have chosen her form of dissent better, as could her co-star, Pedro Pascal have chosen his form of slavish mimicking of the corpostate’s cancel America agit prop.

But Gina was fired and Pascal was feted. See the difference? It’s OK to be a rube or even a nogoodnic if you are not fanning the flames of actual dissent.

Outright encourage your followers to burn, loot, and harass to make a political statement and that’s fine as long as your ire isn’t directed at those who truly hold power and exploit the nation’s institutions for their benefit at our expense. The red rags of race and wokeness, genderlessness, and all these other things keep everyone fighting and not paying attention to the ruling class as they dismantle freedom and cancel America.

The game is: keep the raging bull of rigteous indignation going after the red rags while you, the real threat, plunge spears into it until it dies. The raging bull is what’s left of your dignity and freedom as a sovereign spiritual being made in the image of God.

The true target of all this isn’t Gina, or even Trump. In Gina’s case we argue for innocence, whereas Trump hasn’t comported himself well at all, regardless of the reasons why or the betrayals and disloyalty he has had to endure which might drive anyone to lash out. One may understand that perhaps few would react better, but the totemization of Trump isn’t going to help us nor is the demonizing of Trump, even if you think it is deserved.

Instead of merely defending some stand-in for our own fight for dignity and respect as free people, we need to focus on the true enemy here: a ruling class who want to end freedom and cancel America.

Whether you are for or against Trump or a registered Democrat versus a registered Republican or Independent, you are the target here. Your slavish giving of your vote, your consumption of their products, and your under-compensated labor are demanded on pain of being canceled. You can riot and protest all you want against your fellow Americans and demand things of no consequence to the ruling class. But you cannot aim your words or actions at the true problem: a ruling class who think they own us.

We must aim our ire at the real foe and we mustn’t be distracted by red rags, like wokism or Trump or whatever. The real issue with the people wanting to cancel others is that they are not morally qualified to judge anyone.

We will stand up to the corpostate goons and for your dignity and freedom as a spiritually sovereign human being! We will not be distracted because we know, as with the firing of Gina Carano, that the real target of all this is our meaningful dissent from their cancel America agenda.

For this reason we urge you to support the Freedomist. Our effort to promote true local free press operations and the creation of freedom sanctuaries as well as to inform and inspire you with premium content deserve your support, we think.

Join us now! Click here for options.

Sustainability, NOT Global Warming

Sustainability, NOT Global Warming

W R Collier Jr October 5, 2020 0

Global Warming from a Freedomist Perspective

Bill Collier- In an article on the 8th of February, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph lambasted “global warming” and “climate change” science, joining a growing chorus of critics who accuse scientists of skewing data to prove their theory. Indeed, the fault line for the “global warming” debate is ideological and political, not “scientific.”

Critics of the global warming theorists point out that their solutions often lean heavily toward a top-down global “collectivist” approach. Some use the word “Socialist” to describe the global warming theorists.  Even efforts by non-collectivists to produce a free market approach to effect reductions in “carbon emissions” have been rejected- evidently, critics point out, global warming can only be dealt with by resorting to some form of global collectivism that is managed by a small group of ‘experts.’

This begs the question as to what is or isn’t collectivism and whether critics are “red baiting”, but the fact the argument has come down to the alleged ideology of the proponents of the global warming theory seems to reveal that the “science” has taken a back seat to ideology, on both sides. Only time will tell if accusations against the “science” behind the global warming theory are true and founded.

For years, efforts to clean our air and produce what is called “sustainability” have been based on “global warming.” We were told that “in order to prevent global warming, we must reduce pollutants and we must focus on sustainability.” Sustainability is a move towards locally renewable or recyclable raw materials and alternative energy all of which have a “light footprint” on the environment.

Partially as a result of this fear compelling people to seek such solutions, these sustainable solutions, including alternative energy, have come down in costs. More and more advances are coming along making wind, solar, and other forms of sustainable energy solutions affordable to average people. Alternative building techniques, which city codes are still catching up to, such as cobb and straw bale construction, can so reduce building costs as to make adding on wind and solar power generation to each home quite within reach of average people.

