Colonialism: Neither Settler nor Native.

Colonialism & The Post-Covid Era

By Joshua Jongema


Part 1 of this article summarizes the history of colonial domination presented in the 2020 book Neither Settler nor Native: The Making and Unmaking of Permanent Minorities, written by Mahmood Mamdani. Mamdani demonstrates how Renaissance-era european kings improved methods of control copied from Roman emperors, and how these control methods were then copied again by colonized settlers in America, resulting in pogroms as well as policies of assimilation and segregation foisted on indigenous populations through force and coercion. These modern methods of control have been utilized in many countries around the world, and Mamdani goes over the history of similar struggles in Germany, Sudan, Israel, and South Africa.

Part 2 shows that common citizens today have experienced an unjust loss of liberty similar to that suffered by native americans through US history. Humanity has entered a new era of systemic control, and liberty for individuals seems farther away than ever before. The final solution to the cycles of violence caused by the modern nation-state’s politicization of identity groups may lie in the rejection of such identities, and in the practice of self-control and personal empowerment.


The Modern Nation-State & Colonialism

One aspect of the growth of state power in early modern Europe was the changing relationship between church and government and…the eventual outcome of these agreements was to produce national churches whose leaders were loyal to the monarchy.” (Breuilly, Nationalism and the State)

Mamdani proposes that the birth of the modern nation-state occurred in 1492, after the Granada War, when the Alhambra Decree was given by Spanish-catholic monarchs. In it, moors and jews were ordered to convert to Christianity. If they refused, they’d face expulsion or death. A unified national identity of Christian Spaniards was enforced through ethnic cleansing of all non-Christians. Only one year later, the first Spanish-American colonies were established, resulting in further ethnic cleansing campaigns in the Americas. By the time the Westphalian Treaty of 1648 ended the 30 Years War, supposedly resulting in religious tolerance at home and a guarantee of sovereignty abroad, over 150 years of violent nationalism had already taken place.

Mamdani argues that political modernity culminates in a method of conquest, wherein tolerance of minorities continued only if they didn’t pose a threat to the national majority. This relationship between majorities and minorities was protected in Europe by nation-states, while in overseas colonies the only people said to be deserving of tolerance were those deemed civilized. Uncivilized peoples in the Americas were subjugated through the use of force (direct control), and coercion (indirect control).

“Humanism was a fig leaf for the powerful.”  (Mamdani)

Far from an exceptional project, of respect for pluralism, the US used nation-state repression of minorities as happened in Europe. Native tribes, in particular, were dominated by European settlers through ethnic cleansing campaigns. Through genocide and the use of the reservation system, the American nation-state sought as Europe did, to homogenize the culture within its dominated territories. Native tribes who assimilated were treated like children who needed to be civilized, while those who resisted were exterminated like dangerous animals. Eventually, tribal power came to be derived from their level of submission to the authority of their colonizers.

Early US-Native Affairs

In 1987 a US Senate resolution recognized that the framers of the US Constitution modeled it, and the original 13 colonies, on the Iroquois Confederacy’s Constitution. Some sections of the Great Law of Peace would be a relief to see put into practice in America today:

  • “He shall refuse to confirm a decision if it is not unanimously agreed upon by both sides.”
  • “No individual or foreign nation interested in a case, or question, or proposition, shall have any voice in the Council of the League except to answer a question.”
  • “If at any time it shall be apparent that a Chief of the league has not in mind the welfare of the people or disobeys the rules of the Great Law” after three warnings “the War Chiefs shall take away the title of the erring chief.”
  • “If a chief of the league should seek to establish any authority independent of the jurisdiction of the League of the Great Peace…he shall be dismissed.”
  • “Self-interest shall be cast away…for the welfare of the whole people” in “not only the present, but also the coming generations.”
  • “Live according to the Constitution…and exercise justice in all affairs.”
  • “Should he ever do anything contrary to the rules…everyone shall be deaf to his voice and his advice.”

