Statism is the Prevailing Orthodoxy

I used to believe in Progress. Once man had shed the chains of orthodoxy and dogma, I told myself, the following generations would furnish the world with a new enlightenment. Now I believe in change, not Progress. Future generations would not furnish the world with a new enlightenment, but with new orthodoxies and new dogmas.

The most prevalent and pernicious of these dogmas, as far I can tell, is Statism.

Statism is prevalent because it underlies most political ideologies left and right. It is pernicious because it allows absolute power to exist in the form of a central authority, which survives off the productivity of its hosts like a parasite, and maintains its reign through the threat of brute force.

The statist believes in the concentration of power and wealth to the State, to whom the individual is subordinate, and to whom the individual must relinquish his property and freedoms. This differs from other instances of servitude but only by degree.

As a consolation for his servitude and the plunder of his wealth, the individual is provided with some form or other of protection and safety, whether it be in matters of health, welfare, social security, policing, military, infrastructure, and so on. But because the individual is unable to opt out of this system without great difficulty, if at all, this safety is essentially a legal protection racket.

But such servitude rarely bothers the statist because Statism makes out of man an infantile, obedient and docile animal. Self-reliance is more harrowing than perpetual childhood. As if never weened from his parents, he lives at the teat, uninterested in living by his own choice and productivity, preferring to abide by what little permissions the State affords him.

Generation after generation of this dependency has led entire societies to rely on the State to solve their problems. Now, when the Statist fears climate change, economic ruin, existential threats, his first inclination is to petition the State for security, for safety, to make the decisions. When he sees the poor, the uneducated, the sick, the disabled, he petitions the State to care for them. He certainly does not take on the burden himself or organize with other individuals to make the changes he seeks, because making noise and doing nothing is easier than making a choice and doing something.

To the statist, our human freedoms are afforded to us by the State and not inherent in the life of the individual. Though the individual can control his own thought and speech, the statist looks to law to provide the limitations of what can or cannot be said. Though the individual has the self-reliance and the abilities to produce, to care for, and defend his family and property, the statist relinquishes these abilities and responsibilities to the State, and uses the productivity of the individual to bank-roll it.

Finally, statism leads to the worship of political power and party, because only through these means can the individual have any hand in the State’s formation, and ultimately, whatever freedoms he has left.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Brava on laying out the foundation of Progressivism.

On its face, why would a civilized people want to turn from the freedoms they already have and instead voluntarily put on the yoke of servitude?

And yet we are earnestly having this discussion today, in America of all places.

Love your writing style and I hope to read more of the same.

And now to the discussion part of the thread...

For the statist, the state is their god.

The biggest most important thing in their universe, is literally the state. They are like ants, serving their queen. They measure all human behavior by whether and how well it serves their god. They own nothing. Their god loans them property and titles, which they use to serve their state. Sacrificing their children, their health, their integrity to feed their dying god.


The prototypical example of the way they are blind to anything else is the way they treat the "patriotic anthem" known as "I vow to thee, my country." by Sir. C.S. Rice.

Look carefully at the words:

And there's another country, I've heard of long ago,
Most dear to them that love her, most great to them that know;
We may not count her armies, we may not see her King;
Her fortress is a faithful heart, her pride is suffering;
And soul by soul and silently her shining bounds increase,
And her ways are ways of gentleness, and all her paths are peace.

Basically, Rice is saying that a Christian is first and foremost a citizen of the kingdom of God. We may not see our king at war with our country every single day--at least in the good times. But we always need to be ready for when our state makes war on heaven, to use the imagery of the Revelation to John.

Every state turns against people of faith eventually. Any faith. Muslim, Buddhist, Jain. whatever

Because a person of faith has her morality determined by a source above and beyond the state. It isn't changed by courts or legislatures or executive orders. Right and wrong are settled issues. And every state becomes enraged...

Every state learns that a worldling can be controlled by the threat of pain and the enticement of pleasure. But a person of faith is other-directed. He or she will move away from pleasure; he or she will move toward pain for the service of the greater good.

And so, every state comes to blows, eventually, with it's people who are spirit-led rather than slaves to the flesh. Because they cannot be controlled.

And a demon-god cannot tolerate the clear example of morality exhibited by moral heroes. So the state must, in the words of the Bible, "make war on the saints."

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

The most prevalent and pernicious of these dogmas, as far I can tell, is Statism.

That's our society. Add extreme ignorance, apathy, and a frightening inability to think critically, and we have a sad state of affairs.

Excellent thread. I like Steppenwolf. Both the band and the novel.

a reply to: Graysen

A nice summation of the real reason behind the left's War on Christianity that we are seeing.

The State needs to be the God for it to work.

This started with Hegel, the Father of Fascism.

The State is the Divine Idea as it exists on earth … We must therefore worship the State as the manifestation of the Divine on earth … The State is the march of God through the world … The State must be comprehended as an organism … To the complete State belongs, essentially, consciousness and thought. The State knows what it wills … The State … exists for its own sake … The State is the actually existing, realized moral life.
Assorted Hegel quotes from his writings.

It is the basis of the ideology that many -isms came from... Marxism, Fascism, Communism, Socialism, Progressivism, etc, etc.

It is also the basic flaw in the whole premise of Marxism.

That there could be a benevolent body of technocrats that ruled over all until society "woke" to the point where the government was no longer needed in the society.

Then it would wither on the vine and die, leaving the society itself in control over its own destiny.

It leaves out basic human nature... a fatal flaw.

I personally think that the Founding fathers crafted an ideological instrument that was much better for human freedom to remain intact without the onerous burden of government.