Sustainability and clean air are tied almost inextricably to “global warming” and if, whether it is fair or not to do so, the whole theory of global warming is rejected by most people, then it may also be that concerns of clean air and efforts to create more self-sustaining communities will suffer the same fate. The picture of large plumes of soot-smoke pouring into the sky from factories and coal fired power plants will no longer concern people who believe that this has not impact on “climate change.”

One city has become the poster child for a move away from fossil fuels and toward sustainability- Peking. Here is a city which has days of such heavy pollution that people are forbidden to go outside, and rare is the day when the “fog” lifts enough for you to actually clearly see the city skyline.  Perhaps all that smog will not do one thing to tick the global temperature up, but one can certainly argue that this smog is not good for the people, the plants, or the animals of Peking.

A precipitous rush away from fossil fuels towards sustainable energy is economically harmful, it is argued, and with some serious questions emerging about the science behind global warming, it may be tempting to drop the whole move toward sustainability altogether. The current EPA rules regarding coal-fired power plants are driven almost totally by global warming fears, for instance. While it may be argued that the EPA is moving too far, too fast, and all in the name of something fewer and fewer people believe is a real threat, the truth is that there are other good reasons to consider pushing forward, even if at a more reasonable and far less disruptive pace, with sustainable energy solutions.

Sustainable local energy is energy from locally renewable raw materials which local people, at the household level, are mostly in ownership control over. It means that the community, down to the individual homes and businesses, owns and controls its own energy resources and that the use of those resources has little to no negative impact on their air, water, or natural environment in general. Far from being only about global warming, it is about empowerment and it is about clean air, water, and an overall pristine natural environment being left to future generations.

Such solutions, however, are not proposed by many global warming theorists. Often their solutions focus on “one big system”, or “OBS”. OBS looks like this: a giant solar and/or wind farm owned and controlled by a corporation or government that distributes power through a nationally interconnected “smart grid” that charges consumers, you and I, high costs for energy. This is already happening and anyone who pays electricity bills knows all about this.

Sustainable local energy focuses on empowering individuals to become individually “energy independent”, at least in their household, by freeing them to use better and less expensive building techniques to shift the cost of building a home from the building to its energy and waste removal infrastructure.

Sustainable local energy is empowerment.  It puts more wealth, more resources, and more control in the hands of the individual and removes much of the “middle man” fat of governments and corporations which currently control our energy.

As the debate over global warming devolves into politics and ideology, if people genuinely reject this theory, then it is possible they will reject and be suspicious of anything associated with it, including efforts to pursue cleaner air and sustainability in general, which are rewarding and beneficial even if global warming were conclusively proven to be a total myth. The danger here is that we will continue, as individuals and communities, to rely on OBS, whether OBS is sustainable or not sustainable, and we, as individuals, are thus rendered “dependent” on OBS rather than ourselves and our neighbors.

Freedom Is Beyond Politics

Freedom Is Beyond Politics

Bill Collier September 25, 2020 0

By Bill Collier- The words “freedom” and politics seem interwined. If I speak to someone about freedom they may say, “I don’t want to talk about politics.” But is this really the proper response?

Freedom, when we break it down, includes “free” and “dom”, the domain of the free or the dominion of the free. A Freedomist is one who believes the free should basically be in dominion. Once you see this, it becomes easy to spot every bad idea by unfree people who promise results at the expense of your free dominion.

What is politics? In short, and broadly speaking, politics is rooted in the old Polis, it is the public life or public sector. And since just past the stone age human civilization has always tended toward some concept and practice of the public life, we might assume it is somewhat useful to human welfare and progress. This is debatable by some, but what it true is that some aspects of our lives with human civilization have for thousands of years involved some form of public life.

What is public life?

In terms of ownership, if we think of it from that perspective, it includes things that are not owned by any single private person. But in the past, under monarchy, a lot of what we consider public now was considered the monarch’s private property. In reality, the monarch’s private property tended to mostly serve a public good, their parks and roads were often used by the general population but maintained at royal expense.

In terms of power, if we consider public life we tend to see that control over resources and rules goes to some form of government system or structure, be be royal or democratic. The individual and their private associations or enterprises doesn’t have much say or power in comparison, at least not in those spaces considered public.

Now, let’s return to the domain or dominion of the free. What is in that space?

What is in that space is everything that is owned and ruled solely on the basis of some form of private ownership or shared ownership in total freewill association. Unlike the public space, which you cannot easily choose or control, the free domain is totally up to you whether or not to enter and how to rule it.