While the above precepts are great ideals, any American today would be hard pressed to find the practice of these commonsense requirements. Some concepts in the Great Law of Peace represent a mindless worship of authority:

  • “The Chiefs of the League of Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for all time. The thickness of their skin…shall be proof against anger, offensive action, and criticism. Their hearts shall be full of peace and good will, and their minds filled with the yearning for the welfare of the people of the League. With endless patience they shall carry out their duty. Their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for their people. Neither anger nor fury shall find lodging in their minds and all their words and actions shall be marked by calm deliberation.”
  • “All Chiefs of the League of Five Nations must be honest in all things.”
  • “If any man or any nation outside of the Five Nations shall obey the laws of the Great Peace …If their minds are clean, and if they are obedient and promise to obey the wishes of the Council of the League, they shall be welcome.”

All of these points show a blind hope in the aptitudes of representatives. This all begs the question of why anyone would seek to have representatives at all, given that in practice such leaders regard their constituents as cattle to be herded, rather than as equal humans.

Mamdani shows that early American settlers created a system which benefited themselves, to the detriment of all non-Christian peoples. They were aided by the guidance of the 1493 Papal Bull, the Doctrine of Discovery, which granted leeway for lands of non-Christians to be “discovered.”  In Federalist 24 Alexander Hamilton wrote that the indigenous were “savage tribes,” natural enemies, allies of the British and Spaniards, and a reason for a standing army. In Federalist 25 he reiterates his view of natives as foreign enemies. President Andrew Jackson regularly referred to the indigenous as children, requiring the paternalism of the state to civilize them. Similar to ideas in Karl Marx’s On the Jewish Question, American leaders have long struggled with implementing a solution to indigenous independence from their dominance.

The Indian Question

Mahmood reveals the first use of the term “Indian Country” occurred in 1763 in King George III’s Royal Proclamation, which stated that such a place was land that US natives could use but not have domain over, the rights to which the King could revoke at any time. If natives wanted to sell their land, they had to sell it to the crown. In the 1820s and 30s US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall officialized the same policy for indigenous americans under US law, concluding that tribes here were to be known as domestic dependent nations.

Mamdani cites three cases decided by Marshall which highlight the lowly status afforded to indigenous tribes in early America- the 1823 case Johnson v. M’Intosh, the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, and 1832 Worcester v. Georgia. Marshall reflected on the relationship between conqueror and conquered, the rights the conquered would have, and the differences between natives and chattel slaves. He decided they should be integrated into the nation as full citizens, but also that this can never happen for a number of reasons. He ultimately concluded the indigenous tribes were in a state of pupilage- a ward to its guardian- and had territorial possession which when ceases, passes to the federal government.

In the Cherokee Nation case, Marshall developed a legal theory in which enslaved Africans could be put under state jurisdiction, while tribal wards were subject to the federal will.The Cherokee were unable to vote, send their children to school, or serve as witnesses in court. Per the “Cherokee Codes” the state would be able to take control of the immensely valuable native lands within its borders and make them available to Georgia’s white Christian farmers, plantation owners, and gold prospectors.

In the Worcester v Georgia case Marshall made justifications to establish the legal rights of the federal governments to rule over tribal sovereignty. He decided that it was not discovery or superior civilization that granted the right of dominion, but warfare and conquest. He rationalized tribal segregation with claims they were all cruel, loved war, and needed to be kept at a distance from so-called civilized settlements- settlements of people who had already internalized their own subjugation through adherence to the religion, laws, and other traditions of the nation-state.

In the M’Intosh case, Marshall described what justice would look like for the conquered indigenous tribes. They would become “incorporated with the victorious nation and become subjects or citizens of the government with which they are connected…mingle with each other; the distinction between them is gradually lost, and they make one people.” He claimed that leaving them in possession of their lands was a bad idea due to their “resistance” to infringement of their “independence.”

Are we the people some kind of monster?” (Metallica)

Over the decades that followed, laws such as the Intercourse Act of 1834, and the Major Crimes Act of 1885, solidified the subjugation of indigenous tribes to the US federal government’s whim. In the trial of Crow Dog for murder, indigenous people were described as “a savage tribe…who, through the discipline of labor, and by education, it was hoped might become a self-supporting and self-governing society,” despite them having such abilities already for thousands of years. Initially, a system of assimilation was practiced, and later a system of separation took over, both of which were masks for a system of extermination.