If only we had stayed on the path...

Human nature again.

Our country is crippled, but still alive.

Let's hope we can once again turn back the tide.

The part they never tell you about big, bad corporations is if you replace big, bad corporations with big central government then all the bad people within those corporations that made them bad in the first place will all flock to where the power is -- government. Obviously, we don't want either too big or to far outsize the other. A delicate balance. In this instance, a delicate balance of psychopaths.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

It's hard for me to tell the difference between those who allow unrestricted power and funds with the lack of oversight to "national security", and the progressives who want a nanny state.

Both are expensive and put the employers below the employees.

originally posted by: sooth
The part they never tell you about big, bad corporations is if you replace big, bad corporations with big central government then all the bad people within those corporations that made them bad in the first place will all flock to where the power is -- government. Obviously, we don't want either too big or to far outsize the other. A delicate balance. In this instance, a delicate balance of psychopaths.

Corporations are subject to the market. We don’t it have to buy what they are selling.

Governments are monopolies and we have to buy what they are selling by threat of force.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

It's hard for me to tell the difference between those who allow unrestricted power and funds with the lack of oversight to "national security", and the progressives who want a nanny state.

Both are expensive and put the employers below the employees.

By "National Security", do you mean a border wall?

Because that doesn't mean taking over control of the citizen's food and water supplies, as a nanny state would.

Honest question.

a reply to: Lumenari

The border wall is a few billion. A drop in the bucket when viewed in context.

As I've said before, I don't care if it gets done, I'm sure it will help border patrol. But I think E-verify and penalties to employers who knowingly employs illegals would be more effective.

But that's my opinion. Illegal immigration will be a problem so long as those who enable it are unaccountable.

The national security I spoke of is more or less the syphon of our money and rights.

a reply to: Graysen

There seems to be a religious devotion to the State it in many cases. Many of us are born into it, and have the birth certificate to prove it. We go through it’s education system. So I can see, from some perspective, that one can never be weened from it’s pervasiveness. It really is totalitarian in that sense, from the cradle to the grave.

A lot of us are not devoted and just put up with it, maybe as a transition to something better. But given the growing dependency, I suspect that statism will not whither away to where it belongs, in a museum, as easily as some socialists have imagined. I imagine despotism and tyranny will occur long before a slow demise.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Do you think it's possible the two arms from the same body can lead us to different brands of statism? Or is one arm far more likely in your opinion?

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Yes, and a lot of religionists have modeled their idol of the Deity after the state(!).

The state is a demon-god, and is a dying god. It needs to be guarded by soldiers and police and mercenaries. It must be cared for like a dying patient, whose physicians are economists and bureaucrats. Like a vampire it feeds on the life-energy of its victims, the money of the taxed workers. It's rulings and decrees must be defended, it must be revenged when its flag is pissed on. It has to run "re-education" camps 24-7

My God doesn't need me to defend his good name. He isn't harmed by the blasphemies of the crude and unfeeling. I don't need me to avenge the death of his martyrs. One of the oldest sayings of his people is this: "the blood of the saints is the seed of the church." Right now Christianity is spreading across China, as that tyranny tries to repress it and ends up spreading it inadvertently. It's driving their leaders crazy. Worse than fulan gong.


Just look at what Satan says to Christ, when showing Jesus all the kingdoms of this world: "All of these have fallen to me, and I can give them to whomever I choose. Fall down and worship me, and I will give them to you." Notice that Jesus doesn't argue with him, or call him a liar. Jesus agrees that Satan owns all the governments of this present darkness. You know what Jesus usually calls satan? "The Lord of this World."

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Sorry to twist off on a religious kick; I'm not trying to derail your thread. Maybe just showing how, coming from a different and probably alien perspective, someone like me can reach a lot of the same conclusions as you.

I was an anarchist when I was young, and still believe it is the best critique of political power. I would say that the problem with the state as a concept is that it always enforces its own values over against the values of its victims/subjects.

I think the state is most like the mafia. "Nice place ya got here... It would be a shame if ... something were to happen to it. You need to pay for insurance. From me...."

While the state offers security, in fact the biggest threat to most of its peasants is the state itself.

Statism is just heavy-handed bureaucracy. The common man willingly participates in it while mumbling under his breath how much he hates it. But he participates nonetheless for fear of what he might miss out on if he fails to pay tribute to the deity de-jour.

The machine uses the lowest of the low to churn out more and more red tape. Somehow the victims of this mechanism of slavery manage to believe they have a hand at the controls, even while the machine slowly rolls over them and leaves them behind.

The best battle to win is the one the losers didn't even know they were fighting.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

Do you think it's possible the two arms from the same body can lead us to different brands of statism? Or is one arm far more likely in your opinion?

Statism runs the entire gamut of political ideologies to varying degrees, I believe.

a reply to: Graysen

No there is something to be said about your interpretation, and I appreciate that outlook. All the evidence of state-enforced religious persecution makes it all the more relevant.

I lack any theological training so I fear I cannot comment too much on scripture, but I like that Christian take on statism.

But yes it is essentially gangsterism, but a palatable kind that we willingly, maybe begrudgingly, take part in.

I’ve spent too much on taxes and am dependant on the state. If I am able to break off, only then will I call myself an anarchist. I vehemently oppose revolution and believe in the peaceful transfer of power.

a reply to: TheSteppenwolf

You will find this relevant.

Soul scalping, the ritual satanists seemingly cannot hide.
henrymakow.com...
reddit.com...>soul_scalping

Look out for those with shinners on their left eye.

The pope, bush, prince phillip, celebrity's.

Or did they all get in punch ups ????????