The idea that freedom is interwined with politics is, to me, absurd. It misses the point. Freedom is everything that isn’t public life and too much public life creates an imbalance and tends toward a loss of freedom and a corresponding loss of humanity. While it may be argued some public life is essential to human prosperity and progress, the truth is that private life was the primary life known to humanity until after the stone age.

Basically, the free domain is essential to our humanity and public life may have value but we seem to be able to survive without it or with very little of it. When the free domain shrinks too much we lose our humanity and dignity, we stop moving forward, and we even lose our wealth and prosperity.

The petty and surface arguments of those who imagine a world where public life is supreme and private life is severely limited are smoke and mirrors. They conceal the true issue and cover up the true flaws behind their nature: the nature of all these collectivist policies and programs is to reduce the free domain of private life to a shadow of what it needs to be.

Freedom isn’t political. It is depolitization of as much of our lives as possible. When you either vote for or refuse to vote against public life supremacists, you ensure that more and more of what you thought was and should be private and controlled by you will become public and controlled by others.

Looking at the photo below, we see protestors are often riled up by the press and financial backers to essentially demand less freedom and more utopian promises. These seductive promises are like a drug that initially gives you euphoria and then becomes a life-controlling and costly addiction.

To march toward freedom is less about politics, though it does include the need to engage the public powers, and is more about building your own robust private life and private free associations with people of like convictions and values. Freedom is a process of seizing your own agency as a spiritually sovereign human being created in the image of your Creator!

Since 2007 The Freedomist has been a strong supporter and influence agent for freedom in the United States and around the world. We have reach millions of people with our strong and clear message of freedom and with our unique approach to news gathering and reporting. Become a supporter and help me grow this project even more!

Are you subscribed to The Freedomist? I am working early mornings to produce useful and inspiring content but need your support at $5 to $10 per month. Subscribe today!

https://freedomist.com/membership-account/membership-levels/

Is The US Headed To Revolution Or Rupture? A Commentary By Bill Collier

W R Collier Jr February 28, 2018 0

Bill Collier- Crane Brinton in his 1938 book, THE ANATOMY OF REVOLUTION, attempted to lay out the signs and roadmarkers to revolution. While his work has been criticised, it was a useful starting point in discussing the portents of upheaval. It introduced to a broader audience the concept of discerning the signs of change, and in particular violent change or some form of radical alteration of power.

At the root of his and other similar works are the ideas that an existing power structure that has lost public trust and is itself on the verge of bankruptcy is the main catalyst for upheaval. Beyond that there must be a well led movement calling for change and, in the case of civil war, opposing sides along religious, ethnic, or ideological lines whose views are incompatible and who view one another as evil and beyond redemption.

In any society you are bound to have all these factors to some degree at some time. It is the intensity and duration of these factors, coupled with the emergence of strong proponents of and resistors to, upheaval that spells out the increasing likelihood of revolution or rupture within a society.

The laws of causality in human history are not amenable. Keep stirring the “right” ingredients of disenfranchising parts of the populace, a power structure that is both out of touch with all or a substantial portion of society and both morally and financially on the road to bankruptcy, and an intractable divison between the power holders and a substantial portion of the populace, and you get revolution or rupture. Over time, despite many fits and starts which end in failure, you see the emergence of effective champions of the groups of people who feel disenfranchised.

When the disenfranchised include the most productive members of society, the danger of upheaval increases.

If then we consider these factors, we see the ruling elite, the left, and the right in a stand-off. While it may seem the ruling elite are using the left to batter the right, the real left, represented by groups like antifa or rank and file Democrats, would like to make a nice breakfast of the elites who currently pander to them. The right, characterized mostly by strong adherents to the US Bill of Rights but demonized by both the elites and the left as nazis, lacked a strong leader until Trump. Whether he becomes more than a 1 or 2 term president to truly mature into a transcendent force with a well-organized following, remains to be seen. Beyond winning elections, neither he nor his cohorts have even made a good effort to create a well-organized movement.

The left have a movement and leaders, and a strong identity as Democrats that is deeper and more coherent in a cultural sense than the right. Democrats root for their team like football fans do for theirs. Conservatives often recoil at the notion of being Republicans and have a lack of cohesion: they don’t have a single “team” they root for, even when it has a bad coach or its players aren’t up to snuff. As an Eagles fan all my life, I totally get what rooting for a team means, and liberals root for their team far more than conservatives do.