Mamdani surprisingly reveals that some tribes in early America were given representatives in Congress and even offered the opportunity to form independent states within the federation, such as in the case of the 1778 treaty with the Delaware Nation. After the Civil War, Florida granted the Seminole two representatives in the state legislature. Jackson’s Indian Removal Act of 1830 officialized a policy of removal, undermining the one-state possibility of assimilation. The survivors of removal and extermination lived on reservations which were mere scraps of their former lands.

Reservation life was designed to hold a subjugated population captive. The English had used the practice on the “wild Irish” in the 16th and 17th centuries, where any found off their reservations would be put to death. Celtic tribes were required to submit to the crown, stop their warfare, submit to restrictions on trade, and convert to and actively support the Episcopal church. Bards were forbidden to sing and subdued through hard labor and starvation. Children went to English schools so long as their parents could afford it. This technique was one of gradual assimilation through indirect rule, and such segregation and was foisted upon native Americans as with the Irish.

In 1852, Edward Beale became the superintendent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and acted on orders to establish a “system of colonization” for the purpose of “making useful, our present worthless, and troublesome Indian population.” Mamdani demonstrates that the BIA’s goal was not actually education or separation, but extermination. He quotes Cpt. Keyes of US Army in 1855, who understood that his chief purpose “must be to deprive the Red Man of his power to do mischief…we ought…to act on the determined certainty that the aborigines of this Country will soon become extinct.”

To hit home the point that genocide was practiced consistently through American history, Mamdani tells more of the history of the practice. In 1854 Texas established reservations, but immediately saw the formation of “armed parties” which “invaded…and began a systematic slaughter of the tribesmen.” Texans went about “defeating or starving the tribes into compliance.” The Sioux in MN were crushed in an 1862 rebellion against ill treatment where they claimed the federal government “was violating treaty guarantees when it failed to provide annuities and rations, especially food.” Major General Pope acted “without mercy” ordering “the destruction of Indian farms and food supplies as well as the killing of Indian warriors.” Gen. Pope wrote to his counterpart Sibley saying of the matter, “It is my purpose utterly to exterminate the Sioux…They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromises can be made.” Later in New Mexico a massacre was dubbed The Long Walk. Then there was the Sand Creek Massacre performed by the US Army in Colorado. Mamdani also reviews evidence that smallpox blankets were used purposefully as a form of bio-warfare against the indigenous to reduce their population.

The reservation as it is known today was begun by Lincoln, Mahmood continues. His Homestead and Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 “opened the west to accelerated white settlement on lands taken from Indians through treaties.” Lincoln celebrated the appropriation of 1.4 million acres of tribal land for the US. The following year another 1.5 million acres were obtained.

After the Civil War, President Grant developed another policy of peaceful assimilation for the indigenous, promising to “civilize” them leading to their citizenship. BIA agents were fired and replaced by ones chosen by Quakers and later by members of other Christian denominations. Such agents were given the task to “induce his Indians to labor in civilized pursuits.” The reservation system’s 2-state solution of separation was sold to the public as an essential step towards a one-state solution of assimilation.

In 1869 the Transcontinental Railway was completed, opening a pathway into the west with its vast rich lands. Settlers took issue with herds of buffalo feeding the remaining tribes, so US Army generals destroyed the infrastructure of native economy, including the buffalo. Policies designed to destroy native culture were instituted, including a ban on the practice of native religions and the prohibition of long hair on men. In 1879 Indian Police were formed “under command of BIA agents…functioned as ‘quasi-military force’ that were ‘a substitute for army control of the reservations,” reveals Mamdani.

In 1883 Courts of Indian Offenses were created to enforce laws on reservations. Mamdani quotes the orders given at the time: “Any Indian who shall engage in the sun dance, scalp dance, or war dance, or any other similar feast, so-called, shall be deemed guilty of an offense,” the BIA announced, saying “medicine men, or any device to keep them from adopting civilized habits…prevent the attendance of children at school…or use [of] any arts of a conjurer to prevent Indians from abandoning their barbarous rites and customs, shall be guilty…if an Indian refuses or neglects to adopt habits of industry or to engage in civilized pursuits…spends his time in idleness and loafing,” they “shall be deemed a vagrant and guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The reservation system enabled a transition from direct rule by force, to an indirect rule by coercion, which Mamdani argues tribes took upon themselves and internalized as an identity. Their courts acted as extensions of the BIA agents, at whose pleasure the judges were appointed and served. Occasionally judges were policemen, but often influential chiefs described as “Christian,” “wearing white man’s clothing,” or “monogamous.” By placing the tribe’s legal institutions in the hands of assimilated natives, a customary law was implemented, and they began to enforce settler-made rules as their own.

In the years since reservations were implemented, they have become a permanent homeland for second-class citizens. Far from independent, tribal members were dominated in “every aspect” by Indian Service. Mamdani quotes Frederick E. Hoxie on reservation life at the time: “schoolmasters continued to separate children from their parents. Religious organizations continued to operate with a level of federal support that clearly violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Authorities continued to break up unauthorized religious activities and destroy sacred objects. Officials could even ‘withhold rations’ from tribal members who opposed them.” Pass systems were forced on tribes by the BIA and Canadian authorities until 1924, when natives gained sufficient citizenship recognition to enable free movement. They would have to secure a pass from agents who were encouraged to limit the number distributed, and while traveling they were subject to forms of harassment that ranged from questioning to searches, whippings, and beatings, even where no laws were broken.

In the 1930s John Collier took office as Commissioner of Indian affairs, continues Mamdani. Rather than Christian ministers and police, he brought in anthropologists tasked with shaping new policies and programs. Collier’s policy culminated in the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) of 1934. Under it, tribes were encouraged to organize their own governments, establish business corporations with millions in federal loans, and every important decision was subject to approval by the secretary of the interior. The IRA enacted administrative paternalism by deputizing natives to the cause of BIA control. Tribal Councils were organized under Indian Office sponsorship and were almost completely controlled by the reservation superintendent. The IRA “closely resemble[d] the British policy of ‘indirect rule’ in which locals were drafted to implement colonial governance on the basis of supposedly customary law and supposedly traditional forms of administration and continued the policy of segregating tribal populations.”

Mahmood explains that Collier left the BIA in 1945 and what came next was a legislative- and executive-branch effort to eliminate the reservation once and for all. Dillon S. Myer was appointed BIA Commissioner in 1950 by Truman. He had experience in the wartime internment and resettlement of Japanese-Americans and led the new policy of terminating reservations. Adopted into law by Congress in 1953, termination was intended to make natives “subjects to the same laws and entitled to the same privileges and responsibilities as…other citizens” Between 1954 and 1960 reservations of 14 recognized tribes were terminated, often without their consent. The Menominee of Wisconsin and Klamath of Oregon fought the decision.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not mention native Americans, Mahmood continues, which was why the 1968 Indian Civil Rights Act (IRCA) was passed. The IRCA does not grant full rights that all other Americans have under the US Constitution, but once again enacted the policy of segregation and indirect rule through reservations. Tribal decisions have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior before they can become laws. The Indian Self Determination Act of 1975 strengthened tribal bureaucracy, but this only enforced rules created by Congress without democratic representation. It perfected the regime of indirect rule, ensuring more completely that tribes enforce the customary law of settlers on their members.

Mamdani argues that being a ward of the state is not just a legal matter but became a state of mind for native Americans. From the standpoint of natives packed into fixed or shrinking reservations, new membership meant less land for each tribal member. From the standpoint of the nation-state, new membership meant an increase in the number of individuals who might stake claim to land the state wanted to turn over to white Christians, and it also meant more natives seeking refuge from tax liability. This is why blood quantum rules were established for membership, to keep tribal numbers low.

Mamdani argues that the BIA must be abolished, and the structures of tribal governance it designed and authorized should be scrapped in favor of local democracy and self-determination. Tribal societies, though they have been formed by their resistance to colonial direct rule, have also been formed by their embrace of indirect rule. Mamdani is sure to say he does not blame the victim but says the tribal members had to go to terrible lengths to survive. Colonialism, in the form of wardship and customary law, is an ongoing constraint for indigenous individuals today.