You root for your team always, right or wrong, and keep hoping it gets better.

The left also fund their players better. They invest in their rank and file. While the right wins elections, the left burrow into national instutions and carry on their work, regardless of election outcomes. They know the chidlren belong to academia’s indoctrination, which they control and which Hollywood and the Press all reinforce with slavish devotion.

Wealthy conservatives tend to be parsimonious, egotistical, and, frankly, cheap. If or when they patronage any person or group, they pinch every penny and excert so much tight control that nothing of significance can happen. The left’s donors lavish many groups, let them do their thing, and hire real experts at high wages to keep the balls moving down the court every day.

Perhaps some conservative cause or movement will invent or break through to a crowdfunding model that negates the need for rich patrons, but, so far, that has not happened. Mostly because conservatives as individuals also tend to be parsimonious and want their activists and activism on the cheap. If or when that changes, then conservatives might have a chance.

As it stands, despite election victories, conservatism in the US is doomed. The real battle may be between the left and the elites, after we conservatives are shunted aside and after immigration reform reshapes the electoral map in states like Texas, which is the last major bastion of conservetive power in America. Conservatives have been cheap and stingy, not supporting their activists or activism, not realizing the need and power of paid mobs as it were, and all social proof of emerging victory belongs to the left.

As a conservative activist trying to earn a living, I cannot tell you how often a fellow conservative has attacked me for daring to try to find a way to crowdfund my effort: if I really cared for the cause, I’d work for free. As if we don’t need or want professional activists who wake up every day focused on the cause and not whether or not they csn pay their bills.

Don’t get me wrong, I get paid doing political work, but it’s not activism.

The question is this: are we facing a revolution or upheaval? We are facing the potential for a leftist revolution or an internal upheaval, either of which will lead to the final destruction of conservatism as a political force in these United States. Conservatives are stingy with resources to support a professional cadre of counter-revolutionaries whose activism and leaderhsip could match and defeat the left and the elites. When a populace which espouses an idea or belief system refuses to finance it, then we know that movement is headed for demise.

In truth, not even conservatives truly believe in their movement. So the potential upheaval we face in America will mean the triumph of either the elites or the left, who will likely fight it out after routing the conservative movement.

The Fantasy of Progressivism- A Sewer of Death

W R Collier Jr November 23, 2015 0

 

W. R. Collier Jr- Some 80 plus years ago Oswald Spengler, in his “Man and Technics”, described the final form of “materialism” a civilization takes before it enters a dead Caesarism which he felt had been expressed in the 18th and 19th centuries but which would give way to the fascism of the 1930’s which, though he was no fan of fascism, he felt was inevitable.

Spengler was prescient but wrong, at the same time. While he described a genuine philosophy of “materialism”, rooted in Hegel and Marx’s interpretation of Hegel, he failed to see that this ideology as a rebellion against morality had not taken root in the masses, but only among the elite. It is for our day that what he called materialism, and which I describe, I think more accurately, as libertine collectivism has become so general that in much of Western Civilization it has displaced faith and morality as surely as it has replaced science and reason, it’s constant claims to be “scientific” notwithstanding.

And so he writes of this utopian, but actually dystopian, fantasy that poisons the minds of a late and dying culture:

“No more war; no more distinctions between races, peoples, states, or religions; no criminals or adventurers; no conflicts arising out of superiorities and differences, no hate or vengeance anymore, but eternal comfort throughout the millennia. Even today, when we experience the last phases of this trivial optimism, these idiocies make one shudder, thinking of the appalling boredom — the taedium vitae of the Roman Imperial age — that spreads over the soul in the mere reading of such idylls, of which even a partial actualisation in real life could only lead to wholesale murder and suicide.”

What he leaves us with, however, is only resignation and despair. The Caesar must come, sewing together the ruined pieces sundered by the time of fantastical decadence, and he must reign some centuries before the final curtain falls on a civilization.

Spengler failed on three counts: the attempted Caesarism of the 1930’s and 40’s in the West was only a dry run for the real thing, his “materialism” had not run its course (and still has not), and he neglected to take into account that the history of civilizations is not linear- one civilization does not follow another, but one begins even as another is coming to an end, and many escape the vissicitudes of the dying civilization by embracing the ideals of the new civilization.