The Nation-State vs Everyone Else

In a democracy, the majority is formed through the political process. In a nation-state, democracy can be real only for the national majority.” (Mamdani)

What happened to native americans has happened all over the world in a struggle between “sovereign” states, representing foreign and special interest groups, and individuals stripped of their sovereignty. Mamdani claims that the US reservation system may have been the model by which the Nazi concentration camps were designed, echoing other authors such as John Toland. He points out that the result of World War II focused on criminal justice rather than political reform, and because of that the central power of the state was confirmed while individuals were blamed for the violence. Collective guilt was applied to German citizens, but the violence was actually caused most directly by the state itself. Some key individuals, such as leaders of the I. G. Farben company or Nazi scientists brought to the US through Operation Paperclip, got little or no punishment.

Mamdani explains that postwar Jewish settlers in Palestine (some of whom transferred there from Germany in a secret agreement with the Nazi government) were determined never to be a minority again. To become a majority, they carried out ethnic-cleansing campaigns. Known in Arabic as the Naqba (Catastrophe), in 1948 Jewish settlers murdered, stole land from, and forced the exile of about half the Arab population from the territory that would become Israel. This practice has continued to this day. The Palestinians who stayed behind, or returned from exile, were forced into a permanent minority position, and held within an open-air prison. A law declaring “Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People,” passed in 2018, became the final solution to the Palestinians’ existence, forcing them into a choice between assimilation or exile. The 2-state solution is now practically dead.

In Sudan the British defined two races, continues Mamdani. Arabs in the north were called settlers. Africans in the south were called natives. This was based on a concocted history wherein Arabs are civilized, Africans are uncivilized, and civilization in Africa comes from abroad. Arabs were privileged by the state, and Africans were disadvantaged, fostering resentment. Arabs saw themselves as superior, and from the northern half of the country governed the southern Africans as a permanent minority. After independence this built-up tension led to civil war and genocide.

Mahmood Mamdani applauded the efforts of the 1995 Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa as a way of stopping race wars through meaningful political change, rather than enabling future grievance through repetitive, one-sided criminal prosecutions of individuals. He concludes that it stands as a model for the way in which people can “decolonize the political community.” He laments that race-based violence was traded for xenophobia, as newly minted South Africans traded their racial identities for that of the state but proposes that it represents great progress for minority groups.

Aggression is simply another name for government.” -Benjamin Tucker

Yemen today is a fine example of tribal, nomadic people dominated by warfare from a puppet government controlled by foreign powers- namely those in Saudi Arabia, the UK and USA. Recently, the internationally-recognized puppet government in Yemen called for a coalition of ground troops to war against the Houthi resistance and Yemeni tribalism itself. The US has had a long history of targeted assassinations, human rights and war crimes violations in Yemen, going back to 2001.

In January of 2015, the Houthi marched on Yemen’s capital Sanaa, which caused the Saudi-puppet President Hadi to flee to Aden and then to Saudi Arabia. The Houthi opposed a constitution which would have separated Yemen into six federal regions. They also accused Hadi’s government of willfully harboring Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). Shortly afterwards, foreign powers became more involved with the US and Saudi Arabia backing Hadi against the Houthi, allegedly due to the Houthi stopping an advance against AQAP. Through relentless artillery barrages entire Yemeni towns have been wiped off the map, as well as hospitals, schools, and multiple times school busses filled with women and children. Starvation has become the norm for millions.

In 2015, Yemeni attorney Huda Al-Sarari began receiving complaints by families whose houses had been raided in the middle of the night, by armed men who kidnapped their husbands and sons. These boys and men, described as teachers, students, and academic dissidents, were taken to secret prisons, and tortured. Over 10,000 of them were disappeared by what later was revealed to be forces directly connected to Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the US. Some of them have never been seen again. It was evidenced that US forces directed those who performed the torture. Al-Sarari brought all of this to light, but then herself was targeted with defamation, harassment, and intimidation for years. Her son was murdered in 2019, in what she believes was retaliation for her work, and she now lives in exile in an undisclosed country.