His description, however, of 19th century materialism in its propositions, promises, and its gross pride in its alleged scientific basis (witness the global warming cult, akin to the classic end-times cults of the mid to later 19th century which were just as “certain” of their theological and mathematical predictions), sounds like the pop-culture version of late Western “progressivism” which, as he also notes, actually seeks a stasis of luxury for all without want, a paradise on earth, achieved by the gods of men, the technocracy, all for pleasure, a utility of “whatever pleases the majority”, that sweeps aside the individual, all while claiming to practically adore the individual, that, like Caesar, “makes a desert and calls it peace.”

Because MOST people, even some reading this, have such a tiny porthole through which they view such things as history and philosophy, instead of the grand vistas of 30,000 plus years of the rise and fall of human societies, it is impossible to dig deeper than perhaps 100 years back and to look no further than the next “most important ever” election! When you see the march of history, in its cycles and patterns, it is a wonder everyone isn’t even now looking for signs of the coming civlization which, like all new civilizations, will be first and foremost moral, virtuous. They would discard the pleasure seekers and fantasy weavers, knowing that these are not prophets of a golden age but pallbearers of a dying culture.

The Optics Of The Obama-Castro Meetings

W R Collier Jr April 12, 2015 0

Bill Collier- The meeting with Cuba’s dictator will no doubt leave a bad taste in the mouth of President Obama’s critics and many Cubans, for whom the Castros are synonymous with Hitler or Stalin. The image of the President proudly smiling with glee and talking about how nations should only use pursuasion and nothing more in their dealings with one another is in stark contrast to the scowls and bitter bromides his domestic political opponents feel they endure. It was well beyond “persuasion”, his critics lament, for the IRS (allegedly) to turned loose on the President’s political opponents.

Of course the President’s supporters seem happy with the move, indeed the left in this country idolize the likes of Che Guevara, an Argentinian communist who played a key role in Cuba’s revolution. For them, opening trade, diplomacy, and travel to Cuba seems a bit like a dream come true. Michael Moore, a leftist documentary film maker, even came to Cuba to extol the virtues of its health care system.

The President has been seen with many foreign leaders who seem unsavory, including the Chinese communist leaders who notoriously order to aborting of all children beyond a couple’s first child unless that couple can pay steep penalties for “permission” to have other children. But so too have other Presidents been seen with such characters, and the President pointed out that having dialogue and diplomacy does not constitute agreement as such. For him, merely having diplomacy and dialogue is an improvement that might just mitigate future conflict. This is exactly what is being done with Iran, and normalization of relations is the end goal.

But Cuba is 90 miles off the coast of Florida, so the fact we have a communisty tyranny so close and that, with economic trade, it could afford (again) to export its revolution by force (as it once did) is deeply troubling. That the current American President proclaims policies that to his critics sound too much like the rhetoric coming from Cuba on “economic justice” only makes the optics of a Castro-Obama relationship seem all the more objectionable. A communist dictatorship across the ocean is one thing, but many Americans feel, instinictively, a particular revulsion for a communist dictatorship 90 miles from Florida!

Make no mistake, the Castro regime is a massive human right violator. Even during the Summit of the Americas in Panama City, Panama, anti-Castro protestors were brutally beaten by Cuban security who were on scene while the Panammian police stood by and did nothing.

For a President who is accused of being in bed with communism and who is accused of over-stepping his bounds of authority, the optics of being more friendly and congenial to Raul Castro than he has been toward his domestic opponents, the optics were particularly unfavorable: at least in the eyes of his domestic political critics. But President Obama believes an opening with Cuba might soften the regime and do for Cuba what Nixon felt US relations with Communist China would do: export the values of freedom. Some would argue that Nixon’s China policy has failed and that, instead of exporting freedom, America imported shades of socialism.

Despite his smiles and clear satisfaction in meeting with a man many see as an enemy of American values, despite the fact a majority of Americans appear to approve of this opening of relations with the communist dictatorship, one should not expect such efforts at open and cordial dialogue and a commitment to not go beyond persuasion with the President’s domestic political opponents.