Recently, quality investigative journalism (a rare thing) uncovered the United Arab Emirates (UAE) program of hiring terrorists to assassinate its ruling party’s political rivals in Yemen. This paramilitary group, “private US security company called Spear Operations Group” included a suspect in the USS Cole bombing. A shortened version of a new documentary on this bombshell report is now available to non-UK audiences.

The British Prime Minister, like the US President, has bypassed Congress in their decision to make war in Yemen, as if they were monarchs rather than lawful, honest leaders of democratic states who care about the welfare of their constituents. This has occurred less than one month after warring parties in Yemen committed to a ceasefire and peace talks. An indigenous New Zealand spokesperson decried the use of Commonwealth troops in Operation Poseidon Archer, calling it “colonial bullying” and a defense of Zionist genocide, though the kiwi government claims the two conflicts are “not related.”

Israel’s Herzog called for a coalition against Iran recently, at Davos, where monarchs and other unelected elitists claim dominion over the world’s masses and pretend to have the right to think and act for the rest of us. These attempts to start World War 3 by all means threaten to cut short the ambitions of any individual or minority group, to gain peaceful autonomy from their respective nation-states.

The UK gave itself new McCarthyist powers under the National Security Act of 2023, and it now uses those powers in the recent creation of a new quasi-military police unit tasked with fighting supposed misinformation, radicalization, and election interference blamed on Russia, China, and Iran. The UK may soon follow Taiwan, which is showcasing its “person-private-public” approach to information control, under the pretense of a democratic fight against authoritarianism. The US has also echoed these authoritarian measures, posing as anti-authoritarianism, for decades as a main policy of the Biden Administration, with supposedly non-partisans, and as a reaction to 9/11. This trend towards control in the name of freedom is collectivist to its core and may spell trouble for upcoming elections.

These so-called governments are in reality only great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert.” -Lysander Spooner


The Post-Covid Era

Natives on US reservations today still have few legal (or positive) rights and are subject to the whim of Congress (no negative rights). Tribal governments carry water for the federal government and enforce a common law system given to them by their colonial masters. This story has parallels to the way common citizens are being treated in the “post-Covid era.” Pandemic restrictions have taken the form of population reduction through biowarfare, internment, surveillance, rights that can be revoked on a whim or disregarded in practice, travel passes, and internalization of manufactured identities- all supposedly for our own good, enforced by a paternal state that treats us like children to “civilize” us. Two polar-opposite groups were engineered by government-sponsored corporate-media propaganda, the masked pro-vaxxers and unmasked anti-vaxxers.

To manufacture consensus and control the narrative- an attack on science and informed consent- corporations joined forces with the government and media. The World Health Organization (WHO) reversed their longstanding decision to advocate for the use of masks in a public setting, due to lobbying money, not science. The public was told that waiting for Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) would take too long, and new physical studies were quickly carried out using glaring assumptions and hasty generalizations. Studies using mannequins measuring the proportion of particles filtered by a mask (mechanistic reasoning) were sold to the public as relevant to the spread of disease, despite this being flawed reasoning and proving nothing. When the DANMASK-19 RCT was done in November 2020, the public was told the study used flawed reasoning and proved nothing. By the time an October 2020 study determined the size of particles, carrying high loads of the virus, were smaller than cloth masks could filter, people were so busy huddling in fear and ignoring each other that most didn’t seem to notice. That study showed covid could hang on the air in a store for days or weeks, and that the 6-foot rule was bogus, but the public-private media just kept doubling down to protect the narrative. These conversations about mask efficacy mirrored what had been concluded about 100 years prior by California, in 1919 and 1921, following the Spanish Flu.

News Clippings from 1918 on MasksThe “Anti-Mask League” met in 1918 to protest a “Unhealthy Mask Ordinance.”

Closures of small businesses, while mega corps like Wal Mart were full daily, meant free individuals were put under indefinite lockdown, while those who joined the collective would enjoy a small amount of the freedom that had been taken. The government asked neighbors to tattle on each other for larger gatherings. In some states, as well as in Canada, religious gatherings were more or less outlawed, and pastors were coerced and forced into converting their members to the new pseudo-scientific religion. Grocery stores began to demand proof of vaccination to enter. Some in the media outright called for the unvaccinated to be forced to remain in their houses permanently until they capitulated, while the vaccinated walked around free-ranged. The blame for the virus was shifted to those exercising informed consent, rather than being aimed at the government institutions that funded the engineering of the virus which most likely escaped their lab.

Government-sponsored corporate propaganda portrayed people as anti-science for mere skepticism- a foundational scientific principle. The right to informed consent has been recklessly warred against through edicts enforced as laws, by presidents as well as governors such as Newsom and Whitmer. The WHO developed, and is still pushing, a global Pandemic Treaty that would give the unelected WHO body authority to declare an emergency worldwide, and to implement global mandates unilaterally. Airline companies began treating those refusing to mask as unruly passengers, while legislators began to call for a new No-Fly List for such people.

The masked pro-vaxxers internalized the identity given to them, rendering the healthy permanently sick, and taking upon themselves the communistic duty to the health of others despite having little ability to affect that meaningfully. They faithfully absolved themselves of independent thought when lining up for their coerced, experimental injections. They believed every rosy picture they were sold about the effectiveness of masks and the covid vaccine, as well as the fearmongering over asymptomatic spread, even when the government moved the goalposts repeatedly. Ironically, some of the same people who a year prior had chanted “My Body My Choice” were feverishly triggered by choices others wanted to make for their own bodies, believing propaganda which claimed, without strong evidence, that those choices were a threat to them which could be mitigated.

Those who declined the experimental drug, that did not perform as advertised, lost their jobs, were denied free travel and trade, and were denounced in the media. Then some internalized this identity and went further by denying the effectiveness of all vaccines, immunology, and germ theory, relying instead on naturopathic treatments which do not perform as advertised either. These were used as a red herring to justify state preference towards pro-vaxxers, to keep them in a state of constant fear, perpetuating their irrational behavior and pitting them against their supposed foes. This created grievances that for some may forever remain unresolved. For example, Michigan’s Attorney General refused to investigate her political ally, Governor Whitmer, for nursing home deaths. In another recent example, the Supreme Court declared the matter of the New Jersey vaccine mandate’s constitutionality “moot” because the emergency has ended. Justice, it seems, may only happen when it is politically expedient.

To say that majorities, as such, have the right to rule minorities, is equivalent to saying that minorities have, and ought to have, no rights, except such as majorities please to allow them.” -Lysander Spooner

Cycles of violence such as civil and race wars are the direct result of state-preference for some majority groups over minority groups and individuals, which is referred to as a “tyranny of the majority.” In some cases, there exists a “tyranny of the minority” as well. This seems to be the state’s way of directly inciting violence through the creation of grievances; a sophisticated system of divide and conquer. The state should not enforce one manufactured ideology over all others, and every individual naturally has the right to think and choose for themselves what is best.

The Final Solution

Collectivist experiments are never the solution to the problems that afflict the citizens of the world. Rather, they are the root cause.” (Argentina’s President Milei in Davos)

While Marxists have complained that capitalists enact domination through technology, many of those which endanger, alienate, and isolate individuals are brought by socialists. These include Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), warrantless surveillance tools and secret courts, new cars with GPS, microphones, eye tracking tech, and pre-installed root certificates sharing data with the Chinese Communist Party, social credit systems in China and America, vaccine passports, cloud seeding operations, and smart cities. Citizens today are becoming aware of this kind of globalist, socialist plot for control, and seek greater privacy and autonomy at local levels.

So, what is the final solution to the problem of the violent nation-state? Mahmood Mamdani proposes a separation of the nation (majority groups) from the state itself, and a rejection of the identities imposed by colonization on individuals through law and other traditions. While this seems logical, he also admits that groups end up rationalizing new forms of group-think through traits such as xenophobia, and the cycles of violence between collectives never seems to truly end.

The solution then must represent a new method for individuals to become self-empowered and autonomous. If an individual could demonstrate success for themselves, others could copy that method, and together they could cooperate in establishing local autonomy. If a local area could successfully achieve individualist autonomy and voluntary social cooperation, then others could copy that method as well, and a decentralized world could begin to heal from the damage caused by colonialist warfare and collectivist irrationality.

Scroll to Top