A New Model For A Free Press

W R Collier Jr July 29, 2014 0

A People-Powered Community Press Model From Tioga County, PA

tioga freedomist header 7 19 14
Our First Local Newspaper- The Tioga Freedomist- Tioga County PA

FREEDOM ESSAY- William Raymond Collier JR- Nestled firmly in mountain valleys, Tioga County PA is the center of what is called “the Twin Tiers”, a highly mountainous and verdant region on the borders of New York’s Southern Tier and Pennsylvania’s Northern Tier. Sleepy, mostly rural, but with some towns, and not often the source of national news, the Twin Tiers and Tioga County PA in particular are home to what may very well be a new model for a truly free and independent press. In short, the region may not “make the news” often but it is actually remaking the way news will be done in the whole nation through a new model for news reporting and dissemination that is profitable.

The new model is being tried, tested, and refined through a local and now regional digital newspaper with a print edition in Tioga County as the starting point. Within 2 years of its launch, the Tioga Freedomist has achieved remarkable market penetration.

In its immediate coverage area of around 200,000 people, the heart of the Twin Tiers, this relatively new media entity reaches over 65,000 readers through print, social media, and its main website, Tiogafreedomist.com. What is more, of those 65,000 plus regional readers, 30,000 come from Tioga County PA alone, which has a total population of 46,000. This means that this new publication has a regional market penetration of around 32.5% and a local market penetration of around 65%.

How has this degree of market penetration been achieved in only two years?

The phrase “your people powered community press- free and independent” sums up the basic model. The newspaper relies on actual reader participation in the news gathering process, teaching readers basic rules and methods of journalism along the way; it uses a Watchdog, Advocate, and Resource model (or “WAR” for short) for determining news content; and it remains focused on being free and independent with a special focus on the original spirit and intent of the Bill of Rights (which we believe all press SHOULD focus on objectively and fairly).

People want news that has this balance (Watchdog, Advocacy, and Resource news).  They want to be empowered to participate in news gathering and reporting.  They want news that is fair and freedom focused (remembering that “free” is the first ethical imperative of the “free press”), and they want news that is written in the language of real people instead of the cold “emotionless” language of the old media establishment.

While the Tioga Freedomist has its own unique editorial leanings, it welcomes, and receives, all views across the political spectrum- this empowerment of readers to advocate for their views and convictions is a vital part of the “community press” mission.

The numbers prove the point. More and more local and regional readers are coming to the Tioga Freedomist not only to get news but to participate actively. Readers lead many stories and are often the best or only sources of accurate information. Readers use this platform to help one another- hundreds of thousands of dollars in funds or direct aide have been raised by readers using the Tioga Freedomist to rally supporters. It is not unusual, for instance, for a story on a fire to be followed with an appeal for donations to help the people involved. This appeal, usually posted by a reader, is then promoted through the newspaper’s resources to reach its large audience.

Of course, advertisers use this platform to reach potential customers and as the “secret” of this newspaper’s market penetration gets out more and more local businesses are shifting their advertising budgets to include this newspaper’s print, social media, and website advertising options. For funding, the Tioga Freedomist depends on earning advertising dollars, using nothing but free market principles.

The parent company, Kross Publishing, which also owns this national digital newspaper and many other properties, has invested in building the local and regional audience in order to earn advertising revenue. The ability to invest during the first two years while the newspaper was gaining advertising revenue as a result of growing in market share has made the current success possible.

This model of a people-powered community press that is free and independent is the future of local journalism. The need for accurate news that includes Watchdog, Advocacy, and Resource reporting and coverage has not gone away. What has changed are three key things- the delivery (a combination of social media, print, and websites), the style of writing (lose the emotionless “AP style” and don’t just push YOUR views- be inclusive), and the process (reader participation leads, not the agenda of editors or owners).

A community press must be “owned” by its readers. If readers truly own it, advertisers who want to reach those readers must follow, and thereby profit is not merely possible but inevitable.

Welcome to the new model for community based journalism- a people powered free press that is free and independent to its core.

NOTE:  William Raymond Collier JR is the Editor of the Tioga Freedomist.  Paul Gordon Collier, the co-editor of The Freedomist, is the Digital Media Director.

You may have missed

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

Michael Cessna May 8, 2026 0
The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna May 1, 2026 0
The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 24, 2026 0
The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 17, 2026 0
Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here